The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 1986-04-16 t TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16 , 1986 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , April 16 , 1986 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York, at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Jack D . Hewett , Edward N . Austen , Edward W . King , Joan G . Reuning , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector ) , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Elizabeth Dyer , Joan Sabin , Samuel W . Sabin , William F . Millier , Suzanne Hecht , Jaime Hecht , Sylvia Wahl , Robert H . Wahl , George Benjamin , Joan Benjamin , Betty Li , Mark Be Li , Janis R . Butler , Josephine Mix , Franklin F . Butler , Fenwick T . Faulkner , Edward Pesaresi , David Be Collum , Virginia Iacovelli , Paul Iacovelli , Attorney Wesley E . McDermott , Francis " Judd " Welch , Attorney Roger Be Sovocool , Kathleen Loehr -Balada , Paul Karakantas , Paul G . Decker , Donna W . Decker , Robert Bartholf , Earl Stanley , Philip Proujansky , Neal Howard , Dorothy Buerk , Janice 0 . Odell , Richard E . Furnas , Louise Be Furnas , Carmine • Gerard , George C . Kugler , Eric F . Dicke , Laing Kennedy , Peter J . Hedrick , Elizabeth L . Hedrick , Susan L . Schell , Pamela J . Hanna , Gregory Menzenski , Mario Perfetti , Stephen Lichtenbaum , Wilson Small , Barbara Apt , Kinga M . Gergely , Charles Odell , Edward Franzoni , Linda Louko , Mark Ashton , Vida U . Caslick , Carolyn Koch , Geoffrey Wetzler . Noting that there was a large number of persons from the public present , Chairman Aron read aloud the Fire Safety Notification as required by the New York State Department of State , Office of Fire Prevention and Control . Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 04 p . m . and welcomed everybody , stating that he was glad to see so many interested citizens here . Chairman Aron announced that the Adjourned Appeal of Muhammad and Khurshid Razzaq would not be heard , the matter having been withdrawn this morning by the Appellants ' Attorney . Chairman Aron 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 April 8 , 1986 and April 11 , 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 Administrator , upon the Clerk of the Town of Dryden , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - April 16 , 1986 of Planning , and upon each of the Appellants and their Agents , if any , as parties to the action , on April 11 , 1986 . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM FEBRUARY 12 , 1986 ) OF RAYMOND AND JOAN LOEHR ET AL , KATHLEEN LOEHR- BALADA , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A SINGLE - FAMILY STRUCTURE AND A TWO - FAMILY STRUCTURE LOCATED ON ONE LEGAL NON -CONFORMING LOT APPROXIMATELY 91 FEET IN WIDTH AND APPROXIMATELY 320 FEET IN DEPTH , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , THE TWO- FAMILY STRUCTURE NOT FRONTING ON A TOWN ROAD AND THE SINGLE - FAMILY STRUCTURE WITH A SIDE YARD DEFICIENCY OF 8 . 6 ± FEET , AT 983 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 21 - 2 - 29 . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED UNDER SECTION 280 - a OF THE TOWN LAW , AND , ARTICLE IV , SECTIONS 11 , 14 , AND 16 , ARTICLE XII , SECTION 52 , ARTICLE XIII , SECTIONS 57 AND 68 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 76 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 05 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mrs . Loehr -Balada was present . Chairman Aron , noting that this was an adjourned meeting from February 12th , stated that a number of people have been heard and made their points known . Chairman Aron stated that he would like to advise those persons who have spoken in this matter that there is no • necessity to repeat exactly what they have said . Chairman Aron stated that it is all in the Minutes and , so , to make it easier , and so we can go on with our appeals - - we have a lot of them which will make a lengthy evening - - he would request that new information only be presented . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Loehr -Balada to speak to the appeal . Mrs . Loehr - Balada appeared before the Board and stated that we had discussed this at great length on February 12th and she did submit a packet addressing the concerns raised , which the Board members have before them , and which , she believed , would answer the questions raised . Mrs . Loehr - Balada stated that , as we adjourned February 12th , she did not know certain details about the sewer system of the property . Mrs . Loehr - Balada stated that they have discovered that the small house and the big house each have their own septic system , the well is the well on the property . Mrs . Loehr -Balada stated that other concerns that were raised were the issue of tenants and she included the lease they use , which is a comprehensive lease covering up to five years , and the additional points they will put in so that the tenants understand the rules , with additional covenants so that the neighbors can enjoy their properties . Mrs . Loehr - Balada stated that the trash issue has been addressed with separate places set up , instituted , and working very effectively with a noticeable change , adding that they have a bonus - - a second person always serving the property there . • Mrs . Loehr -Balada stated that the matter of parking has been addressed with the tenants having been advised of the appropriate parking areas . Mrs . Loehr -Balada stated that , now , in the spring and summer , the 4 Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - April 16 , 1986 • parking is fine but the winter is a problem . Mrs . Loehr- Balada referred the Board members to the " packet " and a hand -out identifying the parking rules with three spaces on top in the winter . Mrs . Loehr - Balada stated that the tenants will rent with that knowledge . Mrs . Loehr -Balada spoke of a contract for the widening of the driveway which is shown on the survey along with the parking . Mrs . Loehr - Balada stated that she thought she had answered all the Board ' s questions . Chairman Aron stated that Mrs . Loehr - Balada had written the members of the Board a letter about all that , and asked Mrs . Loehr - Balada to read that letter for the information of the public . Mrs . Loehr - Balada read aloud , as follows : " April 6 , 1986 T0 : Members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board FROM : Kathy Loehr Balada RE : Additional information on 983 Taughannock Blvd In preparation for the meeting on April 9 [ 16 ] , I am providing you a complete packet which hopefully answers many of the questions that arose at the February 12 meeting regarding the request I- or a zoning variance for the property at 983 Taughannock Boulevard owned by the Matthew F . McHugh and Raymond C . Loehr families . • I appreciate the additional time the Board granted to gather this information . I feel that the following are reasonable , practical solutions that solve the legitimate concerns raised . In order to alleviate these concerns , the McHughs and Loehrs are willing to pay additional amounts monthly to finance the solutions . This is a short term financial hardship for each family as the current rental income _ alone from the property is not enough to meet the additional costs . They agree , however , that such solutions are necessary in -the interest of maintaining the public ' s safety along that stretch of Taughannock Boulevard and of demonstrating to the Board and the neighbors their intent to have the property managed responsibly in their absence . 1 . PROPER DISPOSAL OF TRASH A new garbage house has been built and placed at the foot of the steps leading down to the property from Taughannock Boulevard . ( See the note on the attached survey ) . We have contracted with someone to come once a week to take the trash containers up to the Boulevard on trash day , and to return them to the garbage house afterwards . The tenants have been notified of this new policy . Having the garbage house below allows for a neater appearance for the property , alleviates the problem of animals getting into the garbage , and allows full use of our parking spaces above . 2 . PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR THE CONDUCT OF TENANTS • Attached is a copy of the comprehensive lease currently being used , with an additional page indicating the new covenants that will be ` Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - April 16 , 1986 added . As indicated in the previous meeting , steps have already been taken to screen potential tenants . This system has worked well for this current rental season ( 185 - 186 ) and so far people indicating interest in renting for the 186 - 187 season are of the same quality ; older , more mature and responsible , interested in quiet enjoyment of an attractive apartment . I am verbally telling all potential tenants about our expectations , about the new parking and trash removal regulations , etc . , so this too is a further screening method for tenants who understand and will be able to work with our more stringent expectations . The above trash disposal solution also provides an additional benefit in that someone we trust will be coming to the property weekly . He has been briefed about the regulations of the lease and thus can report quickly to us any unusal problems he may see . 3 . THE SEPTIC SYSTEM At the February meeting , I did not know if we had one or two systems , and the type . I have since found we have two systems . Research at the Dept . of Health uncovered the information about the septic system for the main house . ( A copy of the information on the sewage disposal system put in by John Feister in 1969 is attached . ) The Dept . of Health told me how to look for leakage & / or foul odors of the sand filter that would indicate a problem with the system ; I found • neither . Walter Niehoff , the owner from whom the McHughs / Loehrs bought the property in 1981 told us that there is a separate system in place for the cottage . He himself replaced the septic storage tank ( 500 gallons ) in 1978 . The tank is located to the left of the walkway between the cottage and the main house . He has no information on the type of septic filter , nor is anything on record on this system at the Dept . of Health . The Feister site plan indicates a line showing where the ' existing drainage for the apt . ' is . I did a dye test in early March of the cottage system to see if there were any problems . No dye has risen to the surface during these weeks . 4 . PARKING We currently have two spaces on top of the property and six spaces below . Parking is not a problem when the driveway is accessible . To solve the problem when the driveway is less accessible , we are doing three things . a . I spoke to Fred Grout of the NYS Dept . of Transportation about the ability to park on the west shoulder of Taughannock Blvd . He said that it is perfectly fine as long as the cars are fully on the shoulder and do not park ' permanently ' ( the cars must not be parked there longer than 48 hours at a time ) . With this information , I have established a tenant parking policy that will guarantee each unit only • one parking spot on top ; two at the top of the driveway and one across the Blvd . on the shoulder . ( See note on survey map . ) If the tenants have more cars , they must agree to keep them below . .( See the ` Zoning Board of Appeals - 5 - April 16 , 1986 • additional covenant of the tenant lease . ) b . To aid any additional cars that will now be parked below during the winter months ," we have contracted with a snow plowing agency . The driveway will be plowed automatically whenever it snows . In addition , the snow plow will keep the driveway salted , plus the person who removes the trash weekly will also salt as needed . ( He is the person responsible for shoveling and keeping the steps and walkways clean and salted . ) c . To increase the safety and ease of getting up and down the driveway , we are asking for quotes to widen the driveway from just below the first curve to the point where it meets the wide asphalted area in front of the cottage . ( See note on attached survey map . ) Widening the driveway will also increase by two the available parking spaces below , as well as increasing the amount of area available to turn around . " Chairman Aron thanked Mrs . Loehr - Balada . Chairman Aron stated that , needless to say , the ZBA members have copies of this letter and the Board is very well aware of what Mrs . Loehr - Balada had read . Chairman Aron stated that the Board members have been down there , adding that he has , himself , been down there . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Cartee if he had anything to add or say . Mr . Cartee stated that he would commend Mrs . Loehr - Balada for her complete report , adding that he thought she had presented a complete report on the items that were requested at the February 12th meeting and he commended her for it . Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing open to the public , stating that the Board will listen to additional questions or answers than what the Board heard before . Chairman Aron asked those who wished to speak to please state their name and address and address the Board . Attorney Roger Sovocool , 111 White Park Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he was present in support of Mrs . Loehr - Balada , Attorney Sovocool stated that he had ' been asked by the owners to look up any materials he could , adding that he had some material here tonight - - abstracts and maps . Attorney Sovocool stated that he had an old original map of the area which shows a whole series of 50 - foot lots and noted that the McHugh / Loehr property was originally four lots which were consolidated into one lot . [ For the record , the map which Attorney Sovocool displayed was the same as a map presented to the Board at the February 12 , 1986 , meeting by Town Attorney Barney , being a map entitled " Map of the Miller Property on the West Shore of Cayuga Lake " , filed June 24 , 1899 . ] Attorney Sovocool stated that the Survey Map that the Board members have , dated October 16 , 1985 , shows an area of 30 , 000 square feet , adding that , he believed , in R15 15 , 000 square feet are required . Attorney Sovocool noted that the lot is a good • sized lot , reiterating that it was originally four lots . Mr . King , noting that Attorney Sovocool had said there were four Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - April 16 , 1986 50 - foot lots , commented that that would mean 200 feet of lot frontage . Attorney Sovocool pointed out that the four lots were not side -by - side ; they were back- to - back . Attorney Sovocool spoke about the property lines and also described the steepness of the bank . Attorney Sovocool stated that Mrs . Loehr -Balada has attempted to find out as much as she could about the so -called garage which was turned into a residence . Attorney Sovocool stated that the best they can find out is that some time after 1954 it was turned into a residence , 1954 being the date of the adoption of the Town Zoning Ordinance . Attorney Sovocool stated that there was some confusion at the last meeting about another lot but it turned out that it had no bearing on this property . Attorney Sovocool stated that Mrs . Loehr -Balada found out that this property was built - - its foundation was dug and a concrete foundation put in - - in the Fall of 1954 and the so - called garage was built in the Spring of 1955 . Attorney Sovocool stated ' that he believed that Judd Welch thought it was a hobby room , adding that he was here tonight . Attorney Sovocool stated that shortly after that Margaret Bates turned it into a residence , however , they cannot pinpoint exactly when that was done , but , in any case , it has been a residential property for approximately 25 years . Attorney Sovocool stated that there was , he believed , a fire in the main house in 1967 or 168 and the house itself burned down and was a total loss , and , at that time , a building permit was obtained and the main house built back up again . Attorney Sovocool stated that at that time the other residence was in place . Attorney Sovocool stated that if there were any other questions or information needed , they would be happy to address that . The Secretary stated that she had promised Town Councilman Bartholf that she would clarify the confusion which occurred at the February 12th meeting with respect to a lot , thought to be the lot under discussion here , but which , it turned out after some research , was another lot in this group of old lots . The Secretary stated that Town Councilman Bartholf was merely an interested neighbor attending a meeting of the Board of Appeals , involved in no other aspect of the hearing which had been held in January of 1959 . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 24 p . m . and asked if the Board had any questions . Mr . King stated that he did not ' get down into the property as the Chairman did and he would like to know his impression . Chairman Aron stated that it was very clean ; there was no garbage and no cars on the high side of the, road . Chairman Aron stated that , in walking down the steps , at the first part of the property , there was a structure erected out of pressure treated lumber housing three or :four garbage cans , adding that the door was closed and , he thought , locked . Chairman Aron stated that there was no garbage or any debris . Chairman Aron stated that he knocked at the door of the house , • introduced himself to the people there , and was granted permission to look around . Chairman Aron stated that he found everything in fine order , as he hoped it would be . Zoning Board of Appeals - 7 - April 16 , 1986 Mr . King noted the proximity of the cottage to the north line , that is , 6 . 4 feet , and the requirement of the ordinance for 15 feet . Mr . King asked Chairman Aron if he had noticed any other building on the lot to the north , with Chairman Aron responding , no . Mr . King wondered if Chairman Aron would consider the cottage close to another house or structure , with Chairman Aron responding , no , and adding not as far as he could see . Mr . King wondered if Chairman Aron saw any problem with side line separation , with Chairman Aron responding , no . Mr . Francis ( Judd ) Welch , 987 Taughannock Blvd . , spoke from the floor and stated' that he owned property to the north of this property , directly to the north , and he knew they are pretty close to each other . Mr . Welch stated that in the last year there has been a great relationship with the tenants over there . Mr . Welch stated that a year ago this time he was so mad he could not stand it , but he thought this year Mrs . Loehr - Balada has done a great job . Mr . Welch stated that there is a ' family in there , adding that he did not care if there are eighteen people over there but he did want them to stay off his property . Mr . Welch stated that he was not complaining about anything they do . Mr . Welch stated that they have one septic tank right behind his house - - not on his lot - - adding that the lots go at an angle from the Boulevard . Mr . Welch stated that he was concerned about whether the septic from the one place was going into the creek or his basement , adding that he did know there was a nice new one out there , because after the fire a good septic system was put in out in the • front . Mr . Welch stated that at the last meeting Mrs . Loehr - Balada did not know , ' and he did not know , if the other one was ever connected . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Welch if he had heard the letter which Mrs . Loehr - Balada read . Mr . Welch stated that he missed the first part of the meeting . Chairman Aron read aloud from Paragraph # 3 , The Septic System , of Mrs . Loehr - Balada ' s letter , and also read some of Paragraph # 4 , Parking . Chairman Aron spoke of his own knowledge about septic tanks , describing concrete as opposed to steel . Mr . Welch stated that he did not care about parking ; it was not a problem . Chairman Aron stated that he hoped this answered his question . Mr . Welch stated that it did and thanked the Chairman . Chairman Aron stated that he had closed the Public Hearing and he would close it again and return the matter for Board discussion . Mr . Austen stated that he was impressed that this work has all been done and everything addressed that the Board talked about . Mr . Austen stated that he drove by there tonight and he thought they have done a good job . , Mrs . Reuning stated that she was not at the original meeting , but she was very impressed by all the information . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that , with respect to premises known as 983 Taughannock • Blvd . , Town of 'Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 21 - 2 - 29 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant , without any conditions , authorization for the maintenance of the two dwellings Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - April 16 , 1986 • located on the private road as it exists , the Board finding no particular problem with such , being a common problem on the West Shore of Cayuga Lake . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning , Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , finding that there does not seem to be any problem with proximity with another building , grant and hereby does grant a variance , with respect to premises known as 983 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 21 - 2 - 29 , permitting the westerly small cottage , i . e . , the single family building , to exist as built with a northerly side yard of 6 . 4 feet rather than the 15 feet usually required , as shown on the Survey Map dated October 16 , 1985 before said Board this date , April 16 , 1986 , and FURTHER RESOLVED , by said Board of Appeals , that the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance be and hereby is authorized . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Loehr et al Appeal duly closed at 7 : 42 p . m . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MARCH 19 , 1986 ) 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 - 161 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 , Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 43 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . and Mrs . Iacovelli were present , as was their attorney , Wesley E . • McDermott . Speaking to the public present , Chairman Aron stated that he ` Zoning Board of Appeals - 9 - April 16 , 1986 • would like to point out , as he pointed out earlier in the meeting , that on March 19th a lot has been said - - 10 pages of evidence having been taken - - and , although he was not able to be at that meeting , he had read all of „ the Minutes of the March 19 , 1986 meeting , as had the other Board members . Chairman Aron stated that the Board knows what has been said and asked that the public , please , not repeat what they have said before . Chairman Aron stated that anything new may be presented , but unless it is new information it will not be listened to . AttorneyMcDermott ermo tt s tated that he really had nothing to add since the issues were discussed and , he believed , fully presented at the March 19th meeting . Attorney McDermott stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Chairman or any other Board member might have . Attorney McDermott pointed out that leases were presented at the March meeting as well as evidence of the non - conforming use and , he also believed , a map was available with respect to the proposed subdivision . Attorney McDermott reiterated that he had nothing new at this point in time . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing opened at 7 ; 45 p . m . Mr . Ed Pesaresi , 101 Juniper Drive , spoke from the floor and stated that he was not at the last meeting and he wanted to express his concern about traffic flow in that area - - the traffic flow that is in there now . Mr . Pesaresi stated that when he looks out his back • window he sees is to fifteen cars , sometimes where they belong and sometimes on his lawn . Mr . Pesaresi stated that this will increase the number of cars in the area and , also , there is a bus pickup which is very unhealthy for young children . Mr . Charles Odell , 100 Spruce Way , spoke from the floor and stated that he was not at the last meeting and he wanted to say that they moved up there with the thought in mind of , maybe , a place to retire to , adding that they brought the children up there and they were very satisfied . Mr . Odell stated that , with what they have to live with , they think they are being encroached on just a little bit . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Odell could elaborate somewhat . Mr . Odell stated that they did not realize that Ithaca College would not take care of the kids the way they should , expanding the way they are . Mr . Odell , commenting , what do you say , stated that the people that are more forward looking than he , they buy property and build places for these kids to live and take away from a nice area that you lived in for so long . Mr . Odell stated that this might just take away from the neighborhood too . Chairman Aron wondered what Mr . Odell meant , with Mr . Odell responding , quiet , adding that it is a nice quiet neighborhood and he did not know how to elaborate on that but , okay , he would ask if Chairman Aron would like to hear , when you lie awake at night , loud music . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Odell when he heard that music , with Mr . Odell responding , when it is warm , and adding , every night . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Odell where 100 Spruce Way is in • relationship to 'Mr . Iacovelli . Mr . Odell stated that he lived a long way from that , adding that he was talking about people in the area . It was noted that Mr . Odell had received Notice as a neighbor of the Zoning Board of Appeals - 10 - April 16 , 1986 • property under appeal later on in the meeting [ the Mary L . Carey property ] . Mr . Paul Karakantas , 102 Spruce Way , spoke from the floor and stated that , to expand on what his neighbor Mr . Odell said , he has been there for a year and a half and with those types of dwellings , the noise problem is very true . Mr . Karakantas stated that he was talking about existing properties . Chairman Aron commented to Mr . Karakantas that it appeared that he was assuming that there would be noise and stated that the Board was interested in facts . Mr . Karakantas stated that he has children and he was concerned about parties and students on his property and vulgarity and he was concerned about the children . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Karakantas if he had ever taken steps when he has seen someone who is walking on his property illegally to inform him or her that it was his property . Mr . Karakantas stated that he had had individuals cross his property and he approached them and asked them why . Chairman Aron asked if they were Mr . Iacovelli ' s tenants . Mr . Karakantas indicated that he did not know who they were . [ For the record , Mr . Karakantas had also received Notice as a neighbor of the Mary L . Carey property under appeal later in the meeting . ] Mr . Neal Howard , 309 East King Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he would like to say a positive thing with respect to the Iacovelli Appeal, . Mr . Howard stated that he thought there were a lot of houses on Coddington Road which have been upgraded a lot , adding • that he knew of one house that should have been condemned but it has now been fixed ' up with aluminum siding , and it looks great . Mr . Howard stated that there will always be traffic on Coddington Road and there will always be traffic with Ithaca College there and there will always be some noise with Ithaca College there . Mr . Howard stated that he had seen the Iacovelli building and it is very well kept and he thought they should be granted the subdivision . Mr . Odell asked what it meant when he [ Mr . Howard ] said subdivided , adding that he did not quite understand what was happening here . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Cartee to respond . Mr . Cartee stated that the Iacovelli property is a large parcel of land which now houses a single family house and a three - family house and which .is a legal non - conforming use . Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . and Mrs . Iacovelli are proposing that the Planning Board allow a portion of the property on the south to be subdivided so that sometime , we do not know when , another residential structure may be built . Mr . Odell asked if that structure were going to be a high rise , to which Mr . Cartee responded that it could not be a high rise , but it could be a single family home . Chairman Aron commented that that kind of speculation was not relevant . Mr . Odell stated that it was . Continuing , Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . Iacovelli is proposing to subdivide this property which would allow him a lot south of the existing multiple dwelling to build a residential structure on . Mr . • Cartee stated that , in R15 , one - family houses and a two - family houses are permitted . Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . Iacovelli has not applied for a building permit , he merely wants to subdivide , this property . ` Zoning Board of Appeals - 11 - April 16 , 1986 Mr . Cartee stated that the Planning Board is the approving body for subdivisions and at the Planning Board it was referred to this Board , the Zoning Board of Appeals , inasmuch as a variance is needed for frontage less than 100 feet . Mr . Cartee reiterated that there is no proposal to build a structure of any sort , merely to subdivide a lot . Mr . Odell asked if he put up a five bedroom house , could he put five students in there or maybe ten - - or more . Mr . Cartee stated that that is not permitted , adding that the Zoning Ordinance allows three unrelated persons in a whole structure whether it is a one - family or a two - family , or , if it is a two - family , a family in the main unit and no more than two unrelated in the subordinate unit . Mr . Odell stated that , therefore , the people below him are in violation . Mr . Franklin Butler , 332 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he could clarify what Mr . Odell was saying , adding that he has been there over eight years . Mr . Butler stated that , as he sees it , from Spruce Way up , the housing is predominantly one - family , new , owner - occupied dwellings with a few older properties . Mr . Butler stated that he has seen these older properties , usually owned by an older person , sold and now occupied by students . Mr . Butler stated that " he " [ unidentified ] was referring to - 308 Coddington Road which was sold and is now occupied by students . Mr . Butler stated that , also , on the same side there is a new dwelling which is also students and , also , at 320 Coddington Road is another dwelling with students . Mr . Butler stated that it is difficult for the Board • to see the trend of student housing creeping into a neighborhood which is predominantly single family . Mr . Butler stated that what Mr . Iacovelli wants is out of character and not wanted . Mr . Paul Decker , 103 Spruce Way , [ also notified with respect to the Mary L . Carey property appeal ] spoke from the floor and stated that he had a question about the present dwelling on the property that the Iacovellis own , the question being does that comply with the zoning ordinance that says no more than three people . Mr . Decker stated that if it does not then that would certainly be an indication of how they would use the property after it is subdivided . Chairman Aron stated that this eventuality is at this point not before the Board ; what is before the Board is a variance request for footage and an interpretation . Chairman Aron commented that , later on , perchance if Mr . Iacovelli were to build he would have to comply with the occupancy regulations and that is a different matter . Mr . Decker stated that things are done in steps and there could be more of the same thing . Mr . Decker stated that it does apply now because there is less of an opportunity to enforce compliance at that time . Mr . King stated that , as he recalled , the testimony indicated that the properties are in compliance with the zoning ordinance as non - conforming uses . Mr . King asked his colleagues if there were any complaints with his statement . There were none . Mr . Cartee stated that the gentleman [ Mr . Decker ] has not been to • any of the meetings prior to this , adding that he assumed he was notified because of the other appeal . Mr . Cartee stated that , in any case , he would like to answer his question . Mr . Cartee stated that Zoning Board of Appeals - 12 - April 16 , 1986 there are two structures now on the property both built prior to zoning - - one , a single family occupied by a family , adding , he believed , a daughter and son - in - law of Mr . and Mrs . Iacovelli . Mr . Cartee stated that the other structure is a three - family and this is a legal , non - conforming use , meaning that the records indicate it was existing prior to 1954 . Mr . Cartee stated that we do not have control over the number of people , unrelated , who live in a multiple dwelling , adding , for the record , we have copies of the leases from Mr . Iacovelli indicating that there are nine people in the structure . Mr . Cartee stated that he offered that for Mr . Decker ' s information so that he would understand . Mr . Earl Stanley , 109 Pine View Terrace , spoke from the floor and stated that at 327 Coddington Road there is a three - unit and a single unit and this is another structure and , if granted , the third structure could be up to a two - unit house . Mr . Stanley stated that , as he understood , a two - unit can have front yard parking but a three - unit cannot have parking in the front yard . Mr . Stanley asked where they will fit , adding that he was not speaking necessarily of the physical arrangement but of the fact that the nine individuals means nine cars ; the one unit means two cars , and , the six in the new house means six cars . Mr . Cartee stated that he guessed he did not want to belabor the situation but we are not talking about a new house with six people that is not permitted - - we are talking of a variance relative to the • frontage of the property to be subdivided . Mr . Cartee stated that he thought there was no point in belaboring the thing ; we have made enough explanations , and he would be glad to talk in private with anyone here regarding this matter or the Zoning Ordinance relative to single family homes and two - family homes . Mr . Pesaresi stated that he moved into his house in 1975 , adding that his property abuts Iacovelli , and further adding that he watched the third apartment being built after that . Mr . Pesaresi repeated that it was a two - apartment building and he watched a third apartment being built . Mr . Pesaresi asked the Chairman if he were dreaming . Chairman Aron stated that he did not know if Mr . Pesaresi were dreaming or not , adding that there was no way he could respond as to Mr . Pesaresi ' s question , however , he would read aloud the following letter which is in the Minutes of the March 19th meeting . Chairman Aron read aloud as follows : " . . . In 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 . IThe 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 . " Chairman Aron stated that this letter is dated April 9 , 1974 and was written by Mr . Reynolds Metz who was the Zoning Board of Appeals - 13 = April 16 , 1986 • Town of Ithaca Zoning Officer at that time . [ For the record , see Building Permits No . 2250 and 2252 ] . Mr . Odell , commenting that this Board is the Zoning Board of Appeals , asked why " he " should have a zoning variance , further asking if Chairman Aron could explain that , and further stating that it seemed to him that regardless of what we say , you say - - we know , we know . Mr . Odell spoke of people who work for a living and asked Chairman Aron if ' he worked for a living . Chairman Aron indicated that he was quite familiar with working for a living . Mr . Ed Franzoni , 103 Juniper Drive , spoke from the floor and stated that this property is a serious problem for him regularly with loud noise . Mr . Franzoni stated that , as to what he has done specifically , he has asked these students with their eleven cars , or whatever , not to make noise . Mr . Franzoni stated that he called Mr . Iacovelli about this problem and did not receive the kind of response that one would expect . Mr . Franzoni stated that , specifically , he was concerned about people walking through his yard and skiing across his property , and , he was also concerned about the quality of the neighborhood which would be seriously detrimented by adding six more people making 18 to 20 people on that land about the size of his . Mr . Franzoni stated that parties and parking and loud noise will be increased and he was opposed to it . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Franzoni how many parties a year have • bothered him , with Mr . Franzoni responding that he did riot know how many . Chairman : Aron wondered if . there were 20 , or 30 , or more , or less . It was not clear what Mr . Franzoni ' s response was . Mrs . Virginia Iacovelli , 719 Hudson Street , spoke from the floor and stated that she has listened to these accusations for five meetings now and not said anything , however , she wanted to say that the whole neighborhood has hassled them and their grandchildren , pointed remarks at them , thrown eggs at the house and done that sort of thing . Mrs . Iacovelli stated that the neighbor kids broke the fence down going to school . Mrs . Iacovelli stated that they have been harassed and when people teach their children to harass it is really too bad . Mrs . Iacovelli stated that the skiing is from the neighbor kids - - not from the students . Mrs . Iacovelli stated that maybe there is a student or two , but it is mostly the neighbor kids and they have done everything you can think of in the yard . Mrs . Iacovelli stated that they bought that house ten years ago under the condition in that letter that we could rent it , and , believe me , that third apartment was definitely there in the basement . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he [ Mr . Franzoni ] has a problem with a dog - - his dog and his son - in - law ' s dog . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he had never called about noise , adding that nobody has ever called him about that place , and further adding that he [ Mr . Franzoni ] does not know how to deal with what is really a neighborly dispute over a dog . • Chairman Aron stated that the Board is not interested in neighborly disputes . Zoning Board of Appeals - 14 - April 16 , 1986 • Mrs . Joan Benjamin , 325 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and stated that Mr . Franzoni has had parties and , one night one with a microphone and a band . Mrs . Benjamin asked Mr . Franzoni if he remembered that and asked what the difference was between a party on one property and a party on another . Mr . Franzoni stated that that party was for his son ' s graduation . Continuing , Mrs . Benjamin stated that , as far as skiing goes , it is the kids that get off the bus , not the I . C . students , and they come down the driveway . Mr . Philip Proujansky , 333 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and stated that his is the property directly south of the Iacovelli property , adding that he thought that the people have addressed the issues of the neighborhood . Mr . Proujansky stated that for the type of property that is there the Iacovellis make attempts to maintain it properly but , because of the nature of multi - family residential it does cause some problems . Mr . Proujansky stated that the question before the Board is whether it is an extension of a non - conforming use , or whether it meant an extension . Mr . Proujansky stated that when it was presented to the Planning Board Town Attorney Barney looked at this and said there was no precedence , but when " it " became aware of further non - conforming , namely , a lot that does not meet the frontage regulation , therefore , it needed scrutiny by the Appeals Board . Mr . Proujansky stated that he would suggest some precedence for extending a non - conforming by virtue of creating another non - conforming use seems a little farcical . Mr . Proujansky stated that , although there is more than sufficient square footage , it does • not have sufficient frontage on Coddington Road and that , perhaps , should be the question that this Board should be addressing . Prof . Peter Hedrick , 616 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and stated that his house is 4 / 10 of a mile southeast of this property . Prof . Hedrick stated that he drives by all the time . Prof . Hedrick stated that he can hear noise all the time . Prof . Hedrick stated that he observed a litter problem , a noise problem , a parking problem . Prof . Hedrick stated that he sometimes bicycles past on his way to work . Prof . Hedrick stated that another building would make it worse . Chairman Aron asked Prof . Hedrick if he had every complained to anybody about ' these noise , etc . problems , with Prof . Hedrick responding , no . Chairman Aron commented that he would have . Prof . Hedrick stated that , as to noise , this property is not the only source of noise , but one of them , adding that it is difficult at night to pinpoint . Prof . Hedrick stated that , as to litter , he was not sure to whom to report . Mr . King noted that Prof . Hedrick had said that he did not know that this noise comes from this particular parcel . Prof . Hedrick stated that as he drove by he believed it was . Mr . Odell stated that he has called the Sheriff and was told that • there is nothing they can do in the world . Chairman Aron stated that there is no noise ordinance in the Town of Ithaca and suggested that Mr . Odell contact Noel Desch and ask for a noise ordinance . Zoning Board of Appeals - 15 - April 16 , 1986 • Mrs . Janis Butler , 332 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she was concerned about a traffic problem directly across the road . Mrs . Butler stated that this is a very difficult area to see , adding that they moved their driveway from one end to another because it is so dangerous because people do not pay any attention to the speed limit . Mrs . Butler stated that having another driveway in there with cars in and out and with student drivers who are immature and in a hurry would make the hazard much worse . Mrs . Butler stated that she was very much concerned with it as it is now . Mrs . Butler stated that she has come close to being hit as she comes out and as she was going to the mail mail box . Mrs . Butler stated that a driveway in the area across the road would have to be over across from or north of their property . Mrs . Butler stated that there is a blind spot , adding that there have been three accidents - - one was a fatality - - since they moved there eight years ago . Mrs . Butler stated that one person ran into the telephone pole right where the school bus stop is and one person ran into the fence on that house that is the person who was killed , and one minor accident that she did not have the details about . Mrs . Butler stated that they are really concerned because they do not want the problem to get worse . Mr . King asked if Mrs . Butler had stated that they moved their driveway from one end to the other , meaning from the southerly to the northerly , with Mrs . Butler responding , no , from the north to the south . Mr . King asked Mrs . Butler if she lived directly across from • the Iacovelli property , with Mrs . Butler replying , yes . Mrs . Butler stated that it was a considerable expense to move the driveway , adding that people could not see them at all . Mrs . Butler stated that , now that they have moved it , there is a better chance to be seen . Mr . King commented to Mrs . Butler that the curve is to the north of her property , with Mrs . Butler offering that the rise is toward the City and the curve is away from the City . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 21 p . m . Mr . King , asking to comment , stated that it strikes him that a lot of the comment is irrelevant to the question that faces this Board which is whether to permit a subdivision of the lot . Mr . King stated that the utilization of the property with the two houses on it is something that is always subject to enforcing. procedures and subject to evaluations , and , anything we do as far as subdividing is not going to change that . Mr . King stated that we have in this case a 300 - foot lot and two houses are on the northerly 200 feet of it . Mr . King stated that the southerly 100 feet that we are asked to permit a transfer out of - - a subdivision - - are unimproved and , as he viewed it , pretty much unrelated to the northerly 200 feet with the two buildings there . Mr . King stated that he did not see any integration of use for this southerly yard . Mr . King stated that he did not see where a 100 - foot yard or a 1 , 000 - foot yard was going to change the utilization of the • northerly lot , adding that what they are saying is " we do not like the way it is operated and , perhaps , selling off a piece might make it worse . " Mr . King stated that , in addition to the non - conformity Zoning Board of Appeals - 16 - April 16 , 1986 • aspect , what this Board is being asked for is merely a frontage variance in the technical frontage of about six feet . Mr . King stated that the question is with respect to the 100 feet of frontage on the road or some 94 feet as we have measured based on dropping a perpendicular , the proposed lot being a parallelogram . Mr . King allowed as how he was not that good a math and maybe that width is 95 feet , maybe 94 feet , that is , that technical width , however , that size of that vacant lot would be over 18 , 000 square feet , some 18 , 800 square feet , he believed excluding the right of way . Mr . King stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires only 15 , 000 square feet for a residential lot in this zone , so , really , we are being asked - - " Can these people sell off an unused portion of this land as a separate building lot which would be subject to all the rules and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance despite the fact that , maybe , there is a lack of six feet at the very front ? " Continuing , Mr . King stated that there is one problem with subdividing , as he sees it , which would be permitting another dwelling with the curve at the hill and limited visibility there . Mr . King stated that cars do tend to speed in that area , adding that they come upon you suddenly . Mr . King stated that , in judging this particular lot that does not make it unusable , adding that others are there and they manage , although not without incident , however , it would indicate that there should be very careful planning of the driveway and parking for that lot , were it to be developed . Mr . King stated that these are matters which could , and should , be addressed by the Planning Board when they address the subdivision , adding that those locations for the driveway and parking could be well set back easterly from the highway . Mr . King stated , so , he did not foresee where granting one more house in the area , on ' a lot of the size like many others in the area , is going to contribute to an increase in noise and make the situation any more undesirable than would a house in any other area . Town Attorney Barney , commenting that he missed the last meeting of this Board , asked if he understood correctly that there are nine unrelated people in the main house . Mr . King stated that that was correct . Town Attorney Barney mused , so , at the present number of unrelated , you might not be able to have any more , and suggested a scenario of the 300 feet being divided into three 100 - foot lots , each of which could have three unrelated persons , and offered that with three units the maximum number would be nine and , therefore , we are over the limit . A discussion followed among Town Attorney Barney , Mr . King , and Mr . Cartee with respect to the non - conforming aspects of both of the houses on the lot presently existing and particularly as to the three -unit non - conforming house . Town Attorney Barney agreed that the situation already exists and stated that he just put it on the table . Commenting that that could be , Mr . King stated that , however, he did , not see that this proposed lot is integrated with the other in any way , adding that if this were the northerly part , he could see it . Town Attorney Barney suggested that by subdividing and , thereby , creating the possibility of creating another house , the • situation could be one of 12 unrelated persons in an R15 zone which could not even tolerate nine . Mr . King offered , but , in a traditional R15 you would not put three houses on one lot . Mr . King , commenting Zoning Board of Appeals - 17 - April 16 , 1986 . that we can leave the houses on their lot , stated that we have a vacant " lot " to the south that just sits there and , maybe , the kids play on it , and that is the only use of it . Mr . Odell asked to state a question and was informed by the Chair that the public hearing was closed . Mr . Austen , commenting that we hear talk about substandard lots , stated that we usually measure 100 feet on the highway and this lot does measure 100 feet on the highway although its configuration is a parallelogram because of the curve , adding that there is no shorting . of the frontage on the highway . Mr . Austen , commenting that as far as parking , this is a little unusual , stated , however , the proposed lot is not much different in size from at least 50 % of the lots in the area , and , the lot certainly has sufficient square footage for an R15 and does not short the square footage for the remainder for the other properties that are there . Mr . Austen offered that if the other lot were split in two , both would have 100 feet and plenty of square footage . Town Attorney Barney stated that he would point out that the definition in the Ordinance with respect to lot size is stated in terms of width , not frontage , hence , with this lot described as a parallelogram , it is slightly deficient in width at the setback . Mr . King agreed that the Ordinance does speak of the width of a lot , not frontage . Town . Attorney Barney pointed out that that is why the matter is before the Board . Mr . King noted that there may - be a five - or six - foot shortage at the setback . Mrs . Reuning allowed as how she had forgotten how far Mr . Proujansky ' s house is from the southerly lot line . Mr . Proujansky stated that the Board had his survey . It was noted that neither the Board members , nor Mr . Cartee , nor the Secretary had Mr . Proujansky ' s survey . Mr . Proujansky stated that his house was about 25 feet from the lot line . Mr . King stated that he would like to suggest a couple of motions with respect to the matter of interpretation of . the Ordinance , the second being the companion to the first , and with the first , he thought , speaking to Town Attorney Barney ' s point . IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF PAUL AND VIRGINIA IACOVELLI ( R / 0 ) Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 53 - 1 - 16 ( 327 Coddington Road ) HOLDINGS for TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND NON - CONFORMING USE ( Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance X54 ) MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : ( A ) . Interpretation of the Ordinance • The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca HOLDS : that a proposed Subdivision of a parcel of land which is presently devoted to Zoning Board of Appeals - 18 - April 16 , 1986 a legal , non - conforming use , does require a prior authorization by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals under Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Section 54 ( because such a subdivision would ordinarily involve the " extension " or intensification of the non - conforming use on a smaller lot ) . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning , Nay - None ., The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Edward. King seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : ( A ) . Interpretation of the Ordinance The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca FURTHER HOLDS : that the proposed Subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 53 - 1 - 16 ( viz . , , 327 Coddington Road , which is reputedly owned by Paul and Virginia Iacovelli ) into two lots of the following character . 1e the proposed southerly lot resulting therefrom becoming an unimproved building lot which might be separately sold as such ; • 2e the northerly lot containing the two dwellings which ( because of their situs on the parcel and because of their use as apartment houses with three apartments in the main building nearest the front ( west ) side of the lot ( viz . , on Coddington Road ) and the rear building being a smaller house containing one dwelling unit ] presently make the use of the parcel non - conforming under the Ordinance - - which would not permit the two buildings on a single lot , nor more than two dwelling units on the lot ; WOULD INDEED , because of the reduction of the lot size of the improved lot , intensify and so " extend " the degree of non - conformity of the use of that parcel - - such proposed Subdivision consequently requiring Authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals under § 54 of the Town Zoning Ordinance . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF PAUL AND VIRGINIA IACOVELLI ( R/ 0 ) • Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 53 - 1 - 16 ( 327 Coddington Road ) Zoning Board of Appeals - 19 - April 16 , 1986 • FINDINGS , DECISION , and CONDITIONS for TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND NON - CONFORMING USE ( Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance § 54 ) MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : ( B ) . Findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals 1 . The vacant ( southerly ) parcel which would be created by the proposed subdivision would have a nominal frontage of 100 feet along the curving centerline and easterly Right of Way line of Coddington Road ; and it would have a gross depth of about 225 feet from the centerline of the road , based on the Survey Map entitled " No . 327 Coddington Road , Showing Proposed Division , 0 . 5 ± acre Total Lot , Lot 97 " , dated August 27 , 1985 , Revised December 9 , 1985 , signed and sealed by Clarence W . Brashear , L . L . S . No . 38194 ; but because the lot is lot laid out as a right - angled parallelogram , it would have a net lot area [ viz . , exclusive of all area west of the highway Right of Way line ] of about 18 , 800 square feet - - which is larger than the 15 , 000 square foot minimum dwelling lot size required in this R15 Zone . 2 . This resulting vacant ( southerly ) lot would have an actual width ( i . e . , the width measured ' on the perpendicular ' between its parallel side lines ) of only about 94 feet - - viz . , 6 feet short • of the 100 - foot minimum width required for an R- 15 building lot ; but its net depth at the Right of Way line ( i . e . , from the Right of Way line ) would be about 200 feet - - viz . , about 50 feet more than the minimum depth required . 3 . The resulting remaining lot , that is , the northerly lot containing the two houses , would have a nominal frontage along Coddington Road of 200 feet along the curving highway line , and it also would have a gross depth of about 225 feet from the centerline , which would equate to a net depth of about 200 feet . 4 . Such remaining ( northerly ) lot would have an actual width ' on the perpendicular ' of about 182 feet ; and it would contain approximately 38 , 000 square feet of land - - viz . , over twice the net area required for a one - or two - family residence in this R - 15 Zone , 5 . Many of the developed , conforming parcels in the area of the subject property are of about the same size or not much larger in area than the proposed subdivided building lot would be , judging from the Tompkins County Tax Assessment Maps 53 and 42 . 6 . The curve in the highway at and just south of this parcel , as well as the rise in the level of the road to the south , substantially limits visibility in this area ; but the owners of • the houses on the west side of the highway , opposite the subject land , appear to have successfully contended with the same limited visibility . ' Zoning Board of Appeals - 20 - April 16 , 1986 • 7 . The southerly 100 feet of the property has not been so used in conjunction with the northerly property as to constitute it an integral part of the northerly lot . ( C ) . Decision of and Conditions Imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals for its Authorization Under § 54 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , based on its Findings ( subject to Conditions as follows ) approves and grants an area variance of six feet from the 100 - foot lot width requirement of Section 16 of Article IV of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the southerly portion of the subject property to be a subdivided lot , the Conditions of such Approval and Grant of Variance being : a . That the To of Ithaca Planning Board approve the Subdivision upon such conditions as it deems reasonable and necessary . b . That the driveway into the vacant lot be located as near to the north property line as is feasible , and that off - street parking for all vehicles be provided , with no parking space being located closer than ' 30 feet to be easterly edge of the highway pavement . c . That the Owners , promptly after receiving Subdivision Approval from the Planning Board , if they receive it , prepare and execute a subdivision deed separately describing the resulting vacant building lot by metes and bounds according to the Survey accepted by the Planning Board , with such deed to recite or refer therein to the Conditions imposed by this Board and the Planning Board , if any , for the Subdivision , such deed to be submitted to the Town Attorney for his approval as to conformity with these requirements ; and that such a deed be then recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office by the Town Atorney , at the expense of the Owners - - a copy of the recorded deed , with Liber and Page of recording noted thereon , to be filed .in the Town Clerk ' s Office in the file of this Action . There being '', no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Paul and Virginia Iacovelli Appeal duly closed at 8 : 50 p . m . BREAK It being somewhat noisy because of the departure of all the • public except for those persons appearing with respect to the Cornell University Appeal and the last three Appellants , Chairman Aron declared a five -minute break . Zoning Board of Appeals - 21 - April 16 , 1986 • ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MARCH 19 , 1986 ) OF MUHAMMAD AND KHURSHID RAllAQ , 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 , Chairman Aron repeated his announcement that the Razzaq Appeal had been cancelled . APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY ; APPELLANTS , ERIC F . DICKE , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDOOR EQUITATION ARENA HAVING A HEIGHT GREATER THAN 30 FEET AND REQUIRING SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , ON BLUEGRASS LANE OFF HANSHAW ROAD , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 69 - 1 - 1 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V . SECTION 41 ARTICLE V , SECTION 16 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 58 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Eric Dicke , Architect ., Cornell University , was present , as was Mr . Laing Kennedy , Director of Athletics , Cornell University , and Mr . Geoffrey Wetzler , Architect , Fred H . Thomas Associates . • The following documents were before the Board . 1 . Appeal Form as completed , signed , and submitted by Eric F . Dicke , under date of March 14 , 1986 , received March 27 , 1986 „ reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to Construct an Equitation Arena at Bluegrass Lane . . . The construction of the equitation arena ( which is an indoor arena measuring 90 ' x 2501 ) requires a clear span ( 100 ' ) and ceiling height ( 25 ' ) which can only be achieved with a structure which exceeds the height limitation of 301 . The soil conditions on the site ( bedrock 3 - 5 ' ) economically preclude the option of ' sinking the building ' to achieve the height restriction . Therefore , for the project to proceed a height variance will be required . " 2 . Long Environmental Assessment Form as completed , ,signed , and submitted by Eric F . Dicke , as Project Manager , under date of January 27 , 1986 [ Part 1 , 7 pages ] , indicating that the proposed action is to " Construct an Equitation Center consisting of riding arenas , stables , and paddocks , and , the activities and types of operation resulting as " Equitation program which is relocated from Oxley Arena , Small Classes ( approximately 10 people ) for Phys . Education and occasional indoor Polo matches . " - - together with Part 2 as completed by the Town Planner , Peter Lovi , under date of February 27 , 1986 , 6 pages , with Box A checked which • states : " The project will result in no major impacts and , therefore , is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment : Prepare a negative declaration . " - - together with Zoning Board of Appeals - 22 - April 16 , 1986 • Appendix B , Visual EAF Addendum , 2 pages , prepared by Mr . Lovi . 3 . Set of four large drawings , as follows : a . Site Plan entitled " Cornell Equitation Facility , Master Plan " , Job Number 2102 , dated February 20 , 1986 , sealed by Fred H . Thomas , Registered Architect . b . Drawing entitled " Cornell Equitation Facility , Polo Arena " , Job Number 2102 , Drawn by J . Lusk , dated November 26 , 1985 , sealed by Fred H . Thomas , Registered Architect , showing Polo / Equitation Arena Floor Plan ; North Elevation ; South Elevation ; West Elevation ; Section . c . Drawing entitled " Cornell Equitation Facility , Sections " , Job Number 2102 , Drawn by BM- T , dated March 20 , 1986 , sealed by Fred H . Thomas , Registered Architect , showing North Elevation , East Elevation ; East Site Section . d . Site Plan entitled " Cornell Equitation Facility , Grading Plan " , Job Number 2102 , Drawn by BM-T , undated . 4 . Set of eight ( 8 ) reduced Drawings each entitled Cornell Equitation Facility " , each dated April 16 , 1986 , as follows : a . Drawing No . 1 - - Site Plan , showing Sign Location , Bluegrass • Lane , Hanshaw Road , Access Road , Hay Field , Outdoor Polo Field , 2 Goals , Outdoor Equitation Arena , Spectator Parking , Light Pole ( Type ) , Indoor Polo Arena , Covered Link , Walking Ring , Polo Equitation Barn , Boarder Barn , 2 Covered Links , Indoor Equitation Arena , 4 Paddocks with Feed Shed , Hay Barn , Hay / Equipment Barn , Service Yard , Trailer Parking , Woodlot . b . Drawing No . 2 - - Site Plan , showing the Polo Arena , the Covered Link , and the Polo Barn . b . Drawing No . 3 - - Floor Plan , Polo / Equitation Arena ; North Elevation ; South Elevation ; West Elevation ; Section . d . Drawing No . 4 - - Polo / Equitation Barn ( 59 Horses ) , showing Floor Plan , Future Link to Equitation Arena , and Link to Polo Arena ; Boarders Barn ( 46 Horses ) , showing Floor Plan , Future Link to Equitation Arena , and Link to Polo Arena . e . Drawing No . 5 - - North Elevation , indicating Woodlot beyond . f . Drawing No . 6 - - East Elevation , showing Barn , Link , Polo Arena , Parking Lot ; East Site Section , showing Barn , Polo Arena , Parking Lot , Hay Field , Hanshaw Road . • g . Drawing No . 7 - - Plant List - - Deciduous Trees and Shrubs , Evergreen Trees and Shrubs . Zoning Board of Appeals - 23 - April 16 , 1986 • h . Drawing No . 8 - - Magnuform II , RC Series , down - lighting . 5 . That portion of the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of March 4 , 1986 , pertaining to the proposed Equitation Facility [ Pages 36 through 411 . 6 . Resolution of the Planning Board with respect to SEQR as contained in the above -mentioned Minutes , reading as follows : " MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the review of a master plan for the relocation of the Cornell University Equitation Facility and the approval of a site plan for " Phase I " construction . 2 . This action is a Type I action as defined by SEQRA for which a Long Environmental Assessment Form , Parts 1 and 2 , has been completed . 3 . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals :is the Lead Agency for the environmental review and the Planning Board is an is agency . 4 . A negative declaration of environmental significance has • been recommended by the Town Planner , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board : 1 . That the Planting Plan and Species List proposed for the north , east , and west edges of the parking lot be revised to the satisfaction of the Town Landscape Architect , 2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a declaration of negative environmental significance for the above - referenced action be made . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Langhans , Grigorov , Baker , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . " 7 . Resolution of the Planning Board with respect to its Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals as contained in the above -mentioned Minutes , reading as follows : • " MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . David Klein : WHEREAS : Zoning Board of Appeals - 24 - April 16 , 1986 • 1 . This action is the preparation of a master plan for the relocation of the Cornell University Equitation Facility and the approval of a " Phase I " site plan . 2 . This project is a Type I action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency . 3 . Cornell University has provided the Planning Board with a " Master Plan " dated 12 / 11 / 85 describing the location of all structures and facilities . 4 . Cornell University has provided the Planning Board with a " Site Plan " , dated February 26 , 1986 , describing the components of the Master Plan to be constructed as Phase I . 5 . Cornell University has provided the Planning Board with a " Phase I Planting Plan " , dated 2 / 26 / 86 , describing the species and location of all required landscaping . 6 . The Planning Board finds that there is a need for the proposed use in this location on the grounds thats a . The existing equitation facility is in need of substantial renovation and is too small to accommodate the existing and projected future demand . b . The proposed equitation facility consolidates equine boarding , training , and uses in a location convenient to existing facilities on Bluegrass Lane . c . The land proposed to be used is presently a hayfield and the proposed facility is similar to a farm permitted in R30 districts . d . Agriculturally zoned lands for which the establishment of a " riding academy " is a permitted use are only available on West Hill and are too distant for the convenient use and development of this facility . 7 . The Planning Board finds that the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected on the grounds that : a . Cornell will use the best available practice to insure that potentially offensive odors from horse manure will be contained within the facility and will not be detectable to adjacent residential properties . b . The open field between the proposed facility and Hanshaw Road will continue to be used as a hayfield and that no structure in the new equitation facility will • be closer than 300 feet from Hanshaw Road . 8 . The Planning Board finds that the proposed change is in Zoning Board of Appeals - 25 - April 16 , 1986 • accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town on the grounds that : a . Existing equine facilities are located in the immediate vicinity . b . The site is more convenient for use by Cornell physical education classes and polo teams than the existing facilities on Route 366 . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the Equitation Facility Master Plan and Phase I Site Plan as presented in the above - referenced documents . 2 . That a site plan review and recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be required for all construction not described in the Phase I plan . 3 . That minor site changes , such as rotation of planned buildings , which do not increase the scope , scale or extent of the facility will not require further site plan review . 4 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 4 , of the • Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the Zoning Board of Appeals grant Special Approval for the above - referenced facility as presented , and also grant a variance from the 30 - foot height requirement set forth in Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 16 , of said Ordinance . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Langhans , Grigorov , Baker , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . " Mr . Dicke appeared before the Board and stated that he had a couple of large boards to display to aid in understanding what the project entails . Mr . Dicke stated that he would keep his presentation very brief . Mr . Dicke stated that , before they entertain questions , he would mention that they did present the project to the Planning Board in March . Mr . Dicke stated that there have been some revisions which , he thought , will address some of the issues and answer some of the questions as to what this thing really is . Mr . Dicke suggested that he be permitted to briefly describe it . Mr . Dicke stated that , basically , the proposal is for an equitation center as a replacement • for Oxley Arena which is now located on Route 366 directly across from the Heating Plant , Mr . Dicke stated that , in terms of building program , the proposed center is almost identical , although there is Zoning Board of Appeals - 26 - April 16 , 1986 • one slightly larger stable , with the arena being the same size and the program the same . Mr . Dicke stated that the University is able to no fund more than Phase I of the projected phases shown on this Master Plan at this time , Phase I being the Arena , one Stable , and the Paddocks - - an outdoor fenced area for the horses . Mr . Dicke oriented the Board and the public to the project area utilizing a very large board which delineated the Master Plan for the entire project known as the Cornell Equitation Facility , which he appended to the bulletin board , pointing out Hanshaw Road , Bluegrass Lane , and the area , south , where Equine Research is located , and speaking of a northern extension of the stallion paddock used in conjunction with the Research Park , noting again that the Research Park is south of the woodlot . Indicating on the drawing , Mr . Dicke stated that " this area " is virtually identical to Oxley , other than its architecure and configuration . Mr . Dicke stated that the setback off Hanshaw Road is nearly 400 feet , perhaps 385 feet , depending on the actual final siting . Mr . Dicke noted that the building will be tied into the Town sewer line , commenting that they are struggling with bedrock , and describing outcroppings of rock . Mr . Dicke stated that the final floor elevation has not been firmly set , but it has been established to within a foot or so . Mr . Dicke pointed out on the drawings what Phase I would incorporate , indicating the main Polo Arena , one stable - - the one closest to Bluegrass Lane - - plus the paddocks , both parking areas that are necessary , driveways , and , plantings . • Mr . Dicke stated that , in terms of program , equitation involves ponies and a small number of boarders for students who bring their own horses with them . Mr . Dicke , commenting that this is a low - key educational program , described day classes five days a week with about 10 students - - and polo matches taking place on about 25 Saturday evenings from October to April . Mr . Dicke stated that the facility will be served during the day by the University ' s Langmuir Van which presently runs from Cornell to Langmuir Lab and which will be adjusted to class schedules . Pointing to the drawing , Mr . Dicke stated that the Langmuir Van will back in " there " , adding that it already goes on Hanshaw Road , Mr . Dicke stated that there is a sum in excess of $ 25 , 000 . 00 to be spent for plantings for Phase I , emphasizing that that amount is for plantings - - not for landscaping or grading , being in addition to that - - and adding that that is just for enhancing " this " area . Mr . Dicke referred to the drawing on the bulletin board and stated that what you see here is the entire master plan „ Mr . Dicke stated that there are a couple of reasons for the program coming here from its present location on Route 366 , one of which is that the present site does not have the outdoor capacity or the parking for the program - - although they have built outdoor paddocks - - and the land is poorly drained , adding that , also , this land is ava11 ilable . Mr . • Dicke stated that the second reason is the symbiotic relationship of the proposed facility with Equine Research . Mr . Dicke described the joint venture nature of the proposal , noting that it is funded by the } Zoning Board of Appeals - 27 - April 16 , 1986 • Department of Physical Education and Athletics , the College of Veterinary Medicine , and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences . Again , pointing to the plan , Mr . Dicke stated that , at the moment , they are not anticipating doing anything with " this " portion of the field - - the outdoor polo field - - adding that they do not even have an outdoor polo , program , which is something quite different from an indoor program , and further adding that the animals are very expensive and the programs very different . Mr . Dicke commented on the University ' s planning requirement for all contingencies in the future being shown even though it be nothing more than a field . Mr . Dicke noted again that this is the total extent of the " Master Plan " and commented that there are a lot of details about it . Mr . Dicke stated that he wanted the Board to know that , in addition to the special approval required for the use , there is the need for a height variance because of the inside dimension of the building which , at the edge of the polo field , needs to be 25 feet . Mr . Dicke commented that Oxley is 18 feet there which can lead to an unfair game . Mr . Dicke stated that the eave would be about 25 feet and for a clear " span of about 100 feet the 30 - foot height: limitation cannot be achieved . Mr . Dicke pointed out that , since they last met with the Planning Board , they have been able to lower the building into the ground , so , the actual height is 34 feet . Mr . Dicke stated that the building would be six feet below grade " here " and eight to ten feet below grade " here " - - as one looks across from the road . Appending a conceptual drawing to the bulletin board , Mr . Dicke noted that " this " is what we are considering , adding that the drawing is drawn to scale . Mr . Dicke stated that the conceptual drawing is drawn as if you were looking from Hanshaw Road , adding , however , he would like to point out that it is drawn with the building height being at 40 feet and not 34 feet as is now proposed . Mr . Dicke , reiterating that this conceptual was drawn on the level , the proposal actually being at least six feet lower than that since it is into the ground , stated that this was the north elevation as seen by those on Hanshaw Road , Mr . Dicke noted that they have changed this from the previous design , adding that by moving it back the view has been reduced from Hanshaw Road . Mr . Dicke stated that the last drawing he would speak to , which he appended to the bulletin board , was the floor plan of the arena . Mr . Dicke , noting that it was virtually identical to Oxley , spoke of the polo field itself , rest rooms , offices , a concrete slab and portable bleachers for 200 which , at some time , could be for 400 . Mr . Dicke pointed out the stables , only one of which they are going to build in Phase I , with Phase I combining polo and equitation . Mr . Dicke stated that that would just about conclude his presentation , adding that , at this point , he thought it would be more effective to answer questions . • Chairman Aron thanked Mr . Dicke for his presentation . Chairman Aron suggested that the Board look to the Long Environmental Assessment Form first . Chairman Aron declared the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals - 28 - April 16 , 1986 • Zoning Board of Appeals as Lead Agency in the matter of the environmental review of the proposed facility . Chairman Aron noted that the Planning Board had recommended to the Board of Appeals a declaration of negative environmental significance . Chairman Aron stated that Ms . Susan Beeners , the Town Planner , would speak to the matter of the LEAF . Ms . Beeners stated that the Long Environmental Assessment Form was submitted by Cornell and reviewed , prior to the Planning Board meeting of March 4th , by Mr . Lovi , the former Town Planner . Ms . Beeners stated that Mr . Lovi had recommended a negative declaration of environmental significance based on the information supplied on the form . Ms . Beeners stated that Mr . Lovi also recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the special approval required and a height variance . Ms . Beeners stated that at that meeting the Planning Board did pass a resolution recommending to the Board of Appeals , as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project , that a negative declaration be made , and , that the planting plan and species list which were proposed for the east , north , and west Edges of the parking lot be revised to her satisfaction , as Landscape Architect . Ms . Beeners stated that the second resolution passed by -the Planning Board was basically a report to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the findings that the Planning Board made in regard to its recommendation of Special Approval by this Board and its recommendation of a height variance . • Ms . Beeners read aloud from the Minutes of the March 4 , 1986 , Planning Board meeting , as follows : " 6 . The Planning Board finds that there is a need for the proposed use in this location on the grounds that : a . The existing equitation facility is in need of substantial renovation and is too small to accommodate the existing and projected future demand . b . The proposed equitation facility consolidates equine boarding , training , and uses in a location convenient to existing facilities on Bluegrass Lane . C * The land proposed to be used is presently a hayfield and the proposed facility is similar to a farm permitted in R30 districts . d . Agriculturally zoned lands for which the establishment of a " riding academy " is a permitted use are only available on West Hill and are too distant for the convenient use and development of this facility . 7 . The Planning Board finds that the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected on • the grounds that : a . Cornell will use the best available practice to insure that Zoning Board of Appeals - 29 - April 16 , 1986 • potentially offensive odors from horse manure will be contained within the facility and will not be detectable to adjacent residential properties . b . The open field between the proposed facility and Hanshaw Road will continue to be used as a hayfield and that no structure in the new equitation facility will be closer than 300 feet from Hanshaw Road . 8 . The Planning Board finds that the proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town on the grounds that : a . Existing equine facilities are located in the immediate vicinity . b . The site is more convenient for use by Cornell physical education classes and polo teams than the existing facilities on Route 366 . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the Equitation Facility Master Plan and Phase I Site Plan as presented in the above - referenced documents . • 2 . That a site plan review and recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be required for all construction not described in the Phase I plan . 3 . That minor site changes , such as rotation of planned buildings , which do not increase the scope , scale or extent of the facility will not require further site plan review . 4 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the Zoning Board of Appeals grant Special Approval for the above - referenced facility as presented , and also grant a variance from the 30 - foot height requirement set forth in Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 16 , of said Ordinance . " Ms . Beeners stated that after the Planning Board meeting , and the approvals and recommendations by the Planning Board which she had mentioned , she contacted Mr . Dicke as the architect representing the project . Ms . Beeners stated that she also received some inquiries from local residents who had not attended the Public Hearing that the Planning Board held on the 4th of March . Ms . Beeners , commenting that there were various occasions when she was in contact with Cornell on this project , stated that she discussed the planting plan and suggested revisions to the parking lot plantings and they acknowledged that , yes , they were appropriate , and they should be in their planting • plan . Ms . Beeners stated that suggestions have been made for buffers near the entrance at Hanshaw Road and Bluegrass Lane and a buffer for an adjacent property owner on Hanshaw Road , Ms . Beeners stated that Zoning Board of Appeals - 30 - April 16 , 1986 • she also requested certain information , in anticipation of this Board ' s questions as to peak use of the facility , such as the polo games that Mr . Dicke mentioned . Ms . Beeners asked , as to parking as has been represented and as is shown here on the Master Plan , if that is the ultimate parking . Mr . Dicke , commenting that , as to parking areas , it could work both ways , stated that one of the things is they have expanded the automobile parking from that at Oxley so " this area " holds approximately 50 cars and " this area " , which is quite a bit larger , is laid out tentatively for both , that is horse trailers and cars . Pointing to the drawing , Mr . Dicke showed where that area is which would be suitable for both cars and trailers , commenting that there is quite a bit of expansion parking , in addition to the parking that is provided here , should it be needed some day . Mr . Dicke stated that there is space to add plenty of parking on the site if it needs to be increased , adding that , just the " line spaces " indicate 80 spaces that are provided there on the plan now , without the use of the roadways . Mr . Dicke stated that he would be more than happy to work with Ms . Beeners , but , they do think the parking is more than adequate . Mr . Dicke stated that the average attendance is between 40 and 50 people , commenting that polo is not a high draw , and further adding that during the day the students arrive mostly by cars . Mr . Dicke stated that with some events , such as a horse show , it is hard to tell the numbers , really , because you cannot really tell who is a spectator and who is a participant , but , he would take a guess at 120 , adding that they could handle 120 cars on the paved surfaces . Mr . Dicke , commenting that if more needs to be built it could be , stated • that , by choosing this site , it gives them this kind of flexibility , which certainly is not available at the Route 366 location . Ms . Beeners stated that she thought that , while the Master Plan has been approved by the Planning Board and , since there is that condition in their approval as to further site plan approval for any subsequent phases of this project , she felt comfortable with that kind of arrangement . Ms . Beeners stated that she still expected that Mr . Dicke will be in with more detail as far as plantings go on this property . Ms . Beeners stated that there have been suggestions that plantings be put along Hanshaw Road , however , she felt uncomfortable with recommending that with what has been shown here because shading of the road might lead to icing conditions and the blocking of long distance views along Hanshaw Road . Chairman Aron thanked Ms . Beeners for her presentation and , speaking to the Board , stated that the members have all read the LEAF and the recommendations from the Planning Board . Chairman Aron stated that the public has also heard all of what was said . At 9 : 22 p . m . , Chairman Aron declared that the Public Hearing was opened as to the Environmental Assessment only , at this point . • * Mr . Jaime Hecht , 1446 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and asked Mr . Dicke if , on the plot plan , that is the scale , asking further if he shows Bluegrass Lane as it exists , and further asking if Zoning Board of Appeals - 31 - April 16 , 1986 • it were as wide as Hanshaw Road , with Mr . Dicke responding , no , that is shown as proposed . Mr . Dicke stated that , in terms of an agreement , Bluegrass Lane will be improved to Town standards . Discussion followed between Messrs . Dicke and Hecht as to what that would be , with Mr . Dicke offering that they have met with Mr . Fabbroni , the Town Engineer , in terms of the road . Mr . Hecht noted that the road would meet Town standards but would not be a Town road . Continuing , Mr . Hecht , commenting that it was a very nice drawing , asked what equitation is . Mr . Dicke commented briefly on the art of riding on horseback , speaking of dressage , among other aspects of equitation , and stated that this would be a second classroom , adding that they would like to offer more classes - - the facility is not aimed at spectators . Mr . Laing Kennedy , Director of Athletics , Cornell University , spoke from the floor and stated that the future equitation arena would be about half the size of the polo arena , adding , with instruction for six riders , you do not need a polo arena . Mr . Kennedy stated that , in the long range , there may be three riding classes going at the same time . Mr . Hecht stated , so , all of the traffic going to the classes and the polo games and the horse shows would go through Bluegrass Lane , adding that he would ask about peak usage , and further adding - - what • are we talking about here ? Mr . Kennedy responded that , on an annual basis , an average year , there are riding classes Monday through Friday , with 10 students per class , six periods per day . Mr . Kennedy stated that there are also riding classes for four weeks during July , with 12 per class , daytime only . Mr . Kennedy spoke of Cornell University ' s policy of commitment to the community , and stated that they would like to extend their facilities to the community for 4 - H horse shows , which they do on the first Sunday in March . Mr . Kennedy mused that , with participants and spectators , that number may be 150 . Mr . Kennedy spoke also of the Eastern Regional Polo Tournament in Oxley involving some 40 spectators . Mr . Hecht commented on the program being described as it is in Oxley and asked Mr . Kennedy if he did not think this will increase , with Mr . Kennedy responding , no , not the program that Cornell runs . Mr . Kennedy noted that there are two programs - - men ' s and women ' s . Mr . Kennedy stated that the proposed polo / equitation arena is the same size as Oxley and is about the same as Oxley in terms of what they have at Oxley . Mr . Hecht stated that he saw in the EAF that the annual number is likely to be 100 , 000 + , adding that , of course , that would not be all at the same time . Mr . Hecht stated that their concern is peak usage and they question where all these cars are going to park other than on Hanshaw Road and who is going to prevent them from parking on Hanshaw Road . Mr . Dicke offered that he did not think people would park on Hanshaw Road when they can park fifty feet from the door . Mr . Dicke allowed as how there will be more cars on Hanshaw Road than there are • now , noting that there could be 150 once a year ; 120 once a year , and there are the polo games themselves . Zoning Board of Appeals - 32 - April 16 , 1986 • Ms . Beeners pointed out that the figure of 100 , 000 + , which appears on Page 2 of the Visual EAF Addendum , Appendix B . as prepared by Mr . Lovi , refers only to the number of " viewers " - - not the number of attendees . Ms . Beeners stated that this number refers to the people who might possibly view the project annually , basically from driving by on Hanshaw Road . Mr . Hecht noted that , therefore , the peak usage would be 150 at the horse show , and that would be people who bring horses and show them . Mr . Kennedy stated that that was correct , including spectators and participants . Mr . Dicke commented that it is hard to break out the viewer from the spectator . r Mr . Hecht stated that he has been to Oxley , adding that when he drove by recently he noted that it was not so high . Mr . Hecht stated , so , it is not really the same as Oxley , with Mr . Dicke responding , yes , it is . Mr . Dicke stated that the footprint is the same , the program area is the same , the height is not quite the same but is needed . Mr . Hecht wondered where Mr . Dicke measured that height from . Mr . Dicke explained how the height measurement is calculated , utilizing the drawing , and indicating that " this point " is six feet below " that point " . Mr . Hecht commented that Mr . Dicke was talking about from Hanshaw Road , Town Attorney Barney interjected that from the floor it is 40 feet , with Mr . Dicke responding , yes , and adding " here " on grade [ indicating ] . Town Attorney Barney noted that at the • back it is on grade , with Mr . Dicke responding , yes , about 40 feet . Town Attorney Barney offered that , to answer Mr . Hecht '' s question , taking the average grade , the height is 37 feet . Mr . Hecht stated that the concern that they have is really traffic which Mr . Dicke mentioned . Mr . Hecht noted , as an aside , that the intersection of Salem Drive is not shown and wondered where that comes in . Mr . Dicke indicated where Salem Drive would be . Noting that it was off the map , Mr . Hecht stated that it was sort of important in terms of an exit and in terms of an intersection , adding that " it " is a busy road , and further adding , as Mr . Dicke may know , there is a large development in back . Mr . Hecht commented that he would hope that fire equipment would be able to get down , with Mr . Dicke responding , yes , and agreeing that that was a concern of theirs also . Mr . Dicke stated that the intersection has to be worked out , adding that this was a conceptual plan and they have some work to do on it . Mr . Hecht stated that they are also concerned whether this thing is appropriate for R30 , adding that it is not a - farm - - it is an athletic arena - - a far cry from a farm . Mr . Hecht stated that they were here to tell " you " what they were concerned with when they got the Notice on Saturday . Prof . William F . Millier , 1419 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he lived at the corner of Hanshaw Road and Bluegrass • Lane and his back lot line was about equal to that lot line [ indicating ] . Prof . Millier stated that the increased traffic along the road at his lot line will result in a substantial decrease in the Zoning Board of Appeals - 33 - April 16 , 1986 • value of his property , adding that there will be busses going in and out , and further adding that classes meet once every fifty minutes . Mr . Dicke pointed out that the vehicle used is a van . Prof . Millier countered , yes , but you expect the program to increase in size . Mr . Dicke stated that there are six periods a day with ten students at a time . Prof . Millier expressed his concern with that vehicle going in and out that many times and with other vehicles that would go in and out and with larger vehicles also , such as those bringing supplies , hay , grain , and removing manure . Prof . Millier stated that they all have to go out that way , adding that he understood the other end of Bluegrass Lane is to be closed off , and , so , you will not go out the other end - - you will come out on Hanshaw Road . Prof . Millier stated that this was of great concern to them because of their close proximity . Prof . Millier stated that the other problem is that in the wintertime that road is not plowed and the snow drifts . Prof . Millier stated that he will have to put up an additional hedge which will increase the snow problem . Prof . Millier stated that there will have to be provisions made to remove the snow or it will be dumped onto his plantings . Prof . Millier stated that he did not see how that sports arena is an acceptable facility in a residential area . Prof . Samuel W . Sabin , 1450 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that horses are a big part of his profession . Prof . Sabin stated that he was concerned with pollution . Prof . Sabin described the beautiful view from Hanshaw Road , adding that they purchased their home because of the view . Prof . Sabin stated that there is no way • that this facility will not interfere with their view , regardless of the height . Prof . Sabin spoke of the land itself which may remain a very desirable facility and , therefore , controlled . Prof . Sabin stated that he was not sure anyone else will have anything like that concern , adding that he was a graduate of Cornell . Prof . Sabin stated that he was also very concerned about the turn - out of the horses , noting that they cannot be kept in stalls - - they have to be turned out . Prof . Sabin asked how many of those present have driven by the facility on Route 366 and seen them - - at this time of the year , or in the summer - - out on the grounds that are either mud or dust . Prof . Sabin stated that there is no good terrain with horses , adding that it cannot be done . Prof . Sabin stated that you cannot use gravel , you have to use dirt , adding that he knew because he skied over " it " . Continuing , Prof . Sabin stated that he was concerned with visual pollution - - because of the people involved , not the horses . Prof . Sabin stated that the students are one thing but horse show people are quite another kind of people - - horse people are different , adding that they will be a headache for the people having property , and further adding that he has been working horse shows for twenty years . Prof . Sabin stated that he was also concerned with pollution from the standpoint of noise . Prof . Sabin stated that it is impossible not to have a loudspeaker system , adding that you are not going to get people into the arena without loudspeakers . Prof . Sabin stated that • there is no question but what there will be noise pollution . Prof . Sabin stated that there will be trucks all hours of the day and night , adding that , again , he is well acquainted with the current facilities , Zoning Board of Appeals - 34 - April 16 , 1986 • and further adding that there is a tremendous amount of movement at the end of a polo match . Prof . Sabin stated that it is a fairly quiet area now , other than the traffic on Hanshaw Road with that kind of pollution . Prof . Sabin stated that , also , the information from Cornell is another form of pollution . Prof . Sabin stated that , from the Minutes , you would say one thing is proposed and , today , we find out that it is an entirely different system , for example , the number of activities are far different from what is in the Minutes and the size of the facility is substantially larger than Oxley . Mr . Dicke disagreed , stating that it is not , and adding that it is larger only in terms of its height and , in terms of height , it is certainly not substantially larger . Prof . Sabin stated that of the four kinds of pollution , we have them all here . Prof . Sabin offered that , now , if the same facility were moved one - quarter of a mile over and one -quarter of a mile south , it would not interfere with any residential property at all , that is , nearer the Research Park , Mrs . Sylvia Wahl , 1426 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that they live right directly across the road from the intersection of Bluegrass and Hanshaw , adding that if you would drive out of Bluegrass Lane you would drive into their driveway . Mrs . Wahl • stated that they are concerned about traffic . Mrs . Wahl stated that she was concerned about the visual impact of that kind of a structure which is so huge , adding that it is hard to comprehend it from the nice drawings , but the size of that structure is larger than the lot sizes of our lots on Hanshaw . Mrs . Wahl stated that when it is stretched " this way " [ indicating ] it goes over two and a half lots , adding that that gives you an --idea of the size of the building . Mrs . Wahl noted that these drawings are to scale and stated that she was interested to know that . Mrs . Wahl asked the height of the ridge , with Mr . Dicke responding , 40 feet . Mrs . Wahl stated that , then , if that is true and this is drawn , supposedly , to scale then the car [ indicating ] there is ten feet tall - - if that view is to scale . Mr . Dicke commented that " this one " is a different scale from " that one " . Mrs . Wahl stated that , on the other one , the trees are 75 feet tall , with Mr . Dicke indicating that his views show him 45 to 50 feet . Mrs . Wahl stated that she has been trying to find buildings in the area that might - be similar in size and has found that the Cass Park building is smaller than this building will be . Mrs . Wahl stated that the building over by Pyramid Mall for outdoor tennis is not as tall as this building will be , adding that it is a little bit longer , but it is shorter . Mrs . Wahl stated that it is mind - boggling to try to / comprehend just the size of the polo arena , let alone the rest . Mrs . Wahl stated that they are reacting to substantiate the impact of this facility on their quality of life . Prof . David B . Collum , 550 Warren Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he was soon to be moving to 1456 Hanshaw Road . Prof . Collum stated that he sympathized with Messrs . Dicke and Kennedy because they have to do this sort of thing every time . Prof . Collum Zoning Board of Appeals - 35 - April 16 , 1986 stated that the problem is that they have not only expanded as in the City of Ithaca but they have dropped a facility in the center of the Town . Prof . Collum stated that the Northeast is the center of Town and Northeast School is the best school district in the Town . Prof . Collum stated that they have dropped a bomb in the middle of their neighborhood . Prof . Collum , commenting that Prof . Sabin ' s issue was a good one , asked if it were possible to slide this building back into Cornell land where the Cornell Research Park is . Mr . Dicke stated that this is Cornell land . Prof . Collum stated that this was a sensitive purging out , adding that they are not on Campus now . Mr . Dicke stated that for the master plan there are two factors - - budget and topography . Mr . Dicke stated that , as you go toward Freese Road , the land gets steeper and steeper and more undulating . Mr . Dicke stated that trying to find an area of an appropriate size that is fairly level is a factor . Mr . Dicke explained the complex process of a joint venture , such as this is with the Vet School , the Ag School , and Athletics , and stated that this was the one seen as the most responsive , to all the needs . Mr . Dicke stated that obviously there are some negative aspects - - negative in terms of it being a change - - however , this is only 4 feet higher - - and 400 feet back from the road , which reduces the appearance of a big scale building . Mr . Dicke noted one of the reasons this site was chosen was because of the cost relationship between Vet and Ag and Phase I , and , the sites available to us . Prof . Collum offered that he could see twisting it 90 degrees so it could possibly be slid back toward the woods . Prof . Collum stated that the University is jeopardizing the resale value of their houses to save it money . Mr . Dicke stated that he did not see that this would depress their homes ' values , adding that there is a $ 25 , 000 . 00 budget for plantings alone . Mr . Dicke pointed out that they are in the early design stage . Prof . Collum interjected that the residents have to cut them off now or they will do whatever they want . Mr . Geoffrey Wetzler , Architect with Fred H . Thomas Associates , spoke from the floor and described the various deciduous trees and shrubs and the , various evergreen trees and shrubs envisioned as plantings . Chairman Aron stated , for the information of the public , that he could read from the planting plan . Chairman Aron read aloud as follows from the 8 -page set , commenting that he would not read the Latin names : " Deciduous Trees and Shrubs Red Maple 15 - 17 ' Downy Shadblow 8 - 10 ' River Birch 14 - 16 ' Cornelian Cherry 6 - 8 ' Gray Dogwood 3 - 4 ' Common Witchhazel 5 - 6 ' • Japanese Poplar 8 - 10 ' Northern Red Oak 15 - 17 ' Arrowwood 3 - 4 ' European Cranberry 3 - 4 ' Zoning Board of Appeals - 36 - April 16 , 1986 • Evergreen Trees and Shrubs Compact Pfitzer Juniper 2 - 2z ' Norway Spruce 8 - 10 ' Austrian Pine 10 - 12 ' White Pine 8 - 10 ' " Prof . Collum stated that he would like to ask what may be a wild question , being , can the University think of anything they can gain from this ? Mr . Kennedy responded that they can take classes , adding that in all of the University ' s operations that he is in charge of as Director of Athletics , such as golf , bowling , swimming , tennis , and so on , the Cornell staff , students , etc . , may utilize the University ' s facilities . Mr . Kennedy stated that Prof . Collum could take advantage of this because he works at Cornell . Prof . Collum wondered about these guys [ indicating the other persons present ] . Mr . Kennedy stated that his obligation is to Cornell University , adding that he is not in the commercial equitation business , he is in the education business . Mrs . Susan L . Schell , 1434 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that they bought their home three years ago and they checked into the zoning . Mrs . Schell stated that she did not think this qualifies as a farm . Mrs . Schell stated that it is a fact that their property is appreciating at roughly 10 % a year , adding that she spoke to two realtors in the area about this . Mrs . Schell stated that they • both feel that they would lose all of the appreciation that they got if Cornell gets this . Mrs . Schell stated that she was also considering selling and one of the realtors felt that with construction going on no one would touch it . Mrs . Schell stated that she did not think it fair to have to suffer that . Mr . Dicke expressed the thought that values might increase . Town Attorney Barney asked Mrs . Schell if she asked the realtor , if the construction were to be 40 houses , if the same would be true during construction , with Mrs . Schell responding , no , adding that that was not compared . Continuing , Mrs . Schell expressed her concern with traffic every night and , also , as a training facility it could not accommodate the traffic which will back up . Mrs . Schell described litter problems and , also , the problem of animals which might be drawn into the area with the litter problems . Mrs . Schell expressed her concern with all these things , there being 25 games over seven months of a year . Mr . King inquired of Town Attorney Barney if that number of 40 is what would be permitted in this area were it developed as housing . Town Attorney Barney mused that that number was probably a lot less than what could actually be there , commenting that he was looking at the reduced scale drawing . Mr . Dicke attempted an on - the - spot calculation of the acreage available , indicating some 35 acres or more . Town Attorney Barney offered that that could translate into 100 or more houses - - even more at R15 . • Mr . Kennedy offered some background on the present location - - Oxley and the paddocks . Mr . Kennedy indicated that it was a condemned Zoning Board of Appeals - 37 - April 16 , 1986 • facility and they have to close down or relocate , which places a beautiful decision squarely before him . Mr . Kennedy noted that they have a timeframe to make that decision and they make short - term capital improvements just to allow them to operate . Mr . Kennedy pointed out that polo is a Cornell tradition and has to be recognized as such . Mr . Kennedy noted that the Women ' s Polo Team is the defending National Champion - - right now . Mr . Kennedy spoke of the sports tradition at Cornell , including polo , with the Alumni whose roots and traditions are with the University . Mr . Kennedy stated that , in the process of relocation , he was very sensitive to what we hear tonight , adding that his goal and the goal of the University is to be good neighbors . Mr . Kennedy spoke of the benefactors of the University to whom one does not say that we should be out of the horse business . Mr . Kennedy stated that he is in the education business at Cornell University and is involved with the teaching of students through athletics as in any other college program - - through equitation where students learn to ride a horse . Mr . Kennedy offered that , as to horse shows , he , personally , would like to have a reason not to do them , but , when you have a facility , and a community facility - - and when 4H wants to do a horse show , he liked it - - he liked to be that source for them to come and put on a show . Mr . Kennedy stated that Cornell runs shows at the present facility which are as good as anywhere . Mr . Kennedy stated that they are not running a garbage house operation , however , they want to make it better . Mr . Kennedy stated that this facility will be well done , he could assure • everyone , and described the landscaping alone . Mr . Kennedy stated that , he supposed , depending on one ' s background , there being different strokes for different folks , it could be considered a wonderful thing . Mr . Kennedy stated that where he grew up , it would be considered a fine place to be - - by a polo field . Mr . Kennedy stated that he would love to have this by his home , adding that he would love to look at horses . Mr . Kennedy noted that polo and equitation both co - exist and are doing well . Mr . Kennedy , indicating the drawings , offered that this is the kind of facility. the University is proposing , first class , with Life Sciences , Vet , and Ag - - a whole program in one location . Mr . Hecht , noting that it had been mentioned about students who bring their own horses - - and boarders - - asked in what building they would be kept . Mr . Dicke pointed to the stable on the drawing , indicating that it was almost identical to a future barn . Mr . Dicke stated that Cornell is not in the boarding business . Mr . Kennedy agreed , adding that they cannot and they will not . Mr . Dicke commented that boarders are somewhat of a pain in the neck - - like the individual skater on the rink who is not terribly tolerant of anyone else being on the rink too . Mr . Dicke also described how - you cannot have dressage at the same time as jumps , and spoke of certain distances being required . Mr . Hecht noted that if you were to consider this as Ag , you could not have anything within 1 , 000 feet of Hanshaw Road , adding that • the Ordinance says you cannot have anything within 1 , 000 feet of a residence district . Mr . Hecht stated to Mr . Kennedy that he understood his problem , adding , however , he wanted the best of two Zoning Board of Appeals - 38 - April 16 , 1986 • worlds , but he was not willing to abide by the Ag rules . Mr . Hecht stated that Mr . Kennedy says he wants a higher building than permitted in R30 , and , he wants a farm . Mr . Hecht , speaking to the Board , noted that by their own rules " A ' farm ' is any parcel of land containing at least 3 acres which is used in the raising of agricultural products , such as crops , livestock , poultry , and dairy goods . It includes structures necessary to the production and storage of agricultrual products and equipment . " [ Mr . Hecht was reading from Article I , Section 1 , Definitions , No . 23 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . ] Mr . Hecht stated that what they are trying to struggle with is that they all bought their homes and looked forward to pleasant surroundings , adding that he thought the University is trying to make it pleasant . Mr . Hecht stated , however , they have to live there and they wanted to express their opinions on the plans to the Board and , then , it is going to modify them , and - - they will do it . Mr . Hecht asked the Board what was it doing to the zoning rules ? Mr . Hecht reiterated that there has to be 1 , 000 feet in Ag , and asked how it can be done in a residential zone . Mr . Hecht stated that this bothered him . Mr . Hecht offered that , if it is considered in terms of residential - - accessory uses are allowed , as follows : " The keeping of domestic animals or fowl in accessory buildings , provided that no such building shall be nearer than 30 feet to any lot line of any adjoining owner , and further provided that there shall be no raising of fur - bearing animals , keeping of horses for hire , or kennels for more than 3 dogs over 6 months old . " Mr . Hecht cautioned that the • Board must abide by its own rules . [ Mr . Hecht read from Article V , Residence Districts R30 , Section 19 , paragraph 6 . 1 Mrs . Vida Caslick , 108 Christopher Circle , spoke from the floor and stated that she was very familiar with Hanshaw Road . Mrs . Caslick stated that Cornell can put up beautiful buildings , however , her concern is with Hanshaw Road . Mrs . Caslick stated that the people have pride in Cornell , but she was concerned about being awake every Saturday night . Mr . Dicke stated that there are some 25 events - - not every Saturday night . Mr . Kennedy stated that there are 25 polo games from mid - October to mid -April . A young lady from the floor asked , at what time these were held . Mr . Dicke responded , at the moment , between 6 : 30 and 7 : 00 , adding if that were a problem they could take care of that . Doubleheaders were discussed . Mr . Kennedy indicated that polo matches are held somewhere in the afternoon . Prof . Millier stated that one of his students is involved in polo and he said they are at 8 : 00 p . m . Mr . Kennedy stated that the times vary and some may be at 8 : 00 and some may be at 3 : 00 , adding that there are about 25 home events . Mr . Hecht wondered when a doubleheader might begin and end and what the impact of those might be , such as cutting back on the number of days . Mr . Dicke stated that a doubleheader would certainly start earlier - - not a 8 : 00 p . m . Mr . Dicke noted that Cornell has intercollegiate polo and the best playing time is 4 : 00 to 7 : 00 . Mr . Kennedy stated that it takes less time to play polo than to play a soccer game - - about 2 hours . Zoning Board of Appeals - 39 - April 16 , 1986 • Mrs . Carolyn Koch , 1422 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that there would be no objection if this were on Freese Road , noting that there is no property on the other side and two outlets which would decrease the traffic and , also , that area is quite level . Mrs . Koch stated that she did not know if that is one of the areas the University has considered . Mr . Dicke stated that , yes , it was , adding that it is not as flat as you might think . Prof . Collum wondered just when all this activity would end , asking when do the trucks leave . Mr . Dicke stated that trucks are not used for horse . Mr . Kennedy stated that if the match started at 7 : 00 it would end around 9 : 00 . Prof . Collum wondered if that were a single game or a doubleheader . Mr . Kennedy stated that when an evening of polo starts at 7 : 00 it would encompass about two , two and a half , hours . Mr . Dicke commented that things would be pretty much over by 9 : 30 , 10 : 00 o ' clock , adding that there is nobody living there . Mrs . Suzanne Hecht , 1446 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and asked what time they turn the bright lights off around the parking lot . Mr . Dicke described the proposed lighting as low- cut for down - lights , adding that horizontally you do not see the bulb , and further adding that they are not like a frame so that you do not see the bulb at all . Chairman Aron noted that the lights are aimed toward the ground . Mr . Dicke stated that they are turned off at the end of a match , adding that the lights are not on all night . Mr . • Dicke noted that they have specifically submitted the fixtures that would be used [ page 8 of the 8 -page set ] . Mr . Hecht wondered how high they would be , noting that they are looking from the road level . Mr . Wetzler stated that they are 15 feet above grade , but , they have dropped some . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing closed at 10 : 15 p . m . Mr . King stated that he would like to ask one question of Mr . Dicke , that question being what would be involved in his relocating this building one - quarter mile east and one - quarter mile south , further asking what the difficulty would be if he did that . Mr . Dicke stated that , from their standpoint , there would be a number of difficulties , one of which would be the impact on the budget . Mr . Dicke stated that they have not designed the facility for that site , adding that all the work to date has been outside that , such as , surveys , utilities , etc . Mr . Dicke stated that there would be difficulties also from the Trustee viewpoint . Mr . Dicke noted that for a project which has been worked out among three participants the Vet School , the Ag School , and Athletics , to discuss a secondary site would require that all to be repeated and then back to the Trustees for approval and , then , hire the architect to go all over the process again . Mr . Dicke , noting that another thing is schedule , stated that one of the things Laing Kennedy is struggling with , as Director of Athletics , is that we have . demolished Bacon Cage which • houses some facilities , which means the doubling up of several sports in Oxley . Mr . Dicke described the Lacrosse Team , the Track Team , and even the Baseball Team practicing , sometimes very late , in Oxley . Zoning Board of Appeals - 40 - April 16 , 1986 • Mr . Dicke stated that the intent was to get this by lacrosse practice time next spring - - 1987 . Mr . Dicke stated that if they start all over , there would be no changes which could be made for February 1987 , because they would lose that cycle . Mr . King asked if there was no alternative site presented to the Trustees . Mr . Dicke stated that there was not , adding that things do not work that way . Mr . Dicke described the amount of effort and time involved in presenting a plan to the Trustees which was painstakingly worked out with the three parties to the point of unanimity and which was then offered to the Trustees . Mr . Dicke stated that they do not take different schemes to the Trustees and ask them to decide on one - - they only meet five times a year . Mr . Dicke pondered the question , and offered that it could be done , however , he thought it would have a drastic impact on the project , even just in terms of fees , which are in the neighborhood of $ 50 , 000 to date . Town Attorney Barney wondered what the topography might be if it were to be moved , adding that it appears fairly flat , which Mr . Dicke has indicated is not the case . Mr . Dicke stated that it is not flat , adding that it is steeper , even though " this " appears to be flat . Mr . Dicke commented that it is a big building and it has to be flat . Mr . Dicke described the footing required for horses to function on a polo field , or in equitation . Mr . Dicke stated that it is very expensive even to build with this site which is relatively level . Town Attorney • Barney commented that what Mr . Dicke was saying , it would seem , is that if the building were moved , expenses would be increased considerably . Mr . Dicke agreed , and spoke , in addition , of the costs involved with utilities , for example , an 8 " water line to serve Equine Research , and some $ 60 , 000 to tie into the Town facilities . Mr . Dicke pointed out that they are talking about one and a half million dollars just for this Phase . Ms . Beeners stated that she would like to ask a hypothetical question , being , if this facility were not located here but someplace else , what would be your predictions of use for this particular site ? Mr . Dicke stated that he did not know if there were any particular predictions , adding that " this land " [ indicating on the drawing ] is owned by the State of New York , and further adding that the Ag School has the use of " that land " . Mr . Dicke stated that , basically , it is State of New York land , adding that he has not seen any specific plans for the use of anything else . Mr . Dicke commented that he was not specifically in the planning office . Mr . King wondered what the land has been used for up to now , with Mr . Dicke responding , basically it is a farm field with corn and hay . Mr . Austen wondered what it would do to the project if the polo field were switched location . Mr . Dicke stated that it would be more expensive for them for sure and noted that " this " [ indicating ] is the steepest part of the site , adding that you do not have the same utilities . Mr . Dicke allowed as how , perhaps feasibly , it could be done but he did not know that it solves any concerns . Mr . Dicke surmised that probably another access way in would be necessary and Zoning Board of Appeals - 41 - April 16 , 1986 • mused that they would have to work out how the utilities would work , commenting that they just put in utilities . Mr . Dicke noted that the existing Equine Research facilities would have to be worked in too . Mr . Dicke offered that , perhaps , it could be done , but it would be a very expensive proposition . MOTION by Mr . Jack Hewett , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals accept and hereby does accept the recommendations of the Planning Board with respect to environmental review and a negative declaration of environmental significance . By way of discussion , Mr . King stated that he had not yet absorbed all of this material , adding that he was not ready to answer the question as to the environment . Mr . King stated that he had to have more time to consider . Mr . Hewett WITHDREW his Motion . Mr . Austen stated that he felt the same way . Mrs . Reuning WITHDREW her Second . 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 proposed Cornell University Equitation Facility be and hereby is adjourned until May 14 , 1986 , at 7 : 00 p . m . , to give the Board time to look into this matter further . By way of discussion , Chairman Aron stated that he would recommend that every Board member go out there and look the site over . Mr . King suggested that the Board members go on an- individual basis . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Town Attorney Barney reminded Chairman Aron that he had closed the Public Hearing and wondered if he intended to accept more comments from the public . Chairman Aron declared that the Public Hearing in the matter of the proposed Cornell Equitation Facility had been closed , therefore , there would be no further public comment . At 10 : 30 p . m . , Chairman Aron declared the matter of the proposed Equitation Facility duly adjourned to Wednesday , May 14 , 1. 986 , at 7 : 00 p . m . Zoning Board of Appeals - 42 - April 16 , 1986 APPEAL OF HIGHGATE ASSOCIATES , APPELLANTS , NEAL HOWARD , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR AN EXISTING LEGAL NON - CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , LOCATED ON AN EXISTING LEGAL NON -CONFORMING LOT APPROXIMATELY 80 FEET IN WIDTH AND APPROXIMATELY 214 FEET IN DEPTH AND HAVING A SOUTHEAST SIDE YARD DEFICIENCY OF 2 . 7 FEET AND A SOUTHWEST SIDE YARD DEFICIENCY OF 4 . 5 FEET , AT 320 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 42 - 1 - 3 . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTIONS 14 AND 16 , ARTICLE XII , SECTION 52 , ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 57 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 76 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 10 : 31 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Howard was present . Chairman Aron , noting that there was no public present , other than the two appellants for the following appeals , stated that he would forego reading from the Appeal Form , a copy of which each Board member had before him / her . [ For the record , the Appeal Form , as completed , signed , and submitted by Neal Howard , Manager , under date of March 27 , 1986 , reads as follows : " . . . Having been denied a Certificate of Compliance at 320 • Coddington Road . . . Presently side yard is 1213 " to 1015 " [ sic . - - Survey indicates 12 . 3 ' and 10 . 51 ] . It is impossible to make it 15 ' because of the house is so close to side lot line . So we ask for a variance . " ] [ Also for the record , attached to the Appeal Form is a Surveyor Certified Map of the " Mary L . Carey " property located on Coddington Road , ( Deeds Book 572 , Page 1090 ) showing a two story frame dwelling located thereon , such Map dated October 19 , 1979 , prepared by T . G . Miller P . C . , and signed and sealed by Richard A . Slade , Licensed Land Surveyor . ] Mr . Howard appeared before the Board . and stated that they are about 22 and 42 feet short on a side yard deficiency . Chairman Aron asked how old the house is , with Mr . Howard responding - - old . Mr . Cartee stated that the house was constructed prior to the enactment of zoning in the Town in 1954 . Mr . Cartee stated that Mr „ Howard has requested a Certificate of Compliance but the property does not meet the zoning ordinance requirements for side yard . Mr . Austen wondered about the " New Parking Area " shown on the Map over on the adjoining property , asking who it belonged to . Mr . Howard stated that there is no new parking area there . Mr . King noted that the Surveyor indicates one . Mr . Cartee stated that it is not there , adding that that area is not this parcel ' s land in any case . Chairman Aron noted the Survey date of 1979 . Chairman Aron asked if the two gentlemen remaining wished to speak to this matter . They dial not . Chairman Aron closed the Public Zoning Board of Appeals - 43 - April 16 , 1986 • Hearing at 10 : 36 p . m . Mrs . Reuning asked who owned the property next door , wondering if there were a house there . Mr . Howard indicated that he did not know who owned it and stated that what is there is open land and a creeks there is no house . [ For the record , the property next door , south , is a very large parcel of almost 80 acres owned by Mrs . Gennaro Raponi . ] Mr . King noted that the property in question is a prior , non - conforming use in any case , with the applicant requesting variances for the southerly side yard of 2 . 7 and 4 . 5 feet . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the area variances requested , as shown on the October 19 , 1979 Survey Map submitted , to permit the two - story frame dwelling structure to stand as it exists , on the property known as 320 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 42 - 1 - 3 , and , that a Certificate of Compliance be issued . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Highgate Associates Appeal , Neal Howard , Agent , duly closed at 10 : 37 p . m . APPEAL OF RICHARD E . AND LOUISE Be FURNAS , APPELLANTS , ATTORNEY JAMES A . SALK , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT UNDER AN EXISTING LEGAL NON - CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R151 LOCATED ON AN EXISTING LEGAL NON -CONFORMING LOT 100 FEET IN WIDTH AND 120 FEET IN DEPTH AND HAVING A REAR YARD DEFICIENCY OF 2 ' 9 " AND A NORTH SIDE YARD DEFICIENCY OF 9161' , AT 111 CLOVER LANE ( GENEVA S . BOOKER - ESTATE ) , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 59 - 2 - 13 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTIONS 14 AND 16 , ARTICLE XII , SECTIONS 52 AND 54 , ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 57 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 10 : 38 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Furnas was present ; Attorney Salk was not . Chairman Aron noted that only Messrs . Furnas and Ashton were present and stated that he would forego the reading of the Appeal which each Board member had before him / her . • [ For the record , the Appeal Form as completed , signed , and submitted by Richard E . Furnas , under date of April 4 , 1986 , reads as Zoning Board of Appeals - 44 - April 16 , 1986 • follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to build a basement beneath the present structure and obtain a Certificate of Compliance for the premises which we are purchasing at 111 Clover Lane . . . We are . the contract vendees of the above described premises . The house , as it existed prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance and as it remains today , is closer to the side line and rear line than is now required by the Zoning Ordinance . The basement we propose to build shall extend no more than eighteen inches beyond the present structure . The existing , non- conforming nature of the existing lot , therefore , will not be significantly expanded or changed . The use of the premises will remain as a single - family residence . TAfter consulting with a contractor , architect , and housing inspector we have determined that given the present . site difficulties and the cost involved in moving the building , the proposal to build a basement below the present site is the only practical manner in which we may proceed . Because of the practical difficulties in doing so , we cannot move the building within the designated building area . If we are not permitted to build beneath the present structure we will suffer unnecessary hardship . We are in no way changing the nature or degree of the present . use of the premises or in any way affecting the neighboring properties except in the positive vein of upgrading our property . % In addition to the purchase offer , showing our interest in the property , we have attached a copy of the specifications , outlining the work to be done . JIn light of the above , we are requesting that the Board grant us a variance from the side and rear yard requirement • to ' allow us to build a basement beneath the existing structure . " ] [ For the record , attached to the Appeal are the following documents . 1 . Copy of old subdivision map , no date shown , showing a " proposed road " off Mitchell Street , and also showing the two " old " 50 - foot lots outlined in blue which comprise the Booker property at the present time , and upon which had been drawn the location of the existing house and driveway . 2 . Copy of Specifications for the " Construction of full basement under house " , dated March 19 , 1986 . 31 Copy of " Offer to Purchase " 111 Clover Lane , signed by Richard E . and Louise Beth Furnas , dated March 15 , 1986 . ] Chairman Aron asked Mr . Furnas if he had anything to add to his Appeal as submitted . Mr . Furnas stated that he did not , adding that the Appeal summarizes the matter . Mr . Furnas stated that they would like to put a basement underneath the house , adding that , having had the house inspected , they discovered problems with the floor joists . Chairman Aron asked if the house were on a slab , to which Mr . Furnas responded , no , adding that there is a crawl space - - really a " belly " space . Mr . King inquired if it were to be a full - sized basement , with Mr . Furnas responding , yes . Mr . King inquired what it was that was • next to the property , wondering if it was the Cornell High Voltage Lab , Mr . Furnas showed Mr . King on the map where the High Voltage Lab is in relation to the property he is proposing to purchase . Mr . Zoning Board of Appeals - 45 - April 16 , 1986 Austen asked Mr . Furnas if both of the 50 - foot lots are proposed for purchase , in other words , 100 feet of frontage . Mr . Furnas stated that they are very old lots which are now one 100 - foot lot . Mr . Austen asked when the house was built , with Mr . Furnas responding , in the , ' 40s as best they know . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Furnas if he had bought the house or was in the process of doing so , with Mr . Furnas responding , that he was in the process . Chairman Aron wondered , if the appeal were not granted , would Mr . Furnas not buy it . Mr . Furnas stated that , actually , the purchase offer has been accepted . Town Attorney Barney wondered what Mr . Furnas was going to put in the basement . Mr . Furnas stated that it would be used partly for storage , adding that he did computer work , so he was planning on putting the computer there . It was noted that there would be no slabbing . Mr . Austen noted that the basement is to be in the same location as the house , with Mr . Furnas stating that that was correct , and adding that they jack up the house and put in the basement . Mr . Cartee pointed out that , with the proposal , there would be a slightly farther encroachment by putting in the footers for the basement , however , there does not seem to be a way to put it in any other way . Mr . Cartee noted that there is also a small structure located to the rear of the property . Mr . Furnas stated that that is a • shed . , Mr . Cartee commented that there is a driveway , adding that he and Mr . Furnas have discussed different ways of doing this since he wants a basement . Mrs . Reuning offered that it seemed to her that adding a basement is upgrading the building . Mr . King commented that the basement was definitely not for residential purposes , such as an apartment . Mr . Furnas - agreed , Mr . Austen noted that the side yard will be short 916 " and the rear yard short 219 " . MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the property known as 111 Clover Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 59 - 2 - 13 , that said Board grant and hereby does grant area variances for a rear yard deficiency of 219 " and a north side yard deficiency of 916 " , as indicated in the Appeal documents submitted by the Applicant , Richard E . Furnas , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals authorize and hereby does authorize an extension of the non - conformity of such property by the adding of a basement , not to be used for residential purposes . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning . Zoning Board of Appeals - 46 - April 16 , 1986 Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Furnas Appeal duly closed at 10 : 45 p . m . APPEAL OF MARK R . AND JUDITH D . ASHTON , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING LEGAL NON -CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , LOCATED ON AN EXISTING LEGAL NON - CONFORMING IRREGULARLY - SHAPED LOT APPROXIMATELY 77 FEET WIDE AT THE FRONT , APPROXIMATELY 97 FEET WIDE AT THE REAR , AND APPROXIMATELY 71 FEET DEEP HAVING A REAR YARD DEFICIENCY OF 23 . 6 ± FEET ON THE WEST AND 23 . 8 ± FEET ON THE EAST AND HAVING A WESTERLY SIDE YARD DEFICIENCY OF 7 . 6 ± FEET ON THE SOUTH AND . 2 ± FEET ON THE NORTH , AND WITH A GARAGE HAVING A REAR YARD DEFICIENCY OF 27 . 5 ± FEET ON THE WEST AND 27 . 8 ± FEET ON THE EAST , AND WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION INCREASING THE LOT COVERAGE FROM 20 . 4 PER CENT TO 26 . 8 PER CENT , AT 105 McINTYRE PLACE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 66 - 6 - 2 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTIONS 14 , 15 , AND 16 , ARTICLE XII , SECTIONS 52 AND 54 , ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 57 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted • matter duly opened at 10 : 46 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above , commenting that there were a lot of deficiencies . Mr . Ashton was the only person present . Chairman Aron stated that he would not read the Appeal , adding that all the Board has read it . [ For the record , the Appeal Form as completed , signed , and submitted by Mark R . Ashton , under date of April 7 , 1986 , reads as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to expand the dwelling as specified below at 105 McIntyre Place . . . Authorization for non -conforming construction is requested because an addition is the only practical way to gain needed living and sleeping space in the house , now too small to accommodate the family ( 6 ) comfortably . Additional space will allow us to . remain in the house and neighborhood , as we prefer , at a lower cost to us than moving to adequate space in as desirable a location . % Specifically , we would like to replace existing one - story detached garage with an attached two - story garage on the same site , connect to house by a room that occupies currently vacant space between garage and house . Uses of finished rooms ( one over garage ) will be as bedroom and family room . q[ Re0 . Art . IV , sec . 14 : Structures currently violate rear and side yard restrictions with exception of side yard to east . New construction will extend current rear garage line westward to line of east wall of house , at no point approaching closer to rear boundary • than closest point of existing garage . 9[Re0 Art . IV , sec . 15 : Current house with front and side porches and garage occupy 20 . 4 % of lot . House and porches plus new construction would occupy 26 . 8 % of r • Zoning Board of Appeals - 47 - April 16 , 1986 lot . 91 ( Survey Map with changes noted is attached . ) Attachment : - Survey Map of property of Mark R . and Judith D . Ashton , Deeds Book 501 , Page 471 , No . 105 McIntyre Place , Town of Ithaca , Tax Map Parcel No . 66 - 6 - 2 , dated September 28 , 1983 , signed and sealed by Richard A . Slade and Thomas G . Miller , T . G . Miller Associates P . C . , and showing the proposed addition to the existing house and garage in red . ] Chairman Aron asked Mr . Ashton to join the Board at the table , since he was all alone out there in the audience . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Ashton if he had anything to add , with Mr . Ashton responding , no , but he could answer any questions . Mr . Austen quipped that it looked like Mr . Ashton does not like to mow lawns , with Mr . Ashton agreeing that it surely looked that way . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Cartee if he had anything to add to the matter . Mr . Cartee stated , not really , adding that this property is Just one of those unusal ones in Forest Home , Mr . King stated that he had difficulty locating the addition on the photocopy of the survey he had received . Mr . Cartee assisted Mr . King , using the Survey Map , Mr . King wondered how come the neighbors are not all here complaining , with Mr . Ashton responding , that they do not want them to leave . Mr . Ashton went over the plans with Chairman Aron and described what it would look like when it is done , especially the family room . Mr . Ashton noted that there are six of them in the house at present and it is just too small . Mr . King wondered how many bedrooms there will be , with Mr . Ashton responding , four . Town Attorney Barney wondered how the house was presently occupied , with Mr . Ashton responding , by him , his wife , and four children . Mr . Ashton stated that the house has no apartment and will not have one . Mr . Ashton commented that The Cornell Plantations is near . The Secretary read the names of those neighbors who had received Service by Mail of the Notice of Public Hearings eight , including Cornell University , a neighbor . Mr . Ashton commented that Mrs . Bronfenbrenner , 108 McIntyre Place , had told him she was going to call and inform the Secretary that she had no objections , but apparently she did not . Mr . King noted that this proposal does cut down the existing yard clearance . Mr . Ashton agreed . Mr . King noted that there is no problem with the easterly side yard . Mr . Cartee noted that the lot coverage is exceeded . Mr . Austen wondered about the other deficiencies in the property , asking if the Board were going to deal with those too . Mr . Austen noted that there are deficiencies with respect to side yard , rear yard , and lot coverage . Town Attorney Barney wondered if there may not be a front yard deficiency too . Discussion of the front yard followed . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the necessary variances , that is , front yard , west side yard , rear yard , to permit the property at 105 McIntyre Zoning Board of Appeals - 48 - April 16 , 1986 Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 6 - 2 , to conform to its footprint and to permit the proposed addition as shown on map entitled , " Survey Map , No . 105 McIntyre Place " , dated September 28 , 1983 , signed and sealed by Richard A . Slade and Thomas G . Miller , T . G . Miller Associates P . C . , said grant of necessary variances including a variance of the lot coverage requirement to permit this construction to exceed the maximum lot coverage by 6 . 4 % . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Ashton Appeal duly closed at 11 : 00 p . m . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the April 16 , 1986 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly closed at 11 : 03 p . m . • Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Henry Aro , Chairman