HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1985-04-17 t
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 17 , 1985
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on
Wednesday , April 17 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca ,
New York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward W . King , Joan G . Reuning , Edward N .
Austen , Jack D . Hewett , Peter G . Grossman ( Town Attorney ) , Lewis
D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town
Planner ) ,, Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Raymond Delli - Carpini , Augusts Zeipe , Maiga Zeipe , Heinz P .
Riederer , Norbert H . Schickel III , John L . Camilli , Clara
Camilli , Peter W . Post , Isobella Be Spencer , Marian S .
Woolley , Adolph Turco , David Gries , Manning Woolley ,
Constance E . Cook , Georgia MacNeil , Velma J . Jackson ,
Lawrence H . Hull , Dorothy E . Zimmer , Arthur Diamond , Daniel
J . Aneshansley , Deborah J . Stevenson , Lawrence Hoffman ,
Scott Perra , Bonnie H . Howell , David S . Hawkins ( Q - 104 -FM
News ) ,
Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 06 p . m . and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of
the Notice of Public Hearings ( 4 ) in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on
April 9 , 1985 and April 12 , 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 the
Clerk of the City of Ithaca , upon the Acting Tompkins County Administrator ,
upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the
Appeallants and / or Agent , as party to the action , on April 10 , 1985 .
Chairman Aron described the manner in which the meeting would be conducted .
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM DECEMBER 12 , 1984 , JANUARY 23 , 19851 FEBRUARY 27 ,
1985 , MARCH 20 , 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 .
Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in 'the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 09 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public
Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Delli -Carpini was
present .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak
to the matter of the place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road . No one spoke .
Chairman Aron closed the public hearing at 7 : 10 p . m . Chairman Aron read
aloud as follows ' from a proposed resolution with respect to the
Delli -Carpini appeal :
. . . SPECIAL APPROVAL .
t'
Zoning Board of Appeals 2 April 17 , 1985
Section 77 ( 7 ) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance requires that , in
considering whether to grant or deny Special Approval , the Zoning Board of
Appeals must determine :
( a ) Whether the proposal will promote the health , safety and general
welfare . '
( b ) That the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use , and
that such use will fill a neighborhood or community need .
( c ) The location and design of any structure shall be consistent with
the character of the District in which it is located , and the
proposed : use will also be consistent with the character of that
District .
( d ) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity
or to the neighborhood character - in ' amounts ' sufficient to
devaluate neighboring property - or to seriously inconvenience
neighboring inhabitants .
( e ) Access and egress for all structures and uses shall be safely
designed .
( f ) General effect upon community as a whole [ including items such as
traffic load and demand upon water and sewer ] will not be
detrimental to public health , safety and general welfare of the
community .
and ( 8 ) the ZBA may impose such reasonable conditions as it deems
necessary to protect the general welfare of the community .
FINDINGS .
In addition to our adopting the findings of fact implicit and explicit in
the foregoing statements of this situation , we further find the location
and topography of this land to present no great problems to or hazards in
the proposed additional use , particularly so long as ample off - street
parking is provided and so long as access and egress for congregational
meetings is directed primarily over the northerly arm of the existing
driveway , well separated from the immediate highway intersections .
We further find that while the garage may conceivably provide an adequate
meeting place for a relatively small congregation , and while the proximity
of garage to the dwelling would not seem to pose any particular problem in
the proposed use by such a small congregation , any considerable extension
of the church use - - e . g . by a congregation whose numbers would make likely
the occupancy of the garage facilities by more than 35 to 40 people at one
time , would be better directed toward an expansion to the north , into the
' vacant lot ' area , rather than by an expansion into the remaining portion
of the garage . And further , expansion of the church facility and
activities toward the south - - viz . behind [ east of ] the dwelling , would
constitute a much further departure from the separation of uses envisaged
by § 68 of the Zoning Ordinance , and is therefore to be avoided .
CONCLUSIONS :
( A ) . Subject to the Conditions following , the proposed use should be given
a Special Permit so long as the intensity of the use in the particular
building and location is within the limits contemplated by the
application , such use not to be extended beyond the limits indicated
without further consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals .
V
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 April 17 , 1985
( B ) . The site plan approval previously given by the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board upon the request of this Board is deemed to constitute adequate
compliance with the provisions of Town of Ithaca Local Law # 4 - 1985 ,
despite such approval having been given prior to the Decision of this
Zoning Board of Appeals .
CONDITIONS :
Assuming that the intensity of use of the premises for church purposes will
be as contemplated by the Petition and the presentations to the Boards , and
that only the two westerly bays of the garage will be renovated for these
purposes , no extensions of that proposal nor exterior modifications to the
building being contemplated , the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants
Special Approval for such use of the subject parcel and itis improvements ,
upon the following conditions :
1 . The church structure as remodelled is not to be occupied by more than
40 people at any one time ( or to such lesser number- as any other
applicable Code or Ordinance might dictate ) , and it is -to be used only
for usual church and congregational purposes , viz . excluding its use
as a dwelling , school , nursery , place of public assembly , etc . etc .
2 . The church structure must be made to comply with the Faire Safety Code
and other Codes and Ordinances applicable to such a place of assembly .
3 . Ingress and egress to and from the premises and Pine Tree . Road will be
had primarily ( if not exclusively ) over the northerly arm of the loop
i driveway shown on the map . No parking is to be permitted in the
driveway during services , both arms of the driveway to :remain open and
traversable by emergency vehicles .
4 . Off - street parking is to be provided in and limited to the areas shown
on the site plan , viz . to the west ( extending northerly ) of the garage
site , with a small area immediately south of the easterly end of the
garage - - none of such areas to be so located as to block or impede
the free movement of emergency vehicles in the driveway . The parking
areas shall be prepared and maintained in suitable condition for such
parking , viz . adequately based and surfaced with gravel or a ' macadam
type ' material , suitably drained , and adequately delineated and
reasonably landscaped with shrubbery as proposed by Petitioner in
presentations to the Boards . A reasonable time will be allowed the
Petitioner or the Fellowship to prepare such parking areas .
5 . The existing outdoor lighting of limited intensity , is approved . No
additional outdoor electric lights or other illumination is
permissible except upon approval of the Board of Appeals after the
filing of a -specific application with the Building Inspector .
6 . The siting of the proposed single exterior sign is approved , but the
particular sign and its size must be presented for approval upon a
proper application under the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance . However ,
only one sign is to be placed upon the premises .
•
y Zoning Board of Appeals 4 April 17 , 1985
• 7 . The grounds shall , of course , be maintained and utilized in accordance
with Local Law # 4 - 1979 regulating the maintenance of real property in
the Town .
8 . Before any expansion of the building ( or expansion of the church use
into the 3rd bay ) , and before any new construction , or any
intensification of use may be undertaken , a Special Permit therefor
must be obtained . "
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Delli - Carpini if he had anything he wished to
say . Mr . Delli - Carpini stated that he did in regard to some of the
conditions , particularly with reference to expansion to the north . Mr .
Delli -Carpini stated that they have no plans at this time for expansion to
the north but they are contemplating expanding the building to the west by
a few feet . Mr . Delli -Carpini asked if he understood that these proposed
conditions prohibit this . Chairman Aron stated that the proposed
conditions state , simply , that if the building is extended an application
must be filed with the Building Inspector .
Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that the conditions state " not more than 40
people " , adding that the way they figured it the number it could hold would
be maybe 45 . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Cartee if a number over 40 does not
come under a different part of the Building Code , Mr . Delli -Carpini stated
that the Code calls for 50 before you go into another Code . Mr . Cartee
stated that there is no question that the way the matter exists now , their
may be 40 people , no more . Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that the Code calls
• for 7 square feet per person . Mr . Cartee stated that this has been all
talked about over all these meetings , adding that he had thought it had
been all discussed thoroughly . Mr . Delli - Carpini agreed , commenting that
he had learned a lot , and adding that the figure of 40 came from the
Planning Board because they asked him for that , and further adding that
right now this is not even a problem . Mr . Cartee noted that it is the
Building Code that sets the numbers . Chairman Aron wondered how long Mr .
Delli -Carpini would say that it would be until they would have 40 people .
Mr . Delli - Carpini stated that he could not say . Chairman Aron wondered if
it could be 4 - 5 - 6 months - years . Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that he did
not know . Chairman Aron suggested taking this matter one step at a time .
Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that all he was saying was , what was the maximum
allowable under the law without coming back to the Board . Chairman Aron
responded that , under the terms of the proposed conditions which he just
read , that number is 40 and after that the Fellowship sees the Building
Inspector . Discussion of the number 40 followed . Chairman Aron read aloud
from the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of March 5 , 1985 , page 20 ,
as follows : " . . . NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board that the following comments and / or recommendations , with
respect to proposed conditions pertaining to the Appeal of the Ithaca
Christian Fellowship , be forwarded to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals : 1 . Occupancy should be restricted to 40 people . . . . " Mr .
Delli -Carpini responded , okay , he would let that go .
Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that he was concerned that this matter should
have been decided at the last meeting , and asked if there were going to be
• any other conditions . Chairman Aron responded , no . Mr . Delli - Carpini
wondered what would happen if they took exception to some of the
r
Zoning Board of Appeals 5 April 17 , 1985
conditions . Mr . King stated that what is being discussed at this time is a
• six - page document , a portion of which the Chairman had read aloud .
MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mr . Jack D . Hewett :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that Mr .
Delli -Carpini be given a copy of the proposed conditions with respect to
the Application of Delli - Carpini , Ithaca Christian Fellowship , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Public Hearing in said matter be and hereby
is adjourned until the next meeting of said Board of Appeals , May 15 , 1985 .
Mr . Delli -Carpini asked if the reason for this adjournment was that he
may be questioning the conditions . Mr . King responded , yes , adding that it
is also to give Mr . Delli - Carpini an opportunity to read them fully . Mr .
Delli -Carpini asked if he did not question them and the Board does it
tonight , did he give up his right to appeal . Chairman Aron ;stated that Mr .
Delli -Carpini can appeal from this Board .
Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that the Chairman had spoken of a school .
Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that they feel school is a regular part of their
ministry , the Christian education of their children as well as regular
education , that is a regular part of their ministry . Mr . Delli - Carpini
wondered where they stood on the basis of these proposed conditions in the
future as to this . Chairman Aron stated that Mr . Delli - Carpini would see
Mr . Cartee and come to this Board at that time . Mr . Delli -Carpini wondered
• if Chairman Aron meant if they want to do something like that - - use the
facility for Christian education , also including regular subjects , regular
academic subjects . Chairman Aron responded , yes . Mrs . Reuning stated to
Mr . Delli - Carpini that she thought if he had anything else in mind
different from what he originally brought before the Board , he should ,
perhaps , come back . Chairman Aron stated to Mr . Delli - Carpini that he
would suggest , as Chairman , that if he wanted a school incorporated in this
request , he file another appeal . Mr . King suggested to Mr . Delli - Carpini
that he take the thirty days until the next Board meeting and examine the
proposal and come back to the Board . Mr . Delli - Carpini stated that he
thought at this point he would like to just get this over . Chairman Aron
commented to Mr . Delli -Carpini that he can always come back to this Board
on other things . Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that that is why he wanted to
know these things . , Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Delli -Carpini has been to
this Board five times with tonight ' s meeting and , commenting that Mr .
Delli -Carpini had said he learned quite a bit , stated that the Board and
Mr . Delli - Carpini have been talking , up to now , about a place of worship ,
that is all , and that is what this Board is considering right now , a house
of worship in this garage , that is all . Chairman Aron stated that if , in
the future , Mr . Delli -Carpini would like to have a school , he sees Mr .
Cartee , he files another appeal , and we talk about a school only . Mr .
Delli -Carpini conjectured that a determination tonight does not preclude
anything in the future as far as expansion goes . Chairman Aron responded
that Mr . Delli -Carpini sees Mr . Cartee and sees this Board . Chairman Aron
suggested to Mr . Delli -Carpini that he had a choice - - ( 1 ) thirty days to
digest this proposed document ; ( 2 ) if he were not interested and he wanted
• a school , that is another matter . Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that , as far as
expansion work , they have no plans for that , asking , however , in the future
Zoning Board of Appeals 6 April 17 , 1985
would they be prohibited just by these conditions . Chairman Aron stated
that Mr . Delli -Carpini could still come to this Board .
Mr . King stated that he really would feel uncomfortable in voting on
a resolution of this matter at this time . Mr . King stated that he believed
Mr . Delli -Carpini should have the time to digest this proposal . Mr .
Delli -Carpini stated that he was willing to accept this tonight . Mr . King
stated that Mr . Delli -Carpini was saying that the Board :is forcing him .
Mr . Delli - Carpini responded , no , it was not , adding that he understood .
Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that he had one more question , which was ,
that as far as the sign goes , the way he understood it , is that it is
exempt . Mr . Cartee explained the Town of Ithaca Sign Law with respect to
Mr . Delli -Carpini ' s sign request . Mr . Delli -Carpini said that that was
okay , adding that he had thought the conditions meant he had to come back
to the Board for a sign .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Delli - Carpini if he felt comfortable . Mr .
Delli -Carpini responded , yes , he did . Mr . Delli - Carpini stated that he
would like to make a comment , which was , that the reason the was bringing
this up was whether these were unnecessary or arbitrary restrictions on the
use of their property . Mr . Delli - Carpini stated that they feel this should
have been decided a long time ago and they have reservations about the
treatment they were getting and it should have been resolved a long time
ago . Mr . Delli - Carpini stated that he wanted to make sure some of the
things , not worded the way they are tonight , but through the process they
have had substantial legal rights that have been violated . Mr .
Delli -Carpini stated that it is not his purpose to argue these rights ; he
was willing to accept these conditions and go home . Mr „ Delli - Carpini
stated that they are not willing to be prohibited from future plans . Mr .
Delli -Carpini stated that , as far as coerced , he was not , adding that he
knew he can postpone the matter until the next time , but he did not want to
do that .
Mr . Hewett stated that he .withdrew his second of the Motion on the
floor ; Mr . King withdrew his Motion .
MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mrs . Joan G . Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adopt and
hereby does adopt the six pages of fact finding , conclusions , and
conditions in the matter of the Delli -Carpini application , thereby granting
the special permit . on the conditions stated in that document , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that a copy of said document be given to Mr .
Delli - Carpini as soon as possible so that he can be fully advised .
By way of discussion , Mr . Austen asked Mr . Cartee if he had any
thoughts on this proposed resolution . Mr . Cartee stated that he did not ,
adding that he can work with Mr . Delli -Carpini . Mr . Austen stated that he
did wonder about the use of the words " place of assembly " because he had
understood that under the Code this was a " space of assembly " . Mr . Cartee
• stated that Mr . Austen was correct , it should be " space of assembly " . Mr .
Austen said that , also , he would like to clarify , with respect to
4
Zoning Board of Appeals 7 April 17 , 1985
Conditions # 3 , " Ingress and egress to and from the premises and Pine Tree
Road will be had primarily ( if not exclusively ) over the northerly arm of
the loop driveway shown on the map . etc . " Mr . Austen wondered if that
should not be ingress on the northerly and egress on the southerly arm .
Mr . King stated that that was intentional on the part of the Board , as he
understood it , that only the northerly arm was to be used . Mr . Cartee
stated that he thought Condition # 3 as moved was acceptable . Mr . Austen
stated that that was fine with him ; he just wanted to be sure . Chairman
Aron asked Mr . Delli -Carpini if he had noted the change from place to
space . Mr . Delli7Carpini stated that he understood .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , King , Reuning , Austen , Hewett .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Delli -Carpini et al Appeal
duly closed at 7 : 45 p . m .
For the record , the document duly adopted by Resolution of the Board
of Appeals , this date , April 17 , 1985 , is hereinbelow set forth .
TOWN of ITHACA : BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Re : Application of Delli -Carpini
. ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
Church & Residence on Same Lot
203 Pine Tree Road
SUBJECT PROPERTY :
The property consists of a CONSOLIDATED PARCEL composed of Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcels 57 - 1 - 1 and 57 - 1 - 7 . 12 , being the property conveyed by ROBERT &
SARAH LILLIE to RAYMOND DELLI -CARPINI , JEFFREY E . FAIRCHILD , AND JAMES
SAROKA as tenants in common , by deed dated June 29 , 1984 and recorded in
the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Book 602 of Deeds at page 466 .
This parcel has a frontage of 280 feet on the easterly side of Pine Tree
Road and an irregular , average depth of about 250 feet .
The northerly 125 feet or so of the parcel width is unimproved ( being
sometimes referred to in our proceedings as " the vacant lot " ) , and the
southerly 140 to 155 feet or so of the parcel width is improved with
several buildings , including a single family dwelling , the garage here
concerned as the SPACE OF ASSEMBLY , and a barn .
Judging from the survey map presented to us and the Planning Board by
Petitioners ( viz . the map entitled " SURVEY OF LANDS of Robert J . & Sarah R .
Lillie & of Lands ' to be conveyed . . . etc . etc . . . 203 PINE TREE ROAD " , made
by Howard R . Schlieder under date of July 25 , 1981 ] the southwest corner of
• the parcel is located about 65 feet north of the Honness Lane intersection
with Pine Tree Road , and the southerly arm of the circular driveway on this
parcel is about 1 , 10 feet north of that intersecting roadway , while the
Zoning Board of Appeals 8 April 17 , 1985
• northerly arm of the driveway is about 175 feet north of that highway
intersection . ( The survey map is the only evidence which was presented to
us on these matters , although we also had reference to the Deed for the
property and to Tax Maps , as well as views of the property by some members
of the Board . )
The northerly arm of the driveway appears from the tax maps to be located
about 350 feet south of the intersection of Pine Tree Road with Snyder Hill
Road , the northwest corner of the subject parcel being located about 200
feet south of that intersection . Pine Tree Road is a fairly highly
trafficated roadway with narrow shoulders , making roadside parking almost
impossible and most undesirable .
From the Snyder Hill Road intersection south ( viz , largely -to the south of
the subject parcel ) Pine Tree Road is a relatively densely populated
residential street . But even so , the direct connection of Pine Tree Road
with NYS Highway 79 ( The Slaterville Road ) to the south , and its indirect
second connection with that State Highway via Honness Lane 1- - and the fact
that Pine Tree Road leads to the Cornell Campus to the north of this
parcel , make the road a direct avenue of fairly heavy traffic to and from
Cornell University past the subject property .
ZONING : R- 15 RESIDENTIAL :
The parcel is located in an R - 15 Residential Zone . Under . § 14 of the Zoning
. Ordinance , such zoning requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet and a depth
• of 150 feet , and further requires that the principal use building be so
sited upon the lot as to provide side yards of at least 1. 5 feet each , a
rear yard at least 30 feet deep , and a front yard set -back at least equal
to the average set -back of buildings in the neighborhood - - but with a
minimum of 25 feet in any event , yet not requiring a set- back greater than
50 feet .
PROPOSAL :
Petitioner proposes to adapt the front ( westerly ) 361 square feet [ 19 ' x
191 ] - - viz . the westerly 2 bays of the 3 - bay garage on the premises , for
use as a CHURCH . This would be classified as a SPACE OF ASSEMBLY under the
State Building Code . (Making allowance for permanent fixtures , that area
would seem sufficient to provide room for no more than 40 people at one
time . ) The Petitioner has also mentioned the possibility of at some time
expanding the use : into the 3rd bay of the garage . The congregation is
presently relatively small , consisting of about a dozen members .
The ' Site Plan ' presented consists of a copy of the aforesaid Survey Map
from Liber 587 of Deeds at page 765 , upon which two cross - hatched sites for
parking are depicted ( extending west and north from the garage , into the
vacant lot area , plus an area south of the east bay of the garage ) ; an
" Enclosed Garbage Shed " 8 ' x 4 ' is depicted adjacent west of the barn ; and
a " Sign " location is indicated at the roadside , centered on the 2 - story
frame dwelling . An additional " Detail " sheet indicates that the circular
• driveway is paved with asphalt and that additional parking will be paved
with gravel , bordered by railroad ties . Existing or proposed shrubbery has
Zoning Board of Appeals 9 April 17 , 1985
also been indicated on the survey site plan and detail sheet , and a
proposed sign 4 ' x 6 ' ( or x 51 ) is also shown on the Detail sheet .
Upon the prior request of this Zoning Board of Appeals , referring this
matter to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for site plan and other review
and recommendations , the Planning Board reviewed and approved this site
plan at its meetings on February 19 , 1985 and March 5 , 1985 .
MORE THAN ONE ( PRINCIPAL USE ) BUILDING ON A SINGLE LOT : § 68 :
The subject parcel has long been devoted to , and remains devoted to
residential use , the principal improvement thereon being the 2 - story frame
dwelling . The proposal to adapt the garage for use as a church or
religious meeting house would constitute another principal use of the
premises . Use of the property for a Church is a permitted use in this R- 15
district per our Ordinance § 11 ( 3 ) - - as indeed , are other possible uses
such as for a Library , School , Museum , Fire Station , etc . But it is
implicit that the ordinance does not contemplate multiple principal uses
upon the same lot without further consideration .
§ 68 of the Ordinance requires that where there are two or more principal
buildings on one lot , the spaces ( ' separation ' ) between the buildings shall
be at least equal to the distance of 2 side yards combined , or equal to the
depth of a front yard plus a rear yard , " as the case may be " , the language
of the ordinance being :
• SECTION 68 . More than One Building on a Lot . When
there is more than one principal building on a lot in
any district the space between such buildings must be
at least, equal to the sum of the side yards required
by such buildings or the sum of the rear and the front
yards as the case may be .
We interpret this section to require that frontal and lateral separation
must be maintained just as though the principal buildings were buildings
upon separate but adjacent lots , fully conforming with the front , rear and
side yard requirements of the Zone in which they are located . In other
words , the size of the lot and the siting of the buildings must be such
that a minor subdivision of them could be achieved by drawing a line or
lines of separation which would leave each building upon a lot conforming
to all the requirements of the particular Zone .
THE LATERAL separation of the garage from the house on this property
appears to be somewhere between 20 and 25 feet , measured from the north
wall of the house to the south wall of the garage , judging from the scale
and depiction of the buildings on the survey map presented to us . Side
yards in R - 15 [ Ord . § 141 must be at least 15 feet wide , so 30 feet of
lateral separation is required here to meet the § 68 criterion . The
separation here appears to be 5 to 10 feet short of that .
THE FRONTAL separation of these two buildings ( east or rears wall of house
• to west or front wall of garage ) is - - again judging from the survey -
about 45 feet , rather than the 55 feet [ 25 ft + 30 ft ] which § 68 might seem
literally to require : yet if there were sufficient lateral separation , the
t
Zoning Board of Appeals 10 April 17 , 1985
. 135 foot set -back of the garage from the highway , and the 45 foot rear yard
from the barn ( which lies to the rear or east of this garage ) to the east
line of the property , is seen to be more than adequate to meet the yard
requirements in this district . Thus , since there is a significant amount
of lateral separation here , it seems unnecessary and logically
inappropriate to also apply the frontal separation requirement to this
particular situation .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT :
The Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency . The Reviewer , Town Planner
Lovi , recommended a Negative Declaration based upon his reasoning [ Opinion
Dec . 13 , 198-4 ( Part III of the Statement ) ] that the matter could handled by
way of a Minor Re - Subdivision of the lot so that the garage -meeting place
would become a single principal church building on its own lot , rather than
a second principal use building on the same lot with the residence ; and
that thus the " environmental impacts " could be MITIGA'T' ED simply and
completly by such a legal minor , subdivision of the property into two
parcels .
HOWEVER , in view of the fact that the ZBA is now required , under Local Law
No . 4 of 1985 to review applications for uses under Subdivisions ( 3 ) , ( 5 ) ,
( 6 ) , and ( 7 ) of the Residential Use Sections 4 , 11 , and 18 of the Zoning
Ordinance , and to grant or withold SPECIAL APPROVAL in accordance with the
Criteria specified in Section 77 Subdivision ( 7 ) of the ordinance , it would
seem that the Board can , by imposing reasonable conditions , mitigate any
• negative environmental impacts which might be caused by the operation of a
church in this particular building upon this property . With this
consideration in view , the Zoning Board of Appeals adopted a resolution
finding no Environmental Significance in the proposal - - i . e . it duly made
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance at its meeting held on
March 20 , 1985 .
SPECIAL APPROVAL :
Section 77 ( 7 ) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance requires that , in
considering whether to grant or deny Special Approval , the Zoning Board of
Appeals must determine :
( a ) Whether the proposal will promote the health , safety and general
welfare .
( b ) That the ' premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use ; and
that such use will fill a neighborhood or community need .
( c ) The location and design of any structure shall be consistent with
the character of the District in which it is located ; and the
proposed use will also be consistent with the character of that
District .
( d ) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity -
• or to the neighborhood character - in ' amounts ' sufficient to
devaluate neighboring property - or to seriously inconvenience
neighboring inhabitants .
Zoning Board of Appeals 11 April 17 , 1985
• ( e ) Access and egress for all structures and uses shall be safely
designed .
( f ) General effect upon community as a whole [ including items such as
traffic load and demand upon water and sewer ] will not be
detrimental to public health , safety and general welfare of the
community .
and ( 8 ) the ZBA may impose such reasonable conditions as it deems
necessary to protect the general welfare of the community .
FINDINGS :
In addition to our adopting the findings of fact implicit and explicit in
the foregoing statements of this situation , we further find the location
and topography of this land to present no great problems to or hazards in
the proposed additional use , particularly so long as ample off - street
parking is provided and so long as access and egress for congregational
meetings is directed primarily over the northerly arm of the existing
driveway , well separated from the immediate highway intersections .
We further find that while the garage may conceivably provide an adequate
meeting place for a relatively small congregation , and while the proximity
of garage to the dwelling would not seem to pose any particular problem in
the proposed use by such a small congregation , any considerable extension
of the church use - - e . g . by a congregation whose numbers would make likely
• the occupancy of the garage facilities by more than 35 to 40 people at one
time , would be better directed toward an expansion to the north , into the
' vacant lot ' area , : rather than by an expansion into the remaining portion
of the garage . And further , expansion of the church facility and
activities toward the south - - viz . behind [ east ' of ] the dwelling , would
constitute a much further departure from the separation of uses envisaged
by X68 of the Zoning Ordinance , and is therefore to be avoided .
CONCLUSIONS :
(A ) . Subject to the Conditions following , the proposed use should be given
a Special Permit so long as the intensity of the use in the particular
building and location is within the limits contemplated by the
application , such use not to be extended beyond the limits indicated
without further consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals .
( B ) . The site plan approval previously given by the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board upon the request of this Board is deemed to constitute adequate
compliance with the provisions of Town of Ithaca Local Law # 4 - 1985 ,
despite such approval having been given prior- to the Decision of this
Zoning Board of Appeals .
CONDITIONS :
Assuming that the intensity of use of the premises for church purposes will
• be as contemplated by the Petition and the presentations to the Boards , and
that only the two westerly bays of the garage will be renovated for these
purposes , no extensions of that proposal nor exterior modifications to the
Zoning Board of Appeals 12 April 17 , 1985
building being contemplated , the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants
Special Approval for such use of the subject parcel and its improvements ,
upon the following conditions :
1 . The church structure as remodelled is not to be occupied by more than
40 people at ; any one time ( or to such lesser number as any other
applicable Code or Ordinance might dictate ) , and it is to be used only
for usual church and congregational purposes , viz . excluding its use
as a dwelling , school , nursery , place of public assembly , etc . etc .
2 . The church structure must be made to comply with the Fire Safety Code
and other Codes and Ordinances applicable to such a space of assembly .
3 . Ingress and egress to and from the premises and Pine Tree Road will be
had primarily ( if not exclusively ) over the northerly arm of the loop
driveway shown on the map . No parking is to be permitted in the
driveway during services , both arms of the driveway to remain open and
traversable by emergency vehicles .
4 . Off - street parking is to be provided in and limited to the areas shown
on the site plan , viz . to the west ( extending northerly ) of the garage
site , with a small area immediately south of the easterly end of the
garage - - none of such areas to be so located as to block or impede
the free movement of emergency vehicles in the driveway . The parking
areas shall be prepared and maintained in suitable condition for such
parking , viz . adequately based and surfaced with gravel. or a ' macadam
• type ' material , suitably drained , and adequately delineated and
reasonably landscaped with shrubbery as proposed by Petitioner in
presentations to the Boards . A reasonable time will be allowed the
Petitioner or the Fellowship to prepare such parking areas .
5 . The existing outdoor lighting of limited intensity , is approved . No
additional outdoor electric lights or other illumination is
permissible except upon approval of the Board of Appeals after the
filing of a specific application with the Building Inspector .
6 . The siting of the proposed single exterior sign is approved , but the
particular sign and its size must be presented for approval upon a
proper application under the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance . However ,
only one sign is to be placed upon the premises .
7 . The grounds shall , of course , be maintained and utilized in accordance
with Local Law # 4 - 1979 regulating the maintenance of real property in
the Town .
8 . Before any expansion of the building ( or expansion of the church use
into the 3rd bay ) , and before any new construction , or any
intensification of use may be undertaken , a Special Permit therefor
must be obtained .
[ Secretary ' s Note : Mr . Delli -Carpini was given a copy of the
• heretofore described document at 9 : 30 a . m . , April 18 , 1985 . 1
N
Zoning Board of Appeals 13 April 17 , 1985
• ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MARCH 20 , 1985 ) OF ROBERT A . BOEHLECKE JR . , LAWRENCE
HULL , AGENT , IN RE THE USE OF 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 NO . 6 - 31 - 2 - 2 . 1 .
Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 46 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public
Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Messrs . Boehlecke and
Hull were present , as was Attorney Dirk A . Galbraith , representing Mr .
Hull . Chairman Aron requested that those present who might wish to speak ,
do so with new information only , adding that the Board has heard
extensively from the neighbors and has before it the Minutes of the March
20th meeting .
Attorney Galbraith stated that the only new matter they would like to
bring up is that Mr . Hull has given him an additional petition signed by
eight neighboring property owners indicating their approval of the
variance . Attorney Galbraith stated that he would like the petition made a
part of the record . Chairman Aron accepted the Petition and read aloud as
follows :
" 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 . "
Chairman Aron read aloud the names and addresses of the signatories ,
as follows :
" Stephen Zavaski II , 264 Floral Ave .
Stephen Zavaksi , 264 Floral Ave .
Ray Chilson Jr . , 254 Floral Ave .
Mr . & Mrs . Gray , 242 Floral Ave .
Mr . & Mrs . K . L . Taylor , 250 Floral Ave .
Abram Watkins , 248 Floral Ave .
Thomas Phillips , 242 Floral Ave .
Art Rosten , Floral Ave . "
Attorney Galbraith stated that the Board has had an opportunity to
view the property since its last meeting and , commenting that they do not
want to add to the lengthy record , offered that Mr . Hull and he were
present to answer any questions .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak
for or against the matter before the Board .
Mr . Heinz P . Riederer , 496 Five Mile Drive , spoke from the floor and
stated that he lives directly across the street from the property in
• question . Mr . Riederer stated that he would like to address the petition
presented at the last meeting by going through the petition name by name .
Zoning Board of Appeals 14 April 17 , 1985
• Chairman Aron requested that the Secretary find the March 20th
petition in the record which she had before her . Mr . Hewett asked
permission to be excused . Chairman Aron granted Mr . Hewett: permission to
depart . Chairman Aron stated that , while the Secretary was retrieving the
three -page petition containing some 38 signatures , he would read from a
letter received by the Board on April 15th from Mr . Hull . Chairman Aron
read aloud as follows :
" April 12 , 1985
Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals
. . .
Re : 611 Five Mile Drive
. 99 Thank you for taking the time to visit and inspect this property
concerning the variance application submitted by me which is presently
before you .
I would like to formally indicate my commitment to restore and improve
this property if I am able to obtain the variance which I have requested
and purchase the property from its present owner , Robert A . Boehlecke , Jr .
If I am able to purchase the property I will , within two years , complete
the following renovations :
1 . Install new siding on the small house on the property referred to
as the ' Crow ' s Nest ' .
2 . Repaint the main house .
3 . Install new siding on the exterior of the barn to the extent
necessary and repaint the remainder of the exterior of the barn
• where the existing siding is intact .
4 . Complete the reroofing of the barn .
5 . Install two rest rooms in the barn and connect them to public
water and sewer facilities if such facilities are available .
6 . Install an office in the barn suitable for myself and one other
employee .
7 . Install a driveway from Five Mile Drive to the area of the barn
suitable for use by large trucks ( I have approximately one such
deliveryper week ) . The location of the driveway would be
approximately as indicated on the survey map which has been
previously submitted .
If it were possible for this Board to issue a variance which was
conditional upon my completing these renovations within two years I believe
I could obtain the necessary financing , proceed to purchase the property
and perhaps to have the 'situation reviewed by your Board at that time . If
there is some other way in which I could provide your Board with assurance
that these renovations would be completed as a condition of any variance , I
or my attorney would be glad to discuss it with you .
Thank you for your consideration .
Very truly yours ,
( sgd . ) Lawrence Hull "
With the Secretary having the petition in front of her , Mr . Riederer
dictated as follows :
• i . The first individual is not in the neighborhood ; he is in the City of
Ithaca . [ Bob Schmidt , 1036 West Seneca Street . ]
2 . Darlene Pepin ' - - 491h Five Mile Drive is rental property .
11
Zoning Board of Appeals 15 April 17 , 1985
• 3 . The next name [ Chris Bomforth ] - - 431 Floral Avenue is in the City of
Ithaca .
4 . The next name is Mrs . Clarence Becker - - 661 Five Mile Drive is
approximately one -half mile from the property .
5 . Henry Lower - - 427 Floral Avenue is in the City .
6 . Claude Mobb , 621 Five Mile Drive - - no comment .
7 . Rich Armstrong [ 101 Coy Glen Road ] - - I will show you a signed
withdrawal ; when contacted he withdrew ; for the record .
8 . Larry Carl and Edith Carl , 491 Five Mile Drive , and Darlene Boynton ,
Betty Vann , and Kendra Luhrs , 491 Five Mile Drive , are all renting at
that property , not owners .
Next page :
1 . Thomas A . Marchell [ 128 Glenside Road ] - - I have a withdrawal of his
name from the petition , for the record .
2 . Howard Teeter - - 442 Floral Avenue is in the City .
3 . Lawrence E . Weaver - - 490 Floral Avenue is in the City .
4 . John Aagaard , 615 Five Mile Drive , sold his property two weeks ago , no
longer has an interest in this property .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Riederer if he had anything to substantiate
that statement with respect to Mr . Aagaard . Mr . Riederer responded , only
that the property has been sold .
5 . David St . George - - 656 Five Mile Drive is 4 / 10 of a mile from the
property .
6 . David C . Srnka - - Burtt Place is 7 / 10 of a mile from the property .
• 7 . Eugenia Bush [ 721 Five Mile Drive ] - - - rents .
8 . Teresa Spencer [ 115 Coy Glen Road ] - - I have a withdrawal .
9 . Woodrow W . Werner [ 117 Coy Glen Road ] - - I have a withdrawal .
10 . Gerald Greene and Evelyn Greene [ 204 Glenside Road ] - - I have a
withdrawal .
11 . Melvin W . Matheney - - 465 Floral Avenue is in the City of Ithaca .
12 . Louis J . Mobbs [ 619 Floral Avenue ] - - no comment .
13 . Charles E . Foster - - 658 Five Mile Drive is 4 / 10 of a mile from the
property .
14 . Ralph Bacon - - 704 Five Mile Drive is on the corner of Five Mile Drive
and Bostwick Road and is 5 / 10 of a mile from the property .
15 . Beverly Balknap - - 456 Floral Avenue is in the City .
16 . Michael and Gwen Doll - - 274 Floral Avenue is in the City .
17 . Dierk Terlouw [ 603 Five Mile Drive ] - - no comment .
18 . Jean Bowen [ 209 Coy Glen Road ] - - rents .
19 . Norman L . Hollenbeck - - 726 Five Mile Drive is 7 / 10 of a mile from the
property .
20 . William C . Jenks - - 655 Five Mile Drive is 4 / 10 of a mile from the
property .
21 . Hazel Baker - - 651 Five Mile Drive is 4 / 10 of a mile from the
property .
22 . Adolph Turco [ 200 Glenside Road ] - - I have a withdrawal .
23 . Ray Chilson 254 Floral Avenue is in the City .
Next page .
1 . Georgia MacNeil [ 132 Glenside Road ] - - I have a withdrawal .
• 2 . Becky A . Brown [ ? ] [ 121 Coy Glen Road ] - - rents .
Zoning Board of Appeals 16 April 17 , 1985
Mr . Riederer stated that he would now summarize by noting that the
• petition contained 38 names and of that there are 9 people that rent ; 8
people that withdrew ; 8 people in the City ; we have 8 people out of the
areas we have 1 person that is living completely out of the area ; one
individual that sold his property ; and 3 people that remain as neighbors on
the petition . Mr . Riederer stated that he would like to present these
papers to the Board . Chairman Aron stated that that would be appreciated .
Mr . Riederer presented seven letters to Chairman Aron . Mr . Riederer stated
that , also , he had additional letters from people who are not here tonight .
Mr . Riederer presented seven letters to Chairman Aron ,
Chairman Aron , noting that all the letters were the same , read aloud
as follows :
" Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Re : Zoning Variance for Tax Parcel # 6 - 31 - 2 - 2 . 1
I support the decision of the building inspector , denying permission to use
an existing structure ( barn ) , locted in Residential 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 . A . Boehlecke , Jr . , with
Lawrence Hull acting as Agent .
I object to the granting of any zoning - use variance for this property . "
Chairman Aron read aloud the names of the persons who signed these
letters , as follows :
" John A . Stevenson , 504 Five Mile Dr . , 4 / 10 / 85 .
Kenneth A . McClune , 114 Glenside Road , 4 / 16 / 85 .
Rachelle Woods , 114 Glenside Rd . , 4 / 16 / 85 .
A . Richard Strauss , 109 Glenside Rd . , Ithaca , 14th April 1985 .
Peter W . Post , 506 Five Mi . Dr . , 4 / 14 / 85 .
Patrick A . Fleming and Karen W . Fleming , 111 Coy Glen Rd . , 4 / 17 / 85 .
Anna H . Riederer , 496 Five Mile Drive , 4 / 16 / 85 . "
Mr . Riederer stated that he would also like the Chairman to read the
withdrawal letters .
Noting that all the letters , again , were the same , Chairman Aron read
aloud as follows *
" Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
I ( we ) the undersigned hereby withdraw our signatures from the petition to
the Town of Ithaca approving the operation of a plumbing repair business
which apparently was presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 15 ,
[ sic . ] 1985 on behalf of Mr . Boehlecke , Jr . , Mr . Lawrence Hull , Agent .
I ( we ) now have a more complete understanding of the pertinent facts
including the fact that the entire parcel in question is zoned residential .
• This fact was not in the petition . Also , it was not stated that this
petition was to be utilized in support of a ' use variance . '
IN
Zoning Board of Appeals 17 April 17 , 1985
• I hereby support the decision of the building inspector denying permission
to use an existing structure ( barn ) , located in Residential 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 . A .
Boehlecke , Jr . , with Lawrence Hull acting as Agent .
I object to the granting of any zoning - use variance for this property . "
Chairman Aron read aloud the names of the person who signed these
letters , as follows :
" Adolph Turco , 200 Glenside Rd . , Ithaca , 4 / 16 / 85 .
Teresa N . Spencer , 115 Coyglen [ sic . ] Rd . , 4 / 15 / 85 .
Georgia MacNeil , 132 Glenside Rd . , 4 / 16 / 85 .
Thomas A . Marchell , 128 Glenside , Ithaca , NY , 4 / 16 / 85 .
Gerald C . Greene / Evelyn M . Greene , 204 Glenside Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . , April
15 , 1985 .
Rich Armstrong , 101 Coy Glen Rd . , April 14 , 1985 .
Woodrow W . Werner , 117 Coy Glen Road , April 16 , 1985 . "
Mr . Riederer stated that he had one more comment with respect to the
petition presented this evening by Mr . Hull . Mr . Riederer stated the
audience was just informed that Mr . Hull presented another petition in
favor of his request and he would point out that they are all in the 200
block of Floral Avenue , about one - half a mile away , at minimum , and , in the
• City , not in the Town .
Chairman Aron stated that he had received a letter which was
hand - delivered this evening signed by Stephen J . Shippos , and he would read
that letter into the record . Chairman Aron read aloud , as follows :
" If you grant the applicant a variance for the property known as 491 - 4912
Five Mile Drive , I would like it to be put in the record that there will no
[ sic . ] No extension of the plumbing business of Hull Plumbing other than
what is applied for at this time . Also , that all surrounding land included
in this property will be cleared and kept free of any overgrowth .
The present absentee owner has neglected this property and I ( Stephen J .
Shippos ) have had considerable difficulty in selling and trying to maintain
my adjoining land .
Signed : Stephen J . Shippos
Date : 4 / 17 / 85 "
Mr . Peter W . Post spoke from the floor and stated that he lived at 506
Five Mile Drive . Chairman Aron asked how far away that was . Mr . Post
responded that it was a stone ' s throw . Mr . Post stated that he understood
Mr . Hull ' s position and what he proposes , but to put additional monies into
the property is what he has done to his property over the last three years ,
through the proper channels - - Mr . Cartee , Mr . Post stated that he put
this investment into his property , knowing it was zoned residential . Mr .
Post stated that the residents are improving property and adding to the tax
• rolls and it is their hope that other people will come out and we will have
more residential property . Mr . Post stated that he felt betrayed , frankly .
Chairman Aron offered that Mr . Post was not betrayed .
Zoning Board of Appeals 18 April 17 , 1985
Mr . David Gries , 112 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor and stated
• that he was against the request , adding that it is a residential area ; it
is a small , nice community , and it. should stay that way .
Mr . Norbert H . Schickel III , 494 Five Mile Drive , spoke from the floor
and stated that he would like to read a letter , which he wrote to the
Zoning Board of Appeals , dated April 17 , 1985 , into the record which he
would also submit for the record . Mr . Schickel read aloud as follows .
" I strongly oppose any use variance for 491 - 491 - 1 / 2 Five Mile Drive , tax
parcel 6 - 31 - 2 - 2 . 11 [ sic . ] , requested by Lawrence Hull agent for Robert
Boehelcke Jr . and I support the decision of the building inspector .
1 . In recent years the area has made much progress as a residential area .
The road is better and the inlet has added beauty . The inlet and the
recreational trail by the inlet are consistent with a residential area .
And there is talk of a proposed park .
2 . Hull really wants to develop the 12 acre R - 9 and R - 15 residential areas
into a commercial area and actually sought rezoning to do -this . The Town
Board tabled it ; he was talking retail outlet , shop , etc . in November 1984 .
3 . I suspect that if he gets this variance he ' d later say -the rest of the
parcel 12 acres then couldn ' t be used for residential because there was
commercial activity and thus he ' d need a zoning change from the Town Board ,
4 . All land in the City between the street and the :inlet is zoned
residential - that character of the area should be continued in the Town .
The inlet forms a natural buffer for the residential area and I suggested
at the Town Board meeting in November 1984 that any property between the
street and the inlet that was not already zoned residential should be
changed to be zoned residential . That would be in keeping with the area
and make nice use of the inlet , trail and proposed park .
5 . The Zoning Ordinance , Article XIV , Section 77 ( 7 ) ( a - f ) sets six
requirements for a variance and here none are met .
First , the safety and general welfare of the community is better suited by
keeping it residential . ( a )
Second , no showing has been made that Hull couldn ' t get space for his
commercial business elsewhere . There ' s no showing of neighborhood or
community need for plumbing shops . ( b )
Third , the use and structure are not consistent with the character of the
residential neighborhood . ( c )
Fourth , the proposed use would be detrimental to general amenity and
neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring
property . ( d )
Fifth , access and egress is a safety hazard , especially with children ; my
two children being one and almost three years old . ( e )
Sixth , the general effect of the proposal would increase traffic and safety
problems . ( f )
Thus this use doesn ' t meet any of the six requirements of Article XIV
Section 77 subsection 7 ( a - f ) .
6 . There was no pre - existing nonconforming use . Even if there was at some
point , such use certainly ceased in 1979 and for at least three years
thereafter , thus such use was clearly abandoned for more than one year
which is what the zoning ordinance requires ( Article XII , Section 53 ) .
7 . I have been told that a number of people who initially signed a
petition for Hull have since withdrawn their signatures , making
neighborhood opposition nearly unanimous . [ Mr . Schickel added here that he.
Zoning Board of Appeals 19 April 17 , 1985
• would question whether some of those remaining on them had been given a
view of the basic facts , adding that he did not think all of the people
were approached . ]
8 . There has been progress in recent years in making this a nice
residential area , and I say let ' s keep it going .
( sgd . ) Norbert H . Schickel III "
Chairman Aron asked if anyone else wished to speak . Addressing the
Chair , Attorney Galbraith stated , " We have nothing further , sir . "
Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing duly closed at
8 : 15 p . m .
Mrs . Reuning , noting that in the Appeal it is stated that there would
be three people that would be employed , asked if that would mean Mr . Hull
and two others . Mr . Hull stated that that would mean employees . Mrs .
Reuning wondered if that meant three employees plus Mr . Hull and pointed
out that in his letter of commitment presented tonight it states one other
employee . Attorney Galbraith stated that Mr . Hull ' s work is a service
business and employees come in and go out , and added that the service
people would be away from the premises all day , further adding that the
employee mentioned in the letter would be a secretary in the office .
Chairman Aron stated that he would like to ask a question of Mr . Hull
with respect to how long he has been over in that area prior to coming to
• this Board for appeal . Mr . Hull responded that , if Chairman Aron meant how
long he has been occupying the place , he has been storing stuff for about 4
years . Chairman Aron wondered what made Mr . Hull move there , commenting
that he had a business on State Street , Mr . Hull stated that that is the
family ' s business . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hull if he understood correctly
that Mr . Hull had operated there for four years . Mr . Hull stated that
there were no telephones there , but he operated there for four years .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hull when the trailer and the secretary were moved
on the property . Mr . Hull stated that around November lst was when the
secretary was put on the property , 1984 , to answer phones basically .
Mrs . Reuning asked if she were correct in thinking that that trailer
would be removed . Mr . Hull stated that the trailer would be removed ,
adding that he would not use it .
Mr . King asked if the nature of the operation has changed in the last
four years . Mr . Hull responded , yes . Mr . King asked in what way it had
changed . Mr . Hull stated that it has increased , adding that he was
operating by himself doing plumbing and heating work . Mr . King asked Mr .
Hull if he operated on the premises doing fabricating . Mr . Hull responded
that some small part of the fabricating was done , but in plumbing work most
of the fabricating is done on the job . Attorney Galbraith noted that in
1981 - 1982 Mr . Hull used the barn for storage and in 1984 the trailer was
connected and an office set up in it . Attorney Galbraith stated that ,
although the Hull family has been in the plumbing business for many years ,
this is actually a new business of sorts .
• Mrs . Reuning thought it might be helpful if the difference between a
variance and a special permit could be explained with reference to the
letter from Mr . Hull which essentially asks for a conditional variance .
Zoning Board of Appeals 20 April 17 , 1985
• Mrs . Reuning thought there could be a possibility for special approval .
Mr . King spoke of the idea of a special permit being something considerably
less than a variance and commented that a variance alters the land
permanently . Mr . King stated that he did not think the Board could issue a
conditional variance . Mr . King noted that the Board has viewed this
property and speaking for himself , frankly , it looks a mess from Floral
Avenue . Mr . King commented that the so -called " Crow ' s Nest " house could
use some work and and there were a lot of cars there just before the
Board ' s site visit . Mr . King stated that , however , the barn is a
remarkable structure inside , even though , to him , it looks pretty
delapidated from the outside .
Mrs . Constance E . Cook , 209 Coy Glen Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that she would like to comment that the place does look bad and the
neighbors think when it is sold to a property owner as a residential owner
that person would develop it and make it better . Mrs . Cook stated that , as
a commercial use , it would make it very difficult for them to keep on
improving their property . Mrs . Cook commented that they had , for years , a
gravel pit . Mrs . Cook stated that she hoped the Board viewed Five Mile
Drive and Route 13A on their visit . Mrs . Cook stated that the area has
vastly improved and they have suffered through just like the City . Mrs .
Cook stated that the residential aspect had improved and their approach to
this area is that they have come a long way and ask the Board to help them
go farther . Mrs . Cook stated that Mr . Hull has never mentioned a sign and
the Board knows he will be in for a sign and that would be detrimental .
, Mrs . Cook asked , if the business has been conducted for several months as
Mr . Hull has said he has done , what makes the Board think he will abide by
the conditions . Mrs . Cook stated that if they had a chance to keep
improving the area as Norbert Schickel says about the inlet and the park ,
etc . , it will get better .
Mr . King commented that the Board has been discussing a special permit
to Mr . Hull for the reason that the property does look ;bad . Mr . King
stated that it could be improved and it should be improved . Mr . King
pointed out that it has not been improved , it has had previous owners who
had businesses , adding , maybe not under the Statute as Attorney Schickel
has indicated , although he was not sure that Attorney Schickel was correct ,
but , as one examines the premises , it has been a place of storage of goods
for many years . Mr . King stated that the property was actually a farm at
one time and offered that the chances for its restoration as a farm are
passe . Mr . King stated that this Board would like to see the neighborhood
improved , adding that it knows that the neighbors would too , that being why
they were here . Mr . King stated that it is probably uneconomic to utilize
that existing building for anything other than its present use , which is
storage , commercial storage . Commenting with respect to the property as a
commercial place , Mr . King stated that there has been some confusion about
a retail business as opposed to Mr . Hull ' s proposal for a substantially
off -premises business , Mr . King noted that Mr . Hull has indicated to the
Board the meeting of conditions and improvement of the property , visual
improvement thereof , which would enhance the neighbors ' properties and
commented that , as it is , the site is obviously devaluing to the neighbors '
Wroperty ,
roperties . Mr . King stated that the Board noted the entrance to the
as Mr . Hull proposes it , would be down the road from the front
driveway , thus , not directly into the barn , but by a circuitous road down
Zoning Board of Appeals 21 April 17 , 1985
several hundred feet at the elevation of the barn and , as such , with the
main operation down on the lower floor , not visible from the roadway . Mr .
King commented that to him , and he thought to other members of the Board ,
this does not appear to be an objectionable operation , adding that it would
be hardly noticed from the roadway . Mr . King pointed out that the property
was actually zoned Light Industrial where this use would take place , adding
that a previous owner asked that it be zoned residential , and further
adding , that the members of the Board believe , from the record , that it was
changed to Residential on the prospect of houses which never occurred in
the intervening 10 years .
Mr . King read the Resolution adopted by the Town Board on September 8 ,
1975 , as follows :
" RESOLVED , that the lands of Stephen J . Shippos west of the flood control
channel ( Parcel 31 - 2 - 2 ) as shown on map used by Mr . Shippos in his
presentation to the Board and as such map may be refined by reference to an
existing more inclusive map of the area which may be on file in the
Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office , be re - zoned from Light Industrial to R- 15 . "
Mr . King stated that it is not clear exactly what land was rezoned ,
commenting that it is almost classic spot zoning , and adding , however , some
150 ' to 2501 , or maybe more , is in an R- 9 zone and is still R- 9 as it has
been all along ; the land beyond that was Light Industrial and was rezoned
R- 15 and only for this particular land adjacent to the City . Mr . King
stated that , frankly , we lean toward a controlled use of the premises ,
• under severe conditions that it be upgraded , via special permit , revokable
at will , with some time to do this so that it will present a better
appearance ; traffic would be controlled ; a sign , yes , there is a need , as
the Board has heard , people have complained about people coming to their
door trying to find the place to pay a bill . Mr . King stated that , as far
as the proposals of Mr . Hull , he is proposing some kind of permit ; he is
asking for a variance ; he would install new siding on the property on the
road which he called the Crow ' s Nest and which is sometimes called 4912 and
sometimes 611 ; he would install new siding on the barn and repaint ; he
would repaint the main house which is not particularly necessary ; with
respect to trucks , there is a large , empty field where he proposes truck
traffic to go back in .
Mr . Austen stated that he would like to note , for the record , that
there are two other service agencies on that road , one being the
Madison /Aagaard property which is a service company , adding that there is
nobody there today but there will be . Mr . Austen stated that the Marion
Electric properties are a little farther down . Mr . Austen stated that he
did not know how objectionable they are , but he sees very little traffic
and they are very similar businesses to what Mr . Hull is proposing . Mr .
Austen stated that one of the businesses is in the Light Industrial , the
other is not .
Chairman Aron stated that he had a question for the Town Attorney , Mr .
Grossman , being in regard to his thoughts on special permits . Attorney
* Grossman stated that he did not know whether the Board was using the term
special permit as a term of art or as a temporary solution to see how it
falls out . Attorney Grossman stated that , as he understood it , a special
permit is set out where the ordinance says there is one , adding that that
Zoning Board of Appeals 22 April 17 , 1985
• is in the law several times . Attorney Grossman stated that what we have
here is a request for . a variance from the terms of the law , adding that a
variance could be granted subject to conditions . Attorney Grossman stated
that he thought we are talking about a variance . Chairman Aron responded
that he believed the Board understood the difference between a variance and
a special permit , and commented on Attorney Grossman ' s suggesting that a
special permit could be temporary to find out how things fall out .
Attorney Grossman stated that , respectfully , he thought a special permit is
only in order when special permit is established . in the statute which he
did not believe was the case here .
Mr . King stated that the Board was using the term in a conceptual
manner , however , with the thought that if the Board has the power to grant
a variance that runs with the land forever , it must have the power to grant
something less than a variance , granted that there may be nothing in the
ordinance that says you must obtain a special permit . Attorney Grossman
stated that he respectfully differed , adding that he thought it was an
either / or situation , and adding further , that a special permit is not a
fall -back situation , it is either authorized or not and , therefore , he
thought the higher requirements of a variance are involved here .
Mr . Riederer spoke from the floor and asked the Chair if it would
consider re - opening the public hearing . Chairman Aron responded that he
would consider it if Mr . Riederer had something to say . Mr . Riederer
stated that he would like to reserve that right - - to have the public
• hearing re - opened - - before the Board votes , since the Board has been
advised by its Counsel that what Mr . Hull has asked for cannot be .
Attorney Grossman stated that he would like the record to show that he
reserves the right to be mistaken .
Mrs . Cook spoke from the floor and stated that she drafted the Zoning
Ordinance , along with Attorney Walter J . Wiggins and Elmer Phillips , and
she sat on the Board of Appeals , adding that she wanted to say that
Attorney Grossman was absolutely right .
Mr . Riederer stated that he would like to comment on a couple of
comments made earlier , the first being in regard to the use of the
property . Mr . Riederer stated that he lives directly across from the
property and in his research , and observations , the barn has been used for
storage from 1979 until November 1984 and after that a business was
started , in fact , a month after Mr . Hull ' s rezoning was not granted by the
Town Board , he , in an apparent non - legal fashion , started operating . Mr .
Riederer stated that , secondly , he would like to say that the driveway we
are discussing that is to be used for this business is directly across from
his home ; he is in a residential zone and across the street is zoned
residential ; he is adamantly against this request . Mr . Riederer stated
that , third , he would comment that it has been stated here repeatedly that
there is one delivery per week , but there are many more deliveries by large
trucks to Mr . Hull ' s business presently , and also , he has a number of
service vehicles that leave his business and come back , and also , there is
customer traffic . Mr . Riederer stated that we are not talking about a
business that is isolated and has occasional traffic ; we are talking about a
full - service business across from his home .
Zoning Board of Appeals 23 April 17 , 1985
Mr . Robert Boehlecke rose and stated that he would like to comment on
several comments that have been made with respect to his property . Mr .
Boehlecke stated that he would like to comment on the condition of the
property that has been commented on by several people . Mr . Boehlecke
stated that he did not believe that the condition of the property is any
worse , and somewhat better , than when he purchased it . Several groans
eminated from the audience which the Chair asked be stopped . Mr .
Boehlecke , commenting that he lost his thought , stated that as far as
storage goes , Mr . Hull was storing stuff there and has been doing so since
around 1982 . Mr . Boehlecke stated that , as far as the zoning question
goes , when he purchased the property in 1979 it was his belief that it was
zoned R9 and Light Industrial . Mr . Boehlecke stated that in 1981 when the
new zoning ordinance was at the Town Board he was sent a notice informing
him that his property was R9 and Light Industrial , proposed for R15 and
Light Industrial . Mr . Boehlecke stated that it was only when Mr . Hull
appeared with his plans that it came to light that way back it had been
spot rezoned to R9 / R15 apparently because Mr . Shippos wanted to build some
houses which he never did . Mr . Boehlecke stated that he talked to
Supervisor Desch and the staff and that is where the idea was to rescind
that old rezoning . Mr . Boehlecke stated that that did not happen for some
reason , probably opposition . Mr . Boehlecke stated that Mr . Hull did not
start it before the problem occurred , adding that it was assumed that there
was no problem with the zoning on the light industrial and that is the
point at which he started his business here .
Chairman Aron remarked that it appeared Mr . Hull was under the
impression the property was light industrial . Mr . King wondered what
happened to the matter . Mr . Lovi stated that , at the time it was before
the Board in October , it was indicated by Mr . Boehlecke that Mr . Hull was
under some time constraints . Mr . Lovi stated that the matter was tabled
and never picked up , undoubtedly because the Town Board felt that if it did
not do it within a month Mr . Hull would go away . Mr . Lovi stated that ,
with respect to the rezoning , Mr . Boehlecke was talking to him and he did
indicate to him that when the Town Board rezoned the land for Mr . Shippos
it seemed to be clear that the Town Board did it on the basis of a
particular number of houses which never materialized . Mr . Lovi stated that
the discussion at the Town Board level at the time of the rezoning in 1975
did include that there should be a provision which would speak to what
would happen if Mr . Shippos never built the houses and it was suggested
that a provision should be put in that if the proposal were never done the
land should revert to light industrial zoning , however , the resolution was
adopted as had been noted by Mr . King , Mr . Lovi commented that what we
have presently is a situation where there is primarily a light industrial
zone backed up to a spot of R15 . Mr . Lovi stated that his recommendation
had been to rescind that resolution on the basis that what was supposed to
happen never did .
Chairman Aron read from the Town Board Minutes of September 8 , 1975 ,
as follows : " . . . Councilman Powers felt there should be a specified time
within which Mr . Shippos would be required to build , if re - zoning is
granted , or the property would revert to Light Industrial . . . RESOLVED , that
• the lands of Stephen J . Shippos west of the flood control channel ( Parcel
31 - 2 - 2 ) as shown on map used by Mr . Shippos in his presentation to the
Board and as such map may be refined by reference to an existing more
Zoning Board of Appeals 24 April 17 , 1985
inclusive map of the area which may be on file in the Tompkins County
Clerk ' s Office , be re- zoned from Light Industrial to R- 15 . " [ Emphasis
shown as added by Chairman Aron . ]
Mrs . Cook stated that , since we are looking at history , the flood
control channel changed the character of the area , adding that before that
it was part of the City light industrial area . Mrs . Cook stated that
shortly after the flood control went in there were several discussions
about rezoning but this died . Mrs . Cook stated that most planners , when
they looked at that area , would say that it should not be industrial .
Mr . Riederer ' stated that they purchased their property in 1978 andt
this property was rezoned in 1975 and they relied on that . Mr . Schickel
stated that , as far as the light industrial goes , at least a part of the
barn is located in R- 9 - - at least a portion - - and where the light
industrial comes in is irrelevant . Mr . Schickel stated that , as far as
conditions , it is absurd . Mr . Schickel stated that he agreed with Mrs .
Cook that the area is going residential and he thought there was no need to
keep a dinosaur . Mr . Schickel stated that the property is being violated ;
right now it is in violation of the zoning ordinance and he thought it is
absurd that this person would be in compliance suddenly . Mr . Schickel
stated that the cleaning up was done just before the Zoning Board of
Appeals was going to go out there . Mr . Schickel stated that he thought
there was an indication that there is not a lot of energy and effort and
money on Mr . Hull ' s own part .
• Mrs . Georgia MacNeil , 132 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor and
stated , in regard to appearance , Precision Filters looks very nice but we
all agree that we would not like to have it across from us and that it
should just stay where it is . Mrs . MacNeil stated that appearance is not
what they are concerned with ; it is a change in the character of the
neighborhood .
Chairman Aron stated that he was out there and saw that property and
he noticed those two houses that have been alluded to on Five Mile Drive
and , to him , they look very delapidated - - one does not even have siding .
Chairman Aron commented that , to this date , no one has even talked about
those houses . A gentleman spoke from the floor and stated that he thought
the property Chairman Aron was talking about is in the City . Chairman Aron
stated that it was not , adding that he was talking about the two houses in
front of the barn .
Mrs . MacNeil , spoke from the floor and , commenting that she would
clarify where Precision Filters is , stated that it is in the City on the
other side of the channel .
Mr . Adolph Turco , 200 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor and stated
that he remembered when Mr . Shippos owned the property and when he owned it
he lived in the barn . Mr . Turco stated that Mr . Shippos still owns
property next to it , adding that , back then , one of his [ Shippos ' ] boys was
going to put a house on it .
• Mr . David Gries , 112 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor and stated
that he thought any commercial in there would be almost irreversible and
w
Zoning Board of Appeals 25 April 17 , 1985
• you could never go back . Mr . Gries stated that if the houses are
delapidated they will eventually come down and there will be others there .
Mr . Schickel spoke from the floor and stated that he did not think that a
commercial business operating in the barn is relevant to the two houses . A
gentleman spoke from the floor and stated , on the intersection of Coy Glen
Road and Route 13A , it is uphill and then again it is uphill and at that
point there is a curve where the school bus stop is . The gentleman spoke
of the City speed limit where the speed is permitted at 30 and where people
go up to 50 miles an hour and expressed his concern with tractor trailers ,
any heavy trucks , trailers , etc . , running into the school bus . The
gentleman stated that the Sheriff does not cover the area very well at all ,
adding that the double line is not enforced and that some day there is
going to be a very serious accident .
Attorney Galbraith asked the Chairman if he could speak briefly and
was given permission to do so . Attorney Galbraith stated that he would
like to point out something that he hoped is not overlooked in the Board ' s
review . Attorney Galbraith stated that , essentially , the property in
question has been used for commercial purposes since , probably , the 1940s ,
however , the only substantiation he has submitted for this is back to the
1950s . Attorney Galbraith stated that the barn was originally constructed
by the Knight family who had a meat market and slaughterhouse on Floral
Avenue . A chorus of noes rose from the floor and Attorney Galbraith ,
commenting that he had been very quiet while everyone else was speaking ,
asked that the Chair permit him to speak without such interruption .
Chairman Aron asked that Attorney Galbraith be allowed to continue .
• Continuing , Attorney Galbraith stated that the Meat Market went out of
business and Mr . Shippos bought the property in the ' 50s and that Mr .
Shippos operated out of the property as Shippos Line Construction .
Attorney Galbraith commented that he would remind the Board that he had
submitted a copy of a page from the 1967 Ithaca Directory showing Shippos
Line Construction Co . Inc . on Five Mile Drive . Attorney Galbraith stated ,
then in 1979 , Mr . Shippos sold the property to Mr . Boehlecke who rented
part of the barn to McCarthy Builders who stored building material there
and part of it to others ; then McCarthy got out and Mr . Boehlecke rented to
Mr . Hull , Attorney Galbraith stated that this use by Mr . Boehlecke alone
has been continued for some four or five years or more now , adding that Mr .
Hull has not really bothered anybody out there , and further adding that it
is only the requests that have brought attention to this use . Attorney
Galbraith stated that , as Mr . King said , the barn is located a ways back
and , with the slope there too , it is not highly visible what goes on in
there . Attorney Galbraith stated that the barn is structurally very sound
and solid , but it does need money put into it , and Mr . Boehlecke is not in
a position to do this and Mr . Hull would like to buy the property .
Attorney Galbraith , commenting that he would like to summarize , stated that
it is clear that this property has always been commercial in nature and Mr .
Hull is asking nothing more than a continuation .
Mr . Peter Post , 506 Five Mile Drive , interjected from the floor that
he was concerned with precedence and stated that they do not want that a
commercially zoned area .
• Attorney Galbraith stated that he did not know whether this is an
appropriate case for a special permit or a case for conditional variance ,
0
Zoning Board of Appeals 26 April 17 , 1985
• or a variance with conditions , adding that he did not pretend to be as
expert in the Town zoning as the Board or the Town Attorney , but , if a
special permit is a possibility that is certainly something that could
satisfy Mr . Hull ' s needs - - as Mr . King explained it anyway .
Mr . Riederer spoke from the floor and stated , about the continued use
of the barn as commercial , that he would read from the Minutes of the March
20th Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting where , on page 13 , third paragraph ,
Velma Jackson said , " 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 . "
Mr . Austen stated that he would point out that the Board did not
accept that as a " Fact " in this case , and added that that was just in the
Minutes . Mr . Riederer stated that he understood Mr . Austen ' s comment that
it was not accepted as a fact , but , he would point out that it was stated
by a person who came to the meeting and stated it as a fact .
Mr . Schickel spoke from the floor and stated that , with respect to the
years 1979 to 1984 , there has never been any statement by Mr . Hull or Mr .
Galbraith , to his [ Schickel ' s ] knowledge that there has been anything other
than a storage use of the barn - - no office , no shop , the only thing was
storage .
Mrs . Isobella Spencer , 108 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor and
• stated that the slaughterhouse burned a short time ago and was much closer
to Marion Electric . Mrs . Spencer stated that she has been there since 1947
and this is the most activity since she has been there , adding that when
Mr . Shippos was there there was one roll of wire and nothing came in and
out , nothing , but now there is in and out every hour . Mrs . Spencer stated
that just yesterday she heard a big truck in Mr . Riederer ' s driveway ,
adding that she looked and there was a big truck backed up there looking
for Hull ' s , and commenting that it is kind of sad .
Mr . Daniel Aneshansley , 118 Glenside Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he had listened to Mr . King discuss trying to convince us that
there is some money around to repair this property . Mr . Aneshansley stated
that he would object to the Zoning Board of Appeals being influenced by
there being money around to repair the place .
At 9 : 15 p . m . , Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing again .
Mr . King stated that he would like to MOVE a formal request to the
Town Attorney to find out whether this Board has some kind of power for
temporary use on special permit , rather than by variance , and whether it
has any choice in denying or granting an application .
Chairman Aron noted that what Mr . King was talking about was
adjourning the matter until the Board could meet with the Town Attorney ,
Mr . King stated that he was MOVING that the matter be adjourned together
with a request for an opinion from the Town Attorney , Chairman Aron
seconded the MOTION .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Zoning Board of Appeals 27 April 17 , 1985
• Aye - Aron , King , Reuning , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the matter of
the Boehlecke / Hull Appeal duly adjourned until the next meeting of the
Board , May 15 , 1985 , 7 : 00 p . m .
The Board members requested a short break ; Chairman Aron granted a
five -minute break , it was 9 : 20 p . m .
APPEAL OF TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL , APPELLANT , LAWRENCE HOFFMAN ,
ARCHITECT , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING
SPECIAL APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PHYSICIANS ' OFFICE BUILDING IN
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R301 AND FURTHER DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR SAID
BUILDING HAVING A PROPOSED HEIGHT OF GREATER THAN THIRTY FEET , AT 1281
TRUMANSBURG ROAD , A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 .
APPROVAL AND PERMIT ARE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 11 ;
ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 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 9 : 25 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above . Mrs . Howell and Messrs .
Hoffman and Perra . were present . A site plan of the proposed physicians '
is office building and an elevation drawing were appended to the bulletin
board .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Lovi to explain to the Board the matter of the
environmental review of this project .
Mr . Lovi stated that the Board has before it the Environmental
Assessment Form ( Long Form ) as completed and signed by Lawrence Hoffman ,
the Architect for the project under discussion , dated March 28 , 1985 . Mr .
Lovi stated that if it were the Board ' s pleasure , we could go through the
form page by page . Chairman Aron stated that since the Board members had
each received a copy of the completed form and Mr . Lovi ' s review that was
not necessary . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Lovi to read his review and
recommendation , dated April 8 , 1985 ; Mr . Lovi read aloud as follows :
" ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW : Physicians ' Office Building
Tompkins Community Hospital
TYPE OF ACTION : Type I pursuant to Local Law # 3 - 1980 Article IV , Number
3 ( d ) . The proposed facility exceeds the 25 , 000 square .foot threshold
established for Type I actions .
LEAD AGENCY : Medical clinics are permitted in R30 districts by Special
Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals . There is no specific requirement
for site plan approval by the Planning Board . For this reason , I advise
• that the Zoning Board of Appeals be the lead agency in a coordinated
review .
Zoning Board of Appeals. 28 April 17 , 1985
• PROPOSAL . Construction of a three - storey , 36 , 000 square foot physicians '
office building to be attached to the northeast corner of the existing
community hospital . The plan reviewed for this environmental assessment
indicates a substantial rearrangement of existing driveways and parking
areas .
ISSUES : There will be 62 new parking spaces constructed ; for a medical
office with 12 doctors offices , 48 spaces are required by the Zoning
Ordinance . The arrangement of the parking lots and the provision of a
circular drop - off adjacent to the Hospital will improve traffic circulation
for patients , visitors , and staff . I recommend that the parking lot to the
south of the existing electrical substation be designated as employee and
physician parking so that as many spaces as possible closer to the facili -
ties are left for patients and visitors .
A new driveway has been shown on the site plan . Three parking lots will be
directly accessible from this driveway . It is presumed but not illustrated
that this driveway will connect to a new access road to be constructed to
the west of the existing electrical substation . This access road is needed
to improve overall traffic circulation to the Tompkins Community Hospital ,
the existing Tompkins County Professional Building , and any future use or
uses to be made of the Biggs Memorial Hospital . Participation by the
developers of the present project should be required as a condition of
Special Approval .
For precedent in this matter , the Town of Ithaca has entered into an escrow
• agreement with the Tompkins County Professional Building , Inc . for $ 25 , 000
toward the construction cost of this access road . This commitment was
exacted as a condition of their site plan approval on May 17 , 1983 ( see
attached agreement ) .
The concentrating of Tompkins County ' s medical facilities in this area
increases the need for improved highway access from Route 96 . A final
decision on the proposed relocation and improvement of this highway has not
been made . The Town recognizes the autonomy of the present Community
Hospital Board and its reluctance to commit itself to a particular
alternative . However , it should be stated that . the best interests of all
parties are not well - served by any actions which will compromise or delay
this much - needed relocation .
RECOMMENDATION : I recommend a negative declaration of environmental
significance based upon the following condition :
1 . Such Special Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals be conditioned
upon the provision of an escrow agreement in the sum of $ 25 , 000 for
the construction of the above - referenced access road . Such agreement
should contain terms and conditions similar to that entered into with
the Tompkins County Professional Building . This agreement should be
in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney and contain terms and condi -
tions acceptable to the Town Engineer . "
Mr . Lovi stated that there is a minor subdivision in connection with
this as the Hospital will be acquiring lands from the County . Mr . Lovi
noted that , normally , this would have a separate environmental review with
Zoning Board of Appeals 29 April 17 , 1985
it , but , in this case , he had advised a coordinated or unified review such
that the Planning Board will review the subdivision but , as the Special
Approval is the more substantive aspect , the EAF is before the Zoning Board
of Appeals and includes both special approval and the related land
subdivision . Mr . Lovi stated that the major issues , environmentally , have
to do with an improvement in parking and traffic circulation about the
Hospital and what would be consistent with the Professional Building .
Noting the site plan on the bulletin board , Mr . Lovi stated that , as the
Board knows , four parking spaces per office are required by the Zoning
Ordinance , so the parking shown is somewhat in excess of that . Indicating
on the site plan , Mr . Lovi commented that the arrangement of the parking is
preferable to what exists presently . Mr . Lovi indicated the landscaping
and accesses as shown on the site plan and pointed out particularly the new
driveway from which three parking lots will be accessible . Mr . Lovi
commented on the access road which , he noted , had been discussed at great
length by the Planning Board . Mr . Lovi stated that the Hospital has
indicated a willingness to work with this access road , adding that , as
such , it would be a mitigating measure . Mr . Lovi drew the attention of the
Board to other suggestions which he had set forth in his environmental
review and recommendation [ above ] , in particular , his recommendation that
the parking lot to the south of the existing electrical substation be
designated as employee and physician parking so that as many spaces as
possible closer to the facilities are left for patients and visitors . Mr .
Lovi noted one other suggestion , with reference to the access road again ,
stating that we have talked about an access road which will come from the
existing Hospital driveway south to north along the west side of the upper
• tier of parking . Mr . Hoffman , indicating on the plan , showed the " peeling "
off of the traffic as it comes from the existing entranceway off Route 96 ,
Mr . Lovi stated that their plan ties into this concept very well and ,
further , allows the Professional Building to tie in . Mr . Lovi noted that
he had attached to the environmental form and review a copy of the
agreement with the Town of Ithaca from the Tompkins County Professional
Building Corporation , and stated that it is recommended that a similar
agreement be entered into between the Town and the Tompkins Community
Hospital , Mr . Lovi stated that this overview concluded his presentation ,
adding that other than that , there is a recommendation for a negative
declaration . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the Board had before it the
Planning Board Resolution as adopted at its meeting last night , April 16 ,
1985 .
Chairman Aron thanked Mr . Lovi and asked if there were any questions .
Mr . Austen asked if there were any line up with the proposed Route 96 . Mr .
Lovi stated that the line up with Route 96 was discussed at length and it
was acknowledged by the Planning Board and all the parties that what we
have here is an important addition to the medical facilities in the
community , indeed , in Central New York , and only increases the wisdom of
relocating Route 96 , Mr . Lovi stated that , as far as a particular
alignment and how it may impact properties in this area , he would note what
he wrote in his review , i . e . , the interests of all the parties are not
going to be served by any delay in the relocation of Route 96 , Mr . Lovi
stated that , without tying to any particular alignment , we think it should
* be acknowledged , and we think it has been acknowledged , that interests are
best served by relocation as soon as possible . Mr . Austen said that that
was fine . Chairman Aron commented that Mr . Lovi was saying that alignment
with Route 96 is not a recommendation as part of the Special Approval .
' = Zoning Board of Appeals 30 April 17 , 1985
Chairman Aron read aloud the Planning Board Resolution as it was duly
adopted April 16 , 1985 , as follows :
" RESOLUTION : Town of Ithaca Planning Board
April 16 , 1985
MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton .
WHEREAS , the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed a site plan
for a medical office building to be built adjacent to the existing Tompkins
Community Hospital and makes the following findings for consideration by
the Zoning Board of Appeals in their consideration of Special Approval :
1 . The proposed location is suitable for the proposed structure and use
as the medical facilities to be offered will augment and complement
the services presently available in our community .
2 . The location of this medical office adjacent to the Tompkins Community
Hospital will facilitate the convenient use of these services by the
public .
3 . Traffic circulation around the site will be improved by the proposed
circulation and parking plan .
• 4 . An Environmental Assessment Form has been prepared and the Planning
Board accepts the reviewer ' s recommendation that the Zoning Board of
Appeals should be the Lead Agency for the unified review which
includes both Special Approval and the related land subdivision , and
the Planning Board recommends that the reviewer ' s recommendation as to
a Negative Declaration be accepted .
5 . A subdivision sketch plan has been reviewed April 16 , 1985 and a final
subdivision plan for lands to be acquired from Tompkins County will be
presented for approval at a Public Hearing May 7 , 1985 .
6 . The Planning Board has considered the height of the proposed building
and finds that it is in keeping with the existing structures of the
Hospital and the � Biggs Complex .
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does
recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant Special Approval for the
construction of a medical office subject to the following terms and
conditions :
1 . That the Tompkins Community Hospital
prepare a $ 25 , 000 escrow account
in a form and manner satisfactory to the Town Engineer and Town
Attorney for the construction of an alternate access road west of the
existing upper tier of parking to serve this project with a connecting
drive . Terms of said agreement to be completed with the developer and
the Town Board prior to any construction of the proposed medical
• addition . Such an agreement should include land for the access road
and the Hospital proper .
Zoning Board of Appeals 31 April 17 , 1985
• 2 . That the administration of the Community Hospital will dedicate new
parking as staff and physician parking so that parking areas and
spaces closer to the Hospital and Professional building may be made
available for visitor and patient use .-
Aye
se :Aye - May , Baker , Schultz , Klein , Stanton , Langhans , Grigorov , Mazza .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . "
Mr . Hoffman stated that the proposal has been finalized and they now
have one option to present , being north of the existing Hospital . Mr .
Hoffman appended a map to the bulletin board and stated that this map
merely shows the land , which is currently being surveyed , which will be the
subdivision of the County property to the Hospital . Mr . Hoffman commented
that the land south of this is currently owned by the Hospital and there
will be no sub- subdivision of the Hospital land because that will be land
leased . Mr . Hoffman stated that the Hospital will lease to a corporation
of the physicians and the Hospital will own the land . Chairman Aron noted
that the real property belongs to the Hospital and the improvements belong
to the physicians . Mr . King noted that the land " will " belong to the
Hospital if it is sold by the County .
Mrs . Howell stated that the County has passed a Resolution authorizing
staff to proceed with the agreement . Mr . King commented that the Board
does not really know what the Hospital owns at this point . Utilizing the
map on the bulletin board , Mr . Hoffman described the lands owned by the
Hospital and the lands to be acquired by the Hospital from the County ,
referring to " Parcels P13 , PBB , P7B , and P7C " and indicating that the
amount of land is about 20 acres .
Mr . Hoffman , at this point , described the plans for the building ,
utilizing the drawings on the bulletin board . Mr . Hoffman pointed out the
service road for emergencies and for the ambulance dock and how the access
to the proposed building pulls off from that . Mr . Hoffman described some
re - configuration of the parking lots and pointed out two totally new ones .
Mr . Hoffman spoke of the access road which , initially , will come across to
the County - owned property and hook up with an existing driveway , noting
that those could separate the traffic from what might happen with the Biggs
Complex , Mr . Hoffman pointed out the patient and visitor parking as well
as the out - patient access . Mr . Hoffman described what he termed a " plaza "
and spoke of the grade dropping off sharply from 828 to 817 . Mr . Hoffman
pointed out the entrance to the new building at the second level of the
building which , he noted , is the middle level of the proposed three - story
building . Mr . Hoffman now referred to the elevation drawing on the
bulletin board and commented that the " blue line " shown is to depict the
horizon . Mr . Hoffman noted that the east wing of the Biggs building is
of and some of the west wing is it also . Mr . Hoffman pointed out
how the building has been turned slightly from what the Board had been
shown earlier [ March 20 , 1985 ] , spoke about better views as a result , and
commented that it also helps to have the lower level of this building not
• built so close in to the embankment , further commenting on the nice views
from the entrance of the Hospital . Mr . Hoffman noted , too , that one can
see the Professional Building building and look beyond it . Mr . Hoffman
Zoning Board of Appeals 32 April 17 , 1985
described the three stories and noted how it will match the existing floor
to floor heights of the Hospital , adding that the height is 36 feet and ,
therefore , the scale is similar and fits on the site well .
Chairman Aron asked if anyone had anything to add . No one spoke .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone from the public with any questions
or any statements for or against this matter . No one spoke .
Chairman Aron stated that the Board had three things before it for its
consideration - - ( 1 ) the EAF ; ( 2 ) Special Approval for the medical
facility ; ( 3 ) variance for height . Chairman Aron stated that the Chair
declared the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Lead Agency in the
matter of environmental assessment .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reunings
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting as
lead agency in the review of the proposal for the construction of a
physicians ' office building adjacent to the Tompkins Community Hospital
approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form ( Long
Form ) as completed , subject to the provision of an escrow agreement by and
between the Tompkins Community Hospital and the Town of Ithaca in the sum
of $ 25 , 000 . 00 for the construction of an alternate access road and the
provision of land for the access roadway , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality
• Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Type I , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has
determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent
information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly impact
the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental
review .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , King , Reuning , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Mr . King stated that it was obvious that we could not find a more
ideal location for a medical office building than this one . Mr . King
stated that he did not know of any special conditions which could be
imposed , other than the access road matter .
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 Special Approval , pursuant to Article V . Section 18 ,
Paragraph 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the
• construction of a three - story physicians ' office building adjacent to the
Tompkins Community Hospital as proposed and as presented to said Board of
Appeals at Public Hearing this date , April 17 , 1985 , subject to the
Zoning Board of Appeals 33 April 17 , 1985
• following terms and conditions :
1 . That the Tompkins Community Hospital prepare a $ 25 , 000 escrow account
in a form and manner satisfactory to the Town Engineer and Town
Attorney for the construction of an alternate access road west of the
existing upper tier of parking to serve this project with a connecting
drive . Terms of said agreement to be completed with the developer and
the Town Board prior to any construction of the proposed medical
addition . Such an agreement should include land for the access road
and the Hospital proper .
2 . That the administration of the Community Hospital will dedicate new
parking as staff and physician parking so that parking areas and
spaces closer to the Hospital and Professional building may be made
available for visitor and patient use .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , King , Reuning , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and
• hereby does grant an area variance of six feet from the thirty - foot height
requirement of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , as set forth in Article
V , Section 18 , Paragraph 16 , such that the proposed physicians ' office
building adjacent to the Tompkins Community Hospital may be thirty - six feet
high .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , King , Reuning , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Mrs . Howell and Messrs . Hoffman and Perra thanked the Board for their
time and consideration . The Board members wished them well in the project
development .
APPEAL OF GERARD AND LAURA FRANCO , APPELLANTS , ARTHUR DIAMOND , AGENT , FROM
THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW
MORE THAN THREE UNRELATED PERSONS TO OCCUPY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE III , SECTION 41 SUB - SECTION 2 , PARAGRAPH 2 ( b ) , AT 226 CODDINGTON
ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 41 - 1 - 22 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER
ARTICLE III , SECTION 41 SUB - SECTION 21P PARAGRAPH 2 ( b ) , OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron stated that he withdrew from any discussion of the
Franco / Diamond Appeal because of possible conflict of interest since Mrs .
Zoning Board of Appeals 34 April 17 , 1985
• Zimmer is his neighbor .
Vice Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 10 : 00 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public
Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mrs . Franco , Mr .
Diamond , and Mrs . Dorothy Zimmer of Patterson Real Estate , were present .
Mrs . Zimmer stated that she would be pleased to . address the Board .
Vice Chairman Austen read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and
submitted by Dorothy E . Zimmer for Arthur Diamond under date of April 8 ,
1985 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to allow five ( 5 )
unrelated persons to occupy a single family residence at 226 Coddington
Road . . . This house was built before the zoning law of 1954 . I am appealing
lot line to make side yard adequate . I am buying this house as an
investment and due to its cost , I need the following variance : I would
like a permit to allow five ( 5 ) unrelated persons to live in the house .
The house is in the R9 residential zone , which allows more than three ( 3 )
unrelated people . Currently , the house has 3 bedrooms and off road parking
for three vehicles . With the variance , I will provide 2 additional
bedrooms and 2 additional off road parking spaces . II would like this
permit because , as an investment property , I want the property to be in
compliance with zoning laws . "
Accompanying the Appeal Form were the following documents :
1 . Real Estate Broker ' s form showing a picture of the house and details
about it .
2 . Site Plan showing the location of the house and porches on the 60 - foot
by 178 - foot lot .
3 . Drawing showing proposal for new retaining wall , space for two cars ,
and area proposed for off - street parking .
4 . Survey prepared by Leonard Miscall , dated May 1 , 1976 .
5 . Lot layout map showing 5 Gridley Lots , prepared by Carl Crandall ,
dated September 25 , 1948 .
Mrs . Zimmer displayed the above - noted documents and stated that she
had everything that the Board had received except for additional photos
that they took of the property and an overlay drawing . Mrs . Zimmer passed
around three photographs of the property under discussion which also showed
the neighboring property . Mrs . Zimmer pointed out and described a stairway
that is in violation of the side yard width requirement and stated that
that stairway would disappear , adding that Mr . Diamond would supply two
additional parking spaces . Mrs . Zimmer pointed out a common driveway ,
noting that even though it is common it is divided by a lot line .
Mr . Cartee noted that this property is in the neighborhood of an area
in which the Board has granted special permits on occupancy , under Section
4 , sub - section 2 , paragraph 2 ( b ) of the ordinance , so it is not unusual for
a request such as this to be made . Mr . Cartee stated that there would be a
need for additional parking , adding that the applicant is proposing to take
out steps and a retaining wall and providing parking in another area . Mr .
• Cartee noted that the applicant had presented some maps and proposals where
he would put additional parking . Mr . Cartee pointed out that there is a
question of whether he and his lease could restrict the number of students
H
Zoning Board of Appeals 35 April 17 , 1985
• and the number of vehicles .
Mrs . Zimmer stated that the prospective owner , Mr . Diamond , is a
student at Ithaca College and thus this matter is especially important to
him . Mrs . Zimmer stated that the neighbors were aware that it was a
student who was buying the property and there was no objection whatsoever
at that time . Mrs . Zimmer proceeded to show a copy of the site plan and
described a swale and a proposed culvert design , utilizing an overlay
process . Mr . Austen wondered if that proposal would require the removal of
that large tree [ indicating on the photograph ] . Mrs . Zimmer responded that
it might , but that was not positive , adding that Mr . Diamond had objected
to the possible removal of the tree and so they made investigations about
the various approaches that could be taken . Mrs . Zimmer showed where Mr .
Diamond would put the parking on the front portion of the property which ,
if that were done , may not need the tree removal . Mr . Cartee explained ,
using the drawing and the photographs , that Mr . Diamond was talking about a
culvert on a roadside ditch and parking " this " way [ indicating ] , which , he
noted , meant parking on the County right of way . Mr . Cartee stated that
that option was not acceptable .
Mr . King pointed out that , in the Appeal , there was a reference to two
additional bedrooms and wondered where they would go . Mr . Cartee responded
that the proposal is for them to go in the basement , adding that that is
now a garage . Mr . King commented that that would be pretty much all
underground . Mrs . Zimmer stated that that was not really the case .
Discussion followed with respect to whether the area proposed for the
• bedrooms would be able to meet the Building Code requirements . Mrs . Franco
offered that the windows in the proposed bedroom area are a little larger
than normal cellar windows on one end . Mr . Cartee stated that he has not
seen the area . Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Cartee where the nearest place was
that had received a special permit under the ordinance . Mr . Cartee
responded , 216 Coddington Road [ Klingel and 225 -A and 225 -B Coddington Road
[ Gebauer ] .
Vice Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to the Franco / Diamond Appeal .
Mr . and Mrs . Augusts Zeipe , 228 Coddington Road , approached the Board
table and Mr . Zeipe stated that they have been there almost 25 years and
there is no place to put five cars together because the driveway is only
12 ' 6 " , and the steps come out 8 ' 3Z " and at that point the driveway is only
91611 . Mr . Zeipe described , using a drawing which he had with him , what
would - happen when five cars are parked , indicating on the drawing , and
showed where they would have to go on a line and how , in order to get out ,
they would have to drive onto and over his property line . Mr . Zeipe
pointed out on the drawing how from his garage walls to the property line
is 6211 , which is 512 " . Mr . Zeipe commented that the property stakes are
correct and date from 1961 . Mr . Zeipe described a future scenario which
could involve people hitting his garage and just saying that they were
sorry that they hit his garage , and commented that students would get mad
at him . Mrs . Zeipe stated that they would not like so many students ,
* adding that there would be too much noise . Mr . Zeipe continued with his
description of what could occur in the future with five students in this
y
`► ' Zoning Board of Appeals 36 April 17 , 1985
• house , speaking about volleyball and basketball being played . Mr . Zeipe
stated that he has a nice garden and with the students who would be there
they would be jumping over and only say they are sorry that they jumped in
his garden . Mr . Zeipe stated that he has seen how the students live across
the roads . Mr . Zeipe stated that the houses are too close to have so many
people . Mr . Zeipe stated that for many years it was all the time nice and
quiet but now with this change there will be students who will make noise
and do damage and ruin his wife ' s flowers .
Mr . King asked if this property has been a single family residence all
the time , to which Mr . Zeipe responded , yes , all the time since 1961 . Vice
Chairman Austen wondered how the people get into the garage now and asked
if they went over Mr . Zeipe ' s property . Mr . Zeipe replied , yes , adding
that Mr . Franco was nice people and there nine years .
Mrs . Franco stated that right now the garage is under the house and in
order to drive in they do make a loop into Mr . Zeipe ' s property to get
inside the garage . Mrs . Franco pointed out that if they do not go into the
garage , they do not need to do that . Mrs . Franco stated that she could see
no problem with the changes that are proposed based on what she knew of
them . Mrs . Franco stated that they have been in the house eight years and
are moving , her husband being in Binghamton now . Mrs . Franco stated that
they do play ball a little with the kids and they have played volleyball
and they do not go into the yard . Mrs . Franco stated that there is a
single neighbor on the other side and there are students across the street .
Mrs . Franco described a multiple dwelling directly across the street from
• the Zeipes and stated that there has not been noise and it is a really
quiet neighborhood . Mrs . Franco stated that she and her husband have had
parties at their house and they have had six cars parked on the driveway
and some people parked up at the College and walked down . Mrs . Franco
stated that she did not see that the driveway is a problem . Mrs . Franco
stated that she has been assured by Mr . Diamond and his father , and they
are well aware , that any students would be on their toes and respectful .
Mrs . Franco stated that , also , most of the people who have looked at the
property , which was on multiple listing , have been interested in the
property as an investment property , adding that it is on the bus line and
one can cut through the fields to get to school [ Ithaca College ] . Mrs .
Franco commented that it is an area going to student housing and most of
the people are looking at it as investment property . Mrs . Franco stated
that at first when this was talked about they thought Mr . Zeipe was not
concerned , or Frank Sczepanski on the other side . Commenting that at the
ultimate worst case is fear , Mrs . Franco stated that they have been there
eight years and have had no problem with students , adding that they almost
surround them .
Vice Chairman Austen asked Mr . Zeipe how he got to his garage , to
which Mr . Zeipe responded , on his own property , straight in . Mr . Zeipe
reiterated what could happen with students in this house .
Vice Chairman Austen asked to hear from Mr . Diamond , Mr . Diamond
stated that he planned on taking these [ indicating ] steps out and moving
• " this " retaining wall out [ indicating ] . Mr . Diamond stated that the
driveway at that point would no longer be 9 . 66 feet and " this " small 8 - foot
part [ indicating ] will not be there . Mr . Diamond pointed out that with the
i
c
1 Zoning Board of Appeals 37 April 17 , 1985
• steps moved in and the new retaining wall built around as shown on the plan
the driveway will then be 13 . 5 feet and , in addition , there would be room
for two more cars in front " here " [ indicating ] .
Mr . King asked about the width of the lot , with Mr . Diamond indicating
on the drawing and noting that it is 60 ' by 177 ' and showing Mr . King where
the five cars would go - - 3 " here " in the driveway and 2 " here " in front .
Vice Chairman Austen wondered how the three in the driveway would get out ,
with Mr . Diamond indicating that that would be arranged by the person who
wanted to get out . Mr . Diamond proceeded to describe the proposed change
in the culvert which would be covered with gravel and , so , the cars could
drive straight in . Mr . Cartee stated to Mr . Diamond that , as he had said
to him last week , he cannot have parking on the County right of way . Mr .
Diamond stated that that was correct , but where he has proposed the parking
is not actually on the County right of way , it would be above the County
right of way , and would be a wider base of the driveway .
Mrs . Zimmer noted that this location would be so good for Mr . Diamond
because he could walk to College . Mrs . Zimmer stated that , also , there are
students who do not own cars . Mrs . Zimmer pointed out that Ithaca College
is the backyard of this neighborhood .
Mr . Cartee wanted it to be clear that it has not been determined that
Mr . Diamond could put two bedrooms in the " basement " , adding , again , that
he had not seen the area and , therefore , he neither knew whether it could
or could not be made to meet the Code requirements .
• Mr . King expressed his concern about this proposal , commenting that he
could see another college ghetto if this application were to be granted the
special approval sought . Mr . King noted the map of the so - called " Gridley
Lots " and stated that there are five lots in a row , all 60 feet wide . Mr .
King spoke of the nice single family home here , adding that both the
Zeipe ' s and the Franco ' s homes are very nice . Mr . King expressed his
concern that if this is granted , then others will come in , not that that is
bad , but if that is what the Town wants then the properties should be
rezoned .
Mr . Diamond stated that he may be out of place saying it , but he did
not think it was right what Mr . King said about a college ghetto . Mr .
Diamond stated that this is very beneficial for students to live here and
walk to Campus . Mr . King stated that there is also student housing on
Campus . Mr . Diamond stated that there was not enough , adding that this
proposal would mean a rising in property values , not a devaluing . Mr . King
responded that it does not mean that this Board should turn an area into
multiple zoning on a piece by piece basis .
Mrs . Zimmer stated that she had always introduced Mr . Diamond to Mr .
and Mrs . Zeipe as a student and they never ever said that they had any
objections . Mrs . Reuning stated that her reservation was not affected by
Mr . and Mrs . Zeipe ' s presentation , particularly since it was based
primarily on what might happen . Mrs . Reuning stated that she was concerned
• about the area . Mrs . Zimmer stated that , if this approval is not granted ,
it would be a real hardship to the Francos who must sell , adding that the
house has been off the market now for some time pending this sale . Mrs .
Zoning Board of Appeals 38 April 17 , 1985
Zimmer stated that if they had had any idea that this was not permitted in
the R9 they would not have made the purchase offer .
There appearing to be no further questions , Vice Chairman Austen
closed the Public Hearing at 10 : 30 p . m .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
Appeal of Gerard and Laura Franco , Arthur Diamond , Agent , and Dorothy
Zimmer for Mr . Diamond , for Special Permit to allow five unrelated persons
to occupy a single family residence at 226 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 22 , be and hereby is denied .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote .
Aye - King , Reuning , Austen .
Nay - None .
No vote - Aron .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the April 17 , 1985 , meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 10 : 35 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals ,
a
v
Henry Aron , Ch irman