Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1985-03-20 r, • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 20 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , March 20 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Vice Chairman Jack D . Hewett , Joan G . Reuning ,, Edward N . Austen , Edward W . King , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Howard Fuller , Kenneth Ash , Isabella Spencer , Betty Turco , Adolph Turco , John L . Camilli , Clara Camilli , Raymond Delli - Carpini , Ruth Dewire , Edith Cassel , Brad Hull , Lawrence Hull , Dirk Galbraith , Esq . , Paul Gries , Heinz P . Riederer , Anna H . Riederer , John R . Stevenson , Debbie Stevenson , Velma Jackson , Daniel J . Aneshansley , Constance E . Cook , Edward A . Mazza , Esq . , James Iacovelli , Robert A . Boehlecke Jr . , Lawrence Hoffman , Bonnie Howell , Scott Perra , S . J . Madden. ( Ithaca Journal ) . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the meeting duly opened at • 7 : 05 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings , for each of the matters before the Board , in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 12 , 1985 and March 15 , 1985 , 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 * , as appropriate , upon each of the owners of such properties and / or agent , if any , upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca , and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , on March 15 , 1985 [ * 4 mailed on March 18 , 1985 ] . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM DECEMBER 12 , 1984 , JANUARY 23 , 1985 , FEBRUARY 27 , 1985 ) OF R . DELLI -CARPINI , J . FAIRCHILD , AND J . SAROKA , APPELLANTS , IN RE THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE ON A DEVELOPED LOT IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP ( PUBLIC PLACE OF ASSEMBLY ) AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 1 . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Adjourned Public .Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 06 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Delli - Carpini was present . Vice Chairman Hewett asked Mr . Delli - Carpini if he had anything which he wished to add to the discussion . Mr . • Delli - Carpini responded that he had nothing to add at this point . Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who r, Zoning Board of Appeals 2 March 20 , 1985 • wished to speak to the matter of the Delli - Carpini et al Appeal . No one spoke . Mr . King noted that discussion of the Environmental Assessment Form , ' as presented by Mr . Delli -Carpini under date of December 4 , 1984 , and as reviewed by Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner , under date of December 13 , 1984 , was the first order of business . Mr . King also noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency in the matter of environmental review and further , that the Board has received from the Planner a recommendation of a negative declaration of environmental significance , in part because of the property involved having 280 feet of frontage on Pine Tree Road and a depth of approximately 250 feet and also because there could be a residence on one parcel and the church or place of worship on the second parcel and both would be permitted uses under the Zoning Ordinance . Mr . King noted that , in the meantime , since that recommendation was made , the Town has enacted a Local Law - - Local Law # 4 - 1985 - - which requires the Zoning Board of Appeals to pass on applications such as this under Section 11 , paragraph 3 , for the siting of a church . Mr . King commented that the Board has to pass on that anyway in accordance with Section 77 of the Ordinance . Mr . King stated that the Board of Appeals does have control of the situation , adding that the Board has to consider a special permit situation and the EAF which has indicated that the impact is rather minimal as far as topo features are concerned . • MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mrs . Joan G . Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , with respect to the matter of the proposed conversion of an existing garage located at 203 Pine Tree Road to a place of worship , make and hereby does make a finding of negative impact upon the environment . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Reuning , Austen , King . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . King stated that he would like to comment a little further . Mr . King stated that , again , the Board has not had very much time since it got papers from the Planning Board to even digest them much less react to them . Mr . King stated that , however , the Planning Board has approved the site plan for this project on two different occasions and has made some recommendations to the Board of Appeals . Mr . King stated that • he , personally , was of the opinion that Section 68 of the Ordinance applies where you have one parcel and two principal uses desired and that would require a separation of the buildings r Zoning Board of Appeals 3 March 20 , 1985 • as though you had enough land to subdivide , in other words , had enough for rear yard set back and side yard setback . Mr . King stated that , as this proposal is viewed , he did not believe it meets these minimum requirements of Section 68 , adding that , of course , he had to make that judgment from the survey of lands as submitted by the applicant and pointing out that it is not an in -place survey of the buildings , so the Board has to guess at the separations , but they would seem to come out within 70 % of the requirements . Mr . King stated that , this being a rather unique situation in which the applicants are projecting no more than 36 - 38 - 40 people , he would think the Board should grant the special permit for the use of this garage as a place of worship under their proposal and taking into consideration all the facts they have submitted in their EAF , with the understanding that it is a special permit and there would be conditions attached and , if the projected size of the operation is going to be larger than what is permitted under the place of assembly code , this special permit should be reviewed and the Board would encourage any further construction to the north on the so - called " vacant lot " . Mr . King stated that he would note , for the record , that there are two parcels here [ 6 - 57 - 1 - 1 and 6 - 57 - 1 - 7 . 121 , but the Board is treating them as one parcel . Mr . King pointed out that parcel 57 - 1 - 1 is the southerly parcel with the house and buildings on it and parcel 57 - 1 - 7 . 12 is the northerly portion . Mr . King stated that , as far as laying out the specific conditions for the grant of the permit , he did not think the Board was ready to do it , but • the Board can have it at the next meeting of this Board and further , he thought it would behoove the Board members to put their heads together and be ready for that meeting . Mrs . Reuning suggested that the Board could issue the special permit at this time . Mr . King commented that he did not think the Board should do that , adding that , frankly , he thought some of the recommendations for conditions were rather picky and went a little too far . Mr . King stated that he thought the Board could more properly attend to the conditions by its next meeting if this did not bother any construction plans of the applicants . Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that at this point it would . Mr . King wondered if Mr . Delli -Carpini were ready to start construction and asked Mr . Cartee if construction plans were before him for permit . Mr . Cartee responded that he had no application for building permit . Mr . Delli - Carpini stated that they had not submitted an application for building permit because they were waiting for the approval which they expected at this meeting . Mr . King offered that an adjournment until the April meeting would not hinder Mr . Delli -Carpini and he could get his plans to the Building Inspector . Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that they could go ahead and file the application for permit and go ahead and start the work which is all inside work . Mr . Delli -Carpini commented that he was hearing the Board saying that they will get the special permit . Mr . Delli -Carpini further commented that it was his understanding that they were changing the use to a place • of worship and he understood that a place of worship does not need a sign permit . Mr . Cartee suggested to Mr . Delli - Carpini that he come into his office tomorrow morning and file an ti Zoning Board of Appeals 4 March 20 , 1985 r, • application for building permit and they can talk about the sign at that time . MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mrs . Joan G . Reuning : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the Adjourned Public Hearing in the Delli -Carpini et al matter be and hereby is further adjourned until Wednesday , April 17 , 1985 at 7 : 00 p . m . , at which time certain conditions with respect to special approval of the Board of Appeals for a place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road will be set down . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Reuning , Austen , King . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the Delli - Carpini et al matter duly adjourned at 7 : 20 . Mr . Delli - Carpini stated that he did not understand what was meant by the discussion of the separation of buildings . Mr . Cartee explained and Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that it was approximately 60 feet from the northeast corner of the house to the southwest corner of the garage . APPEAL OF JOHN W . AND RUTH H . DEWIRE , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ( PORCH ) TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE , LOCATED IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , CREATING A SIDE YARD WITH A DEFICIENCY OF 2 FEET , AT 148 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 58 - 2 - 8 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 21 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . and Mrs . DeWire were present . The Board members each had received a copy of a portion of a survey of the DeWire and Longsdorf properties on Pine Tree Road which showed the porch addition to the DeWire house , together with the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Ruth H . DeWire under date of March 5 , 1985 , reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to erect a porch on the north side of our home . . . Our lot is only 92 ' wide although the deed stated it was 100 ' wide . , In 1949 three properties were surveyed and the correct dimensions • established . ( Attached copy of the survey ) . Our land slopes sharply downward to the west . In addition , we heat with hot water and the radiators are positioned under the windows . Y Zoning Board of Appeals 5 March 20 , 1985 • Therefore , the only practical location for our proposed porch is off the kitchen on the north side of the house . We plan an addition 12 ' square which would bring it 13 ' from the lot line and thus requires a variance of 2 ' . We have consulted our neighbors , the Longsdorfs , who do not object . " Mrs . DeWire appeared before the Board and stated that their request is for a simple porch consisting of a roof and a floor and some screening . Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the DeWire Appeal . Mrs . Edith Cassel , 152 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she was for the porch . Mr . King asked Mrs . Cassel if she lived next door to the DeWires . Mrs . Cassel stated that she did not , adding that she was one house up . Mr . DeWire spoke from the floor and stated that they had given a copy of the drawing before the Board to their neighbor , the Longsdorfs , and they did not object . Mr . DeWire stated that the survey was done long after the house was built , adding that they had thought their property was 100 ' x 2501 , but they actually have 91 . 9 feet . Mrs . DeWire stated that the Board has before it a 1949 survey . Mr . King commented that he thought the matter of two feet to be de minimus . • MOTION by Mrs . Joan G . Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward N . Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance of two feet from the 15 - foot side yard requirement of Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a porch addition to an existing residential structure , resulting in a side yard of 13 feet , at 148 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 8 . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Reuning , Austen , King . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the DeWire Appeal duly closed at 7 : 26 p . m . APPEAL OF ROBERT A . BOEHLECKE JR . , LAWRENCE HULL , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO USE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ( BARN ) , LOCATED IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , FOR • AN OFFICE , SHOP , AND STORAGE OF PLUMBING SUPPLIES , WITH THREE EMPLOYEES , AT 611 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . { Zoning Board of Appeals 6 March 20 , 1985 • 6 - 31 - 2 - 2 . 1 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 27 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Lawrence Hull , Mr . Robert Boehlecke , and Mr . Dirk Galbraith , Attorney for Mr . Hull , were present . The Board members each had received the following documents : 1 . Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Lawrence Hull under date of March 8 , 1985 , reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to use large barn for storage of plumbing supplies , shop and office at 491 - 4912 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 2 . 1 . . . Applicant has rented the 100 ' X 72 ' barn on this property from its owner , Robert Boehlecke , Jr . , since 1982 and has used it in connection with his plumbing business . The barn has been used for commercial storage and as a shop since the late 1950s ( see attached affidavits ) ; applicant believes that in this respect it is a lawful pre -existing nonconforming use under Article XII of the Ordinance . The barn has no other practical use than as commercial storage , shop and office and applicant would suffer unnecessary hardship if he is not permitted to use • the barn for this purpose . Although the barn is in an area zoned R- 15 [ Secretary ' s Note : The Building Inspector has indicated that the barn is in an R- 9 zone . ] , it is on the border of a Light Industrial Zone and the proposed use is consistent with the character of the neighborhood . Applicant ' s business has three employees and the traffic flow would be very minimal . Any signs would comply with the provisions of the Ordinance . Applicant desires to purchase this property from its present owner and restore the exterior appearance of the barn , which he cannot do without the requested variance . " 2 . Affidavit dated January 8 , 1985 : " Robert A . Boehlecke , Jr . , being duly sworn , deposes and says : That he resides at 203 Utica Street , Ithaca , New York , and he is the joint owner , together with Frances Rosamond , of property known as 491 - 4912 Five Mile Drive , in the Town of Ithaca . That he purchased this property in June 1979 from Steven and Marian Shippos and the property consists of two houses , a large barn and 12 acres of land . To the best of my knowledge , the barn on the property was used by Steven Shippos for many years to store television cable and accessories which Mr . Shippos used in his business as a subcontractor for Ceracche Television Corporation . I • believe that many years ago the barn was used for agricultural purposes but I have never seen the barn used for such purposes . After I bought the property , Mr . Shippos w Zoning Board of Appeals 7 March 20 , 1985 • moved the television cable and accessories out of the barn and I rented a portion of it to Thomas McCarthy , a building contractor , who used it to store building materials . I also rented space in the barn to other individuals to store boats , automobiles , and furniture . Beginning in approximately 1982 , I rented a portion of the barn to Hull Heating & Plumbing Company and that business has used the barn for storage of materials and as a shop . I believe that there is no other potential use for this barn other than storage , a shop or office , since the agricultural uses to which it was put many years ago have long since vanished from the area of Five Mile Drive . " 3 . Affidavit dated January 29 , 1985 : " Anthony Ceracche , being duly sworn , deposes and says : That I am 60 years of age and reside at 1107 Highland Road , Ithaca , New York . That for many years I operated Ceracche Television Corporation which was a cable television business serving the City of Ithaca ., New York , and surrounding communities . That prior to 1960 , Shippos Line Construction , Inc ._ , principally operated by Mr . Steven J . Shippos , subcontracted much of the cable installation for Ceracche Television Corporation and I became acquainted with Mr . Shippos and the operation of his business . Shippos Line Construction , Inc . , originally had its place of business at • 524 West State Street in the City of Ithaca , New York , and in 1962 that business was moved to 491 - 4912 Five Mile Drive where it occupied a large barn and two residential - type buildings which Steven Shippos and his wife had purchased from William Knight , Jr . Between 1962 and 1979 , I often visited the business premises of Shippos Line Construction , Inc . , at 491 - 4912 Five Mile Drive and I can state from my own personal knowledge that during this period of time the large barn on the property was used to store cable and electrical . fixtures and that it was also used as a shop by Mr . Shippos and his corporation in connection with the television cable work which that business did as a subcontractor for my corporation . During the same period of time Steven Shippos operated an office for his business from one of the residential buildings on the premises . " 4 . Page 643 of The Ithaca Directory of 1967 listing Shippos Line Construction Co . , Inc . at 49 - [ sic . ] Five Mile Drive , 272 - 3909 . 5 . Letter from Lewis D . Cartee to Dirk A . Galbraith , Esq . , dated March 5 , 1985 : " . . . Thank you for your letter of February 4 , 1985 regarding a Certificate of Compliance for the Boehlecke property . II • have reviewed the affidavits of Mr . Boehlecke and Mr . Ceracche and can find no evidence this property has been used by Mr . Boehlecke or a tenant for any use other than w Zoning Board of Appeals 8 March 20 , 1985 • storage from June 1979 until 1982 . Therefore , I cannot issue a Certificate of Compliance as you requested . JI would recommend that you file an Appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a use variance . An Appeal Form is enclosed for your assistance . % If you have any further questions , please call me at 273 - 1747 . " 6 . " Site Plan - - 491 - 4912 Floral Ave . , Town of Ithaca , Base Map from Surveys by Carl Crandall , Leonard Miscall , D . E . C . , etc . , Dimensions to Buildings from C / L Rd . , Taped - RAB " , drawn by R . A . Boehlecke Jr . , Architect 9 / 7 / 84 . 7 . Town of Ithaca Short Environmental Assessment Form signed and submitted by Lawrence Hull under date of March 8 , 1985 , with all questions answered " no " , and reviewed by the Town Planner under date of March 13 , 1985 with the following recommendation : " If sufficient conditions are attached to the requested use variance such that the traffic using the business may enter and exit the property safely and that the property be neatly maintained , I do not anticipate any significant environmental impacts and recommend a declaration of negative significance . " " Addendum to Reviewer ' s Recommendation " , dated March 15 , 1985 , signed by the Town Planner . " Note for the Zoning • Board of Appeals : This is an addendum to my review of March 13 and is based upon additional information provided to me since that time by Susan Beeners , Town Landscape Consultant and Larry Fabbroni , Town Engineer . " " Question # 10 can be accurately answered in the negative only if a provision is made for an easement approximately 30 feet from , and parallel to , the Flood Channel . This easement is necessary for the convenient continuation of the Finger Lakes State Cayuga Inlet Trail through this area . As much of the property in question is already under an easement to the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers and / or New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for flood control purposes and may not be developed , there should not be any additional loss of value as a result of this recreational easement . JThe exact location , dimensions , and extent of this easement should be determined to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Landscape Consultant . All that is necessary at this time is for Mr . Hull to agree to provide such an easement at some future time and that such agreement be made a part of the variance conditions . TFailure to provide this easement would mean that Question # 10 should be answered " yes " and a Long Environmental Assessment Form should be prepared and reviewed for this project prior to any decision on the variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals . " • Mr . Galbraith approached the Board and stated that he was an attorney with offices at 308 North Tioga Street and was Zoning Board of Appeals 9 March 20 , 1985 • representing Mr . Hull . Mr . Galbraith stated that Mr . Hull is Mr . Boehlecke ' s tenant at the property under discussion . Mr . Galbraith noted that Mr . Hull has rented the barn since 1982 and it has been used since that time for the use of the plumbing business and to store plumbing materials . Mr . Galbraith stated that the barn was originally constructed by the Knight family when they ran a meat market on Floral Avenue , Mr . Galbraith stated that in the 1950s the meat market went out of business and the barn went from an agricultural use to a commercial use and one of the first tenants after the Knights was Mr . Shippos ' electrical business . Mr . Galbraith stated that Mr . Shippos was a subcontractor to Ceracche Television Corporation and he stored supplies there . Mr . Galbraith stated that he had submitted to the Board documentation indicating the commercial nature of this property back into the early 160s , and , he believed , before the zoning ordinance . Mr . Galbraith stated that , later , Mr . Shippos sold the property to Mr . Boehlecke who rented the barn to Mr . McCarthy who was a builder and stored building material from 1979 to 1982 , roughly . Mr . Galbraith stated that , to some extent during the period that Mr . Shippos had the property , and also while Mr . McCarthy had the property , there was the incidental use as a shop by these gentlemen , although no major construction was taking place there . Mr . Galbraith stated that he had with him photographs of the storage barn and other photographs of the property [ 5 ] . Mr . • Galbraith passed the photographs among the Board members and commented that the Board will find the barn a bit run down at the present time . Mr . Galbraith stated that it would be Mr . Hull ' s intention , if his request is granted , to purchase the entire 16 - acre parcel from Mr . Boehlecke , re - finance , and use a portion of the funds to rehabilitate the property including this barn . Mr . Galbraith stated that it needs new siding and a new roof , commenting that its outside is unattractive as it presently stands . Mr . Galbraith stated that , by way of justification for the variance , this barn , or the building , has no other conceivable use other than commercial storage and shop and office , adding that an agricultural use for the barn has long since passed and that he thought that no further use for the barn would be much more offensive to the neighbors . Mr . Galbraith stated that he believed , insofar as the commercial use is concerned , that this is really a non - conforming pre - existing use . Mr . Galbraith stated that Mr . Hull would like to be able to use the property for an office and shop also and they believe there is evidence that it was so used , adding that in this business this means pipe threading and small electric motor work once in a while . Mr . Galbraith stated that the use is not high intensity ; there is no objectionable noisesno odors ; no hazardous materials stored . Mr . Galbraith stated that Mr . Hull would like to be able to install an office in the building as well , adding that there has never been an office use of the building to the best of their • knowledge . Mr . Galbraith stated that there would be a desk and a telephone and , perhaps , Mr . Hull will partition off a bit of the interior to do this . Mr . Galbraith stated that Mr . Hull w Zoning Board of Appeals 10 March 20 , 1985 • presently has three employees , however , if granted , he would probably have one employee on the site at any given time . Mr . Galbraith stated that he believed Mr . Hull has three trucks which come in and out , on an average , twice a day . Mr . Galbraith stated that Mr . Hull has one supplier who comes in one truck once a week with materials that are brought in . Mr . Galbraith stated that , on the whole , he thought this was a very low intensity use and is justified as a use variance because there is no other conceivable use for the building other than the use to which it has been put . Mr . Galbraith stated that Mr . Hull is not seeking any kind of a zoning change here , adding that this barn is located to the rear of the property and it borders an industrial zone and is a compatible use . Mr . Galbraith stated that Mr . Hull has gotten around and tried to talk to as many neighbors as he could . Mr . Galbraith stated that he would like to submit a Petition signed by 38 of Mr . Hull ' s neighbors indicating either support or , in a couple of cases , no objection . Mr . Galbraith commented that a grant of variance would also enable Mr . Hull to purchase the property and rehabilitate it . Mr . Galbraith presented a Petition , reading as follows , to the Board : " Petition to the Town of Ithaca - - We the undersigned being neighbors to the property of 491 - 495 Floral Avenue , ( 5 Mile Drive ) do approve of Lawrence Hull operating a plumbing repair business and doing necessary improvements to the property to accomplish this work . " [ 36 signatures ] Two persons signed the • Petition with the change noted , as follows : " We the undersigned being neighbors to the property of 491 - 495 Floral Avenue , ( 5 Mile Drive ) do not object to Lawrence Hull operating a plumbing repair business and doing necessary improvements to the property to accomplish this work , contingent upon approval by the appropriate Boards . Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were any questions from the Board . Indicating on one of the photographs , entitled " Remodeled barn - - apartment " , Mr . King asked if there were any plans for the use of this building . Mr . Hull responded , no , adding that it is not for use in the business . Mr . Cartee stated that there are two residential structures on the property and that is one of them . Mr . Cartee stated that they both are occupied . Mr . King noted that there is a much older existing dwelling to the north and this remodelled smaller one to the south , so , with the barn , there are three buildings on the parcel . Mr . King asked if the zone designation were R- 15 . Mr . Galbraith replied that that was somewhat of a mystery . Mr . Cartee stated that the front part of the parcel is zoned R - 9 and the rear part is zoned R - 15 . Mr . Galbraith commented that he did not think it was terribly material to the matter . A lengthy discussion followed with respect to the zoning in place as a result of the Town Board ' s • rezoning resolution of Mr . Shippos ' land in 1975 . Zoning Board of Appeals 11 March 20 , 1985 • Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to Mr . Hull ' s request . Mrs . Isabella Spencer , 108 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor and stated that her house is at the corner of Glenside and Five Mile Drive . Mrs . Spencer stated that she understood that the property was rezoned for Mr . Shippos . Mrs . Spencer stated that she can see this every day . Mrs . Spencer stated that there are trucks . Mrs . Spencer asked who signed this petition and do they own what is there and are they in the general area . Mr . Hewett responded , yes , and asked the Secretary to read all the names and addresses appearing on the Petition . Mrs . Spencer stated that all of those people are from far away , way up , way down past the cemetery , way down back to Town . Mr . Heinz P . Riederer , 496 Five Mile Drive , spoke from the floor and stated that he wished to present to the Board letters from people who could not be at this meeting tonight and who are in opposition . Mr . Riederer stated that they are basically in accord with the Building Inspector . Mr . Riederer presented three letters to the Vice Chairman who read aloud , as follows : 1 . " March 19 , 1985 . . . I strongly oppose the granting of the requested variance concerning the use of property across the street from where I reside at 494 Five Mile Drive , Ithaca , New York . JI have authorized Heinz Riederer to take this to the hearing since my wife and I will be in Nigeria at the time of the hearing . Very truly yours , ( sgd . ) Norbert H . Schickel III " 2 . " 19 March 1985 . . . My family is totally against having any sort of business in the Glenside area - - anywhere near the intersections of Floral Avenue and Glenside -Coy Glen Roads . The area is residential and should remain so . Any encroachment of business on the south side of Floral Avenue is likely to end up changing the nature of the area and must not be allowed . Sincerely yours ( sgd . ) David Gries 112 Glenside Rd . " 3 . " . . . I wish to state my opposition to granting a use variance for the property along the east side of the 500 block of Five Mile Drive . Wommercial use of the land in question would seriously erode residential property values in the area and thereby reduce tax revenues . Indeed I believe owners of nearby residential property would be remiss , if a use variance were granted , in not seeking immediate reassessment in order that lowered values should be relfected in lower taxes . • 20 March 1985 ( sgd . ) Robert B . Jones 109 Glenside Road " A Zoning Board of Appeals 12 March 20 , 1985 • Mr . Daniel Aneshansley , 118 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor and read aloud the following letter which he also signed and submitted for the record : " I support the decision of the building inspector , denying permission to use an existing structure ( barn ) , located in Residents District R- 9 and R - 15 , for an office and shop with 3 employees and storage area for plumbing supplies . The barn and area involved is located at approximately 491 - 495 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel # 6 - 31 - 2 - 2 . 1 and consists of approximately 12 acres . The property is owned by R . H . Boehleck , Jr . , with Lawrence Hull acting as Agent . 111 object to the granting of any zoning - use variance for this property . " Mrs . Harold Huntley , 124 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor and read aloud the following letter which she also signed and submitted for the record : " I support the decision of the building inspector , denying permission to use an existing structure ( barn ) , located in Residents District R - 9 and R- 15 , for an office and shop with 3 employees and storage area for plumbing supplies . The barn and area involved is located at approximately 491 - 495 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel # 6 - 31 - 2 - 2 . 1 and consists of approximately 12 acres . The property is owned by R . H . Boehleck , Jr . , with Lawrence Hull acting as Agent . TI object to the granting of any zoning - use variance for this property . " Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak . Mr . John R . Stevenson , 504 Five Mile Drive , spoke from the floor and stated that he also looks right on this property and he is also very much opposed to having a business across from where he lives . Mr . Stevenson stated that there are also certain signatures on Mr . Hull ' s petition from those who are renting . Mr . Stevenson stated that all those women that the Secretary read are renters at 491 . Mr . Stevenson stated that the people whose names appear do not look on this property and are not aware of the traffic . Mr . Stevenson stated that they already know because he has been operating for several months now . Mr . Stevenson stated that there are several trucks a day and people coming and knocking on their doors and asking where they pay their bill . Mr . Stevenson stated that this happened once to him personally . Mr . Stevenson stated that he and his wife were before the Board for an addition to their home which the Board granted . Mr . Stevenson stated that they are very concerned about a. business there and property values . Mr . Stevenson stated that they are talking about a barn inside , adding that he appreciated the improvement , asking however , what was going to be lying around outside of this barn eventually . Mr . Stevenson expressed his concern about plumbing supplies in the yard lying around and about exterior boards of the barn itself . Mr . Stevenson stated that he thought we need concern ourselves about what will happen • to this property once this variance is granted . t Zoning Board of Appeals 13 March 20 , 1985 Mr . Hull stated that he intended to operate out of the rear of the property and he did not believe there would be any need to have plumbing materials outside of the building itself . Mr . Galbraith stated that he was aware of a law in the Town which prohibits the storage of materials outside and regulates maintenance of property , adding that he has had occasion to refer to this law as it pertained to some of his clients . Mr . Galbraith stated that he assumed this law would continue to be enforced . Mr . Galbraith stated that he had one question , noting that he had spoken to the history of the property - - Knight ' s : Ag / Commercial ; Shippos : Commercial Storage ; Mr . McCarthy : Building Material Storage ; and , finally , Mr . Hull . Mr . Galbraith stated that he would like to know if he was mistaken about that . There did not appear to be an answer to Mr . Galbraith ' s question . Mr . Riederer spoke from the floor and stated that he took exception to Attorney Galbraith ' s comment that this property only had an occasional delivery . Mr . Riederer stated that he happened to be home over the past two weeks and there were many more deliveries than once a day . Mr . Riederer stated that , at minimum , over the last three months , perhaps six months , Mr . Hull has operated a business , with employees , out of a trailer . Mrs . Velma Jackson , 612 Hancock Street , spoke from the floor and stated that Mr . Shippos was her brother and that he was a • subcontractor for Ceracche TV and that he had no more than three rolls of cable wire plus a truck on the premises at any one time , and also , the truck was for business and family use . Mrs . Constance E . Cook , 209 Coy Glen Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she would like to speak to the non - conforming use aspect , adding that she was familiar with the area and noting that her mother bought her house in the middle 140s . Mrs . Cook stated that at that time it was Knight ' s Slaughter House and stock was run occasionally into the barn . Mrs . Cook stated that the property was not very active even then . Mrs . Cook stated that when the Shippos came in there was no question that he did have his car there and the residents watched it like a hawk . Mrs . Cook commented that , if the Board members knew about Floral Avenue , they would know that there has been a lot of improvement and that the residents have fought battle after battle . Mrs . Cook stated that they lost a few , for example , the County Highway Facility , however , there had been a lot of improvement . Mrs . Cook stated that it is an ideal residential community and this kind of commercial use would affect it . Mrs . Cook stated that , as for the non - conforming aspect , Mr . Shippos lived there and he was not offensive , and , although there were several things there , they were related to the work of the person . Mrs . Cook stated that , in this case , there is no residential use connected with it which is a very important consideration . Mrs . Cook stated that she was not able • to speak of the other uses because she was not , aware of them . Mrs . Cook stated that she goes by the property four or five times a day and she was not aware of uses after Mr . Shippos but she was _4 Zoning Board of Appeals 14 March 20 , 1985 • aware now . Mrs . Cook stated that there was a truck down in the field which was never there and signs will come . Mr . Galbraith asked the Vice Chairman if he could pose a question to Mrs . Jackson and was given permission to do so . Mr . Galbraith asked Mrs . Jackson if she were aware that her brother had a company called the Shippos Line Construction Company and spoke of the City Director of 1959 . Mrs . Jackson stated that that was on paper only . Mr . Galbraith stated that Mr . Hull does not really want to do anything that has not been done before and he wants to do it in a tasteful manner . Mr . Galbraith stated that the use is an inside use and any sign would be in accordance with the Town Sign Law , Mr . Galbraith stated that , really , what Mr . Hull. wants to do is rehabilitate the barn . Mr . Riederer spoke from the floor and stated that he objected to Mr . Galbraith ' s cross - examination of Mrs . Jackson . Mr . King stated that the Board is interested in eliciting information . Mrs . Anna H . Riederer , 496 Five Mile Drive , spoke from the floor and asked if people who live in the City can sign the Petition presented . Mr . King stated that as long as they can • write , they can sign . Mrs . Riederer stated that at the October 1984 Town Board meeting when Mr . Boehlecke and Mr . Hull requested rezoning she believed at the time he was presenting that application he wanted to have a showroom and a retail store . Mrs . Riederer told the Board to check the Town Board Minutes , adding that this is a little different . Mrs . Riederer stated that , back to the Town Board meeting of 1984 , the rezoning was tabled . Mrs . Riederer stated that they were fully aware that they were operating illegally in a residential zone . Mrs . Riederer stated that they continue to do so . Mrs . Riederer stated that she did not want property values to drop , adding that the Board should deny this . Mr . Galbraith stated that the appellant has not petitioned for any kind of retail establishment . Mr . Riederer , from the floor , read substantially as follows : " I am Heinz P . Riederer , 496 Five Mile Drive . I express my opposition to the granting of a use variance and support the action of the Building Inspector in denying permission to use the barn for business purposes as stated . The property in. question is presently zoned R- 9 and R- 15 residential and consists of approximately 12 acres . Commercial use would have and presently does have a detrimental effect on our property , ours is directly across from the property in question , and that of our neighbors in the area . Since a great number of residential properties are • involved , the impact on values is substantial , not to speak of associated traffic problems due to location . In my opinion , Mr . Hull and Mr . Boehlecke were fully aware of the illegality of Zoning Board of Appeals 15 March 20 , 1985 • operating this business in a residential zone when this matter was before the Town Board in October of 1984 . At that time the rezoning request was tabled simply because there was opposition . In spite of this he continued to operate and the business activity was , in fact , subsequently expanded . I ask that the request for a use variance be denied . " Mr . Riederer stated that he would also like to add his comments to those of Mr . Stevenson . Mr . Riederer stated that he had been at home perhaps the last two to three weeks and people stop and ask for 495 Five Mile Drive as they wanted to conduct business . Mr . Riederer stated that he [ Hull ] has not put up a sign , adding that , obviously , he does not want to advertise . Mr . Riederer stated that he has seen large tractor trailers blocking traffic on 13A trying to back into the barn trying to unload materials . Mr . Riederer stated that he saw on a daily basis two trucks leaving in the morning and perhaps returning and therefore , there is a business in this location . Mr . Riederer stated that he was concerned that this was being done . Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were any questions from the Board . Mr . King wondered what happened to the rezoning request . Mr . Galbraith responded that to his knowledge it was not pursued . • Mr . King asked Mr . Galbraith if he had dropped it . Mr . Galbraith responded that he was not involved in that matter nor was he present at the Town Board . Mr . King commented that the business Mr . Hull talked about was largely dead storage which was quiet and innocuous , somewhat lying about . Mr . King stated that he was not quite sure he understood the nature of the request , adding that Mr . Hull would have an office , plumbing supplies , and a source for two or three trucks going out to jobs with some work on the site . Mr . Hull stated that only 1 % of the work would be done on site . Mr . Galbraith concurred , adding that there would be a very small amount of work going on . Mr . Galbraith stated that the real deviation is the office . Mr . King inquired about cutting and threading of pipe and welding . Mr . Hull stated that pipe is welded on the job . Mr . King asked Mr . Hull how his operation would improve the neighborhood . Mr . Hull stated that he intended to improve the outside of the course - - top of the barn - - next , and the barn itself , and the grounds , and improve the area so it is a nice place to live . Vice Chairman Hewett stated to the members of the Board that , frankly , he would like to look at the site himself and would suggest that the members look over the property too . Mr . King noted that the Board had an Environmental Assessment Form to consider also. Mrs . Cook spoke from the floor and stated that she would • like to speak on the question of other use . Mrs . Cook stated that this barn has never offended her , adding that it has rather good lines . Mrs . Cook stated that she has even thought of an .y Zoning Board of Appeals 16 March 20 , 1985 • ideal use for it as a multiple dwelling with apartments . Mrs . Cook stated that , as far as the industrial use goes , it is not in any way usable . Mrs . Cook asked that the Board members , when they come out , to please look at how the place has improved . Mrs . Cook stated that Cornell has sold the gravel pit to a young man which will improve it . Mr . King wondered why the industrial area is not usable . Mrs . Cook stated that it is very narrow and subject to flooding . Mr . Aneshansley spoke from the floor and stated that , for the Board ' s information , he would like the Board to please look at the traffic pattern in that area across from Glenside . Mr . Aneshansley described a very rapid turn and spoke of a place just beyond Glenside and Coy Glen which used to be chained but is now open . Mr . Aneshansley stated that Mr . Hull ' s use across from Glenside is increasing the traffic pattern . Mr . John L . Camilli , 107 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor , stated that he lives right across from what Mr . Aneshansley was talking about , and added that the school bus stops there . Mr . Camilli spoke about junk and the school bus . Mrs . Debbie Stevenson , 504 Five Mile Drive , spoke from the floor and stated that she objected to the request . Mrs . Stevenson stated that right now it is a problem and anything more • is an increased problem . Mrs . Stevenson stated her concern about trucks and traffic hazards . Mrs . Clara Camilli , 107 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor and stated that it is on the record that she attended this hearing and she wanted to state that she was against this as the other neighbors are . MOTION by Mr . Jack D . Hewett , seconded by Mr . Edward N . Austen : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the Public Hearing in the matter of the Boehlecke Appeal , Lawrence Hull , Agent , be and hereby is adjourned until Wednesday , April 17 , 1985 , at 7 : 00 P . M . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Reuning , Austen , King . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the Boehlecke - Hull Appeal duly adjourned to 7 : 00 p . m . on April 17 , 198 .5 . • Mr . Galbraith if he might , before the Board moves on , speak to one procedural point . Vice Chairman Hewett stated that Mr . Zoning Board of Appeals 17 March 20 , 1985 Galbraith might make his point . Mr . Galbraith stated that they have asked for a variance for three different things , being storage , shop , and office . Mr . Galbraith stated that the applicant would view this as a severable variance such that if the Board viewed some appropriate and amenable to a variance but others not , they would accept some portion of that . Mrs . Cook wondered if she had stated earlier that she opposed the request before the Board , and , if she had not so stated , she did now . STATEMENT BY VICE CHAIRMAN HEWETT Vice Chairman Hewett stated that Mrs . Reuning has asked permission to be excused because it is her birthday and Mr . Reuning is here to take her to a dinner party . Vice Chairman Hewett stated that he had given permission for Mrs . Reuning to leave , and noted that a quorum was still present . APPEAL OF WILLIAM TOPLEY AND SAMUEL BONANNI , APPELLANTS , KENNETH ASH , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 WITH EACH DWELLING UNIT OF EQUAL SIZE ( THREE BEDROOMS IN EACH UNIT ) AND WITH REAR YARD DEFICIENCY OF 5 FEET , AND FURTHER DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THREE UNRELATED PERSONS TO OCCUPY EACH UNIT ( A TOTAL OF 6 UNRELATED PERSONS ) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , SUB - SECTION 21 PARAGRAPH 2 ( b ) , AT 246 - 250 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0 , 6 - 54 - 7 - 19 AND 6 - 54 - 7 - 20 . PERMITS ARE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE - III , SECTION 4 , SUB - SECTION 2 ; ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , SUB- SECTION 21 PARAGRAPH 2 ( b ) ; ARTICLE III , SECTION 7 ; AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 775 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Ash was present . The Board members each had received with his / her Agenda the following documents . 1 . Completed Appeal Form , signed and submitted by Ken Ash and Howard Fuller under date of March 11 , 1985 , reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to construct a two family structure on slab ( side by side ) of equal size and a special permit for a total of 6 unrelated persons , at 246 - 250 Penn . Ave . . . . I propose to build one duplex ( with total occupancy at 6 unrelated individuals ) by joining 2 lots . The 2 lots are of such a size that it would be impractical and present an undue hardship to build one single family residence on • each lot due to the set back requirements etc , that, would be imposed under the current building code . The proposed construction of one duplex on 2 lots would be the best use Zoning Board of Appeals 18 March 20 , 1985 • of the land . The duplex would consist of 2 separate 3 bedroom units . " 2 . Site Plan , signed by Ken Ash , undated , showing the proposed location on the two lots , combined , of the proposed 40 ' x 50 ' duplex . 3 . Completed Short Environmental Assessment Form , signed and submitted by Ken Ash , under date of March 13 , 1985 , reviewed by Peter Lovi , Town Planner , on March 14 , 1985 . 4 . Portion of Tax Map # 54 , depicting the location of the two lots in question . Mr . Cartee stated that he would like to address the Board first . Mr . Cartee stated that at the time when he needed to send the Notice of Public Hearings to the Ithaca Journal , Mr . Ash had indicated that there would be a rear yard deficiency of 5 feet and that has since turned out not to be the case . Mr . Cartee stated that that variance request need not be considered . Mr . Kenneth Ash appeared before the Board and introduced his associate , Mr . Howard Fuller . Mr . Ash stated that he and Mr . Fuller currently own two building lots on Pennsylvania Avenue . Mr . Ash stated that , under the current zoning , they could construct two dwellings on each lot and have each occupied by three unrelated persons . Mr . Ash stated that the construction of two houses would be , economically , a hardship and , therefore , they would like to build one house in the middle of the two lots . Mr . Ash stated that the shape of the lots would make it difficult to build two separate units , noting that one lot is a triangle . Mr . Ash stated that one duplex makes sense and is also the best use of the land . Mr . Ash stated that there are presently two lots and it would be very difficult to build any type of house on the land . Mr . Ash stated that a duplex in the center would avoid giving a congested look to the neighborhood and would blend in and be an improvement . Mr . Ash stated that the proposed duplex would have three bedrooms in each side , would have one story , would have aluminum siding , and would have separate driveways and separate entrances . Mr . Ash stated that the review of the environmental impact is very favorable to this proposal in that it would blend in , and in that other proposals have been approved and built and have given a positive aspect to the neighborhood and the surrounding homes . Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against this matter . Edward A . Mazza , Esq . , spoke from the floor and stated that he was here representing James Iacovelli who has a similar request next on the Agenda . Attorney Mazza stated that he has • also represented other clients who have done similar things in the neighborhood . Attorney Mazza stated that Lawrence Iacovelli has built similar structures and history has shown that these 1 Zoning Board of Appeals 19 March 20 , 1985 • have been an improvement . Attorney Mazza stated that these improvements have been accomplished by taking these smaller lots and combining and dedicating them to one structure rather than putting a small structure on each . Attorney Mazza noted that , if one were to read the Preamble of the Zoning Ordinance and its purposes , such as the provision of adequate light and air and the prevention of the overcrowding of land , one would see that all of those purposes will be served by such proposals . Attorney Mazza stated that this has been proved by the construction of higher quality buildings when one is built rather than two . Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone else present who wished to speak . No one spoke . The Secretary read into the record the following two letters which had been hand delivered by Mr . Lyman Baker to the Town Office . 1 . " 252 Penna . Ave . Ithaca , N . Y . March 18th 1985 . . . . Attention - Zoning Board of Appeals . On March 16th I received your Notification of the Meeting and the Appeal of William Topley and Samuel Bonanni for the • construction of a two family dwelling etc - at 246 - 250 Pa . Ave . To this I object strenuously - This is adjacent to my property - I ' ve lived here over forty years in peace and harmony , until the Ithaca College students were brought in the neighborhood by landlords , To Quote , ' Are not responsible for their tenants actions ' These tenants live in their own world with total disregard for personal property or the rights and needs of others , making their life style completely incompatible with us ' old timers ' . They don ' t have day hours or ' night time as rest periods ' . They are on the go at all hours day and night . My property is posted . The signs are broken down and displaced . The cars are parked any which way across the road , this makes access very hazardous . I detest picking up the litter of bottles , cans , paper goods , etc . If this building was erected where would the tenants park their cars with 5 ' shortage of the rear yard ? We built our present home in 1940 - it looked like an ideal retirement facility - I only ask to out live the rest of my years in peace and without harassment from future tenants . ( sgd . ) Helen B . Philips . " 2 . " Town of Ithaca . . . • March 19 , 1985 Zoning Board of Appeals , Zoning Board of Appeals 20 March 20 , 1985 • I wish to enter in the records my objections to a two family dwelling at 246 - 250 Pa . Av . by William Topley and Samuel Bonanni . Pennsylvania Avenue is very narrow . The older people and children who walk are afraid of the many cars . Any increase would greatly endanger their lives . Parking would be a problem with the 5 foot shortage . The life style of the student is very much different from the working person . They are always going all hours of the night , when working people are trying to sleep . Please consider the feelings of the home owner who has lived on Pennsylvania Avenue all their lives . Thank You ( sgd . ) Lyman Baker 257 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca , NY 14850 " Mr . King commented that those sound like the complaints of neighbors and asked Mr . Ash how he would respond . Mr . Ash stated that he was not looking for students , adding that Morse Chain and NCR are there and they have no place to live . Mr . Ash stated that those kind of professional people would be ideal tenants . Mr . Ash stated that there will be off - street parking and separate entrances . Mr . King stated that he has noticed cars up there in the • front yard and asked if Mr . Ash were proposing off - street parking . Mr . Ash stated that he was . Mr . Austen commented that Mr . Ash had stated in his Appeal that he was asking for occupancy by six unrelated persons and that leads the Board to think about students . Mr . Ash stated that he could have six unrelated persons now in two houses , and he mentioned the number 6 because it is an option . Mr . Ash stated that ideally he wanted to have professional people . Mr . King noted that Mr . Ash had stated that the cost would be higher to build two houses . Mr . Ash stated that that was correct . Mr . King asked what is next to this property , wondering if there were multiple units . Mr . Fuller stated that the Schultzes had a four - unit structure two properties to the left . Mr . Ash distributed five colored photographs among the Board members showing houses on the other side , showing the property in question and views of the street . Mr . Cartee indicated the Philips ' house stating that it sits a way back , up in the field . The Board members reviewed each of the pictures and discussed them . Mr . King noted that the Board has before it an environmental report on this matter also which has been reviewed by :Peter Lovi with the recommendation being that there is no adverse environmental impact provided that acceptable conditions were approved , as noted in Item C5 of Part II of the Form [ " No adverse environmental impact expected provided that acceptable conditions • are approved concerning parking , trash removal , noise levels , and similar residential concerns . " ] . Mr . Ash stated that he thought Item C4 was important also [ " The overall number of unrelated Zoning Board of Appeals 21 March 20 , 1985 • persons which would be permitted to reside in this structure would not exceed the number which would be permitted under the Town Zoning Ordinance if the two lots were developed separately . " ] . Mr . King asked Mr . Cartee if he has had many complaints from the neighbors . Mr . Cartee stated the Board has heard the same complaints it heard tonight from two or three people whenever anything comes up on Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues . Mr . King asked Mr . Cartee if he has had complaints about rowdiness . Mr . Cartee responded , no , adding that once in a while he receives a complaint about parking . Mr . King stated that he thought that one of the biggest items is the off - street parking . Mr . Cartee , commenting that we are faced with that old street , described the parking situation as it exists in that area . Mr . King wondered if cars could not be gotten back farther off the road . Mr . Cartee stated that this is a problem in the whole Town , adding when there is no ordinance about parking on the street . Mr . King stated that he was not talking about " on the street: " ; he was talking about pulling off the street . Mr . Cartee stated that that was what he was talking about and went on to describe what actually occurs as people live in a house and go about their daily lives , have guests , have parties , etc . Mr . Cartee stated that parties or get - togethers are not uncommon in this area but neither are they on - going , commenting that he was alluding to the idea of the constant presence of cars . Mr . Cartee stated that he • has not had complaints relative to noise . Mr . Cartee stated that there have been one or two about parking and off - street parking . It was noted that parking is permitted in front yards by Section 69 under certain conditions . Mr . Austen asked if there was to be off - street parking for this project . Mr . Ash stated that that was correct . Mr . Cartee described the so - called paper streets in this area and how the combining of various lots and their dedication to one structure , as in this Appeal and also in the next one , has affected these paper streets . Mr . Cartee commented that in the years since he has been with the Town he has not seen building permit applications for building on these 50 - foot lots because most people have combined two 50 - foot lots , like Mr . Ash , so that a better building could be built . Mr . Cartee commented that there are lots on these paper streets that cannot be built upon because there is no way to get to them and they will probably never be built . Mr . Cartee commented that he thought the development that has occurred in the Pennsylvania / Kendall Avenue area has been positive . MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mr . Edward N . Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals find and hereby does find a negative declaration of environmental impact with respect to the Ash / Fuller Appeal proposing the • construction of a duplex to contain six unrelatedpersons at 246 - 250 Pennsylvania Avenue . Zoning Board of Appeals 22 March 20 , 1985 • There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mr . Edward N . Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance to permit the construction of one two - family duplex dwelling structure on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 19 and 6 - 54 - 7 - 20 , 246 - 250 Pennsylvania Avenue , such that the two dwelling units contained therein are of equal size with each such unit containing three bedrooms , and further RESOLVED , by said Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article III , Section 41 Sub - Section 2 , Paragraph 2b . , that there be permitted an occupancy of three unrelated persons in each unit as a Special Permit of said Board of Appeals to the applicants / owners , Kenneth Ash and Howard Fuller , and further RESOLVED , by said Board of Appeals , that the approvals • hereinabove granted are subject to the provision of adequate parking for no less than six ( 6 ) cars , off- street , and that the property be landscaped nicely and maintained in a manner appropriate to the residential nature of the neighborhood . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing :in and the matter of the Ash / Fuller Appeal duly closed at 8 : 54 p . m . APPEAL OF JAMES IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO , TWO - FAMILY DWELLINGS IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R91 EACH WITH DWELLING UNITS OF EQUAL SIZE ( FOUR BEDROOMS IN EACH UNIT ) , AND FURTHER DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS TO OCCUPY EACH UNIT ( A TOTAL OF 8 UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH STRUCTURE ) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION 41 SUB - SECTION 2 , PARAGRAPH 2 ( b ) , AT 145 KENDALL AVENUE AND 147 - 149 KENDALL AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX • PARCELS NO . 6 - 54 - 4 - 30 AND 6 - 54 - 4 - 31 . PERMITS ARE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , SUB - SECTION 29 ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , w Zoning Board of Appeals 23 March 20 , 1985 • SUB - SECTION 2 , PARAGRAPH 2 ( b ) ; AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 55 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Iacovelli was present . The Board members each had received the following documents with his / her Agenda : 1 . Completed Appeal Form as signed and submitted by James Iacovelli under date of March 12 , 1985 , reading as follows . " . . . Having been denied permission to construct two , two family dwellings of equal size and a special permit to allow eight unrelated persons in each dwelling at 145 Kendall Ave . & 147 - 149 Kendall Ave . . . . I would like to build two ( 2 ) houses , one at 145 Kendall Ave . and the other to be built at 147 Kendall Ave . Each house would consist of two ( 2 ) four bedroom units of equal size . TIn each house I request special permit for eight ( 8 ) unrelated persons . If I am permitted this request I will provide two ( 2 ) additional lots , lot # 1 tax map # 6 - 54 - 5 - 37 and a portion of tax map # 6 - 54 - 5 - 38 . " 2 . Site Plan showing locations of and parking for two 56 ' x 28 ' • structures , one on each of the " new " 75 - foot lots . 3 . A photo - copy of a portion of Tax Map # 54 marked to show the locations of the properties under discussion . 4 . Completed Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by James Iacovelli under date of March 18 , 1985 , reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter Lovi , under date ' of March 18 , 1985 . Edward A . Mazza , Esq . , appeared before the Board and stated that he was representing Mr . Iacovelli in this matter . Mr . Mazza stated that he was riot going to try to repeat a lot of the things that have been said with respect to the previous Appeal because Mr . Iacovelli ' s Appeal is similar , but , it is different in several ways . Mr . Mazza stated that he wished to note at the beginning that the matter of Mr . Iacovelli ' s request to resubdivide three lots totalling 150 ' in width into two 75 - foot lots was before the Planning Board of which he is a member . [ March 5 , 1985 ] Mr . Mazza stated that he would like -the record to show that at that time he did not represent Mr . Iacovelli . Mr . Mazza stated that Mr . Iacovelli filed his Appeal and then came to see him . Mr . Mazza stated that , since then , he and Mr . Iacovelli have discussed the Appeal and have amended it to a total of up to seven unrelated persons in each structure with • four bedrooms upstairs and three bedrooms downstairs in each structure . Mr . Mazza stated that Mr . Iacovelli has three 50 - foot lots on Kendall Avenue , . now two 75 - foot lots , and he also has two Zoning Board of Appeals 24 March 20 , 1985 50 - foot lots on one of the paper streets , Maryland Avenue , about which the Board was talking earlier . Mr . Mazza stated that Mr . Iacovelli intends to dedicate these two additional lots to this proposal much as was done by Lawrence Iacovelli several years ago , adding that this would , effectively tie up the two lots on Maryland Avenue . Mr . Mazza pointed out that the three lots on Kendall and the two lots on Maryland are not contiguous parcels . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he was talking about a total of five lots . Indicating on the portion of Tax Map # 54 which he had before him , Mr . Austen asked what was on Tax Parcels No . 6 - 54 - 5 - 12 and 13 . Mr . Mazza stated that in between the two parcels on Maryland Avenue and the three lots on Kendall Avenue was Mr . Iacovelli ' s personal residence . Mr . King asked Mr . Iacovelli how he could dedicate these two lots on Maryland that are so far away . Mr . Iacovelli stated that they tie them up and he cannot ever build there . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it would be open space . Utilizing the Tax Map , Mr . Mazza showed the five lots which were tied up in connection with the Lawrence Iacovelli Appeal at 162 - 164 Kendall Avenue [ Ithaca Land Company Lots # 137 , 138 , 139 , 150 , and 151 , Board of Appeals 5 / 13 / 811 . Mr . Mazza commented that what this does is eliminate a couple of substandard lots . Mr . Mazza said that , this approach is somewhat like a " clustered subdivision " where there is increased green space , more air , more light - - without increasing the density of population . Mr . Mazza stated that people talk about students in a general manner which he really had trouble with . Mr . Mazza stated that not too long ago he was a student and he did not do some of those things that people say all students do . Mr . Mazza stated that these five lots involved in Mr . Iacovelli ' s proposal could be built on with five houses , one on each , and with three unrelated persons in each of them . Mr . Mazza stated that talking about students is irrelevant . Mr . Mazza stated that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance does not talk about students . Mr . Mazza stated that the structures are to be built together rather than individually for economic reasons and to achieve better quality . Mr . Mazza displayed for the Board ' s perusal a picture of what kind of structure Mr . Iacovelli intends to build , commenting that it was the floor plan shown in an up and down configuration and as now amended to three bedroom and four bedrooms in each of the two buildings , with up to 14 unrelated persons the total for both buildings together . Mr . Mazza commented that the ordinance would permit 15 unrelated persons as its present zoning , adding that the density is actually reduced . Mr . King commented that the potential density was reduced but not very much . Mr . Mazza noted that the last appeal did not reduce it at all . Mr . Iacovelli , commenting that people talk about little houses in the area , stated that they are still there . Mr . Mazza pointed out that someone could buy this house and live in • it and rent an apartment below , or above , and in that situation there could be three or four people there . Mr . Mazza stated that he would point out that the back of these lots abuts the old Zoning Board of Appeals 25 March 20 , 1985 • Railroad tracks and down below is where the Therm land is which is zoned Light Industrial . Mr . Austen asked if these lots slope enough so that one did not see a raised roof . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it definitely does , adding the it drops down there about 8 feet . Mr . Austen noted that the houses which are proposed on these 75 - foot lots are shown as around 601 . Mr . King noted that the houses are proposed sitting sideways . Mr . Iacovelli stated that that was correct , adding that there is a very good view of the Lake where the decks are going to be built . Mr . Mazza stated that another issue before the Board to consider is that Mr . Iacovelli has proposed parking in the front . Mr . Mazza stated that the reason for that is , although he could put parking in the back , it would effectively eliminate the green space . Mr . King pointed out that eight parking spaces are shown . Mr . Mazza responded that he did not know if Mr . Iacovelli intends that many but there is room for eight , off - street . Mr . King inquired as to the set backs . Mr . Iacovelli replied that all the set backs conform with the zoning ordinance . Mr . Cartee stated that there is a 25 - foot set back from the right of way . Mr . King asked Mr . Cartee if he had looked over this particular piece of property with this proposal in mind . Mr . Cartee stated that he had . Mr . King wondered if Mr . Cartee had any opinion on the matter . Mr . Cartee stated that he had no problems with it • construction - wise . Mr . King wondered why Mr . Iacovelli was proposing two separate units rather than one like Lawrence Iacovelli had done . Mr . Iacovelli responded that he thought of it that way probably for resale reasons , commenting that it is a lot easier to sell a place as a family home . Mr . Austen wanted to be clear about the proposal being for four bedrooms up and three bedrooms down . Mr . Iacovelli stated that that was right . Mr . Mazza stated that the Environmental Assessment Form stands amended also to reflect the reduction in requested occupancy . Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against this matter or if there were any letters that had been submitted to the Secretary . No one spoke . The Secretary reported that no letters or telephone calls had been received with respect to the Iacovelli Appeal , adding that Notices were mailed to 14 neighboring property owners . Mr . Mazza commented that he thought , perhaps , there were no objections because the Iacovellis have done so much up there by way of improvements , adding that they have lived there for over 50 years . King : MOTION by Mr . Edward N . Austen , seconded by Mr . Edward W . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals • find and hereby does find a negative declaration of adverse environmental impact as a result of the development proposed by James Iacovelli for 145 and 147 - 149 Kendall Avenue . Olt Zoning Board of Appeals 26 March 20 , 1985 • There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mr . Edward N . Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance to permit the construction of two residential buildings , each having one four - bedroom and one three - bedroom apartment , on newly subdivided Tax Parcels No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 30 and 6 - 54 - 4 - 31 , known as 145 Kendall Avenue and 147 - 149 Kendall Avenue , with the condition that the applicant , James V . Iacovelli , furnish adequate off - street parking for each building , which may be in front as shown on the plan presented , for as many vehicles as there would be permitted occupancy for each building , namely , seven unrelated persons , and , on the further condition that the applicant grant the Town of Ithaca a Restrictive Covenant to retain , undeveloped , old Ithaca Land Company tract parcels numbered 130 and 131 , being all of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 5 - 37 and the southerly part of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 5 - 38 ( old Ithaca Land Company tract parcel numbered 130 ) , and further RESOLVED , that said Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a Special Permit for increased occupancy , as applied for by said James Iacovelli pursuant to Article III , Section 4 , Sub - Section 21 Paragraph 2 ( b ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit a total of seven unrelated persons in each of the two residential buildings hereinabove approved . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal with respect to 1. 45 Kendall Avenue and 147 - 149 Kendall Avenue duly closed at 9 : 20 p . m . Mr . Mazza stated that he would submit the Restrictive Covenant as required and would also see that Mr . Iacovelli records with the County Clerk , in the appropriate manner , the recently approved resubdivision of Mr . Iacovelli ' s property on • Kendall Avenue . ' Y Zoning Board of Appeals 27 March 20 , 1985 INFORMAL PRESENTATION BY THE TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL IN RE PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ADJACENT TO THE HOSPITAL . Mrs . Bonnie H . Howell , Administrator , Tompkins Community Hospital , Mr . Scott Perra , Assistant Director of Fiscal Services , Tompkins Community Hospital , and Mr . Lawrence Hoffman , Architect , Hoffman , O ' Brien , Levatich & Taube , presented to the Board members , in an informal manner , proposed plans , drawings , and ideas for a proposed Medical Office adjacent to the Hospital , indicating two possible sites therefor . Mr . Cartee and the Secretary were invited to join the Board as it listened and learned . The presentation was substantially the same as that laid before the Planning Board the previous evening . The Board expressed its appreciation to Mrs . Howell for graciously apprising it of the proposal informally prior to it being before the Board for its approval as required by the Ordinance . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Vice Chairman Hewett declared the March 20 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 10 : 05 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Jack D . Hewett , Vice Chairman •