Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1985-12-18 s �. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 18 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , December 18 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , . Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Vice Chairman Jack D . Hewett , Edward N . Austen , Edward W . King , Joan G . Reuning , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector ) , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Attorney Edward A . Mazza , Robert A . Levitsky , Nancy L . Krook , Dr . Joy Mecenas , Dr . Hermogenes J . Mecenas , Mark Mecenas , Joseph N . Freedman , Chad Hoover , James I, acovelli , William W . Steele , Heinz B . Biesdorf , Vice Chairman Hewett declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 10 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of ;the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 10 , 1985 and December 13 , 1985 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the • , properties in question , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the Appellants and / or Agent , as party to the action , on December 12 , 1985 . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM AUGUST 21 , 1985 , SEPTEMBER 18 , 1985 , OCTOBER 23 , 1985 , AND NOVEMBER 20 , 1985 ) , WITH CLARIFIED NOTICE , OF JAMES IACOVELLI , APPELLANT ; FROM 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 NO , 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 411 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 . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 11 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . James Iacove, lli was present , . as was his Attorney , Edward A . Mazza , Attorney Mazza appended to the bulletin board a drawing entitled " Proposed Site Plan , James V . Iacovelli Property , Pine Tree Road " , dated December 17 , 1985 , drawn by Chad Hoover . Attorney Mazza stated that he was representing Mr . James Iacovelli in this matter and further stated that he was also representing Mr . Lawrence E . Iacovelli Jr . in the next matter before the Board . Attorney Mazza Zoning Board of Appeals 2 December 18 , 1985 • stated that the Lawrence Iacovelli Appeal has been withdrawn by the Appellant . Vice Chairman Hewett announced to the public the withdrawal of the Lawrence E . Iacovelli Jr . Appeal . Attorney Mazza noted that he had just distributed to the Board copies of a proposed site plan , drawn by Mr . Chad Hoover , of the James Iacovelli property on Pine Tree and Slaterville Roads . Attorney Mazza stated that he would recall for the Board the area and property in question . Attorney Mazza pointed out Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road on the drawing and noted that the Iacovelli property is an odd - shaped parcel fronting on both roads . Attorney Mazza stated that the new drawing ,,before the Board this evening is obviously a different plan from what was originally brought in and reviewed by the Board at several meetings . Attorney Mazza stated that the main difference in this new plan from the original plan is that the proposed house location is now encroaching on the sewer right of way by five feet . Attorney Mazza stated that that proposed location has been discussed with the Town Engineer , Lawrence P . Fabbroni , and , although no commitments have been made , that location is a distinct possibility and one which they would pursue in the event the approval of the Board is given . Indicating on the drawing on the bulletin board , Attorney Mazza stated that , with this present proposal , at this point in time , there would be required only a front yard setback variance since the need for a side yard variance has been relieved . Attorney Mazza stated that the front yard has two points where the proposed structure would encroach , one being the southeast corner of the proposed house , . which is the only corner above ground , and which is less than a foot less than the 25 feet required . Attorney Mazza stated that the other point where a front yard variance is being requested is the southeast portion of an " projection " which , as he understood it , is going to be underground and which would encroach on the front yard requirement by no more than 3 feet . Attorney Mazza pointed out that , with this new plan , the only encroachment , visually from the road , would be less than one foot at the southeast corner of the building . Mr . King asked Attorney Mazza what that "projection " was . Mr . Chad Hoover responded that at the basement level there is to be a wine cellar and that is what the protruding part is . Mr . Hoover also explained that at the top of that protrusion , to keep the new building like a barn , there is to be a ramp - - like a hay ramp - - and , therefore , the basement can be a wine cellar . Mr . King questioned there being nothing visible above ground at that particular point . Mr . Hoover stated that nothing would be above ground . Town Attorney Barney asked if the right of way for Pine Tree Road were 50 feet . Attorney Mazza responded that it was and added that the property had been surveyed by Schlecht and this drawing was taken off that . Town Attorney Barney asked what the frontage of the surrounding houses is along the Pine Tree Road side of the property . Attorney Mazza stated that he did not know how far they are set back , however , the new house frontage will be compatible . Mr . Cartee stated that the • houses to the north are about ten to fifteen feet farther from the road than this proposal , adding that the topography of the land demanded that . Zoning Board of Appeals 3 December 18 , 1985 • Mr . King stated that , as he recalled , the Board had written consent of the neighbor to the north permitting the house to be even closer to the road than now proposed . Attorney Mazza stated that he did not know if ', the Board had anything in writing , but Mr . Badner was present at the first hearing and did not object . Mr . King noted that Attorney Mazza had indicated that he was not sure that the Town Engineer would permit the encroachment on the sewer easement as shown on the drawing . Attorney Mazza stated that that was correct , adding , however , that the matter had been discussed with Mr . Fabbroni . Town Attorney Barney asked how big the house is proposed to be . Mr . Hoover ' stated that the house is proposed to be 36 ' x 28 ' that is , 28 ' front to back and 36 ' side to side . Town Attorney Barney wondered what the dimensions of the " wine cellar " might be , with Mr . Hoover responding , 8 feet front to back and 13 feet side to side . Vice Chairman Hewett stated that he believed it had been indicated to the Board that two weeks from the last meeting on this matter [ November, 20 , 1985 ] the barn would be down , adding that it is still there and falling down even more . Mr . Iacovelli stated that the demolition of the barn had been ordered at that time through Holley Construction in , Elmira , however , just before the time for that there was a very windy day and night and some of the barn collapsed . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he had been advised then by his insurance man not to do anything until it could be looked at and the damage reviewed . • Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were P anyone resent from the Y public who wished to speak to the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal . Dr . Joy Mecenas , 105 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and stated that what is remaining of the wall of the barn a wind will knock down and it will fall on a car . Dr . Mecenas stated that she has spoken to Mr . Badner since that last meeting and he has had a change of heart . Dr . Mecenas stated that since Mr . Badner bought his house [ 110 Pine Tree Road ] he has had three cars smash into his house . Attorney Mazza stated that that was not true , adding that it was his yard . Dr . Mecenas stated that she was merely informing the Board of what Mr . Badner had told her . Attorney Mazza stated that he did not think it appropriate for Dr . Mecenas to tell the Board what she thought Mr . Badner said . It was noted that David and Beth Badner were given notice of !' this meeting by mail on December 12th and were not present , nor did they call . Mrs . Nancy L . Krook , 113 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and stated that , although she was no longer a member , she served for 15 years on the School Board Transportation Committee . Mrs . Krook described how the children waited by the barn for the school bus , commenting that it was a dandy spot for the children to wait , and adding that they had to move the spot because so many cars in the • winter either went off the road or into the barn . Mrs . Krook stated that the pick -up , location had not been moved one month when there was a terrible accident there . Mrs . Krook stated that , also , Ivar Jonson Zoning Board of Appeals 4 December 18 , 1985 • took away most of the existing shoulder . Mrs . Krook stated that the mailman told her it was not safe . Mrs . Krook stated that most people do not realize the danger and added that it was foolish to put a house in that spot because one would never know when one was going to have a - truck in the kitchen . Mrs . Krook stated that she would be afraid for the children and pointed out that there are 10 , 000 cars a day on Pine Tree Road , Mr . Iacovelli stated that that barn has been there for , probably , a hundred years " and it - has held up pretty good . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it was neglect that has caused the barn to collapse , not cars . Town Attorney Barney wondered why Mr . Iacovelli was proposing the house in the location shown since he has a larger lot . Attorney Mazza , commenting that the various difficulties with this particular lot had been stated at several meetings , stated that , :briefly , the area down " here " [ indicating on the drawing on the bulletin board ] is very wet , requiring a lot of fill to be brought in , and , there would be substantial additional costs in bringing in utilities into this area " here " [ indicating ] . Attorney Mazza stated that an additional reason is that the topography goes downhill to uphill and there is a fine view from " here " [ indicating ] , whereas there is none " down here " [ indicating ] . Attorney Mazza stated that , therefore , there is a cost factor and a view factor . • Mrs , Krook stated that it would be better and safer in the long run not to build there . Mrs . Krook noted that the Cornell University truck receiveing station is now built in the Orchard and all the trucks go up Pine Tree Road all day long until an hour before nightfall . Mrs . Krook recalled how a neighbor was killed when all he was trying to do was get his mail . Mr . Mark Mecenas spoke from the floor and asked if he were correct in stating that Mr . Iacovelli wants to build a house on the existing foundation of the barn . Attorney Mazza stated that that was not correct , adding that the existing foundation is not proposed to be used at this point . Continuing , Mr . Mecenas stated the mail box at 107 Pine Tree Road gets knocked down very often . Mr . Mecenas stated that he was very disturbed by what be was hearing - - things like the Board asking how far is the next house from the road and others saying , " I think " . Mr . Mecenas questioned why the Board did not know , and asked if the Board were going to grant a variance knowing nothing . Mr . Mecenas questioned why the Board would allow a two - family dwelling with swamp land in the back . Attorney Mazza , commenting that he did not know how to respond to Mr . Mecenas , asked Mr . Mecenas if he wanted the land to stay vacant . Mr . Mecenas replied that he did not know if he wanted that , `' however , he was wondering after hearing some of the statements if cheap housing is going to be built here . Mr . King wanted to clarify if Mrs . Krook , in speaking of the shoulders on Pine Tree Road , was referring to the east side of the • road . Mrs . Krook stated that they have not been put back there since Mr . Ivar Jonson built those houses . Mrs . Krook described one foot of shoulder . Mrs . Krook stated that people who live there do not know Zoning Board of Appeals 5 December 18 , 1985 • about the area the way she does and other old neighbors . Mrs . Krook noted that there is terrible run - off and described sheets of water coming down the hill . Mr . King asked Mr . Iacovelli what would happen , in terms of the shoulder on his side of the road - the west side . Mr . Iacovelli stated that they would maintain the existing shoulder which is plenty wide . Attorney Mazza , utilizing the drawing , explained the drainage pattern . Mr . King wondered how far back this current proposal would move the house , with Attorney Mazza responding , over 20 feet from where the barn is now . Dr . Heinz B . Biesdorf , 702 Hudson Street , spoke from the floor and stated that ' his wife , Ellen , owned this whole property and it was she who sold this parcel to Mr . Iacovelli . Dr . Biesdorf stated that he wished to make it totally clear that he had no interest in this property or in the proposal , however , he would like to say, that he was very familiar with the barn under discussion . Dr . Biesdorf stated that one thing he could say is that he can support Mr . Iacovelli in what he said about the barn . Dr . Biesdorf stated that his wife owned these lots for six years and this one was for sale for two years and she never had any damage to the barn door . Dr . Biesdorf stated that he did not deny that there is heavy traffic , however , they incurred no expense due to trucks , etc . , hitting that barn . Dr . Biesdorf stated that , as far as the shoulders go , there was a wide shoulder . Dr . Biesdorf noted that this is not Mr . Jonson here tonight , this is Mr . Iacovelli . Requesting permission to do so , Dr . Biesdorf described and • explained about how the shoulders go using the drawing on the bulletin board , commenting that the shoulder is all there and noting how it goes a little way uphill too . Mrs . Reuning stated that she was concerned about the closeness of the driveway that goes into the house , as shown on the drawing , to Slaterville Road . Vice Chairman Hewett pointed out that the southernmost end of the Iacovelli parcel is not at the intersection with Slaterville Road , adding that there is another lot: after that point and it is , quite a distance to Slaterville Road , Mr . Iacovelli pointed out that: where he will be coming in with the driveway there is hardly any drop at all - - maybe one foot . Mr . Iacovelli stated that there was a nice contour coming in there . Mr . King wondered how far from the pavement on Pine Tree Road , going westerly , would remain flat . Mr . Iacovelli described the width of such a flat shoulder . Attorney Mazza described that location as relatively level and also described the apron at the road level shown on the drawing . Mr . Iacovelli stated that there was no way the drop could be :more than 18 inches . Mrs . Krook stated that there is a plan in place to change that intersection , adding that she went to a meeting one time where it was discussed . Mr . Austen asked if there were a residence below [ south ] of this proposed house . Attorney Mazza stated that there was . Mrs . Krook stated• that her neighborhood has very little police protection and so there is no help with speeding cars . Mrs . Krook stated that they experience only a few hours of silence a day - between 2 : 00 and 5 : 00 a . m . Mrs . Krook urged the Board to think of the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 December 18 , 1985 • people who would buy this house , asking how they would have any peace at all . Mr . Iacovelli stated that his plan to build on this land is a good thing , not a bad thing . Mr . Iacovelli stated that nobody ever stopped all the houses which were built on State Street / Slaterville Road which is a State Highway , Mr . Iacovelli commented that if traffic on roads were the only thing we never would have any houses at all . Mr . Cartee asked if he could assume that no portion of the existing barn foundation is to be used . Attorney Mazza stated that Mr . Cartee was correct - - none of the foundation is to be used . Attorney Mazza stated that the house to be built is a single family house with a small efficiency apartment . Mr . Cartee asked how many bedrooms are proposed for the primary unit , with Mr . Iacovelli responding , three . Mr . Cartee asked how many bedrooms in the apartment , to which Mr . Iacovelli responded , none , repeating that it is to be a very small efficiency unit . Town Attorney Barney asked if the efficiency were to be in the basement . Mr . Hoover stated that it is to be in the basement , adding that the house will look like a barn and will be two - storied . Mr . Cartee asked about the size of the primary unit , with Mr . Iacovelli describing it as 36 ' x 28 ' which is 1 , 008 square feet , and further describing the efficiency as 12 ' x 261 . Mr . Cartee asked Mr . Iacovelli if he were aware of the occupancy • regulations for 'Residence Districts R15 , Mr . Iacovelli stated that he was , adding that he was building this house to sell . Mr . King asked Mr . Iacovelli how soon the barn will be taken down . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he was going to contact his insurance man tomorrow and see what is going on , adding that , if he releases it , he will be right' on it , and further adding that he would say the first of next week . Vice Chairman Hewett closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 45 p . m . Mr . King stated that he would like to see this proposed house staked out on th,e lot , that is , where it will be so that the Board can judge the setback . Mr . King noted that the Board does not have information as to setbacks of other buildings in the area , adding that it is very hard to judge without seeing something in the area involved . Attorney Mazza offered that , as a guide , the existing foundation is drawn in " here " in dotted lines [ indicating on the drawing on the bulletin board ] as it is shown on the survey of the properties . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he did not mind staking it out for the Board to look at . Discussion followed among the Board members , Town Attorney Barney , Mr . Iacovelli , and Attorney Mazza with respect to when and how to arrange an on - site inspection . Mr . King commented that it would also be helpful if the Board had something from Mr . Iacovelli ' s neighbor to the north [ Badner ] that he is not against this request . Mr . Austen wondered if Mr . Badner had seen this current drawing . Attorney Mazza stated that he did not think he had , adding that Mr . Badner came to the first meeting and said nothing , and conjecturing that Mr . Badner had no position on this matter . Mr . Zoning Board of Appeals 7 December 18 , 1985 • Cartee suggested that the Board should have written approval from the Town Engineer saying that he has approved the encroachment toward the sewer . Town Attorney Barney questioned whether that was the Town Engineer ' s prerogative , the easement being granted to the Town of Ithaca which is represented by the Town Board . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal in re the proposed construction of a two - family dwelling on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 41 be and hereby is adjourned to January 15 , 1986 , at 7 : 00 p . m . By way of discussion , Town Attorney Barney pointed out that the public hearing had been closed , so further publication was not necessary . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION ;was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal duly adjourned at 7 : 50 p . m . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM NOVEMBER 20 , 1985 ) OF LAWRENCE E . IACOVELLI JR . , APPELLANT , EDWARD A . MAllA , 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 NO , 140 , 141 , AND 142 ) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION 41 PARAGRAPH 21 SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 41 PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB- PARAGRAPH 2b , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Vice Chairman Hewett announced that , as had been earlier stated , the Lawrence E . 'Iacovelli Jr . Appeal had been withdrawn . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM NOVEMBER 20 , 1985 ) 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 N0 . 6 - 54 - 4 - 40 , ( OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS N0 . 180 AND 181 ) , 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 . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 51 p . m . and read aloud from the Zoning Board of °Appeals 8 December 18 , 1985 • Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Steele was present , as were his Attorney , Edward A . Mazza , and his planner , Chad Hoover . For the record , the following information was before the Board , having been before the Board at its November 20 , 1985 meeting . 1 . Appeal Form as signed by William W . Steele under date of October 15 , 1985 , received October 20 , 1985 , and reading 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 , Town of Ithaca Tax ' Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 40 . . . [ See Attached ] " [ Attachment ] - - " A building already exists at 119 - 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 . SMy 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 4180 and 181 ) to this use by grant of restrictive covenants to that effect . " 2 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed and signed by William W . Steele [ Part I ] under date of October 15 , 1985 , describing the project [ Question # 51 as follows : " Applicant requests a special permit to allow him to rent out the existing building as two separate dwelling units with a family or up to three unrelated persons in each unit . " ; stating the location as 119 - 121 Kendall Avenue - - near the intersection of Kendall Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue [ Question # 6 ] ; stating that the action does not comply with existing zoning in that the " Applicant needs a special 'permit for the occupancy as set forth in # 5 above " [ Question # 8 ] ; stating that the present land use in the vicinity of the project is both Residential and Industrial and further stating that " This is a residential neighborhood which abuts an industrial zone . " [ Question # 91 ; and stating that " There was a building permit issued to construct the building . " [ Question # 11 ] . Short Environmental Assessment Form [ Parts II and III ] as signed and completed by Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner , as reviewer for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , under date of October 26 , 1985 , as follows : Part II . " A . Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part • 617 . 129 - - NO . B . Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 7 ? - - NO . Zoning Board of Appeals 9 December 18 , 1985 • C . Could action result in ANY adverse effects on , to , or arising from the fo''ilowing : Ci . 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 ? - - " 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 environment',;al impact is not significant . " C2 . Historic , archeological , visual or aesthetic , or other natural or cultural resources ; agricultural districts ; or community or neighborhood character ? - - " This action could have a significantadverse 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 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? - - " No adverse environmental impact 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 ? - - " 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 . Growth; , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? - - " If this appeal is granted , it is likely that subsequent appellants would refer to this matter for similar increases in permitted occupancy . " C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C69 - - '" 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 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ? 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 prep''are a positive declaration . " Reviewer ' s Recommendation : - " Additional information should be provided on the amount and location of the 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 . " • Attorney Mazza appeared before the Board and stated that he was representing Mr . Steele in this matter . Attorney Mazza appended to the bulletin board a plot plan of the William Steele property , Zoning Board of Appeals 10 December 18 , 1985 • entitled " William Steele Property - 121 Kendall Avenue " , dated November 29 , 1985 , drawn by Chad Hoover , showing the Steele property as two 50 ' by 120 ' lots , designated as Tax ` Parcel No . 40 , and delineating the location of the dwelling structure under discussion upon the lot fronting on Kendall Avenue , with side , rear , and front yard setbacks , a six - space parking area at the front of the existing house , and showing the neighboring parcels owned by George [ No . 41 ] , vacant lot owned by Tompkins County [ No . 39 ] , Iacovelli [ No . 381 , and D . L . and W . Railroad ( Bed Only ) . The Secretary distributed copies of the plot plan to each of the Board members . Attorney Mazza stated that he had prepared a letter for submission to the Board , copies of which the Secretary had distributed to the members : of the Board , which he would read into the record , however , he would like to touch briefly on the matter before the Board . Attorney Mazza stated that the structure already exists and Mr . Steele had , resided there with his family and rented out the apartment . Attorney Mazza stated that Mr . Steele moved from this dwelling to 271 Pennsylvania Avenue and rented out both apartments , which , he later found out , was not proper . Attorney Mazza stated that Mr . Steele owns ' two of the Old Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels with the current structure built on the westerly lot . Attorney Mazza stated that the dwelling , as built , conforms with front. , side , and rear yard requirements for a single family dwelling on this Ithaca Land Company parcel which , of course , leaves this second lot • [ indicating on the plot plan ] available for building . Attorney Mazza noted that the 50 - foot lots in the Old Ithaca Land Company Tract are legal building lots , being grandfathered under the ordinance . Attorney Mazza now read his letter to the Board in its entirety , as follows : " . . . The property in question is located in an area which is zoned R- 9 residence . The premises consist of two ( 2 ) old Ithaca Land Tract Parcels , each of which is a legal building lot which could house a single family residence as described under the zoning law . The dwelling unit that is already in existence is situated on one of these Ithaca Land Tract parcels and complies with all the front yard , side yard and rear yard setback requirements for a single family dwelling on that Ithaca : Land Tract Parcel . Thus , under the zoning law , the appellant could construct another single family dwelling on the remaining Ithaca Land Tract Parcel . Upon doing so , each parcel could be occupied by a family and two ( 2 ) unrelated persons or three ( 3 ) unrelated persons in each . Thus , the occupancy on these two ( 2 ) parcels would be up to six ( 6 ) unrelated or four ( 4 ) unrelated and two ( 2 ) families or a combination thereof . By granting the special permit , the occupancy would be limited to no more than six ( 6 ) unrelated persons or two ( 2 ) families or a family and up to three ( 3 ) unrelated persons . This would be less than that which could possibly occur with two ( 12 ) separate buildings . In the event that a special permit is granted , the appellants would agree to execute a grant of restrictive covenants in the form Zoning Board of Appeals 11 December 18 , 1985 that is attached hereto which would legally restrict the remaining Ithaca Land Tract lot to no development . Therefore , by granting the special permit there would be no increase in the !' density as anticipated and provided for in the zoning ordinance and in fact the purpose for which the Town of Ithaca zoning ordinance was enacted would be furthered by the granting of this special permit . The preamble to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance reads as follows : For the purpose of promoting the health , safety , morals, or the general welfare of the community , and to lessen congestion in the streets , to secure safety from fire , panic and other dangers , to provide for adequate light and air , to prevent the overcrowding of land , to avoid undue concentration of popultion , to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation , water , -sewerage , schools , parks and other public requirements , under and pursuant to the laws of the State of New York , the size of buildings and other structures , the percentage of the lot that may be occupied , the size of yards , the density of population , and the location and use of buildings , structures and land for trad. e , industry , residence or other purposes , are hereby • restricted and regulated as hereinafter provided. . It is clear from this preamble , that the purpose set forth therein will not be hindered by the granting of the special permit requested and in fact will be enhanced . Specifically , this can be seen as follows 1 . ' To lessen congestion in the streets ' : Congestion in the streets will not be increased by granting the special permit as opposed to denying the special permit since the number of persons potentially occupying these premises will not increase and in fact may result in a lower number of persons and therefore there will be less use of the streets and less congestion on the streets . Also , it should be noted ' that there are already six off - street parking spaces provided on the developed parcel and this would allow the remaining parcel to be used in conjunction with this parcel for parking if necessary . 2 . ' To secure safety from fire , panic and other dangers ' : It is clear that with : the special permit granted , the safety from fire , panic and other dangers will be increased rather than hindered because there will be just one building on this lot rather than two separate and close together buildings on this lot . 3 . ' To provide adequate light and air ' : It is also clear that the light and air in this area will be increased rather than hindered • by granting the special permit in that there will be just one building on the lot rather that two thereby providing more open space . Zoning Board of Appeals 12 December 18 , 1985 • 4 . ' To prevent the overcrowding of land ' : It is clear that putting one building on the lot rather than two would prevent the overcrowding of , the land . 5 . ' To avoid undue concentration of population ' . Granting the special permit would not increase the concentration of population in that with the special permit the total number of unrelated persons that would be allowed to reside on this lot would be no greater and possibly less than allowed under the zoning ordinance as currently written . 6 . ' To facilitate the adequate provision of transportation , water , sewerage , schools , parks and other public requirements ' : Granting the special permit will not hinder the adequate provision of these requirements in that under no circumstances will more persons be residing on this lot than are allowed under the zoning ordinance and in fact it may be enhanced in that there may be less persons residing there . 7 . ' The size of the building and other structures ' : This purpose will not be hindered in that the building built already complies with the zoning ordinance for half of this lot . 8 . ' The percentage of the lot that may be occupied ' : This purpose will not be hindered and in fact will be enchanced since there will be one building instead of two buildings occupying this lot . 9 . ' Size of yard ' : In the event that the special permit is granted there will in fact be more open space and thus a larger yard than if the appellants are denied the special permit and must build two buildings . 10 . ' The density of population ' : The density of the population will not be increased by the granting of the special permit all as set forth above . 11 . ' The location and use of buildings , structures , and land for trade , industry , residence or other purpose ' : The location of the building complies with zoning as it currently exists and will not be changed as a result of the special permit and the use of the building is residential which is the use currently allowed under the zoning law . Thus , it is clear that the purposes for which the zoning ordinance was enacted will not be hindered and in fact will be enhanced by the', granting of this special permit and will work to promote the public health , safety and welfare . Therefore , by reason of the foregoing , the appellant respectfully requests that the special permit be granted as requested . " • Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were any questions from the Board . Zoning Board of Appeals 13 December 18 , 1985 • Mr . King stated that it seemed to him that this appeal was adjourned for a Long Form Environmental Impact Statement . The Secretary referred to her notes from the November 20 , 1985 meeting of the Board , in re the William W . Steele Appeal , which indicated that the Board adjourned the Public Hearing " so that it could be supplied with additionalf information - - a survey , a site plan with parking , etc . , and , perhaps , a Long Form EAF which may not be necessary if the Planner decides that the additional information is sufficient for him to recommend a negative declaration . " Continuing , Mr . King asked how long the structure has had two apartments , with Mr . Steele responding , about four years , and adding that he added an apartment . Mr . Cartee distributed a copy of the first page of the application for building permit dated November 10 , 1978 , for which . Building Permit No . 2139 was approved and issued by Robert W . Bonnell , on November 14 , 1978 . Mr . King noted that the original building permit was for a one - family dwelling . Attorney Mazza commented ' that , as he understood the zoning ordinance , you can have an apartment in a one - family dwelling . Mr . Cartee stated that Attorney Mazza was correct in that a one - family dwelling may have an apartment as long as you advise the Town . Mr . Cartee stated that the building permit '' indicates that the structure was to be a one family dwelling , however , it appears to him to have two units of equal size . Mr . Steele stated that the basement apartment has three bedrooms but is smaller than the three -bedroom apartment upstairs . Mr . Cartee • stated that as far as he was concerned that unit was built without a building permit ; reiterating that , to the best of his knowledge , the secondary unit was built without a building permit . Mr . King asked how many total rooms were in the basement apartment . Mr . ° Steele stated that there were six rooms - - three bedrooms , a bath , a living room , and a kitchen . Mr . King asked Mr . Steele if he had the square footage figures on the basement apartment , to which Mr . Steele replied , 37 ' by 28 ' which would be 1 , 036 square . feet . Mr . King asked the size of the bedrooms , to which Mr . Steele responded , 12 ' by 14 ' each . Mr . King inquired about the size of the bedrooms upstairs , to which Mr . Steele responded , 14 ' by 141 , 14 ' by 13 ' , and 10 ' by 12 ' . Mr . King asked what other rooms were in the upstairs apartment . Mr . Steele stated that there was a living room , a kitchen / dining room , and a bathroom . Town Attorney Barney asked what the dimensions of the upstairs apartment were , to which Mr . Steele replied , 28 ' by '45 ' which would be 1 , 260 square feet . Mr . King asked Mr . Steele if he had ever considered putting another house on the other lot . Mr . Steele stated that he had . Mr . King asked Mr . Steele if he had plans to do so at this time . Mr . Steele stated that he did not at this time . Attorney Mazza pointed out that that is the reason why the house was put on the two - lot parcel the way it is . Town Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Hoover were a surveyor , with • Attorney Mazza responding that he was not . Discussion followed with respect to whether , or not , there were survey pins in place and whether , or not , the plot plan drawn by Mr . Hoover was an accurate Zoning Board of , Appeals 14 December 18 , 1985 representation of the house - siting on the parcel . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Hoover where he got his information from . Mr . Hoover stated that he drew the plot plan from information given to him with respect to the parcel and from a rough schematic of the house . Town Attorney Barney stated to Attorney Mazza , posed as a question , that he was representing that this building [ indicating the house shown on the plot plan ] is in compliance with the zoning regulations . Attorney Mazza stated that there had been no indication that the house , as placed on the lot , is not in compliance , however , he would ask Mr . Cartee at this time if the house is or is not in compliance . Mr . Cartee stated that he would suggest that to clearly define this , the Board ought to have a survey map . Attorney Mazza asked Mr . Steele if there were a survey . Mr . Steele stated that he was never required to have a survey for financing , however , he might be able to find one . Mr . King asked how many persons were presently in occupancy of the dwelling . Mr . Steele stated that there were three people upstairs and three people downstairs . Mr . King asked if they were all adults , to which Mr . Steele responded , yes . Town Attorney Barney asked if they were families or related persons , to which Mr . Steele replied , unrelated , adding that there were five cars . Vice Chairman Hewett asked if the cars were off the street , to which Mr . Steele responded , yes . Mr . King commented that the driveway was a steeply dropping driveway . Mr . Steele stated that that was correct , adding , however , that there is room for three more cars . Mr . King commented that it • was only possible for there to be two cars in the driveway . Mr . Steele agreed , stating that that is all you can fit there . Mr . Steele described an existing retaining wall and an area made available because of this which , he stated , provided for , probably , nine cars all together . Referring to the plot plan , Mr . King stated that it appeared that the parking area was on the shoulder . Mr . Steele stated that that was not correct , adding that the parking is off the road . Attorney Mazza noted that the parking was close to the front , however , it was not on the shoulder . Mr . King commented that this proposal presented the same kind of problem as with the other recent appeal in this area , being what kind of density is going to be permittedup here . Attorney Mazza stated that Mr . Steele ' ' s case was very different from the Freedman Appeal in that another building could be built on the adjoining lot and result in , at least , this density requested . Attorney Mazza stated that in the other appeal there was not that possibility since the building straddled the two old lots . Mr . King noted that the Board does have a situation here that the building was put up as a single family dwelling . Attorney Mazza stated that , under the ordinance , a . one - family home on both old lots may be in place , adding that they recognize that they are in violation . Attorney Mazza reiterated the request for six unrelated persons and the offering of a restrictive covenant on the neighboring lot and noted that six unrelated persons would be the maximum , the request being for up to three unrelated persons , or a family , in each unit . Mrs . Reuning commented that she also had a problem with more Zoning Board of Appeals 15 December 18 , 1985 • people going in a building that was intended to be a one family house and now opened up for a two - family dwelling . Mr . Steele stated that he has seven people in his family and the request is for six . Vice Chairman Hewett commented that Mr . Steele obviously moved to bigger quarters . Mr . Austen stated that he had a problem with six unrelated persons . Mr . King , noting that the zoning ordinance allows no more than three unrelated occupants in a two - family dwelling , stated that the applicant is asking to double that density . Attorney Mazza responded that " that was not quite accurate , adding that they are asking for that under the R9 zoning where increased occupancy may be permitted by the Board and , further , that they are giving up their rights to build ; on the next door lot . Mr . King wondered what , really , would be gained, . Attorney Mazza stated that , as time goes by , the possibility of building on that lot increases , commenting that the Board has seen what is happening up there . Attorney Mazza conjectured that if the occupancy is limited to three unrelated persons , or a family , an owner is less able to build a highly attractive place and , so , you end up with something really not quality . Town Attorney Barney asked Attorney Mazza why he had said he could build on the second lot , with Attorney Mazza replying , because the zoning ordinance says he can . Discussion followed between the two attorneys , in part with respect to Section 57 [ Existing Lots ] of the Ordinance . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning . • WHEREAS , if the Appellant can . rent the e subject premises within the Zoning Ordinance to two families and two unrelated persons , there would be no objection , and WHEREAS , the Board of Appeals has been controlling occupancy of these kinds of places to comply with the Zoning Ordinance ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny and hereby does deny the request of William W . Steele for the occupancy of premises located at 119 - 121 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 40 , as two separate dwelling units by six unrelated persons . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Austen ,,, Reuning . Nay - Hewett. Abstain - King . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the MOTION carried . A lengthy discussion followed with respect to whether or not the vote on the RESOLUTION was adequate to constitute an action by the Board . Mr . King , commenting that he really did not know what to say , spoke of • there being two '' aspects to this application -- the occupancy and the offer of restrictive covenant being one , and , the existing leases to Zoning Board of Appeals 16 December 18 , 1985 the tenants . Town Attorney Barney and Attorney Mazza also discussed the effectiveness of the Resolution , indicating that they also questioned whether Board action had occurred . Town Attorney Barney suggested that the Board consider placing on the floor another motion offered in the ,, form of a grant of the special approval conditioned upon the grant of restrictive covenant to the Town with respect to the second lot involved . Mr . King commented , in the interests of that , he would consider Town Attorney Barney ' s suggestion positively . It was noted that Section 4 , Paragraph 2 , Sub - Paragraph 2b of the Ordinance refers to a Special Permit of the Board of Appeals . MOTION by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the requested Special Permit , as requested by William W . Steele , for the occupancy of premises located at 119 - 121 Kendall Avenue , ': Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 40 , as two separate dwelling units with up to three unrelated persons or a family in each dwelling unit , subject to the condition that the Town of Ithaca receive the restrictive covenant , in the accepted format , against building on the second lot . Mr . Austencommented that it was his understanding that there could properly be two families and two unrelated persons in the house . Mr . King stated that , as it stands now under the ordinance , there can • be only three unrelated people in the house , or , a family plus two unrelated persons , adding that there is the possibility of giving a lower number to 11 permit it to be occupied by , say , no more than five people , or four . Mr . King noted that that would still require a special permit . Attorney Mazza offered that , then , you have the situation of facilities already there , for example , six bedrooms . Attorney Mazza stated that he recalled when the Board granted a special permit for an existing four -bedroom house to be occupied by four unrelated people . Mr . King pointed out that that property , the Lawrence Iacovelli Jr . property , had not been in violation . Attorney Mazza suggested that , if you were to look at it from Mr . Steele ' s point of view , it may become more economical for him to use that lot . Mr . King commented that , certainly ; the rooms are generous ; the bedrooms are large . Attorney Mazza stated that he also thought , under this proposed format , the parking can be much more attractive , adding that other buildings in the area have parking on the street . Vice Chairman Hewett seconded Mr . King ' s MOTION . By way of discussion , Mrs . Reuning stated that she was having trouble reconciling the size of the rooms with the description of the house . Discussion followed among the Board , Town Attorney Barney , Attorney Mazza , and Mr . Steele with respect to the rooms , their sizes , and the size of each of the dwelling units . Mr . King offered that the • bedrooms were about 168 square feet in size . It was noted that the house was 28 ' by 45 ' , thus , 1 , 260 square feet per floor was involved , P Zoning Board of ' Appeals 17 December 18 , 1985 • although the downstairs unit contained about 200 square feet less in living area . It was noted that upstairs there were two bedrooms each about 14 ' by 141 . At Town Attorney Barney ' s suggestion , Mr . Steele drew up a rough sketch of the floor plan , marked it Exhibit 1 , and submitted it to the Board . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote on the MOTION as offered by Mr . King and seconded by Mr . Hewett . Aye - Hewett . Nay - Reuning , King , Austen . The MOTION was declared defeated . Discussion followed with respect to the tenants presently residing in the , Steele property and the leases involved . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : WHEREAS , the Applicant , William W . Steele , has tenants in residence at th 'e subject premises , under written leases , until July 31 , 1986 ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that Mr . Steele be and hereby is given until that • date , July 31 , 1986 , to bring the building into compliance with the occupancy regulations of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the William W . Steele Appeal duly closed at 8 : 45 p . m . CONSIDERATION OF, REQUEST OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR THE CALLING OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION OF ITHACA COLLEGE FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER THAT THE COLLEGE MAY PLACE A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA , WITH A DIAMETER OF APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET ( 3 . 2 METRES ) , ON THE ROOF OF THE DILLINGHAM CENTER , ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS , FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES . Mr . Cartee explained to the Board members that Ithaca College had appeared before ,the Planning Board last night , December 17 , 1985 , and described itso proposed antenna installation , and had received its • recommendation to the Board of Appeals for a grant of variance . Mr . Cartee spoke of ' the College ' s request for expedient action on this matter , hopefully , prior to the commencement of classes in late Zoning Board of Appeals 18 December 18 , 1985 • January 1986 . The Board members were not averse to the scheduling of a special meeting for this purpose . Vice Chairman Hewett directed the Secretary to proceed in the usual manner to set up a special Board meeting for Monday , December 30 , 1985 , at twelve o ' clock , noon . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Vice Chairman Hewett declared the December 18 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 8 : 55 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Jack D . Hewett , Vice Chairman • •