HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1985-06-12 • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JUNE 12 , 1985
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on
Wednesday , June 12 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New
York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Jack D . Hewett , Edward N . Austen , Edward W .
King , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller
( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Margaret Thorp , Josephine Richards , Paul S . Richards , Floyd
A . Kimple , Victor DelRosso , George Mike , Mary Louise Perry ,
Thak Chaloemtiarana , Siu - ling Chaloemtiarana , W . L .
Brittain , Harriet Be Brittain , Mayfred S . Hir. shfeld , Steven
A . Seidman , Michael A . Loehr , Carrie Koplinka - Loehr , Barry
S . Wixson ,
Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 00 p . m . and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of
the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June
4 , 1985 and June 7 , . 1985 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s
Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of
each of the properties under discussion , upon the Clerk of the City of
• Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of
the Appellants and / or agent , if any , on June 5 , 1985 .
APPEAL OF RICHARD AND MARY LOUISE PERRY , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME IN
A LEGAL NON -CONFORMING USE ( FARM ) LOCATED IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , AT
1138 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 27 - 1 - 11 . 2 . PERMIT
IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 59b , AND
ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
duly opened at 7 : 02 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above . Mrs . Perry was present .
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by R .
A . Perry and Mary Louise Perry under date of May 30 , 1985 , as follows :
" . . . Having been denied permission to locate a 3 bedroom trailer in the
woods at 1138 Trumansburg Rd . . . . Shalebrook Farm , being a working farm since
1913 , employs 2 full time men . One man lives in the red tenant house , the
other at Sandy Creek 5 miles away . He was tragically struck by a hay wagon
tongue and his leg broken . He will have a plate put in his leg & be out 5
months or forever . We need a trailer placed to the west of the machinery
shed near the creek and will probably put a row of evergreens to the north
end as a wind break and screen from Bundy Road . A new man will have to be
hired & put here . " Chairman Aron noted that there was attached to the
Appeal Form a plot plan indicating the proposed location of the trailer to
• the west of the machinery shed and south of the new water line .
Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Perry if she had anything she wished to add
Zoning Board of Appeals 2 June 12 , 1985
• to what appears on the Appeal Form just read . Mrs . Perry responded , no ,
not really , adding , however , that she took a picture from the middle of the
field today which shows a line of farm wagons parked from east to west .
Mrs . Perry stated that it would be a totally screened area where they have
intended to put the trailer , adding that those wagons are usually parked
there from April to November because that is the length of their growing
season and they are used almost daily .
Mr . King asked if the Board had a copy of that picture among the three
that were included with their agenda . Mrs . Perry stated that she had the
picture with her since she took it today . Mrs . Perry offered the picture
to the Board for their review . Mr . King asked if the picture had been
taken from Bundy Road looking back . Mrs . Perry stated that it had not been
taken from Bundy Road and stated further that she took the picture from the
middle of the field , not even as far back as Bundy Road . Mr . King wondered
how far back from Bundy Road the trailer is proposed to be placed . Mr .
Cartee stated that it was proposed to be back 900 feet . Mr. . Hewett noted
that that is the length of three football fields .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak
to the matter of the Perry Appeal ,
Mr . Victor DelRosso , 138 Bundy Road , spoke from the floor and asked if
he were correct in stating that the area under discussion is zoned
Residence District R15 . Chairman Aron stated that the area is zoned R15 .
Mr . DelRosso , noting that the Notice of Public Hearing refers to Article
• XIII , Section 59b , stated that he did not think that applies in this
matter . Mr . DelRosso read Section 59b as follows : " Upon special approval
of the Zoning Board of Appeals to be reviewed each year , one mobile home
for each property owner shall be permitted in all agricultural and R- 30
districts , provided that one of the occupants of said mobile home shall be
a full time agricultural employee of the property owner or a bona fide
agricultural student doing agricultural work for the property owner . "
Pointing out that this area is zoned neither R30 nor Agricultural , Mr .
DelRosso asked if the Board had jursidiction to authorize a trailer if they
were to do it .
Mr . King , noting that the question was about the zone being R15 and
the cited Section 59b speaking of R30 and Agricultural , stated that ,
certainly , this is a legal non - conforming use , pointing out that this is a
farm and has been so for many years . Mr . King stated that the question for
the Board is - - how far do you extend the use . Mr . King , stating that he
has been on the site and has a pretty good idea of the site , noted that it
was denied under the previous application , which would have had a more
drastic effect . Mr . King stated that this proposal would have a much
different effect , adding that 900 feet is a very long distance , and
commenting that it probably would be better to screen it as proposed . Mr .
King noted that an Environmental Assessment Form had been submitted in this
matter . Chairman Aron stated that that was correct and read aloud from
Part I of the EAF as follows :
0 " 1 . Applicant / sponsor : Richard A . / Mary Louise Perry .
29 Project Name : [ Blank ]
3 . Project location : Municipality : 1138 Trumansburg Rd .
County : Tompkins County .
61
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 June 12 , 1985
• 4 . Is proposed action ? : NEW
5 . Describe project briefly : Place 3 bedroom trailer at west side of
machinery shed at south end of hay field .
6 . Precise location : See map .
7 . Amount of. land affected : Initially acre .
8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing
land use restrictions ? : NO .
9 . What is present land use in vicinity of project ? : Agriculture .
10 . Does action involve a permit / approval , or funding , now or ultimately ,
from any other governmental agency ( Federal , state or local ) ? : YES ;
Tompkins County Health Dept ,
11 . Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or
approval ? : N0 .
12 . As result of proposed action will existing permit / approval require
modification ? : NO . "
Chairman Aron asked if those present knew where the trailer is
proposed to be placed . Mr . DelRosso and Mrs . Margaret Thorp , 140 Bundy
Road , approached the Board table and perused the pictures and the site
plan . Chairman Aron gave Mr . DelRosso a copy of the site plan . Mrs . Thorp
asked why the mobile home is necessary in view of the last hearing . Mrs .
Thorp asked where the economic necessity was with regard to the man
breaking his leg . Mrs . Perry responded that if they were to put another
man in the trailer park at Sandy Creek , the expense of that plus the
expense that they already have for their man with the broken leg would be
just too much . Mrs . Perry stated that by putting a trailer on the property
• they , at least , will have some equity , adding that when they sell the farm
and the cows , they will sell the trailer . Mrs . Perry stated that they
would like to save a second man from all that driving .
Mr . Paul S . Richards , 142 Bundy Road , spoke from the floor and asked
if they let this trailer go in and say that they approve of it , and then
the Perrys sell the farm and open the land up for development , can they
open it up for development of a trailer park . Continuing , Mr . Richards
stated that they were told when they moved there - - no trailers , and added
that if there is one trailer in there the area could then be opened up for
a trailer park . Chairman Aron pointed out that Mrs . Perry was before the
Board to ask for permission to put in a trailer where she has requested it
to be placed - - by the machinery shed - - 900 feet from Bundy Road .
Referring to the question - - will that trailer stay there if they sell -
Chairman Aron stated that the answer is , no . Chairman Aron pointed out
that this is not a variance situation , and added that , however , there is a
possibility that if the Board feels that a trailer is necessary , they could
put conditions on to that trailer such as , renewable every 12 months ,
inspected by the Building Inspector , etc . Also in response to Mr .
Richards ' question about a trailer park opening up on the Perry land , Mr .
Austen read aloud from Article XIII , Section 59 , as follows : " SECTION 59 .
Trailers . Trailer camps or parks and trailers or mobile homes for
occupancy shall be prohibited in all districts except as follows : "
Continuing , Mr . Austen read as follows : " 59b . Upon special approval of
the Zoning Board of Appeals to be reviewed each year , one mobile home for
• each property owner shall be permitted in all agricultural and R- 30
districts , provided that one of the occupants of said mobile home shall be
Zoning Board of Appeals 4 June 12 , 1985
• a full time agricultural employee of the property owner or a bona fide
agricultural student doing agricultural work for the property owner . "
Mr . George Mike , 136 Bundy Road , spoke from the floor and expressed
his opposition to there being a trailer at all on the Perry farm . From the
floor , Mr . DelRosso asked how long the trailer would be there if it were
permitted . Chairman Aron responded that that would be up to Mrs . Perry ,
adding that if the Board does decide to permit the trailer , he believed it
would be from year to year only . Mrs . Thorp stated from the floor that she
would like to ask a question about the screening and pointed out that the
application stated that there "will probably be a row of evergreens to the
north end as a wind break and screen from Bundy Road . " Mrs „ Thorp , noting
that there was a statement made about wagons being there during the growing
season , asked what would be done about winter when it is open to view .
Chairman Aron pointed out that it was Mrs . Perry who had said " probably "
and that is not what the Board is saying at this time . Chairman Aron
commented that the type of trees could be evergreens .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak for
or against the Perry Appeal . No one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the
Public Hearing at 7 : 20 p . m . and asked if there were any other questions
from the Board members . Mr . King pointed out that the Board has to pass on
the EAF and noted that the Town Planner had made a recommendation of
negative environmental impact . Chairman Aron read aloud the entirety of
Part II and Part III of the EAF as prepared by Mr . Lovi under date of May
31 , 1985 , as follows :
• " A . Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 ? : N0 .
Be Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 77 : N0 .
co Could action result in ANY adverse effects on , to , or arising from the
following :
Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity ,
noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or
disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ?
Explain briefly : The action will involve the location of a single
house trailer . Air quality , noise levels , solid waste production , and
the existing traffic patterns could not be significantly affected by
the addition of a single residence housing one person . Sanitary
wastes will be disposed of as required by TCHD ; the action will not
increase flooding or erosion .
C2 . Historic , archeological , visual or aesthetic , or other natural or
cultural resources ; agricultural districts ; or community or
neighborhoodcharacter ? Explain briefly : There are not historic ,
archeological , visual or aesthetic resources which will be compromised
by the action . The trailer is proposed to be screened from view by
evergreen trees and is blocked on the East side by a shed .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife species ,
significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain
briefly : The area has been in use as dairy farm continuously since
1913 . The disruption to the present , built environment will be
• minimal and substantially in keeping with the agricultural use of the
immediate area .
Zoning Board of Appeals 5 June 12 , 1985
C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ?
Explain briefly : The Zoning Ordinance permits trailers to be located
in Agricultural and R30 zones by Special Permit reviewable each year .
This farm is a use which pre - exists the Zoning Ordinance by more than
40 years . Given the actual land use is agricultural and the site plan
will screen the trailer from R15 properties on Bundy Road , the
intensity of land use for this action is not incompatible with the
Town ' s comprehensive plan and Zoning Ordinance ,
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to
be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : No subsequent
growth is expected from this action .
C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 -C67.
Explain briefly : This Special Approval should be reviewable every
year . If the circumstances which justify this appeal are no longer
relevant , then the ZBA may revoke the Approval . As a result , no
secondary effects are expected .
C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ? Explain
briefly : No significant change expected given the minor scale of the
action .
Part III Determination of Significance .
Box Checked - - Check this box if you have determined , based on the
information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the
proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts AND provide here , and on attachments as necessary , the reasons
supporting this determination : The trailer to be sited will be more than
• 900 feet from the nearest homes in the R15 district on Bundy Road . There
is a planted field in this 900 ' space . In additon , the trailer is proposed
to be buffered by evergreen trees on the North side . Given the
agricultural character of this site and the amount of buffering available ,
I do not believe that this action will result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by the terms
of the Special Approval , Such Approval should be reviewed each year to
establish the sufficiency of the need and to determine whether substantial
compliance with the mitigation measures has been achieved . "
Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the Lead Agency in
the matter of the environmental review of the Perry Appeal .
Mr . King commented that Mr . Lovi has really said that the buffering by
the wind break is almost essential to his finding of no environmental
impact , so , if the Board were to approve the report of the Town Planner and
say that there is no impact , the Board is saying that such approval is
conditional on that buffering . Mr . King stated that it would , thus , be
important for the Board to say what it means when it uses the word
" buffering " .
MOTION by Mr . Jack Hewett , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals find and
hereby does find there to be no adverse environmental effects from the
• action , unlisted , proposed by Richard and Mary Louise Perry and requesting
permission to place a mobile home on their property , such finding being
subject to six - foot high evergreens being placed on . the north side of the
61
Zoning Board of Appeals 6 June 12 , 1985
• proposed trailer site as shown on the sketch submitted under date of May
31s 1985 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
The Secretary presented , for the record , documentation with respect to
three communications received , as follows :
1 . Telephone Call received by Lewis D . Cartee , Building Inspector , at
3 : 45 p . m . , June 12 , 1985 , from Roger McOmber , 1128 Trumansburg Road - -
" Does not object to mobile home being placed near maintenance bldg .
and barn ; provide screenings plant trees / shrubbery ; variance to be
reviewed annually . "
2 . Handwritten note on Notice of Public Hearings from Frank R . Liguori ,
1210 Trumansburg Road , received June 10 , 1985 - - " No objection by
Frank Liguori .
3 . Memorandum dated June 10 , 1985 to Lewis D . Cartee , Building Inspector ,.
from Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of Planning ; re Zoning Review
Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General
Municipal Law ; Case : Appeal to expand a nonconformance by Richard and
Mary Perry at 1138 Trumansburg Road ( state highway ) - - " This will
acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239 -m .
The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious
impact on intercommunity , county , or state interest . Therefore , no
recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you
are free to act without prejudice . "
Mr . King stated that he had a question as to how close this trailer
might be to the machinery shed . Mrs . Perry stated that she did not walk it
out . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Perry if she could tell the Board
approximately how close it might be placed . Mrs . Perry stated that she
would want , probably , at least , ten feet from the machinery shed which is
old and rusty , so they can have a little grass and get in the door .
Chairman Aron noted that Mrs . Perry thought the trailer might be placed ten
feet , plus or minus , west of the shed . Mr . King , posing the question ,
actually , does it much matter how far west it is , stated that he would be
more concerned with its proximity to the shed because of safety , adding
that he would say it should be no closer than fifteen feet . Mr . Austen
stated that he thought that was reasonable . Chairman Aron stated that Mr .
King had raised a good point . Mr . Cartee wondered if the Board should be
so concerned whether the trailer is ten feet or fifteen feet away from the
shed , and suggested that if the Board were considering granting permission
for it , it should consider what is in this machinery building in terms of
safety from fire . Mrs . Perry stated that the shed is used for storage of
* farm equipment and contains machinery , wagons , gasoline . Mr . Cartee stated
that he thought the trailer should be closer to fifty feet from that
building . Mrs . Perry stated that she had no problem with such a placement ,
Zoning Board of Appeals 7 June 12 , 1985
• pointing out that the entire building is metal - - there is no wood in it at
all . Mr . Cartee stated that he was trying to say that the trailer , if
permission for it is granted , should be more than fifteen feet away from
the machinery shed .
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 a special permit to the applicants , Richard A . and Mary
Louise Perry , to extend the legal non - conforming agricultural use , known as
Shalebrook Farm , 1138 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 27 - 1 - 11 . 2 , to the extent of erecting a trailer to the west of the
westerly machinery shed , as shown on the site plan submitted , which shall
be about nine hundred feet ( 9001 ) south of the Bundy Road , and further
RESOLVED , that the trailer be screened by suitable evergreens or other
compact , dense shrubbery immediately to the north of the trailer and that
the plants be at least six feet ( 6 ' ) in height , and further
RESOLVED , that this permit be construed and considered to be subject
to the provisions of Article XIII , Section 59b , of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance which requires that the occupants of the mobile home shall
be agricultural employees or agricultural students working on the property
and for no other use , and , that the permit shall be reviewable annually .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
-
Aye Aron , Hewett , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Perry Appeal duly closed at
7 : 35 p . m .
APPEAL OF SIU-LING CHALOEMTIARANA , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED IN RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R151 CREATING A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF LESS THAN 25 FEET , AT 1544
SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 56 - 3 - 12 . PERMIT IS
DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
duly opened4at 7 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr . and Mrs .
Chaloemtiarana were present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form
as signed and submitted by Siu-Ling Chaloemtiarana under date of June 3 ,
1985 , as follows : It been denied permission to extend an existing
one - family home at 1544 Slaterville Road . . . See Attachment - - The need of a
dining room / living room on the first floor necessitates the building of an
• extension to the existing structure . Presently , a grand piano occupies the
entire 9 ' X 6 ' dining area . Because of such limited space , it has not been
possible to entertain dinner guests at all . JBy extending the dining area
out 16 feet towards the highway ( Route 79 ) , the house will be 25 feet away
Zoning Board of Appeals 8 June 12 , 1985
• from the original ( old ) highway line . However , the new highway line has
been moved by the State 8 feet closer to the house thus precluding any
worthwhile remodeling . We feel that this hardhsip has been caused by the,
State since the new highway line has been created . ( Please refer to
survey ) gFurthermore , we feel that the extension would not create any
hazard to traffic as our property is approximately 20 feet above street
level ( please see photographs ) . Such an extension would not drastically
alter the character of the neighborhood as several houses on Slaterville
Road ( Route 79 ) are already closer than 25 feet from the new highway line .
Also , our proposed extension will not be so noticeable as it is setback ,
bordered in the front by large maple trees and high above street level .
JIn conclusion , we appeal to the Zoning Board and Building Inspector grant
us a variance to the Zoning Ordinance as its strict observance will impose
both practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship for us . We feel that
this appeal was made necessary because the State expanded their highway
line by an additional 8 feet . "
For the record , the Board members each had before them a copy of the
Survey of the property at 1544 Slaterville Road , showing adjacent
properties also , certified by Allen C . Fulkerson , under date of April 8 ,
1981 , and , a copy of each of three photographs of the Chaloemtiarana
property .
Chairman Aron asked if the Chaloemtiaranas had anything to add to
their submittals . $ Mr . Chaloemtiarana stated that they really did not have
anything to add , however , he would say that they talked to their immediate
• neighbor , the Sterns , but they have not seen the other neighbor to the left
who owns an empty lot . Mr . Chaloemtiarana stated that the neighbor to the
front is the Ithaca City watershed .
Chairman Aron wondered about the grand piano taking up all the dining
area . Mr . Chaloemtiarana stated that it is a baby grand piano , adding that
their two children play several instruments and his wife is a pianist . Mr .
Chaloemtiarana stated that they like their neighborhood and would like to
stay there , adding that their children are very good friends with the
Sterns ' children and noting that they share a driveway with the Sterns .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak
for or against the Chaloemtiarana Appeal . No one spoke . Chairman Aron
closed the Public Hearing ,
Mr . Cartee stated that he saw the neighbor to the north of the Sterns ,
Mr . Hafler , 1540 Slaterville Road , and he [ Hafler ] stated that he had no
problems with whatever this family needs to do .
Mr . Hewett stated that he was familiar with the area under discussion ,
noting that he resides at 1518 Slaterville Road , adding that the houses are
small with a common driveway for three houses . Mr . Hewett stated that he
could see a need for more room in this case with two children and Mrs .
Chaloemtiarana being a pianist . Mr . Hewett stated that he knew Mr . Hafler
very well and he was concerned that he was not here , but Mr . Cartee ' s
• statement alleviated that concern .
Zoning Board of Appeals 9 June 12 , 1985
Mr . King wondered what the State is doing with this new highway right
• of way . Mr . Chaloemtiarana stated that they want to build a culvert and
they have taken part of their land away . Mr . Hewett stated that he was
affected by this also , adding that they want to take his trees . Mr . Hewett
stated that the affected people formed an association because of this and
had several meetings , one at Bethel Grove Church which Sam MacNeil
attended . The Secretary stated that the work the State is going to do is
essentially a drainage improvement project with some shoulder work and
culverting and which involves the taking of some land for this work . Mr .
King stated that they are taking some of his land also . Mr. . Austen asked
Mr . Chaloemtiarana if the State were going to take down those trees which
are shown on the photographs . Mr . Chaloemtiarana stated that they will
lose three small ones . Mr . Hewett stated that he will lose big ones .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , having found
that the neighbors were notified and nobody appeared , that said Board of
Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance of eight feet ( 81 )
from the twenty - five - foot front yard setback requirement of Article IV ,
Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the issuance
of a building permit for the construction of an addition in the front yard
to the house known as 1544 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 56 - 3 - 12 .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
-
Aye Aron , Hewett , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
The following Memorandum forms part of the record : Memorandum dated
June 10 , 1985 to Lewis D . Cartee , Building Inspector , from Frank R .
Liguori , Commissioner of Planning ; re Zoning Review Pursuant to Section
239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Laws Case : Area
variance appeal of Siu -Ling Chaloemtiarana at 1544 Slaterville Road ( state
highway ) - - " This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under
Section 239 -m . The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant
deleterious impact on intercommunity , county , or state interest .
Therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department
and you are free to act without prejudice . "
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Chaloemtiarana Appeal duly
closed at 7 : 50 p . m .
APPEAL OF JOHN AND MARTHA HERTEL , APPELLANTS , MICHAEL LOEHR , AGENT , FROM
THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE , WITH AN APARTMENT , LOCATED IN
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT FRONT ON A TOWN ROAD OR
STREET , OFF CREST LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 66 - 3 - 3 . 2 . PERMIT
• IS DENIED UNDER SECTION 280 - a OF TOWN LAW AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Zoning Board of Appeals 10 June 12 , 1985
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
• duly opened at 7 : 51 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . and Mrs . Loehr and their
baby were present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed
and submitted by Michael A . Koplinka - Loehr under date of May 24 , 1985 , as
follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to build a ' two - family
dwelling ' ( primary residence plus basement income apartment ) at lot
adjacent to driveway of John and Martha Hertel , 130 Crest Lane , Ithaca ,
N . Y . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 3 - 3 . 2 , proposed lot # 14 . . . proposed
lot does not have frontage on a Town road or street . ( See attached
proposed plot plan . ) Chairman Aron read aloud from the Minutes of the
Planning Board meeting of June 4 , 1985 , as follows :
" MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Edward . Mazza :
RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca recommend and
hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a variance be
granted pursuant to Section 280 - a of Town Law for lot # 14 as described on
the subdivision plan of John Hertel on the grounds that :
a ) Access to the property will be adequately preserved by a private
alley to be maintained by Messrs . Hertel and / or Loehr , their
successors and assigns .
b ) Lot # 14, will have access to public utilities available on Crest
• Lane through private utility services as shown on -the sketch plan
and that the Town will not assume maintenance or replacement
responsibilities for these lines .
c ) The efficient development of land and public streets in the Town
would be promoted by this development .
d ) The recommended variance is the smallest required in order to
permit the proposed development and not impose extensive land
preparation costs on Mr . Hertel .
e ) Since the land to be subdivided is zoned R15 and is adjacent to
existing residential properties of comparable size , the existing
and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be
affected .
f ) The comprehensive planning practice of the Town , as expressed in
the Policy Statement of the Subdivision Regulations , calls for
the economical development of land . The proposed plan minimizes
the amount of public highway and utility lines needed for the
subdivision of this property . Insofar as such site development
costs are directly related to the price of building lots , this
plan is in accordance with our comprehensive plan for economical
subdivision development .
g ) The Planning Board declares itself to be Lead Agency in a unified
• SEQR review of this action .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Zoning Board of Appeals 11 June 12 , 1985
Aye - May , Grigorov , Schultz , Mazza , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . "
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Loehr if he had anything to add to that which
has already been stated . Mr . Loehr responded that he did not . Chairman
Aron asked if there were anyone present who had anything to say in this
matter .
Dr . W . Lambert Brittain , 135 Warren Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he and his wife certainly have no problems in coming here
tonight and giving support to Mr . and Mrs . Loehr , however , they would like
to know a little more about the plans for an apartment . Mr . Loehr stated
that the plan for the house has not been finalized , but they hope to have a
two -bedroom apartment that would be totally in the basement , which would
meet the Town regulations . Mr . Loehr stated that the house may be
two - stories or it may be one - and - a - half stories .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak . No
one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 55 p . m .
Mr . King wondered why Mr . Loehr was proposing to build his house so
far into the lot in the northwest corner . Mr . Loehr explained that that
site was chosen because of its solar access and , also , they have talked to
the Hertels and they would appreciate a sense of space relative to their
• home . Mr . King asked what the contour of this land is , to which Mr . Loehr
responded , almost .. flat , Mr . King wondered if the apartment were to be
underground , how much of it would be above ground . Mr . Loehr stated that
there would be roughly four feet above ground . Mr . King wondered about the
" gravel driveway " shown on the plot plan . The Secretary described the
subdivision review presently on - going before the Planning Board with
respect to both Mr . Loehr ' s proposed lot and the Hertels ' proposed
subdivision and with respect to a thirty - foot private alley which will
provide access to the Loehr lot and which will be maintained by Messrs .
Hertel and / or Loehr . Mr . Cartee noted that this drive is only one lane
wide at the moment . Referring to Section 280 - a of the Town Law , Mr . King
noted that a building lot must have at least 15 feet on a public road , and
commented that if this drive is at least 15 ' wide running from a public
road , Crest Lane , then the Board would have no problem with the statute .
Mr . Loehr stated that the alley right of way is 30 feet . Mr . Cartee stated
that the drive is level and there are no obstructions . Mr . Loehr displayed
for the Board members a copy of the proposed Hertel subdivision presently
before the Planning Board and indicated the 30 - foot wide right of way to
Crest Lane . Mr . Cartee pointed out that the Board had a similar situation
last month at the end of Kendall Avenue [ Berggren / Sackett Appeal , 185
Kendall Avenue , May 15 , 1985 ] where the lot was not on a developed street .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and
• hereby does grant a special approval for the Loehrs to develop Lot # 14 on a
portion of the lands of John and Martha Hertel , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 66 - 3 - 3 . 2 , off Crest Lane , as shown on the site plan presented to � said
r
Zoning Board of Appeals 12 June 12 , 1985
• Board of Appeals at Public Hearing this date , June 12 , 1985 , for a
two - family dwelling , the Board specifically waiving the requirement of
specific frontage on a public road , as is usually required in Residence
Districts R15 , provided that access to this lot be provided by a suitably
improved , meaning , at least gravel - based , driveway - or lane extending from
Crest Lane northerly over the present gravel driveway , as shown on the site
plan and , from there , north and westerly over what is shown as a proposed
driveway with a turn - around into said lot # 14 , and further
RESOLVED , that all the conditions that have been approved by the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board for the development of this particular lot in
conjunction with the development of the entire site be adhered to , the
major condition from the Board of Appeals ' view being that these access
roads be maintained in suitable condition for the passage of emergency
vehicles with not less than fifteen feet ( 151 ) clearance at all times , and
further
RESOLVED , that said approval is subject to the further approval of the
Planning Board as to the particular site plan for the development of said
lot # 14 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Hertel / Loehr Appeal duly
closed at 8 : 15 p . m .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the June 12 , 1985 meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 8 : 18 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
Henry Aron , Chairman
•