HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1984-05-16 I�
4
• TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MAY 16 , 1984
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session
on Wednesday , May 16 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward N . Austen , Edward W . King , Joan
G . Reuning , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M .
Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : William S . Seldin , Esq . , Ray Muckey ( ? ) , David Schott ,
Gary J . Dolce , William E . Murray , James Carey , Robert
Kohut , Peter J . Rider , Kirk C . Sapa , Claude F . Robb ,
Ellen C . Robb , Judith Hughes , Catherine Milnor , Patrick
R . Hughes , Kevin Lewis , Architect , Selene Alexander ( ITD
Group ) , Stewart D . Knowlton ( ITD Group ) , Mario
Giannella , Beverly Livesay , Steven Kropper , Pam
Rosenberg , Larry Rosenberg , Bernard Hutchins , Frank
Keysor ( ? ) , Julie S . Rogan , James C . Rogan , Robert A .
Milligan , Robert H . Schwarting , L . Taylor , Shelley M .
Blackler , Ian Roth , L . D . Sisson , Mark Goldfarb , Richard
D . Surosky , Mike Clark ( ? ) ( WTKO News ) , Claudia Montague
• ( WHCU News ) ,
Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 10 p . m . and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on May 8 , 1984 and May 11 , 1984 , respectively , together
with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon
the various neighbors of each of the properties in question , upon the
Tompkins County Administrator , upon the Tompkins Community Hospital
Administrator , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works ,
upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the appellants and / or agent ,
if any , on May 11 , 1984 .
Chairman Aron stated that , since the first two Appeals concern the
same piece of property , Kirk C . Sapa , owner , the Board would consider
the two Appeals together .
APPEAL OF KIRK C . SAPA , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A PARCEL OF LAND WITH A
WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF LESS THAN 100 FEET , 621 ELM STREET
EXTENSION , AN APPROXIMATELY 3 . 2 ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 29 - 8 - 5 . 1 ( 5 . 2 ACRES ) . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE
IV , SECTION 16 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 76 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE .
AND "
1
Zoning Board of Appeals 2 May 16 , 1984
v
• APPEAL OF KIRK C . SAPA , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
TWO -FAMILY DWELLING WITH EACH DWELLING UNIT OF EQUAL FLOOR AREA , ON AN
APPROXIMATELY 2 ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 ,
6 - 29 - 8 - 5 . 1 , 621 ELM STREET EXTENSION ( 5 . 2 ACRES ) . PERMIT IS DENIED
UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 ,
OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matters duly opened at 7 : 12 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Sapa
was present .
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form , with respect to the
first Appeal noted above , as signed and submitted by Kirk C . Sapa under
date of April 16 , 1984 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission
to split existing 5 . 2 ± acre lot into 2 parcels of 3 . 2 ± acres & 2 ± acres
at 621 Elm St . . . . The requested subdivision would leave the western 3 . 2 ±
acre parcel without the required 100 ' of road frontage . It is my
understanding that the 100 ' road frontage regulation exists as a means
to limit the construction of dwellings with insufficient lot size . If
this is a proper interpretation of the regulation , I would offer the
following information in support of my request for a variance ; the only
realistic access to my residence is the 50 ' + road frontage from the
northwest point of property line off of Elm St . Ext . Construction of
• any type would totally impede access to existing residence , and given
the lot configuration , is unsuitable for any type of construction . "
[ Attachment : Plot Plan , Sapa property and neighbors . ]
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form , with respect to the
second Appeal noted above , as signed and submitted by Kirk C . Sapa
under date of April 16 , 1984 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied
permission to construct a duplex at 621 Elm St . Ext . . . . The proposed
duplex would consist of two identical units . The lower unit would be
recessed below grade level on the north side , partially below grade
level on the west side and fully exposed on the south and eastern
sides . The proposed design would allow maximum utilization of southern
exposures , purposely limit northern & western exposure and conform more
naturally with the northwest to southeast grade . " [ Attachments : ( 1 )
Plot Plan , Sapa property and neighbors : ( 2 ) Floor Plan , 1st floor & 2nd
floor ; ( 3 ) Elevation , South View ; ( 4 ) Elevation , East View ; ( 5 )
Drawing , View from N . E . ]
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board Meeting of May 1 , 1984 , as follows :
" MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . David Klein :
RESOLVED , that concerning the proposal of Kirk C . Sapa to
subdivide his lands at 621 Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax
• Parcel No . 6 - 29 - 8 - 5 . 1 , 5 . 2 acres , the Planning Board make and hereby
does make the following determinations , findings , approvals , and
recommendations :
1
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 May 16 , 1984
• 1 . The developer has completed an Environmental Assessment Short
Form , as required by Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 - 1980 , The
Planning Board has reviewed this form , determined the proposal to
be an Unlisted Action , and made a negative declaration of
environmental significance at Public Hearing on May 1 , 1984 .
2 . The developer has presented a preliminary subdivision plan in a
form acceptable to the Town Engineer showing the location of lot
lines , and other structures of interest to the Planning Board .
This plan has been reviewed at a properly posted and published
Public Hearing on May 1 , 1984 .
3 . No further subdivision of these lands shall be permitted and a
notice to this effect shall be placed by the subdivider in all
deeds to this property and shall also be placed on the final
subdivision plan to be filed in the Office of the County Clerk ,
4 . The Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary
subdivision approval to the subdivision plan as presented May 1 ,
1984 .
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and
hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a variance be
granted for the substandard frontage on Elm Street Extension , subject
to the restriction that no further subdivision of these lands be
• permitted .
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board waive and hereby
does waive final subdivision approval for this project contingent upon
the preparation of a final subdivision plan in a form acceptable to the
Town Engineer which shall include all notices and provisions required
by this resolution and the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Schultz , Stanton , Baker , Grigorov , Mazza .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . "
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Sapa if he had anything to add or subtract
from his Appeal . Mr . Sapa stated that everything the Board has before
it certainly covers these matters .
Mr . King stated that he would like to have Mr . Sapa explain his
plot plan drawing . Mr . Sapa indicated on the drawing the garage he
wants to build and his existing house and the actual parcel that he
owns which has a peculiar shape . Mr . Sapa described his plan ,
indicating the dotted line on the plot plan , for dividing his one
parcel into two parcels . Mr . King asked Mr . Sapa what he intended to
do with the rest of the land , wondering if he would be selling it . Mr .
• Sapa stated that he did not intend to sell the " new " parcel , but would
own two parcels instead of one and he wanted to build a duplex on the
Zoning Board of Appeals 4 May 16 , 1984
• " new " parcel . Mr . Sapa indicated the square shown on the " new " ,
smaller parcel , stating that that is just to show about where the
duplex might be placed .
Mr . King pointed out the Planning Board restrictions with respect
to " no further subdivision " and " notice to this effect . . in all deeds
to this property and shall also be placed on the final subdivision plan
to be filed in the Office of the County Clerk . " Mr . King also pointed
out that the " to - be - created " westerly parcel with the existing home is
in R30 , and the easterly " to -be - created " parcel where Mr . Sapa wishes
to construct a house now is in R15 . Mr . Austen asked for clarification
of the drawing also . Mr . Sapa indicated again that his parcel has a
peculiar shape .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to the matter of the Sapa Appeals ,
Mr . David Schott , 104 West Haven Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he was concerned with the word " duplex " , and asked if the
parcel were zoned for that . Discussion followed with respect to
one - family dwellings and two - family dwellings being permitted in
residence districts in the Town of Ithaca . Mr . King stated that the
zoning regulation states , with respect to two- family dwellings , that
the second dwelling unit is not to be larger than 500 of the floor area
excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the
second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area ,
it may exceed 50 % . Mr . King stated that in this case , the second unit
is of equal size , however , part of it is in the basement and has a
southern exposure . Mr . King asked Mr . Sapa to explain further . Mr .
Sapa stated that , given the lot configuration and the slopes , and
because of the views and the configuration of the land , his plan is the
best way to construct a two- family dwelling . Mr . Sapa stated that
three of the six houses in the area have rental units , adding that they
are not single family homes . Mr . King noted that if a dwelling unit is
entirely in the basement , one can have them of equal size .
Because there were a large number of people in the Meeting Room ,
Chairman Aron read aloud the regulations with respect to fire alarms
and exiting .
Mr . King asked if Mr . Cartee had any comments on this proposal .
Mr . Cartee stated that he had nothing to add to what had been
presented . Mr . King stated that , personally , he thought the Board
could consider the ordinance to cover the particular structure Mr . Sapa
is proposing so that no variance is required for the second unit being
the same size as the first . The Board members indicated their
concurrence with Mr . King ' s statement . Mr . King stated that , beyond
that , he would MOVE :
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
• RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca
grant and hereby does grant an area variance , with respect to Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 29 - 8 - 5 . 11 known as 621 Elm Street Extension ,
Zoning Board of Appeals 5 May 16 , 1984
presently owned by Kirk C . Sapa , such area variance having to do with
the proposed westerly parcel located in Residence District R30 and
being the permitting of the existing frontage on said Elm Street
Extension , which is fifty feet ( 50 ' ) , as adequate for that proposed
westerly lot , upon the condition and understanding that there will be
no further subdivision of said lot , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the proposed construction would be approved
for the proposed easterly lot on the same terms that there will be no
further subdivision on that lot , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that such restrictions will be contained in any
deeds and also set forth on a subdivision plan which shall be filed in
the County Clerk ' s Office prior to substantial construction .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
The Secretary noted that two letters had been sent to the Board .
Mr . King stated that the two letter can be read into the record , the
letters follow .
. 1 . " May 15 , 1984
615 Elm St . Ext .
I • am writing concerning the current appeal of Kirk C . Sapa ( 621
Elm St . Ext . ) from the Building Inspector denying a building
permit for the construction of a two - family dwelling . . . . Mr . Kirk
Sapa ' s appeal seems to be both contrary to the letter and intent
of the zoning ordinance for this area and , if granted , could have
a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood and the
value , both personal and financial , of property in the area . I
urge that the Board maintain the integrity of the zoning ordinance
now in force and deny this appeal .
Sincerely ,
( sgd . ) H . Thomas Hickerson "
2 . " 635 Elm Street Extension
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance was in effect at the time Mr .
Sapa purchased his lot and built his house on it . We support the
integrity of that Zoning Ordinance and the protection it gives to
the West Hill Neighborhood . Please continue to uphold the
Ordinances as they now stand !
Sincerely
( sgd . ) Noemi Kraut "
• Mr . King stated that the Board is dealing with over five acres of
land here , not the usual building lot on West Hill , and the only
variance that the Board is actually giving from the ordinance is to
i
Zoning Board of Appeals 6 May 16 , 1984
• permit access to the residence over a fifty - foot strip of land rather
than the usual 100 feet , a matter of an interior roadway . Mr . King
stated that , as he sees it , the spirit and intent of the ordinance is
being fully complied with . Mr . King stated that he would MOVE :
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that ,
even in the light of these further comments of Mr . Hickerson and Mrs .
Kraut , the Resolution as adopted be and hereby is confirmed .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearings in and the matter of
the Sapa Appeals duly closed at 7 : 35 p . m .
APPEAL OF MARY L . CAREY , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A ONE -FAMILY DWELLING
BY MORE THAN THREE ( 3 ) UNRELATED PERSONS AT 320 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 42 - 1 - 3 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE
• IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 1 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . James
Carey was present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as
signed and submitted by Mary L . Carey under date of April 30 , 1984 , as
follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to rent property to more
than three ( 3 ) unrelated persons at 320 Coddington Road . . . This property
was leased on March 19 , 1984 to ANN BRUST , MICHELE WILLIAMS , YVETTE L .
CARLING and MELISSA CAPRA for a term from August 15 , 1984 through June
14 , 1985 . I am legally obligated , pursuant to the Lease which is
attached hereto , to provide housing as set forth in said Agreement
until June of 1985 . A breach of this Lease on my part will most likely
mean legal action being taken against me . The property has four ( 4 )
bedrooms , is very well maintained , and does not pose any burden to the
surrounding property owners . "
It was noted that the lease was signed by four persons on March
19 , 1984 , and runs from August 15 , 1984 to June 14 , 1985 .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Carey if he had known of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance prior to writing the lease submitted . Mr .
Carey stated that , yes , he had been aware of it . Chairman Aron asked
Mr . Carey if he had written the lease . Mr . Carey stated that he had ,
adding that he and his wife have owned the property for five years and
• they have had no complaints with regard to conditions . Mr . Carey
stated that the property is well maintained and there have been no
complaints , adding that the lessees are students .
L
Zoning Board of Appeals 7 May 16 , 1984
• Mr . Cartee stated that he had received no complaints about this
property , adding that it was by accident that he found out about the
number of tenants . Mr . Cartee stated that the propery is well
maintained with one or two vehicles present . Mr . Cartee commented that
the Church had done a head count , otherwise he would never have thought
about it .
Mr . King asked how many are on lease now . Mr . Carey, stated that
there were four , but , one or two have left . Mr . King noted that the
property has been in violation this past year also , and asked if the
house is a single - family dwelling . Mr . Carey stated that it is a
single - family house .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she did not see anything unique in this
matter from several other properties the Board has had before it with
this same situation with leases in place to more than three persons .
Mr . Steven Kropper , 319 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he rents in the house across the street , adding that the
owners asked him to argue that the traffic patterns and occupancy in
the area are similar to College Avenue because of all the students .
Chairman Aron stated that students and everybody are all people to the
Board of Appeals and whether people are in school or not or are an
earning person or not they need a roof over their head , it makes no
difference to this Board .
• Mr . Robert Schwarting , 112 Park Lane , spoke from the floor and
stated that he would urge the Board to remain steadfast in its
enforcement of the occupancy regulations of the Town of Ithaca .
Mrs . Judith Hughes , 220 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the
floor and stated that she agreed .
Chairman Aron asked how far from Coddington Road Mr . Schwarting
and Mrs . Hughes lived . Mr . Schwarting stated that their homes are in
Eastern Heights ,
Dr . Larry Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , Eastern Heights , spoke from
the floor and stated that he agreed that the ordinance should be
enforced at the level of three unrelated persons .
Mr . Claude Robb , 221 Eastern Heights Drive , Eastern Heights , spoke
from the floor and stated that he - agreed ,
Mrs . Pamela Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , Eastern Heights , spoke from
the floor and stated that she would echo the previous comments . Mrs .
Rosenberg stated that she did not believe in selective zoning , adding
that she would be against this .
Mr . King commented that those who had just spoken are going to put
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals out of existence . Mr . King
• stated that the Board is here to vary the strict letter of the law when
it does not make sense . Chairman Aron stated that the Board is here to
i
Zoning Board of Appeals 8 May 16 , 1984
• uphold the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , but , it is the Zoning Board
of Appeals and can vary the ordinance where there are reasons for
varying it .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she could not see that the Appellants
have presented reasons to grant a variance , or in this case , to allow
variance from the ordinance into June of 1985 .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak
for or against the matter of the Carey Appeal . No one spoke . Chairman
Aron declared the Public Hearing duly closed at 7 : 46 p . m .
MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca
deny and hereby does deny the Appeal of Mary L . Carey for permission to
occupy the one - family dwelling located at 320 Coddington Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 42 - 1 - 3 , by more than three unrelated persons .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
• Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Carey Appeal duly closed .
APPEAL OF WILLIAM E . MURRAY , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO A ONE -FAMILY DWELLING ON A LOT WITH A WIDTH AT
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF LESS THAN 100 FEET AND A SIDE YARD OF LESS
THAN 15 FEET , A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 42 - 1 - 1 WITH
A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 419 FEET , 308 CODDINGTON ROAD , PERMIT IS
DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTIONS 14 AND 16 , 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 : 48 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Murray
was present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed
and submitted by William E . Murray under date of May 7 , 1984 , as
follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to convert an existing
structure to a three bedroom , single family house on a lot with less
than 100 ' of frontage and a side yard of less than 15 ' at 308
Coddington Road . . . I am the owner of a 1 . 6 acre parcel at 308 Coddington
Road with 179 feet of road frontage and a depth of 419 feet . There
presently exists on this parcel a three - bedroom house ( 308 Coddington
Road ) and two other structures , one of which I propose to demolish , and
the other of which I propose an addition as a single - family residence .
However , that existing structure is less than 15 feet from the side lot
• line . In order to accommodate the addition to this structure as a
three -bedroom house , it is necessary to divide my 1 . 6 acre parcel into
two lots . 91Since there is no possible use for the rear portion of my
ZoningBoard of
Appeals 9 May 16 , 1984
• 1 . 6 acre parcel without dividing this parcel , I propose to divide this
parcel into two lots , one of which would be 100 ' x 419 ' , and the other
79 ' x 4191 . Each of the proposed lots will contain more than the
required 15 , 000 square feet of lot area . % I respectfully request the
granting of two variances with respect to the newly - created lot , i . e . ,
a variance from the 100 - foot frontage requirement and a variance from
the 15 - foot side yard requirement . "
Chairman Aron stated that the Planning Board has the Murray
subdivision matter before it and they have adjourned their hearing .
Chairman Aron stated that he would suggest to the members of the Board
of Appeals that Mr . Murray ' s appeal be adjourned until the Planning
Board has acted .
MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
Public Hearing in the matter of the Murray Appeal be and hereby is
adjourned until the next meeting of said Board , June 27 , 1984 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the
Murray Appeal duly adjourned .
APPEAL OF JAMES C . ROGAN , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO INCORPORATE , AS AN INCIDENTAL USE , THE
CONSUMPTION OF FOOD GOODS , E . G . , PIZZA , SANDWICHES , ICE CREAM , AT
ROGAN ' S CORNER CONVENIENCE MARKET , 825 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCELS NO . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 AND 6 - 40 - 4 - 3 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE
VII , SECTION 32 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 50 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr .
and Mrs . Rogan were present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal
Form as signed and submitted by James C . Rogan under date of May 7 ,
1984 , as follows : of been denied permission to incorporate , as
an incidental use , the consumption of food goods , example - ( pizza ,
sandwiches , ice cream ) at Rogans Corner Convenience Market at 825 Danby
Road . . . The requested incidental use involves the consumption of food
goods within my approved store area , gThe use does not involve any
change in the building as approved , i . e . , neither exterior change nor
interior change . QIt is anticipated that most of the business will be
by delivery or by foot travel , to and from Ithaca College . I am
prepared , and have more than sufficient area available , to provide any
and all necessary parking spaces which may be needed as a result of
this incidental use . "
Zoning Board of Appeals 10 May 16 , 1984
• Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Rogan ' s store is located at the
corner of Coddington Road and Route 96B on South Hill and asked Mr .
Rogan to speak to the matter of his Appeal .
Mr . Rogan appeared before the Board and stated that they had a
couple of hardships which he would like to mention , one of which was
that their project has exceeded cost projections by about $ 60 , 000 . 00
basically because of rock encountered and hauling and drainage costs
way over and above what was anticipated . Mr . Rogan also described the
demolishing of a building on the site which created a problem with
expense . Mr . Rogan stated that they are trying to recover these costs
if possible . Mr . Rogan described the interior of the store , stating
that he would have a few seats , and commenting that people from NCR and
the Ithaca College students were his patrons . Mr . Rogan stated that he
would just like to give them a place to sit , adding that most
convenience stores , one will find , do have some seating in their deli
area .
Mr . King commented that he needed his memory refreshed as to what
was approved . Mr . Rogan displayed for Mr . King and for the Board his
construction plans consisting of several sheets . Chairman Aron asked
Mr . Rogan what he sold in his store . Mr . Rogan stated that it is a
convenience store providing the usual things found in such a facility
such as pop , beer , ice cream , milk , bread , etc . The members of the
Board asked Mr . Rogan to describe the interior of his building and also
• to describe where the various elements were located . Mr . Rogan did so .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to the matter of the Rogan Appeal . No one spoke .
Mr . King stated that the operation at Rogan ' s looked to him almost
like an old - fashioned drug store where they had stools and a soda
fountain bar , adding that he kind of felt that this proposed
construction is a vast improvement to the land and to what it contained
previously .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant
and hereby does grant approval for the proposed extension of use , i . e . ,
the consumption of food goods such as pizza , sandwiches , ice cream
and / or the delivery of same , at Rogan ' s Corner Convenience Market , 825
Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 and 6 - 40 - 4 - 3 , as a
permitted use on said site , said approval being herein granted as a
variance from the requirements set forth in Article VII , Section 32 , of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance .
By way of discussion , Mrs . Reuning wondered if there might be some
measure of difficulty with traffic crossing the street . Chairman Aron
suggested that , were that to be the case , a request for a traffic light
could be made by the appellant . Mr . Austen stated that he thought
• there would probably not be any change in traffic as a result of this
extended use .
Zoning Board of Appeals 11 May 16 , 1984
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the
Rogan Appeal duly closed at 8 : 03 p . m .
APPEAL OF ERNEST McFALL , APPELLANT , SHELLEY M . BLACKLER , AS AGENT , FROM
THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A PERMIT TO ERECT A SIGN
GREATER THAN 4 SQ . FT . AT 903 MITCHELL STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 59 - 2 - 16 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER SECTION 4 . 01. 1 ( a ) OF THE
TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW ,
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 04 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mrs .
Blackler was present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as
signed and submitted by Shelley M . Blackler under date of April 27 ,
1984 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to erect a sign of
more than four square feet at 903 Mitchell Street . . . Reasons for the
appeal : 1 . The name of the business is too long to fit: effectively
into the allowed four square feet . 2 . The ' walk - in ' tirade will be
• mostly from motorists who must be able to read the sign from a distance
allowing them to safely stop . 3 . The existing outdoor lights are about
twelve feet apart . 4 . The existing sign is in excess of 30 square feet
and has been [ there ] for many years . 91The name of my business ,
established by use , is KNITTING MACHINES . . . ETC . It would be impossible
to fit such a long name into a four square foot sign and still have the
sign be effective . TSince the store is not located in a
heavily - trafficked business area , it will be very necessary for me to
attract the attention of passing motorists : those who are actually
looking for the store as well as those who did not realize it was there
but would be interested in my wares . They must , of course , be able to
see the sign from a distance such that they can decide to stop without
creating a hazard . 51 am planning a sign made of individually carved
wooden letters ( sketch from Cayuga Signs enclosed ) , each about 1 . 5 '
high , which will extend across the front of the store , above the front
windows where ' BUD ' S RED & WHITE ' appears now . ( See photos enclosed . )
Although the sign does not have to be as long as the existing sign , I
would like to be able to take advantage of the two outdoor lights to
iluminate the sign when necessary . IThe sign ( and the store ) will be
decorated and painted with good taste in mind . I am aware that it is
located at the edge of a residential neighborhood and I plan to respect
the rights of my neighbors . I feel it is absolutely essential ,
however , that I be allowed to attract the attention of passers -by from
a safe distance . The sign will be an important way for me to bring
people into my store and thereby run a successsful business ,
well - suited to its location . "
Chairman Aron read aloud the following Resolution unanimous )
adopted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on May 1 , 1984y
Zoning Board of Appeals 12 May 16 , 1984
" RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity as
Sign Review Board , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning
Board of Appeals approval of a 132 sq . ft . sign , reading ' knitting
machines . . . etc . ' , to be located on the front facade of the former
' Bud ' s Red & White ' , 903 Mitchell Street . "
The photographs submitted by Mrs . Blackler were passed around
among the Board members . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Blackler if she
wished to add anything to her Appeal statement . Mrs . Blackler stated
that she was opening up a business selling knitting machines and if she
had only a four - square - foot sign no one would see it , adding that the
store is not in an area where people usually walk . Mrs . Blackler
stated that the sign is in very good taste and simply shows the name of
the business .
Mr . King asked if the proposed sign is bigger than the one that
has been there for years . Mr . Cartee stated that " Bud ' s " sign was 32
square feet in size and Mrs . Blackler is proposing a sign about half
that size .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak for or against the proposed signage . No one spoke . Chairman
Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 08 p . m .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning .
iRESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant
and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Section
4 . 01 - 1 ( a ) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the erection of a
sign reading " knitting machines . . . etc . " at 903 Mitchell Street , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 59 - 2 - 16 , said sign not to exceed 132 sq . ft . in
size .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the McFall / Blackler Appeal
duly closed at 8 : 09 p . m .
APPEAL OF FOREST HOME CHAPEL , APPELLANT , CHARLES TRAUTMANN , AS AGENT ,
FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE FOREST HOME CHAPEL , AN
EXISTING LEGAL NON - CONFORMING STRUCTURE , WITH A REAR LOT LINE OF LESS
THAN 30 FEET , AT 222 FOREST HOME DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 ,
6 - 66 - 3 - 17 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , ARTICLE XII ,
SECTION 54 , 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 : 10 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
'4
Zoning Board of Appeals 13 May 16 , 1984
• Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Leslie
D . Sisson was present on behalf of the Forest Home Chapel , Chairman
Aron noted that each of the Board members had received a copy of the
Forest Home Chapel submission consisting of the Appeal Form as signed
and submitted by Charles Trautmann under date of April 23 , 1984 , two
pages of text , a plot plan , and a floor plan . Chairman Aron stated
that the text was quite lengthy and asked if anyone wished to hear the
appeal text . No one appeared to want to hear the appeal :read into the
record .
For the record , the Appeal is herein set forth :
" . . . Having been denied permission to construct an addition to the rear
of the Forest Home Chapel to house a Parson ' s office and meeting room
at 222 Forest Home Drive . . .
REPORT OF THE AD HOC SPACE COMMITTEE
Forest Home Chapel
Ithaca , NY 14850
11 October , 1983
INTRODUCTION
Background . Forest Home Chapel is currently faced with a shortage of
space for carrying out its normal operations and pastoral business .
According to the United Methodist Policies and Procedures Manual ,
' When a church office is provided in the church building , there
should be a room in the parsonage for the pastor ' s study . If no
• church office is provided , the study should have a separate
outside entrance or other suitable privacy . '
At present , the church building has no office , and the pastor ' s office
is in a small bedroom on the second floor of the parsonage . As a
result , pastoral counseling generally takes place in the parsonage
living room , causing disruption to both the pastor ' s family and the
discussion itself . Record keeping and general pastoral business are
also less efficient because of the lack of adequate office space and
facilities .
In addition , there is a critical need for storage space for church
equipment , such as step ladders , Bibles and other literature , cleaning
equipment , Kitchen Cupboard and Church World Service donations , etc .
There is also a need for child care facilities during services ;
currently , this also takes place in the parsonage living room .
In summary , if the chapel is to maintain its current size , attract and
keep competent clergy , and carry out its normal business functions in
an efficient and effective manner , we should provide additional space
for the activities outlined above .
Purpose . This report describes five alternative plans to meet these
needs , along with cost estimates and recommendations for carrying out
the most attractive alternative .
Authorization . This study was authorized by the Administrative Board
of Forest Home Chapel in a memorandum by William Tomek written in the
spring of 1983 . A copy of this memorandum is attached as Appendix I .
The Ad Hoc Space Committee consisted of Charles Trautmann ( Chairman ) ,
John Hertel , and Brad Roark .
• ALTERNATIVES
Five alternatives were considered .
1 . Renovation of parsonage basement ,
Zoning Board of Appeals 14 May 16 , 1984
• 2 . Addition to chapel on side facing parsonage ,
3 . Connection between chapel and parsonage ,
4 . Addition to back of chapel , and
5 . Do nothing .
Each is described in greater detail below .
Renovation of parsonage basement . This alternative has the advantages
of being energy efficient , requiring no external construction , and
making use of existing and poorly used space . It would also require
shoring the foundation of the parsonage , which should be done at some
point in the future . Disadvantages include high cost , a damp and
relatively dark environment , and potential loss of space if the
parsonage were to burn or to be sold at some future time .
Side addition to chapel . This alternative would provide a large amount
of space and would fit in well with existing traffic patterns within
the chapel . Unfortunately , in order to keep the exterior lines intact ,
this alternative would require essentially a two - story addition and
extensive foundation work . The existing sewer line for the parsonage
and chapel would have to be moved . The cost for this alternative is
thus very high .
Connection of chapel and parsonage . This alternative is attractive in
that it allows passage between the two structures without going
outside . It has the disadvantages that it restricts future use of the
parsonage , and would permit rapid spread of fire between the two
structures . The sewer would have to be moved as in the above
altnerative . The cost would be moderate .
• Addition to back of chapel . An addition to the back of the chapel has
the advantages of low cost and providing adequate space with little
exterior alteration of the chapel architecture . A disadvantage is that
there is no practical internal passage between the chapel and the
addition .
Do nothing . In light of the estimated costs of construction , the
availability of space to build , potential sources of financing , and the
critical needs of the chapel , this alternative does not seem warranted .
Summary . Based on the advantages and disadvantages described above ,
the Ad Hoc Space Committee has decided that Alternative 4 ( addition to
the back of the chapel ) is the recommended choice . "
Chairman Aron noted that the plot plan shows the proposed addition
of 12 ' x 30 ' toward the rear of the parcel and 15 ' from the rear lot
line .
Mr . Sisson stated that he had a letter from the neighbor , Jon
Reis , 228 Forest Home Drive , whose property surrounds the Chapel
property on all three sides , the fourth side being Forest Home Drive .
The letter , dated May 15 , 1984 , reads as follows :
" Mr . Thomas V . Wolfe
Pastor , Forest Home Chapel
222 Forest Home Dr .
Ithaca , NY 14850
Dear Tom ,
• Charlie Trautmann has shown me the plans and application to the
Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals for the addition to the back of Forest
Home Chapel . This letter is to indicate that I have no objections to
Zoning Board of Appeals 15 May 16 , 1984
• the project as planned and recommend approval of the zoning variance .
SIf I can be of any further assistance , please contact me at 257 - 0324 . "
Mr . King asked about the topography of the property behind the
existing Chapel . Mr . Sisson described a 451 slope up and then a
flatter area and then another 45 ° upward slope .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak for or against the matter of the Forest Home Chapel Appeal . No
one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 14 p . m .
Mr . King commented that , from his knowledge of this property and
of the topography , they could build right back to the lot line and not
bother anybody because of the cliff . Mr . King stated that he could see
no objection especially when the neighbor does not object .
Mr . Cartee stated that he wanted the Board to know that this is a
non - conforming use and he would like the Board to address the other
deficiencies . Mr . Cartee described the location of the Chapel 12 . 7
feet from the southerly side lot line and 28 feet from the edge of the
road , and , the parsonage 19 feet from the edge of the road . Mr . Cartee
stated that there were several deficiencies and he would like to see
the whole thing cleaned up such that the Methodist Church would not
have to come back .
• Mr . King pointed out that the subject premises are a legal
non - conforming use and asked Mr . Cartee if his issuing of a Certificate
of Occupancy would not achieve what he wanted . Mr . Cartee agreed .
Continuing , Mr . King commented that , supposing the Church burns down
and then the property were to contain a residence , the Board would not
want a house in the same situation .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that , for
the purposes of the present usage of the premises known as the Forest
Home Chapel and Parsonage , located at 222 Forest Home Drive , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 3 - 17 , as a Chapel and Parsonage , and
pursuant to Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , said Board of Appeals authorize and hereby does authorize
the proposed 12 ' x 30 ' addition to the northeasterly end of the Forest
Home Chapel , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Board of Appeals authorize and hereby
does authorize the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
improvements as they now stand .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Zoning Board of Appeals 16 May 16 , 1984
• Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Forest Home Chapel Appeal
duly closed at 8 : 18 p . m .
APPEAL OF WILLIAM S . SELDIN , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO ERECT A FENCE GREATER
THAN 6 FEET IN HEIGHT AT 120 NORTHVIEW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
NO . 6 - 52 - 2 - 1 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 65 , 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 : 19 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Seldin
was present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed
and submitted by William S . Seldin under date of May 7 , 1984 , as
follows :
" . . . Having been denied permission to erect a fence greater than six
feet in height at 120 Northview Rd . . . The applicants have recently
erected an above ground pool that has caused their neighbors at 114
Northview Rd ( 52 - 2 - 9 ) concern for their privacy since the pool is
adjacent to their living space and patio area . To remedy this problem
and satisfy the neighbor ' s concerns , the applicants have agreed to
erect a fence at applicants ' expense that is both suitable and
compatible with the wishes of their neighbors . "
Mr . Seldin appeared before the Board and showed the members two
photographs which were taken from Mr . Millar ' s back yard . Mr . Seldin
stated that he did not , nor did either of them , realize the extent to
which the pool would be seen from the Millars ' yard . Mr . Seldin stated
that they both said , " Let ' s get it up and see . " Mr . Seldin stated that
he did visit with Mr . Millar . Noting again that he visited with Mr .
Millar , Mr . Seldin stated that they agreed about the fence . Mr . Seldin
stated that he was really doing this because he wanted to satisfy his
neighbor ' s concerns , adding that he thought they were legitimate . Mr .
Seldin stated that they both agreed that this was the best way to
handle the situation . Mr . Seldin stated that they got together last
week and he asked Mr . Millar how high and how long the fence would best
be in relationship to certain bushes in place . In terms of length , Mr .
Seldin stated about 60 ' would do the job and , in terms of height , he
would like to play safe and ask for 12 feet , adding that they may not
have that height but it would be built for Mr . Millar to be happy . Mr .
Seldin stated that the pool is for their children and for himself . Mr .
Seldin described a severe herniated disc problem which he has and
stated that swimming has been prescribed by his doctor . Mr . Seldin
stated that this is something that has been gone over all the way
through to the product and an arrangement for which he would like the
blessing of the Board of Appeals .
Mr . King wondered about the other neighbors . Mr . Seldin stated
that nobody else is affected and proceeded to describe his property as
it is located on the loop of Northview Road . Mr . Seldin stated that
• Mrs . Christie [ 126 Northview Road ) said she hoped Mr . Seldin had fun
swimming and was not concerned about the fence or the pool .
Zoning Board of Appeals 17 May 16 , 1984
• Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to the matter of the Seldin Appeal . No one spoke .
Mr . Cartee stated that he discussed the matter with the neighbor ,
Mr . Millar who abuts the property on the southeast , and he indicated
that he had discussed the situation with Mr . Seldin and was in
agreement that the fence was the best solution . Mr . Cartee stated that
Mr . Millar had indicated a fence height of 8 ' to 10 ' and that he
[ Cartee ] had suggested that Mr . Millar state a specific height
preference , however , he did not . Mr . Cartee stated that he suggested
the 12 - foot height to Mr . Seldin , adding that he would recommend to the
Board that it grant this fence greater than 6 ' but no greater than 12 ' .
Mr . King commented that , personally , he thought what the Board
ought to do is adjourn for a month , at a specified time and date so no
hearing notice has to be published , so that Mr . Seldin can have an
exact proposal . Mr . Seldin stated that the proposal is for a fence 12 '
high and 60 ' in length . Mr . King noted that the actual height the
fence might end up at is unknown . Mr . Seldin stated that , as he
testified , the fence does not affect anyone else ; cannot be seen from
the roadway ; is something Mr . Millar wants , and he [ Seldin ] is trying
to accommodate his concerns . Mr . Seldin stated that if the matter is
adjourned for a month , then it will be a month until he can do what has
to be done for Mr . Millar . Mr . King commented to Mr . Seldin that the
pool is there and he is sure to use it . Mr . Seldin agreed . Mr . King
• commented further that he took it that the Building Inspector has no
concern . Mr . Cartee responded that as long as the Board limits the
height and length he had no concern , adding that he would recommend 12 '
x 60 ' .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant
and hereby does an area variance from the requirements of Article XIII ,
Section 65 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the
erection of a fence no higher than twelve feet ( 121 ) and no longer than
sixty feet ( 601 ) and to be located between a hedge and trees , as
proposed and presented by William S . Seldin , Appellant , with respect to
120 Northview Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 52 - 2 - 1 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the
Seldin Appeal duly closed at 8 : 39 p . m .
APPEAL OF ITD GROUP , INC . , APPELLANT , KEVIN E . LEWIS , ARCHITECT , AS
• AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT UPON THE LANDS OF LAKE SHORE WEST OF A 120 -BED
NURSING HOME FACILITY ; DENYING PERMISSION FOR 1 PARKING SPACE PER UNIT
Zoning Board of Appeals 18 May 16 , 1984
• RATHER THAN 1 . 3 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT ON THE MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
DISTRICT PORTION OF SAID LANDS OF LAKE SHORE WEST ( APPROXIMATELY 27 . 27
ACRES ) PROPOSED TO CONTAIN 400 LIFE - USE UNITS , AND DENYING PERMISSION
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAID 400 LIFE - USE UNITS ON SAID MULTIPLE
RESIDENCE DISTRICT PORTION OF SAID LANDS OF LAKE SHORE WEST
( APPROXIMATELY 27 . 27 ACRES ) IN A STRUCTURE , THE HEIGHT OF WHICH EXCEEDS
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE , IT
BEING THAT THE PROPOSED HEIGHT BE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT THE NEW ROOF
HEIGHTS EXTEND NO HIGHER THAN THE ESTABLISHED RIDGE LINE PROFILE OF THE
EXISTING MAIN BUILDINGS AT THE ENTRANCE ROAD GRADE , OR EXTEND HIGHER
THAN THE HORIZONTAL RIDGE LINE OF THE EXISTING WINGS TO BE ATTACHED TO ,
EXCLUSIVE OF THE TOWER . LAKE SHORE WEST IS TO BE LOCATED IN THE 1200
BLOCK OF TRUMANSBURG ROAD , FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BIGGS MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL COMPLEX , A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO .
6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 ,
PARAGRAPH 11 , ARTICLE VI , SECTION 28 , PARAGRAPH 5 , AND ARTICLE VI ,
SECTION 29 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Lewis ,
Mr . Knowlton , and Ms . Alexander were present . Chairman Aron read aloud
from the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of April 17 , 1984 , page
26 , as follows :
• " . . . IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and
hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals :
A . That Special Approval , pursuant to the requirements of Article V ,
Section 18 , paragraph 11 , Residence Districts R30 , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and subject to final site plan approval
of the Planning Board , be granted to permit the construction of a
nursing home facility on The Lands of Lake Shore West which are
comprised of approximately 50 acres ( a portion of Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 ) , more particularly shown on Map , as
adapted from Base Map prepared by Tompkins County Department of
Planning , entitled " Lake Shore West Centralized Complex " , dated
February 25 , 1984 , revised March 1 , 1984 and March 8 , 1984 ,
prepared by Fleck & Lewis Architects , Hanover , N . H . Fred Thomas
Associates , PC Ithaca , N . Y . , specifically on an area designated as
" 4 " thereon , shown to contain approximately 8 . 48 acres , with such
facility having no more than 120 beds , the footprint thereof shown
on said area " 4 " , on " Parcel 5B " , on said Map to be approximately
20 , 000 square feet in size .
B . That the parking requirements set forth in Article VI , Section 29 ,
Multiple Residence Districts , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance be varied , with respect to the Multiple Residence
District portion of The Lands of Lake Shore West ( approximately
27 . 27 acres ) , from 1 . 3 parking spaces per dwelling unit to one
parking space per dwelling unit .
• Co That the height requirements set forth in Article VI , Section 28 ,
paragraph 5 , Multiple Residence Districts , of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals 19 May 16 , 1984
• Zoning Ordinance be varied , with respect to the Multiple Residence
District portion of The Lands of Lake Shore West ( approximately
27 . 27 acres ) , to permit the construction of the 400 life - use units
in a structure , the new roof heights of which may not extend
higher than the established ridge line profile of the existing
main buildings at the entrance road grade , or extend higher than
the horizontal ridge line of the existing wings to be attached to ,
exclusive of the tower . "
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak for or against the matter of the ITD Group Appeal ,
Mr . Robert H . Schwarting , 112 Park Lane , spoke from the floor and
stated that , as a private resident , he thought everyone should be
commended for getting the Biggs Complex back into the private sector ,
adding that he was particularly thinking of the Town Planning Board and
the Town planners .
Mr . King asked if anyone knew what a " footprint " was . Mr . Stewart
D . Knowlton indicated on the drawings before the Board and on the
bulletin board the various " footprints " of buildings proposed for the
proposed Lake Shore West development , stated that a footprint shows
where a building is desired and what size it is proposed to be , adding
that a " footprint " is merely an indication of a point showing
geographically where it would go .
• Mr . Knowlton noted that each of the Board members had received a
copy of the grey - covered Lake Shore West booklet and a copy of the
entirety of the Planning Board Minutes . Mr . Knowlton described for the
Board and those present the " Old Biggs Complex " . Utilizing several
drawings , Mr . Knowlton described the height of the existing buildings
which are two - storied and further described how they increase in story
number as one goes back into the property . Mr . Kevin E . Lewis ,
Architect , pointed out that the existing line will be maintained ,
excluding the Tower , with the same height being maintained . Mr .
Knowlton noted that permission is needed to match the existing building
height for Phase 1 , 150 life use units in the existing structure ,
commenting that Phases 2 and 3 are additions , 250 units .
Mr . King inquired about the request with respect to parking . Mr .
Knowlton stated that 400 parking spaces will be provided for the
future , i . e . , one parking space per unit . Mr . Lewis stated that , right
now , there are more than 1 . 3 parking spaces as the ordinance requires ,
however , the variance is for the future when there would be 1 parking
space per unit . Mr . Knowlton explained the usual parking requirements
in facilities of this kind and noted that older people just do not have
cars . Mr . Lewis commented that one space per unit also makes the
planning design process easier .
Chairman Aron asked when it was intended for the project to start
construction . Mr . Lewis responded that they plan to commence
• construction in the Fall of this year , pointing out that Phase 1 is the
renovation of the existing structure . Chairman Aron noted that the
renovations would maintain the same roof line as the existing
1
Zoning Board of Appeals 20 May 16 , 1984
• structure ; Mr . Lewis agreed . Mr . King asked if , when the 400 units
have been completed , the parking area will have been expanded . Mr .
Lewis stated that that would be the case . Mr . King stated that he
would like to comment that he was sure the Board members will remember
the Lakeside Nursing Home problem of people looking out at acres of
cars . Mr . Lewis stated that most of the parking is in place now ,
adding that the new parking will be mostly for employees .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen .
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant
and hereby does grant an area variance , with respect to the Multiple
Residence District portion of The Lands of Lake Shore West
( approximately 27 . 27 acres ) , from the height requirements set forth in
Article VI , Section 28 , paragraph 5 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , to permit the construction , in accordance with the plans as
presented , of the 400 life - use units in a structure , the new roof
heights of which may not extend higher than the established ridge line
profile of the existing main buildings at the entrance road grade , or
extend higher than the horizontal ridge line of the existing wings to
be attached to , exclusive of the tower , on the understanding that any
additional parking lot areas will be on the easterly side of the
building , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant an area variance , with respect to the
• Multiple Residence District portion of The Lands of Lake Shore West
( approximately 27 . 27 acres ) , from the parking requirements set forth in
Article VI , Section 29 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to
permit one ( 1 ) parking space per dwelling unit for the 400 life - use
units , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant the Special Approval necessary to permit
the construction of the Nursing Home Facility as proposed here and as
more particularly indicated and described in the Planning Board
Resolution of April 17 , 1984 , Subdivision A thereof , recommending such
grant of Special Approval .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the
ITD Group , Inc . Appeal duly closed at 9 : 01 p . m .
Mr . Knowlton thanked the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
for their kind cooperation and extended the same thanks to the Planning
• Board and the Town Board .
Zoning Board of Appeals 21 May 16 , 1984
• APPEAL OF EASTERN HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES , APPELLANT , MARK GOLDFARB , AS
AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION
FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO -FAMILY DWELLING BY MORE THAN THREE ( 3 )
UNRELATED PERSONS AT 202 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE ( SOMETIMES REFERRED TO
AS 104 SHARLENE ROAD ) , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 108 .
PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2a ,
SUB -PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 02 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Goldfarb was present . Chairman Aron read from the Appeal Form as
signed and submitted by Mark Goldfarb , Managing Agent , under date of
May 7 , 1984 , as follows :
" . . . Having been denied permission to continue renting the two
apartments in a manner to have the two family home occupied by more
than three persons at 202 Eastern Heights Drive ( 104 Sharlene
Road ) . . . Lower Unit Lease ends 8 - 31 - 84 ( 3 un - related ) . Re - rental will
be to a family only . We would like to continue this rental until our
present obligation expires ( 8 - 31 - 84 ) . J Upper Unit lease ends 8 - 31 - 84
and is presently occupied by 3 un - related persons . The tenants have
lived there for several years and would like to stay for one more year .
They are good tenants and are responsible adults . We ask that they be
allowed to stay another year . After that time we will re - rent the unit
so that the house complies with Town Ordinaces . This will both
• alleviate part of the hardship on the resident in finding a new place
to live on short notice and part of our own hardship in the number of
new rentals to do in one year . We would be in substantial compliance
at the end of this summer and in full compliance next summer . "
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Goldfarb if he wished to add anything to
his Appeal . Mr . Goldfarb stated that he did , stating further that
there has been a very recent change in plans on the part of the tenants
and he would like to change what he was asking for on this particular
house . Mr . Goldfarb noted that both leases end at the end of August ,
1984 , and stated that he would like to continue these two leases until
the end of August at which time re -rental will be in a way that
complies with the zoning ordinance as it stands .
Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Goldfarb was present representing
Eastern Heights Associates and asked who the owners are . Mr . Goldfarb
stated that there were several owners , adding that they are
professional people . Mr . Goldfarb stated that he manages property and
has done so for about 11 years . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Goldfarb if he
had ever had any knowledge of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance or
had he ever been told of the violations . Mr . Goldfarb stated that
approximately four or five years ago they were in contact with the Town
about this problem and at that time the previous owner turned the
matter over to his attorney . Mr . Goldfarb stated that he was not sure
exactly what he did , but on his advice they continued to rent as they
• were . Mr . Goldfarb commented that it was something about a change in
the zoning ordinance which would allow one more person , that is , from
three to four . Chairman Aron stated that the Board operates by the
t
{ Zoning Board of Appeals 22 May 16 , 1984
• zoning ordinance as it exists , commenting further , that even though Mr .
Goldfarb has been working with these properties for so long and is
familiar with the zoning ordinance , he kept on leasing to more people
than he was allowed to . Mr . Goldfarb replied that at this point , since
he felt the zoning ordinance was about to be passed , he kept on .
Mr . King stated that he wondered what Mr . Cartee could tell the
Board about this particular house . Mr . Cartee stated that , if the
members would look at the Agenda , they will see four items which are
identical , adding that he has been working on them since 1979 . Mr .
Cartee stated that there have been a lot of problems associated with
these houses and he felt that the management of them had been
unprofessional . Mr . Cartee stated that there have been external
problems as well as internal over the years , but finally , upon push of
the Eastern Heights Civic Association , we have gotten this far . Mr .
Cartee commented that his office has worked up the street and are now
at the intersection of Eastern Heights Drive and Sharlene Road , adding
that , yes , there are problems here . Mr . Cartee stated that the
problems are not totally Mr . Goldfarb ' s fault nor is it particularly
the Town ' s fault ; it has been difficult getting decisions on these
matters so that when we get here we can get something done .
Mr . Robert H . Schwarting , 112 Park Lane , spoke from the floor and
stated that he was present for these matters representing the Eastern
Heights Homeowners ' Association as its Co - Chairman . Mr . Schwarting
stated that it has been through his official capacity , working with Mr .
• Cartee , that he has been urging that steps be taken to comply with the
zoning ordinance . Mr . Schwarting stated that they are particularly
pleased to be in front of the Board tonight . Mr . Schwarting stated
that he has with him , as spokesperson for those who could not be here
tonight , a Petition , with respect to 202 , 204 , 206 Eastern Heights
Drive and 225 Snyder Hill Road , bearing 60 ± signatures of homeowners
and residents . Mr . Schwarting read the Petition , as follows :
" PETITION BY EASTERN HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
12 May 1984
Whereas : Eastern Heights is a subdivision of one and two family
occupied homes ; is zoned R- 15 by the Town of Ithaca , and is mostly
single family owner occupied .
Whereas : Covenants and ordinances exist which protect the
neighborhood ' s harmonious appearance , peaceful use of property and
economic value .
Whereas : Properties used at occupancy levels or for uses not
consistent with original construction , covenant and public ordinance
have tended to create significant neighborhood problems ( street
parking , unsecured garbage , and excessive noise ) .
Whereas : The residents of the Eastern Heights Homeowners Association
have long supported the existing covenants and ordinances .
Whereas : Deviations from existing covenant will generate significant
negative social and economic impacts on adjacent owners and general
• negative economic impacts on all owners in the subdivision named
Eastern Heights .
' Zoning Board of Appeals 23 May 16 , 1984
• Whereas : The properties located at 202 , 204 , 206 Eastern Heights Road
[ sic . ] and 225 Snyder Hill Road have been and were originally described
as owner occupied duplexes , where an accountable homeowner would be
residing within our community .
We , the undersigned are unalterably opposed to granting any zoning
variance or continuance to unconforming properties within Eastern
Heights , particularly on the issue of excessive occupancy . "
[ For the record , the Petition was signed by 56 persons residing in
both the Eastern Heights Subdivision and the Haven Hills Subdivision ,
adjacent . ]
Mr . Schwarting stated that the residents of the area urge the
Board not to grant a continuance or a variance on these properties .
Mr . Schwarting stated that they cite disharmony , excessive garbage ,
pets , etc . Mr . Schwarting stated that they have been to the Town Board
for relief from indiscriminate parking on these streets . Mr .
Schwarting commented that the Board of Appeals ' members have heard all
of these things countless times . Mr . Schwarting stated that the
residents encourage , as strongly as is possible , that the Board take
whatever steps it can tonight .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak .
Mr . Robert A . Milligan , 119 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the
floor and stated that , with regard to these three houses on Eastern
• Heights Drive , Eastern Heights Drive is the School Bus route and
additional unrelated persons means additional cars creating problems
for the bussing .
Mr . Robert Kohut , 214 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the floor ,
stated that he lived right behind 225 Snyder Hill Road , described noise
and disruption , and there being six to eight cars in front of that
house . Mr . Kohut stated that he has been in the neighborhood for four
years and that kind of thing was going on before them .
Mrs . Pam Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor , stated
that she can see the front of 225 Snyder Hill Road , and described seven
or eight cars which fill up the driveway or the lawn there and then
they park in front of her house . Mrs . Rosenberg stated further that
the cars have blocked access to the water tower .
Mr . Schwarting stated that the applicants ' citing of economic
hardship is repugnant to the Homeowners ' Association , adding that other
owners have rented their property , during sabbatic leave for example ,
in compliance with the zoning ordinance . Mr . Schwarting noted that
there was a count of 13 Eastern Heights people present .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak .
No one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 17 p . m .
• With respect to the leases attached to the Appeal Form for 104
Sharlene Road ( 202 Eastern Heights Drive ) , both expiring August 31 ,
1984 , Mr . King stated that it appears there is one person , Ted Soo - Hoo ,
Zoning Board of Appeals 24 May 16 , 1984
• in the upper apartment . Mr . Goldfarb stated that Mr . Soo - Hoo has one
more person , unrelated , as a roommate , commenting that he was not
trying to get away with that change to the end of August and after that
the apartments , either vacant or rented , will be in compliance . Mr .
King noted that in the upper apartment there are only two persons . Mr .
Goldfarb responded that he was quite sure there are only two . Mr . King
noted that the lower apartment lease indicates three persons . Mr .
Goldfarb responded that that was correct . Mr . King asked how many of
these five people have automobiles . Mr . Goldfarb replied that possibly
all five do . Mr . King wondered about five cars all parking on the same
lot and asked if there were parking on the lot , commenting that there
would have to be some shuffling of cars . Mr . Goldfarb stated that
parking is a problem and steps have been taken to enforce the parking
regulations wherever there are such regulations . Mr . Goldfarb stated
that they have told the tenants about this . Mr . Goldfarb stated that
they will widen the driveway . Mr . King asked if any of those tenants
were here tonight . There were none present .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she did not think the Board should give
any continuance . Chairman Aron stated that he agreed , adding that this
has been going on for many years and Mr . Goldfarb has known about this .
Chairman Aron stated that he felt strongly that the time should not be
extended and he also felt that permission to rent any further after
this date should be denied . Mr . King commented that the Board still
has to consider the tenants . Mr . Cartee commented also that the
tenants cannot just be kicked out .
Mr . Goldfarb asked if he might point out as a practical matter ,
they have a legal and contractual obligation to the tenants which he
has asked for . Mr . Goldfarb stated that the other thing , as a
practical matter , given the time of year and the nature of the tenancy ,
some of the people , two out of the five , will leave which he believed
they will do . Mr . Goldfarb stated that , also , he will extend the
option to the tenants to rent as of July 1st , adding that August 31st
is the farthest date from this time . Mr . King wondered if this might
be a condition to release these tenants from any further obligation at
this point , adding , if Mr . Goldfarb can do so . Mr . Goldfarb stated
that that would certainly be acceptable as long as the understanding is
on the release from obligation that it is for the whole apartment , not
just one , adding that he is saying the whole apartment will go back to
re - rental .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny and
hereby does deny the request for variance with respect to the property
known as 202 Eastern Heights Drive or 104 Sharlene Road , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 108 , and require and hereby does require the
landlord to bring the property into compliance with the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance no later than the 1st of August , 1984 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
f
Zoning Board of Appeals 25 May 16 , 1984
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Eastern Heights
Associates Appeal with respect to 202 Eastern Heights Drive duly closed
at 9 : 25 p . m .
APPEAL OF EASTERN HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES , APPELLANT , MARK GOLDFARB , AS
AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION
FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING BY MORE THAN THREE ( 3 )
UNRELATED PERSONS AT 204 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 107 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV ,
SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2a , SUB - PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 26 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman
Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Mark
Goldfarb , Managing Agent , under date of May 7 , 1984 , as follows :
" . . . Having been denied permission to continue renting the two units in
a manner as they are presently rented with regards [ sic_ . ] to number of
occupants at 204 Eastern Heights Drive . . . See attached leases . Lower
• lease end 7 - 31 - 84 ; upper ends 8 - 31 - 84 . Both tenants want to renew
their leases . Lower tenants have only been in residence one year . We
will deny them renewal and re - rent to a family . Upper tenants have
lived in house for 4 years and do not wish to move , they are an asset
to the neighborhood . We would like for these men to be able to stay
for another year rather than forcing them to move at this time . This
will minimize hardship on them greatly and will help us to absorb this
change in rental policy over the course of a year rather than abruptly .
The financial impact will be slightly easier to overcome in this manner
and will bring the house into substantial compliance in a matter of
months and full compliance next summer . "
Mr . King asked how many people are in actual occupancy of this
building . Mr . Goldfarb stated that there are three unrelated men in
one apartment and two couples in the other , adding that they are
unrelated .
Mr . Gary J . Dolce , 204 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the floor
and stated that he is one of the tenants in the house under discussion .
Mr . Dolce stated that he is employed full - time as a research technician
at the Boyce Thompson Institute at Cornell University . Mr . Dolce
stated that he and his two roommates moved into the upstairs apartment
at 204 Eastern Heights Drive in August of 1980 - almost four years ago .
Mr . Dolce stated that since moving in they have gotten along very well
with their neighbors and they have received no complaints from them .
Mr . Dolce stated that they are quiet , have no pets , they park in their
• driveway overnight , shovel their snow , and keep the outside of their
house free of litter . Mr . Dolce stated that they are also aware of
children , adding that they are responsible adults . Mr . Dolce stated
` Zoning Board of Appeals 26 May 16 , 1984
• that after almost four years in this apartment with three renewals of
their lease , they were only very recently informed that they would not
be allowed to renew their lease because of a Town Zoning Ordinance that
they did not know existed and has obviously not been enforced for at
least four years . Mr . Dolce stated that this apparently arbitrary and
sudden enforcement of this ordinance after four years in residence
creates an unnecessary and unfair hardship and burden on them . Mr .
Dolce stated that forcing them to move does nothing to improve the
quality of life in the neighborhood , adding that they like the
neighborhood and they do not cause problems . Mr . Dolce stated that ,
under the circumstances , it does not benefit anyone to force them to
move and it creates severe hardship on them , especially at this late
date in the spring . Mr . Dolce stated that they are not at fault here ,
yet they are the ones who must bear the greatest burden . Mr . Dolce
stated that he would appeal to the Board to allow them to renew their
lease for one more year by granting a variance . Mr . Dolce thanked the
Board for hearing him .
Mr . Schwarting stated that he would like to raise the point that
it is of little concern to the Homeowners ' Association about how the
landlord proposes to bring his property into comp ]_ iance . Mr .
Schwarting stated that they do not want to hurt the tenants , adding
that they hope the landlord would take care of his tenants . Mr .
Schwarting stated that these three young men could live there in the
whole house . Mr . Schwarting stated that the concern before all of us
• is that the property be brought into compliance .
Mrs . Beverly Livesay , 147 Snyder Hill Road , spoke from the floor
and stated to Mr . Dolce that this is something that has gone on for a
good many years and recalled that way back when the problem began
creeping into the Town of Ithaca as to rooming houses the ordinance was
made more restrictive . Mrs . Livesay stated that even writing
performance standards into the ordinance was tried . Mrs . Livesay
stated that it is a difficult situation for three young men such as
these who are careful or for landlords who take care of their property ,
but the only way apparently to deal with it is by occupancy . Mrs .
Livesay stated that occupancy regulation seems to be the only way .
Mrs . Livesay stated that they all feel badly about this kind of
situation .
Mr . King commented that it has been difficult not only coming up
with an arrangement but also in getting it passed by the Town Board ,
Mr . Dolce stated that he was not taking issue with the zoning
ordinance , he was talking about their hardship . Mr . Dolce stated that
they allhave plans to move in the Fall of 1985 and all they ask is one
more year in this place . Chairman Aron stated that he recognizes the
hardship on them and he feels sorry for them , but that is all he can
tell them at this point .
Mr . Schwarting stated that the Homeowners ' Association members
have approached various tenants and , he believed , those tenants were
there . Mr . Schwarting stated that the members have gone around and
discussed with tenants and other owners the occupancy requirements of
Zoning Board of Appeals 27 May 16 , 1984
• the Town . Mr . Schwarting stated that they have been remiss in not
notifying everyone individually . Mr . Schwarting commented that Mr .
Cartee ' s presence has been felt since he became the Town Building
Inspector and action has taken place with regard to occupancy
enforcement .
Mr . Mario Giannella , 6 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor and stated
that he formerly lived in Eastern Heights . Mr . Giannella commented
that the excuse was given for over - occupancy that in the near future
four persons would be permitted , however , he would point out that in
this house there is a flagrant violation of the occupancy requirement
with seven unrelated persons living there and the landlord has unduly
benefitted for a number of years .
Mr . Ian S . Roth , 206 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the floor
and stated that he lives in the house next on the Agenda . Mr . Roth
stated that he would respectfully request that if the Board should
decide to move out the tenants it would be much more convenient to make
the date of removal August 31st . Mr . Roth stated that the way the
houses are rented is usually to August 31st and if the Board requires
July 31st , the tenants may have to move twice .
Mr . Austen stated that he did not see any real difference between
this Appeal and the previous Appeal except that it is a more flagrant
violation . Mr . King stated that he was still of the opinion that the
• tenant not be unduly punished .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny and
hereby does deny the request for variance with respect to the property
known as 204 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 107 , and require and hereby does require the landlord to bring
the entire property into compliance with the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance by the 31st day of August , 1984 .
By way of discussion , Mr . King noted that by this Resolution no
one would be forced out . Mrs . Reuning stated that she felt it was
important for those present to know the history of this Appeal and to
know that over the years no variance has ever been given but in other
cases if variance were ever granted it was for very good reason .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Eastern Heights
Associates Appeal with respect to 204 Eastern Heights Drive duly closed
• at 9 : 45 p . m .
• ZoningBoard of
Appeals 28 May 16 , 1984
• APPEAL OF EASTERN HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES , APPELLANT , MARK GOLDFARB , AS
AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION
FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING BY MORE THAN THREE ( 3 )
UNRELATED PERSONS AT 206 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 106 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV ,
SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2a , SUB -PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 46 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman
Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Mark
Goldfarb , Managing Agent , under date of May 7 , 1984 , as follows .
" . . . Having been denied permission to continue present rental situation
at 206 Eastern Heights Drive . . . ( see attached leases ) Upper ends
8 - 31 - 84 ; lower ends 8 - 31 - 84 . We propose that the upper unit be
re - rented to a family when it is vacated this summer . The tenants in
the lower unit have been in residence for at least five years . We ask
that the Town of Ithaca does not force them to leave their home on just
a few months notice . When they do leave , we will re - rent the house in
a manner that complies with Town Ordinances . If the Town feels more
comfortable , we can impose a time limit on their stay . Their continued
residence will mean that there is only one more person .in the house
than is allowed by the ordinance . "
• Mr . Ian S . Roth , tenant at 206 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke again
from the floor and requested that the Board please require compliance
by August 31st .
An unidentified lady spoke from the floor and stated that there
are five cars parked at this property all over the place .
Chairman Aron , speaking to Mr . Goldfarb , stated that , since he has
been working on these premises for over ten years , he wondered if he
sometimes checked up on what was going on - - check and make reports to
the owner and see what was going on , or go to the neighbors , or talk to
the tenants . Mr . Goldfarb stated that he would in the future , adding
that if the Eastern Heights Civic Association would like to talk to him
about things they are unhappy with , or happy with , whether or not there
are any violations of law that would be fine too . Mr . Goldfarb stated
that they tried to be good neighbors over the years , adding that in the
past year he has not heard from anyone .
Mrs . Rosenberg wondered if this were not also another case
involving another year of leasing in violation , and asked if there were
not already a lease for people who are planning to move in in
September . Chairman Aron stated that there was nothing before the
Board as to Mrs . Rosenberg ' s question .
Mr . Claude Robb , 221 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the floor
• and stated that , about the neighbors getting together , a lot of them
have been in this room fighting Mr . Goldfarb and he wondered why .
Zoning Board of Appeals 29 May 16 , 1984
4
• Mr . King pointed out that a condition of the subject leases is for
parking only in driveways and parking areas . Mr . King wondered if that
were a condition of all of the leases . Mr . Goldfarb stated that that
condition was in all of the leases . Mr . King asked Mr . Goldfarb if he
were aware of this condition , with Mr . Goldfarb responding , yes . Mr .
King asked Mr . Goldfarb if he enforced this condition . Mr . Goldfarb
stated that , when the parking issue came up , he gave them permission to
park on the lawn which he did not wish to do .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , - seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny and
hereby does deny the request for variance with respect to the property
known as 206 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 107 , and require and hereby does require the landlord to bring
the entire property into compliance with the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance by the 31st day of August , 1984 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
• Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the
Appeal of Eastern Heights Associates with respect to property at 206
Eastern Heights Drive duly closed at 9 : 56 p . m .
APPEAL OF EASTERN HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES , APPELLANT , MARK GOLDFARB , AS
AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION
FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO -FAMILY DWELLING BY MORE THAN THREE ( 3 )
UNRELATED PERSONS AT 225 SNYDER HILL ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 68 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 ,
PARAGRAPH 2a , SUB - PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 57 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman
Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Mark
Goldfarb , Managing Agent , under date of May 71 1984 , as follows :
" . . . Having been denied permission to continue renting apartments in the
current manner in the house at 225 Snyder Hill Road . . . This house was
built and occupied prior to May 1970 . It has been continually occupied
in the current fashion since its construction . Therefore , we feel that
it is exempt from this ordinance . "
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Goldfarb what he meant by saying the house
has been continually occupied , etc . " Mr . Goldfarb stated that he
spoke to the previous owner who was the owner before he started
• managing them .
Zoning Board of Appeals 30 May 16 , 1984
Chairman Aron stated that the Board had received no copies of
leases and asked what happened . Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . Goldfarb
did not bring them down . Mr . Goldfarb stated that the leases end
August 31 , 1984 . Chairman Aron asked how many people were in the
house . Mr . Goldfarb stated that there was a total of six in the house ,
commented that he saw some disbelief , and added that he did not know if
there were more , however , he rented to six people . Mr . Goldfarb stated
that he thought that is all that are there . Chairman Aron asked Mr .
Goldfarb if he had not checked up .
Mr . Cartee commented that he would like to add something , and
stated that he thought Mr . Goldfarb has gotten some misinformation
somewhere . Mr . Cartee stated that the records show that this house was
built and the building permit issued after May of 1970 , the date of the
amendments to the zoning ordinance relative to occupancy . Mr . Cartee
stated that he had evidence of this being the case upstairs in his
office . Mr . Cartee stated that he had asked Mr . Goldfarb to bring in
the lease or leases for this property . Mr . Cartee further stated that
the problem at 227 Snyder Hill Road is the same . Mr . Cartee concluded
stating that Mr . Goldfarb has to show evidence that the house was built
prior to the 1970 amendment .
Mr . King asked if the house in question , 225 Snyder Hill Road , was
a single family dwelling . Mr . Cartee stated that it was not ; 225
Snyder Hill Road is a two - family dwelling .
• Mr . Robert Schwarting spoke from the floor and stated that there
are covenants in place with respect to houses in Eastern Heights that
set the occupancy even if such is not established by the ordinance .
Mr . Schwarting stated that he could inform the Board of such
properties .
Mr . King stated that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
has no right to enforce covenants , adding that those are private
covenants . Mr . Schwarting stated that he knew that adding , however ;
that the owner knew of them because he was one of the original
covenanting owners .
Mr . Patrick R . Hughes , 220 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the
floor and stated that 225 Snyder Hill Road was before this Board before
and the owner was told to get the property into compliance then . Mr .
Hughes stated that the point is that they were told to come into
compliance and they did it again .
Mrs . Judith Hughes , 220 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the
floor , stated that it had been suggested that the neighbors talk to Mr .
Golfarb , commented that she personally rejected that but they would
like to talk to the owners , and asked how they could find out who
Eastern Heights Associates are .
Mr . Larry Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor and
• stated that 225 Snyder Hill Road does have seven cars regularly in the
driveway , adding that one can see them any time . Mr . Rosenberg stated
that he has seen these cars there himself because occasionally he runs
' Zoning Board of Appeals 31 May 16 , 1984
• in the area . Mr . King asked Mr . Rosenberg if the cars are all moved in
and out or are some permanent . Mr . Rosenberg indicated that he did not
know and stated that the property next door , 227 , is not occupied now
but is also the same . Mr . Cartee stated that 227 Snyder Hill Road is
not in violation .
There being no further questions , Chairman Aron closed the Public
Hearing at 10 : 05 p . m .
Mr . Austen suggested turning the matter over to the Town Attorney .
Mrs . Reuning stated that , in any recommendations by the Board , the
Board should state that it will be referred to the Town Attorney ,
adding that this should be very strong .
MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny and
hereby does deny the request with respect to the property known as 225
Snyder Hill Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 68 , and
require and hereby does require the landlord to bring the entire
property into compliance with the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by
the 31st day of August , 1984 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
• Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Appeal of Eastern Heights
Associates with respect to the property at 225 Snyder Hill Road duly
closed at 10 : 08 p . m .
GENERAL RESOLUTION
MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that a
letter be sent by the Building Inspector to Eastern Heights Associates
stating the Board ' s concerns on this matter of occupancy . and further
stating that if these properties come to the Board ' s attention again
they will be turned over to the Town Attorney for legal action .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
• FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO EASTERN HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES ' PROPERTY
AT 202 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE .
i" Zoning Board of Appeals 32 May 16 , 1984
• Mr . Ian Roth , 206 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the floor and
urged the Board to consider amending their Resolution , with respect to
the premises at 202 Eastern Heights Drive , to require compliance by
August 31st rather than July 31st ,
Mr . King , who had moved the Resolution with respect to 202 Eastern
Heights Drive , stated that he would accept an AMENDMENT to that Motion
such that the date of compliance be the 31st day of August , 1984 , and
further , that he would so MOVE . The MOTION was seconded by Mr . Edward
Austen . The AMENDED MOTION is as follows :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny and
hereby does deny the request for variance with respect to the property
known as 202 Eastern Heights Drive or 104 Sharlene Road , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 108 , and require and hereby does require the
landlord to bring the property into compliance with the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance by the 31st day of August , 1984 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
STATEMENT BY MR . ROBERT SCHWARTING
i
Mr . Schwarting stated that the members of the Eastern Heights
Homeowners Association appreciate the Board ' s attention to these
matters , however , he would like to say that they get tax bills which
pay little attention to the hardship to them . Mr . Schwarting stated
that the Association would ask the Board to be equally as hard on the
landlords as it is compassionate to the tenants . Mr . Schwarting stated
that it is a slap in the face to permit these occupancies until the end
of August and gives the landlords further economic income . Mr .
Schwarting stated that the Association has talked to Ms . Norton , to Mr .
Cartee , and to the tenants . Mr . Schwarting stated again that they have
talked to the owner and to the tenants as well as to Mr . Cartee for
years , adding that if someone did sue his landlord for falsely
representing the occupancy requirements it might go far toward changing
this situation .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the May 16 , 1984 meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 10 : 15 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
Henry Aro , hairman