HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1986-11-12 TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 12 , 1986
A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on November 12 , 1986 in the Ithaca Town Hall ,
126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York ,
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Joan Reuning ,
Edward King , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , and Town Attorney
John C . Barney .
ALSO PRESENT : Ruth M . Pond , Rosemary Gerber , William S .
Seldin , Frances Connelly , Mary Wessel , Robert R . Sprole , II , Ed
Cobb , Gerry Friedman , Mark Stevens , Mary Yaple , Judy Mark ,
Douglas Fain , Patricia Fain , Elliott Lauderdale , and Peter
Hillman .
The public meeting was opened at 7 : 05 p . m .
Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication of the
public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of
same were , in order .
The first item on the agenda for consideration. was as
follows :
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from September 10 and October 15 , 1986 ) of
Mark Stevens , Appellant , from the decision of the Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate
of Compliance for a single family dwelling located at 118
Compton Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 ,
Residence District R30 , said dwelling having been
constructed with an east side yard of less than 40 feet .
Certificate is denied under Article V , Section 21 , and
Article XIV , Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance .
Chairman Aron then read a letter addressed to Mr . Stevens , a
copy of which had been sent to him , from Mrs . Josephine Allen ,
dated November 10 , 1986 indicating that she was unable to attend
the meeting on November 12 , 1986 but that she was willing to sell
part of her land to Mr . Stevens . Said letter is attached hereto
as Exhibit 1 . Chairman Aron inquired of Mr . Stevens whether he
had contacted Mrs . Allen as he was directed to do at -the last
meeting . Mr . Stevens responded that he had talked to her but
with what she was willing to sell - some 26 feet of her land -
it still would not put his east boundary in compliance , and if
that amount of footage was alright with the Board then he and
• Mrs . Allen would work something out . Chairman Aron responded
that it was not a matter of the Board being happy about it but it
• 2
was a matter of Mr . Stevens ' s intent . Chairman Aron asked if Mr .
Stevens was willing to accept Mrs . Allen ' s offer to sell and Mr .
Stevens responded that he was . Chairman Aron stated that the
decision of the Board could only be made when Mr . Stevens and
Mrs . Allen had discussed the matter and Mr . Stevens made a
purchase offer and brought it before the Board signifying
goodwill on the part of Mr . Stevens to rectify the matter . Mr .
Stevens responded that even if he bought the land from Mrs . Allen
it still would not be enough for the required east yard .
Chairman Aron then stated that on November 10 , 1986 Mrs . Allen
had called him in the morning and told him that Mr . Stevens had
not contacted her as yet . Chairman Aron pointed out that he had
four weeks within which to contact Mrs . Allen and yet he had not
done so . Mr . Stevens responded that he was directed to contact
Mrs . Allen before the meeting and therefore he had called her the
day before the meeting . He further stated that he was hesitant
about making a purchase offer on Mrs . Allen ' s property because he
was not sure the 26 feet she was willing to sell was enough to
comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance .
Mr . King asked if Mr . Stevens had a lawyer and Mr . Stevens
responded that Roger Sovocool was his attorney . Mr . King advised
Mr . Stevens to direct Mr . Sovocool to draw up a purchase offer to
buy whatever additional land Mrs . Allen was willing to sell
• making the contract contingent upon the Zoning Board of Appeals
approving a variance . He further advised that when Mr . Stevens
came to the Board with such a purchase offer then the Board would
decide .
Chairman Aron concurred with Mr . King ' s comments and called
for a motion .
Mr . King made a motion as follows :
It is moved that this matter be adjourned until the next
meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , King , Austen , Reuning
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The next matter on the agenda was as follows :
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from October 15 , 1 986 ) of Dr . Y . Chen ,
• Appellant , from the decision of the Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to
operate an office of a resident physician for the practice
• 3
of pediatrics where such office is not a part of the
residence building at 203 Pine Tree Road , Residence District
R15 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 1 . Permission is
denied under Article IV , Section 12 , paragraph 1 , of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
The Board was advised that Dr . Chen had withdrawn his
appeal , and Chairman Aron declared the appeal moot .
The next matter on the agenda was as follows :
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from October 15 , 1 98 6 ) of A . J . and
Angeline Lenzini , Appellants , Peter Harris , representing R .
G . Gerber Real Estate , Agent , from the decision of the
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a
Certificate of Occupancy for a three - family dwelling located
in a Residence District R9 at 201 West King Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 37 - 1 - 129 Permission i ;s denied
under Article III , Section 4 , paragraphs 1 and 2 , and
Article XIV , Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca. Zoning
Ordinance ,
Attorney William Seldin representing the interests of Mr .
Lenzini spoke to the Board . He stated that Mary Gerber who was
• present at the meeting had prepared a financial statement which
statement was distributed to the Board . Said statement is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . Mr . Seldin advised that he had
spoken to both the attorneys for the seller and the attorneys for
Mr . Lenzini at the time Mr . Lenzini bought the property , and had
checked the closing statement , and it was obvious that when Mr .
Lenzini bought the property he was under the impression. that it
was a three - family dwelling . Mr . Seldin added that Mr . Lenzini
had been paying taxes on the property which was assessed as a
three - unit dwelling .
Chairman Aron interrupted that he did not think the payment
of taxes had a bearing on the matter before the Board .
Mr . Seldin said that he knew that the taxes had no legal
significance whatsoever but mentioned the taxes only to show
hardship in what the property had cost Mr . Lenzini and what it
would continue to cost him .
At this time Mr . Seldin referred to the statement from
Rosemary Gerber , the listing broker for the Lenzini property . He
pointed out that if the property were reduced to a two - family
unit it would create a loss of $ 3600 . 00 in rentals a year .
Further , if the property could not be sold as a three - unit but
instead was sold as a two - unit it would create a $ 20 , 000 . 00 loss
• on the sale price .
Mr . Seldin stated that at the time of the last meeting there
• 4
was a purchase agreement from a Joanne Gardella of Auburn , New
York for $ 68 , 0 .00 . 00 but the deal had fallen through because the
purchaser was not willing to wait for the outcome of the
proceeding before the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Seldin went
on to state that there was now a new prospective purchaser by the
name of Gary Lindenbaum , Comptroller of the Ithaca City School
District , but there was not an actual purchase offer as yet as
Mr . Lindenbaum was awaiting the Board ' s decision . Mr . Seldin
stated that Mr . Lindenbaum would purchase the premises on an
owner - occupied basis . Mr . Seldin referred to the minutes of the
previous meeting which reflected the concern of the neighbors .
He went on to say that perhaps to serve Mr . Lenzini ' s interests
and also to satisfy the concerns of the neighbors that the
property could be made a three - unit dwelling with the condition
that it had to be owner - occupied . He felt that being owner -
occupied the property would be kept up and taken care of because
the owner would be living there as opposed to an absentee
landlord . Mr . Seldin repeated that the loss to Mr . Lenzini of
having to sell the property as a two - unit dwelling would be
considerable .
At this time Mr . Austen stated that if the house were made
into only two apartments , those apartments could be made into
two - bedroom apartments and thus the rental for those apartments
• could be increased , thereby lessening the loss of funds .
Mrs . Rosemary Gerber then addressed the Board . She stated
that Mr . Austen was correct but that renovations would have to be
made and most buyers look at a property to see what it would mean
in income as it stands .
Joan Reuning stated that when she suggested at -the last
meeting that the Board should have some sort of financial
statement she did not have in mind what Mrs . Gerber had presented
to the Board . What Mrs . Reuning meant was not how much would be
lost on the sale price by changing it from a three - unit to a two -
unit but what kind of a loss there would be in profits by having
the property become a two - unit . She felt it would be helpful
to have these figures . She added that as to the matter of
hardship even though Mr . Lenzini had paid taxes on a three - unit
dwelling he had still been collecting rents on a three - unit
dwelling .
The public meeting was then opened .
Mr . Elliott Lauderdale of 381 Stone Quarry Road , Ithaca , New
York , presented a letter addressed to the Board of Zoning Appeals
of the Town of Ithaca in opposition to Mr . Lenzini ' s appeal which
he read to the Board . Said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit
• 3 .
Mr . Peter Hillman of 370 Stone Quarry Road , Ithaca , New
5
York , spoke in opposition to Mr . Lenzini ' s appeal . He said that
he would feel very badly if the Zoning Board of Appeals granted
the variance to Mr . Lenzini because he felt it would make a
statement that the zoning around him did not mean much .
Mr . Douglas Fain of 133 West King Road , Ithaca , New York ,
spoke next , also in opposition to Mr . Lenzini ' s appeal . Mr .
Fain felt that the owner - occupancy would not make matters right .
He felt that by deciding in favor of Mr . Lenzini it would set a
precedent and in the future it would open the way for multi -
family dwellings to appear in that area .
Mrs . Patricia Fain of 133 West King Road , Ithaca , New York
stated that many of the neighbors had called her that day and
were very concerned about the neighborhood turning away from a
family - oriented neighborhood , and these neighbors were planning
to send letters to the Zoning Board of Appeals . She ended by
asking - why have zoning if it is not going to be enforced ?
Mary Wessel of 1013 Danby Road , Ithaca , New York said that
she was one of the people who had called Mrs . Fain that day and
that she wished that South Hill would remain a family - oriented
neighborhood a nd the allowing of multi - family residences would
change the character of the neighborhood . Frances Connelly of
• 1013 Danby Road , Ithaca , New York , concurred with this statement .
The public hearing was closed .
Mr . Frost mentioned that this issue was not a matter of
rezoning the whole area but rather an appeal for a variance to
the zoning ordinance .
Chairman Aron explained that the reason Mr . Frost was making
this statement was because Mr . Frost had received many phone
calls from residents who believed that the whole area was being
rezoned .
A motion was made by Edward Austen as follows .
It is moved that this Board has found no substantial
hardship , and because the granting of the variance would be
detrimental to the neighborhood , the variance for a three -
unit dwelling is denied .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Reuning , Austen , Aron
• Abstain — King
Mr . King abstained because Mr . Seldin mentioned that a
6
• certain person was interested in buying the subj ect property .
The person Mr . Seldin mentioned was one that Mr . King had
represented in several purchases recently and the first Mr . King
heard of his interest in purchasing 201 West King Road was when
Mr . Seldin mentioned it . For this reason he felt that he should
abstain from voting .
The motion was carried .
The next matter on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Daniel R . and Heather R . Kailburn , Appellants ,
from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the
proposed ' expansion of the East Hill Car Wash , located at 77
Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 13 . 6 ,
Business District " D " , such proposed expansion creating a
side yard of less than 20 feet . Permit is denied under
Article VII , Section 37 , paragraph 2 , and Article XIV ,
Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
Mr . Daniel R . Kailburn addressed the Board . Mr . Kailburn
presented a sketch whereby he proposed to expand his car wash
thus creating a side yard of less than 20 feet . He said that he
needed the space for an additional equipment room . Mr . Kailburn
• pointed to the area on the map that depicted the proposed
expansion and stated that it would protrude 6 feet 8 inches into
his side yard . Mr . Kailburn said that there was an open drainage
ditch now but after the expansion he would put a full pipe in and
cover it and grass it over and it would make the area nicer
looking than it is now .
Mr . King questioned the location of the proposed expansion
and Mr . Kailburn responded that it would be southerly toward the
shopping center . Mr . King asked if he was behind the I? & C and
Mr . Kailburn responded that he was .
Chairman Aron asked how many feet his side yard was now and
Mr . Kailburn responded that he had 21 feet now from his existing
building and after the construction he would have approximately
14 feet . Mr . Kailburn said that he was using as little space as
possible for his equipment room .
Mr . King questioned how close the expansion would. come to
any utility line and Mr . Kailburn stated that the utility line
runs about on his property but it was not close enough for it to
be a problem . There was discussion about the sewer line and Mr .
Kailburn pointed to the sewer line depicted on the map .
Attorney Barney at this point interjected that the problem
• with the side yard deficiency surfaced when Mr . Kailburn came in
for site plan approval before the Planning Board . Attorney
Barney continued that as the proposed addition was being scaled
off it was realized that the extra wing that was needed for the
equipment room encroached on the 20 foot sideyard . Attorney
Barney stated that Larry Fabbroni , who was at the Planning Board
meeting , had interpreted the ordinance to mean that when you are
improving in a commercial zone the side yard requirements only
apply to the side yard of the entire zone rather than the side
yards between buildings . Attorney Barney said that he was a
little less sanguine about that interpretation and suggested that
Mr . Kailburn should apply for a variance .
The public hearing was opened by Chairman Aron . 'There was
no one from the public present who wished to speak .
The public hearing was closed .
Edward King made a motion as follows :
WHEREAS , this Board finds that the proposed extension of
the building to the south some 6 ' 8 " + into the required side
yard would not pose any problem for any of the property
owners of adjacent businesses in this area because it is in
a back alley access way between commercial properties ,
and
• WHEREAS , this area is not accessed b the
y public generally ,
NOW THEREFORE , it is
RESOLVED , that the variance be granted to permit the
encroachment of the new construction no more than seven feet
southerly into the otherwise required sideyard area .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The next item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of B . O . C . E . S . , Appellant , Gerald Friedman , Agent ,
from the decision of the Building Inspector / zoning
Enforcement Officer denying permission to operate a School
at The Biggs Center , 1283 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 , Special Land Use District
• ( Limited Mixed Use ) , Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 4 - 1986 ,
Residence District R- 30 Regulations applicable such that
approval of the Board of Appeals is required . Permission is
• 8
denied under Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 4 , of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance .
Mr . Gerald Friedman was invited to speak to the Board . He
explained that BOCES was asking for permission to operate a
school at the Biggs Center , 1283 Trumansburg Road . When
questioned where the school would be located at the Biggs
complex , Mr . Friedman stated that it would be towards the back
sticking out towards the lake to the east . Mr . Friedman stated
that the square footage of the area they wished to occupy would
be about 3700 square feet .
Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals -to be the
lead agency in this matter , He then referred to the " Draft
Resolution : SEQR , B . O . C . E . S . Regional Alternative School - Site
Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals ,
Presented : Planning Board October 7 , 1986 , Drafted : Susan C .
Beeners , Town Planner . " A copy of such resolution is attached
hereto as Exhibit 4 .
Chairman Aron also read excerpts from the " Draft Resolution :
B . O . C . E . S . Regional Alternative School - Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , Presented :
• Planning Board , October 7 , 1986 , Drafted : Susan C . Beeners , Town
Planner . " A copy of this resolution is attached as Exhibit 5 .
Chairman Aron inquired how many pupils the school would have
and Mr . Friedman responded that there would be 30 full time
equivalents because some of the students would be half - time
students so in total there might be as many as 50 students , 25 in
the morning and 25 in the afternoon . The students would be
coming in by bus , some to be picked up at the BOCES building , and
some would be bused directly from Ithaca or Trumansburg .
Edward Austen asked why BOCES picked this particular
location and Mr . Friedman responded that it was close to several
Tompkins County agencies and the students that they served
oftentimes dealt with these agencies . He stated that the other
agencies were cooperating to initiate the school . Mr . Friedman
continued that he had started the program at BOCES but there was
not enough room there now . He further said that it was also a
nice space and the price was reasonable .
Mr . Austen inquired as to whether City buses or school buses
would be used and Mr . Friedman responded that most. of the
transportation would be done by the school district but that some
students would arrive and go home by City bus . He went on to say
that there is a parking lot behind the building and a bus
turnaround , and the back entrance of the building would be used .
• Mr . King asked if there would be any use of the outside
grounds and Mr . Friedman responded perhaps they would use the
• 9
outdoor area on nice days in the spring .
Chairman Aron opened the meeting to the public .
No one from the public was present .
The public hearing was closed .
A motion was then made on the environmental assessment
by Joan Reuning as follows :
It is moved that a negative declaration of environmental
significance is made conditional upon the compliance of the
proposed facility with all pertinent codes and regulations .
Edward King seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , King , Reuning , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
A motion was made by Edward King as follows :
WHEREAS , this Board finds the following :
( a ) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed
use ;
( b ) The proposed use and the location and design of any
structure shall be consistent with . the character of the
district in which it is located ;
( C ) The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the
general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts
sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously
inconvenience neighboring inhabitants ;
( d ) The proposed access and egress for all structures and
uses shall be safely designed ,
( e ) The general effect of the proposed use upon the
community as a whole , including such items as traffic load
upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage systems
is not detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare
of the community .
• NOW THEREFORE , it is
RESOLVED ,
• 10
That this Board grant BOCES the Special Approval required by
the zoning ordinance , Section 18 , Subdivision 4 , for the
proposed operation of the school in the old Biggs complex as
indicated in the petition , the use to be subject. to
compliance with all applicable codes , rules and regulations .
The motion was seconded by Joan Reuning .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The next item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Therm , Inc . , 703 Hudson Street Extension ,
Appellant , Christopher Black , Development Engineering ,
Agent , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the
construction of a proposed office addition for Therm , Inc . ,
located in a Light Industrial District , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 2 - 1 , such proposed addition being a second
story and also exceeding 25 feet in height . Permit is
denied under Article VIII , Section 44 , paragraph 4 , and
Article XIV , Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance ,
Mr . Robert Sprole , President of Therm , Inc . addressed the
Board . Mr . Sprole explained that Therm wanted to construct a
second story addition to their building currently housing their
administration offices . He estimated that the addition would be
approximately 33 feet high including the peak of the roof . The
existing building is now in a valley and even with the addition ,
the trees on the property would obscure the view of the building
to houses that may be below the building . The square foot area
would be approximately 1 2 , 000 square feet on top of a 12 , 000
square foot building . Mr . Sprole stated that the existing
heating system would be sufficient to heat the second story and
there would be access to two stairwells . He further stated that
the nearest residential house is in excess of 500 feet .
The public meeting was opened . No one from the public
appeared .
The public meeting was closed .
• Chairman Aron read from " Draft Resolution : Proposed Office
Addition , Therm , Inc . Presented : Planning Board , October 7 , 1986
Drafted : Susan C . Beeners , Town. Planner " . A copy of such
• 11
resolution is attached as Exhibit 6 . Chairman Aron announced
that there were two variances to be considered , one for height
and one for the second story addition .
Attorney Barney suggested that the two considerations be
combined in one motion .
A motion was made by Edward King as follows .
WHEREAS , this Board finds that there are practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardship in carrying out the
strict letter of the zoning ordinance with regard to this
application ,
NOW , THEREFORE , it is
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance for a second
story addition not to exceed 35 feet as an addition to the
existing structure known as the administration building .
The motion was seconded by Joan Reuning :
The voting was as follows .
• Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The last item on the agenda was the following :
APPEAL of Ruth M . Pond , Appellant , from the decision of the
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , denying
permission to operate a Bed and Breakfast business at 529
Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 70 - 1 - 52 . 2 ,
Residence District R15 . Permission is denied under Article
IV , Sections 11 and 12 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance ,
Mrs . Ruth Pond then addressed the Board . She stated that
she now lived alone and had a large home at 529 Warren Road ,
which she had helped to design and which her father , now
deceased , had helped to build . She went on to say that she would
like to open a Bed and Breakfast which she felt would be a
service to the community and also would enable her to keep her
home . Mrs . Pond further stated that she had a background in this
sort of service because her parents had operated a mote ]_ and she
felt she would be able to run a business of this sort . Mrs . Pond
stated that she has been in this area for 30 years having lived
• in the house next door to where she now lives prior to 1969 .
Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as the
• 12
lead agency in this matter .
Chairman Aron then read from the Short Environmental
Assessment Form as follows .
" A low level of use is proposed . No major site or
building changes are proposed . Use would be compatible with
neighboring land uses .
A negative determination is recommended , with the
following conditions suggested for any further special
approval :
a . Limitation of occupancy to no more than five
guests / two families .
b . Periodic inspection of the facility by the Town
Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer . "
Chairman Aron inquired whether Mrs . Pond ' s home was on
public water and sewer now and she responded that it was .
Mr . King asked if there would be a separate bath for each of
• the rooms she proposed to use for the Bed and Breakfast . Mrs .
Pond responded that she had two double rooms and one single and
what she was planning on doing was to have one bathroom for each
family . She stated that she would rent to no more than five
people and no more than two families . Mrs . Pond stated that her
home was a tri - level - she resides in the bottom level , the
middle level has the dining room and living room and kitchen , and
the upper level is the one she would rent for a Bed and
Breakfast .
Attorney Barney inquired as to whether all of the neighbors
had been notified and Mr . Frost said that there was a signed
affidavit on file that the neighbors had been notified .
Mr . Austen said that he assumed that Mrs . Pond ' s home would
meet all of the building requirements as to fire codes , etc .
Mrs . Pond stated that she had checked with the fire department
and had smoke detectors installed and fire extinguishers
available .
Mr . Frost said that the only problem might be that the
smoke detectors were of the battery type and they are not
recognized by code and Mrs . Pond should have one electrical smoke
detector .
The public meeting was opened . No one from the public
• appeared .
The public meeting was closed .
• 13
As to the environmental assessment a motion was made by Joan
Reuning as follows :
It is moved that this Board find a negative declaration as
to environmental significance .
The motion was seconded by Edward King .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , King , Reuning , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
Chairman Aron said that he would entertain a motion as to
the special approval for a Bed and Breakfast .
Attorney Barney interjected at this point that he questioned
whether this should be a Special Approval or a Variance . He
asked where the authority was in the ordinance to grant a Special
Approval . Discussion followed as to whether this should be a
• Special Approval or a Variance . Attorney Barney said that the
property in question was in an R15 zone which has a series of
permitted uses which does not include rooming houses . Attorney
Barney stated that he was troubled as to what authority there was
for Special Approval to be granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals .
Mr . King stated that he thought that paragraph 1 of Article
IV , Section 11 permitted this use . Chairman Aron concurred .
He felt that the Board could give approval to Mrs . Pond for five
boarders or two families for a period not exceeding 150 days .
Mr . Frost stated that in terms of State health department
definitions for a temporary residence , which this property would
be , the period is 180 days . Mr . Frost further stated that his
initial interpretation was based on an R15 zone where it does
allow not more than two boarders , roomers or lodgers and he felt
somewhat comfortable with this until the question was posed to
him about a sign and a sign permit which would then advertise it
as a business .
Attorney Barney referred to the definition section of the
ordinance where it dealt with tourist homes in a building
originally built and used as a dwelling other than a hotel or
motel with accommodations for transients . Attorney Barney felt
this described the matter at hand . He went on to state that the
• uses permitted for a tourist home are not permitted in an R15
zone . It is permitted in an R9 zone by special approval by the
Board of Zoning Appeals . Attorney Barney felt that what was being
• 14
asked for was a variance in terms of the use that is permitted in
an R15 zone . Attorney Barney said that he had difficulty with
granting special approval in this matter and felt that a variance
was what should be considered .
Chairman Aron stated that when the ordinance was written bed
and breakfasts had not been incorporated , and there was work to
be done by the administration .
Mr . King said that a special approval should be granted
because a special approval is subject to periodic inspections and
subject to codes as would be the case in an R9 zone and it would
then apply to an R15 zone . Mr . King did not think that the Board
should put a variance on the property which is a permanent thing
running with the land .
Attorney Barney said special approval was the same thing
because if Mrs . Pond sold her house to somebody else it would not
terminate the special approval once it has been granted .
Attorney Barney felt that the conditions the Board was imposing
with a special approval could be imposed with a variance as far
as periodic inspections and compliance with codes , etc .
• Mr . Frost , asked if special approval was given to the
specific person would it still go to the property and not to the
person ?
Attorney Barney responded that that was his understanding .
Chairman Aron stated that he would feel more comfortable
with special approval to Mrs . Pond .
A motion was then made by Joan Reuning as follows :
WHEREAS , this Board finds the following :
( a ) The health , safety , morals and general welfare of the
community in harmony with the general purposes of this
ordinance shall be promoted except that as to a l l public
buildings and educational buildings wherein the principle
use is research , administration , or instruction , the same
shall be presumed to exist ;
( b ) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed
use , and that such use , except as to public and educational
buildings , will fill a neighborhood or community need .
( c ) The proposed use and the location and design of any
structure shall be consistent with the character of the
• district in which it is located ,
( d ) The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the
15
general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts
sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously
inconvenience neighboring inhabitants ;
( e ) The proposed access and egress for all structures and
uses shall be safely designed ,
( f ) The general effect of the proposed use upon the
community as a whole , including such items as traffic load
upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage systems
is not detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare
of the community ; and
( g ) There was no one appearing from the public in
opposition to this appeal ,
NOW , THEREFORE , it is
RESOLVED , that Special Approval be granted to Ruth M . Pond
to establish a Bed and Breakfast at her home at 529 Warren
Road , Ithaca , New York , upon the following conditions :
( a ) That the smoke alarm system be brought up to code ;
• ( b ) That there be periodic inspections of the facility by
the Town Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer ,
and
( c ) That it be further subject to New York State Uniform
Fire Prevention and Building Codes .
The motion was seconded by Edward King .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
There being no further business to come before the Board ,
the meeting was closed at 8 : 50 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Beatrice Lincoln
• Recording Secretary
Exhibits 1 through 6
attached
16
Approved °
o - Ale s/, /7o /984
Henry Aron
Chairman
•
•
122 Compton Road
Ithaca , New York 14850
November 100 1986
Mr. Mark Stevens
1 18 Compton Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Mr. Stevens:
I am writing to let you know of my willingness to assist you in the
matter before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca .
I understand that - it may be helpful if I agree to sell a portion of the
land that you need on the left side of your house at 118 Compton Road.
It would be ' possible to straighten my property line and extend your line
over so that it is more in compliance with the zoning regulations if I sell
to you seventeen feet of land from my current property line near the front
of your house and fifteen feet of land from my current property line near
the back of your house . This would mean that your house and front yard
would be at least twenty -six feet from my property line at every point
• all of the way up to the road.
I hope that this amount of land will meet with the board' s approval
and your approval as well . If you wish to purchase the land, we can
discuss a. fair price . I will be out of town and unable to attend the
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals on November 121
1986 -so I am sending. a copy of this letter to Mr. Aron, chair of that board
and to its members. I await your reply.
Sincerely ,
1 AL
Josephine A. Allen
Exhibit 1
.' . 1. 1.
1
RG
i „ 107 W ENT (A if N T 1 N ST H P11
e1: ,
111071 U73-7000
Novmeber 12 , 1986
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
To Board Members :
It is my professional opinion that Mr . A . J . Lenzini
stands to loose approximately $ 20 , 000 . 00 on a sale
if he . is not granted a Certificate of Occupancy for a
• three - family dwelling . This is based on the figures
below :
Property presently being used as a three family and rents
are : . $ 350 .00 for two bedroom , first floor apt .
$ 300 . 00 for one bedroom , first floor apt .
$ 300 . 00 for one bedroom , second floor apt .
For a total of $ 950 . 00 a month , times by 12 months = $ 11 , 400 .
$ 11 , 400 . X_ 6 times the gross = Value of approximately $ 68 , 400 .
Take away one $ 300 . 00 a month apartment , .your monthly rent
would be $ 650 . 00 times 12 months = $ 7 , 800 . $ 75800 X 6 times
the gross = Value of approximately $ 46 , 800 .
Investors will use the 6 times the gross rent multiplier
to find the approximate value of a property .
•
R semary Ge er
Principal Broker
Exhibit 2
n�;rl`��il�•'�j r{av'fi; i
I ,t���l i 111
A.
if it I
12 ; November 1986
i E itpp 7 1 h
f
�x 'a�� "71r�1 " 61 ! . tI
J '�A'f�'� 1
• {r+; , lill;} + ; i ., ., ,I W . FILauderdale
. Tsai Ling Lauderdale
381 Stone Quarry Road
Ithaca , New York 14850
'l •
'p9
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town of Ithaca
Ithaca New York
y"<a �
r Officers of the Zoning Boazdi
I regret that the scheduling of the adjourned appeal of
hA the zoning board officers denial of a certificate of occupancy
for a three family dewlling in our R.9 residence district for
� s the building at 201 W . King Road owned by AJ and Angeline
Lenzink prevented the full participation of our concerned
neighborhood . We were led to believe the appeal would not
be scheduled until December . I called my two neighbors Kelsey
and 389 Stone Quarry Road . Mrs . Kelseystated
and Hull at 379
that the house has gone downhill since it was sold . Both
� the Kelsey ' s and Hll s would like to call the boards attention
';Eay '
% TMS the their tignatures on the petition against appeal submitted
at the October meeting .
m My wife and I have owned our house since 1979 • We
stated to suffer financial hardship if this variance is
granted . We . live within view of this house at 201 King
Road . The house has never appeared maintained during
I 4 ,f
h,' .t the time it has been owned by the Lenzini ' s . The case
sseems to be a familiar one of an outside landlord soaking
"71 a property for a profit without any investment in maintenance .
�#r
One argument that seemed to have some effect on the
zoning board was the agent ' s claim that the owner , who
did not appear , would suffer financial hardship . The
t : owner could not sell the house with a promist of a third
apartment which earned the owner 360 dollars . a month .
Given the facts of the case this piece of evidence
R.41W
;t ' seems to work against the landlords agents contention .
The owner has earned this rent in violation of the zonning
ordinance each month ofcwnership . This without substantial investment
ua means financial advantage flowing out of our community .
FF1kx ' We sincerely feel that is not in the interest
of the community to encour ge the violation of zoning
" ordinances by those interested in real estate profiteering .
n, l
.+' 1
f �y
41 � V Vl
La*- d laa
57 X14]
1
III,
.
ykNr
� r Exhibit 3
k 110
1.
roved ,
DRAFT RESOLUTION : SEAR , B . O . C . E . S . Regional Alternative School
Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals
Presented : Planning Board , October 7 , 1986
Drafted : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is a request for Special Approval of a
School Use , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , . for the relocation of the
Tompkins -Tioga - Seneca Board of Cooperative Educational Services
Regional Alternative School to the Biggs Center , 1283 Trumansburg
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which a Short
Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed by
thePlanning Board at a Public . Hearing on October 7 , 1986 , and
for which the . Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency . As part of coordinated review ,
the New York State Education Department , the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning , and the Tompkins County Department of
Public Works have been requested to concur on such Lead Agency
designation .
• 3 . A negative declaration of environmental significance
has been recommended by the Town Planner , conditional upon the
compliance of the proposed facility with all pertinent codes and
regulations .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend
to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative declaration of
environmental . : significance be made , conditional upon the
compliance of the proposed facility with all pertinent codes and
regulations .
Exhibit 4
DRAFT RESOLUTION : B . O . C . E . S . Regional Alternative School - Site
. . . Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
Presented : Planning Board , October 7 , 1986
Drafted : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is a request for Special Approval of a
School Use , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the relocation of the
Tompkins -Tioga - Seneca Board of Cooperative . Educational Services
Regional Alternative School to the Biggs Center , 1283, Trumansburg
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which a Short
Environmental Assessment Form for which the Zoning Board of
Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency ,
and for which the Planning Board has recommended that a negative
declaration of environmental significance be made , conditional
upon the ' compliance of the proposed facility with all pertinent
codes and regulations .
i
3 . The Planning Board at a Public Hearing on October 7 ,
1986 has reviewed a project proposal dated September 22 , 1986 ,
• which includes a site plan of the Biggs Complex , showing the
proposed location of the school , and a letter from the Tompkins
County General Building Supervisor. which describes requirements
for compliance of the school with the New York State Uniform FiYl%
Prevention and Building Code .
4 . The Planning . Board finds that there is a need for the
proposed use in this location on the grounds that such use would
fill a , community need and would complement existing and potential
land uses on West Hill ,
5 .
The Planning Board finds that the existing and probable
future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely
affected on the grounds that the facility would adaptively reuse
space in an existing building that was originally constructed for ..
institutional use , and that is located in a campus - like setting .
6 . The Planning Board finds that the proposed use is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town
on the grounds that the school program as proposed would be
compatible with other existing uses at Biggs Center , that it is
consistent with zoning regulations , and that it would fulfill a
.need for alternative educational programs in the conununity .
• THEREFORE , IT IS - RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report
its, approval of the site plan for the proposed facility , provided
Exhibit 5
• w ,m
1 i
that the , required approvals are granted by the Zoning Board of
• Appeals .
2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does
recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval
for the proposed use be granted .
• i
� I
YY
DRAFT RESOLUTION : Proposed Office Addition , Therm , Inc .
• Presented : Planning Board , October 7 , 1986
Drafted : Susan C : Beeners , Town Planner i
WHEREAS : I
1 . This action is a request for Site Plan Approval for a
proposed second - story office addition at Therm , Incorporated ,
located in a Light Industrial District at 703 Hudson Street
Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 -- 54 -- 2 - 1 , and for I
consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
with respect to a request for variance from the one - story ,
25 - foot height requirement of Article VIII , "Section 44 , Paragraph
4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
2 . The Planning Board at a Public Hearing on October 7 ,
1986 has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form and the
following :
" Therm , Inc . - Site Profile " , dated September 6 , 1986 ,
by Brennan Lorenzini , Architects .
Schematic plan of proposed second - story office
expansion , dated September 22 , 1986 .
Site Plan by Christopher . G . Black , Development
Engineering , Therm , Inc .
Topographic plan .
• 3 . The Planning Board has made a negative declaration of
environmental significance for the proposal .
4 . The Planning Board has found the following :
a . There is a need for the proposed office expansion
at Therm , Inc .
b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected , due to site
characteristics and the architectural concept for the
proposed addition .
c . The proposed change is in accordance with a
comprehensive plan of development for the Town , in regard to
precedent site development , zoning , site characteristics ,
and. ,Vroje.ct design . ... . .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board report and hereby does report its
approval of the site plan for the proposed office expansion as
presented , and recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning
Board of Appeals that the request for variance from the
one - story , 25 - foot height requirement of Article VIII , Section
44 , Paragraph 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance be
• granted .
I
Exhibit 6