Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1982-12-15 L� • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 15 , 1982 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , December 15 , 1982 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward N . Austen , Jack D . Hewett , Lewis D . Cartee - ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : George A . Lavris , Gordon M . Madison , Bob Christianson , Susan Howser , Arthur Howser , Sr . , Jeff Coleman , Joanne S . Datz , David H . Taube , Michael A . Goodfriend , M . D . , JoAnne Goodfriend , David Dubow , Esq . , David St . George , Stewart D . Knowlton , Claudia Weisburd , Jerold Weisburd , Kate Weisburd , Dan Peterson , Sherrie Black , Jim Black , Kay Marion , Robert Marion , Vince Hinkley , Doris Schooley . Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 38 p . m . , and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and ,• Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings , for each of the matters before the Board , in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 7 , 1982 and December 10 , 1982 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice of Public Hearings upon the Commissioner of Planning for Tompkins County , upon the various neighbors of the properties in question , and upon the Appellants , as parties to the actions , on December 9 , 1982 . SONS OF ITALY APPEAL Chairman Aron read the following memorandum , dated December 2 , 1982 , from Lewis D . Cartee to the Chairman , copies of which had been mailed to the Board members : " Mr . Saino Zazzara has advised me that he has withdrawn his Appeal to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Approval to construct a lodge on Five Mile Drive in the Town of Ithaca . " DAVID MINTZ APPEAL Chairman Aron read the following letter from James M . Kerrigan , Esq . , to Mr . Cartee , dated December 3 , 1982 , in regard to the David Mintz Appeal . " This is to confirm that we would like the Mintz matter not to be heard at the meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals Zoning Board of Appeals 2 December 15 , 1982 scheduled for December 15 , 1982 . We have spoken to Peter Littman and he has advised us that he consents to the adjournment . I would appreciate if you would advise me as to the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Board . " APPEAL OF DR . MICHAEL GOODFRIEND , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO CONVERT A RESIDENCE TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE NO LESS THAN TWO ( 2 ) PHYSICIANS , AND , TO CONVERT THE SECOND STORY TO AN APARTMENT , AT 1212 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 26 - 3 - 8 . 2 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 41 p . m . and read aloud the Notice of Public Hearing as published and as noted above . Chairman Aron asked if anyone would like to speak for or against this Appeal . David A . Dubow , Esq . , as Attorney for Dr . Goodfriend , appeared before the Board . The Board members had received with their Agenda copies of the Appeal Form , attached Schedule A , and attached Survey dated November 1982 , prepared and sealed by George Schlecht , P . E . , P . L . S . An enlarged survey was shown in order to provide a frame of reference for the property under discussion and eight photographs , with mappings on the back , were distributed among the Board members . Mr . Dubow called to the attention of Board members Schedule A , noted above , and summarized same . For the record , said Schedule A is set forth below . " SCHEDULE A I . The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the purposes permitted in this zone . A . The property in question was purchased by the present owner and her husband in 1965 for approximately $ 20 , 000 . Approximately $ 50 , 000 in materials was invested in improvements in the property between 1965 and 1976 . Approximately $ 20 , 000 worth of additional _ improvements ( insulation , vinyl siding , and paving ) were completed between 1976 and the present . Be The property was listed with a local real estate broker in 1977 for three months at an asking price of $ 79 , 900 . No purchasers were obtained . The property was listed for an additional three months in 1977 at an asking price of $ 69 , 900 . Once again , no purchasers were obtained . During the period the property was listed , it was advertised in the Ithaca Journal approximately six times and was included in the Select Homes Magazine of J . D . Gallagher & Co . , Inc . Zoning Board of Appeals 3 December 15 , 1982 • C . In light of the improvements made over the last 17 years , together with reasonable appreciation in the value of the property , its present value may well be significantly in excess of the purchase price in this transaction ( $ 106 , 500 . 00 ) . D . In 1977 , the property market value was determined to be between $ 69 , 000 and $ 85 , 000 . Since then , over $ 20 , 000 of improvements have been completed . E . Assuming a present value of $ 106 , 500 . 00 and assuming a 5 % down payment , with 95 % of the purchase price being financed over 25 years at an average of 14 . 5 % , the monthly mortgage payment alone would be $ 1 , 256 . 79 . Together with taxes and insurance , the monthly expense for these items alone would be in excess of $ 1 , 400 . 00 . Consequently , use of the premises for residential purposes is virtually impossible with such high monthly carrying costs . F . Even assuming a prospective purchaser could afford a 20 % down payment ( $ 21 , 300 . 00 ) with 80 % of the purchase price being financed over 25 years at an average annual rate of 14 . 50 , the monthly mortgage payment would be $ 1 , 058 . 34 . Together with taxes and insurance , the monthly expense for these items alone would be in excess of $ 1 , 200 . 00 . Therefore , use of the premises for residential purposes even with a down payment in excess of • $ 20 , 000 is virtually impossible . G . Other properties of far less market value on Trumansburg Road have been on the market for extended periods of time without success . For example : i . 1121 Trumansburg Road ; listed approximately in March , 1982 , unsold , presently rented . ii . 1491 Trumansburg Road ; originally listed November 4 , 1981 , listed again August 26 , 1982 ; $ 62 , 900 listing price ; unsold . iii . 1496 Trumansburg Road , listed August 30 , 1982 ; $ 92 , 000 listing price ; unsold . iv . 1500 Trumansburg Road ; listed June 9 , 1982 ; $ 85 , 000 listing price ; unsold . v . 1216 Trumansburg Road ( next to property which is subject of this proceeding ) , listed December 9 , 1981 ; $ 59 , 900 listing price , unsold . H . A review of real estate records with respect to purchase and sale of properties in this area indicates that those properties which have sold over the most recent period of time have in general been multi - unit residences or residences on the side streets off Trumansburg Road , II . The plight of the owner of the property is unique . • A . The property was originally purchased in 1965 by Pauline and Robert Christianson , Sr . Thereafter , in approximately 1975 , Zoning Board of Appeals 4 December 15 , 1982 • Robert Christianson , Sr . filed for bankruptcy . Pursuant to those bankruptcy proceedings , his interest in the property was conveyed by the Trustee in Bankruptcy to a third party who thereafter sold that interest back to Pauline Christianson . After the property could not be sold in 1977 , and in an apparent effort to assist Pauline Christianson , her son , Robert , Jr . , agreed in 1977 to purchase the property for $ 65 , 000 . The property has not been formally transferred from Mrs . Christianson to her son pursuant to that agreement . Since 1977 , Robert Christianson , Jr . has expended approximately $ 20 , 000 in improvements to the property . Be The house on the property is very large and is of a greater size than is necessary for residential purposes . C . Indirectly across the road to the north is Lakeside Nursing Home ( a medical complex ) . To the south are Candlewyck Apartments ( multi -unit residential complex ) . D . Across the road , approximately one mile to the north is located the new Tompkins Community Hospital , the old Tompkins County Hospital Complex , the Biggs complex and the professional medical building containing offices for several physicians . E . Because of this property ' s size , physical layout and location , it is excellently suited for professional medical • office space and in fact may be better suited for such use than residential use . F . Due to the apparent lack of professional medical office space in this area , there is an increased demand for such professional space where this property is located . III . Proposed use as medical offices for not more than two physicians will not alter the essential character of the locality . A . Within close proximity of the property in question are the following : ( 1 ) Lakeside Nursing Home ; ( 2 ) Candlewyck Apartments , ( 3 ) Tompkins Community Hospital ; ( 4 ) Former Tompkins County Hospital and Biggs Complex , ( 5 ) Professional office building for physicians . Be The proposed use of this property as professional office space for no more than two physicians will not involve any alteration to the outside of the existing structure other than the possible construction of a ramp for access by the handicapped . In other words , the outside of the structure will not lose its residential character . C . The neighborhood is presently one characterized by contrasting uses such as residential , multi - unit residential , • medical and religious . Zoning Board of Appeals 5 December 15 , 1982 • D . The property is well screened by natural growth from neighboring property . The improvements on the property are adequately set back from Trumansburg Road . Adequate parking is available and will be well screened from the main road and neighboring properties . E . Property will create no noticeable change in the traffic pattern in the neighborhood . Trumansburg Rd . ( Rte . 96 ) is presently a highway with extensive traffic use . The proposed purchaser of the property already maintains office space in the professional building next to the hospital complex and his patients therefore travel Trumansburg Road to reach his offices at the present time . IV . An economic hardship will result to the prospective purchaser of this property if he is unable to purchase the property . A . Because of his expanding practice , the prospective purchaser of this property needs to relocate his offices . He has explored all possibilities of obtaining additional space at his present location in the professional medical office building next to the hospital complex . No additional space is available . B . In addition thereto , he has been involved over the • last several years with at least two projects involving construction of a new medical office building in the area of the hsopital . Both of those efforts have met with problems and delays which have precluded construction of the new facility . The most recent project involved ' a proposed office building on property presently owned by the County adjoining the hospital complex . This proposed project could not go forward as a result of extensive delay arising out of negotiations between the hospital corporation , Town of Ithaca , and Tompkins County with respect to sewer service , water service , utilities and road maintenance . In addition , the cost of extending utilities to the proposed site of the new building was prohibitive . Co Prospective purchaser is a cardiologist whose patients are regularly required to be admitted to the Tompkins Community Hospital . It is essential his office space be located in close proximity of the hospital as it is often necessary to see patients on short notice and to be called to the hospital on an emergency . D . There are no otherbuildings or structures in the area of the hospital presently available for use as medical office space other than properties presently used for residential purposes . The property which is the subject of this application provides the most workable solution to this need for office space and at the same time is so located and situated so as to impose • no alteration of the essential character of the neighborhood . Zoning Board of Appeals 6 December 15 , 1982 All of the information cited above with respect to the past history of the property , the improvements thereon , and the real estate record for this property and other properties in the area have been provided by the broker involved in this transaction . This broker has searched all available records in order to obtain as much accurate information as possible . A copy of a preliminary survey map of the property is attached hereto . In addition , at the time of the presentation of this matter ' to the Board of Zoning Appeals , photographs of the property in the surrounding area will be available . This is submitted , together with a separate appeal , to convert the first floor of the aforesaid premises to professional office space accommodating no less than two physicians . Use of the second floor as an apartment would in no way alter the essential character of the neighborhood . In fact , use of a portion of the property for residential purposes would maintain its present residential type character in conjunction with use of the first floor for professional office space . Having the second floor as an apartment would also provide greater security for the entire property and would avoid having the property uninhabited during evenings and weekends . In addition , as outlined in the materials attached to the appeal to convert the first floor to professional office space , the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used entirely for the purposes permitted in this zone . Rather than using the entire property as professional space , which will generate the greatest economic return , the joint use of the property for professional office space on the first floor and an apartment on the second floor will provide a reasonable economic return on the property and will have the least impact on the character of the neighborhood . As outlined in the materials attached to the appeal to convert the first floor to professional office space , it appears that it is not possible for the property to be sold and used solely for residential purposes . Reference is hereby made to the materials attached to the accompanying appeal to convert the first floor of these premises to professional office space accommodating no less than two physicians . " Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against this matter . Gordon M . Madison , 1213 Trumansburg Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he lives directly across the street from the property under discussion . Mr . Madison stated that the area is getting very commercial and that he is very much against this proposal . He stated that traffic is a problem , adding that he has problems getting out on the road and that it is difficult to see both ways . Mr . Madison commented that the Church was okay and then they added a school . He stated that things like this have a tendency to get out of hand . Mr . Madison noted that the 1 Zoning Board of Appeals 7 December 15 , 1982 • Notice states that there will be two or more doctors which could mean possibly ten in the future . He stated that this could snowball into something much larger . Mr . Madison pointed out that the doctor is already in the Professional Building so he has no problem . Mr . Madison stated that this property was an old farmhouse , a landmark , and he did not want anything to destroy or take away from this fact . Mr . Madison pointed out that the septic system could be a problem in the future ; at certain times of the year the odor of sewer is strong . Mr . Aron commented that the County Health Department would determine if this indeed would be a problem . Mr . George A . Lavris , 1207 Trumansburg Road , spoke from the floor, and stated that he also lives across the street from the Christianson house . Mr . Lavris stated that he had no real objection to the Doctor ' s Office , but that he did not like the way the proposal was stated that two or more physicians would occupy this property as professional office space . He said that he would like to see two or three , or some actual number . Mr . Lavris stated that he would like to go back to the sewer system mentioned by Mr . Madison . He stated that there is a problem with sewers in this area . Mr . Lavris stated that the creek smells and one cannot open the windows in the summer because of the sewer odor . Mr . Lavris ' stated that there is no easy access from the property in question to the sewer , noting again that there is a • traditional problem with septic systems in this area . Chairman Aron suggested that Mr . Lavris contact Dr . Schmidt of the Tompkins County Health Department and state the problem about the sewer system in this particular area . Mr . Aron suggested that this sort of thing should be brought to his attention . Attorney Dubow stated to the Board that the intent is to have two physicians , and no more , on the premises ; the words " no less than " should have been " no more than " ; that was an error in typing the second portion of the appeal . Mr . Aron then read the following portion of the appeal in reference to the proposed apartment in the property : " This is submitted , together with a separate appeal , to convert the first floor of the aforesaid premises to professional office space accommodating no less than two physicians . Use of the second floor as an apartment would in no way alter the essential character of the neighborhood . In fact , use of a portion of the property for residential purposes would maintain its present residential type character in conjunction with use of the first floor for professional office space . Having the second floor as an apartment would also provide greater security for the entire property and would avoid having the property uninhabited during evenings and weekends . • In addition , as outlined in the materials attached to the appeal to convert the first floor to professional office space , the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used entirely Zoning Board of Appeals 8 December 15 , 1982 • for the purposes permitted in this zone . Rather than using the entire property as professional space , which will generate the greatest economic return , the joint use of the property for professional office space on the first floor and an apartment on the second floor will provide a reasonable economic return on the property and will have the least impact on the character of the neighborhood . As outlined in the materials attached to the appeal to convert the first floor to professional office space , it appears that it is not possible for the property to be sold and used solely for residential purposes . Reference is hereby made to the materials attached to the accompanying appeal to convert the first floor of these premises to professional office space accommodating no less than two physicians . " Mr . Aron stated that he had not liked the way the proposal was stated that the first floor professional office space would accommodate no less than two physicians , however , this new information is much better and the appeal should be amended to state : no more than two physicians . Mr . Dubow agreed and stated that it was the intent to have two physicians on the premises and no more . Mr . Aron also stated that he felt an appeal by Mr . Christianson would have been better . • Chairman Aron questioned the entrances and exits and the use of the driveways . Mr . Dubow pointed out the parking in the back and the existing garage . Mr . Dubow estimated that 8 - 10 cars could be parked with no problem and that there were 4 additional places in the garage . Mr . Dubow stated that Dr . Goodfriend ' s practice is a low-volume practice - - 12 patients a day - - and his patients would not all be there at the same time . He commented that there would not be as many cars as one might expect at a doctor ' s office , adding that the number of cars at any one time would be far less than the parking area available . Chairman Aron indicated that he did have concern with ingress and egress and parking . Mr . Cartee stated that he looked at the back of this property where the parking area would be located and that there is plenty of room for the cars of the doctors , staff , patients , and whoever might live in the apartment . Mr . Cartee stated that , as far as entrances and exits go , there is only one at the present time . Mr . Cartee stated that he would strongly recommend an improvement in this regard . Mr . Aron suggested that perhaps the present driveway could be widened . Mr . Austen asked if there would be any changes to the physical appearance of the building . Mr . Dubow responded that the pedestrian entrance has not been pinned down yet , but that probably the main entrance would be at the front of the building • where there is a defined path . He also went on to say that there are two ways to provide access for the handicapped - - either by a ramp somewhere in the front , or perhaps by the squaring off of an Zoning Board of Appeals 9 December 15 , 1982 • area to the rear . Mr . Dubow assured the Board that the area will be carefully studied and access achieved such as to impact the character of the building the least . Mr . Aron inquired what the width of the front door was . Mr . Christianson responded 40 - 42 inches . David Taube , Architect for Dr . Goodfriend , stated that the law on handicapped entrances is 3 foot 2 inches for wheel chairs . Mr . Taube indicated that the access for handicapped could be taken care of in compliance with the law with no problems . Mr . Dubow was asked about outside lighting . Dr . Goodfriend responded that he had no office hours in the evening but whatever safety requirements there were for lighting would be complied with . Dr . Goodfriend also stated that he would have a small , discreet sign , sufficient enough to identify where his offices were . Mr . Aron noted that the request indicates the office will be on the first floor . Dr . Goodfriend stated that that was correct , adding that he was very much aware of the historical value of the building and was concerned with its preservation . He noted that the farmhouse was constructed in 1834 and stated that he hoped to preserve and restore some of the original features of the building . Mr . Aron stated that the matter of ingress and egress bothered him . Mr . Dubow stated that ingress and egress would not • be a problem even if denied by the neighbor the access that has been used . He stated that they think they can handle the nature of the volume of the traffic within the existing one driveway , pointing out that Dr . Goodfriend does not have that many people coming and going . Mr . Dubow commented that he did not think Dr . Goodfriend would be opposed to an alternate driveway . Mr . Dubow . stated that they do not want to interfere with the front of the building . Mr . Dubow noted that there never has been a problem with the use of the access way and stated that he was certain that the matter of ingress and egress can be appropriately handled with no difficulty . Mr . Austen asked if the other physician would have a low - volume practice also . Dr . Goodfriend stated that that would be the case , adding that the other physician would be a cardiologist also . Dr . Goodfriend stated that the adding of another physician to the office was a very long - range matter and- may not take place at all . Chairman Aron then read the following letter from Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning to Mr . Cartee , dated December 13 , 1982 : " RE : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law • CASE : Appeal of M . Goodfriend at 1212 Trumansburg Road ( State highway ) Zoning Board of Appeals 10 December 15 , 1982 • This will acknowledge the receipt of the proposal ( s ) for review under Section 239 -m . The proposal ( s ) , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no recomendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice . " Chairman Aron asked Mr . Christianson to speak to the Board on this matter and asked him what his plight was . Mr . Christianson stated that he would speak of two things - - ( 1 ) the matter of the septic system and parking , and ( 2 ) intrafamily problems . Mr . Christianson stated that in 17 years they have never parked on the street , nor have any guests , and therefore , he felt certain that parking was no problem . With reference to the septic system , Mr . Christianson stated that no one in the family has any records with , respect to the septic system , adding that they have had no problems with it over the years . Dr . Goodfriend stated that his use of the sewer facilities would be much less than if it were all residential property . It was noted that the system is ten years or more old . The architect , David Taube , was asked where the system was located . He responded that it is located towards the north of the building . He said they will get in touch with John Andersson • at the Health Department with respect to the required approvals and if it is required that the system be replaced it would be done . Mr . Christianson stated that the principal concern is , really , an intrafamily problem with respect to his father ' s problems . He stated that the house is the only asset his mother has and , therefore , they needed to take some action , and this proposal seems to be a worthwhile transaction . Mr . Aron noted that it would appear to be quite clear that Mr . Christianson has intended to sell the property for some time , and asked Mr . Christianson if a serious effort to sell had been made . Mr . Christianson replied , absolutely , yes , adding that that is the reason he bought it in 1977 after there had been no response . Mr . Christianson stated that there have been three different agents involved in trying to sell the house , mentioning Dick Wilsen , and adding that his mother did have it listed . Mr . Dubow pointed out Schedule A of the Appeal . Ms . Joanne Datz spoke to the Board and stated that she was with Century 21 , Tilley Real Estate , the office which has the exclusive right on the property and corroborated that since 1977 it has been the same as with John Bodine and with Connie Lewis . Ms . Datz stated that she was working with Dr . Goodfriend and contacted Mr . Christianson to see if he were interested in selling the house to Dr . Goodfriend and he certainly was . Ms . Datz stated that many agents have known that this property was for sale for many years . Ms . Datz stated • that Mr . Christianson signed the contract with Century 21 on August 13 , 1982 . Zoning Board of Appeals 11 December 15 , 1982 Chairman Aron , speaking to Mr . Christianson , stated that it seems to be clear that he is saying that it is a hardship to his mother to own this property . Mr . Christianson replied , yes . Mr . Cartee requested permission to ask a few questions of Mr . Dubow and was granted such permission . Mr . Cartee asked Mr . Dubow if there were public water serving the property . Mr . Dubow said that there was . Mr . Cartee asked Mr . Dubow if there were a private sewage system . Mr . Dubow replied that there was . Mr . Cartee asked if any investigations had been done with respect to the sewage system . Mr . Dubow responded that there have been no problems with the septic system to Mr . Christianson ' s knowledge nor to his . Mr . Dubow noted that Dr . Goodfriend ' s use would be much less than that as a private residential home . Mr . Cartee asked Mr . Dubow if the system were over l0 years old . Mr . Dubow responded that it was about 10 years old . Mr . Cartee noted that the architect was present and asked if all the plans were to be coordinated with respect to the historical aspects , the septic system aspects , the apartment , etc . Mr . Taube noted that it had been discussed at this meeting , their working with John Andersson at the Health Department , Mr . Cartee asked how many apartments would be placed in the house . Mr . Taube replied , one . Mr . Cartee pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking are four for each physician and one for each apartment . Mr . Cartee stated again that he has looked at the parking area in the back of the house and noted that there is plenty of parking for two doctors and staff and the person in the apartment . Mr . Cartee stated that he was concerned about entrance and exit and would like to see one in and one out . He stated that the same exit bothers him . He suggested that if there were any way to maintain a right of way to the property to the north , or an entrance and exit driveway , it should be done . Mr . Cartee stated that he would like to ask about outside lighting and asked Dr . Goodfriend if he will need any . Dr . Goodfriend stated that he has no office hours at night . Mr . Cartee said that , finally , he would ask about signage . Dr . Goodfriend stated that he would have a small and discreet sign . Mr . Austen asked Mr . Dubow if he had floor plans . Mr . Dubow stated that they did not have formal floor plans . Mr . Austen stated that he had a question about patient access * from the parking lot in the rear such that patients and cars do not get in the way of each other . Mr . Taube stated that pedestrian entrance has not been really pinned down yet , noting that there has been discussion tonight about handicapped access . He described an entrance at the front and a new walkway , pointing out that they want to impact the character of the house the least . Mr . Aron noted the front door width as meeting the width requirement for handicapped access , and asked about a ramp . Mr . Taube stated that they are convinced that access can be taken care of with no problem and still with no impact on the beauty of the house . • Zoning Board of Appeals 12 December 15 , 1982 Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions from anyone ; there were no further questions . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 23 p . m . MOTION by Mr . Edward N . Austen , seconded by Mr . Jack D . Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a use variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with respect to the property known as 1212 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 26 - 3 - 8 . 2 , to permit the conversion of an existing single family residence to professional offices for no more than two physicians , subject to there being provided a second means of access to said property , either by right of way through that portion of the presently utilized access way which lies upon the property to the north , known as 1216 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 26 - 3 - 7 . 1 , or by . the provision of a new access drive on the north side of the property in question , i . e . , 1212 Trumansburg Road , and subject further to there being adequate parking space available i in the rear of said property along with sufficient room to permit automobile turn - around with safety and ease ; and FURTHER RESOLVED , that said use variance hereinabove granted include and hereby does include the use of the second floor of said residence known as 1212 Trumansburg Road for one single family apartment . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote , Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Goodfriend Appeal duly closed at 8 : 28 p . m . APPEAL OF DAVID ST . GEORGE , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO CONDUCT A CUSTOMARY HOME OCCUPATION IN A GARAGE AREA EXCEEDING 200 SQUARE FEET AT 656 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 31 - 1 - 7 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 5 , PARAGRAPH 2 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 30 p . m . and read aloud the following from the Appeal Form submitted and signed by Mr . David St . George , dated December 2 , 1982 : • " Having recently lost his job and finding it necessary to support himself full - time with this business , the undersigned Zoning Board of Appeals 13 December 15 , 1982 • requests use of the full area of the garage space which exceeds 200 sq . ft . Furthermore , the use of this additional space involves no addition or modification of the property or structure . " Mr . St . George showed a diagram of the area being considered to the Board members and stated that the garage in question is an attached garage . He stated that his printing business was wholesale and did not involve a lot of coming and going . Mr . St . George pointed out what he had stated in his Appeal , that being that there would be no addition or change or modification to the building and further that he is a printer , again , as noted in the Appeal . Mr . Aron asked Mr . St . George if there were noise associated with his business . Mr . St . George stated that his business was not very noisy . Mr . Cartee stated that there was no problem with the noise of the printing press . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to this matter . No one spoke . Mr . Aron noted that Mr . Liguori had also written to Mr . Cartee about this Appeal in the same fashion as in the Goodfriend Appeal , that letter being in the record . Mr . Aron inquired if printing is the only thing Mr . St . George does , to which Mr . St . George replied , yes . Mr . Aron asked if Mr . St . George would be using a sign . Mr . St . George • stated that he would need a small sign to identify where his business was located for trucks to drop supplies off . MOTION by Mr . Jack D . Hewett , seconded by Mr . Edward N . Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance from the requirements of Article III , Section 5 , paragraph 2 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the use by David St . George of garage space exceeding 200 square feet for his printing business at 656 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 1 - 7 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , Hewett . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the St . George Appeal duly closed at 8 : 35 p . m . • APPEAL OF JAMES BLACK , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO ERECT A SIGN AT THE EAST END OF ' THE EAST HILL PLAZA , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . Zoning Board of Appeals P14 December 15 , 1982 • 6 - 62 - 2 - 13 . 5 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER SECTION 4 . 02 - 2 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 35 p . m . , and read from the Appeal Form , as submitted and signed by James Black , dated December 7 , 1982 , requesting permission to erect a 4 ' x 5 ' wall sign , as follows : " We are the only retail store on the back of the Plaza therefore we have no visibility from the front of the Plaza , customers either do not know that our store is in the Plaza or if they come to the Plaza , they can ' t find us . We have to spend a lot more money in advertising and our business is definitely being hurt by this lack of visibility . We need a sign in front that directs people around the corner of the Plaza . " Chairman Aron read the following Resolution duly adopted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at its December 7 , 1982 , meeting : " RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals the approval of the proposed sign for Black Star Bicycle and Ski Shop , being 5 ' x 4 ' and reading , ' Black Star Bicycles around the corner ' , and proposed to be affixed to the exterior front of the East Hill Plaza , with the recommendation that such approval be conditional upon the rescinding of the present and / or future permits for the freestanding sign presently • existing . " Mr . Aron noted that the Resolution had been adopted unanimously , all eight members of the Planning Board having voted aye . Mr . Stewart Knowlton spoke on behalf of Mr . Black . Mr . Knowlton recalled that a year ago this Board granted a variance to this business to erect a free - standing sign for one year , renewable . Mr . Knowlton described the location of the Black Star Bike Shop in relation to the Plaza itself , noting that it was behind the area which had been , at one time , planned to be Trustworthy Hardware and which had been granted permission for a 50 sq . ft . sign . He stated that Mr . Black was asking permission to put up a four foot by five foot sign on the exterior front of the Plaza , adding that they felt this twenty square foot sign with the arrow is necessary to identify where the business is located . It was stated that this sign would be placed near the top of the building on the south wall facing Ellis Hollow Road and would be flush against the building . Mr . Knowlton noted that the Blacks have no visibility from the road and from the parking lot . He stated that the new sign is mainly for people on the site in order for them to see where the shop is , since the sign would be some 800 feet away from the road . Mr . Knowlton suggested that this proposed sign could take the place of the freestanding sign presently in place . Mr . Aron complimented Mr . Knowlton on the beauty of the East • Hill Plaza area . Mr . Knowlton expressed his thanks for the compliment and stated that he hoped people would know that he would not do anything that would interfere with the Zoning Board of Appeals 15 December 15 , 1982 • attractiveness of the area . Mr . Aron pointed out that what Mr . Black was really talking about was a swap . Mr . Hewett stated that he thought the Board should go along with the recommendation of the Planning Board . It was noted for the record that Mr . Liguori , as . Commissioner of Planning , had written to Mr . Cartee with respect to the matter and had expressed no problem with the Appeal . MOTION by Mr . Jack D . Hewett , seconded by Mr . Edward N . Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Section 4 . 02 - 2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit Black Star Bicycle and Ski Shop to erect a 5 ' x 4 ' sign , reading " Black Star Bicycles around the corner " , to be affixed to the exterior front of the East Hill Plaza , conditioned upon the removal of the presently existing permitted . free - standing sign . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . a Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen . Nay - None . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the James Black Appeal duly closed at 8 : 41 p . m . APPEAL OF DORIS SCHOOLEY , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO OCCUPY A TRAVEL TRAILER AT 30 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 17 - 3 - 3 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 59 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 42 p . m . , and read aloud the Notice of Public Hearing as above . Mrs . Schooley appeared before the Board . The Appeal Form as submitted by Mrs . Schooley , dated November 17 , 1982 , received December 7 , 1982 , copies of which each Board member had received , reads as follows : " In Support of the Appeal 1 . The travel trailer in question , and its location in this instance , I feel quite certain , in no way presents any of the potential problems against which and for the purpose the said • ordinance was created . Zoning Board of Appeals 16 December 15 , 1982 2 . The trailer is a fairly respectable appearing vehicle just sitting there at the far end of our parking area where any visitors or guests ' cars might be parked . ( a ) It is at the foot of the driveway , below the road , and to the right , around a slight curve , and nestled against the hillside above . ( b ) It cannot be seen from the road , nor is it visible even to me from any side of the house and grounds , other than at the carport area . ( c ) The trailer has no connections whatever to the house , underground , or any water lines or systems . In order to have lamps to study by , one heavy electric cord is plugged into our outdoor outlet , running from there direct to the trailer . ( d ) The house is located on a circle at the end of the street ( dead end ) with the large lawn and the creek and woods beyond , and on both sides . ( e ) I doubt very much if any of the neighbors on our block are even aware of the trailer ' s existence . There have been no neighbor complaints . There has been nothing to complain about ! ! ( Possible exception the next neighbor on opposite side of circle can probably see a portion of the trailer from their side yard . No problem . ) ( f ) Mr . Takashima , the owner of the trailer , had been a roomer in my home for a few weeks in the fall of 1981 - until his employment at NCR was terminated and he had to make other • arrangements . He came to me in the Spring of 1982 , to ask if he might possibly park his trailer here at the space beyond the carport , for the summer , and over the following school year . He had resumed his college studies full time , and was endeavoring to work enough to finance completion of his courses . His trailer had been broken into where he had been keeping it at a trailer park and he did not want to risk having it there any longer . He has an ex -wife and two small children in another apartment in the city , and has considerable responsibilities and problems there . He wanted only to have a quiet place to come to occasionally where it would be suitable for rest and study . He offered a minimum fee for rent of the space . He does not really live at the trailer . He has classes through the day , works at a restaurant some or most evenings late , has other odd jobs , has many skills , and finds various ways to get along , in spite of his numerous problems . He comes to the trailer usually late at night and leaves early , a few times during the week , and on occasional week - end mornings . He comes and goes very quietly - never imposes . I seldom see him . Of course , when I finally agreed to permit him to bring his trailer here I had no knowledge of the Ordinance in question and thus no awareness of a violation in any way . I was just trying to be helpful to someone in need . I believe it will be a definite hardship and handicap in his endeavors , and very much more expensive , if he has to re - settle at this time . Zoning Board of Appeals 17 December 15 , 1982 If he can continue the present status through the rest of the school year , to the summer , I believe it will be a reasonable request . I understand he is planning to re -enter another college elsewhere the following fall , toward a higher degree . " Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present from the public who wished to speak for or against this matter . No one appeared or spoke . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing duly closed at 8 : 45 p . m . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Schooley if she knew she was in violation of the zoning ordinance . She replied that she did . Mr . Aron asked when the school year was over , to which Mr . Hewett replied , around May 15th . Mrs . Schooley stated that Mr . Takashima may want to stay there for a while after school before he leaves town . Mr . Aron asked if the trailer were Mrs . Schooley ' s or Mr . Takashima ' s . Mrs . Schooley stated that it was his trailer . Mr . Austen inquired if there were any sanitary facilities in the trailer . Mrs . Schooley stated that there were not , adding that it is just used part - time . Mr . Cartee stated that it is a small travel trailer . Mr . Cartee stated that he had received an anonymous telephone call from a person who claimed to be this man ' s ex - wife stating that he should not be living there and that he could come back and • live with her . Mr . Cartee stated that when he investigated he could not see the trailer , it is so well -hidden . He stated that if you did not know it was there , you could not find it . He indicated that it could not be seen by neighbors . MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Jack D . Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the Appeal of Doris Schooley until the first meeting of said Board in June 1983 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote , Aye - Aron , Austen , Hewett . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Schooley Appeal duly adjourned at 8 : 53 p . m . APPEAL OF SUSAN HOWSER , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR GRANTING PERMISSION TO BUILD A TWO - FAMILY RESIDENCE PLUS OFFICE NOT TO BE OCCUPIED BY OWNER AT 1443 SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 2 , • ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION GRANTED FOR THE STATED REASON THAT THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH PERMIT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Zoning Board of Appeals 18 December 15 , 1982 Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted - matter bove -notedmatter duly opened at 8 : 54 p . m . and read the Appeal as published and as noted above , aloud . Chairman Aron read aloud the following letter from Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , to Lewis Cartee , dated December 13 , 1982 , received December 14 , 1982 : " RE : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law CASES : Appeal of S . Howser at 1443 Slaterville Road ( State highway ) . . . Dear Mr . Cartee : This will acknowledge the receipt of the proposals for review under Section 239 -m . The proposals , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice . Sincerely , • ( sgd . ) Frank R . Liguori Commissioner of Planning " Chairman Aron read aloud the statement of Appeal , ( undated ) , received November 15 , 1982 , as follows : " To the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca : WHEREAS , Jerold Weisburd has applied for and received a building permit , permit number 2508 , allowing him to build a Two Family Residence Plus Office at 1443 Slaterville Road in the Town of Ithaca ; and WHEREAS , such permit application designates the building will not be occupied by the owner and will be leased ; and WHEREAS , Article V section 19 only allows offices for resident professionals in the relevant R- 30 zone ; and WHEREAS , the designated use for the building in question does not comply with the applicable zoning ordinance ; NOW , THEREFORE , we the undersigned property owners , hereby respectfully petition the Board to annul the granting of building permit 2508 upon the following grounds : . 1 ) The use designated in the building permit application is contrary to the applicable Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Zoning Board of Appeals 19 December 15 , 1982 • 2 ) A variance must be granted before a building permit for such a building is given . WHEREFORE , we respectfull ( sic . ) ask that the building permit be annulled and that all constructing of the building in question be stayed . Signature Name Address Susan Howser Susan A . Howser 1469 Slaterville Rd . Ithaca , N . Y . 14850 " Chairman Aron asked if Mrs . Howser were present . Mrs . Howser indicated by raising her hand that she was present . Mr . Jeff Coleman stood and stated to the Board his name and stated that he was representing Mrs . Howser in this Appeal . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Coleman if he were an attorney to which Mr . Coleman replied , just about - he was not an attorney yet but he soon will be , adding that within a few weeks he will be an attorney . Mr . Coleman stated to the Board that they realized that the building is pretty well completed and that they are basically looking for an explanation . Mr . Coleman stated that Mrs . Howser is the property owner of • 1469 Slaterville Road and that this property has been sold to her on land contract . Mr . Aron asked Mrs . Howser if she had read the zoning ordinance . Mr . Coleman responded that she had read the ordinance . Mr . Aron stated that he would read into the record a note received by the Building Inspector , Mr . Cartee , dated December 15 , 1982 , unsigned , however bearing the names of Arthur D . Howser , Sr . and Susan Howser , as follows : " To Whom It May Concern : The property located at 1469 Slaterville Road , Ithaca , NY is being purchased by Arthur and Susan Howser , Sr . from James and Velma Burke on a land contract . The contract began December 1 , 1980 . " Mr . Aron stated that the Board members had received a copy of a building permit application dated September 15 , 1982 , signed by Jerold Weisburd and amended by Mr . Weisburd under date of December 2 , 1982 . Mr . Aron stated that the Board members also had received a copy of a letter signed by Jerold Weisburd , dated December 2 , 1982 , and attached to the referenced building permit . Mr . Aron read aloud the letter from Mr . Weisburd addressed to the Zoning Officer of the Town of Ithaca , as follows : " Re * Building Permit # 2508 ;issued 10 / 7 / 82 Zoning Board of Appeals 20 December 15 , 1982 • I hereby would like to clarify one item on my application for the above referenced permit . One unit of the building will be rented , and the other unit will be occupied by me . This will enable me to personally monitor the thermal performance of these super - insulated units . The attached office will be used for my professional architectural practice . Thank you . Sincerely , ( sgd . ) Jerold Weisburd " Mr . Aron stated that since Mr . Coleman and Mrs . Howser had read the ordinance , he did not have to read to them the ordinance . Mr . Cartee requested that Mr . Aron read the Section of the Ordinance referenced . Mr . Aron read aloud from Article V , Section 19 . " Accessory Uses . Permitted accessory uses in Residence Districts R30 shall include the following : " - as follows : " 1 . Office of a resident doctor , dentist , musician , engineer , teacher , lawyer , artist , architect or member of other recognized profession and quasi - profession where such office is a part of the residence building provided that not more • than 3 additional persons not residing on the premises may be employed . " Chairman Aron , speaking to Mr . Weisburd , stated that the Building Inspector had given the Board a copy of a letter signed by him ( Weisburd ) in which he stated that he is going to reside in the structure presently under construction , and asked if that were correct . Mr . Weisburd responded that that was correct . Mr . Aron asked Mr . Weisburd if he were an architect . Mr . Weisburd responded that that was correct . Mr . Aron asked Mr . Weisburd if he were a registered architect , licensed to practice in the State of New York . Mr . Weisburd responded that that was correct . Mr . Aron stated that , having heard all that , he could not see where the zoning ordinance has been violated . The Board indicated their agreement with Mr . Aron ' s statement . Mr . Coleman repeated that what they were asking for is an explanation of why the permit was given without request of variance . Mr . Aron , speaking to Mr . Coleman , stated that he used to be a member of the Planning Board for many years , and was also Chairman . Mr . Aron described the subdivision process and noted that this land in question is comprised of around 50 acres of land . He stated that a person can build one or two homes on a • parcel of a given size , but not more . He stated that the third home requires subdivision approval . He stated that it was proper for Mr . Weisburd to have been issued a permit for one two - family Zoning Board of Appeals 21 December 15 , 1982 • house with an office , adding that it does not matter how many acres one has . Mr . Aron inquired of Mr . Coleman if his explanation was satisfactory . Mr . Coleman stated that it was no explanation . Mr . Coleman stated that the zoning laws were not complied with when Mr . Weisburd was given the permit . Mr . Aron repeated that the Building Inspector gave a permit for a two - family home . Mr . Aron suggested that one might assume that he ( Weisburd ) builds it and he rents it out to a professional person who lives there and has an office . Mr . Cartee stated that he would like to clarify the matter of the permit issuance . Mr . Cartee stated that the Building Permit was issued in good faith on the basis that Mr . Weisburd was entitled to a two - family house , or a one - family house , with an office or storage space . He stated that Mr . Weisburd could live in one in the future , rent one in the future , or rent one in the future to a recognized professional who could be a resident professional . Mr . Cartee stated that the application was submitted to him ( Cartee ) about three times before the permit was issued . Mr . Cartee described the compliance with the requirement of the ordinance relative to the secondary unit being one - half the size of the primary unit . • Mr . Coleman asked if it were ordinary practice to build a building with an office with the future intent to find a resident professional . Mr . Aron stated that there need be no further discussion , as far as he , himself , was concerned , adding that the Building Permit was amended on December 2 , 1982 , by signature , and Mr . Weisburd has told the Zoning Board of Appeals that he is going to live there . Mr . Aron stated that Mr . Weisburd is entitled to have an office and that , in his opinion , he is absolutely in compliance with the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Laws of the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Aron stated that for that reason he would declare this a moot case . Mr . Coleman stated that he agreed , adding that it was moot before it was being built . Mr . Robert E . Marion stated that the Board was mute and could not hear because the question was how the house got built in the first place . MOTION by Mr . Edward N . Austen , seconded by Mr . Jack D . Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Appeal of Susan A . Howser for denial of permission granted to Jerold Weisburd for the construction of a • two - family residence with office at 1443 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 2 , be and hereby is dismissed , and the matter declared moot . Zoning Board of Appeals 22 December 15 , 1982 • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . , Aye - Aron , Austen , Hewett . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Howser Appeal duly closed at 9 : 12 p . m . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the December 15 , 1982 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 13 p . m . The Board agreed that it would meet next on January 19 , 1983 . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Zoning Board of Appeals . Henry Aron , Chairman .