HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-05-13 1
FILED �ti=
• TOWN OF ITHACA
Date1� �
TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 13 , 1987
A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on May 13 , 1987 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126
East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Joan Reuning ,
Jack Hewett , Edward King , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Building
Inspector Andrew Frost , and Town Attorney John C . Barney .
ALSO PRESENT : Celia Bowers , John Bowers , Wayne Bortz , Larry
Iacovelli , Liz Glener , Dan Watson , Ed Mazza , Randy Brown , John
Tidd , William S . Joyce .
The public meeting opened at 7 : 00 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 f-or consideration was as
• follows :
APPEAL of Lawrence E . Iacovelli Jr . , Appellant , Attorney
Edward A . Mazza , Agent , from the decision of the Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Special
Permit for the occupancy of a two - family dwelling , in
Residence District R9 , by two families or up to six ( 6 )
unrelated persons ( a family or no more than four ( 4 ) in one
unit and a family or no more than two ( 2 ) in the other
unit ) , at 178 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 54 - 5 - 23 ( Old Ithaca Land Company Tract Parcels No . 140 ,
141 , and 1 42 ) , such Special Permit being applied for
pursuant to Article III , Section 41 Paragraph 2 , Sub -
paragraph 2b , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance .
Permit is denied under Article III , Section 4 , Paragraph 2 ,
Sub - paragraph 2b , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
whereby increased occupancy may be permitted by Special
Permit of the Zoning Board of Appeals .
Mr . Edward Mazza , attorney for Lawrence E . Iacovelli , Jr .
addressed the Board . Mr . Mazza referred to a survey map sent
with Mr . Iacovelli ' s application dated May 25 , 1984 , a copy of
which map had been given to each of the Board members , showing
the structure and the three lots belonging to Mr . Iacovelli , Lots
140 , 141 , and 142 , being the Old Ithaca Land Tract parcels , each
of which is a permissible building lot grandfathered in as being
laid out prior to zoning . Mr . Mazza continued that Mr . :Iacovelli
currently resides in the downstairs apartment at 178 Kendall
Avenue and rents out the upstairs apartment to two persons with
-
• 2
the downstairs apartment having four bedrooms and the upstairs
having two bedrooms . Mr . Mazza explained that Mr . Iacovelli was
asking for a special permit to rent out the entire premises , the
upstairs to a family or up , to two unrelated persons , and the
downstairs to a family or up to four unrelated persons for a
total of six persons in the structure . Mr . Mazza referred to a
proposed " Grant of Restrictive Covenant " submitted with the
application ( attached hereto as Exhibit 1 ) , which would restrict
the total parcel from further development . He continued that in
addition at each time the premises was leased they would provide
to the Town of Ithaca , in the lease , the name of a current tenant
who would act as a contact person to the Town of Ithaca so that
if there were any complaints filed against the property there
would be the contact person on the premises to talk with .,
Mr . Mazza said that this appeal was similar to other special
permit appeals that the Board had heard in the past and
specifically referred to the appeal that was heard on August 21 ,
1985 concerning Ann Kasten wherein she had three Ithaca Land
Company parcels , with the building having five bedroom ;; in it ,
and her structure being built in the center of her total parcel .
He added that the special permit was granted under similar
conditions concerning the Iacovelli appeal , namely , the grant of
• restrictive covenants .
Chairman Aron asked if the restrictive covenant mentioned
the contact person and Mr . Mazza said it was not part. of the
covenant but if the Town wished it to be he would include it
although he was not sure that was the place for it . He added
that the proposed grant of restrictive covenant was filed prior
to the idea of the contact person . Attorney Barney was asked
what he thought of including this language in the restrictive
covenant and he responded that it could be added .
Edward Austen asked when the house was built if all the lots
were put together at that time and Mr . Mazza responded that they
were combined into a single tax parcel but by doing so they did
not lose their status as a building lot . Mr . Mazza thought that
possibly Lot 141 and 142 could be combined because they were
actually built upon that way but Lot 140 had the driveway upon it
now which did ' not need to be there so Lot 140 could be built
upon . Mr . Mazza told the Board that Mr . Iacovelli would be
willing to provide additional off - street parking on the eastern
side of the driveway if deemed necessary by the Town Planner or
Town Building Inspector , and would also agree to put some
plantings in to help screen it off .
Edward King asked when the house was made into a two - family
• structure and Mr . Iacovelli responded he was not sure , that he
had bought the house that way three years ago . Mr . King asked if
there were separate entrances and exits for each apartment and
Mr . Iacovelli responded that there were . Mr . King said that the
1
•
• 3
house looked very small and Mr . Iacovelli said that it was in
fact quite large on the inside , that it actually had three
levels , the basement , the first floor and second floor . Mr . King
asked what the first and second floor footage was and Mr .
Iacovelli guessed that the first floor and basement was
approximately 1300 to 1400 square feet and the second floor about
half that size .
Mr . Austen inquired as to what was housed in the basement
and Mr . Iacovelli responded that it was used as a utility room
with a washer and dryer , but there was also a rather large
bedroom there which was one of the four bedrooms mentioned as
part of the first floor apartment .
Chairman Aron asked how high the ceiling was in the basement
and Mr . Iacovelli responded it was about 7 feet . Joan Reunin g
asked where the hot water tank and the furnace was in relation to
the bedroom and Mr . Iacovelli responded that they were towards
the center of the basement with a wall separating the bedroom .
Mr . Austen inquired if there were two sets of meters for
utilities and Mr . Iacovelli responded there were .
• Joan Reuning asked Mr . Frost about the feasibility of a
bedroom in the basement with the furnace and hot water also there
and wondered about the layout of the basement and Mr . Frost said
that he had not been inside the house to inspect same but he
thought that with the exception of the furnace and hot water
heater in a bedroom everything else would be grandfathered in in
terms of any specific building code requirements . Mr . Frost
continued that ': if the basement were used as a bedroom there would
be fire safety features that would have to be considered .
The public meeting was then opened .
Mr . Daniel Watson of 174 Kendall Avenue spoke in opposition
to the appeal , and also presented a letter from Robert and Lida
Martin of 180 Kendall Avenue ( Exhibit 2 ) , and also a notarized
letter from Mr . Robert Livitsky of 176 Kendall Avenue ( Exhibit 3 )
both in opposition to the appeal . Chairman Aron read said
letters to the Board .
Edward King asked Mr . Watson if he owned the house at 174
Kendall Avenue and Mr . Watson responded that he rented 'the house
from Mr . Livitsky and that it was a duplex home with one side
occupied by Mr . Watson , his daughter and Mark Bierman , and the
other side occupied by the Mr . Livitsky and another gentleman .
Mr . King inquired if Mr . Watson knew anything about the Martin
house at 180 Kendall Avenue and it was determined that it was
• owner occupied with an apartment in the basement .
The public hearing was then closed .
• 4
Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as the
lead agency in this matter as to environmental assessment and
asked Ms . Beeners to discuss this matter which she did „ A copy
of Ms . Beeners recommendation entitled " Part II - Environmental
Assessment - I'acovelli " is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 .
Attorney Barney asked Ms . Beeners if the neighborhood as it
existed 15 years ago , largely single family , were suddenly
granted 15 variances for two - family houses occupied by unrelated
people would she then see an environmental impact . Ms . Beeners
responded that when there is the tying up of other land as
permanent open space it helps to mitigate the environmental
impact , and the benefits as far as providing housing in an area
convenient to campus is something else that may outweigh some of
those impacts .
Mr . Barney said that his question was that each variance in
and of itself has no significant environmental impact but the end
result of doing 15 or 20 of these would have an impact and Ms .
Beeners said that perhaps it might but what she saw at the
present time with the Iacovelli proposal was a concerted effort
to reserve open space that may well fit into a recreational
• system in the long run .
Joan Reuning said that even though there was open space it
still will be student housing . ,
Chairman Aron said that in actuality Mr . Iacovelli could
change the driveway to Lot No . 141 and build on Lot No . 140 . He
said that Mr . Iacovelli could not build on Lot No . 142 because
part of the house is on that lot . Attorney Barney disagreed that
a house could be built on Lot No . 140 because the building permit
was issued to allow the house to be built on the entire parcel ,
and that as he read the ordinance you can only build a single
family house on a substandard lot if indeed it could be built at
all . Attorney. Barney continued that there was a variance granted
for the construction of the house originally because it was
located too close to the rear yard so it is a non - conforming
house but the ;building permit itself was on the entire three lots
for the construction of the one house .
Mr . Frost said that the key issue of the variance! in 1958
was a septic system that necessitated the house being located
where it was , ''thus making a rear yard deficiency .
Discussion followed as Ms . Beeners pointed out on a map the
character of the housing in the neighborhood , indicating two
• family dwellings , single family dwellings , the location of the
Martin house , the location of the Livitsky house , etc .
As to the environmental assessment , a motion was made by
• 5
Edward Austen as follows :
RESOLVED that this Board finds a negative determination as
to environmental significance conditional upon the provision
of adequate , screened parking for the additional occupants ,
and the provision of adequate noise controls .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King , Hewett
The motion was carried .
Mr . King said that he personally felt by looking at the
house that it was too small to put six students in there thus
increasing the cars to be parked there , noise level , etc . He
continued that it was obviously a two family house now but he
wondered whether the Board should grant a special permit to
increase the occupancy , and that he was inclined to say no but on
the other hand perhaps the Board should consider a total of five
occupants instead of six . Mr . King said it would be ]better if
they knew the size of the house .
Chairman Aron then questioned Mr . Iacovelli as to the size
of the house and it was determined that the downstairs apartment
was approximately 830 square feet and the upstairs apartment was
approximately , 370 square feet , not including the bedroom in the
basement .
Mr . Mazza said that the footprint of the building according
to the surveyor was 25 feet in depth and 40 in length not
counting the carport area , and Mr . Mazza also mentioned that
there was another bedroom in the basement which was part of the
downstairs unit . Mr . Mazza continued that the Iacovelli house
had six bedrooms in it as opposed to the Ann Kasten house which
only had five bedrooms in it .
Mr . Frost said that the bedroom in the basement may be
housed in a ce''llar and might not be habitable space depending on
the average depth of the basement walls below finished grade and
it should be determined whether the area is a cellar or basement
and he would have to make a visual inspection to determine this .
Mr . King asked the Town Attorney if he had read the proposed
draft of the restrictive covenant and discussion followed as to
such restrictive covenant and what should be added or deleted .
• Joan Reuning said that the Board did not have complete
information on this matter and felt that perhaps a postponement
was in order , and Mr . Frost said that other appeals had been
6
granted subject to what the visual inspection of the property
determined , and that in this case the basement could either be
added or subtracted from the total square footage f or, 1 iv in g
accommodations , depending on what his inspection showed .
Chairman Aron said that he did not have any trouble with
granting a special permit to Mr . Iacovelli because as everyone
knew a special permit could be rescinded by the Board upon
complaint either from the public or from the building inspector .
Chairman Aron also pointed out that the basement should be
discounted at this time in considering the amount of people to be
allowed to live in the dwelling since it could not be determined
how habitable such basement was .
A motion was then made by Edward King as follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a special permit under
Section 4 , Subdivision 2b of the zoning ordinance for
increased occupancy of the subject property at 178 Kendall
Avenue , Ithaca , New York , conditional upon the owner giving
the restrictive covenant substantially in the form submitted
with his application with the following changes :
( a ) eliminating from paragraph 2 the words " or
improvements " ;
( b ) changing in paragraph 3 the word " variance " to " special
permit , and further adding the section of the zoning
ordinance ^ ( Section 4 , Subdivision 2b ) ;
( c ) deleting the material in parentheticals on page 1
beginning with the word " although " and ending with the word
" enactment " ;
( d ) adding a suitable paragraph whereby the owner
undertakes to designate for each dwelling unit a contact
person , with the name of such person to be placed on file
with the Town of Ithaca office ;
and it is further
RESOLVED , that this special permit be conditional upon any
leases obtaining reasonably enforceable conditions for the
limitation of noise , making the tenants responsible for
keeping the general peace in the neighborhood and the noise
level down , and it is further
RESOLVED , that increased parking shall be provided to the
east of the southerly end of the pavement of the property
• and that any such additional parking be suitably screened by
trees , vegetation , etc , so as to be visually acceptable ; and
it is further
RESOLVED , that the intensity of occupation shall be
conditional upon the building inspector ' s inspection of the
basement or cellar bedroom to determine whether it is
legally habitable and whether any conditions are necessary
to make it so , but if it unhabitable then the permitted
occupancy ; to be a family or three unrelated people in the
first floor apartment , but if such bedroom be habitable ,
then the occupancy to be one family or four unrelated
people ; and that the upstairs may be occupied by a family or
two unrelated people ; and it is further
RESOLVED , that this special permit is revocable by the Board
at any time .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Reuning , Hewett , . Aron , King , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The second item on the agenda for consideration was as
follows :
• APPEAL of Wayne C . Bortz , Appellant , Attorney Edward A .
Mazza , Agent , from the decision of the Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate
of Compliance and permission to occupy a two - family dwelling
at 1513 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 -
58 - 1 - 32 . 1 , Residence District R - 15 , by two families or up to
six ( 6 ) unrelated persons . Permission to occupy said two -
family dwelling by up to six ( 6 ) unrelated persons is denied
under Article IV , Section 1 1 , Paragraph 2 , Sub - paragraph
2a ( 3 ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby a
two - family dwelling may be occupied by no more than three
unrelated persons . A Certificate of Compliance :is denied
under Article XIV , Sections 75 and 76 , because the second
dwelling unit was created without a permit to build .
Mr . Mazza said that a survey map had been submitted to the
members of the Board and referred to such map showing the
location of the property in question . Mr . Mazza said that John
Tidd was the former owner of this property and Wayne Bortz the
current owner . Mr . Mazza stated that Mr . Tidd was the individual
who moved the structure to the present location four or five
years ago . Mr . Mazza continued that the property in question is
some four and a half acres and sits up near the road . He said
that Mr . Bortz would be willing to alter the parking situation to
meet the requirements of the Town in the event that: the use
• variance was granted . He stated that the property was :in an R15
zone and that was the reason for applying for a use variance
rather than a special permit . Mr . Mazza stated that the property
8
was 200 feet in width and over 1 , 000 feet in depth on one side
and 900 feet in depth on the other side and extends back to the
City of Ithaca property at Six Mile Creek , Mr . Mazza explained
that if the use variance was granted for a two - unit structure for
up to six unrelated persons to occupy the structure or two
families , Mr . Bortz would be willing to dedicate portions of the
lot to be forever wild under a similar form of grant of
restrictive covenant as in the Iacovelli appeal . He continued
that the property as currently zoned could have a road put in
allowing for some buildable lots to be built there but this would
create practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship as opposed
to allowing increased occupancy in the present structure thereby
giving up the right to build more structures .
Mr . Mazza stated that he thought there would be some
benefits to the City of Ithaca if the back portion of the
property was left forever wild as was done in the Edgewood
Subdivision .
Chairman , Aron asked how many acres would be left forever
wild and Mr . Bortz responded that he would be willing to grant
two acres in the rear with the condition that there would never
be any variances given for a road to be put back there by the
Town of Ithaca or any other kind of development undertaken by the
Town .
• Attorney Barney asked what the hardship or practical
difficulties were and Mr . Mazza responded that this parcel of
land could have six unrelated persons living there but that would
require building more structures and building a road . Attorney
Barney asked again what the hardship or practical difficulties
were with respect to the present structure and Mir . Mazza
responded that the total parcel of land was in question and not
the individual structure . Mr . Mazza said that it was not too
much different than Edgewood in that they had four unit buildings
there and had dedicated parcels of land in the back to the City
of Ithaca . Attorney Barney responded that Edgewood was in a
cluster and had come before the Board with a whole series of
plans . Mr . Mazza said that regardless of what they were called
they were still four - unit structures and they received approval
for this with the primary concession being made of dedicating
land in the back . Mr . Mazza repeated that with the size of the
parcel in question achieving occupancy of six unrelated persons
could be done by developing said parcel but there would be much
expense to Mr . Bortz and would also be to the detriment of the
Town and to the City . He stated that he thought there were
practical difficulties and hardship in requiring Mr . Bortz to get
the desired density by building more units and by developing more
lots . Mr . Mazza said that six unrelated persons living on a four
acre parcel was not unreasonable .
• Chairman Aron asked what the living space of the house was
and Mr . Bortz asked Mr . Frost if he knew the size . Mr . Frost
referred to a building permit issued in 1982 which showed a first
` 9
• floor living area of 1352 square feet , being six rooms with three
bedrooms .
Chairman Aron asked how many bedrooms were in the house
presently and Mr . Bortz responded there were six . Mr . Bortz
explained that there was a three bedroom apartment upstairs and a
three bedroom downstairs with the floor plan of both floors being
identical . Mr . Frost said that technically the structure was a
one - story house with a basement apartment housing a furnace room ,
with a deck and a patio outside .
The public hearing was then opened . No one from the public
appeared and the public hearing was closed .
Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as the
lead agency as to environmental assessment and asked Ms . Beeners
to discuss her findings on same which she did . A copy of Ms .
Beeners ' recommendation entitled " Part II - Environmental
Assessment - Bortz Appeal " is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 .
Chairman Aron then read to the Board a letter from Frank
Liguori of the Tompkins County Department of Planning dated May
4 , 1987 , a copy of which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 .
As to the environmental assessment a motion was made by Joan
Reuning as follows :
• RESOLVED that this Board finds a negative determination rmination of
environmental significance with the four provisions as
indicated in the recommendation of Susan Beeners ,
Edward King seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - King , Austen , Hewett , Reuning , Aron
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
Jack Hewett asked Mr . Bortz how many people were living at
the property now and Mr . Bortz responded that there were three
people . Mr . Hewett told Mr . Bortz he lived right across the
street from the property and he felt there were more than three
people living in the house and Mr . Bortz responded that the
students had girlfriends who visited from time to time . Mr .
Hewett said that there were also fireworks going off at various
times and Mr . Bortz said that he had not known about this . At
this time .Mr . Bortz told the Board that the property was being
sold to a Mr . Scheraga .
• Mr . Mazza said that the property had a rather sordid history
and Mr . Hewett agreed . Mr . Hewett explained that for the five
years that he had lived across the street from the house Mr .
10
• Cartee had had promises that things were going to be straightened
out and nothing was done .
Mr . Mazza said that if the request for a variance were to go
through there was a contract in place that would result in a sale
to Dan Scheraga , Mr . Mazza said that Mr . Tidd had not managed
the property in a very suitable way and Mr . Bortz had taken over
the property as a result of certain loans that were made , with
the net result being that the property will go on to a new owner
and hopefully someone who will manage it properly .
Mr . Bortz was asked by Chairman Aron how far away he lived
from the property and Mr . Bortz responded that he lived at 106
West Jay Street in the City of Ithaca . Chairman Aron stated that
Mr . Bortz would not know if any noise was going on in the
neighborhood , and Mr . Bortz stated that the property had come a
long way since he had taken it over , and that he wanted out of
the situation by selling the property and he thought that Mr .
Scheraga would do a fine job with it .
Mr . King asked how long Mr . Bortz had owned the property and
Mr . Bortz responded that he had owned it for about a year . Mr .
King then said that apparently the basement apartment was built
without a building permit having been issued , and that there had
been a notice of violation issued in May of 1986 addressed to Mr .
• Tidd . Mr . Tidd said he never received the violation notice . Mr .
King stated that the notice of violation dated May 7 , 1986 from
Mr . Cartee indicated that construction work was being done in the
basement of the house without a building permit .
Mr . Tidd said he had never received such a notice but that
Mr . Cartee had made several trips to the property and had helped
him design some of the basement apartment so was fully aware of
what was going on . Mr . Tidd stated he did not know of any
violation .
Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Tidd ' s address was 1513
Slaterville Road on May 7 , 1986 and Mr . Tidd responded that he
was not sure as he spent last winter in Florida and when he moved
back to Ithaca he was no longer in residence at that house , and
his mail was forwarded to 2 Dart Drive , Ithaca , New York , Mr .
Tidd stated that he had since bought a house on East Shore Drive
in Lansing where he now resided . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Bortz
if he had received the notice of violation and Mr . Bortz said
that he had not . Mr . King said that the copy of the notice of
violation indicated it was a second notice which impliE=_ d that a
first notice had been given . He further stated that the
application for the building permit dated July of 1983 indicated
it was for a single family residence so the apartment was put in
the structure without any authorization by the Town .
Mr . Bortz said that electrical inspectors had come to
inspect the property and he had received a certificate of
compliance as far as the electrical inspection , the plumbing was
• inspected , and he had tapped into the City water and sewer system
for the basement apartment . Attorney Barney asked if this was in
1983 and Mr . Bortz responded that it was . Attorney Barney then
reminded him that the application for a building permit in 1983
was only for a single family house . Mr . Bortz said that he was a
silent partner at the time and had not dealt much with
construction of the house . Attorney Barney persisted that the
permits given by the City were back in 1983 when the property was
originally constructed .
Mr . John Tidd stated that he had more contact with the
situation at that time . He continued that the house was the
former parsonage of the Bethel Grove Community Church and the
first floor of the house had been basically unchanged except for
some minor remodeling . Mr . Tidd said that in the existing house
there was a downstairs that was not a separate apartment at the
time but it had all the facilities intact for an apartment . He
continued that when he moved the house and applied for permits he
made it aware to everyone that he had plumbing stubbed out in the
basement before the connection was made to City sewer which was
approved by the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca by two
separate inspections . He continued that these approvals were
made knowing that there was going to be another kitchen , another
bathroom , and that the stairwell had been removed and boarded
over to facilitate a closet on the second floor . Mr . Tidd
• insisted there was nothing clandestine about his approach and if
it was listed as a one - apartment building it was strictly an
oversight .
Attorney Barney interrupted at this point saying that he had
difficulty with this in that in July of 1983 Mr . Tidd ' s signature
was on an application for a building permit for a single family
residence of six rooms , three bedrooms , to be owner occupied .
Attorney Barney continued that now Mr . Tidd was telling the Board
he had a leased building , not owner occupied , with six more rooms
in the basement that had never been applied for through a
building permit .
Mr . Mazza said that the permit in question was a permit to
relocate the house and that the description was of the house as
it existed prior to relocation . Attorney Barney said that a
permit was not for the house as it was but for what was going to
be added . Mr . Mazza said that reading that application and
interpreting it that that was all he intended to do was not a
fair statement . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Mazza if his
understanding of the zoning ordinance was that a building permit
had to be obtained if changes were going to be made from an
existing structure and Mr . Mazza responded that he had never
moved a house so he did not know what permit was necessary to
move a house . Mr . Mazza continued that when the building permit
was issued it was just for the house to be moved and he did not
• know if there was a building permit that had been issued and
lost , if one had ever been issued , or if one had ever been
applied for but he thought at this point the house was there , it
12
• had inspections , Mr . Frost had asked for a few changes to be made
at the structure and Mr . Bortz had made same . Mr . Mazza thought
that the situation should be dealt with as it existed because
trying to trace through what had happened in the past was going
to be impossible . Mr . Mazza acknowledged that Mr . Tidd had
probably made some severe blunders along the way but he repeated
the situation must be dealt with as it stood at the present time .
Mr . Mazza maintained that just because the structure is
already there it should not change how the lot is looked at and
it was unfair for the Board to expect Mr . Bortz to go through an
involved process such as Edgewood in order to increase the
occupancy of the site . Attorney Barney maintained that it was
not unfair for the Board in considering the application of Mr .
Bortz to consider the history of the house and the practical
difficulty and unnecessary hardship alleged . Attorney Barney
stated he did not think there was practical difficulty and
unnecessary hardship and if it were up to him he would require
Mr . Bortz to go through a process such as Edgewood by going to
the Planning Board for site approval , etc . to assure that all the
safeguards would be built in as it would be in cluster approval .
Mr . Frost said that when he issues a building permit the
information that is obtained is what is going to be done to the
property , that if there was a two - family house going in on the
• property that is what the permit would say . He continued that
his impression of the 1983 building permit application was that
what was shown on the permit was what was happening to the
property . Mr. . Frost further stated that plumbing permits and
electrical permits could be issued without the Town building
inspector getting involved although it was not a proper
situation . Mr . Frost said that the property in question was not
in compliance as to electrical as of December of 1986 but at the
present time the electrical system ' was in compliance . Mr . Frost
said he was concerned because the notice of violation was issued
by Lewis Cartee on May 7 , 1986 and Mr . Cartee died about a week
later so if h'e changed his mind somewhere between May 7th and
when he died he did not know .
Chairman Aron stated that the fact of the matter was that
the basement apartment is in existence and it was difficult for
the Board and Mr . Frost to determine the truth about the
violation but the Board should be determining whether or not the
Board should grant a use variance for six unrelated. people .
Chairman Aron then read portions of the " Application for Building
Permit " dated 4 / 19 / 83 , a copy of which application is attached
hereto as Exhibit 7 . Chairman Aron questioned the word " erect "
on the application since the building was already in existence ,
and Mr . Tidd gave a brief history of how the house was moved
saying that he did not know why the word " erect " was placed on
the application as he did not fill it out .
• Mr . Frost stated that he had been out to the property and
some improvements had been made to add some fire safety features
13
• to the dwelling . He continued that essentially what was achieved
was a code requirement of a fire wall between the two units by
the installation of fire resistant ceiling panels , a mechanical
ventilation was installed in the basement bathroom , and storm
windows put in° all the windows .
Mr . Mazza inquired if it was safe to say that several of
these improvements were necessary only if the structure was a
two - unit structure and Mr . Frost responded that in terms of the
fire separation it would not be required if it was a. single -
family unit . Mr . Frost stated that an application had been made
for a building permit for the basement apartment but it. was not
determined how to proceed on this matter yet .
Mr . King said that the record before the Board indicated an
application for a single family residence and further indicated
that the building inspector did give notice of a violation namely
for constructing work in the basement without a building permit
with a second `. notice dated May 7 , 1986 being sent . Mr . King did
not think the Board ought to be required to pass on the merits of
an application, for a variance when there appeared on the face of
it the possibility of a clear violation of the ordinance with no
prosecution having ever been undertaken under Section 2168 of the
Town Law , Mr . King felt the Board ought to refer this matter to
the Town Attorney and Building Enforcement Officer to consider
• whether there has been a violation and whether it should be
prosecuted before the Board acts on the application and that the
matter be adjourned . A copy of such notice of violation is attached .
( Exhibit 8 ) .
Mr . Mazza said that since Mr . Bortz had acquired the
property he ha' s made every effort , as soon as he found out about
the problems , to correct same , including making application for a
building permit , and making repairs . Mr . Mazza continued that if
this matter were delayed he expected that the purchase offer
currently pending would disappear .
Mr . Bortz said that he had purchased the property on March
14 , 1986 so the Town was sending the notice of violation to the
wrong person so if neither Mr . Bortz nor Mr . Tidd received the
notice they had no way of knowing they were in violation . Mr .
King reminded Mr . Bortz he had admitted that he was working with
Mr . Tidd previously and they were partners in this operation .
Mr . Mazza said that Mr . Bortz was financially involved only . Mr .
King said that all of these matters should be taken into
consideration when determining whether a prosecution should take
place and of whom . Mr . King repeated that he felt that the Board
should not have to deal with this matter when there was a clear
indication of a violation , and a decision should not be made in a
punitive manner either . Mr . King thought that someone ,should be
punished if the facts were as they appeared on the record ,
• otherwise what did the ordinance mean and should it be followed
or not .
Mr . Mazza said that he felt this would hold up the sale to a
14
• more responsible person . Mr . Mazza also stated that Mr . Bortz
had spent money to correct certain deficiencies based upon
directions from the Town which expenditures would be wasted if
the Town now ,chose to prosecute instead of granting the use
variance , Mr . King said that he presumed that the building
inspector had the right to assume that the second apartment was
lawfully there when he inspected the property . Mr . King
continued that a search of the records had determined that it was
not .
Mr . King then made a motion as follows :
RESOLVED , ` that this matter be referred to the Town Attorney
and Building Inspector to decide whether prosecution is in
order and to report back to the Board on May 27 , 1987 .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King , Hewett
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
• Mr . Mazza said that for the record , the notice of violation
that was sent . on May 7 , 1986 was copied to the Town Supervisor ,
Town Attorney , Town Engineer , and Judge Wallenbeck and no
prosecution had come until Mr . Bortz came to the Board with a
contract in hand to dispose of the property only to be delayed
further . Mr . Mazza maintained that if there was going to be a
prosecution it should have been done in May of 1986 when the
notice of violation was sent out .
Chairman Aron said that Mr . Mazza was correct in that a re -
inspection was to be made on May 20 , 1986 a nd that al 1 those
people had received notices . Chairman Aron stated that Mr .
Cartee passed away on May 23 , 1986 and when Mr . Frost took over
he took over a hornet ' s nest .
The last item on the agenda was the following :
APPEAL of Marie Louise Brown , Appellant , Randolph F . Brown ,
Agent , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer denying Building Permits to rebuild a
non - conforming barn destroyed by fire and to build increased
storage and sales area , at Indian Creek Farm , located at
1408 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 1 -
25 . 21 , Residence District R15 . Permits are denied under
Article XII , Sections 54 and 56 , of the Town of Ithaca
• Zoning Ordinance , whereby no non - conforming building or use
shall be extended except as authorized by the Zoning Board
of Appeals , and , whereby substantial restoration of a
building ' damaged by fire may take place within six months
15
• provided such damage constitutes an amount less than 75 % of
the replacement cost of such building , and whereby such time
limit may be extended by the Zoning Board of Appeals in
cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship ,
Mr . Randy , Brown addressed the Board . He stated that he had
already been granted permission by the Zoning Board of Appeals to
build a walk - in cooler and increased sales area behind his
present stand . Mr . Brown reminded the Board that he had a barn
fire and that changed his needs . He stated that he now needed
something more ' enclosed that he can park equipment in that needs
to be covered and also he would like to build a greenhouse so
that he could extend the sales at the stand to include plants
during season , He proposed that instead of building the walless
structure with a roof on it previously approved , he would like to
build a greenhouse ( a metal frame structure with stakes driven
into the earth ) . Mr . Brown did not think it was his long - term
goal to have a patchwork quilt affair on this site but this was
all he could afford at the present time . Mr . Brown would
eventually like to build one continuous structure that would
serve all his needs and would be more appealing but he could not
do that at this time and he could not afford to rebuild his barn
either . He continued that the structure he was proposing was
similar to structures at Early Bird Farm and at Eddydale and
differed only in that it would have a curved roof line design
• where Early Bird and Eddydale have A- frame roof lines . Mr . Brown
continued that the structure would be plastic covered and
inflated with' air to maintain its tautness . Mr . Brown stated
that there is a small space between this pad and the stand and he
hoped to somehow tie it altogether so that he could have an
entryway to the stand from the greenhouse and vice - versa and a
rear entrance to further encourage customers to use the parking
area which he had provided since at the last appeal the Board had
asked him to provide further parking which he had done . Mr .
Brown further stated he would like to display plants outside of
the greenhouse in the Spring to further encourage people to
use the rear of the sales area . Mr . Brown said that in sum what
he was asking for was permission to build a greenhouse and tie it
in to the stand .
Chairman Aron asked if the cooler would still be built and
Mr . Brown responded he had already had permission to build the
walk - in cooler , but that he could not do it now but at some later
date he would , and that in addition to the walk - in cooler he
would like a greenhouse .
Mr . Brown then questioned the process of the extension of
permission to rebuild his barn . He stated that Mr . Frost had
asked him to include this matter into his appeal or otherwise he
would lose his ability to rebuild the barn and he did not
understand this . Chairman Aron said they would get: to that
• matter .
Chairman Aron then read a petition , bearing 39 signatures ,
16
• to the Zoning Board of Appeals in opposition to the appeal . A
copy of such document entitled " Petition to the Zoning Board of
Appeals " is attached hereto as Exhibit 9 .
Chairman Aron then read an excerpt from the Zoning Board of
Appeals minutes of August 22 , 1984 pertaining to a motion made by
Joan Reuning and seconded by Jack Hewett concerning Mr „ Brown ' s
appeal at that time . A copy of such section of these minutes is
attached hereto as Exhibit 10 .
Chairman Aron then stated that he lived near Mr . Brown and
drove past his property four to six times a day and noticed that
Mr . Brown has had much debris and unwanted and unsightly material
on the site of the existing stand for over or close to one year .
Chairman Aron continued that only recently , perhaps two weeks
ago , Mr . Brown had endeavored to clean up the debris . Chairman
Aron also stated that the parking in front was hazardous and that
although Mr . Brown had signs posted there was no one inside the
stand who enforced the signs asking people to park in the rear .
Mr . Brown admitted to laxity as far as the debris was
concerned , and said that as far as the parking problem was
concerned he had erected the signs that were requested in the
time frame given to him by Mr . Frost and had suggested to people
that they try and comply with the signs but found it hard to
• control the actions of the customers . Chairman Aron reminded Mr .
Brown these two items were conditions when his appeal :had been
granted in 1984 , and that Mr . Brown had agreed to keep the site
clean , had agreed to make sure the parking problem was taken care
of , and had indeed agreed to paint the stand , but it appeared
that these conditions had not been adhered to .
Mr . Brown said that he had indeed painted the stand but the
paint had peeled off and that it did need to be painted again .
Mr . Brown agreed that the presence of debris on the premises was
a poor effort on his part but that he had cleaned it up several
weeks ago . As to the petition Mr . Brown stated that he did not
see how building a barn could detract from the value of the
Bowers property since a barn was there to begin with . Mr . Brown
stated that he and the Bowers had entered into purchase
agreements simultaneously for their properties with the full
knowledge of what each would be doing , i . e . , the Bowers knew Mr .
Brown was going to be a fruit farmer and Mr . Brown knew that Mrs .
Bowers was going to have an antique business . As to the! problem
of the traffic , Mr . Brown acknowledged that perhaps it was
hazardous but nevertheless he had tried to control same and
further he did need to make a living this way .
The public meeting was then opened .
• Mrs . Celia Bowers of 1406 Trumansburg Road addressed the
Board . Mrs . Bowers said that the fire chief had told her they
were very lucky that the fire from the Brown barn did not spread
to their property . Mrs . Bowers stated that she was also upset
17
• about the unsightly debris , and the hundreds of rats from the
Brown property that run to her property . Mrs . Bowers said that
she was opposed to Mr . Brown spreading more debris and more rats
in the neighborhood . Mrs . Bowers complained about the traffic
and said she had trouble getting in and out of her driveway ,
which driveway Mr . Brown owns but over which she has an easement
and right of way . Mrs . Bowers said that she saw two accidents at
the site last summer due to this fruit stand and she felt it was
not the place to increase traffic by putting in a greenhouse .
Mr . John Bowers said the basic issue is whether the area is
going to develop commercially and if so he , along with other
residents in the area , are opposed to it . He stated that they
had moved to the neighborhood understanding that it was primarily
residential and would remain that way . Mr . Bowers was not
opposed to Mr . Brown selling his own produce but was opposed to
any increase in the retail operation .
As to the barn Mr . Bowers said that in the fire that
happened last fall the only reason their barn and possibly their
house did not burn down was that there was no wind . He said that
nine out of ten days there is a steady breeze and if the fire had
occurred on one of those nine days their property would have been
destroyed . He said that he could not see putting up a new barn
just because historically a barn was there .
iMr . King asked Mr . Brown to identify his property and the
property of Mr . and Mrs . Bowers on a map . Mr . King asked where
the barn in question would be and Mr . Brown responded that the
old site of his barn stood 30 feet from the property line of Mr .
and Mrs . Bowers ,
Mr . King asked Mr . Brown how many acres his farm was and Mr .
Brown responded it was 40 acres being tax parcels No . 6 - 24 - 1 -
25 . 21 and 25 . 22 .
Mr . William S . Joyce of 1416 Trumansburg Road , Ithaca , New
York , opposed Mr . Brown ' s appeal for two reasons , first because
of the increased traffic and secondly , he felt that the
enlargement of the stand would not fit in with the character and
architecture of the neighborhood .
Mr . Austen asked what Mr . Brown had done to eliminate the
parking in the front and Mr . Brown responded that he put physical
barriers on the side of the road and put tables out with displays
on them so people could not physically entor that area . Mr .
Brown said that when he did this however the State disapproved
because he was too close to the road and also people could not
see when they were pulling out into the road . Mr . Austen asked
why he did not have an ingress and egress route and Mr . Brown
• responded that he had tried that but it was unsuccessful .
Chairman Aron conceded that Mr . Brown had put up signs but
perhaps they should have been larger . Chairman Aron also stated
that perhaps Mr . Brown ' s employees could be on the site to
18
• enforce the rear parking .
Mrs . Bowers said that an " in only " sign would confuse
matters for her customers who also had to use that driveway .
Mr . King asked Mr . Brown when he proposed to build a new
barn and Mr . Brown responded it would probably not be for about
two years . Mr . King suggested that the Board eliminate the
permission to build the new barn , making a note in the record
that the matter was being postponed until such time as Mr . Brown
wanted to seek specific permission to build the barn , this to be
without prejudice to the time delay .
Attorney Barney requested clarification of Mr . Brown ' s
status as to rebuilding his barn if he withdrew his request for
an extension at this time .
Chairman Aron explained that the zoning ordinance states
that if a property burns down 75 % or less it can be rebuilt
within six months without permission by this Board under the non -
conforming use . He continued that since Mr . Brown had gone over
the six month period the Board had the authority to grant Mr .
Brown an extension of time to rebuild that barn at the same site
but if that extension were granted he would only have the
extension , not permission to rebuild .
• Mr . Brown at this time said he did not plan on building the
barn at the present time but that he would have to build a barn
in the future but would not like it at the same site . Chairman
Aron suggested he worry about that when the time came to rebuild
the barn .
Mr . Brown opted to ask the Board for an extension of time
and Chairman Aron asked Mr . Brown if he understood that in that
case the barn would have to be rebuilt in the same site and Mr .
Brown responded that he did understand this and that he would
like a two year extension . Attorney Barney suggested that one
year would be more feasible .
A motion was made by Edward King as follows :
RESOLVED that this Board extend Mr . Brown ' s time to apply
for a building permit to reconstruct his barn , within the
statute , and that he apply to this Board for a special
permit to do so , with the time to make such application to
be extended to run one year from the present date .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
• Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen , Hewett
Nay - None
19
• The motion was carried .
Chairman . Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as the
lead agency in this matter and asked Ms . Beeners to comment on
the environmental assessment which she did . A copy of Ms .
Beeners ' recommendation is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 1 ,
entitled " Part II - Environmental Assessment - Brown Appeal " .
Edward King asked what the elevation of the greenhouse roof
would be and Mr . Brown responded that the highest point on the
greenhouse would be about nine or ten feet and that the structure
was 30 x 72 feet in size , Mr . King asked Ms . Beeners if the
visual impact of the greenhouse would be adverse and she
responded that she did not think so , given the area in which it
was situated which is similar to McGuire Gardens and Earlybir d
Farms , and the displays at those locations do not detract from
the neighborhood .
Mrs . Bowers objected that McGuire Gardens is not residential
and Earlybird has off - street parking . Mrs . Bowers stated that
she also had a home business and was forbidden by the Board to
put anything but a wooden sign outside and was inspected
regularly by Mr . Cartee .
Mr . Bowers stated that the main concern of the residents of
• the neighborhood was the increase in traffic and not the visual
I
mpact .
The public hearing was closed .
Edward King made a motion as to the environmental assessment
as follows :
RESOLVED , that subject to an adequate site plan for traffic
control and the barring of parking in front of the fruit
stand and upon the understanding that the parking will be
controlled before any permit will be effective , this Board
finds a negative determination of environmental. impact ,
further conditional upon adequate signage , provisions for
adequate parking to the east , west and south of the building
away from the highway , and further conditional upon the
fruit stand being painted if the zoning enforcement officer
deems it necessary .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , King , Austen , Hewett
Nay - Reuning
• The motion was carried .
Edward Austen mentioned that Mr . Brown had asked for a walk -
1
20
• in cooler several years ago but that nothing had been clone about
it , and Mr . Brown was asked if he still wanted his walk - in
cooler . Mr . Brown explained that he had financially been unable
to build the cooler but still wanted it and would place it on the
property when he could afford it .
Discussion was held on the problem of parking and what could
be done to alleviate the problem so that the traffic could be
directed to the sides and rear of the building . It was suggested
that Mr . Brown work with the Department of Transportation and Mr .
Frost to work out a way to inexpensively and safely solve this
parking problem .
Mr . King said that he felt that an entire traffic flow had
to be developed before the Board could in all conscience approve
the greenhouse which will be an intensification of the use of the
fruit stand and he strongly felt that the Board should adjourn
this matter .
Joan Reuning reiterated what she had said earlier along the
same vein as what Mr . King had said and stated that the track
record of Mr . Brown should be taken into consideration before the
Board granted anything further .
A motion was made by Edward King as follows :
• RESOLVED , , that the matter of Mr . Brown ' s application be
adjourned until the next reasonable meeting date to give the
zoning enforcement officer an opportunity to work with the
applicant and the Department of Transportation to develop
suitable parking measures for this site , and that it be
reported back to the Board to vote upon the granting of the
application .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Reuning , King , Aron , Austen , Hewett
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
There being no .further business to come before the Board ,
the meeting was adjourned at 11 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Beatrice Lincoln
• Recording Secretary
Approved
,h
Henry Aron , Chairman
Exhibits 1 through 11 attached
GRANT OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
• Made thin day of , 19879 by Lawrence G .
Iacovelli , Jr . and Cheryl R . Iacovelli of 178 Kendall Avenue ,
Ithaca , New York , hereinafter called " Grantor " ;
TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA , a Municipality within the County of
Tompkins and State of New York .
WHEREAS , the Grantor is the owner of real property on the
northerly side of Kendall Avenue in said Town of Ithaca
designated as Ithaca Land Company Lots 140 , 141 and 142 in said
Township , and which properties are now designated on the Town of
Ithaca Tax Map as # 5405 = 23 ;
AND WHEREAS , the Grantor has a dwelling on these parcels ;
AND WHEREAS , said property is situated in an Rag Zone under
• the current Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as readopted ,
amended and revised as of February 1 .2 , 1968 , dwellings of no
more than twoafamily size lots no smaller than 9 , 000 square feet
being permitted in this Zone ( although it is recognized that
dwellings could be legally erected on each of the above
mentioned Ithaca Land Company lots by virtue of the existence of
this subdivision prior to the Zoning enactment ) ;
AND WHEREAS , the Grantor desires to obtain authority for
occupancy of the building to include two dwelling units ,
•
Exhibit . l
, y
a2a
• and has himself offered to devote and dedicate the three Ithaca
Land Company lots mentioned above to this proposed building ;
NOW THEREFORE , in consideration of the premises and of the
grant by the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals of a
Variance to authorize the use of the building as a two apartment
dwelling , no other consideration herefor being given or
intended , the Grantor does hereby impose upon said real property
in said premises described , viz . , the Ithaca Land Company Lots
1409 141 and 142 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS to run with the land
until such time , if ever , that the Town of Ithaca or one of its
duly authorized Boards or agencies shall by written instrument
or Order release the same as follows :
• 1 . Said land shall not be subdivided , but shall remain
intact as part and parcel with the said dwelling thereon .
2 . No building or improvement other than an accessory
building or improvement permitted under the then = applicable
Zoning Ordinance shall be constructed upon any other part of
said premises .
3 . The - proposed dwelling shall not be enlarged nor made
into more apartments or dwelling units than the two permitted by
the Variance nor shall any such dwelling unit be occupied by
more than the number of people permitted in such Variance except
upon proper authorization under the thenmapplicable Zoning
Ordinance .
•
w3w
4 . In any event this entire parcel shall henceforth be
deemed fully subject to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance
rather than any part thereof retaining any status as a
preexisting subdivision lot .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor has hereunto set his hand
and seal as of the day and year last above written .
LAWRENCE E . IACOVELLI , JR .
CHERYL R * LL
Town of ' Ithaca
Tax Parcel 54 = 5 = 23
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS :
On this day of 1987 , before . me , the
subscriber , personally appeared LAWRENCE E . IACOVELLI , JR . and
CHERYL R . IACOVELLI to me known and known to . me to be the same
persons described in and who executed the within Instrument and
they duly acknowledged to me that they executed the same .
Notary Rublic
•
May 12 , 1987
To Whom It May Concern .
We , Robert and Lida Martin , of 180 Kendall Avenue ,
• would prefer that the house on 178 Kendall Avenue , be
rented as a . family dwelling and not as student housing .
Our neighborhood is already over populated with
student housing .
Thank you for your consideration on this matter .
Sincerely ,
Robert & Lida Martin
62
•
Exhibit 2
- _ ✓�j�-rte" ���C� � G ._��2
f
C'f5z- r��7
.�- Ice �—
JUNE S. PROTTS
Notary Public, State of N York
No, o pi1�
ualified in To {�k Yis'C�oan c
Te Expires July 31 , 19
Exhibit 3
• PART II - Environmental Assessment - Iacovelli.
A . Action is Unlisted .
B . Action will not receive coordinated review .
CO Could action . result in any adverse effects on , to or arising
from the following : -
C1 . Existing air Quality , surface or groundwater luality or
quantity , noise levels , existing Traffic patterns , solid waste
production or disposal ; potential for erosion , drainage or
flooding problems ?
No significant impacts are expected in regard to drainage ,
erosion , flooding , groundwater quality or quantity , or solid
waste production or disposal . No significant adverse impact is
expected in regard to noise , as long as lease conditions include
normal . and enforceable restrictions against noise .
No significant impact is e :,xpected in regard to traffic
patterns , as the proposed occupancy might result in 6 individual
cars rather than the 3 to 4 cars which are estimated at present .
Assuming a total occupancy of up to six unrelated individuals ,
each with automobile , there would be a need for increased
parking . It is estimated that presently , three cars may be parked
conveniently in the south end of the driveway , and that there is
room to add parking to the east of the driveway .
• C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or
other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood
character ?
Not expected . No significant change is expected , aside from
. the additional parking which is recommended to be provided . Such
should .. be. .. adequately screened by plant material . The properties
immediately adjacent to the subject property are occupied by
two - family residences , with single - family use on the opposite
side of Kendall Avenue . There are several vacant lots to the
east of the property , some of which are owned by Tompkins County ,
which are not expected to be developed intensively . The: proposed
density would be less than if Lot 140 were developed as a
residential lot . This lot as proposed would remain as open
space .
C3 , Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife
species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered
species ? I —
Not expected . There are no significant species or habitats
on the site .
C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially
adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources ?
•
Not expected . The number of additional occupants proposed is not expected to have a significant impact on land use
intensity , as long as adequate parking and noise control are
provided . The proposed additional occupancy is within the
Exhibit 4
• Special Permit provisions for R9 Districts . A variance was
granted on July 17 , 1958 for the rear yard deficiency .
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
Proposal is similar to several which have . been approved in
the Pennsylvania / Kendall Avenue area , where increased occupancy
has been proposed along with the restriction of development on
substandard lots . It is likely that this trend will continue .
Each proposal would be reviewed on a specific basis .
C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified
in Cl - C6 ?
Not expected .
C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ?
Not expected .
PART III
A negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended , conditional upon the provision of adequate , screened
parking for the additional occupants , and the provision of
adequate noise controls .
• Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board off Appeals
Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner C/
Review Date : April 21 , 1987 V � �' ► �
PART II - Environmental Assessment - Bortz Appeal
A . Action is Unlisted
B . Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins County
Planning Dept . - N . Y . S . G . M . L . 239 -m ) .
C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising
from the following :
C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or
quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste
production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or
flooding problems ?
Not expected . Proposal would involve no significant site
alterations . Site is sufficiently removed from other residences
so that no significant impact in regard to noise is expected , as
long as there are adequate provisions restricting noise in the
lease agreements , and as long as such provisions are enforced .
The applicant , should demonstrate that each dwelling unit would be
under the management of a person who would be responsible for
enforcement of noise restrictions and other lease provisions , and
the general upkeep of the property .
It is estimated by the reviewer that there is room for 4
cars in the existing parking areas adjacent to the house . These
• areas should be upgraded and expanded to permit adequate and
convenient parking for the proposed increased occupancy , and
should be adequately screened with plant material .
" M, Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or
other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood
character ?
The proposed reservation of open space would be consistent
With adjacent developments , particularly the " Edgewood " cluster
development immediately to the west , where an " open space
easement line was defined approximately 250 feet south of
Slaterville Road on the 7 ± acre development site , and where
approximately 7 acres . were donated to the City of Ithaca for the
purposes of providing buffer land adjoining the Six Mile Creek
watershed lands .
Because .of the size and location of the site , the . increase
in occupancy as presently proposed is not expected to have a
significant impact on community or neighborhood character ,
subject to the provisions in regard to parking and noise control
described in Cl .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement offish or wildlife
species , s gnificant habitats , or threatened or endangered,
species ?
• No significant species or habitats are known to exist on the
site . The proposed reservation of undeveloped open space will
Exhibit 5
rf
assist in the preservation of habitats and species in the Six
Mile Creek watershed land .
C4 . A community ' s existing plansor goals as officially
adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources ?
No significant . increase in land use intensity is expected .
The size of thesite is adequate for the proposed occupancy . The '
proposed occupancy would be less than that which would be
possible if the lot were subdivided. . While there is adequate
frontage and acreage for two dwellings , the location of the
existing dwelling does not permit a convenient subdivision of the
land into more than one lot .
The increased occupancy is not a permitted use in R15
Districts ,
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
The existing zoning of this area does not provide for
increased occupancy by Special Permit . Rather , this has been
intended for single and two family dwellings . While the capacity
of the site is adequate for the proposed increased occupancy , the
proposal may be followed by similar requests for increased
• occupancy .
C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified
in Cl - C6 ?
The granting of variances for increased occupancy in R- 15
zoning districts may , over time , have a negative effect on the
character of these districts . Such could be substantially
mitigated through the further provision by the Town for such
occupancy type .
C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ?
Not expected .
PART III
A negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended because of the capacity and character of the site ,
providing the following :
1 . That adequate development restrictions are placed on a
portion of the site , similar to that accomplished on the adjacent
land to the west .
2 . That adequate parking be provided for the occupants ,
and that the parking area be screened with plant material .
• 3 . That , noise restrictions are made part of the lease
arrangements , and that these restrictions be enforced .
4 . That each dwelling unit would be under the management
of a person who would be responsible for enforcement of noise
• restrictions and other lease provisions , and the general upkeep
of the property .
Lead Agencyo Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : Susan Ce Beeners , Town Planner
Review Date : April . 22 , 1987 ? l
•
w
�EiF�HE#iF�FdEiE
• F E4E iE9E9EdEiE�EiEdE TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SEdF�E:E iE#iE',E#4FdF
iE9E�E3E �E#�EdE;E�E# Frank R . Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning
4EiE4E�?EiF��FiF �EdE#�F
iE#�EiE3F#iE;E•iE iEiE�E�E:FiF�F9E#4EiE�E3E',F3E�E�E#�E�E�EjE?F#�E�E3EBF;E d'c#�;sE�F�E�E#iF9EdF9E�EiE4EiEdFiEiE3E�E�E4Fi5iEdE�EiEiEiF�FiHE#iE�F'�EiE9E9E#3EiEiE9EiEiEiE#�E9E�FiF
�EiHE3EiF�F9E�EiF #dE# , ....- -^•^^..' •" `�.' .
�HFiEiEiFdEiEiFiEdEiE9Edc �'."'�- . . � .1 `1�'�( � Y 7 I I
##3E
Town of Ithaca 87 - 10
May 4 , 1987 ' !
1 ,
To : Susan C . Beeners
From : Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of Planning
Re . Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 -1 and -m of the New York State
General Municipal Law .
Case : Use variance appeal of Wayne C . Bortz at 1513 Slaterville Road ( state
highway )
This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m .
The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on
intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no recommendation is
• indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without
prejudice .
Cr ® �
�
d �o
. � ' � ,
® o
1
•
Biggs Center , Building A , 1283 Trumansburg Road , Ithaca , New York 14850 ( 607 ) 274-5360
Exhibit 6
'Value of Jurproucatcnt itbee
• . „ $ 1—� 5,000 $ TOWN OF lTHACA
x,001— 10,000 5. 0
10,001— '20,000 APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT
20,001— 30,000 15.00 /
30,001— 40,000 20.00 Application Date »+�{�''� _1111
• 40,001— 500000 ' 25.00 p rmit Number*
50,001— 100,000 50.00 r.Z
100,001— 500,000 75.00 � 17i 3 Date ' • _111 1»»re!rz »
500,001- 1 ,000,000 100.00 . ( Parcel Number L..'.:
1,0001001 & Over 150.00 /
Make Checks Payable t T Zoning District :71
.'�
Application is bcreby made to (build �, end , convert (_j, _.._,....f%1���� . .7r, sL '.7za a structure or use land
at rl_`S Ste 44, �' f� Rd., Town of Ithaca, K. Y. -�-�
To be used for S_► �"' /' i • .. :.............:..........r At a cost of ....1f: G
Structure is to be colleted on or habre .._._ ... .. _... r_. .., 19.... ._..»»...,.:......»............. '
Owner of land ..._..1.� .�"� -» . MIN .... Level
JBuilder . �_vke ..�.1. . ........ .. ....:...:»».»
Land Owner's mailing address ...r........._..� _ ...�._... %1` .w:X .f ..7. .... !.:.. ._... ".� �, »..-:...._....
If building is being built for a person other than present Iarid owner, show name 11.11. 1111 ._-, . ............:.. :...:......r. ......
The structures) will be 'as follows : / Square Feet Floor Area .
Type of construction Woe ,) �... ......�. Basement .._.......__
Number of stories :. ..l r. _..._.____...........�......_ First Floor ..._........._.. :. y...»..__._r..
Number of Family Units .. ., 1111_ 1111 _..._ Second Floor ._........._ ...._._..._ _,--....... . ........ ..»_.». .
Pcrcentagd of Lot to be occupied . Over Second ..............— 1111_ ».:........»............
by all structureTotal. Number of Rooms 1111 . a/ • . , . : . . . . . . . .
Total Number. of B3edrooms . . , : . •o. . . . . . . . . . .
Plot Plan on Back of Permit ...�. or Attached .,..._..._ Owner Occupied . . v .• . Yes . . . . . . No
Leased . . . . . Yes . .�(. . No
The required permits have been obtained as follows : Date Issued
� , • FROM TOMPXINS COVNTer HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Approval of septic system and/or well • • fee • • • _:........ .. I1!..A .........»_-
FRoM TowN CLERK
...
Strect .opening ( if road must ba opened for pipes) . ' • .........I'!, l,T .........»1111.:1111
Blasting permit (if blasting necessary) . . . • . . . . • . . . . : ..,_.....:._.... .....»../. .✓...1�:........._.__,»11,11
FROM Su#ERVrsolt
Water Tap ..._r...:...:.:.. .....::...:........._.._..._... District . 1111.».r.._•........
• • I • • • • I _r..._w_N....._� . .•r,_.m1.rr_•
SewerTap ........._.._........._.... . ._. District . . . ..... ............... ..__ ._ .........:.........._..._........
i ' FROM PROPER HtoxwAY DEPARTMENT
Culverts "and driveways • • • a 0 0 0 0 /-1% _-�. M—•.
»1111. lose
FRbM To Building Inspector s /
MuJtip lccnce .permit ........:. ................. .
The Undersigned hereby applies for. permission to do the above, . On accordance with provisions of the I.
Ordinance
. and other% aws• acid Regulations of the Town of Ithaca, New York, or others having jurisdiction, and affirms that all
statements and rfrformation given herein arc correct to the best ' of his knoyole g/e�an�i.liclicf.
Date : .__ . :....r:.. .........::, 19 g� ./:., ... ,l�.f_._!:yS.�,sCleo. :_....._...belle eeeeeeIee .. .._..........
Signature of Landowner.
Building permit (approved by 42._100. ....: :......... Pro_ gress of work. Checked ori :
( ) denied under Section ...._..._.. of the *10
Zoning Ordinance by Foot i.n.gs 1111. ---•--..*vow-•:•••-:-.-
App' eal action : Framing ......r..............._............................:....
Date of appeal ............:......... ..._ ._ ..........
• Date of hearing ............ r.- 1111......_......:....:............... •- Completion ___--_---,.. .-.-:........_........................_.....
1111 1111.
Date of advertising ... ._.......
Board members notifiedOrder to refill excavation
................................. ................_ issued on _._...._. . ........._._.,..»....... .......... .............. . . ...
».. .. . . ...... . . . Order to demoli3h structure
..._.........................._.......__.......-•-- issued on ._ .......:..........:... ..........._.................�..._. .....
Exhibit 7
` TOWN OF ITHACA
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca , New York 14850
( 607 ) 273 - 1747
N O T I C E O F V 1 O L A T 1 O N
FIRST NOTICE
SECOND NOTICE XXX DATE Ilay 7 , 1986
THIRD. NOTICE
TO : John Tidd
1513 Slaterville Road
Ithaca , NY 14850 '
You are hereby given notice and warning that the following violation ( s ) of :
Town of Ithaca zoning Ordinance : Article ( s ) XIV Section ( s ) 7 !5
New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code 1984 : Section
ee National Electrical - Code .
Town of Ithaca Local Law # 4 - 1979 Regulating Maintenance of Real Property : Section
Town of Ithaca Ordinance Regulating Unsafe Buildings and Collapsed Structures :
Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Local Law # 6 - 1980 : Section
Town. of Ithaca Park Use Law , Local Law # 1 - 1982 : Section
exlst ( s ) at : 1513 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel lJo . 6 - 58- 1 - 32 . 1 ,
caused by : construction work in basement without a building permit .
Such violation ( s ) or repetition thereof or continuance thereof make ( s ) you liable for
prosecution .
exx A re - inspection will be made on May 20 , 1986
A re- inspection will not be made .
ISSUED BY �✓c
Lewis D . Cartee
Buildin Inspector
xc - Town Supervisor T i tie )
Town Attorney
Town Engineer
Judge Wallenbeck
File
CERTIFIED MAIL
Return Receipt Requested
Exhibit 8
%I f io I �
PETITION ,
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �
• � , Ij ,
We , the undersigned concerned residents of the Town of Ithaca wish to petition the Zoning Board
of Apppeals to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector /Zoning Officer denying an appeal by
Marie Louise Brova�v , Randoleh F . Brown Agent , to build ( 1 ) a non- conforming barn to replace
6nei' roye y fire and o burd increased storage and sales area at Indian Creek Farm . We
feel that Mr . Brown's farming and sales operations do not enhance the quality of life in our
neighborhood , which is primarily residential and family- oriented. Thus we strongly oppose the
drection of any or all of the proposed structures for the following reasons;
1 . The location of the barn that was destroyed by fire is far too
close to the barn and house already existing on the adjacent
property. To build a new barn in this location would pose an
unnecessary fire hazard for these buildings.
i
2. Building a now barn in this location would also pose a signifi -
cant health hazard for residences in the area , since the old
barn was regularly infested with rats due to unsanitary pro-
cedures and rotting fruit and vegetables.
3. Erecting a new structure in such close proximity to existing
residences would significantly lower property values in the
area , since new barns are ugly and out of keeping with the
Early American character of the neighboring homes.
•� 4. A new barn and new or enlarged sales area would increase
significantly the accumulation of old worn- out tools and ma-
chinery , litter , waste and general debris which is regularly
left around , making the property in question look out of place
in a residential neighborhood. Litter from this farm frequently
lines the road as far as the hospital . It should be noted that
other nearby farming operations do not pose this problem .
5. The proposed enlargement of storage and sales areas would
significantly increase the amount of traffic in an area which
is known to be exceedingly hazardous already. Last summer
alone , at least two accidents on the Trumansburg Road were
the direct result of customers pulling into and out of the
fruit stand sales area. It should be noted that this road is
the main route to the hospital and it is therefore important
to avoid a heavy build- up of traffic density at any single
location due to an increase in traffic turning into and out of
the Trumansburg Road. This was already observed to be oc-
curring last year during the retail sales operation at the fruit
stand. Such an increase in traffic is particularly dangerous
at this location since it is a 55 mph zone and 1s situated on
a curve.
• 6. Other businesses , Including ones that are farm - related , have
been denied permission to to have retail sales outlets in this
Immediate area. To al low the Browns to increase theirs would
be unfair to those refused and would make the area even more
hazardous to both residents and travellers than it already is.
Exhibit 9
PETITION
NAME ADDRESS
zz
IVX i2/ z� ��d�el�
IA /7C
�r�j 459 .
/, _G<`'"'.'� ��l•G� G��t-!' / '`71.:x( 1 �. t�� ��,t., i ..,c_-c--[
6 pj- -- --- f -
7.1 / s
l GLa •tl,��c-t'l�--,cam ��� ��•7- ,,�
Ak L4
96
k e.L �rn 4
r ' T
lo. Trtokpvttj }
12 . � .... v
74
14 /,Qdta/ AIXAj,
1, 41 r/m„he�% AINS a
15 .
ff
444
f tvl� V 14
17 .219
204
-�
PETITIO
22.
23.
Id 4mr
zz 1017 146
24.
25111 , . .
26-
270
L �
28.
p-, . c� ��� ✓fir
29%
kl -
30. _
31 .
rl ac
32 .
2
• 33.
� e
34. r�
35.. Of
369
37.
38. .
396
40.
41 .
42.
43 .
44.
Zoning Board of Appeals 12 August 22 , 1984
Chairman Aron asked why Mr . Brown needed a cooler since he has been
eoperating for a long time without it . Mr . Brown stated that they really
need it for their vegetables , adding that he has another farm in . Newfield
and is also •associated with Littletree Orchards . Mr . Brown stated that
they have been producing a lot more than they ever have before and a lot
more kinds of produce and they need more cooled
. space to store their
produce in . Mr . Brown stated that the cooler is not associated with
display , adding that their customers are not going to come in there .
Mrs . Reuning wondered how much higher the cooler will be than the
stand , to which Mr . Brown replied , about four feet higher at the rear .
Mrs . Reuning wondered if it could be seen from the road , to which Mr . Brown
replied , yes , from the Trumansburg direction but not from the Ithaca
direction . Mr . Brown stated that he has not had drawings done yet , so he
did not know about the roof line for snow load , adding , however , that he
did not want to dwarf the stand .
Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions , No one
spoke . Mr . Brown stated that he had spoken to the neighbors who live next
door and they had no objections . Mr . Brown stated that , as for the
neighbors across the street , he did not know about their feelings because
they were not there , however , he did know that the people there are not the
owners , the house is a rental house . Mr . Brown stated that he had not been
able to contact his immediate neighbors , John and Celia Bowers . It was
noted that eight neighbors were notified by mail and no one appeared .
Mr . Cartee asked Mr . Brown to tell the Board about the trees down near
• the road on the Trumansburg side of the ' stand but some 300Y ards distant
from the stand Mr . Brown described the trees and talked about removing
some trees and underbrush because it is blind for people coming down the
road from Trumansburg to see the stand enough of a distance away to
properly prepare for entering the stand area. . Mr. . Brown commented that he
would like to remove some of these trees , which are on his farm , and cut
back some 'of the underbrush and even have an informational sign which there
used to be , adding that the old pole is still there . Mr . Cartee indicated
that the matter of a second sign for the stand is not that which is before
the Board at this hearing . Chairman Aron commented that the proposal
sounded good to him .
MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded. by Mr_ . Jack Hewett :
RESOLVED , pursuant to Article XII , Section 54 , that the Town of ItJna
Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant authorization for
extension of the legal non - conforming roadside stand , known as Indian C
Farm Stand , presently owned by Marie L . Brown and operated by Randolp
Brown , and located at 1408 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
6 - 24 - 1. - 25 . 21 , such extension being the construction of a wal
refrigeration unit , separated from the existing roadside stand , includi
roof , with pole construction , of approximately 40 feet by 15 feet , forprotection of and shade for said walk - in refrigeration unit , and furtheRESOLVED , that said grant of authorization to extend
non - conforming use be and hereby is conditioned. upon :
Exhibit 10
a
Zong. ng Board of Appeals 13 August 22 , 1984
Ole The development , as soon as possible , of adequate parking , as proposed
by the Appellant through her Agent , Randolph F . Brown , and as
indicated on the drawing presented to and reviewed by said Board of
Appeals this date , August 22 , 1984 ;
2 . No parking shall be permitted in front of the existing roadside stand ;
3 . Additional traffic flow and parking signage is permitted to be placed
in the area of the roadside stand as proposed and described by Mr .
Randolph Brown ,
and further
IT IS DETERMINED , by said Board of Appeals , that the health , safety ,
morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general
purpose of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance is promoted ; that the
premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use , and that such use
fills a community need ; that the proposed use and structure are consistent
with the character of the district in which it is located ; that the
proposed use is not detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood
character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or
seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants ; that the access and
egress , and signage therefor , as proposed and as imposed by said Board of
Appeals as a condition , is safely designed ; and , that the general effect of
the proposed use upon the community as a whole is not detrimental to the
health , safety and general welfare of the community .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Ayer Aron , Reuning , Hewett .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Brown / Brown Appeal duly
closed at 8 : 05 p . m .
APPEAL OF CODDINGTON ROAD COMMUNITY CENTER , APPELLANT , K , SHIRLEY BROWN , AS
AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO
OPERATE A DAY CARE CENTER AT 920 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
NO . 6 - 47 - 1 - 11 . 3 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF THE
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
duly opened at 8 : 06 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mrs . K . Shirley Brown and
Mrs . Anne Morrissette were present . It was noted that each of the Board
members had before him / her a copy of the Appeal Form as signed and
submitted by K . Shirley Brown under date of August 9 , 1984 , reading as
follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to operate a Day Care Center at
• Coddington Road Community Center . . . Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph
4 . . . Having appeared before the Planning Board August 71 1984 , I
respectfully ask approval to operate a Day Care Center . The Planning Board
has reviewed my proposal and prepared a report which is attached to this
• PART II - Environmental Assessment - Brown Appeal
Zoning Board of Appeals , May 13 , 1987
Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
The request to rebuild the barn is being considered a Type
II action under Town- of Ithaca Environmental Review Recrulations ,
Section V , Paragraph 4 , requiring no further environmental
review .
The request to build a greenhouse for increased sales and
storage area is an Unlisted Action and is reviewed below . The
action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins Co . Planning
Dept . - N . Y . S ,. G . M . L . 239 -m )
Ce - Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising
from the following :
C1e Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or
quantity , noise Levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste
production or disposal , potential for erosion , draina a or
flooding problems ?
No significant impact is expected in regard to these
factors . . No major site alterations are planned . The greenhouse
• would be located on an area which was prepared for a walk - in
refrigeration unit for which a variance was granted. by the Zoning
Board on Appeals on Aug . 22 , 1984 , but which was never
constructed .
The proposed addition of parking on the sides of the
greenhouse , and the proposed establishment of entrance :> to the
stand and greenhouse from these parking areas , will improve
circulation on the site and will assist in alleviating problems
of parking in front of the stand . Parking should be prohibited
in front of the stand , and adequate signage for this should be
installed .
Maintenance of trees and underbrush on the north side of the
property to improve sight distance should be continued .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or
other natural ' or cultural'resources , or community or neighborhood
character ?
No significant adverse impact is expected . The proposed
greenhouse would be similar to an accessory agricultural
building , and would visually enhance the existing stand .
Painting and other improvements to the existing stand should be
made .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife
�ecies , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered
• species ?
No such species or habitats are known to exist on the site .
Exhibit 11
w
C4 . A community ' s existing pians or goals as officially
adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources ?
Proposal would not significantly increase land use intensity
or . change land use . As noted above , a variance was already
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a similar structure in
the same location . No significant impact is expected .
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
Proposal would represent improvements and minor expansion of
an existing use , and would not significantly induce growth or
related development or activities . Proposal might eventually
assist the applicant in the planning and financing of ;barn
reconstruction adjacent to this site , which reconstruction is
economically unfeasible at this time .
C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified
in Cl - C67
Not expected .
C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ?
• Not expected .
PART III
A negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended , with the following conditions :
1 . That parking be prohibited in the road right of way in
front of the stand , and . that adequate signage be installed for
such .
20 That the existing stand be painted .
Lead - Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner (!f (-
Review Date : May 7 , 1987 � ��(!y� � ���
•