HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1986-03-19 ti
w
r
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MARCH 19 , 1986
The Town of , Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session
on Wednesday , March 19 , 1986 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Vice Chairman Jack D . Hewett , Edward N . Austen , Joan G .
Reuning , Edward W . King , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building
Inspector ) , Richard Ruswick ( Town Attorney ) ,, Susan C .
Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Craig Pease , Muhammad A . Razzaq , Attorney Laura H .
Holmberg , Joan Benjamin , George Benjamin , Vincent
Franciamone , George C . Kugler , Fenwick T . ( Tim )
Faulkner , Roger L . Perkins , Earl Stanley , Philip
Proujansky , Janis Rollow Butler , Franklin F . Butler ,
Robert J . Smith , Milton Zaitlin , Virginia Iacovelli ,
Paul Iacovelli , Attorney Robert Hines , Edmund Dellert ,
Michael Herzing , Katherine Karakantas , Janice 0 . Odell ,
Vice Chairman Hewett declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 08
p . m . and read aloud the Fire Safety Notification Regulations , as
required by the NYS Department of State , Office of Fire Prevention and
Control , and , stating that in case of fire a loud alarm will sound ,
indicated the location of the two exists from the Board room .
Vice Chairman Hewett 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 March 11 , 1986 and March 14 ,
1986 , 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 their Agents , as parties
to the action , on March 14 , 1986 .
APPEAL OF PAUL AND VIRGINIA IACOVELLI , APPELLANTS , ATTORNEY WESLEY E .
McDERMOTT , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING BOARD DENYING THE
SUBDIVISION OF A 1 . 5 ± ACRE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 327 CODDINGTON
ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 53 - 1 - 16 , BASED UPON SECTION 16
OF ARTICLE IV OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THAT
THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF A LOT AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK BE 100 FEET , AND ,
AN INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 54 OF ARTICLE XII OF SAID ORDINANCE AS TO
WHETHER THE ALLOWANCE OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSTITUTES AN ALTERATION OF
A PRE - EXISTING NON -CONFORMING USE REQUIRING AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD
OF APPEALS ,
Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 10 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Both Mr . and Mrs . Iacovelli were present , as was their attorney ,
Wesley E . McDermott .
Zoning Board of Appeals 2 March 19 , 1986
• The following documents were before the Board .
1 . Appeal Form , as completed , signed , and submitted by Paul
Iacovelli , under date of March 4 , 1986 , with attachment , reading
as follows .
" . . . Having been denied permission to subdivide a lot at 327
Coddington Road , Ithaca , NY , Parcel No . 53 - 1 - 16 . . . Appellants are
owners of a 1 . 5 ± parcel of land situate at 327 Coddington Road ,
having a frontage of 300 ± feet on Coddington Road and a depth of
225 feet on the south and 244 . 11 feet on the north . Appellants
propose to subdivide said lot as shown on the attached map . The
use of the larger lot shown on said map is a pre -existing
non - conforming use in that there are three units in the larger
structure and a single unit in the smaller structure . Appellants
were denied subdivision approval on February 4 , 1986 and the
matter was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the basis
that the width of the new lot at the setback point appears to be
deficient and for the Board to determine whether the subdivision
constitutes an alteration of a pre - existing non -conforming use .
9[The subdivided lots as proposed , have areas of an excess of
47 , 000 square feet for the northerly most lot and 22 , 500 square
feet for the southerly most lot . Only 30 , 000 and 15 , 000 square
feet , respectively , would be required under the ordinance in this
zone . The width at the setback line of the smaller proposed lot
is 94 feet , but is otherwise in all respects in conformance with ,
or , in excess of the requirements of the zoning ordinance .
Attachment :
Map entitled " Survey Map , No . 327 Coddington Road , Showing
Proposed Division 0 . 5 ± Acre Total Lot , Lot 97 , Town of Ithaca ,
Tompkins County , New York " , dated August 27 , 1985 , revised
December 9 , 1985 , signed and sealed by Clarence W . Brashear ,
L . L . S . # 38194 .
2 . Copy of Letter dated April 9 , 1974 , from Reynolds Metz , Town of
Ithaca Zoning Officer , to Mr . Richard Locke , Locke Real Estate ,
reading as follows : it response to your request for a letter
indicating that the property at 327 Coddington Road , Tax Parcel
No . 53 - 1 - 16 , conforms with the requirements of our Zoning
Ordinance , we are sending you the following statement . 9[The
house presently on this property contains three apartments . Our
present ordinance does not allow more than two apartments in a
dwelling in this zone . However , since this present structure was
built 23 years ago , prior to the adoption of our first Zoning
Ordinance , it is considered to be a legal non - conforming use .
The owner of the property may continue to operate the structure
as a three - apartment building . "
3 . Copies of Planning Board Minutes of October 29 , 1985 , November
19 , 1985 , and February 4 , 1986 , as they pertain to the Paul
Iacovelli property at 327 Coddington Road .
Attorney McDermott appeared before the Board , appended a copy of
the Survey Map to the bulletin board , and stated that he was acting on
i
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 March 19 , 1986
• behalf of the Iacovellis this evening . Attorney McDermott stated that
the appellants are owners of a lot at 327 Coddington Road which has a
frontage of 300 feet and a depth on the northerly end of 244 - plus
feet , and 225 feet on the southerly end , the lot being in the shape of
a parallelogram . Attorney McDermott stated that , presently , on the
lot there are two structures , the larger one , being the one closer to
the road , containing three units , also being a pre - existing
non - conforming use . Attorney McDermott stated that the basis for that
statement , since that has been raised , or questioned , in the past , is
a number of sources . Attorney McDermott stated that the first source
is information from the Tompkins County Assessor ' s Office and they say
the larger house , the one closer to Coddington Road , was built in
1945 , and the smaller house , to the rear , which contains a single
unit , was built in 1920 . Attorney McDermott stated that , in addition ,
there is a survey map attached to 197 of Mortgages , 1948 , showing both
structures , with . 1948 being prior to the enacting of Town Zoning in
1954 . Attorney McDermott stated that , finally , the Town , through Mr .
Metz , then Town Zoning Officer , as of 1974 had confirmed that the
three - unit property was a pre - existing non - conforming use in a letter
sent to Mr . Richard Locke , a realtor , inquiring about the status of
the use of the parcel in 1974 .
Attorney McDermott stated that the Iacovellis are proposing to
subdivide the lot such that there would be a lot on the southerly end
having a frontage on the road of 100 feet and a depth of 225 feet ,
being a gross area of 22 , 500 square feet . Noting that this matter has
been before the Town Planning Board , Attorney McDermott stated that
the problem is that the proposed subdivided lot , when the width is
measured perpendicular to the side lot line at the setback line
actually measures , he thought by Mr . Lovi ' s measurements , 96 feet ,
whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires 100 feet at the setback line .
Attorney McDermott stated that they ask variance of that requirement .
Commenting , while on the subject , before he went any further ,
Attorney McDermott stated that the question of the occupancy of the
existing structures has also been questioned in the past . Noting that
he had copies of the leases with him , Attorney McDermott stated that
the smaller structure at the rear is occupied by Mr . and Mrs .
Iacovelli ' s daughter and her family . Attorney McDermott stated that a
total of nine ' residents , on ten -month leases , are in the front
structure .
Attorney McDermott stated that the second question that has been
referred to this Board from the Planning Board is one relating to the
effect of the subdivision and whether it constitutes an alteration in
violation of Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance which provides that :
" Section 54 . Alteration . No non - conforming building or use shall be
extended except as authorized by the Board of Appeals . " , adding that
he believed that was referred by the Planning Board as a question .
Attorney McDermott stated that , in any event , this Board has the
specific authority under the Zoning Ordinance to authorize that .
Attorney McDermott stated that the width variance that they are
seeking is not unique and not one this Board has not previously
1i
Zoning Board of Appeals 4 March 19 , 1986
• considered . Attorney McDermott stated that , in 1984 , a similar
variance was granted for Bill Murray [ 308 Coddington Road , William E .
Murray Appeal , Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting , June 27 , 19841 , for a
lot with 57 feet at the setback . Attorney McDermott , commenting that ,
interestingly enough , that matter [ Murray ] is also similar to the
referred question in this matter [ Iacovelli ] of whether the effect of
permitting the subdivision extends a pre - existing non - conforming use ,
stated that a second part of Mr . Murray ' s Appeal at that time involved
a Certificate of Occupancy for a pre - existing non - conforming garage on
that lot which was 7 feet 7 inches from the side line . Attorney
McDermott stated that , in Mr . Murray ' s case , the Board both granted
the . variance in terms of the width of the subdivided lot and , he took
it , interpreted . Section 54 such that the subdivision was not in
violation of Section 54 , such that it extended a pre -existing
non - conforming use .
Attorney McDermott stated that that is essentially what the
Iacovellis are proposing and what has taken place up to this point .
Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were any questions from the
Board .
Mr . King stated that , in attention to the Minutes of -the Planning
Board , there were three meetings and in the later meetings the width
of the newly proposed lot is different from the one proposed in
October . Mr . King wanted to make sure he understood that this was a
different proposal . Attorney McDermott stated that , yes , this is a
different proposal from that presented in October , adding that it had
been redrawn and staked as had been suggested by Town Attorney Barney .
Continuing , Mr . King stated that he noted , on his own measurements of
this , that the actual width of this proposed lot , dropping a
perpendicular , is actually 94 feet , whereas Attorney McDermott had
said 96 feet . Mr . King stated , also , that the net acreage , excluding
the roadway , for the proposed lot would be about 18 , 800 square feet .
Attorney McDermott , recalling Mr . Lovi scaling off the parallelogram
at the Planning Board meeting , mentioning different numbers , stated
that he believed he had said gross acreage with respect to the lot
size . Mr . King , agreeing that Attorney McDermott had referred to
gross acreage , stated that , by excluding the roadway , the proposed lot
would be 18 , 800 square feet , which is , admittedly , more than the
15 , 000 square feet requirement . Mr . King stated that , as he measured
with respect to the other lot with this proposed subdivision , the
width there is 182 feet . Mr . King reiterated that , scaling it on the
Survey Map before him , the width is 182 feet rather than 200 feet and
the square footage , he computed at 38 , 500 square feet , which is ,
again , larger than the 30 , 000 square feet which would be .required for
four units melded together . Attorney McDermott responded , yes . Mr .
King , speaking to Attorney McDermott , stated that he just pointed that
out to him , adding that he thought these figures were correct .
Mr . King asked what use has been made of that vacant lot , to
• which Attorney McDermott responded that he believed it was lawn .
Attorney McDermott stated that at one time Mr . Iacovelli had started
to use it for parking , however , he was informed that that would not be
Zoning Board of Appeals 5 March 19 , 1986
• permitted and he could not use it for that . Mr . King stated that he
assumed that he was not permitted to use the front for parking .
Attorney McDermott stated that that was not the case , it was the area
to the south , actually where they are proposing the subdivision .
Mr . King stated that what we would be doing , in effect , in
granting a variance for a lot that wide would be taking away from the
present use a larger piece of yard area , of course , but judging from
the way it looks on the surface , it does not look as though it would
be used very much for the people in these houses . Attorney McDermott
described a large area to the north as providing ample room . Mr . King
asked if there were any construction proposed , further asking if the
Board had a proposed site plan . Attorney McDermott stated that
nothing was contemplated at this time , adding that Mr . Iacovelli has
been cautious enough to cross one threshhold at a time . Attorney
McDermott stated that , at this point , Mr . Iacovelli has not formulated
any definite plans for the utilization of the " new " lot . Mr .
Iacovelli stated that that was right . Mr . King wondered if , however ,
at some point , the idea was a two - family dwelling . Mr . Iacovelli ,
responded , right .
Mr . Austen wondered about the " swing set " shown on the Survey Map
over the lot line . Attorney McDermott stated that , really , that is a
play structure which does not belong to the Iacovellis , adding that he
believed it belongs to the owner to the south . Mr . Austen wondered if
• there were a question on the lot line . Attorney McDermott , commenting
that he guessed it depends on a point of view and interpretation ,
stated that there has been discussion between him and the attorney for
the owner to the south . Attorney McDermott stated that their last
communication related to the provision of a subsequent survey which ,
he understood , the owner to the south was going to have done . Mr .
Hewett stated that it was obviously a debatable point . Attorney
McDermott disagreed and stated that they [ Iacovelli and Counsel ] did
not see it as debatable . Mr . Austen stated that , also , there is a
fence which looks like it crosses the lot line , and wondered , again ,
if there were any controversy about the lot line . Attorney McDermott
stated that , to his knowledge , there was not .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she would like to see the leases .
Attorney McDermott produced copies of three leases , each being for ten
months running from August 1 , 1985 and ending May 31 , 1986 , with a
total of nine persons as parties to the leases . Attorney McDermott
stated that he would certify to the Board that he has personally
examined the originals of these leases and had blocked out the
financial information on the copies . The copies of the three leases
were perused by the Board members and handed to the Secretary for the
record .
Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who
wished to speak to this matter .
Mr . Fenwick T . ( Tim ) Faulkner , 334 Coddington Road , spoke from
the floor and stated that he lived across the street . Mr . Faulkner
stated that they have been going round and round with this with the
Planning Board . Mr . Faulkner stated that one of the things that has
Zoning Board of Appeals 6 March 19 , 1986
not come up is that when the house was taken over by the Iacovellis
there were only two apartments and now it has been made over and into
three apartments . Mr . Faulkner stated that last year there were 13
people in that house along with the people who live behind that house
on that particular lot . Mr . Faulkner stated that the place is full of
college students ; there are a number of parties , there are a number of
problems around there and along Coddington Road there which is a very
busy street . Mr . Faulkner stated that it is a residential area and
they do have a lot of children in the area and by adding another house
to the area , an apartment house especially , in that small. area there
is a problem with overcrowding and not conducive to the neighborhood
and would cause a lot of problems .
Attorney McDermott stated that what was in that house ,
interjecting that Mr . Iacovelli bought it in 1976 , and further
interjecting a reminder of the Zoning Officer ' s 1974 letter , was three
units and , according to the Town three units were there 23 years
before that . Mr . Iacovelli stated that , yes , there were three units
in there when he bought the house .
Speaking to Mr . Faulkner , Mr . King asked him if he had any
different information . Mr . Faulkner stated that he could not actually
say that , but he has been there since 1977 and he thought there were
two units and a garage in the basement because there was a garage
door . Mr . King stated that the Town records show the Zoning Officer
of the Town certifying the existence of three units 23 years prior to
1974 .
Vice Chairman Hewett asked the Secretary to read aloud the letter
from the Town Zoning Officer , Reynolds Metz , to Mr . Richard Locke ,
dated April 9 , 1974 , which she did .
Mr . George C . Kugler , 101 Pine View Terrace , spoke from the floor
and stated that he was shown that apartment house in 1973 as a
two -unit apartment house with a basement . Mr . Kugler stated that he
had talked to a school teacher and she told him that it had two
permanent apartment units . Mr . Kugler stated that he would also like
to say that a duplex going in there with three unrelated persons in
each unit would be of great concern . Mr . Kugler stated that he would
not have a problem with a single family house which is what should be
built there .
Mr . Franklin F . Butler , 332 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor
and spoke about a driveway that was moved . Mr . Butler expressed his
concern about a duplex being built there as an opening to a
six - student dwelling on property operated in an obnoxious ,
litter -making manner . Mr . Butler spoke of a fence , the filling in of
tire tracks , wheelbarrows full of paper cups , and the putting up with
cars off the pavement onto Pesaresi ' s lawn . Mr . Butler stated that
this does not happen every week , but often enough to make it an
obnoxious unit in a residential area .
Mr . George Benjamin , 325 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor
and stated that he shares the same driveway with these students and he
Zoning Board of Appeals 7 March 19 , 1986
• does not have all these problems . Mr . Benjamin stated that his child
rides the bus and bicycles safely . Mr . Benjamin stated that they have
parties there sometimes , sure , but not like they are saying .
Mrs . Joan Benjamin , 325 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that if it is so unsafe there , why is it that all the kids in
the neighborhood play in the yard . Mrs . Benjamin stated , as to
litter , they have picked up other people ' s garbage from the people
below them , adding that it is not all the way like it is being
described .
Mr . Earl Stanley , 109 Pine View Terrace , spoke from the floor and
stated that he lives down behind this property . Mr . Stanley stated
that he might point out that this area is where there is a school bus
stop and there are cars coming around that curve and this is not
beneficial to anybody and is an opportunity for an accident at the
school bus stop . Mr . Stanley stated that people in the area purchased
30 , 000 square foot lots so they would have elbow room and peace and
quiet and by bringing another lot in there not larger than this you
are talking about 18 to 20 people in there which is not beneficial to
property values and increases congestion . Mr . Stanley stated that
this is not a multiple dwelling area and this does not belong here .
Mr . Stanley stated that the area should be maintained as a quiet
residential area rather than a large volume of rental property .
Mr . Philip Proujansky , 333 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor
• and stated that his is the property directly to the south of the
property being discussed . Mr . Proujansky stated that at the previous
meetings he had mentioned , although he feels that the Iacovellis take
effort and care to maintain the property as a rental property and for
that kind of property it is well maintained , but the real problem is
that it is substantially a single family residence neighborhood and
this is one of the only lots which are non - conforming with a lot of
bodies there . Mr . Proujansky stated that by further subdividing the
lot , he raised the question earlier , that there was some question
whether this was an extension of a non - conforming . Mr . Proujansky
stated that R15 is a density question and by creating greater density
there is some difference of opinion as to whether that is an extension
and this could be so and , immediately adjacent to them , a detraction
to having that many additional people moving in the area . Mr .
Proujansky stated that , as far as the question of property line ,
although Attorney McDermott has not received a copy of the survey , it
has been done and it actually demonstrates that it does not really
impact the subdivision and his fence and play area have no net effect .
Mr . Proujansky stated that his survey does show an encroachment onto
Mr . Iacovelli ' s property .
Mr . Butler stated that since they have lived at 332 Coddington ,
since 1976 , there has been one traffic fatality and there have been
other accidents and , he understood , another fatality some years before
that . Mr . Butler stated that people tend to drive through that area
• at a high rate of speed and with large parties people tend to park
along the road which is extremely dangerous . Mr . Butler spoke of
people milling around and spilling over onto other properties and
Zoning Board of Appeals 8 March 19 , 1986
• males relieving themselves on his property .
Mr . King asked Mr . Butler how often these parties take place .
Mr . Butler stated that there was one two or three weeks ago - - at the
time there was a heavy snow - - and people were stuck in the ditch
talking at 3 : 30 in the morning . Mr . King asked how often these
parties occur . Mr . Butler stated that they are not on any kind of
regular basis , usually spring and fall . Mr . King commented , a couple
of times a semester . Mr . King asked Mr . Iacovelli if he had any rules
for the tenants to follow . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he did and added
that in the leases it says no large house parties . Mr . King asked Mr .
Iacovelli if he does anything to police the use . Mr . Iacovelli
responded , yes , adding that when he finds out about it , he is there
and he does police it . Mr . King perused the leases and noted that
among several restrictions they all say no pets allowed and no large
house parties .
Mr . Stanley , noting that Mr . King had said , no pets , stated that
there is a dog there . Mr . Benjamin stated that the dog is his . Mr .
Iacovelli stated that the dog is not related to this house .
Mrs . Benjamin stated that she lives in the back and she has lived
there for two years and she has been bothered once by a party and her
father came up and took care of it . Mrs . Benjamin stated that there
have been other parties around the neighborhood , adding that other
people have parties too .
• Mr . King stated that , for the record , he hads hotoco ied Tax Ma
P P P
No . 53 and 42 and he would observe that these tax maps indicate that
lots in the area are generally about the size of - - many of them
the size of or a little bit larger than here proposed . Mr . King
stated that there are very generous lots down below on Hickory Place
and Pine View Terrace , although not appearing larger than the larger
Iacovelli parcel , some are larger than the lot proposed for
subdivision . Mr . King stated that , along Coddington Road , the lots
are about the size that is being requested here , in other words , they
are typical R15 size lots , probably 15 , 000 to 20 , 000 square feet .
Mrs . Reuning , commenting that she visits the area often and is
very familiar with the area and the neighborhood , stated that she is
very aware of the danger of the curve and asked if the other Board
members were aware of the way the road turns . Mrs . Reuning stated
that it is a difficult area .
Mr . King stated that he believed that is a 40 -mile - an - hour zone ,
adding that as he was looking at the location he saw that it was
posted at 40 . Chortling emanated from the public present , with a
voice stating that 40 is what is posted . Mr . King nodded and stated
that it was difficult to find a safe place to view anything up there ,
adding that it appeared that the cars do better than 40 . Mr . King
commented that there is not only a curve , but also a bit of a hole .
• Mr . King stated that , certainly , any subdivision has to take into
consideration where a driveway might be located and where parking
might be located , adding that , certainly , that would not be in the
Zoning Board of Appeals 9 March 19 , 1986
• front because it is a bad spot .
Mr . King asked Mr . Iacovelli if he had ever been called by the
neighbors about parties up there . Mr . Iacovelli responded , never .
Mr . King asked Mr . Iacovelli how he knew then . Mr . Iacovelli stated
that he knew because his daughter lives in the back and she called
him .
Vice Chairman Hewett closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 46 p . m .
Mr . King noted that there were a couple of questions posed by the
Planning Board , one being , would the subdividing of the lot be
extending a non - conforming use according to Section 54 which says " No
non - conforming building or use shall be extended except as authorized
by the Board of Appeals . " Mr . King stated that , certainly , if you
take what was not only 300 feet of frontage but also with four units
and you cut it down to 200 feet , you are intensifying a non - conforming
use , but , when you look at it , the acreage is much larger than that
required for two R- 15 lots which would accommodate two units each
lawfully . Mr . King stated that the same thing is true for the other
proposed lot of 94 feet - - the acreage is larger than required - - so ,
in effect , the non - conforming use is intensified there „ Mr . King
stated , however , that is true in every variance this Board grants
we intensify a use . Mr . King stated that he had very mixed emotions
in reading all this material from the Planning Board , adding that he
really got the feeling that the Board would be abusing its discretion
• to require more of this property than it does in other zones by saying
" you " have to have more than 30 , 000 square feet and only one dwelling
when everyone else is allowed less , and further adding , but , at the
same token , there may be problems with parking if there is a grant .
Mr . King offered that restrictions could be imposed that there may be
no cars in the front of the lot and that any car be parked at least 15
feet back from the roadway so it would be well off the roadway and not
a problem for traffic - - but , beyond that - - - -
Vice Chairman Hewett interrupted and asked what about a driveway
in this hazardous place . Mr . King stated that he was not prepared to
say it was that , musing , however , that probably to the north would be
appropriate . Continuing , Mr . King stated that , also , this goes back
to the Planning Board and they should take a look at that , adding that
they are more expertise in matters of site planning . Mr . King stated
that he was , however , prepared to grant a variance under those
conditions if the Planning Board would approve it .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Paul Iacovelli Appeal , the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals rule , while the subdivision
could be construed as extending a non - conforming use , that this Board ,
nevertheless , grant and hereby does grant an area variance with
respect to lot width at the front yard setback to permit the
• subdivision as requested , and , that it be on condition that there be
no parking in the front yard , that any driveway to the premises be
located as far away from the curve and the dip in the road as
Zoning Board of Appeals 10 March 19 , 1986
• possible , and , that this Board ' s action would also approve the
remaining lot as a permitted non - conforming , pre - existing use , with an
effective lot width of 182 feet on the perpendicular , and , noting that
the subdivided lot , unimproved , would have a width of 94 feet ,
more or less , on the perpendicular .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - King , Austen .
Nay - Hewett .
Vice Chairman Hewett asked Mrs . Reuning what her vote was . Mrs .
Reuning stated that she had not voted , adding that she was thinking
about abstaining . Vice Chairman Hewett waited upon Mrs . Reuning ' s
decision .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she would vote " No " .
The MOTION was declared to be neither carried nor denied .
Mr . King consulted with Town Attorney Ruswick as to what he might
suggest . Town Attorney Ruswick stated that he could only suggest ,
perhaps , Robert ' s Rules .
• MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Ausi: en0
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , because
the matter cannot be left deadlocked , that said Board of Appeals
adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the Paul Iacovelli
Appeal for a reconsideration by , hopefully , the full Board at its next
meeting .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the Paul Iacovelli
Appeal duly adjourned to the Board ' s April meeting .
APPEAL OF MUHAMMAD AND KHURSHID RAZZAQ , APPELLANTS , ATTORNEY LAURA H .
HOLMBERG , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A
BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENCE ON A LOT WHICH
DOES NOT FRONT ON A TOWN ROAD , AT 119 HONNESS LANE , A PORTION OF TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 11 AND 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 12 . PERMIT IS
DENIED UNDER SECTION 280 - a OF THE TOWN LAW .
• Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 56 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Zoning Board of Appeals 11 March 19 , 1986
• Dr . Razzaq was present , as was his attorney , Laura H . Holmberg .
The following documents were before the Board .
i . Appeal Form , as completed , signed , and submitted by Laura H .
Holmberg , Attorney for Muhammad Razzaq and Khurshid Razzaq , under
date of March 5 , 1986 , reading as follows : " . . . Having been
denied permission to construct a residence on a lot which does
not front on a street or highway at Honness Lane , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . Portion of 58 - 2 - 39 . 11 and 39 . 12 . . . The parcel
designated as Lot 3 on the attached survey has no frontage on a
town road . Access is by means of 20 foot right of way along the
westerly line of Lots 2 and 3 , 10 feet on Lots 2 and 3 and 10
feet from adjoining lots ( Tax Parcels 58 - 2 - 2 & 58 - 2 - 40 ) on the
west . This road was established in 1957 and first shown on a
survey dated August 17 , 1957 and subsequently on a subdivision
map of Blatchley in 1983 . The road is used primarily by the
Gospel Tabernacle of the Christian and Missionary Alliance
although it is also available for the two lots adjoining on the
west . It has a gravel base and is adequate for emergency
vehicles . ( See attached sheet ) "
Attached Sheets
" There is no other means of access to this lot .
Without a variance from the provisions of Section 280 - a of the
Town Law , the proposed development of this lot cannot proceed .
Proposed residential development of this lot fits in with the
neighborhood . The lot is more than one -half acre in size being
about 29000 square feet . Because of topography there is no
other reasonable means of access .
As indicated , the access road has been in existence for many
years and in use . "
Attachments to Appeal ,
i . Survey Map , entitled " Survey Map Showing Proposed
Subdivision of Lands of Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq , Honness
Lane , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York " , dated
February 28 , 1986 , signed and sealed by Allen T . Fulkerson ,
L . L . S . , also signed by Thomas G . Miller , T . G . Miller
Associates P . C . , Engineers & Surveyors , Ithaca , N . Y . ,
showing three proposed lots , Lot 1 -- 0 . 382 acres net to Rd .
R /W , Lot 2 - - 0 . 489 acres net to Rd . R /W , Lot 3 - - 0 . 656
acres .
2 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed , signed ,
and submitted by Muhammad A . Razzaq ( Part I ] under date of
February 21 , 1985 , indicating the Applicant / Sponsor as
" Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq " ; the Project as " Subdivide 2
lots into 3 " ; the Proposed Action as
" Modification / Alteration " ; the Project described as " Lots 1
and 2 as shown on Subdivision Map of Gladys Blatchley dated
May 27 1983 comprise together 1 . 6.8 acres . The proposal is
to add one additional lot by taking a portion of the other
two• lots . All of the lots will exceed area requirments ,each being in excess of 15000 square feet . The .lots vary in
shape and one will not front on a town road . " ; the Precise
Location as " The property fronts on Honness Lane in Town of
Zoning Board of Appeals 12 March 19 , 1986
Ithaca , being a part of premises shown on Blatchley
Subdivision Map . A copy of Survey for applicants by Milton
A . Greene dated August 13 , 1985 is attached . " ; -the Proposed
Action will not comply with existing zoning or other
existing land use restrictions because " One lot ( being in
rear ) will have access to Honness Lane over an existing 20
foot gravel drive now serving primarily Gospel Tabernacle on
Slaterville Rd . Variance from Sec . 280a of Town Law will be
required . " ; the Present Land Use in the vicinity as
Residential , " Residential use - single family , cluster
housing ( Eastwood Commons ) two - family and two churches . " ;
the Action does involve a permit / approval from another
governmental agency - - " Variance to permit construction on
lot which does not have required frontage on Town road or
street . " ; the Action does not have a currently valid permit
or approval . "
The SEAF was reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi ,
under date of February 27 , 1986 [ Parts II and III ] , as
follows :
PART II :
A . Box Checked " No " . [ Action does not exceed any Type I
threshhold . ]
B . Box Checked " No " . [ Action will not receive coordinated
review . ]
C1 . " Access to lot # 3 would be over a 20 ' gravelled
driveway . This right - of -way is wide enough to permit the
• use of fire trucks and other emergency vehicles . No other
adverse environmental impacts are expected . "
C2 . " All three building lots are in excess of the 15 , 000
ft . 2 required for an R15 district . Property would be the
only lot in neighborhood not fronting on a public street .
No other adverse environmental impacts expected . "
C3 . " No adverse environmental impacts expected . "
C4 . " Project could set a precedent for similarly situated
lots in Town . In the Northeast , for example , there are 9
lots with at least 120 feet of frontage and at least 300
feet of depth which could be resubdivided in a similar
manner . No other adverse impacts are expected . "
C5 . " None . "
C6 . " There might be a resubdivision of any of the similarly
situated lots . The cumulative effect is a more efficient
utilization of the existing utility system and suitably
zoned land in the community . "
C7 . " None . "
PART III :
Box Checked which indicates that the reviewer , Mr . Lovi , has
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 the provision of the reasons supporting this
determination : -
" 1 . All three lots to be subdivided are in excess of the
yard [ sic . ] area required for an R15 lot .
2 . The purposes of subdivision regulation , in providing
t
Zoning Board of Appeals 13 March 19 , 1986
• for the efficient use of land in the community , are
preserved .
3 . Access of fire or emergency vehicles to the rear lot
can be improved by requiring the subdivider to regrade
and pave the driveway to a standard acceptable to the
City Fire Chief and Town Engineer ,
Lead Agency : Planning Board . "
3 . Letter dated February 21 , 1986 from Muhammad A . Razzaq to
the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , reading as
f of lows
" To Members of the Planning Board :
My wife and I are renewing our appeal to the Planning
Board of the Town of Ithaca to permit subdivision of a 1 . 68
acre parcel of land owned by us on Honness Lane into three
lots , two of which would front on Honness Lane and the third
on an existing right - of -way 20 feet wide running from
Honness Lane to the rear of the Gospel Tabernacle of the
Christian and Missionary Alliance . This parcel. was on the
Blatch 'ley subdivision map as two lots fronting on Honness
Lane . By using a portion of each of said lots the third lot
will have more than 30 , 000 square feet , more than twice the
minimum lot size required . One of the two lots fronting on
Honness Lane will have approximately 16 , 500 square feet
( excluding the portion within Honness Lane ) and the other
approximately 26 , 000 square feet ( excluding Honness Lane )
again substantially larger than the minimum requirements .
• The attached plan shows the proposed dimensions of the
parcels and the location of the existing house on the
smaller of the three lots . Our proposal is to build two
additional homes , one on each of the proposed additional
lots , each with an apartment .
This plan will fit in well with the neighborhood . The
topography lends itself to the subdivision and the lots are
larger than many of the neighboring lots fronting on Honness
Lane and Slaterville Road .
We understand that any approval will be contingent upon
our receiving from the Board of Zoning Appeals a variance
from the provisions of Town Law 280 -A . The revision of our
original plan from subdividing one of the original lots into
two lots , one having less than 150 feet depth , to the
present plan is advantageous not only in making two of the
lots more equal in size and considerably larger than minimum
requirements but shortens the distance for access to the lot
from Honness Lane . The existing roadway is more than
adequate for use by emergency or other vehicles and is
presently used by autos and buses from the Gospel
Tabernacle .
Water and sewer are available . The area is residential
with single family homes , duplexes , cluster housing
( Eastwood Commons ) and as indicated , the lots proposed are
larger than many of the lots in the area . Our proposal
• seems in line with projected developments in the area by Mr .
Jonson and with the earlier Blatchley Subdivision . "
Attachment to Letter - - " Subdivision Plan for Muhammad &
Zoning Board of Appeals 14 March 19 , 1986
• Khurshid Razzaq , Measurements from Map Showing Lands of
Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq " , made by Milton A . Greene , dated
August 13 , 1985 , showing how the two existing lots are
proposed for subdivision into three lots .
2 . Memorandum from Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E . , Town Engineer , dated
March 18 , 1986 , as follows :
" T0 : WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
RE : Clear Title to Former Blatchley Lands
It has come to my attention that the land occupied by the
Gospel Tabernacle of the Christian and Missionary Alliance does
not correspond to the lands deeded to same in a substantial way .
Without a prompt resolution of this matter , the Town of Ithaca
will not accept the Grandview Subdivision of Ivar Jonson when
approved by the Health Department , as the subdivision map and its
descriptions and recording are presently clouded as last
presented to the Town Planning Board .
Also , , the proposed subdivision review of M . & K . Razzaq can
only proceed so far without resolution of matters that could
affect area or configuration of lots being considered .
Your prompt and collective attention to a matter that seems
quite easily resolved would be appreciated and greatly simplify
• what would become a nightmare of frustration for all if I did not
insist on a remedy before any further Town action on further
subdivision 's .
xc - Gladys Blatchley
Milton A . Greene , L . S .
Muhammad and Khurshid Razzaq
Attorney Laura H . Holmberg
Roger Perkins , G . T . C . & M . A . Board
George . C . Schlecht , L . S .
Allen T . Fulkerson , L . S .
Ivar R . Jonson
Attorney Harry S . Hamilton
Robert S . Russler Jr . , L . S . I . T .
Susan C . Beeners
Montgomery May
Henry Aron
Town Attorney John C . Barney
Lewis D . Cartee "
Attorney Laura H . Holmberg appeared before the Board and stated
that she was representing Dr . and Mrs . Razzaq in the matter of the
three - lot subdivision before the Planning Board and before this Board
also in that connection for variance from the requirements of Section
280 - a for proposed Lot # 3 which does not front on a Town highway .
• Noting that each of the Board members had all of the material before
him / her , Attorney Holmberg stated that there is access to proposed Lot
# 3 by way of a 20 - foot roadway which has been in existence since 1957
Zoning Board of Appeals 15 March 19 , 1986
and was first shown on a survey made in August of 1957 and which the
• Blatchley Subdivision of 1983 also shows as a right of way . Attorney
Holmberg stated that this roadway is used almost exclusively by the
Gospel Tabernacle of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church and
is accessible by busses and larger vehicles . Attorney Holmberg stated
that , as she read the Town Law , the interest is the provision of
access for emergency vehicles , fire fighting equipment , etc . Attorney
Holmberg stated that this gravelled , 20 - foot , roadway is certainly
capable of meeting that interest , and , the lot , as shown on the
Survey , would be the only lot .using it . Attorney Holmberg noted that
there are two parcels which border this right of way and have access
to it , however , she did not believe they use it , adding that those
parcels have access on Honness Lane and Slaterville Road , Attorney
Holmberg stated that , in any case , she did not believe the use of the
roadway as access for the one lot would have any kind of detrimental
effect on the roadway . Attorney Holmberg stated that , also , there is
present a difficulty , because of the topography , to get access to the
proposed lot . Attorney Holmberg pointed out that , if you see Ivar
Jonson ' s plans , there is a lot bordering on the south and southeast
that would effectively cut off any access . Attorney Holmberg stated
that the proposal conforms to the intention of Section 280 -a and ,
further , that there is no detriment to the Town and neighborhood .
Mr . King asked if this particular right of way is a gravel - based
roadway , to which Attorney Holmberg responded , yes . Mr . King asked if
this were the primary access to the Church property . Dr . Razzaq
• stated that they have right of way , but they have access from
Slaterville Road . Mr . King wondered if he were correct in saying that
it is not used by the parishioners . Dr . Razzaq stated that it was not
used by the parishioners .
Mrs . Marcia Dalkert , 105 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
stated that they own half of the " road " at the beginning of this
access . Mrs . Dalkert stated that she had several questions . Mrs .
Dalkert stated that there is a drainage pipe which the road goes over
which is on their property corner , adding that they half own that , and
further adding that the drainage erodes around that and they have to
keep shovelling it out and filling it in . Mrs . Dalkert stated that
they are also worried about maintenance of this road . Mrs . Dalkert
stated that they resent having to maintain a road so someone else can
have it for income . Mrs . Dalkert stated that the owner does not live
in the home , adding that the two - family he built is strictly rental
property and now he wants two more two - families . Mrs . Dalkert stated
that she resented changing the character of the neighborhood this way .
Mrs . Dalkert stated that nothing in the zoning ordinance says this
cannot happen on the lots next to them - . Ponchaleks ' , for one . Mrs .
Dalkert asked , if he is given a variance to access the back property ,
does this not give him the right to access ? Mrs . Dalkert stated that ,
also , if it is a " road " to the other two - family house he wants to
build up there , he could turn that house toward that road and it would
be looking into their backyard . Mrs . Dalkert stated that , also , there
• would be a parking lot for cars all along that road , adding that she
did not know if he could do this or not , but you worry about these
things . Mrs . Dalkert stated that they have rental property next door
L
Zoning Board of Appeals 16 March 19 , 1986
• but the person lives there and he keeps up the property very well ,
adding that the , idea of someone not living there and renting three
houses bothered her . Mrs . Dalkert stated that , as was :mentioned at
the former meetings - - the Planning Board meetings - - if this happens
it would mean that there would be , then , many more cars going up and
down this road and another busy access onto Honness Lane , Mrs .
Dalkert spoke of Ivar Jonson ' s large new project and Eastwood Commons
and the other Church and stated that it is dangerous on Honness Lane ,
Mrs . Dalkert stated that they did use the road for their kids to ride
bikes , adding that their deed makes no mention of access for the
Church , and further adding that it allows the person next door access .
Mrs . Dalkert spoke of the history of the Blatchley land and the
relationship with the Church and spoke also of a Helen Blatchley and a
Bob Blatchley . Discussion ensued between Mrs . Dalkert over the map .
Attorney Holmberg stated that on the Church deed there is a
reservation from Honness Lane , and , in answer to Mrs . Dalkert ' s
objections , any structures built on these lots would comply with the
Town Zoning Ordinance as to use and number of units . Attorney
Holmberg stated that the plan for lot 3 is a single residence with a
small apartment , , and it will conform to the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance . Attorney Holmberg stated that there is no requirement that
it has to be owner - occupied .
Dr . Razzaq offered that , maybe , in the future he will live there ,
adding that his ;wife is employed at the Willard Center and also he has
• a son who is at Cornell and is going to be married .
Attorney Holmberg noted that no variance from Town ordinance is
requested and further noted that they have been before the Planning
Board and discussed requirements for fixing up the road and how it
would be maintained . Attorney Holmberg stated that they had expected
to be before the Planning Board last night , however , the meeting was
cancelled due to illness , she understood , causing a lack of quorum ,
and it was expected that those requirements would have been stipulated
at that time .
Mrs . Dalkert asked if it could be stipulated that the house face
Honness Lane ,
Dr . Razzaq asked Mrs . Dalkert how come she would not be disturbed
by the Church , but she is disturbed by one house . Mrs . Dalkert stated
that it was partly because the Church is not a regular user of the
road . Dr . Razzaq pointed out that he owned it . Mrs . Dalkert stated
that she owned half of it .
Mr . Roger Perkins , 220 Stone Quarry Road , spoke from the floor
and , noting that he was associated with the Church , stated that he
thought a drainage issue was brought up at the last Planning Board
meeting [ March 4 , 1986 ] , adding that the latest one was cancelled .
Mr . Perkins stated that he had Town Engineer Fabbroni look at the
• drainage and he [ Fabbroni ] agrees , with the way the current unit was
constructed , thel footer drain empties out onto the ditch . Dr . Razzaq
stated that there is no ditch . Discussion ensued between Mr . Perkins
Zoning Board of Appeals 17 March 19 , 1986
and Mr . King with respect to this apparent difference of opinion and
with respect to the contents of Mr . Fabbroni ' s memorandum .
Vice Chairman Hewett read aloud the Memorandum from Town Engineer
Fabbroni to To Whom It May Concern , dated March 18 , 1986 .
Attorney Holmberg stated that she did not know whether they
brought on the problem with the Church property or not , but when they
had the Survey done , their Surveyor , Allen Fulkerson , indicated that
the Church is not on the property it owns . Attorney Holmberg stated
that this particular matter does not affect this proposal in any way .
Attorney Holmberg stated that , as you see on the Survey , the shared
access is ended at a point about half way into proposed lot 3 .
Attorney Holmberg , commenting that she was not really sure what Mr .
Fabbroni ' s concerns were in relation to Dr . Razzaq , staged that the
way the roadway is constructed , it is primarily on Dr . Razzaq ' s
property . Attorney Holmberg , commenting that she had talked with
Attorney George Pfann with respect to these concerns even though they
do not relate to the Razzaq proposal , stated that they [ Razzaq and
Counsel ] would accept a correction on their deed to show that the
Church could continue to have access . Attorney Holmberg reiterated
that the problems with Blatchley and with the other lots do not affect
this parcel in any way . Attorney Holmberg stated that , as a matter of
fact , she had called both attorneys , the attorney for Blatchley and
Jonson , as a matter of courtesy , adding that she was not sure where
this information was coming from , and further adding , wryly , that she
• wished she had kept her mouth shut . Attorney Holmberg stated that , in
any case , there is no problem whatsoever between the Church and the
Razzaqs .
Mr . Perkins stated that they [ the Church ] noticed that one of the
survey lines of the Razzaq survey seems to encroach on one of their
previous survey lines . Mr . Perkins stated that they have retained
George C . Schlecht to prepare a new survey of the property . Mr .
Perkins stated that his main reason for appearing this evening is to
request a delay in action until that survey is completed to see where
we lie . Mr . Perkins stated that , also , they have retained an
attorney , R . James Miller ,
Mr . King allowed as how he was confused too and stated that he
would like to see the layout .
Attorney Holmberg pointed out that in the new Survey prepared by
Fulkerson for Razzaq , 21 feet were lost . from the parcel as surveyed by
Milton Greene in the 1970s for Blatchley , and stated that the
southwesterly line is the only one that could affect the Church
property and that does not affect the access to Honness Lane ,
Town Attorney Ruswick commented that the reason Mr . Fabbroni
might have been concerned is that the actual survey places the Church
closer to the line .
• Mr . King wondered how this would fit in with Blatchley . A voice
stated that there was no connection . Attorney Holmberg stated that
Zoning Board of Appeals 18 March 19 , 1986
there is no connection to the Church whatsoever , adding that she
looked at the Ivar Jonson subdivision and this road is nowhere near
Jonson .
Ms . Beeners offered to speak to a combination of aspects which
may be pertinent . Ms . Beeners stated that , because the Blatchleys
sold property to several parties up there who are either in the
process of obtaining subdivision approvals or have already done so , or
whatever , resolution of apparent discrepancies between deeded lands
and actual occupied land is probably foremost in importance as titles
are cured and as lot sizes may pertain to the Razzaq property . Ms .
Beeners stated that the other things we would like to see resolved are
an exact description of the property rights of the Church , Dr . Razzaq ,
and the other property owners [ Dalkert , Ponchalek ] as to the western
10 feet of the driveway proposed as access to lot 3 , and , some kind of
maintenance agreement and upgrading agreement as far as that driveway
goes , such as maintaining the surface , the culvert , perhaps paving .
Ms . Beeners stated that she paced out about 15 feet , and , through
Planning Board review , it might be recommended that it be widened to
20 feet . Ms . Beeners stated that , as far as drainage goes , there
seems to be a high point somewhere in the middle , about where Dr .
Razzaq ' s two lots are proposed to be divided . Utilizing the Razzaq
Survey Map , Ms . Beeners indicated the way the water drains from the
existing Razzaq house to above the driveway and then , because it is
not defined , and is now puddling , drains " this " way toward the little
stream and is also going down along " here " and following down the
• drive . Ms . Beeners stated that it is recommended by staff that the
drainage be addressed there such that positive drainage be obtained
and the road improved , perhaps by defining a drainage ditch along the
east side of the driveway north to that creek , so that the water goes
into the existing culvert , and then , also , in developing lot 3 , that
" this " ditch be improved , maybe by a drainage swale going down , south ,
and above the Church property . Ms . Beeners , commenting that a lot of
water is standing in " this " area going on into the Church , noted that
Ivar Jonson will be making improvements also . Ms . Beeners commented
that there are a. couple of other things she could mention which relate
to a need for some agreement among these multiple property owners .
Attorney Holmberg stated that , essentially , if the Town is going
to require any particular standards as to how that particular driveway
is going to be maintained , that is beyond the question of what is
before the Board of Appeals tonight . Attorney Holmberg stated that
the Planning Board is reviewing the subdivision and they have
discussed with them , somewhat , what they would require . Attorney
Holmberg stated that she would assume that , as with the drainage on
Jonson , some of that will be taken into account .
Ms . Beeners stated that she acknowledged that some of that will
be coming up under Planning Board review , however , the other comment
she would offer , more appropriate to this Board , relates to how the
front of and access to the home proposed for proposed lot 2 , with
• frontage on Honness Lane , should be oriented . Ms . Beeners suggested
that consideration should be given to that home front being parallel
to Honness Lane .
t
Zoning Board of Appeals 19 March 19 , 1986
• Mrs . Reuning commented that it seems to be a question of who owns
what .
Attorney Holmberg stated that the used portion of the gravel
driveway is on the Razzaqs ' property . Posing it as a question , Vice
Chairman Hewett stated to Mrs . Dalkert that she was not aware of that ,
with Mrs . Dalkert responding , no . Mr . King stated that the Survey Map
before the Board is clear on that aspect , indicating the gravel drive
shown by dotted 'lines running the total length of the Razzaq property .
Mr . King stated that the total easement extends about 260 feet or so
from the right of way on Honness and , by adding about another 120 feet
as the gravel drive continues , it makes a distance of about 385 feet
from Honness Lane .
Attorney Holmberg stated that , historically , this " drive " was the
dividing line between two members of the Blatchley family and they had
an agreement , which is in the abstract , and in that agreement they
established that easement . Mr . King commented on how nobody has
questioned all this . Attorney Holmberg commented that she did not
check the other deeds , she checked the Church .
Mr . King stated that he thought we would have a problem with
something almost 400 feet off the highway unless it is an adequate
roadway for the ; proposed house and for emergency vehicles . Attorney
Holmberg pointed out that the roadway , now , takes school busses ,
adding that Mr . Cartee told her that .
• MOTION by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , that this matter be adjourned to the next meeting of
the Board with ' the hope that Counsel will get together with Mr .
Fabbroni and find out exactly what he wants to have the Town look at
as an acceptable roadway .
Attorney Holmberg stated that they are not asking for approval of
a roadway ; they are asking for an exception for a lot not fronting on
a Town road . Attorney Holmberg stated that the Planning Board , and
Mr . Fabbroni , will tell them about the requirements they may have for
this driveway . Attorney Holmberg pointed out that there has been a
roadway shown since at least 1957 . Mr . King stated that he knew that ,
adding that it once was a dirt farm road . Dr . Razzaq stated that it
is not now a farm road ; it is a gravelled roadway . Attorney Holmberg
stated that they, understand that it would have to be improved , but
that comes with subdivision approval .
There was no second to Mr . King ' s Motion .
Mr . King stated that , personally , he was not prepared to say that
you can put a house at the end of 300 feet of mud , adding that the
prime concern is' safety for emergency vehicles . Attorney Holmberg
noted again that the bus goes in there . Mrs . Dalkert stated that the
• bus does not go there that often .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she would like to go back in there and
t
Zoning Board of Appeals 20 March 19 , 1986
• look at it . Attorney Holmberg offered that they are waiting to build ,
King inquired if they were wai
Mr . Kng ting to build on both lots , with Dr .
Razzaq responding , yes .
Mr . Craig Pease , of the construction firm of Lawson and Pease ,
Waterloo , New York , spoke from the floor and stated that, he was Dr .
Razzaq ' s builder , and that he would be happy to show the Board the
plans . Mr . Pease displayed several sheets of house plans for the
Board to see and described the construction of the two- family houses .
Mr . Pease noted a two - car garage and pointed out that each building
will be a two - family - - one apartment up and one down - - strictly
self - contained .
Mr . Cartee asked if Mr . Pease were proposing to build on both
lots [ proposed Lot 2 and proposed Lot 31 , both at the same time . Mr .
Pease stated that they would like to because of the resultant savings
in construction cost . Mr . Cartee asked Mr . Pease if it would be a
hardship to build on the front portion of the one lot as :it presently
exists , that is in the area of the non - controversial proposed lot
[ Lot 21 . Mr . Pease stated that he could not really say that it would
be a hardship , but they would prefer to do so , adding that they
realize that they can go with the one lot facing Honness Lane . Mr .
Pease spoke of parking in the driveway and the houses being
custom-built with no panelized work at all .
Mr . Cartee , commenting that it is pretty clear that construction
• on the two houses cannot start tomorrow , stated that his philosophy
would be to settle the matter of the drainage along the east side of
the existing driveway , with the buildings delayed until other matters
can be resolved . Mr . Cartee stated , also , that he realized Mr . Pease
could start the building permit process " tomorrow " for construction on
the vacant , " legal " lot .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
matter of the Muhammad and Khurshid Razzaq Appeal be and hereby is
adjourned until the Board ' s April meeting .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the Razzaq Appeal
duly adjourned at 8 : 30 p . m .
APPEAL OF WILLIAM J . AND HUGO A . DeMARTINO , APPELLANTS , EDMUND J .
• DELLERT , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE HAVING
A SIDE YARD DEFICIENCY OF 1 . 8 FEET , AT 217 SNYDER HILL ROAD , TOWN OF
l
Zoning Board of Appeals 21 March 19 , 1986
• ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 65 . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED UNDER
ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 76 , OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 31 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Edmund Dellert was present , as was Mr . Michael Herzing and
Attorney Robert J . Hines .
The following documents were before the Board .
1 . Appeal Form as completed , signed , and submitted by E . J . Dellert ,
as Agent for William and Hugo DeMartino , under date of March 3 ,
1986 , reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission for
a Certificate of Occupancy at 217 Snyder Hill Road . . . Mr .
DeMartino purchased this property in 1980 without a request for a
Certificate of Occupancy and was not made aware of the deficiency
in the side lot until the denial of his recent request for a
Certificate of Occupancy . ( The Southeast corner of the carport
extends 1 . 8 feet into the side yard . ) A condition of the pending
sale of the property is that a Certificate of Occupancy be issued
and that sale will not be able to be completed without the
granting of this appeal . It is very unlikely that Mr . DeMartino
would be able to sell to anyone without a Certificate of
Occupancy and in that Mr . DeMartino was totally unaware of the
• side lot deficiency when he purchased the property and has done
nothing during his ownership of the property to worsen the
situation , I respectfully ask for this appeal to be granted so
that Mr . DeMartino can proceed with the sale of the property . "
2 . Survey Map entitled , " Survey For William J . & Hugo A . DeMartino ,
Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins , State of New York , Tax Parcel
# 57 - 1 - 8 . 65 " , dated February 25 , 1986 , signed and sealed by George
C . Schlecht , L . P . E . & L . S .
Mr . Dellert appeared before the Board and stated that Mr . Herzing
was the purchaser of the DeMartino property . Mr . Dellert stated that
a Certificate of Occupancy was required for the sale and when the
Survey was done , also in connection with the sale , it showed that the
southeast corner of the carport is 8 . 2 feet from the east side lot
line , rather than the 10 feet required . Mr . Dellert stated that the
Certificate was denied because of that side yard deficiency .
Mr . Cartee reminded the Board that about 5 years ago , Mr .
DeMartino was before the Board on an occupancy problem which he had
inherited when he purchased the house , and which was resolved .
Mrs . Reuning wondered when the house was built , with Mr . Cartee
responding , 1970 .
• Attorney Hines stated that he had represented Mr . DeMartino in
the purchase of the house and apologized for not having sought a
Certificate of Occupancy at the time . Attorney Hines stated that he
1
d
Zoning Board of Appeals 22 March 19 , 1986
• could assure the Board that Mr . DeMartino bought the property in
N
nnocence , adding that he has done nothing to aggravate the situation .
Attorney Hines noted that it is a structure , although it is a carport .
Mrs . Reuning wondered where the Burris house was in relation to
DeMartino and asked if it were very close . Attorney Hines stated that
it was not close .
Vice Chairman Hewett noted that no one from the public was
present , the only persons remaining being Messrs . Dellert , Herzing ,
and Hines . The Secretary noted that Notices were mailed to eight
neighbors .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , on the
basis of de minimus non curat lex , and on the basis that there are
apparently no objections from the adjacent neighbors , none having
appeared , that said Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an
area variance of 1 . 8 feet for the continued existence of the carport
on the subject property with the southeasterly corner of said carport
located a mere 8 . 2 feet from the southeasterly lot line instead of the
10 feet required by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Article IV ,
Section 14 , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that a Certificate of Occupancy be granted .
• There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the DeMartino Appeal
duly closed at 8 : 42 p . m .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Vice Chairman Hewett declared the March 19 , 1986
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned
at 8 : 43 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
Jack D . Hewett , Vice Chairman