Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1983-04-16 l ' • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 6 , 1983 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , April 6 , 1983 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Jack D . Hewett , Edward W . King , Joan G . Reuning , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Kay D . Marion , Robert E . Marion , Lori Marion , Kirk C . Sapa , Steven G . Scott , Irene M . Scott , Forrest Ship Sanders , Frank Maestri , Alan Wurzel , Evan N . Monkemeyer , M . J . Monkemeyer , Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 04 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings , covering all Appeals , in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 29 , 1983 and April 1 , 1983 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice of Public Hearings upon all the various neighbors in the areas pertaining to each of • said Appeals , upon Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Clerk of the Town of Enfield , and upon the Appellants , as parties to the action . APPEAL OF ROBERT E . AND KAY D . MARION , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR PREMISES UPON WHICH A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE IS LOCATED WITH A LOT SIZE OF LESS THAN 150 FEET IN DEPTH , AT 1463 SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 1 . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 16 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 76 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 05 p . m . , read aloud the Notice of Public Hearing as noted above , and asked Mr . Cartee to read aloud the Sections of the Ordinance cited above . Mr . and Mrs . Marion , and daughter , were present . Each Board member had received a copy of the Appeal Form as completed and signed by Mr . and Mrs . Marion , dated February 25 , 1983 , with attached sketch of their parcel . Chairman Aron noted that there were no other persons present except for Mr . and Mrs . Marion and their daughter . Mr . Aron inquired of Mr . Marion as to when he bought this piece of property was he aware that there was a violation of the zoning ordinance . Mr . Marion stated that he was not , adding that there was discussion of the 150 ' but the seller thought it was from the center of the highway . Mrs . Marion stated that they asked to buy 200 ' but he would not do it . Mr . Aron asked when the Marions found out about this problem . Mr . Marion replied t Zoning Board of Appeals 2 April 6 , 1983 • that he got a letter from the Town . Mr . Cartee spoke to the history of the matter as it related to the Commonland Community subdivision , noting that there were 9 pieces of property that had not been properly subdivided prior to that . He stated that the Town Engineer had sent a letter to each of the property owners involved suggesting a way to get these properties in order . Mr . Cartee stated that the letter was not relevant to this Appeal . Mr . Aron asked if the others are in compliance ; Mr . Cartee indicated that the matters had been resolved in a manner acceptable to the Town Engineer , Mr . King commented that , as an attorney , he was familiar with the problems of road referencing along Slaterville Road , adding that there are maybe another half dozen in about the same situation . Mr . King pointed out that the Deed does call for 177 ' from the center line of the highway and where the problem lies is counting from the southerly edge of the highway and taking off the width from the center . Mr . King stated that the State of New York has been claiming 4 rods along Slaterville Road - - 4 rods is approximately 66 ' , therefore , if you take 177 ' and subtract 33 ' you come up with 144 ' of property depth which is 6 ' short . Mr . King now pointed out that if you use 3 rods , which was assumed for many years , the property depth would be 152 ' and in compliance . Mr . King stated that many people think that the highway is 3 rods - - the State says , 4 rods . Mr . King commented • that he had found no particular reason in the law . Mr . King stated that he thought all of these lots that are in question ought to be named as in compliance . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals direct and hereby does direct the Town of Ithaca Zoning Enforcement Officer to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject property , i . e . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 1 , known as 1463 Slaterville Road , Ithaca , New York . There being no further discussion ,on , the Chair called for a Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Robert E . Marion and Kay D . Marion Appeal duly closed . IN THE MATTER OF WINDOW SIGNAGE AT BELL ' S CONVENIENCE FOODS , 614 ELMIRA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA , NEW YORK . MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : Zoning Board of Appeals 3 April 6 , 1983 • WHEREAS , certain window signs have been in place at premises known as Bell ' s Convenience Foods , located at 614 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 4 , for an estimated seven years ( viz . since about 1975 , subsequent to the enactment of the 1972 Town of Ithaca Sign Law ) , AND WHEREAS , such 1972 Sign Law was superseded in 1980 by a new Sign Law [ Local Law # 6 - 1980 ] ; AND WHEREAS , after the adoption of the 1980 Sign Law , the Bells erected additional signs on the easterly side of their building which signs are plainly visible from the highway , AND WHEREAS , it appears that the 1972 Law , in Section 3 ( a ) , defines the term " sign " to include signs " used or located out of doors or on the exterior of any building , including window display area . ( emphasis added ) , and the question has arisen thereunder whether signs placed on the interior side of a window in such manner that they face the exterior and are visible from a proximate highway were indeed subject to regulation under and were regulated by such 1972 Law ; and whether any such signs here concerned should now be permitted to remain in view of both the 1972 and the 1980 Laws ; AND WHEREAS , some eight such pre - 1980 window signs at the • Bell ' s Convenience Store were the subject of permit applications and appeal hearings in 1981 ; and other , clearly ' exterior ' signs ( consisting of letters on the exterior of the building to the left of a new service window [ advising of " SOFT ICE CREAM & CARRY OUT " ] and a " Pepsi " Menu Board above such service window ) were the subject of applications and review in 1982 by the Sign Review Board ( viz . the Town Planning Board ) , such latter review having been held on June 15 , 1982 , and Appeals to the Zoning Board of Appeals having been heard on November 18 , 1981 and June 23 , 1982 ; AND WHEREAS , the Zoning Board of Appeals did approve a permit for the latter two signs upon such June 23 , 1982 hearing - - leaving open only the question of the earlier window signs ; AND WHEREAS , the Bells have eliminated the northerly three store windows on said easterly side of their building thereby reducing the number of windows here concerned to the remaining three southerly windows each of which is 36 sq . ft . in size for a total window area of 108 sq . ft . ; AND WHEREAS , the Bells have since reduced the number and size of the remaining window signs in those three windows , the signs remaining being : ( 1 ) A MARLBORO sign 1 sq . ft . , 182 " wide x 9 " high Letters : 152 " wide x 5 " high ( 2 ) A LITE sign 2 sq . ft . , 20 " wide x 14 " high g Letters : 14 " wide x 7 " high Zoning Board of Appeals 4 April 6 , 1983 • ( 3 ) A SCHLITZ sign 1 sq . ft . , 20 " wide x 62 " high Letters : 20 " wide x 62 " high ( 4 ) A reduced- size ICE sign , approx . 3 . 8 sq . ft . , 23 " wide x 24 " high ( 5 ) A BUDWEISER sign , approx 1 . 7 sq . ft . , 24 " wide x 10 " high and occupying about 10 % of this remaining window area ; THIS TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOW FINDS AND DECIDES as follows : FIRST . That window signs of the nature of the 5 here cited were indeed within the purview of the 1972 Law , in that they were and are highly visible from the highway proximate to the store building , and that it was the thrust of the 1972 Law to regulate such window signs as having a measurable impact upon the travelling public and consequently upon the welfare and safety of the public - - besides their obvious and undesirable impact upon the appearance and amenities of the neighborhood . SECOND . That the first 4 of the above 5 signs ( such 4 amounting • in total area to less than 8 square feet of window signage ) , meet the relevant criteria , both individually and in toto , of both the 1972 and the 1980 Sign Laws , and that they are therefore legal and permissible signs , and may remain in place . THIRD . That the BUDWEISER sign last cited above , was placed there some time after the hearing before this Board in November 1981 - - that is , after the enactment of the 1980 Sign Law ; that no permit for the erection of such sign was applied for or granted ; and that the same is therefore illegal and impermissible , and must be removed forthwith . VOTE . Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . APPEAL OF STEVEN G . AND IRENE M . SCOTT , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO RAISE AND SELL CERTAIN SPECIES OF HOOKBILL BIRDS IN A GARAGE AREA EXCEEDING 200 SQ . FT . , AT 461 SHEFFIELD ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 27 - 1 - 30 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XI , • SECTION 51 , ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 2 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 74 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Zoning Board of Appeals 5 April 6 , 1983 • Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . , read aloud the Notice of Public Hearing as noted above , and asked Mr . Cartee to read aloud the Sections of the Zoning Ordinance cited above . Mr . and Mrs . Scott were present . Each Board member had received a copy of the Appeal Form completed and signed by Mr . Scott , dated March 25 , 1983 . Chairman Aron noted that there were no other persons present except for Mr . and Mrs . Scott , Mr . Scott stated that it was impossible for him to get insurance on his birds unless he has a business ; businessowner ' s policy is the only ways it is not possible under homeowner ' s insurance . Mr . Scott stated that , in addition to that , his birds may require some more attention than he can afford if they were in another area away from home where he could only be there one hour a day . Mr . Aron inquired if Mr . Scott had another occupation , to which Mr . Scott replied that he did - - he works for a roofing contractor . Mr . Aron noted that the bird business was an auxilliary occupation . Mrs . Reuning asked if this were a mail order business . Mr . Scott stated that it was not , adding that it is a hand operation ; the young birds are hand fed . He stated that his operation is • heard about through word of mouth and maybe from local pet stores . Mr . King asked if Mr . Scott had these birds now with Mr . Scott replying that he did - - about 30 . Mr . King asked if they were in the proposed building . Mr . Scott stated that some are , and some are in the house , adding that it is an exterior garage separate from the house . Mr . Cartee indicated that the distance was 30 ' from the north and 50 ' south . Mr . Aron asked how far away the neighbors are . Mr . Scott stated that it was 50 ' from the nearest neighbor to the property line - 100 ' to the house ; another house is 125 ' distant . Mr . Aron asked if there were any noise involved with this operation . Mr . Scott stated that there was none . Mrs . Reuning asked if Mr . Scott utilized brooder boxes , to which Mr . Scott replied that he did not , he used a light bulb . Mr . Scott stated that he had talked to his neighbors on both sides of the road , noting that the Town of Enfield is on the other side of the road and that there are four houses on up to Bundy Road , and adding that no one had any problems with his operation . The Secretary stated that on April 5 , 1983 , at 3 : 00 p . m . , Mrs . Eleanor Rea , 459 Sheffield Road , had telephoned the Town Office in re the Scott Appeal , had spoken with Peter Lovi , the Town Planner and had stated to him that she has no problems with the granting of a variance to permit the bird business . Mr . Aron asked how many birds would be involved with this operation in the future . Mr . Scott stated that it depends on the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 April 6 , 1983 • size of the birds , commenting that a pair of large birds , such as parrots or cockatoos , need 40 sq . ft . Mr . King suggested that the Board could consider a special permit which may be revoked after review . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a Special Permit to the applicants , namely Steven G . and Irene M . Scott , for the raising and selling of certain species of hookbill birds , as indicated by said applicants , in a detached garage area exceeding 200 sq , ft . , at 461 Sheffield Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 30 , with the understanding that such Permit is a permit which is subject to review and to revocation , after hearing on notice , in order that the Town may address any problems which may be associated with such grant of Special Permit . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Scott Appeal duly closed . APPEAL OF KIRK C . SAPA , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE -BEDROOM DWELLING UNIT UNDER A PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE IN A FRONT YARD , AT 621 ELM STREET EXTENSION , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 29 - 8 - 5 . 1 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTIONS 11 AND 13 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 45 p . m . , read aloud the Notice of Public Hearing as noted above , and asked Mr . Cartee to read aloud the Sections of the Zoning Ordinance cited above . Mr . Sapa was present . Each Board member had received a copy of the Appeal Form as completed and signed by Mr . Sapa , dated March 28 , 1983 together with a copy of the proposed plans . Chairman Aron and the Board members reviewed the plans with Mr . Sapa . Mr . Sapa described his large , irregularly - shaped lot , noting a 11 % - 12o slope , and stating that his house is a solar house with its " front " facing south and not the road . Mr . Sapa explained that it is necessary to raise the garage above the • current grade and that is why it is away from the house . He stated that it is necessary that the garage have a substantial sub - structure and that is why he needs the apartment . Mr . Sapa Zoning Board of Appeals 7 April 6 , 1983 stated that he owns 54 acres of land and , except for the house and the requested garage / apartment , it is not used , primarily because of the slope . He stated that his nearest neighbors are a substantial distance away , adding that if they could see the garage at all , they could not tell if there were an apartment within it or not . He noted that the westerly neighbors are Dr . and Mrs . Kraut , who own some 300 acres of land . Mr . King asked if there were any residences to the south , to which Mr . Sapa replied that there were not , adding that the land was vacant and there would need to be a very long access road . Mr . Sapa commented that the elevational distances would be such that he could never see anyone building down there . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to this matter . No one spoke . Mrs . Reuning asked how large the proposed apartment would be . Mr . Sapa stated that it would contain 800 sq . ft . and added that in the proposed lease agreement it is stated that a proposed tenant may not have more than one car , commenting that there is really no on - street parking on Elm Street . Mr . Sapa stated that he is proposing a one - bedroom apartment . Mr . Sapa stated that he did not want traffic ; he did not want people interfering with his privacy . • Mr . Cartee inquired about the water supply and the sewage disposal system . Mr . Sapa stated that the well gives 10 gallons per minute and he has no problems with it . With respect to sewage disposal , Mr . Sapa stated that that is under the jurisdiction of the Health Department , Mr . Sapa stated that he hoped he could tie into the existing system and he still hopes to do that . He stated that he thought it would be more cost beneficial to pump up to the sewer line on Elm Street and if he can tie in some day that would be okay , but he did not see that soon He stated that a 200 - foot trench and pumping up would be simpler , adding that if he pumped into the existing public sewer the Health Department is not involved . Mr . Cartee commented that he agreed with Mr . Sapa as to the back of his house facing the road . The Secretary asked that the following be entered into the record : ( 1 ) Letter - - " April 5th , 1983 To : The Chairman , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals : Re : Appeal of Kirk C . Sapa 621 Elm St . Extension Zoning Board of Appeals 8 April 6 , 1983 • The Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance was in effect at the time that the property at 621 Elm S . Ext , was purchased and built upon . Amending the ordinance at this time sets a precedent for future changes which could , in effect , repeal the ordinance completely , and change the nature of the neighborhood . We would like to go on record as supporting the zoning ordinance as it currently stands . Dr . and Mrs . Arthur Kraut 635 Elm Street Ext . " ( 2 ) Memorandum - - " April 5 , 1983 To : Zoning Board of Appeals From : Lewis D . Cartee , Bldg . Insp . Re : Kirk Sapa request for a variance at 621 Elm St . Ext , Mr . John Vasse , 618 Elm St . Ext . , advises this office , via telephone , that he objects to a second living unit on the Sapa property at 621 Elm St . Ext . , and requests that the Zoning . Board of Appeals deny such variance . He has no objection to a garage . " • Mr . Sapa commented that he could have two unrelated persons in the house . Upon perusing the ordinance , Mr . King asked if the natural grade exceeded 8 % [ Section 131 . Mr . Sapa stated that it did the grade is approximately 12 % . Chairman Aron explained that the problem is the second dwelling unit on one lot . Mrs . Reuning pointed out that if the garage were attached , Mr . Sapa could have an apartment . Mr . Sapa stated that moving the garage would be very difficult . Mr . King noted that the apartment is proposed to be 800 sq . ft . , and inquired as to the size of the house . Mr . Sapa stated that the house contains 1 , 800 sq . ft . , with no basement . Mr . King commented that he was intrigued and stated that he thought the Board should take a look at the premises rather than rejecting it out of hand . Mr . King stated that the proposal does not comply , adding that that is what this Board is for , and commenting that the Board could delineate restrictions such as , no apartment in the house . Mr . Sapa noted that there would be garage parking for the tenant and that there would be off - street parking . He pointed out the nature of the environment of the area . Mr . King stated that he would like to view the site . • MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : Zoning Board of Appeals 9 April 6 , 1983 • RESOLVED , that the matter of the Appeal of Kirk C . Sapa be and hereby is adjourned to May 11 , 1983 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Sapa Appeal duly adjourned . Mr . Cartee requested that Mr . Sapa stake out the location of the proposed garage / apartment and also stake out where the corner of the property is . Mr . Sapa stated that there are stakes locating the proposed garage and he would be glad to mark the property as requested . APPEAL OF EVAN N . MONKEMEYER , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO - FAMILY DWELLINGS CONTAINING DWELLING UNITS OF EQUAL SIZE , AT 1047 , 1049 , 1051 , and 1053 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX X PARCEL NO . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 1X PERMITS ARE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , 3sR SECTION 41 PARAGRAPH 21 AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN � OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . • Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 15 p . m . and read aloud the Notice of Public Hearing as noted above . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form signed and submitted by Evan N . Monkemeyer , dated March 28 , 1983 , as follows : . . . Having been denied permission to construct two ( 2 ) family structures containing dwelling units of equal size at 1047 , 1049 , 1051 , 1053 Danby Road ( Rt . 96B ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 - 1 - 3 . 1 . . . the intent and the purpose and construction of the R - 9 District provisions of the Zoning Law are not clear , but the Board of Zoning Appeals has approved a similar plan in the immediate neighborhood . If builder is not granted this appeal , builder will be unable to pay the water & sewer benefit assessments , taxes , interest & carrying costs , etc . " Chairman Aron noted that a plot plan of the proposed four lot subdivision drawn on a survey map prepared by George Schlecht , P . E . , L . L . S . , dated 3 / 83 , was attached to the Appeal Form and each Board member had received a copy of both documents . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Cartee to read from the Sections of the Zoning Ordinance cited above . He did so . Chairman Aron asked the Secretary to read the Resolution adopted by the Planning Board at Public Hearing held on April 5 , 1983 . She did so . Said Resolution is as follows : " WHEREAS : Zoning Board of Appeals 10 April 6 , 1983 • 1e the developer has prepared a subdivision plot in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer , and 20 an environmental assessment form has been prepared and reviewed by the Town Planner , and 3 , this subdivision has been classified as an unlisted action and the Planning Board has determined that this project will not significantly impact the environment , and 49 there will be substantial conformance between the preliminary subdivision plat and the final plat to be filed in the Office of the County Clerk , and 59 that such conformance shall be certified by the Town Engineer prior to such filing , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary approval for a four - lot subdivision of a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 , for the lands of Herbert N . Monkemeyer , as proposed in the map drawn by George Schlecht , P . E . , dated March 15 , 1983 on file in the office of the Town Engineer , and • FURTHER RESOLVED : that said Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the requirement for a final subdivision hearing provided that the final subdivision plat to be filed in the Office of the County Clerk shall be in substantial conformance with this preliminary plat and that the Town Engineer shall certify the conformance of such final plat with the preliminary plat prior to its filing and before any offer for sale or other transfer shall be made , and FURTHER , IT IS RECOMMENDED : that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance to permit the construction of a two - family dwelling with dwelling units of equal size on each of said four lots . " Chairman Aron read the following from the Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of February 27 , 1979 . " RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adopt and hereby does adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact in the matter of the Appeal of Evan N . Monkemeyer , and • FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance from the requirements of Article III , Section 4 , paragraph 2 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Zoning Board of Appeals 11 April 6 , 1983 • permit the construction of a two- family dwelling wherein the second dwelling unit is more than 50 % of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit , at 1060 Danby Road ( 118 West King Road ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 39 - 1 - 15 , as proposed by Evan N . Monkemeyer , subject to the following conditions : 1 . that Mr . Monkemeyer make all reasonable efforts to preserve the privacy of his neighbor , Mr . Hsu , to the south . 29 that , although the plans appear to be complete , the building meet all requirements of the New York State Building Construction Codes . " Mrs . Reuning commented on the large. plan . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he could go on for hours on the problems with these lots , mentioning only the old airport hangar right on the property line and the tenement house on the neighboring parcel . Chairman Aron asked if there were any public comment at this time . Mr . Forrest Sanders , 1034 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he lived directly across from the building Mr . Monkemeyer was just talking about which , he had an idea is owned by an absentee landlord , and the " hangar " . Mr . Sanders stated that he will have been at his present residence for ten years come this August . Mr . Sanders asked Mr . Cartee if he were • correct in thinking that he , also , is in an . R- 9 District . Mr . Cartee stated that he was correct . Mr . Sanders stated that according to the Notice the permit was denied and added that he agreed with the Board ' s expertise as the Zoning Board , Mr . Sanders questioned why , if this is a residential area with one and two - family homes , Sidney Gilbert ' s tenement house is across the street . Chairman Aron explained to Mr . Sanders that the Board was not hearing a matter related to Gilbert ' s house . Mr . Sanders stated that Gilbert ' s house is a problem to Mr . Monkemeyer ' s property . Mr . Sanders stated that he was against any more development at all in the area since he looks at the area as residential and no further development would mean less traffic , less distractions and would make it easier to live in the area . Mr . Sanders also cited Mr . Monkemeyer ' s property at 118 West King Road , Mr . Aron explained that the Board was not hearing an appeal on that property either . Mr . Sanders stated that the Board granted a variance for 118 West King Road and it was an undersized lot . Mr . Aron stated that that was not the case , adding that one day something is going to be developed in the area . Mr . Sanders asked why that has to be - - why did Mr . Aron say that development would occur . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Sanders if he had anything to add with regard to the matter before the Board . Mr . King asked Mr . Sanders what he found objectionable about the house built on West King Road , Mr . Sanders stated that it • was the undersized lot . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that there were no other variances on that lot other than for the size of the units . Chairman Aron quoted from the Minutes of the February 27 , 1979 Zoning Board of Appeals 12 April 6 , 1983 meeting of the Board on the 118 West King Road site - - Findings of Fact # 6 : " Side yards and lot size are more than adequate for an R- 9 District . " Mr . Monkemeyer pointed out that he could build a two - unit in an up and down configuration with equal - sized units , however , he was interested in solar access , energy saving , etc . Mr . Monkemeyer quoted from Mr . Mazza ' a statement at the Planning Board Meeting held last night ( April 5 , 1983 ) where Mr . Mazza had stated that the " 50o rule is silly . " Mr . King stated that he would still like to know what is objectionable about 118 West King Road . Mr . Sanders stated that the place is still that much closer to the existing places up there and that is different - - the house is too close . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that there is at least 40 feet between buildings ; 15 feet north and greater than 20 feet in the other direction . Mr . Sanders stated that this is rental property and the landlord does not live there . He stated that if this is a residential area for family dwellings with families there should not be students or non - residents in property being built . Mr . Frank Maestri , 1032 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and asked about the definition of two - family dwellings , wondering if it meant 5 or 6 students . The Secretary cited the May 1970 amendment of the Zoning Ordinance setting forth the definition of a family and the occupancy regulations pertinent to R- 9 Districts and read aloud therefrom . Mr . Maestri thanked the Board and • stated that that helped a lot . Mr . Maestri stated that he was concerned about traffic , noting that he lived on the westerly side . He stated that with more people the traffic will be worse , adding that there are accidents out there . He stated that the more people , the more chance of things like that happening . Mr . Alan Wurzel , 10322 Danby Road , spoke from the floor , and stated that he came to the hearing with an open mind , adding that he did know what it was . He stated that he had no questions at this time . For the record , the Secretary stated that on April 5 , 1983 , at 11 : 30 a . m . , Mr . Stephen Parrott , 1020 Danby Road , had spoken with her by telephone and stated that he is in favor of the project proposed by Mr . Monkemeyer , Mr . Monkemeyer now presented to the Board the same slide show that he had presented to the Planning Board the previous night showing the South Hill area , other homes built by him , Springwood , the " hangar " , the tenement house , the parcel under discussion , his rental property and his office where he works every day at 1060 Danby Road directly across the street , etc . Upon its completion , Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he was asking the Board of Appeals to help in his efforts to bring this area up and enhance South Hill by quality development which he is trying to do bit by bit . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that the King Road West property is a good example of his efforts , adding that essentially the same type of design will be on these four lots . He stated that they will be built on a slab - no basement - with Zoning Board of Appeals 13 April 6 , 1983 • no possibility for expansion . Mr . Monkemeyer commented on the presence of rock close to the surface in all of this area . Mr . Aron asked about the sufficiency of parking . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that space for parking is more than sufficient , noting that there is at least 30 to 40 feet in back . Mr . King asked if the only variance being sought by Mr . Monkemeyer is variance from the requirements of Section 4 , paragraph 2 . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that that is correct , noting that the Planning Board approved the subdivision . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that the structures would contain approximately 2 , 600 sq . ft . of living space with 200 lot coverage , 15 - to 20 - foot side yards , buildings 40 feet wide by about 80 feet long . Mr . Cartee asked Mr . Monkemeyer if he had typical drawings of a typical lot showing the house on it . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he did not , however , he had a schematic which he presented to the Board for their perusal . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that there will be only two curb cuts for the four lots . He noted that , like 118 West King Road , the parking is in the rear and the dumpsters are in the rear and maintained . Mr . Sanders spoke of Ithaca College and its lower assessments and how that relates to the residents of the area . Mr . Aron explained that Ithaca College is tax exempt . Mr . • Sanders stated that this is a prime area for students or people who will not live there and the assessment is unfair in relation to this . Mr . King explained that the various aspects of assessment are not within the purview of this Board of Appeals and Mr . Aron suggested that Mr . Sanders talk with the Tompkins County Assessment Department , Mr . King inquired about the energy - saving aspects to which Mr . Monkemeyer had referred . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that the proposed structures will be , what he calls , his prototype II , that is , like the 118 West King Road house but without the solarium . He stated that the walls will be R30 , the windows Superior Andersen , and R60 in the ceilings . He commented that the monthly heat bill will be around $ 20 to $ 25 . He stated that there will be a wood stove / fire place combination ; the moisture controlled by exchangers which change the air per hour . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that the buildings are well thought out and designed . He noted that the buildings are side by side oriented east and west . He noted the long rectangular building with north / south orientation . He stated that the buildings will perform well . He stated that they will be rental houses . Mrs . Reuning noted that the upkeep of Mr . Monkemeyer ' s other properties is good . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that his office is at 1060 Danby Road , across the road . Chairman Aron asked if there were any further comment from the public . There was none . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing duly closed . Zoning Board of Appeals 14 April 6 , 1983 MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : WHEREAS , the Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca has taken note of the fact , as the petitioner indicates , that the South Hill area of the Town is an area with problems of rock being found approximately 3z feet down , as the Town itself found out during the time of water and sewer line extensions , and WHEREAS , Mr . Monkemeyer ' s proposal , as submitted , appears to be a very good upgrading of the area rather than a detriment , NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca grant and hereby does grant variances from the requirement of Article III , Section 4 , paragraph 2 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , in relation to the size of the second dwelling unit to permit the construction of a two - family dwelling with dwelling units of equal size on each of the four lots approved by the Planning Board on April 5 , 1983 as a four - lot subdivision of a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 , presently known as 1059 Danby Road , with the intention that all other codes and ordinances must be complied with for the construction of said two - family dwellings and further , that all proper permits must be obtained . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a • vote . Aye - Aron , King , Reuning . Nay - None . ( Secretary ' s Note : Chairman Aron had granted Mr . Hewett ' s request to be excused at the commencement of the Monkemeyer Hearing . A quorum was present . ) The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Monkemeyer Appeal duly closed at 9 : 00 p . m . IN THE MATTER OF CORNELL QUARTERS ESCAPE WINDOWS . The Board discussed , at length , with Mr . Cartee the following letter addressed to Mr . Cartee from Mr . A . L . McCord , Cornell University Life Safety Services and Insurance , dated February 21 , 1983 . " One of our Life Safety inspectors was approached on February 17 , 1983 , with a compromise solution to the lack of escape windows from Cornell Quarters bedrooms . Bob Kinner , Facilities Engineer , has found that existing window sashes and frames , properly rehinged , would give a clear opening of approximately 5 . 54 square feet . Wompliance with NFPA codes requiring 5 . 7 square feet of clear opening would undoubtedly be cost prohibitive . r Zoning Board of Appeals 15 April 6 , 1983 { Approximately 95 windows would have to be removed and replaced with new units . 9[To expedite correction of insufficient egress from the bedrooms , we respectfully request a variance to allow a clear opening of 5 . 54 square feet ; 21 inches in height by 38 inches in width . 9[ Floor plans of the apartments are enclosed . [ Inspector Charles W . Guyett ] . cc - William Paleen Blanche Hildreth Robert Kinner " The Board discussed , at length , with Mr . Cartee the Codes relevant to this matter . It was the consensus of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that Mr . Cartee should write to Mr . McCord and inform him that the Board had discussed the matter and that a clear opening of 5 . 54 square feet would appear to provide sufficient egress from the bedrooms of the Cornell Quarters and also that heat / smoke detectors should be installed . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the April 6 , 1983 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 30 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Henry Aron , chairman