Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1981-06-24 0 ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 24 , 1981 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , June 24 , 1981 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Jack D . Hewett , Edward N . Austen , Edward W . King , Henry Aron , Joan G . Reuning , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , ALSO PRESENT : Anne Lukingbeal , Robert Smiley , R . James Miller , Esq . , Philip S . Winn , Esq . , Millard Brink , Lucille Brink , Alfred C . Eddy , Robert C . Mulvey , L . B . Hardesty , Thomas A . Bell , Martha E . Bell , David C . Sprague , Opal W . Sprague , Robert S . Miller , Carolyn M . Miller , Diane Beckley , Arlene Eddy , William Seldin , Esq . , John Perialas , Valerie Littlefield , Andrew Duffy , Marlene M . Duffy , Stephen Eddy , Kathy Duffy , Mildred Eddy , Ken McGuire , Tom McGuire , Richard Gingras , Randy Brown , Nan and Jay True , Chuck Houghton , Edward Kellogg , Karen Arnold , Julia P . Hughes , Sally Miller , Elsie McMillan Peterson , Joel Podkaminer , Elsie Sheldrake , Eleanor ® Sturgeon , Dorothy Miller , Richard L . Miller , Bill Addy ( ? ) , George Sheldrake , Mary Earle ( WTKO News ) , Don Ross ( Ithaca Journal ) . Chairman Hewett declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 40 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 June 16 , 1981 and June 19 , 1981 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , upon the Finger Lakes State Parks and Recreation Commission , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on June 17 , 1981 . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM NOVEMBER 12 , 1980 ) OF WILLIAM J . DEMARTINO , APPELLANT , IN RE THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING BY A FAMILY AND THREE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 217 SNYDER HILL ROAD , PARCEL N0 , 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 65 , ITHACA , N . Y . Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 41 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to this matter . No one spoke . Chairman Hewett closed the Public Hearing , Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . DeMartino is a graduate student at Cornell in down - state New York , Mr . Cartee stated that the house is Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - June 24 , 1981 ® now rented to two families , adding that presently there is one family upstairs and the downstairs is vacant , so , as of today , he is in compliance with the zoning requirements . MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the matter of the William J . DeMartino occupancy violation be and hereby is declared moot and that the Appeal with respect to said matter be and hereby is dismissed . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron , Reuning , Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the William J . Demartino Appeal duly closed at 7 : 45 p . m . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM JANUARY 28 , 1981 ) OF ROBERT H . AND JOANN C . SMILEY , APPELLANTS , IN RE THE OCCUPANCY OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BY MORE THAN THREE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 119 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , PARCEL No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 115 , ITHACA , N . Y . ® Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 46 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Smiley was present . Mr . Smiley appeared before the Board and stated that he has returned from Italy and the students have gone from the house . Mr . King asked Mr . Smiley if the building were occupied by one family , with Mr . Smiley responding , yes , and adding by his wife and himself . Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to this matter . No one spoke . Chairman Hewett closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 49 p . m . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Henry Aron : RESOLVED , that the matter of the Robert H . and JoAnn C . Smiley occupancy violation be and hereby is declared moot and that the Appeal with respect to said matter be and hereby is dismissed . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . ® Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the Robert H . and JoAnn C . Smiley Appeal duly closed at 7 : 53 p . m . Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - June 24 , 1981 ® ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM FEBRUARY 25 , 1981 ) OF ELIZABETH Co STILES , APPELLANT , ROBERT J . CLUNE , ESQ . , AS AGENT , IN RE THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO -FAMILY DWELLING BY FOUR OR MORE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 131 SNYDER HILL ROAD , PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 7 . 4 , ITHACA , N . Y . Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 55 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman Hewett asked if either Mrs . Stiles or Attorney Clune were present . They were not . Chairman Hewett read aloud the following letter addressed to Lewis D . Cartee from Attorney Robert J . Clune , dated June 17 , 1981 . " . . . Re : Elizabeth C . Stiles 131 Snyder Hill Road Dear Lew : I received your notice of a hearing in this matter on June 17 , 1981 . I enclose a copy of a letter that I have forwarded to Elizabeth Stiles . Would you kindly adjourn the matter until your next regularly scheduled BZA meeting , and by that time I will have an update with regard to occupancy . IThank you for your consideration . " MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the requested adjournment to 7 : 30 p . m . on July ® 8 , 1981 , said Board of Appeals noting that this is the second adjournment in this case and requiring that the Appellant and her attorney be notified that it is extremely unlikely that the Board will grant any further adjournment , the Board being determined to dispose of this matter at its July 8th meeting . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the Elizabeth C . Stiles Appeal duly adjourned at 7 : 59 p . m . APPEAL OF NELSON E . ROTH AND ANNE LUKINGBEAL , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FENCE OVER SIX FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AT 309 ST . CATHERINE CIRCLE , PARCEL NO , 6 - 71 - 1 - 11 . 44 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 65 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted ® matter duly opened at 8 : 00 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Ms . Lukingbeal was present . 1 Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - June 24 , 1981 • Ms . Lukingbeal appeared before the Board and stated that , as set forth in the Appeal , they had intended to build a six - foot fence ; they had checked the Zoning Ordinance , and , in the installation process some difficulties were encountered , for example , the terrain is somewhat uneven and there are quite a few large tree roots skimming the surface of the ground . Ms . Lukingbeal stated that , in order to maintain a reasonably even top to the fence , and in order to do minimal damage to the roots , some of the six - foot planks were installed a little above the ground level . Ms . Lukingbeal noted that , also , the planks were each hand - cut and each has a sharp angle at the top so a few may be an inch or two longer than six feet . Ms . Lukingbeal stated that , also , they had spoken with their neighbors on each side of their house as well as the neighbor directly behind their house and no one mentioned any problems or complaints . Ms . Lunkingbeal stated that their next door neighbor , Dr . Peter Kaufman , tied back one of his larger willow trees to avoid any damage to the tree or the fence and to make installation of the fence easier . Ms . Lukingbeal stated that in order to avoid any problem with a row of small trees that their neighbors to the rear , the Cappuccis , had planted right on the property line , they moved the fence in some two to six inches from the back property line . Ms . Lukingbeal stated that since the time they were notified about the violation , Dr . Kaufman wrote a letter to Mr . Cartee stating that he has no problem . [ The letter , dated June 10 , 1981 , referred to reads : " . . . My house , 307 St . Catherine Lane , is on the east side of Mr . Nelson Roth ' s property . ( 309 St . Catherine Lane ) This spring Mr . Roth presented me with plans ® for a fence on his property and asked if I had any suggestions and / or objections . I had no objections and consequently the fence was built . It is my understanding that Mr . Roth also extended the same courtesy to all property owners with property adjoining his . % It has come to my attention that since the fence has been constructed , Mr . Roth has had a complaint filed against him . $ This letter is being sent to follow up and confirm a telephone conversation with Mr . Michael Ocello and myself which I wish it to be a matter of record that I have no objections to the design and the placement of the fence . I believe it looks fine and should be allowed to stand . " Ms . Lukingbeal stated that Mrs . Lambert , 311 St . Catherine Circle , also called Mr . Cartee and indicated that she had no problem . Mr . Cartee stated that he had received a call on June 10th from Mrs , Lambert stating that she had no objection to the fence on the Roth property . Ms . Lukingbeal stated that their neighbor to the rear has no problem to her knowledge , adding that the side neighbors are the closest . Ms . Lukingbeal stated that the Cappucci house to the rear is 75 feet from the house to the rear of the fence , adding that it is about 150 feet from the Cappucci house to their house . Ms . Lukingbeal stated that they have not heard from them at all . Ms . Lukingbeal stated that the property between their house and the Cappucci house is on an incline such that the top of the house is at the bottom of their windows , so even four inches do not affect their enjoyment of the property , commenting that they have construction material in their ® backyard . ZoningBoard of Appeals - 5 - June 24 , 1981 ® Ms . Lukingbealstatedthat , due to the design of this fence - - a half picket type - removing one inch to four inches would mean removing the fence , taking the planks down , saving the wood , and shortening them from the bottom up . Ms . Lukingbeal stated that this would mean a totally new fence and there would be a severe economic hardship - - at least a couple of thousand dollars . Ms . Lukingbeal presented to the Board for its review ten colored polaroid photographs of the fence from ten different angles around the property . Mr . Austen asked how many feet of fence are in violation , with Mr . Cartee responding , it varies depending on the topography . Mr . Cartee stated that the fence at those points would be the most offensive to the people in the back , commenting that by trimming the top of the fence it would take away from the effects . Mr . Austen felt that trimming them off and recutting them would be too much . Mr . Cartee noted that the fence is completely around the property . Mr . Aron stated that he was familiar with this type of construction , adding that he agreed with this young lady that it would be a tremendous job to bring it down to six feet . Mr . Aron stated that this is a six - foot fence and the topography of the land varies and , therefore , it is hard to keep within the six feet . Mr . Aron , commenting that it is not impossible to repair but it would cost an awful lot of money , stated that he did not think it is necessary for about four inches . Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to ® speak to this matter . No one spoke . Chairman Hewett closed the Public Hearing . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that , since the fence is in substantial compliance with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance , a variance be and hereby is granted to allow the fence to remain in the present condition provided that a building permit for such fence be applied for . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the Nelson E . Roth and Anne Lukingbeal Appeal duly closed at 8 : 14 p . m . APPEAL OF JOHN AND DORIS PERIALAS , APPELLANTS , VALERIE LITTLEFIELD , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A NURSERY SCHOOL AT 139 HONNESS LANE , PARCEL NO , 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 6 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING ® INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEING REQUIRED AFTER REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD . Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - June 24 , 1981 Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 15 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Perialas was present , as was his daughter , Valerie Littlefield . Mrs . Littlefield appeared before the Board and stated that she wanted to convert the house that they are living in to a nursery school , adding that there is about one - half acre of land , and further adding that it would involve upstairs and downstairs and two separate groups . Mrs . Littlefield stated that there is a great need in that area and since two years ago nothing has happened in that area . Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to this matter . No one . spoke . Chairman Hewett closed the Public Hearing , Mr . Aron asked about the number of cars that could be gotten in there at one time . Mr . Perialas stated that fifteen cars could be accommodated at one time , however , in reality , there would be only seven or eight at any one time . Mrs . Littlefield stated that fencing would be put in on all sides . MOTION by Mr . Jack Hewett , seconded by Mr . Henry Aro n : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals refer and hereby does refer this matter to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for its recommendation , to be returned to said Board of Appeals for its action . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the Perialas / Littlefield Appeal duly adjourned at 8 : 20 p . m . APPEAL OF ALFRED C . EDDY , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE SALE OF NURSERY PRODUCTS , SOFT DRINKS , AND ANY FARM PRODUCTS NOT INCIDENTAL TO FARMING , AT EDDY ' S ROADSIDE STAND , ELMIRA ROAD , PARCEL N0 . 6 - 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 13 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 25 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Eddy was present , as was his Attorney , R . James Miller , of the law firm of Mulvey & Winn . ® Attorney Miller appeared before the Board and , noting that the members had all the materials providing the background , stated that he Zoning Board of Appeals - 7 - June 24 , 1981 ® would clarify some of the questions . Attorney Miller stated that Mr . Eddy was a life - long resident of Ithaca , having 1 , 200 acres of land under farming , and , for the last twelve years has operated a fruit and vegetable stand on Route 13 South . Attorney Miller stated that during those twelve years , Mr . Eddy had a small stand run on a successful basis and he rented land from Babcock , which he has purchased . Attorney Miller stated that a building permit was granted and the new building was built and a certificate of compliance was handed out . Attorney Miller stated that the building was in operation until December of last year and then shut down for a while and then opened up again in May , and then a complaint was filed with the Town for items which he was selling . Attorney Miller stated that they were before the Planning Board to seek a rezoning . which the Planning Board did not recommend , however , suggested that the path to follow was one of variance by the Board of Appeals . Attorney Miller stated that now they are here for a variance and they are asking that Mr . Eddy be able to continue relying on past interpretation of Section 18 , paragraph 13 , of the Ordinance . Attorney Miller stated that at no time has Mr . Eddy consciously tried to violate the law , the interpretation of which has been fairly liberal over the years . Attorney Miller stated that over the twelve year life of the stand , Mr . Eddy has developed quite a clientele and he did need more room for more produce , adding that he is mainly offering produce . Attorney Miller stated that they are asking for an interpretation from the Board of this Section and to make sure that they do not need to come back again for some one ® particular item . Attorney Miller , commenting that this is not a variance for other businesses , for example , selling gasoline , stated that Mr . Eddy wishes to protect his investment and noted that he has never had any problems until this spring , adding that it is getting bigger and better and does make for some competition . Attorney Miller stated that at the Planning Board certain documents were presented , such as the Certificate of Compliance with respect to the new building , photographs of the area , among others , which are in the packet from the Planning Board , Attorney Miller referred to the six -page document entitled " Request for Variance of Premises in Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 Owned by Alfred C . Eddy " and asked that the Board note the three diagrams [ Figures 1 , 2 , and 3 ] at the back . Attorney Miller reiterated that Mr . Eddy is not going into any other business , adding that he wishes to operate substantially as he has always operated , and further adding that he [ Miller ] did not think this business is incompatible with the area . Attorney Miller appended a large colored map to the bulletin board , which was a portion of Tax Map No . 35 , and indicated 14 red . areas which were businesses , plus one red area which was the Town Barns , and pointed out an area in blue which is the Eddy Roadside Stand property . Attorney Miller pointed out a large area in which Ehrhart ' s Gas is located which is zoned light industrial . Attorney Miller stated that he would like to present , in addition to the previous Petition supporting Mr . Eddy ' s proposal which bore 350 ® signatures , another supporting Petition bearing 108 signatures . Mrs . Reuning asked what specifically Mr . Eddy was selling that Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - June 24 , 1981 bothered people , with Attorney Miller responding , soda pop , or soft drinks , as a result of people asking for them and for the employees there . Attorney Miller stated that there are various hands working there and the cooler is used by them to get a soda and they are welcome to the produce too . Attorney Miller stated that another problem that has caused controversy is that an acquaintance of Mr . Eddy approached him and asked that he be allowed to sell barbequed chicken , adding that it is sold to the side of the premises , not directly by Mr . Eddy , and further adding that , to date , Mr . Eddy has not received any monetary compensation for this . Attorney Miller stated that this has caused problems from the neighbors , adding that there is a barbeque pit where the chicken is made and served . Attorney Miller stated that for the past twelve years now Mr . Eddy has sold farm products , not all of which he has grown on his farm , adding that this has never been a problem . Attorney Miller stated that it was on the basis of this past interpretation of the law that Mr . Eddy put in this $ 100 , 000 . 00 building , and so as not to cause problems in the future , they are here to get an interpretation . Mr . Aron asked if that were all the items he was selling out of that building not including the products that he is not raising . In response to Mr . Aron ' s question , Attorney Miller presented a diagram of the tables in the building , and stated the soda and barbequed chicken , which is a farm item , are being sold , adding that nursery products seem to be a problem . Attorney Miller stated that at the ® back of the stand there are a number of nursery products in the ground and some are dug up and put in the building . Mr . Aron asked if Mr . Eddy sold bread , with Mr . Eddy responding , no , adding that the public was asking for it , however . Attorney Miller offered that bread is incidental to farming . - Mr . Aron stated that he wanted to be clear in his mind what products Mr. . Eddy wishes to have in the future . Attorney Miller stated that he would like milk and eggs now , and , as to what he intends in the future , he would like to add to his sales a range of grocery products . Mr . Eddy stated that he would like to sell what is commonly found in a roadside stand these days . Mr . Aron asked if he were correct in saying that right now Mr . Eddy has a store . Attorney Miller stated that that was not correct , adding that he has a building - - four bare walls and eight tables with goods on them . Attorney Miller stated that they were not asking to operate as a super market , adding that Mr . Eddy ' s intent is to operate as a fruit and vegetable stand . Mrs . Reuning offered that he wishes to have fresh produce in all terms of the word . Mr . Aron stated that he was satisfied with the answer . Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone from the public present who wished to speak to this matter . Mrs . Carolyn M . Miller , 823 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and stated that her property directly adjoins the Eddy property . Mrs . Miller stated , for those familiar with Elmira Road , other than the car dealers , motels , McGuire Gardens , etc . , there are fields and farm ® houses . Mrs . Miller stated that there is a narrow band of homes and undeveloped area . Mrs . Miller stated that they consider this quite a unique location for , if you are planning for community development and Zoning Board of Appeals - 9 - June 24 , 1981 • want a green spot , then this narrow green band is important . Mrs . Miller stated that when they moved there six years ago they knew that on the south side there was a seasonal vegetable stand there and they co - existed very happily , in fact , her daughter worked at this stand and very much enjoyed her work and association with the Eddy family . Mrs . Miller stated that it pains her very much to protest this , however , this is a threat to the quality of life that they sought and a threat to the value of the property in which they have invested a lot money . Mrs . Miller stated that when Mr . Eddy bought this property they were hoping it would stay agricultural but the way it is developing it is more than R- 30 should allow . Mrs . Miller stated that what is operating next to them is a big business offering a wider and wider variety of products . Mrs . Miller stated that she asked herself - - if she wanted to do this , would she not buy in an area zoned for business ? Mrs . Miller stated that she was opposed to this in this green area , adding that it bothered her that someone can buy land and do whatever they want to do with it and ask that this law be changed for their own convenience . Mrs . Miller stated that she would ask the Board to protect the real character of the area and deny the request . Attorney Miller asked to respond and was given permission to do so . Attorney Miller stated that they did not do it without regard to anybody . Attorney Miller stated that they obtained a building permit and were given a certificate of compliance . Attorney Miller pointed out that the business areas are shown on the map , adding that there is ® also light industrial zoning surrounding the area of the stand . Attorney William Seldin , spoke from the floor and stated that he was the attorney for a group of landowners in the vicinity who asked him to assist them with their presentation of some of the thoughts they have with respect to Mr . Eddy ' s application . Attorney Seldin stated that he got the sense that if this were twelve years ago they would have no objection . Attorney Seldin stated that he thought the collective apprehension is in part attributable to " where is this going to go to ? " Referring to the Section of the Zoning Ordinance that Attorney Miller referred to for interpretation , Attorney Seldin quoted , as follows : " A roadside stand or other structure for the display and sale of farm or nursery products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the owner or owners of the land .. Any such stand shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the street line , in such a manner as to permit safe access and egress for automobiles , and parking off the highway right of way . " Attorney Seldin stated that , taken together , if you grow it you can sell it . Attorney Seldin stated that barbequed chicken is not in itself objectionable ; it is where it is going to . Attorney Seldin stated that he thought what is happening is a question of the unknown , however , what is more difficult is the seeking of a variance or an interpretation. Attorney Seldin stated , with regard to " pepsi " , if it is an interpretation , he thought they can both [ Miller and Seldin ] agree on that - - the intent is clear . Referring to the Petitions presented , one with some 350 signatures and another tonight with some 100 signatures , Attorney ® Seldin stated that " these " people [ indicating ] are neighbors and live in the area . Attorney Seldin stated that zoning goes to land use - R- 30 - - Business - - Industrial - - adding that when people move in , Zoning Board of Appeals - 10 - June 24 , 1981 ® like the Millers , then they have security . Attorney Seldin stated that he would suggest that if the Board permits the Eddys to get a variance they have to show practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship , adding that they have a very precise meaning and involve indicating that you cannot get a reasonable return from the property used under the present restrictions , which means that Mr . Eddy cannot get a reasonable return by sticking to the letter of the law in an R- 30 zone . Attorney Seldin stated that when there is no opposition the letter of the law gets nudged a little bit , but when there is objection more attention seems to be paid to what the criteria are . Attorney Seldin stated that what concerned him here in listening is there appears to be no demonstration of hardship , adding that if he is asking for interpretation , that is different ; if for a variance - - what is the hardship ? Attorney Seldin stated that the people will speak to his getting a reasonable return from his building - - and then he spent $ 100 , 000 . 00 . Attorney Seldin asked if that were not self -created hardship . Attorney Seldin stated that the prime objection is the unknown - - how far is he going to go with this ? Attorney Seldin stated that , in their discussions , they thought - - can we compromise on this ? Attorney Seldin stated that they did not want to be the fall guys ; they do want to be the nasties in this . Attorney Seldin stated that the Eddys should not feel that way - - this is their neighborhood too , however , they can ask the Eddys to demonstrate the hardship . ® Ms . Diane Beckley , R . D . # 1 , Locke , spoke from the floor and stated that she was one of the ones who got the barbeque started . Ms . Beckley stated that in the end of May they approached Mr . Eddy and asked him if they could do this and he said it would be okay but he wanted something to look nice . Ms . Beckley stated that they built a stone pit and the Health Department rules were met , adding that they have a dry well sink . Ms . Beckley reiterated that the Health Department regulations were met , adding that , really , they should not have let them open up if it was not allowed . Ms . Beckley stated that the Health Department did not inform them that it was not allowed . Ms . Beckley stated that she could not understand why the neighbors do not want the chicken there because it is not competing with any of the other businesses there . Ms . Beckley stated that the Millers are separated by large clumps of large pine trees , adding that he complained of noise and they have not used the radio since . Ms . Beckley stated that she would ask the Board to let them [ Eddy ] have a variance to sell barbequed chickens , adding that poultry can be incidental to farming . Ms . Beckley stated that she apologized as to not knowing about zoning , adding that she comes from a County where there is no zoning . Ms . Beckley stated that this would cause hardship where they have sunk every single penny they have in this . Mr . Chuck Houghton , R . D . # 3 , Ithaca , spoke from the floor and stated that he was Houghton Eggs , Mr . Houghton stated that he sells eggs to Mr . Eddy and he was unclear whether the Board considers eggs as a farm product . Mr . Houghton stated that he was under the ® impression that this would be taken away from his line . Mr . Houghton stated that he thought any roadside stand could sell eggs , adding that any one he has seen has eggs . Mr . Houghton stated that he would like 1 Zoning- Board of Appeals - 11 - June 24 , 1981 ® to see eggs continue to be sold . Mr . Thomas A . Bell , Bell ' s Convenience Foods , 614 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and stated that when they started their business , they approached the Town of Ithaca for all permits . Mr . Bell stated that they have complied with all the zoning laws over the years and if not , they were notified and made arrangements to rectify them . Mr . Bell stated that he had complaints - - nothing against Mr . Eddy personally - - but he somehow has not complied with the zoning ordinance regulations . Mr . Bell stated that in R- 30 there should be no " Coke " , no chicken , adding that they get permission first in order to go ahead with the operation . Mr . Bell stated that their feelings were hurt because he [ Eddy ] operates under one set of rules and they operate under another . Mr . Bell stated that a produce stand is a produce stand and he had that up until this year . Mr . Bell asked if cookies , soda pop , barbequed chicken , charcoal pertained to produce . Mr . Bell stated that they have had to do them and they feel Mr . Eddy should have to do the same thing . Mr . David Sprague , 817 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he lived next to the Millers across from Early Bird Farm . Mr . Sprague stated that he would not want to do anything that would stymie competition , adding that farmers should be able to sell products . Mr . Sprague stated that the light industrial area had been spoken of , and he would say that the buildings are well kept and it is a nice looking community now . Mr . Sprague stated that he would hate to do anything that would decrease the value of the property , adding that he would want to sell it some day and see it maintained in value . Mr . Sprague stated that , as far as hardship is concerned , you can go a mile south and hit a grocery store and a mile the other way . Mr . Sprague stated that they did not need a grocery store , adding that he thought it would be unfair to all farms . Mr . Randy Brown , Indian Creek Fruit Farm , 1408 Trumansburg Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he operates in an R- 30 district and it is not easy being a farmer in an R- 30 district , adding that . there are a lot of problems . Mr . Brown stated that he has dealt with Mr . Eddy and he thought he dealt with him fairly . Mr . Brown stated that if he is able to sell nursery products , soda , chicken , etc . , he would like to do so also , adding that these are drawing cards . Mr . Brown , commenting that he would like to be treated equitably , stated that if the Board intends to grant a variance to Mr . Eddy , he will probably apply for one also , adding that he would like to sell other things also . Mrs . Elsie Sheldrake , 806 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she has lived there for 27 years and has run the Early Bird Farm business for 22 years and they are seasonal . Mrs . Sheldrake stated that they grow everything that they sell , adding that they are open for five months out of the year and closed the rest of the time . Mrs . Sheldrake stated that they are against this zoning because it is a residential area and they have been made to live under the zoning laws and everybody should have to do that also . Mrs . Sheldrake stated that they have made a profit selling the way they do , adding that what I Zoning Board of Appeals - 12 - June 24 , 1981 is fair for one is fair for another . Mr . Millard Brink , 706 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he runs Cayuga Inlet Farm and has the first roadside stand going south . Mr . Brink stated that since thirty years ago this June they have operated a dairy farm and when it was burned they went to the Board of Appeals and were given permission to rebuild . Mr . Brink stated that they did not need a change to create their stand and sell strawberries and corn , adding that they made a $ 325 . 00 investment and they have been successful . Mr . Brink stated that Alfred Eddy came to this area about the same time with 50 to 70 acres of corn , vegetables , strawberries , adding that with corn he has been highly successful . Mr . Brink stated that he was against changing the zoning for various reasons , one of which is that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town of Ithaca have strict rules on signs but they have been very liberal on signs for roadside stands , and so , he was fearful that this might be changed because now he can put up his strawberries signs any time he wanted . Mr . Brink stated that Mr . Eddy is running a business there and he [ Brink ] was very much opposed to this for a personal reason because the Zoning Board of Appeals might get on their [ Brinks ' ] back because of their signs . Mr . Brink stated that Mr . Eddy ' s produce comes from Syracuse . Ms . Julia Hughes , 315 Taggert Road , Newfield , spoke from the floor and stated that Mr . Eddy ' s stand is not an eyesores it is clean ® and it is safe . Ms . Hughes stated that she has gone by these other places and has almost hit someone because of walking around in little carts . Ms . Hughes stated that there is ample parking for the public and there is no problem for the public . Ms . Hughes reiterated that it is not a problem to the public to come in and out . Ms . Hughes stated that there is no garbage , no beer , no neon lights , no gas pumps . Ms . Hughes stated that . what the Board should be saying as to how far he should go is that he has done downright hard work . Ms . Hughes stated that Mr . Eddy is not bragging about his $ 100 , 000 . 00 building . Ms . Hughes stated that she could not understand what is wrong with that . Mrs . Elsie McMillan Peterson , 812 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she and her family have been there since 1934 , adding that she was speaking on behalf of her mother and brothers , and further adding that the land is farmed . Mrs . Peterson stated that she thought that one thing she wanted to say , which was showed from Mr . Brown and Mr . Bell who were the only persons who spoke in opposition to the zoning , was that they do not live there - - the rest of " us " do . Mrs . Peterson stated that "we " live there and " he " goes home to Bostwick Road , Mrs . Peterson spoke of encroachment from Ithaca and encroachment from the trailer parks . Mrs . Peterson stated that she remembered when zoning came in , it was imposed on them . Mrs . Peterson stated that she was not a bit happy with the Convenience Food Store there , adding that she was for a buffer zone between these things especially with the State Park there . Mrs . Peterson stated that she did not even know Mr . Eddy and she has nothing against him , adding ® that she has bought a lot of things from him . Mrs . Peterson asked , if that little plot of land is given a variance , is the variance narrows IF does it say you can sell " x " , and " " y , z , or does it say , okay , you Zoning Board of Appeals - 13 - June 24 , 1981 ® are open for business , go ahead ? Mrs . Peterson stated that if it has a precedence for a variance , they could sell it for more and sell it to someone as a business . Mrs . Peterson stated that all the businesses that are there have been there , adding that Turback ' s was there before zoning , the farm stand was there before she was born where Brink is , and Sheldrake . Mrs . Eleanor Sturgeon , 718 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and stated that 27 years ago they chose this area adjacent to two beautiful parks , adding that it was all farm land except occasional farm stands . Mrs . Sturgeon stated that she has put her life savings into her home too . Mrs . Sturgeon stated that if the zoning law works for him and against her then there is something wrong with the zoning law . Mrs . Sturgeon stated that this does not include a commercial operation there , adding that she was asked and she has not been there for three years . Ms . Karen Arnold , 1967 Elmira Road , Newfield , spoke from the floor and stated that she has worked there [ Eddy ' s Roadside Stand ] for four years and nicer people you could not find . Ms . Arnold stated that they have no intent to hurt anybody and they work very hard . Ms . Arnold stated that there is no to station " involved here . Ms . Arnold stated that she thought the building has improved the looks , adding that it is also off the road and has better parking than other stands , and further adding that she could not see it as any different ® from the " stand " . Ms . Arnold stated that he should be able to sell what he wants to sell . Attorney Miller asked to respond to what has been stated and was given permission to do so . Attorney Miller stated that the Eddys are not asking for the " Golden Arches " in front of the Park . Attorney Miller stated that the business is to continue as it has in the past . Attorney Miller stated that Attorney Seldin has talked about the hardship as a self - imposed one which is not entirely accurate and only to the extent that Mr . Eddy has been operating a stand for twelve years , with mostly the same stuff over those twelve years , based on past allowances by the Town , and that is why he built the building . Attorney Miller stated that the Eddys have tried to comply with the zoning laws , adding that Mr . Bell has said that they have gone against the laws . Attorney Miller stated that they are in the process of doing that further , adding that there has been no intentional digression from the law . Attorney Miller stated that the building was there a year ago and that is why they are here tonight . Attorney Miller stated that Mr . Bell came before this Board to try to comply with the law and that is what the Eddys are trying to do . Mrs . Peterson spoke from the floor and stated that she thought Mr . Eddy bought the land about two - and - a - half years ago and he knew it was R - 30 . Mrs . Peterson stated that if he gets a variance it sets a precedent for anyone else in the future which is not fair to those under the R- 30 . ® Attorney Richard I . Mulvey , of the firm of Mulvey & Winn , spoke from the floor and referred to an Ithaca Journal editorial about free Zoning Board of Appeals - 14 - June 24 , 1981 ® competition and those who do not want others to compete . Attorney Mulvey stated that one of the problems in New York is , and we have lost five Congressman because of population decreases , that businesses have left and gone to the State of Florida . Attorney Mulvey stated that if you do business in the State of Florida , you go before a zoning board and their position is - - how do we help you get established ? Attorney Mulvey stated that Mr . Bell had a rezoning on his own property , adding that he went by and saw all the signs on his building and he is not in compliance . Attorney Mulvey stated that the ones that are yelling the loudest are in competition . Attorney Mulvey asked if the Board has asked if all their products come from their land , noting that Mr . Brink sells maple syrup and Mrs . Sheldrake sells plastic bags . Attorney Mulvey wondered if Mrs . Sheldrake sells any one else ' s corn at any time , ever , adding that , really , it is a question of competition . Attorney Mulvey stated that Mr . Bell has his permit and he is in a light industrial zone . Attorney Mulvey stated that there are a lot of businesses here ; it is a commercial area - - Bell ' s , Mancini ' s , the Union Hall , McGuire Gardens , the motels , Turback ' s , Cortright Electric , and so on . Attorney Mulvey stated that any change in the law to accommodate this business is not going to affect this area one iota . Attorney Mulvey , noting that hardship has been asked about , stated that that is self- evident and the question is self - serving . Attorney Mulvey asked where the harm is in allowing a " public " machine where , in one day there might be sales amounting to $ 25 . 00 and if the profit were 10 $ , the electric bill itself would wipe ® out any profit . Attorney Mulvey stated that this is nothing more than a roadside stand but there are some people who feel that he should not be allowed to dictate its use . Attorney Seldin spoke from the floor and stated that he thought one can acknowledge pretty well over many years as to what the consensus of the conversation is . Attorney Seldin asked , is their belief the almighty dollar or are they concerned about the neighborhood ? Attorney Seldin asked that the Board think about the comments of the people who are genuinely interested in maintaining the status quo . Attorney Seldin stated that hardship has to do with a reasonable return on the property under the present zoning qualifications , adding that it is not a personal thing - - " I could make more money ' if ' . Attorney Seldin stated that the people want the letter of the law observed , adding that you 'have to see whether that criteria has been met . Attorney Seldin asked - - what are we talking about ? - - Section 13 - - what does that mean ? - - if you grow it , you can sell it . Attorney Seldin commented - - six years ago - - 12 years ago - - 2 years ago - - selling the public this , that , and a variance ? everything - - where is it going to end , when there are no grounds for Mr . Bell spoke from the floor and stated to Mr . Cartee , on the matter of the compliance of his signs in the windows , had he made an appointment to come in . Mr . Cartee responded that upon his request [ Cartee ' s ] Mr . Bell has made an appointment . An exhange followed ® between Attorney Mulvey and Mr . Bell , Mr . King asked Attorney Miller if he had understood him to say that numerous road stands are selling things like this , with Attorney Zoning Board of Appeals - 15 - June 24 , 1981 Miller responding , no , he had not said that , and adding that he had said that the way it has been interpreted it has not been that " if you grow it , you can sell it " at any stands . Mr . King stated that he would like to see the application for the building permit before this Board . Attorney Miller asked Mr . Cartee if Mr . Eddy had received a permit for the barbeque stand , with Mr . Cartee responding that Mr . Eddy has been cited for erecting a structure without a building permit , however , it is not related to what is before this Board . Mr . King stated that this is overwhelming , adding that the Board has received a whole stack of literature and the Board needs time to study and digest all of this . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the matter of the Alfred C . Eddy Appeal be and hereby is adjourned to the next meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals which should be in July so that it may have at least ten days to read all the material and visit the site . By way of discussion , Mr . Cartee stated that he would like for Mr . Eddy to exactly specify what products he wishes to sell - - coke , bread , milk , whatever - - that is , spell out the specific items he wishes to sell that would be a variance and then he could live with this from an enforcement standpoint . Mr . King requested a copy of the list Mr . Miller had and asked that he comply with Mr . Car tee ' s request for a final list of items . Attorney Miller commented that the intent is to have a fruit and vegetable stand . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Discussion followed with respect to the next meeting , with Mr . King noting that he thought the Board had received enough public input , and with Attorney Seldin requesting a copy of the list of items when received . Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Alfred C . Eddy Appeal duly closed and the matter adjourned to July 8 , 1981 . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Hewett declared the June 24 , 1981 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Jack D . Hewett , Chairman