HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1985-11-20 rp6
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 2`0 , 1985
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session
on Wednesday , November 20 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Jack D . Hewett , Edward W . King , Joan G .
Reuning , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector ) , John C .
Barney ', ( Town Attorney ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Rei Levitsky , Ann M . Mulvey , William W . Steele , Attorney
Edward A . Mazza , James Iacovelli , Mark Mecenas , Dr . Joy
Mecenas , Virginia Freedman , Joseph Freedman , Attorney
Richard Mulvey , Tammo Steenhuis , Anna K . Stuliglowa ,
Frank R . Liguori , Lisa Best ( WTKO , Syracuse
Post - Standard ) .
Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 10 p . m .
Chairman Aron described the manner in which the meeting will be
conducted , instructing the public to address the Chair and to present
new , factual information only . Chairman Aron stated that the meeting
will be adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . and any matters which have not been
heard at that time will be adjourned to another time this month .
Chairman Aron stated that decisions may not necessarily be rendered
tonight .
Chairman Aron accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of
Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and
published in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November . 12 , 1985 and
November 15 , 1985 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s
Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors
of each of the properties under discussion , upon the Clerk of the City
of Ithaca , upon ' the Acting-Administrator of the County of Tompkins ,
upon the Chairman of the Tompkins County Board of Representatives ,
upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of
the Appellants and / or Agent , as appropriate , on November 15 , 1985 .
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM AUGUST 21 , 1985 , SEPTEMBER 18 , 1985 , AND
OCTOBER 23 , 1985 ) , WITH CLARIFIED, NOTICE , OF JAMES IACOVELLI ,
APPELLANT , FROM 'i THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A
BUILDING PERMIT '' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING IN
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 ON A PORTION OF THE FOUNDATION OF AN EXISTING
BARN WITH SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD DEFICIENCIES , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL N0 , 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 41 , SAID PARCEL LOCATION BEING DESIGNATED AS
" SLATERVILLE ROAD " ON 1985 TOWN OF ITHACA ASSESSMENT ROLL , HOWEVER ,
HAVING FRONTAGE 'ON BOTH SLATERVILLE ROAD AND PINE TREE ROAD , SAID
PARCEL BEING LOCATED BETWEEN 1476 SLATERVILLE ROAD AND 110 PINE TREE
ROAD AND BETWEEN 1476 SLATERVILLE ROAD AND 1462 SLATERVILLE ROAD .
. PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV ,
SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Zoning Board of Appeals 2 November 20 , 1985
Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 13 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as :noted above .
Mr . James Iacovelli was present , as was his attorney , Edward A . Mazza .
The documents before the Board were all those which had been
before them at the August 21st , September 18th , and October 23 ,
meetings , with the addition of the following :
1 . Minutes , August 21 , 1985 .
2 . Minutes September 18 , 1985 .
3 . Minutes October 23 , 1985 .
4 . Letter from Frank R . Liguori , P . E . , Tompkins County Commissioner
of Planning , to Lewis D . Cartee , Building Inspector , dated
November 18 1985 , and reading :
" Re : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New
York State General Municipal Law .
Case : Area variance appeal of James Iacovelli at Pine Tree
Road and Slaterville Road ( county highway and 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 interests . Therefore , no
recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you
are free to act without prejudice . "
Chairman Aron asked Attorney Mazza if there were anything he
wished to add .
Attorney Mazza stated that , Mr . Iacovelli , since the last meeting
that we had , has been trying to get his architect to come up with
plans that may not need a variance , or , a somewhat different variance .
Attorney Mazza stated that those plans are not done . Attorney Mazza
stated that he would like to request an adjournment to the December
18th meeting .
Town Attorney Barney wondered if there would be a problem with
simplifying this by reapplying for the variance rather than just
carrying it forward . Attorney Mazza stated that it made no difference
to him , adding that whatever is easier for the Secretary . Town
Attorney Barney commented that we seem to be readvertising over and
over . Chairman Aron noted that there may be a different variance , or ,
no variance . Attorney Mazza agreed , adding that there may be less of
• a violation than it was under the original plan , and further adding
that Mr . Iacovelli is trying to do what the Board has suggested and
making it better for the neighbors . Mr . Iacovelli stated that the
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 November 20 , 1985
• plans are almost ready , adding that they will be ready for the next
meeting .
Mrs . Reuning stated that that barn is not in very good shape .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning .
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal with respect to property at Pine
Tree Road and Slaterville Road , be and hereby is adjourned , as
requested , to the next meeting of this Board in December .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in and the
matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal duly adjourned , further , to
December 18 , 1985 , at 7 : 00 p . m .
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR THE REHEARING OF THE APPEAL OF JOSEPH
N . FREEDMAN , APPELLANT , IN RE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A
• SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , BY FIVE UNRELATED
PERSONS , AT 230 - 232 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS
NO . 6 - 54 - 7 - 13 AND 6 - 54 - 7 - 14 ( OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS N0 ,
87 AND 88 ) .
The following documents were before the Board .
1 . Letter dated October 28 , 1985 , from Joseph N . Freedman to Henry
Aron , Chairman , Zoning Board of Appeals , Town of Ithaca , reading
as follows :
" Dear Mr . Aron :
This letter will serve as my formal request for a
rehearing concerning the boards negative decision of . 10 / 23 / 85 on
my request for a special permit to allow 5 unrelated parties in
an R9 area .
In my opinion , the information submitted by me during
the 9 / 18 / 85 and 10 / 23 / 85 meetings was factual , complete and more
than sufficient to gain a favorable decision by the board .
The next Zoning Board of appeals meeting is scheduled
for November 20 , 1985 . Should the board approve this request for
a rehearing , then I further request that I be placed at the
beginning of the evenings agenda since this matter is of a
• continuing nature and no new business for the board .
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter .
Zoning Board of Appeals 4 November 20 , 1985
• Respectfully Submitted ,
( sgd . ) Joseph N . Freedman
JOSEPH N . FREEDMAN
Cys . : Zoning Board of Appeals - Members
Richard Mulvey , Esq .
Supervisor - Town of Ithaca
Mr . Lewis Cartee "
2 . Minutes , Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 18 , 1985 .
3 . Minutes , Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of October 23 , 1985s
Chairman Aron opened the discussion at 7 : 18 p . m . and stated that
the Board had before it a request for a rehearing of the Joseph N .
Freedman Appeal , Chairman Aron stated that he was now asking the
Board whether the Board would like to rehear this appeal . Chairman
Aron stated that , he would poll the Board members .
Mr . Hewett 'stated that he was in favor of a rehearing .
Mr . King stated that he would like to hear some presentation from
the Applicant , or his Counsel , whether the Board is going to hear some
new evidence , or just rehearing the case . Mr . King stated that he
really did not see any reason to rehear , but , he saw no problem with
asking for further information .
• Attorney Richard Mulvey , commenting that he did not understand ,
stated that the motion was a request to rehear . Chairman Aron noted
that the appeal had been denied . Attorney Mulvey noted that there was
a motion to rehear , but Mr . King wants to hear from them .
Town Attorney Barney stated that the only thing is that if
nothing new is presented the Board will have no basis to rehear . Town
Attorney Barney suggested that the Board could hear reasons to rehear .
Mr . King asked that the applicant convince him that he should rehear .
Attorney Mulvey commented that Mr . King was asking for a double
presentation . Town Attorney Barney stated that he thought it could be
stipulated that whatever is heard to consider rehearing is evidence in
a rehearing .
Mr . Freedman stated that they have new information to present ,
more current and more accurate information than what was presented to
the Board at the last meeting , that is , the information that was
presented by the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , they have more correct
information on that and additional information . Mr . Freedman stated
that , also , they have further information on the case , adding that he
could tell the Board what that is substantially .
Chairman Aron stated that he would prefer going through the form
and asking the Board if they want to rehear and then hear the new
information . Mr King stated that he would like to know what the new
• information is .
Mr . Freedman stated that he had prepared more current information
V
J
Zoning Board of Appeals 5 November 20 , 1985
• concerning the specifics of the geographical area than what was
presented before .
Mr . King , commenting that he was satisfied , stated that he would
vote to rehear .
Mr . Hewett stated that he would vote to rehear .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she would vote to rehear .
Chairman Aron stated that he would vote to rehear .
Chairman Aron declared that , by unanimous vote of the Board
members present , the Joseph N . Freedman Appeal would be reheared .
APPEAL OF JOSEPH N . FREEDMAN , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , BY FIVE UNRELATED
PERSONS , AT 230r232 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS
NO . 6 - 54 - 7 - 13 AND 6 - 54 - 7 - 14 ( OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS N0 ,
87 AND 88 ) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE
III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 ,
PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
• Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 23 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings ,as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Freedman stated that he would speak for himself .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Freedman for any additional information
he may have to present .
Mr . Freedman appended a colored -up copy of Tax Map 54 to the
bulletin board and stated that this map was a copy of the colored map
used by Mr . Lov`i at the October Board meeting . Chairman Aron asked
Mr . Freedman if he were satisfied that this map is accurate , with Mr .
Freedman responding , no , it is not accurate . Mr . Freedman appended
another colored - up copy of Tax Map 54 to the bulletin board . Mr .
Freedman pointed out that on Mr . Lovi ' s map the blue area indicates
single family residences , however , he did not make any distinction
between those that are resided in by a family and those that students
live in , some ' with more than three by a permit . Chairman Aron
commented that students are people . Mr . Freedman pointed out the blue
and stated that ' these areas are shown by Mr . Lovi as single family
residences . Referring to his new colored map , Mr . Freedman stated
that this was the same map - - Tax Map 54 - - and on this map the yellow
represents single family residences but only those occupied by a
family and the red is rentals . Mr . Freedman stated that the number of
little red squares indicate the number of units , that is , whether
• there are four or six or two . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Freedman to
state again what the red is , with Mr . Freedman responding , rental .
Chairman Aron asked if they were single family houses , rented . Mr .
1 1
Zoning Board of Appeals 6 November 20 , 1985
• Freedman pointed out that if they have one little red square they are
single . Chairman Aron asked if they were owner - occupied . Mr .
Freedman stated that they did not distinguish that aspect because they
felt they did not have the right to inquire that much but he would say
that , certainly , the majority are non - owner - occupied . Mr . Freedman
pointed out his house on parcels # 13 and # 14 on both maps and stated
that , if you look at parcels # 47 , # 43 , and # 41 on Mr . Lovi ' s map and ,
then , look at his map , you will see a big difference . Mr . Freedman
stated that the inference on Mr . Lovi ' s map is that they are
owner - occupied but they are rented , with Iacovelli ' s across the street
rented to four by permit . Mr . Freedman showed the green on his map
representing those for sale .
Mr . Freedman stated that if you take the number of single family
residences in relationship to the total number of houses on the entire
street , whether single or more , the ratio is 60 % - 40 % single family ,
however , if you take the ratio of families versus those occupied by
non - families , then it is a ratio of three to one of non - families to
families by persons and individual total number of people . Mr . King
asked if Mr . Freedman meant Pennsylvania Avenue . Mr . Freedman
explained that he was talking about both and including Coddington
Road . Mr . Freedman stated that if you take it as a ratio of number of
residential people versus those occupied by non - families you have a
ratio of three to one . Mr . Freedman pointed out two places which are
or will be occupied by 16 unrelated people and 14 unrelated people .
Mr . Freedman stated that the sum total of this single family , this
single family , and his , plus two , is five single family residences to
16 .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Freedman who made the map , with Mr .
Freedman responding , that his wife made the map . Chairman Aron asked
Mr . Freedman if he felt that his map was accurate , with .Mr . Freedman
responding , yes , adding that he was not saying that Mr . Lovi ' s is
incorrect but to the extent it goes it is inaccurate .
Town Attorney Barney , referring to the " red dots " , stated that he
understood that they all represent rental units , and asked if any of
them have a family in them . Mr . Freedman reiterated that he had not
gone into them so some he did not know if there was a family .
Mr . Freedman pointed out the old Ithaca Bakery property owned by
Mr . Thorpe across the street and down one and stated that it was an
apartment .
Mr . Cartee stated that there are four apartments in the structure
and they are rented to four families . Mr . Cartee stated that the
structure is not owner - occupied , adding that it is a non - conforming
multiple dwelling .
Town Attorney Barney asked if there were any others where one of
the units is occupies by the owner , with Mr . Freedman responding , not
• that he was aware of .
Mr . King asked if the Board was accepting these maps as evidence .
Zoning Board of Appeals 7 November 20 , 1985
• Chairman Aron stated that he would recommend that the maps be accepted
for the records .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone from the public who
wished to speak . No one spoke .
Mr . Freedman stated that at the last meeting , we discussed the
parking situation at great length , concerning five vehicles for five
parties . Mr . Freedman stated that he had the meeting minutes from the
Board ' s August 21 , 1985 meeting where a special permit was asked for
by Mrs . Anne Caston for six unrelated people [ 141 Kendall Avenue ] ,
Mr . Freedman stated that at that meeting in the Environmental
Assessment Form statement , Mr . Lovi presented information for the
record concerning the expected number of people in the house . Mr .
Freedman read aloud from the Minutes of the August 21 , 1985 meeting of
the Zoning Board of Appeals [ page 81 , as follows : " Impact on
Transportation - - 13 . This project will have no impact on the
existing transportation system . This conclusion is based upon the
following facts :, b ) Based upon the experience of other builders in
this neighborhood , it is reasonable to expect that sufficient
off - street parking should be provided for : 1 ) 3 cars if four
unrelated persons are permitted ; 2 ) 4 cars if five unrelated persons
are permitted , 3 ) 5 cars if six unrelated persons are permitted . " Mr .
Freedman noted that Mr . Lovi had stated that based on the expertise of
the builders in the area , adding that they certainly do have
• considerable expertise . Mr . Freedman also read 13 . a ) - - " Based upon
traffic counts for similar residential neighborhoods in the Town , it
is estimated that traffic flow on Kendall Avenue is less than 500 cars
per day . "
Mr . Freedman stated that he read that because it was concerning
the lengthy discussion we had about if there was sufficient parking .
Mr . Freedman stated that he believed they have showed there is
sufficient parking for five cars when , according to previously
accepted statements , maybe they only needed to show parking for four
cars .
Chairman Aron stated that he had been at the Freedman property
yesterday , commenting that Mr . Freedman was not there , and he noticed
that on the western side of Mr . Freedman ' s house there is a trailer
parked , a camper really , and on the eastern part there is room also .
Mr . Freedman stated that that was right , adding that there is an old
driveway there , actually . Chairman Aron stated that he could see
enough room if Mr . Freedman took out three little evergreens . Mr .
Freedman agreed , adding that that was a driveway . Chairman Aron
stated that he had a question for Mr . Freedman , the question being - -
would you and could- you utilize that for additional parking ? Mr .
Freedman stated that he could and he would if necessary .
Mr . Freedman stated , in addition , interjecting that he kept
referring to the last meeting , that in the meeting minutes we
discussed renting to two additional parties in addition to his own
family which would be permitted without approval . Mr . Freedman stated
that he wanted to point out that , up to last year , they did have five
Zoning Board of Appeals 8 November 20 , 1985
• people living there , but , because of his profession he did not
necessarily agree with putting other people in his house other than
his own family . Mr . Freedman stated that he travels and for his own
security and his wife ' s there he did not think that would be good .
Mr . Freedman stated that he would also say that , from discussions with
the Building Inspector , he [ Cartee ] indicated that he [ Freedman ] would
not have to add a bathroom or a kitchen . Mr . Freedman noted again
that they had five people living there and described the problems he
would have in creating an apartment for two additional people as was
suggested , mentioning how the plumbing would have to be rerouted ,
because his house is on a slab . Mr . Freedman stated that to get
plumbing to that garage , he would have to rip his floor up and this
would be at significant cost . Mr . Freedman stated that , in addition ,
he had a schedule - -
Mr . Tammo Steenhuis , 266 Pennsylvania Avenue , interjecting from
the floor that he did not understand , stated that , you make
apartments , you will have to break up .
Continuing , Mr . Freedman repeated that he had five people there
up until last year . Mr . Freedman stated that the assumption is that
he would not be living there , adding that the first assumption would
be he and his family and two other people which would require an
apartment with plumbing , doors , etc . , at significant cost .
• Mr . Freedman stated that he also had a statement for the Board
which describes his current operating costs , his expenses , and the
costs if he were to move out of the house and rent to three unrelated
individuals in accordance with the current zoning laws .
Chairman Aron stated that hardship does not have to be shown in
this case because of the special permit involved , adding that this is
not a variance matter ; this is R9 . Mr . Freedman agreed and stated
that he would like to enter it anyway and handed the document to the
Secretary .
Mr . Freedman stated that he also had a letter from Richard L .
Patterson , of Patterson Real Estate , which he would like to enter .
Chairman Aron read aloud , as follows :
" November 5 , 1985
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
We currently have the property located at 232 Pennsylvania
Avenue , owned by Joseph and Virginia Freedman listed for sale .
As of this date , there have been two purchase offers on the
property that I am aware of , both potential buyers wishing to use the
property as residential income property . The second potential buyer
offering a higher purchase price , but requesting a variance for the
property .
• Some clients have not been interested in the house as their
residence , because of the existing residential income property in the
area .
i r
Zoning Board of Appeals 9 November 20 , 1985
• In my opinion , the Freedmans would receive a higher sales price
for their property with the variance granted which they seek , than
they would from a buyer to use the property as their residence .
Sincerely ,
( sgd . ) Richard L . Patterson
Richard L . Patterson , Broker "
Mr . Freedman stated that he had completed his presentation .
Chairman Aron thanked Mr . Freedman ,
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak .
Mr . Tammo Steenhuis , 266 Pennsylvania Avenue , spoke from the
floor and stated that he lived way down at the end of Pennsylvania
Avenue , Chairman Aron wondered where on the map on the bulletin
board . Mr . Freedman stated that Mr . Steenhuis ' is not on the map , his
house is way down Penn . Ave . and it would be on another tax map . Mr .
Steenhuis stated that he has eight persons in the house with six
children and they use daily the road - - four of them . Mr . Steenhuis
stated that the problem is he agrees completely with Mr . Freedman
about persons in the house . Mr . Steenhuis stated that each person has
a car , is a student and they drive faster than 30 miles . Chairman
Aron asked Mr . Steenhuis if he clocked that , to which Mr . Steenhuis
• responded , yes , adding that he did not know how fast . Mr . Steenhuis
stated that in the morning it is a real problem for the kids to go to
school with sleepy and everything . Mr . Steenhuis stated that two more
cars is not a problem , but two more for each rental property and Mr .
Freedman has indicated well that there are many , make the street so
dangerous . Mr . Steenhuis stated that there are no sidewalks and the
bus cannot come to deadend street . Mr . Steenhuis stated that some day
one of these kids will be killed . Mr . Steenhuis stated that he has
five more kids close by , the neighbors have two kids , one grown up ,
adding that he thought there was a total of 12 kids using street to go
to school . Mr . Steenhuis stated that he thought it was dangerous .
Mr . Steenhuis stated that Mr . Freedman ' s idea is not a problem , adding
that his personal opinion for being here is that he would like to
voice the problem with cars and children .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Freedman how many cars he has , to which
Mr . Freedman replied that he had a car , a truck , and a camper .
Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 50 p . m .
Mr . King noted that the total size of the lot is 100 feet by 120
feet , so , it actually represents two building lots from the old
previous subdivision .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Freedman if his house was built on two
lots , with Mr . Freedman responding , yes .
• Mr . King stated to Mr . Freedman that his proposal was to utilize
this garage - - 26 feet by 26 feet - - by building two bedrooms into it
Zoning Board of Appeals 10 November 20 , 1985
• and putting all the cars outside . Mr . Freedman replied , yes .
Town Attorney Barney , commenting that he was still a little bit
confused , stated that the red one on Mr . Lovi ' s map is Mr . Freedman '
house . Several livoices stated that that was correct . Town Attorney
Barney , noting that on the other map it appears that next door is a
single family house and also next door on the other side it looks like
five single families , asked if there are any of those single family
homes that are rented . Mr . Freedman responded , yes .
Mr . Cartee offered that what he thought Mr . Freedman was saying
is that the units marked in red are units with three or more unrelated
people , adding that they can , by this Board , have four , six , or eight
unrelated .
Town Attorney Barney stated that his question was , of those that
show rental houses , how many of those are single family houses where
there are four or more unrelated persons . Mr . Freedman stated that he
thought Mr . Cartee would know , adding that he [ Freedman ] knew that
there have been occupancy permits granted for 60 or 61 people .
Mr . Cartee stated that there are about nine properties that are
occupied by four , or more than four , unrelated people and that are
occupied by special permit . Mr . Cartee stated that there are several
houses rented to three , or a family , with an absentee landlord . Mr .
• Freedman stated that that was correct and he knew of at least one
example - - Les Jinks ' property across the street .
Chairman Aron stated that he had a question for Mr . Freedman
which was that he wanted to sell his house and people are going to buy
it and , according to Mr . Patterson ' s letter , the people would like to
have an income piece of property . Mr . Freedman stated that at the
last meeting , his house was not on the market . Chairman Aron asked
him if it was now , with Mr . Freedman responding , yes , and adding that
he took it off once . Chairman Aron stated that , should a special
permit be granted to him [ Freedman ] , it would be granted to him , and
asked Mr . Freedman - - did he know that ? Mr . Freedman stated that he
was not aware of how it works . Mr . Freedman noted that it was not his
intention to sell if he got the permit . Chairman Aron asked Mr .
Freedman how he would do that if he did not sell . Mr . Freedman stated
that he would be very careful , adding that he would still have value
in that property and he would not want the value lowered , and further
adding that insurance only covers so much . Chairman Aron asked what
Mr . Freedman ' s recourse would be if they did not turn out to his
liking . Mr . Freedman stated that he guessed his recourse would be
eviction , adding that his recourse would be to call his attorney .
Chairman Aron asked if there were any more questions from the
Board . There appearing to be none , Chairman Aron asked if the Board
would like to consider a motion or a decision within thirty days ,
adding that it was up to the Board .
• Mrs . Reuning , commenting that she was notP resent at the last
meeting , stated that she was having a problem with why this request is
r
Zoning Board of Appeals 11 November 20 , 1985
different from those where we granted five , or more , and with some
families around , ; and across the street there are four .
Mr . King stated that the Caston house [ Anne M . Caston Appeal , 141
Kendall Avenue , ZBA 8 / 21 / 85 , Granted ] , where there are six , does sit
on three of these old lots and , also , there is a restrictive covenant .
Mr . King stated that the Caston house is a big two - family house .
Mr . Freedman stated that his house is a ranch with a big double
garage .
Mr . King stated that it is not going to be made into an
apartment , but the move in there would be to throw the cars out and
take a single family house and put in five persons . Mr . King noted
that in other cases , on the Coddington Road one , for example , [ Gerard
and Laura Franco Appeal , 226 Coddington Road , ZBA 4 / 17 / 85 , Denied ] , it
just was not a suitable situation with parking in the front lawn and
intensifying occupancy , without amenities and without additional land
for off - street parking .
Mr . King stated that this is the line , adding that . there is a
line somewhere and this seems to be it , otherwise the whole area
the residential nature - - will be destroyed , as in Collegetown , with
people complaining about students without the leavening effect of
older people .
• Mrs . Reuning stated that she thought one of the Board ' s purposes
is to protect nice residential neighborhoods .
Mr . Freedman stated that the reason the permit was not granted on
Coddington Road , ' a different kind of road , was that it was unsafe with
no off - street parking . Mr . Freedman stated that , as you can see from
this map , adding that this map is accurate , on a ratio of residential
to non - residential it is also three to one . Mr . King pointed out that
Mr . Freedman was increasing it . Mr . Freedman offered that he was not
the one that was increasing it .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
Special Permit as requested by Joseph N . Freedman , 232 Pennsylvania
Avenue , be and hereby is denied , for the reasons that have been
alluded to , it being that this property does not lend itself to the
increased occupancy requested without a substantial change in the
character of the building , more automobiles in the neighborhood and
outside of garages , and , for the reasons in the colloquy .
There being , no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Zoning Board of Appeals 12 November 20 , 1985
• Chairman Aron declared the Freedman Appeal denied . Chairman Aron
declared the matter of the Freedman Appeal duly closed at 8 : 04 p . m .
APPEAL OF LAWRENCE E . IACOVELLI JR . , APPELLANT , EDWARD A . MAZZA ,
ATTORNEY , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING , IN
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , BY SIX ( 6 ) UNRELATED PERSONS ( NO MORE THAN FOUR
( 4 ) IN ONE UNIT AND NO MORE THAN TWO ( 2 ) IN THE OTHER UNIT ) , AT 178
KENDALL AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 54 - 5 - 23 ( OLD ITHACA
LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS N0 , 140 , 141 , AND 142 ) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT
BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 ,
SUB -PARAGRAPH 2b , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . PERMIT IS
DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 41 PARAGRAPH 21 SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b , OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 05 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings ' as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Lawrence Iacovelli Jr . was not present , however , his attorney , Edward
A . Mazza , was .
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as completed ,
signed , and submitted by Lawrence Iacovelli Jr . , under date of October
18 , 1985 , as follows :
of . . . Having been denied permission to occupy these premises as two
separate dwelling units with family or up to four unrelated persons in
one dwelling unit and a family or up to two unrelated persons in the
other dwelling unit , at 178 Kendall . Avenue . . . I currently reside at
178 Kendall Avenue and rent the apartment out to two unrelated
persons , all in compliance with the zoning ordinance . My property
consists of three Ithaca Land Tract Lots ( 140 , 141 , 142 ) . The current
structure is on Lots # 141 and 142 . Lot # 143 has no structures on it ,
however the driveway currently is on that lot .
I request a special permit to allow the existing structure to be
used as two separate dwelling units with a family or up to four
unrelated persons in one unit and a family or up to two unrelated
persons in the °' other unit . I would agree to dedicate all three
building lots ( 140 , 141 and 142 ) to this use by grant of restrictive
covenants to that effect . "
Attorney Mazza appeared before the Board and stated that Mr .
Iacovelli cannot be here tonight and has asked for an adjournment to
the next meeting .
Mr . King asked Attorney Mazza if he knew this house , wondering if
it was the lime green one , with Attorney Mazza responding , yes , and
adding that it used to be owned by Bellous .
MOTION by Mr' . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
• Public Hearing in the matter of the Lawrence E . Iacovelli Jr . Appeal
with respect to 178 Kendall Avenue , be and hereby is adjourned to
Zoning Board of Appeals 13 November 20 , 1985
• December 18 , 1985 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of
the Lawrence E . Iacovelli Jr . Appeal duly adjourned to December 18 ,
1985 , at 7 : 00 p . m .
BREAK
At 8 : 09 p . m . Chairman Aron declared a ten-minute break .
APPEAL OF WILLIAM W . STEELE , APPELLANT , EDWARD A . MAZZA , ATTORNEY ,
FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 ,
BY SIX ( 6 ) UNRELATED PERSONS ( NO MORE THAN THREE ( 3 ) IN EACH UNIT ) AT
119 - 121 KENDALL AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 54 - 4 - 40 , ( OLD
ITHACA LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS NO . 180 AND 181 ) , SUCH SPECIAL
PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH
21 SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . PERMIT
IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 21 SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b ,
• OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 20 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Steele was present , as . was his attorney , Edward A . Mazza ,
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as completed ,
signed , and submitted by William W . Steele , under date of October 15 ,
1985 , as follows :
. . . Having been denied permission to occupy these premises as two
separate dwelling units with up to three unrelated persons or a family
in each dwelling unit at 119 - 121 Kendall Avenue . . . . [ See Attached ] "
Attachment :
" A building already exists at 11. 9 - 121 Kendall Avenue . My family
and I formerly resided there and rented out an apartment in it .
Thereafter I purchased a new home and moved to it . At that time I
rented out my portion of the house as well as the apartment . Later I
found that this was in violation of the zoning ordinance .
My request is for a special permit to allow the use of these
premises as two dwelling units with a family or up to three unrelated
persons in each unit . I would dedicate both building lots ( Ithaca
Land Tract Parcel # 180 and 181 ) to this use by grant of restrictive
covenants to that effect . "
• In addition to the Appeal Form , the following document was before
the Board .
1
Zoning Board of Appeals 14 November 20 , 1985
• 1 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed , signed , and
submitted by William W . Steele , under date of October 15 , 1985
[ Part I ] , and , as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi ,
under date of October 26 , 1985 , [ Parts II and III ] , as follows :
Part II :
" A . The Action does NOT exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR ,
Part 617 . 12 .
Be The Action will NOT receive coordinated review as provided
for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 7 .
Cl . On the basis of the information provided with the appeal , I
do not have enough information to assess the impact which
this action would have on noise levels and existing traffic
patterns . For the other criteria , the expected
environmental impact is not significant .
C2 . This action could have a significant adverse impact on the
community character . The appeal of Joseph Freedman for a
Special Permit to permit five unrelated persons in a
structure which also encompassed two R9 lots was denied on
10 / 23 ; ` the impacts of the present appeal are prospectively
similar .
C3 . No adverse environmental impact expected .
C4 . The Zoning Ordinance does give the ZBA the authority to
grant Special Approvals to increase the occupancies of homes
in R9 districts . I do not have sufficient information to
determine whether this appeal meets the criteria. for Special
Permits as given in Section 77 , Number 7 .
• C5 . If this appeal is granted , it is likely - that subsequent
appellants would refer to this matter for similar increases
in permitted occupancy .
C6 . If many Special Permits of this type were granted , the
cumulative effect would be to erode the occupancy standards
established by the Zoning Ordinance . This outcome could
have a significant effect on community character .
C7 . I do not believe that this action will have a significant
effect, on this criteria .
Part III :
Box checked which states : " Check this box if you have identified
one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts
which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the FULL / LONG FORM EAF
and / or prepare a positive declaration . "
" Additional' information should be provided on the amount and
location othe parking spaces to be provided , the expected
impact on the community character , and the extent to which this
project meets the criteria given for Special Permits . "
Chairman Aron stated that he would also read from Part II of the
SEAF as prepared, by Mr . Lovi . Chairman Aron read aloud C6 and C5 , as
set forth above .
Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as Lead Agency
in this matter and asked if there were any questions by -the Board as
• to the SEAF .
Mr . King stated that it seemed to him that we do not have enough
Zoning Board of Appeals 15 November 20 , 1985
• information , as the reviewer indicates , and that a Long Form EAF
should be supplied to give us more information .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she felt the same way . Mr . Hewett
stated that he did too .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
Public Hearing in and the matter of the William W . Steele Appeal with
respect to 119 - 121 Kendall Avenue , be adjourned to the Board ' s next
meeting for more information , a Long Form EAF , and , with that
additional information , that the Board be supplied with a survey and
site plan with parking , etc .
Attorney Mazza stated that he had a site plan prepared , here ,
showing those things .
Mr . King stated that that would be nice prior to the next
meeting , however , he was moving adjournment , giving the applicant time
to prepare a Long Form EAF for the Board .
Attorney Mazza wondered if the Board wanted the Long EAF or that
information to go to the Town Planner because he recommended that a
Long Form be done .
. Mr . King stated that if the Town Planner decides that , that
should be sufficient .
Mrs . Joan Reuning SECONDED Mr . King ' s MOTION .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Attorney Mazza commented that , so , by giving this additional
information , Mr . Lovi might recommend a negative declaration . The
Board indicated that that might be the case .
At 8 : 25 p . m . , Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and
the matter of the William W . Steele Appeal duly adjourned to December
18 , 1985 , at 7 : 00 p . m .
APPEAL OF CARL R . UPDIKE , APPELLANT , ANNA K . STULIGLOWA , BELCOR
REALTY , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING
PERMISSION TO USE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE PREVIOUSLY USED FOR POULTRY
RESEARCH , IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 USES
PERMITTED ) , FOR THE STORAGE OF BOATS AND MOTOR VEHICLES , AT 1478
• MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . PERMISSION
IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XI , SECTION 51 , AND ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Zoning Board of 'Appeals 16 November 20 , 1985
• Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 26 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Ms .
Stuliglowa was present .
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as completed ,
signed , and submitted by Anna K . Stuliglowa ( Belcor ) on behalf of Carl
Updike , Owner , under date of November 8 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . Having
been denied permission to use an existing structure , 40 ' x 240 ' for
long term storage of boats and motor vehicles at 1478 Mecklenburg
Rd . . . . To use this structure for agricultural purposes would pose
economic hardship . For example , 1 ) ' in order to use building as a
stable for horses , it would be necessary to build a larger pole barn
in order to provide an enclosed riding ring . The cost of building
such a barn is prohibitive . 2 ) To use the building for feeder calves
is not possible because not enough acreage is available for grazing .
3 ) Use as a pig farm , given the wind pattern , would send the smell
down to Ithaca , something the residents undoubtedly would not
appreciate . %The proposed use would involve placing an automobile or
boat in the building only once and removing it only once . Given the
number of boats or automobiles in . storage ( 40 - 50 ) , it is doubtful that
any more than two or three would be driven in and out of the building
in any given week . The volume would be proabably higher in the late
fall and early spring . "
In addition to the Appeal Form , as noted above , the following
• documents were before the Board :
1 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed , signed , and
submitted by Anna K . Stuliglowa , Belcor Realty , on behalf of Carl
Updike , under date of November 8 , 1985 , [ Part I ] , describing the
Applicant as Belcor Realty as Agent for Carl Updike ; the Project
Name as Long Term Storage Facility ; the Proposed Action as
Modification / Alteration ; the Project described as " Modify use of
building 40. ' x 240 ' at 1478 Mecklenburg Rd . to be used for long
term storage of boats and automobiles . " ; the Precise Location as
Northwest of Property known as 1478 Mecklenburg Rd . Existing
access road from Sheffield Road . Access from Mecklenburg Road
could be provided . " s the Amount of Land affected as 2 acres ; the
proposed Action will not comply with existing zoning or other
existing land use restrictions - - " Present zoning is
agricultural . " ; the Present Land Use in the vicinity as
Residential and Agricuture ; the Action does not involve a
permit / approval , or funding , now or ultimately , from any other
governmental agency ; Questions 11 and 12 , not answered . "
The SEAF was reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under
date of November 15 , 1985 [ Parts II and III ] , as follows :
Part II .
A . " No . " [ " Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6
NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 ? ]
Be " No . " [ " Will action receive coordinated review as
• provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR , PART
617 . 7 ? ]
C . " Could action result in ANY adverse effects on , to , or
Zoning Board of Appeals 17 November 20 , 1985
• arising from the following : - "
C1 . " 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 ? "
" There will be an increase in the amount of traffic which
will use the site absent the variance ; this increase in
traffic will result in an increase in noise . I do not
believe that this increase will be sufficient to constitute
an adverse environmental impact . The effect on all other
aspects is similarly considered to be negligible , with
proper development . "
C2 . " Historic , archeological , visual or aesthetic , or other
natural or cultural resources ; agricultural districts ; or
community or neighborhood character ? "
" The effect on historic , archeological and cultural
resources is nil . If the property is suitably maintained
and all stored vehicles are enclosed and screened , the
effect on visual and aesthetic resources should be minor .
The action will put a small scale commercial use in an
agricultural district . The community character is primarily
agricultural and open land , with some residential
construction . Given the intermittent nature of the
long -term storage business , it is unlikely that this use
will present any significant inconvenience to the
neighboring properties . "
• C3 . " Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife species ,
significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? "
" No effect expected . "
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 ? "
" As stated in C2 above , the action will locate a small - scale
commercial use in an agricultural district . Given the
expected number of cars and other vehicles entering and
leaving the site , the action , intensity , and use of the
property will be comparable to the agricultural use . The
Zoning ordinance provides that uses in an Agricultural Zone
include the set of Residential R30 uses . R30 uses allow
uses , such as roadside stands , which would clearly increase
traffic and would be more visible . Viewed from this
perspective , the proposed action appears to be no more
inconsistent with the existing community character than
presently permitted use . "
C5 . " Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be incured by the proposed action ? "
" As a related activity , it is likely that Belcor Realty will
request that the parcel containing this use be subdivided
into a separate parcel . For this , subdivision review is
required . "
C6 . " Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified in
• C1 -C6 ? "'
" Given the small - scale of uses which could be permitted , it
is not likely that there could be much secondary growth
associated with this action . If further development were
Zoning Board of .Appeals 18 November 20 , 1985
planned , a rezoning and associated site plan review should
be made . "
C7 . " A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ? "
" No effect expected . "
Part III
Box Checked which states : " 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 : "
" 1 . The parcel is in a sparsely populated area of the Town and
will : have a small to negligible impact on adjacent
properties .
2 . The use of the property is passive rather than active and
will not require a significant amount of new construction .
3 . Any extension of this use beyond what is presently requested
should ' be considered as a rezoning with associated site plan
review . "
2 . Very rough ' sketch of a portion of the Updike property at the
corner of ` Mecklenburg Road and Sheffield Road , showing what
appears to be the area requested to be subdivided , the building
under discussion , a barn , and an access way of 52 ' .
3 . Seven colored photographs mounted on two cardboards with
• descriptions as follows :
1 . " Proposed Storage Building ( feed storage will be removed ) . "
2 . " Main Access to Building . "
3 . " Access from Sheffield Road . "
4 . " View to the North from Storage Building . "
5 . " Old Barn . "
6 . " Relationship of Barn to Storage Building Facing Sheffield
Road .
7 . Access from Mecklenburg Road . "
4 . Letter from Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning , to Lewis D . Cartee , dated November 18 , 1985 , reading as
follows :
if
. . .
Re : Zoning ' Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New
York State General Municipal Law ,
Case : Use variance appeal of Carl R . Updike at 1478
Mecklenburg 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 interests . Therefore ,
no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department
and you are ° free to act without prejudice . "
• Chairman Aron noted that the Board had before it the SEAF as
reviewed by and recommended upon by the Town Planner , Chairman Aron
Zoning Board of Appeals 19 November 20 , 1985
• read aloud Sections C1 , C2 , C3 , and C4 , as above , and also read aloud
the Reviewer ' s Recommendations , 1 , 2 , and 3 , as above . Chairman Aron
asked if there were any questions .
Mr . King stated that it would have been nice to have a site plan .
Ms . Stuliglowa stated that she had it and showed the Board a drawing
[ not submitted ' for record ] , stating that this is the proposed
subdivision . Mr . King pointed out that the Zoning Board of Appeals
does not have ' the subdivision before it , with Ms . Stuliglowa
responding , not yet . Mr . King asked where the property is . Ms .
Stuliglowa stated that the property is currently 18 acres and runs
between Sheffield Road and Mecklenburg Road . Ms . Stuliglowa indicated
on the drawing a " piece which has been subdivided off and is a separate
piece of property [ Planning Board July 16 , 1985 , George Rhoads ,
Buyer ] , Mr . Cartee pointed out that piece which is presently under
discussion by the Board and stated that the building is a former
Babcock Poultry ' Research and Chicken House structure . Mr . Cartee ,
noting that Babcock is out of the research and chicken business ,
stated that the building is a rather long structure .
Chairman Aron stated that he has been out there and :has seen the
property . Chairman Aron stated that it is a very long building , 150
feet or longer , and is located completely singly , away from
residential structures . Chairman Aron , commenting that he was just
presenting his observations , stated that it is very well kept and away
from the highways and byways . Chairman Aron , commenting that the
• chicken business is not profitable unless one has 100 , 000 of them ,
stated that the 'building should be used for other purposes . Chairman
Aron noted that the Board is considering a use variance . Chairman
Aron stated that the building is completely empty and it is not
profitable , adding that he did not want to speak for anyone else ; he
was just giving his observations .
Mr . King wondered which way the wind blew , with Ms . Stuliglowa
demonstrating in the direction of the City of Ithaca .
Ms . Stuliglowa drew the Board ' s attention to the seven mounted
photographs , and spoke of the three examples of uses for the
structure , as indicated on the Appeal Form , stating that those
examples are ways Mr . Updike gave her in which the building could be
used . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that using the structure as a horse
facility would be cost - prohibitive ; using the structure as a
calf - feeder facility would not work because there is not enough
grazing land available , and using it as a pig farm was pretty much
nixed because of the odors . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that Mr . Updike
lives right next door and he is very concerned about how the property
is used , wanting minimal disturbance to the environment . Ms .
Stuliglowa stated that they have done a market survey . Ms . Stuliglowa
stated that cars would be moving about one a day ,and in the
off - season , maybe one a week . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that they are
looking at two kinds of markets - - the person who has a car which they
would like to store during the winter , with the contract proposed as
you put it in and you take it out " , long - term , with no key , with it
coming in in November and getting out in April . Ms . Stuliglowa stated
Zoning Board of Appeals 20 November 20 , 1985
• that the other market is the sabattic market where one is gone for one
year with no place to store the car . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that the
criteria for storage have been delineated very carefully , adding that
the market is not " easy access " , therefore , the access can be kept
down . Ms . Stuliglowa reiterated that these things have all been
thought through and Mr . Updike has given his approval , commenting that
he is a very land - conscious man , and in his own heart and mind feels
this is the best and highest use of the particular building . Ms .
Stuliglowa stated that there is another building on the property and ,
for that , the best use would be the storage of hay . Ms . Stuliglowa
showed where the barn is located . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that there is
an access road from the Sheffield Road which appears to be sufficient
and , also , there is an access off Mecklenburg Road , possibly a truck
access from that road .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that , with respect to the Appeal of Carl R . Updike to
use an existing structure located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals agree and hereby does agree with the environmental reviewer ,
Town Planner Peter Lovi , that the proposed use for the long - term
storage of 40 to 50 vehicles would not create a significant adverse
environmental impact but , going beyond that on this particular 18
acres , may do so .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to the matter of the Carl Updike Appeal . No one spoke .
Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 45 p . m .
Speaking to Ms . Stuliglowa , Chairman Aron noted that she had
spoken of 40 to 50 automobiles . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that that was
correct , adding , depending on size . Chairman Aron noted that Ms .
Stuliglowa had also spoken of boats . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that that
was correct , adding , depending on the market . Chairman Aron stated
that Ms . Stuliglowa had also indicated that the use would be quiet
with no constant moving in and out .
Mrs . Reuning wondered what kind of security would be put in
place . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that they currently feel it is secure
but they are looking to , perhaps , making it more secure . Ms .
Stuliglowa described one door as the regular entry door and stated
that that probably should be barricaded . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that ,
also , they will probably have a security company look at the building .
• Ms . Stuliglowa stated that the way the contract is written , the owner
takes no responsibility for anything in the building and the person
signs that . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that there is no sign on the
l
ZoningBoard of
Appeals 21 November 20 , 1985
• building , adding that it has an extremely low profile which , they
feel , enhances the security . Ms . Stuliglowa commented that there will
be no neon lights .
Mr . Cartee asked what , if any , renovation or construction work
internally may , or may not be , required . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that
Mr . Updike has upgraded the facility , has taken out the chicken coops
that were in there ; has taken out the slabs and filled in with dirt
and the floor is now level and he feels it is sufficiently safe for
storage of vehicles . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that he has also put in a
new garage door which has a seven - foot clearance , so that restricts
occupancy , somewhat , as far as boats are concerned . Ms . Stuliglowa
stated that they suspect the market is primarily the car market . Ms .
Stuliglowa stated that , as the money comes in , they will be increasing
the height of the door and there will be an increase in security . Ms .
Stuliglowa stated that , also , outside , the ground has been levelled so
access is appropriate for a vehicle . Mr . Cartee stated that it
appeared Ms . Stuliglowa was saying that no internal work will be done .
Ms . Stuliglowa , indicating her agreement , stated , none other than what
has been done .
Mr . Cartee commented on vehicles with gasoline in them and stated
that he was a little bit concerned with fire safety . Ms . Stuliglowa
stated that they have stipulated in the contract that the battery be
removed , adding that the owner of the vehicle is to be responsible for
• ( a ) driving his own vehicle in , and ( b ) that the battery be removed .
Ms . Stuliglowa stated that , as some of the Board members may know , Mr .
Updike is a well - known fireman and he has not mentioned anything about
gasoline .
Mr . Cartee stated that , with those words , he would ask the Board
to consider the condition that the Town be given an opportunity to
look at this structure , and the storage thereof , to give us some
assurance that it may be acceptable fire - safety -wise . Mr . Cartee ,
commenting that this property is way out on the other end of the Town
and it is a long way to to the nearest fire company , stated that he
would suggest some consideration be given to a condition allowing the
building department to look at the situation and maybe recommend , or
insist , that there be some condition for fire safety . Mr . King
wondered if Mr . Cartee meant at the current time or on •- going . Mr .
Cartee stated that he really did not know because he has not seen how
they will be located .
Town Attorney Barney inquired , if one were starting to build such
a facility now , if there are building code requirements , with Mr .
Cartee responding , yes . Town Attorney Barney stated that he thought
Mr . Cartee ' s point was well taken , adding that , if the use variance
were to be granted , there should be conditions appropriate to life
safety .
MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett :
• RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant
and hereby does grant a use variance for premises owned by Carl R .
Updike at 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
c
Zoning Board of Appeals 22 November 20 , 1985
6 - 27 - 1 - 4 , for the storage of vehicles and boats , not to exceed fifty
in total number , in an existing structure previously used for poultry
research , upon the condition that said structure is inspected by the
Town of Ithaca Building Inspector and upon the further condition that
it be brought into compliance with whatever the Building Inspector may
require as appropriate to life safety .
Ms . Stuliglowa commented that the cost -effective analysis was
based on 80 % occupancy which would be 40 cars .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the mater of the Carl R . Updike Appeal
duly closed at 8 : 54 p . m .
APPEAL OF SIMEON MOSS , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING , LEGAL NON - CONFORMING ( SIDE YARD LESS THAN 10
FEET ) , SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING , AT 145 PEARSALL PLACE , TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 54 - 2 - 7 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION
• 541 AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 55 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Moss
was present .
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as completed ,
signed , and submitted by Simeon Moss , under date of November 1 , 1985 ,
as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to build a solar
addition ( Sun Room ) on the rear of my house at 145 Pearsall Place . . . I
am planning a small addition to the rear of my house . The addition
will be 12 ' x 10 ' . The articles of the Zoning Ordinance I would be in
violation of deal with how close the existing house is to the property
boundaries . Because ( 1 ) the articles were put into effect after the
house was built , ( 2 ) I bought the house just this year , ( 3 ) and the
proposed addition will fall within the Zoning guidelines , I should be
able to construct the addition and receive a Building Permit . "
Chairman Aron noted that each of the Board members had before
him / her a copy of a survey entitled , " Survey Map of 145 Pearsall
Place - City of Ithaca -Town of Ithaca -Tompkins County -New York " , dated
July 26 , 1985 , Revised August 8 , 1985 , signed and sealed by Kenneth A .
Baker , P . L . S . , upon which had been drawn the location of the proposed
10 ' x 12 ' glass addition to the rear of the existing house shown on
• the property .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Moss if he had anything to add . Mr . Moss
Zoning Board of Appeals 23 November 20 , 1985
• stated that he did not think so , adding that there was nothing he
could think of .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak for or against the Appeal of Mr . Moss . No one spoke .
Mr . King noted that Mr . Moss wishes to add a 10 ' x 12 ' glass
addition at the south end , to the rear , with there being 60 feet , or
more , to the back lot line . Mr . King noted that the proposed addition
does not impinge on the narrow side lot lines . Mr . Moss agreed ,
adding that it is 15 feet to the east side lot line and the closest
neighbor , and about 40 feet to the other .
Mr . Hewett wondered if Mr . Moss had talked to them , with Mr . Moss
responding , no , not about the building permit , but they know he is
thinking about doing this .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Moss how long he has been in possession
of the house , with Mr . Moss responding , since August 15th . Chairman
Aron asked Mr . Moss if he knew he had a west side yard deficiency of 2
feet , the garage side . Mr . Moss stated that he knew that , adding that
the house is non - conforming .
Mr . King pointed out that the matter is before the Board because
it is an extension of a legal non - conforming use , adding that the
• zoning is R9 .
Town Attorney Barney , commenting that , with respect to the
two - foot deficiency , it is hard to lop off two feet from the house ,
stated that he would think there would be a practical difficulty
there . Mr . King agreed .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that Mr .
Simeon Moss be granted a Certificate of Occupancy for his house ,
located at 145 Pearsall Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 2 - 7 ,
as it stands , and that a permit also be granted to extend the house by
the proposed construction on the south end of the property , namely ,
the 10 - foot by 12 - foot sunroom or solar addition .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of
the Simeon Moss Appeal duly closed at 9 : 02 p . m .
• APPEAL OF TOMPKINS COUNTY , APPELLANT , FRANK R . LIGUORI , COMMISSIONER
OF PLANNING , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF APPROXIMATELY 6 , 000 SQ . FT . OF
L
Zoning Board of Appeals 24 November 20 , 1985
• PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE IN WEST WING - " C " OF BIGGS CENTER ( OLD
HOSPITAL ) TO ODYSSEY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES INC . FOR COMPUTER RESEARCH ,
AND , FOR THE USE OF TWO EXISTING APARTMENTS IN THE " F " WING FOR
RESIDENTIAL SPACE , AT 1285 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
NO . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 03 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Liguori was present . Chairman Aron noted that there wets no other
person present from the public ; everyone had left at this point .
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as completed ,
signed , and submitted by Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of Planning ,
under date of November 4 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied
permission to lease to Odyssey Research Associates Inc . approximately
6 , 000 sq . ft . of professional office space for computer research and
residential space for living quarters at Biggs Center ( Old Hospital ) .
( See Attachment I for details . ) , at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 7A
( See attached Plan ) 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 . . . SEE ATTACHMENT I . "
For the record , Attachment I reads as follows :
" The County of Tompkins is progressing with a plan for limited mixed
• use of the Biggs Complex including the Biggs Center ( Old Hospital ,
P - 7A ) and the free standing house known as K - House ( P - 3 ) as shown on
the attached plan , under the provision of the amended Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance , Local Law # 2 , 1984 .
The mixed use will include :
Lease of space in the Biggs Center ( Old Hospital , P - 7A ) .
- Use for County offices .
- Lease of space to others for offices , professional , research , and
possible enterprise incubator space .
Lease of former residential units in the Town and Wing F for
residential or office uses .
Lease of space for food , banking and other services for occupants of
the complex .
Lease of K - House ( P - 3 ) for residential or office uses .
Pending final decisions by the Board of Representatives , the Planning
and Development Committee has authorized the submission of this Appeal
asking for consideration by the Zoning Board . of Appeals for permission
to immediately lease space to Odyssey Research Associates Inc . , a
professional firm engaged in computer research for the Department of
Defense , pending submission of the application to the Town for a
unified mixed use plan . Specifically , the County wishes to lease to
Odyssey Research Associates Inc . approximately 6 , 000 square feet of
office space in the " C " Wing , and a one and 3 bedroom apartment on
level 3 or 4 of the " F " Wing . See attached isometric plan ,
Since the County and Odyssey Research wish to proceed immediately with
minor interior decorating to rehabilitate the space , an early variance
• is requested for the following reasons :
1 . The Planning and Development Committee has authorized submission
of a unified mixed use plan but we have been informed by the Town
1
Zoning Board of Appeals 25 November 20 , 1985
• Supervisor that the procedure requires 90 - 120 days . The County
will proceed with the required procedures with haste .
2 . Odyssey Research Associates Inc . has outgrown their present space
at their State Street ( City ) location and must find suitable
space for immediate expansion to meet Department of Defense
contract commitments . In addition , they are receiving shipment
of additional computer hardware in November and cannot install
the hardware at their present location . They wish to locate at
the Biggs Center before the end of this year . Rehab work to
accommodate Odyssey will take at least a month . The Biggs Center
campus environment is ideal for their ' think tank ' activities .
3 . The Biggs Center is currently mothballed ( has been for 5 years )
and should be put to use . Use by the private sector will place
that portion on the tax rolls . Use will prevent further
deterioration due to winter damage .
4 . The professional office use by Odyssey Research Associates Inc .
and use of living quarters is compatible with other uses in the
complex and with former uses of the building and is compatible
with the limited mixed use zone .
5 . Adequate parking and utilities are available .
6 . The campus - like complex is well screened from adjacent
residential areas .
7 . The Town , County and Hospital Corporation are cooperating on
improved interior traffic flow .
8 . The County is developing a Management Plan for leasing of space .
A draft copy is attached . The Plan will be compatible with the
• proposed mixed use zone , Hospital Corporation uses , and adjacent
residential uses . "
Isometric View attached entitled , " Biggs Center Old Hospital
Building " , prepared by the Tompkins County Department of Planning ,
dated May 1985 , showing areas shaded in red proposed for Odyssey
Research Assoc . , the Biggs Center Main Entrance , F -Apts . , West
Wing- " C " , " A " Tower , North Wing - " E " , Central Wing - " B " , East Wing - " X " ,
and Parking .
For the record , also attached to the Appeal Form , is Short
Environmental Assessment Form For Unlisted Actions Only [ Part I ] , as
completed , signed , and submitted by Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of
Planning , under date of November 12 , 1985 , as follows :
" 1 . Applicant / Sponsor - - County of Tompkins .
2 . Project Name - - Biggs Complex .
3 . Project Location - - Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins .
4 . Proposed Action - - Modification / Alteration .
5 . Project Description - - Request for a variance of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit leasing of space in the Biggs
Center , pending formal application for a change in zoning to
Limited Mixed Uses ,
6 . Precise Location - - Biggs Complex , Biggs Center , Trumansburg
Road , Ithaca , NY 14850 .
7 . Amount of Land Affected - - 6 . 82 acres .
• 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other
existing land use restrictions ? - - NO ; Variance required for
private sector use .
Zoning Board of Appeals 26 November 20 , 1985
• 9 . What is present land use in vicinity of project ? - - RESIDENTIAL ;
AGRICULTURE ; OTHER ; Also institutional uses ( Community Hospital )
and County office uses .
10 . Does action involve a permit / approval , or funding , now or
ultimately , from any other governmental agency ( Federal , state or
local ) ? - - YES , Town of Ithaca .
11 . Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or
approval ? - - YES ; Professional offices at Hospital Corporation ,
12 . As result of proposed action will existing permit / approval
require modification ? - - YES ; Extension of mixed use to Biggs
Center . "
For the record , the SEAF [ Parts II and III ] was reviewed by the
Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of November 15 , 1985 , as
follows [ Lead Agency Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals ] :
" Part II :
A . " No . " [ " Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR ,
Part 617 . 12 ? ]
Be
if [ " Will action receive coordinated review as provided
for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 . 7 ? ]
C . " Could action result in ANY adverse effects on , to , or arising
from the following : - "
C1 . " 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 ? "
" Because this project will be using existing space and
parking and operating a low - impact type of use , it is
unlikely that there will be any adverse impact on any of the
environmental criteria listed above . "
C2 . " Historic , archeological , visual or aesthetic , or other
natural or cultural resources ; agricultural districts ; or
community or neighborhood character ? "
" The Biggs Complex is a structure of some historical
significance . However , the proposed use will not require
any change to the exterior of the structure and is
compatible . There is also no incompatibility with the other
commercial and office uses of the remaining Biggs Complex or
the Community Hospital . "
C3 . " Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife species ,
significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? "
" This action will have no significant adverse environmental
impact on any of these criteria . "
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 ? "
" This action is consistent with existing community plans and
is compatible with the existing intensity of land use . This
conclusion is based upon extensive prior analyses of
alternative uses of this Complex by the Tompkins County
• staff and private developers . "
C5 . " Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
s . i •
Zoning Board of Appeals 27 November 20 , 1985
• likely to be incured by the proposed action ? "
" It is likely and desirable that the successful use of this
property for this office and research use will encourage
other users to consider this site . There is a considerable
amount of usable space which could be so developed . "
C6 . " Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified in
C1 -C6 ? "
" There is a proposal currently pending which will provide
for the comprehensive development of the Biggs Complex with
a mixture of commercial , residential and office park uses .
The approval of this proposal will supersede this variance . "
C7 . " A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ? "
" Not significant . Any use of this property will reduce
present County maintenance costs . "
Part III
Box Checke"d which states : " 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 reasons supporting this determination of negative
environmental significance .
1 . An extensive suitability analyses [ sic . ] and environmental
• review was prepared within the past two years for a
considerably more complex and involved development . This
review indicated that the prospective environmental effect
would be minor . Therefore , given the small scale and impact
of this present action , I believe that the project its
[ sic . ] effect on the environment will be correspondingly
reduced .
2 . Tompkins County will be preparing a more extensive
environmental assessment in the course of its rezoning and
mixed use development application . Any prospective effects
resulting from the longer - term time frame and larger scale
of this action will be fully considered at this time . "
For the record , also attached to the Appeal Form is a map ,
entitled " Subdivision Map of Lands of the County of Tompkins " , with
the locations of the proposal shown outlined in red .
For the record , also attached to the Appeal Form is a 12 - page
document , prepared by Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of Planning ,
dated November 6 , 1985 , entitled , " County of Tompkins , Basic Plan for
Management of Space in County Buildings for Lease to Others " . Draft
for Discussion Purpose 11 / 6 / 85 , said 12 -page document including within
it a 3 - page letter from the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , to
Commissioner Liguori , dated October 25 , 1985 .
Chairman Aron pointed out that the Appeal is quite lengthy and
. stated that each Board member had received a copy with his / her Agenda .
Chairman Aron noted , also , that each Board member had received a copy
of the Short Environmental Assessment Form . Chairman Aron read aloud
Zoning Board of Appeals 28 November 20 , 1985
• Cl , C2 , C3 , C4 , C51 C6 , C7 , and stated that the Box was checked which
indicates that a negative declaration would be in order . Chairman
Aron read aloud the reasons - - two , as noted above - - supporting that
determination .
Chairman Aron , noting that Mr . Liguori had presented a lot of
documentation which the Board has all read , stated that , with their
permission , he would like to pass over reading all that , however , he
would like to discuss the SEAF and the Board ' s responses on that .
Mr . King asked Mr . Liguori what the proposed length of the lease
that we are taling about right now is . Mr . Liguori stated that the
County Board authorized the negotiations and execution of a lease
based upon two years with an option to renew at the end of the first
year for the second year with the understanding that it could be
renewed after that . Mr . Liguori stated that it is a possibility that
they are seeking a new building , however , we are looking at two years .
Mr . King stated that the reviewer seems to be saying here that
this part of the whole plan is an emergency short - term situation and ,
so , there is no environmental impact and we should approve it .
Chairman Aron stated that the County is asking for 6 , 000 square
feet at West Building " C " , adding that we are talking about this only .
Chairman Aron stated that if there is a use variance granted for this
• part , he felt that this should be it and , if the County finds more
uses for the different buildings , then the County should come to the
Town Board for a , complete rezoning , because the ZBA cannot keep saying
- - come back - - come back .
Mr . Liguori stated that the County has authorized :him to file
with the Town Board for a mixed use plan under Town of Ithaca Local
Law # 2 of 1984 , adding that that will take months . Mr . Liguori stated
that the County is asking for approval to put Odyssey Research in
there during the time they are applying for a mixed use . Mr . Liguori
stated that , basically , it is a professional - type use , compatible with
and an extension of that granted to the Hospital for the professional
medical building , with the request being for variance for
private - sector use for a part of the Biggs Center , adding that were it
for their own uses , it would not be beyond the scope of the Town ' s
code .
Chairman Aron noted the only proposal is for the 6 , 000 square
feet for Odyssey Research . Mr . King pointed out that use of the
apartment is also requested .
Mr . Liguori stated that the apartments have been vacant ever
since that Hospital has been vacant . Mr . Liguori stated that they
propose to use two levels of the apartment , shown as " F -Apts . , 3 and
4 " , on the isometric view , adding that they meet code requirements but
they will have that checked out because some are above the second
• floor and there is no fire escape .
Mr . Cartee asked if Mr . Liguori were talking about in the Tower ,
1
Zoning Board of Appeals 129 November 20 , 1985
• with Mr . Liguori responding , no , adding that the Tower is executed .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals declare
and hereby does , declare itself Lead Agency in the environmental review
of the proposal by the County of Tompkins before it with respect to
the Biggs Center ( Old Hospital ) , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Board find and hereby does find that
the proposed limited use of the West Wing - " C " and the proposed
residential use of the two apartments in Wing " F " - Apartments , would
not result in any negative impact on the environment .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Liguori how long the Old Hospital has
been empty , with Mr . Liguori responding , four or five years . Chairman
Aron asked how much it has cost to keep it empty , with Mr . Liguori
responding , about $ 50 , 000 . 00 per year . Chairman Aron commented that
• obtaining a lessee for part of it would be advantageous to the
taxpayer . Mr . Liguori agreed and noted that they would be using Level
3 of West Wing - " C " , and levels 3 and 4 of the Apartments - " F " .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he thought he would be correct
in saying that the County has made other attempts to sell the building
which have not been successful . Mr . Liguori responded , oh , yes ,
adding that one party paid the fee as part of an agreement and , then ,
did not follow up and the County kept the money . Mr . Liguori stated
that there have '' been many serious attempts to sell the building . Mr .
Liguori stated that the County intends to move full ahead with this
mixed use concept .
Town Attorney Barney interjected , but , absent the variance , the
place would have to remain vacant . Mr . Liguori stated that for their
11
own uses they are okay , but this is a private use and will be on the
tax roll . Town Attorney Barney pointed out that this is a use
variance so hardhsip has to be shown . Mr . Liguori pointed out that
the building is " not used ; the heat ' is off ; the walls are in bad shape
as to plaster , tiles , etc . , and spoke of an opportunity to put the
building in shape for other County uses . Mr . Liguori stated that the
County has not made a final decision but it is clear to him that some
departments will! move there , adding that the whole problem is what to
do with the Department of Social Services . Mr . Liguori stated that he
hoped there will be a decision on that in the earlier part of December
and shortly after that there would be some moves of County offices
• and , then , we can begin to put the building back together again - -
test out the electrical systems , etc .
Zoning Board of ', Appeals 30 November 20 , 1985
Chairman , Aron stated that he could see it as a hardship to the
County . Mr . Liguori stated that he would say to the Country and to the
taxpayer . Mr . King thought that the Board could take judicial note of
hardship .
Mr . Cartee ' commented that he would assume that the renovations
might include electrical circuits being added using a licensed
electrician and things like carpets . Mr . Liguori stated that a
hearing date has been established - - December 3 , 1985 , at which time
the County will pass a local law declaring their intention to enforce
the building code on their own properties . Mr . Liguori stated that
they hoped for the Town ' s assistance to get started .
MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mr . Jack D . Hewett :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant
and hereby does grant the use variance requested for the limited
private sector use , ground level floor , 3 , of the West Wing - " C " and
the two apartments in the " F " Wing , 3 and 4 , of Biggs Center ( Old
Hospital ) , as requested , FINDING that we have a unique building and no
adverse environmental impact from the projected use of it .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Reuning .
. Nay - None .
The MOTION -,was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of
the Appeal of Tompkins County as it pertains to Odyssey Research
Associates Inc . .duly closed at 9 : 20 p . m .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the November 20 , 1985 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly closed at 9 : 21 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
Henry Aron , Chairman
l