HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-08-11 TOWN OF ITHACA FILM
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ITHACA
AUGUST 11 , 1993 Data a Q 3
o
Cie'
The following matters were heard by the Board on August 11 , 1993 :
APPEAL OF TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL , APPELLANT , GRAHAM KING , AGENT , REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH OCCUPANCY BY
FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 101 DATES DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 24 - 3 - 2 . 1 ,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE UNRELATED PERSONS WILL BE MEDICAL STUDENTS PARTICIPAT-
ING IN A RESIDENCE PROGRAM WITH THE HOSPITAL .
GRANTED , WITH CONDITIONS .
APPEAL OF JOSEPH CIASCHI , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL LAW # 1 - 1987 ( AS AMENDED ) , TO BE
PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A SCHOOL FOR MASSAGE KNOWN AS THE NEW YORK STATE INSTITUTE OF
MASSAGE , AT 1251 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 24 - 3- 3 . 4 , SPECIAL
LAND USE DISTRICT #4 .
GRANTED , WITH CONDITION .
APPEAL OF KEVIN HAVERLOCK , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE
PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 ± FEET ( 30
FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 5 CHASE LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 45 - 1 - 59 ,
• RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 .
ADJOURNED .
APPEAL OF COYOTE LOCO RESTAURANT , APPELLANT , DANIEL J . STRAWBRIDGE , AGENT , REQUESTING
AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BY
CONSTRUCTING A 250 + SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR DECK AT 1876 JUDD FALLS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO . 62 - 2 - 1 . 123 , BUSINESS DISTRICT C . SAID RESTAURANT IS NONCONFORMING
SINCE THE BUILDING HAS AN EXISTING SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
18 . 68 + FEET AND 25 + FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE , WHEREAS BUILDING SETBACKS OF 30 FEET
ARE REQUIRED IN BUSINESS ZONES .
GRANTED , WITH CONDITION .
FUD 1
TOWN OF ITHACA SOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Dat a
AUGUST 11 , 1993 Cie
PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Harry Ellsworth , Town Attorney John C .
Barney , and Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost .
OTHERS :. Kevin Haverlock , Steve Pope , Harry Kaiser , Graham King , Daniel Strawbridge ,
and Mark Macaluso ,
Chairman Austen opened the meeting at 7 : 07 P . M . and stated that all posting ,
publication , and notification of the public hearings has been posted and that the
same are in order .
Chairman Austen read the first Appeal before the Board :
APPEAL OF TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL , APPELLANT , GRAHAM KING , AGENT ,
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , OF THE
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE WITH OCCUPANCY BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 101 DATES DRIVE , TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 24- 3- 2 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 . THE UNRELATED
PERSONS WILL BE MEDICAL STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN A RESIDENCE PROGRAM WITH
THE HOSPITAL .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Graham King to explain what is involved in fixing this
building up for a residence for students .
• Mr . King said the area which is before the Board is relative to the houses to the
right , immediately after entering the Tompkins Community Hospital drive . There are
four units there , with the two center units going to have an opening between the two
units . He said five bedrooms would be left there plus an area which would change one
bathroom into a kitchen area . He said there would also be a little waiting area with
a fire exit , or an exterior exit so the students would not have to go through the
first floor of the building to get to the second floor . He assumed that the Board
has read in the paper of the jointure that the hospital has made with Cornell Univer-
sity to accept up to five Cornell students , at a time , for rural training . The five
students will only be in the area for a six-week period , but they will rotate .
Graham King also said that there would always be five students ; he said they may vary
from one up to five people . He said that he thinks it is a good thing for this
community as well as for the hospital . The tie - in with Cornell gives the hospital an
" in " with the Medical Center of New York which Cornell is directly involved with and
where a lot of specialties are performed . The students are being brought to this
area for some rural training for doctors who may be more interested in going into
more rural areas rather than New York City , Graham King said the hospital believes
that this is an opportunity for both the hospital and Tompkins County .
Chairman Austen said that the only exterior work he sees is the addition of the
stairway . Graham King said the exterior stairwell actually comes down in-between one
of the end houses . He said the two center houses are joined by a common wall ;
however , he said there is space in-between the two outer units . He said the stairway
will be located beyond the little canopy which ties the end buildings together . He
said it will hardly be noticeable from the road .
Mr . Frost wanted the Board to be aware of the prints in the packet and what he
circulated among the Board members . Attorney Barney wanted to know if there was only
to be one stairway . Graham King indicated that was true .
Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• Graham King pointed out the canopy which ties the end building to the duplex unit
in the center . He said that the stairwell will actually come out and behind the
canopy , towards the back of the property . He said it will be unnoticeable from the
roads , either Route 96 or from the hospital drive .
Chairman Austen asked if this will be a covered stairway , and Mr . Frost answered
that it would not be covered . Chairman Austen asked if the windows would be the
emergency exits . Mr . Frost said that in a two- family home , as long as there is a
primary exit way which is the exterior stairs that are being put in , the windows are
permitted as long as they are within 14 feet of the surface . Attorney Barney asked
if this qualifies as a two- family occupancy and not a mixed occupancy to which Mr .
Frost corrected himself , stating that it is a single family residence mixed with a
day care center .
Chairman Austen questioned if the day care center stays on the first floor .
Graham King said that the day care center will stay on the first floor , closing off
both stairwells which now go up on the interior to the second floors . Mr . Frost said
that day care occupancy , is the only occupancy which is permitted to be mixed .
Attorney Barney made the comment that , if he is reading the plans correctly ,
there is just one bath serving these students . Graham King said that there will only
be one bath . He said that one of the existing bathrooms will be converted into a
little kitchen area . Attorney Barney asked if one bath would be adequate for all
five students , and Graham King answered affirmatively because all of the students , in
all likelihood , will not be starting or quitting at the same time . He said that ,
however , most of their education will be during the daylight hours . He said the
students will be going from doctor ' s office to doctor ' s office besides spending some
time at the hospital . He also said they will be going to different types of meetings
at the hospital . Graham King said that he did believe one bathroom would be adequate
for five students . He spoke about going to a dormitory setting in which a lot more
people would share one shower . Attorney Barney said that there is usually a multiple
bank of five showers for fifty kids , Graham King said that then you would have ten
students per shower . Therefore , Graham King stated that he did not think this would
be a problem .
Mr . Edward King wanted to know how long the hospital proposed to continue this
program , and Graham King answered that they hoped it would last forever . He
continued that the students would only spend a six-week period in Ithaca , rotating
with some leaving and some coming in . He said they hope there will be five students
there at all times , but it depends if the students have the interest in rural
training . He said that it would be a plus for the community and the hospital .
Chairman Austen opened public hearing , and although there was no one present to
speak on this matter , he left the public hearing open until after the Short Environ-
mental Assessment Form was reviewed .
Environmental Assessment
Chairman Austen stated that the environmental assessment was prepared by Louise
Raimando , Town Planner I and reviewed on August 4 , 1993 .
• Chairman Austen said that the Board was looking at the vehicle parking spaces .
He wanted to know if the students would be driving . Graham King said he did not
believe they would because he knew that the hospital would be chauffeuring them to
the different doctors ' offices with the hospital ' s courier service . Chairman Austen
Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• said that had been a question on the facility as to whether there was enough parking
for five extra vehicles . Graham King said that most of the vehicles that would park
in that area would park in the driveway by the garages . He also said that if there
was not any available in that area , the students could find the parking in the
hospital lot itself . Chairman Austen asked if the garage would be available for
parking . Graham King said that the garage would not include the students . He also
said that it was his understanding that the students would not be having their own
vehicles in Ithaca .
Chairman Austen read Part III Staff Recommendation which said that " based on the
review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the scale of it , the
character of the area , and the information above , a negative determination of
environmental significance is recommended for the action . "
Chairman Austen also read a letter from The Tompkins County Department of
Planning , dated August 6 , 1993 , and signed by James W . Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner :
" Dear Andy :
" This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified
above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Depart-
ment pursuant to § 239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General Munici -
pal Law .
" The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious
• impact on intercommunity , County , or State interests . Therefore , no
recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Depart-
ment , and you are free to act without prejudice .
" Aside from the section 239 review , the Planning Department would
like to note that if the five residents have automobiles , available
parking on the site may not be adequate to accommodate them .
" Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of
the record . "
Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
MOTION
By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King .
RESOLVED , that the Board accept the recommendation of negative determination of
environmental impact based on the assessment by Louise Raimando , Town Planner I
on August 4 , 1993 and as shown on the drawings by HOLT Architects , dated June 22 ,
1993 for the Tompkins Community Hospital located 101 Dates Drive , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 24 - 3- 2 . 1 .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - King , Austen , Ellsworth .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
With no further questions , Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the Appeal .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that this Board grant the variance to Tompkins Community Hospital for
the use of the second floor at 101 Dates Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24 -
3- 2 . 1 , as a residential unit for up to five unrelated residents for the purpose
of conducting the training of potential doctors in rural medicine as outlined in
the application for periods up to six weeks , but on the continuing basis for the
rotating personnel for students and student body upon the understanding and
conditions :
1 ) That the premises are modified in accordance with the plans submitted ,
previously referred to , dated June 22 , 1993 .
2 ) That changes will be made in compliance with the New York State Fire Preven-
tion and Building Code .
3 ) That the first floor occupancy for day care facility will be continued .
4 ) That the variance will be granted in view of the fact of the proposal for
occupancy for what is essentially a one - family apartment by five unrelat-
ed people is not in totally inviolate of the intent of the stature that
this is a very special use as a school dormitory , and there is a need for
such a use .
5 ) Appearing that the building is situated on the hospital grounds , rather
isolated from any other dwelling units , will not have an adverse effect upon
the residential community .
6 ) That it would be an unnecessary hardship for the Appellant not to be able to
house these students at this hospital facility .
7 ) That the requested variance would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood .
8 ) That the variance be granted to continue so long as this special use as a
training dormitory is continued .
9 ) That the variance is to cease when the use ceases .
10 ) That the occupants will be Cornell medical students .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - King , Austen , Ellsworth .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
Graham King expressed his thanks for the Board ' s consideration in this matter ,
and he said that he believes that it is a useful and helpful thing for the community
and the hospital . As Graham King was leaving the Board room , Mr . Edward King stated
he wanted the record show that he is not related to Graham King .
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• Chairman Austen then read the following Appeal :
APPEAL OF JOSEPH CIASCHI , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL FROM THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL LAW #1- 1987 ( AS
AMENDED ) , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A SCHOOL FOR MASSAGE KNOWN AS THE NEW
YORK STATE INSTITUTE OF MASSAGE , AT 1251 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 24-3- 3 . 4 , SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT #4 .
Mr . King stated that before Mr . Ciaschi began , Mr . King wanted to call to the
Board ' s attention that he had represented Mr . Ciaschi in some real estate transac-
tions ; however , Mr . King also stated that he had nothing to do with this particular
project . He said that if there had been more members present , he would have excused
himself . He then asked the Town Attorney for his opinion to which Attorney Barney
answered that he would have normally agreed with Mr . King , but with only three
members of the Board present at this meeting , he felt that it may be a hardship for
Mr . Ciaschi if this appeal was delayed any longer . Chairman Austen stated that Mr .
Ciaschi was a " low key " customer of his . Mr . King stated that the approval of the
Appeal was for a school use , and he assumed not controversial although the Board has
not yet heard from the public . Mr . Barney said that , for a practical view , the other
two members will not be back until the September meeting . He said that Mr . Ciaschi
has been extremely patient for the processes which he has had been asked to go
through , and Attorney Barney suggested that the Board proceed .
Chairman Austen stated that , since the Board has only three members present for
the meeting , it requires all three members to be affirmative to grant a special
• approval . Attorney Barney stated that if all three were not affirmative , the affect
would be that there would be no action and a subsequent meeting would be necessary .
Attorney Barney ruled that the Board could continue on this if Mr . Ciaschi was
comfortable with it , to which Mr . Ciaschi indicated that he was .
Chairman Austen addressed Mr . Ciaschi relative to the nature of the training
massage school and asking for the number of instructors and students . Mr . Ciaschi
said that the school has 10 instructors and 30 pupils and would occupy three- quarters
of the first floor , ground level of the structure . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Ciaschi
what was meant by ground level , Mr . Ciaschi would mean the lower level ? Mr . Ciaschi
agreed that if a person were to walk in the front door that would be the ground
level . Mr . Ciaschi said that the land slopes behind the structure , and that is
called the basement .
Mr . Ciaschi repeated that there would be 30 students and 10 teachers who are
certified with the New York State Board of Regents . He said that he believed he gave
this information to Attorney Barney . He also said that the certificate is coming .
He said that the girl has been out of town . He said that when he stopped in the
office , there was a message for him that the girl would get it to him on Friday . He
said he would then give it to whoever it was necessary to give it to at that time .
However , Mr . Ciaschi stated that he would be going out of town and he would not be
back until Monday ; therefore , he said he would bring it in on Monday . Attorney
Barney said that he will be out of town until Tuesday . Attorney Barney said that Mr .
Ciaschi was before the Planning Board for site approval . He said the site was
approved but with the condition of some documentation being supplied that the New
York State Institute of Massage was qualified as a school . He said , apparently ,
there is such evidence but that Mr . Ciaschi has not yet received it . Mr . Ciaschi
asked Attorney Barney if he had received the identification numbers , and Attorney
Barney answered that he did , but that he really needed the certificate from the State
of New York , Mr . Ciaschi said he should have it by Friday .
' Town of Ithaca 6
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
Mr . Ciaschi said he did not know he needed a certificate and therefore he got the
other information . He said when Floyd said , on Monday , he needed a certificate he
said he called the girl up . The girl was out of town , but when she got back , she
called and said she got the message . She said she would get him the certificate by
Friday . Attorney Barney asked if the certificate was from Board of Regents , and Mr .
Ciaschi indicated that was correct . Attorney Barney said this was one of the
conditions the Planning Board imposed was that there would be presentation to the
Town Attorney documentation of the existence of the school .
Chairman Austen said that that was his question relative to if the school was
certified then the Board could look at it as a school .
Attorney Barney asked if the school is a regular school ; i . e . , Monday through
Friday? Mr . Ciaschi stated that it was Monday through Friday , and he believes the
school has physical exhibitions on Saturday , during the morning . He further stated
that the school runs seven months a year . He said that the school is still there for
the remainder of the year , but the administration people are there .
Attorney Barney said that if one wants to become a masseuse , then that person
would have to enroll in it and have to attend classes on a regular basis . Mr .
Ciaschi indicated that was correct and that after this program , the person would get
a degree . Chairman Austen commented that it would be certified by the State , and Mr .
Ciaschi indicated that it would be .
Chairman Austen said that apparently the Planning Board went over the proposal
with a " fine - tooth " comb . Attorney Barney repeated that Mr . Ciaschi has been very
patient .
Chairman Austen stated there is a question on service parking in the rear at
which time he read the letter from the Tompkins County Planning Department , dated
August 6 , 1993 , signed by James W . Hanson , Commissioner . Chairman Austen said the
Commissioner had the Mayer School written in the letter , and he said that the Board
could not call it the Mayer School any more .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Ciaschi if that backup place would cause a problem , and
Mr . Ciaschi answered that it would not . Mr . Ciaschi said Floyd looked at it , and if
delivery trucks were to drive in there , there is a turn around , and , if they had to
unload , they could back into the area . He said that this would be for the catering
service . Mr . Ciaschi said that he believes the topic is the service area for the
people who work in the kitchen , the part directly parallel in the back on the
basement level . He said there would be four spots for the people who work there
through the day . He said the customer parking would not be used .
Chairman Austen asked as to where the school parking would be located . Mr .
Ciaschi said the school parking would mostly be in the front , towards the highway ,
because the front parking lot will be enlarged more than threefold .
Chairman Austen said the Planning Board had a question of storm water drainage ,
which was apparently taken care of by the letter to Cayuga Cliffs Development
Corporation . Chairman Austen said that Mr . Ciaschi had taken care of it with an
agreement with them to which Mr . Ciaschi said that was correct .
Chairman Austen said that he did not want to read the whole three pages of the
Planning Board ' s recommendation on August 3 , so he read page 3 .
Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• Chairman Austen noted that the Planning Board ' s motion was carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing , and since there was no one to speak on
the matter , Chairman Austen asked for any further discussion .
Mr . King asked if the handicap ramp had been taken care of , and Mr . Ciaschi
indicated that it had . Mr . King asked where it would be located , and Mr . Ciaschi
stated that it would be at ground level on the first floor at the side of the
building . Mr . Frost said that it would be a concrete ramp on the side of the
building .
Chairman Austen reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form . He read from
the Planning Board ' s minutes :
" NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED :
" That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environment significance in accordance with the New
York State Environmental Review Act for the above referenced action
as proposed and , therefore , an Environment Impact Statement will not
be required . "
Chairman Austen noted the Planning Board ' s motion was carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
Environmental Assessment
Mr . King noted the reviewer indicated that Mr . Ciaschi is going to create 40 new
parking spaces , specifically for the school . Mr . King asked Mr . Ciaschi if that was
part of the plan to which Mr . Ciaschi replied that it was .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that this Board adopt the findings and recommendations of the Town
Planning staff and accept the environmental impact statement and make a negative
determination of environmental significance for Joseph Ciaschi , at 1251 Trumans-
burg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 3- 3 . 4 , based on the facts developed
in the plan as approved by the Planning Board .
For the record , Chairman Austen stated that the review was made by Floyd Forman ,
Town Planner on August 3 , 1993 .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - King , Austen , Ellsworth .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Ciaschi if the building is now filled , and Mr . Ciaschi
said that it was not , that there was still more space .
Town of Ithaca 8
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that this Board grant to the Appellant Special Approval for the
proposed massage school in the Appellant ' s development , 1251 Trumansburg Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24 - 3- 3 . 4 , in accordance with R15 requirements ,
Section 11 , Paragraph 3 , subparagraph b which permits private schools on the
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals , that particular request being of Local
Law # 1 - 1987 ( as amended ) with these findings and condition :
1 ) That the proposed use will not have any adverse effect on the neighborhood .
2 ) That the building being set back well from the road .
3 ) That the use is one that has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Planning Board ' s development .
4 ) That the Planning Board finding that of the existing , and probable , future
character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected by this propos-
al , nor will it violate the Comprehensive Plan .
5 ) That conditioned , as the Planning Board ' s , on the school obtaining a certifi -
cate from the appropriate New York State agency as a recognized education
facility .
6 ) That the premises are occupied in a non- conforming manner by the Appellant .
7 ) That the construction proposed is fairly consistent with the architectural
character of the neighborhood .
Mr . Scala asked Mr . King if this included all of the conditions of the Planning
Board to which Mr . King said that it did to the extent that this particular request
I
s that of a school use . Chairman Austen asked for further discussion on the
Planning Board conditions .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - King , Austen , Ellsworth .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen read the third Appeal before the Board :
APPEAL OF KEVIN HAVERLOCK , APPELANTF REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS
OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE ,
TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37
+ FEET ( 30 FEET MAXDIUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 5 CHASE LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 45- 1- 59 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 .
Chairman Austen told Mr . Haverlock that there was a question as to whether he was
going to have a colonial style or cape style and he wanted to know if that had been
decided yet . Mr . Haverlock said that at the time he submitted the plans to the Chase
Farms ' Architectural Site Review Committee ( which one has to go through to get the
Town of Ithaca 9
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
approval of the development ) , the committee had not given him final approval for the
cape because there was some question as to whether some residents wanted a cape or
whether it would be better to actually go ahead and build a colonial . Therefore ,
since he had not had the approval of Chase Farms ' Architectural Site Review Commit-
tee , he said he submitted plans for both , pending whether they would actually approve
the cape . He continued that subsequent to submitting his request for a variance ,
they had approved the cape .
Mr . King stated to Mr . Haverlock that the cape is the lower of the two styles ,
and Mr . Haverlock said that he is still in discussion with some of the neighbors
relative to the style , but that it is more than likely that he will be building the
colonial at this time . He said he has been talking to some of the neighbors , and he
said he has been trying to get rid of some of their concerns . He said that most of
the ones he has talked with prefer him to build the colonial rather than the cape .
He added to the Board , that , he has yet to make a final decision because then he
still has to go back to the Architectural Review Committee and get those plans
approved . He said the development , itself , has approved the plans for the cape but
has not approved the plans for the colonial yet because he has yet to submit them .
He said that most people in the development would prefer him to build the colonial ,
even though at this time , he received the approval from the Board for the variance ,
he said that he would still have to , if he decided to build the colonial , and go back
to the Architectural Review Committee to get that approved .
Mr . King asked Mr . Haverlock if he needed the variance regardless of the style ,
and Mr . Haverlock said that he did , and he said that , putting it that way , based on
the discussions he has had with some of the neighbors , the colonial seems to be the
preferred choice by them due to the fact that the other surrounding houses tend to be
of a colonial design . He stated that even though he has received the approval of the
Architectural Review Committee , he said he was not aware of some of the concerns the
neighbors had because he had not been in discussion with them . However , since he
requested a height variance and the letter had been sent around , Mr . Haverlock said
that he had a chance to talk to some of the neighbors , and he said they had stated
that they would prefer the colonial , and as such , he has taken the matter to the
builder and asked him the differences in price between the cape and the colonial , and
at this particular time , he requested the colonial be taken up for consideration due
to the fact that given to the discussion he had with the neighbors , it seemed likely
they would prefer the colonial rather than the cape .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Haverlock which he preferred to build , and Mr .
Haverlock said that there is not that much difference to him , and it seemed like the
cape was going to be more cost effective . Mr . Haverlock said that since having the
discussions , he sat down with his wife , discussed it quite a bit , and given some of
the concerns that everyone had , they felt that they would go with the colonial design
rather than the cape because it would not require that much of an alteration of the
existing plan . He did say that he was not 100 percent sure of that . He said that he
did want the colonial to be taken into consideration . He said that they would.
probably go with the colonial at this particular time , and if his variance is turned
down , he would prefer to have the colonial be turned down as the one the Board
considered because that is the one he believes he is leaning to at this particular
time , given what the residents there have told him . Mr . Haverlock said that he has
not had a chance to speak to all of them , but the ones that he had the opportunity to
talk to it appears that the colonial is also their choice . He said he and his wife
have talked about it , coming to the conclusion that it would probably fit in ,
probably be aesthetically more pleasing to the other houses in the area to have a
similar design . He said there was quite a concern over the roof slope on the cape
Town of Ithaca 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
Oecause there is so much more roof exposed on the cape . He said , taking it all into
consideration , Mr . Haverlock said he would prefer that , if a variance was granted , he
would prefer it to be for the colonial rather than the cape , if that would not cause
a problem at this time .
Chairman Austen then discussed the lay of the land and that it slopes away from
the rear of the house so that Mr . Haverlock would likely be out on ground level from
the basement . Mr . Haverlock said that it slopes away and the slope causes a walkout
basement to occur . He said the lot also slopes slightly from the right to the left
such that to build up the lot , it would cause , in the estimation of the excavators he
has spoken with , drainage problems to the lot next door which is owned by Jack and
Amy Little .
Chairman Austen said that even without the basement excavated out or not filled
in , the front of the colonial would still need a variance by one foot , to which Mr .
Haverlock added approximately .
Mr . King wanted to know the size of the second apartment in square feet , and Mr .
Haverlock said it would be approximately 800 square feet . Mr . King then wanted to
know the main dwelling square footage , and Mr . Haverlock said that it would approxi -
mately be 2 , 200 square feet . Attorney Barney asked if that would be including the
garage , and Mr . Haverlock answered that it would not . Mr . Haverlock said that it
would be approximately a little over 1 , 100 square feet on each floor , and the
basement would have another 1 , 100 square feet , with only 800 square feet being
occupied by the apartment . He said the other 300 square feet would be used like a
�tility room and so forth .
Chairman Austen opened up the public hearing , and asked if there was anyone who
would like to speak on this matter . He asked those who wished to speak to state
their name and address and tell the Board what they have to say on the matter .
Steve Pope said he was a homeowner at 14 Chase Lane . Mr . Pope said that he first
wanted to say that the Chase farm community tends to be a very welcoming community so
he hesitates to talk on this matter , but he felt compelled to do so . Mr . Pope said
that when they were deciding to build at Chase Farm , they considered various lots ,
and they had to reject several possibilities because the bedrock did not permit them
to dig a full basement , and so eventually , they chose the lot and built at 14 Chase
Lane . He said that this lot has a wonderful view all the way over to the airport and
beyond , and it views over the lot the Board is talking about . He said they always
envisaged that the houses that would be built on the other side of the road would
conform with the zoning ordinance , most likely by building a house without a full
basement , just having a crawl space just like many of the houses do . Mr . Pope wanted
to express his concern that a house of this height would certainly be detrimental to
his view . Mr . Pope said that others can speak on other aspects of the project . He
added that if he were a resident of one of the King Road houses and up the hill of an
a three - story house impairing the view of the hill and the woods beyond , one that
exists or one that would exist , he would also be concerned about the view .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Pope to point out his lot . Mr . Pope said that his lot
is 31 . Mr . King said that it is tax parcel 31 which is south and across the road .
�Ir . King said that , actually , Mr . Pope ' s view would be more of the front of the house
d that he would not be looking at the back of the house . Mr . Pope agreed with that
statement . Mr . King continued that the Board is then looking at , maybe , a one foot
difference from the height on the front of the house . Chairman Austen said the
additional height on the rear of the house would be six feet according to the
To;4n of Ithaca 11
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
*
ubmitted drawing . Chairman Austen continued that only because of the way the land
drops off , would there apparently be the height difference . He said that there would
not be filling around , and that would be what the difference is from the original
ground level .
Mr . Pope said that he understood that point . However he said that his point is
that if a house were built on that lot which conforms to the zoning ordinance , the
height of the roof would be seven feet lower than the height of the proposed house .
Chairman Austen said that , actually the height would be within one foot of the
proposed if they just carry the fill around the house . Mr . Pope agreed . Chairman
Austen wanted Mr . Pope to understand that the house is not going to show a major
difference in height , looking from Mr . Pope ' s direction . Mr . Pope said that he
understood that .
Mr . Frost stated , that in no way speaking for or against the variance of the
appellant , that the way the Town measures the height of a building is from the lowest
point of the finished grade to the highest point . He said that , in this case , if Mr .
Haverlock eliminated the walkout basement and just filled that portion of the ground
in and otherwise be a stairwell , that would change the building height . So , for
purposes of the view , whether the walkout was there or not , Mr . Pope may be faced
with the same view . Mr . Frost stated to Mr . Pope that he just wanted him to
understand what the Town means . Mr . Pope said that he understood that point
entirely . Mr . Frost said that he wanted Mr . Pope to understand that he was not
speaking for or against the merits of the argument but if the Board denied the appeal
0 o granted the appeal , it may be the same .
Mr . Pope said that he was entirely new to this process so he does not understand
how the Board goes about its business and what the Board ' s considerations are , but
the way he was looking at it is that certain houses are appropriate to certain lots
and the building ordinances are designed to try to bring that about . He said he
always imagined that the type of house that would be appropriate to that lot would
satisfy the zoning ordinances and , therefore , would have a lower roof line so that it
would satisfy the ordinance of the back without the backfill Mr . Frost was talking
about . Mr . Frost wanted to make two other points .
Mr . Pope asked to first make a clarification about the Architectural Review
Committee . He said it is a committee of three people of whom only one is a Chase
Farm owner . He said that the other two are from the developers . Therefore the
owners do not have a majority voice on the committee . The second point he said he
wanted to draw to the Board ' s attention that two of his neighbors , the Thompsons who
are on the lot next to him which is 12 Chase Lane , the others on the lot next to
that , the Stratakos ' , are away for extended periods this summer and are , most likely ,
unaware of this variance .
Mr . Haverlock asked to make one brief comment , and. Chairman Austen said that he
would get back to him after the rest of the public was heard from .
Mark Macaluso said that he lives at 15 Chase Lane , three houses down from the
proposed site . He said he came before the Board expressing the views of a half dozen
people , including himself , because some of them were unable to attend for a variety
Stf reasons , all people who live on Chase Lane : Mr . and Mrs . Alan Semel , Mr . and Mrs .
ill Shaff , Miss Mary Loretto , Mr . and Mrs . Broderick Holt , and Mr . and Mrs . Mark
Spirodowns .
Town of Ithaca 12
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
He said that , as Mr . Pope had indicated , the Architectural Site Review Commit-
tee ' s representative , who is one individual out of the three , is designed to repre -
sent the interest of the homeowners , and he said that the input she has received from
the people he comes before the Board to represent this evening , have apparently
represented or desired to not see houses of this variance permitted in Chase Farm .
He said that , however as Mr . Pope has indicated , the two committee members who do sit
on the Architectural Site Review Committee , not representing the interests of the
homeowners have ownership interests in the lots and in the supply of the home and
their interest may lean towards a profit motive which may not help to seek out some
of the items that were put forward in the declaration restrictions which the owners
have seen attached to the deeds of their homes .
Mr . Macaluso said he was actually the first home when construction was begun in
1969 , and he has seen 36 homes presented and constructed during the past four years .
He said that over that timeframe , he said he has drawn a perspective about the nature
and character of the development and has developed opinions about what construes to
be in harmony with the development . Mr . Macaluso said he has developed some reserva-
tions regarding the construction type to avoid in the proposed site and that it is a
two- family residence , while permitted by zoning , it is the only home , to date , of
this type in the development . He said , additionally , the construction type that is
being employed does not provide many of the local revenues from suppliers and trades
and related sales taxes that he believes are quite important in custom homes that
have been constructed on these sites to date .
Mr . Macaluso said that , before this evening , he was unaware that a colonial plan
• had been put forth to the representatives of the Architectural Site Review Committee
and , if there was a recommendation , Mr . Macaluso said that he would ask of this
Board , giving the differences in the height , the colonial is more palatable in that
it seems to be within a foot of the existing ordinance . He said that if this body
were able to do so , the colonial would certainly be the preferred type . He said that
as an additional thought in the arena of bedrock and full basements , Mr . Macaluso
said that he believed that it was in part of the request for a full basement and the
existence of the bedrock creates the need for a height variance . He said that in his
particular home , he constructed a crawl space , in part because of this , to create a
lower profile in his home . He said that possible remedies are that crawl spaces
could be used or the bedrock could be removed to help reduce the profile and bring it
within the recommendations of the zoning ordinance .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Macaluso if he had a petition with these peoplesnames
on it , and Mr . Macaluso said that he did not . He said he has no formal indication ,
but that on Saturday and Sunday he spoke individually to each of these people . Mr .
Macaluso said that if the petition could be submitted subsequent to this meeting and
that he would be happy to have the matter repaired and present it .
Mr . King asked if any of those people are present , and Mr . Macaluso stated that
they were unable to attend for a variety of business , travel , and personal reasons .
Mr . King stated that Mr . Macaluso had nothing in writing authorizing this , and Mr .
Macaluso stated that he did not and that he was unaware that he would need written
matter . He reiterated that if it would be permitted subsequent to the meeting , he
would be happy to generate it . He said that , in fact , four of the five people said
that if a letter was required , which he stated that he was not aware that one would
be , they would be willing to sign some sort of document .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Macaluso to show which lot was Mr . Macaluso ' s . He said
it was lot 16 which he believed was about six lots up on the left from King Road ,
almost across from the court . Mr . Macaluso said his house number was 15 , and
Chairman Austen said the lot number was 64 .
Town of Ithaca 13
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• Attorney Barney asked Mr . Macaluso his name and to spell his last name which was
spelled M-A-C -A-L-U-S -0 by Mr . Macaluso ,
Mr . King asked Mr . Macaluso to give the Board some idea as to what lots are still
available for development . Mr . Macaluso believed that all of the lots on King Road
are still available , Lot 34 in the court , and he believed there are only two lots
available , one adjacent to the proposed site and the proposed site . He said that he
believed that those are the nine or ten ones still available .
Mr . King said that there has been no development along King Road , and Mr .
Macaluso said there was one model that was recently sold but he does not believe
closed , and one lot has been purchased of which he is unaware of the closing on that
one . Mr . King said that as far as buildings were concerned , Mr . Macaluso said that
this would be the only building on King Road .
Mr . King talked about the Architectural Review Committee ' s members and that two
of the members are owners of the lots . Mr . Macaluso said that apparently just the
man , Doug Wilcox may be the sole owner but the couple , Doug and Judy , are the two
parties who sit in the interest of the land developer . Mr . King asked if the
developer has an ownership interest in all of the land . Mr . Macaluso said that he
believed after Citizens had reacquired the interest of the lots from the Metropolis
group out of New York City , he believed Doug and Judy purchased the lots from the
bank and are proceeding now to sell them .
Mr . King wondered if those people would have an economic interest in the
• properties to the north of this proposed house , that is , the properties on King Road ,
Mr . Macaluso said he felt this was an excellent point and a source of one of his
reservations which is their economic interest . He said he believed his perspective
is that they are more inclined to sell under different circumstances than when
construction was initiated two or three years ago . He said that there seems to be a
change in the temperament or tone in the way the lots are brought to sale and the
type , style , and construction methods being proposed in the homes .
Mr . King said that this is apparent , as described by Mr . Pope , almost a 3- story
house from the point of view of lots on King Road . Mr . Macaluso said the drawing he
was shown at a meeting on Sunday when they met with their representative has the
appearances from the rear of the cape . The drawing before the Board was a drawing ,
according to Mr . Macaluso , that he had not seen before . He said that this drawing
certainly did fall more into the character of the neighborhood . He said , as he
stated earlier , recommending that this body have some ability to determine the style
of the home and the height variance is limited to a foot or less , it certainly would
bring it in line with the properties . He further stated that , but notwithstanding ,
he still had reservations regarding the construction type which , again is unlike any
of the 36 or 37 homes that have been constructed to date . He said that , still , to
him characterizes the home . He said that and harmony is spelled out in various
paragraphs in the declaration restrictions .
Mr . King asked if Mr . Macaluso was referring to the Cape Cod type , and Mr .
Macaluso said the non- custom on- site construction style he believed to be one , and he
said that he had concerns about the source of the materials and if they come from out
• of the county or out of the state , it puts people out of work . Here , to provide
materials and supplies and labor is one element which he has seen to date and really
very high quality construction methods employed in some of the custom construction
and without a lot of knowledge about StyleCraft Homes . . . Mr . Haverlock interrupted Mr .
Macaluso , stating that StyleCraft Homes was not going to be the builder . Mr .
Town of Ithaca 14
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
Macaluso acknowledged Mr . Haverlock ' s comment , and he further stated that he felt
they were looking at a " moving target " from the plans he saw on Sunday evening . He
said the plans were neither colonial in design and the StyleCraft name was being used
on the blueprint .
Chairman Austen stated that he did not think that this Board could be concerned
as to where the material comes from to which Mr . Macaluso said okay . Chairman Austen
also said that he did not believe the Board could decide what style home would be
built . He said that that would have to be left to the deed restrictions . Mr .
Haverlock said that all he was saying was that if the variance was to be denied or
accepted , he wanted it done solely on the basis of the colonial being built . He said
that the cape is not under consideration and that the variance would be accepted or
denied on the sole basis that the colonial would be built . He said that if the Board
did approve the variance that the only house that would be built would be the
colonial .
Attorney Barney said that the colonial is slightly larger , and Mr . Haverlock said
that height-wise , it is . Upon asking to respond because it was so hard for him to
keep track of all that was said , Chairman Austen said he would have a chance to
respond later .
Harry Kaiser introduced himself and stated that he and his wife live at 17 Chase
Lane which is one door down from where Mr . Macaluso lives . Mr . Kaiser said he would
try to keep his statements brief because he supports everything Mr . Pope and Mr .
Macaluso said so far . Board members oriented themselves as to the tax parcel number
which Mr . Kaiser said was parcel 65 .
Mr . Kaiser reiterated Mr . Pope ' s statement that he believes that Chase Farm is a
good and welcoming community and he would hate to speak out against something like
this but he would definitely like to speak out against the variance on hand . Mr .
Kaiser said there were basically two reasons , in addition to what Mr . Macaluso said ,
the first being the fact that the height of this will interfere with the view of , not
only the side of the roads that Mr . Pope is on , the Thompsons , the Bensons , etc , but
also with the King Road lots that will be selling . He said that their views will
also be obstructed . Mr . Kaiser said that the second point he has to make dealt with
the fact that when he and his wife decided to build at Chase Farm , they looked at the
deeds and restrictions and they figured that those were things they really approved
of and , if fact , when they built the house , they satisfied all of the deed restric-
tions and expected everyone else would do the same thing . He stated that the fact
that so many houses have been built and that people had satisfied things in the deed
of restriction means future builders should be asked to comply with these deed
restrictions .
Chairman Austen said that he believed there was a variance for at least one home
at Chase Farm regarding the height in the rear . Attorney Barney said that there had
been a block which had come in at one time . It was stated that they had basements
that were walkout types .
Mr . Kaiser asked the Board if any of the houses in question were obstructing
views of other people by the variance . He further commented that it was funny that
• there were these four variances and that he was never notified of any one of them .
Mr . Frost said there is one house , and pointed out there were probably several with a
height variance . He said that he wanted to point out that every house architectural -
ly is different , some of them were judged , based on what he said earlier , where you
are going down in the ground , not on raising the roof line . Mr . Frost said that this
Town of Ithaca 15
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
tdoes not appear to be a high roof line , but the Semel was one house . Mr . Frost asked
when Mr . Kaiser moved in , and he was informed that it was two years ago , and Mr .
Frost said that perhaps no new houses were constructed in that time .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Kaiser if he realized that the apparent sight of this
from the highway is one foot difference from what is legally allowed by the zoning
ordinance , repeating that is taken from the road . Mr . Kaiser said that he did , and
he further said that , again , a lot of his comments were based , not knowing that this
would be a colonial type and that he was unable to go to the meeting on Sunday night .
He said he received the word and summary of some of the things that happened and that
the cape was the one in question .
Mr . King asked Mr . Kaiser if he was referring to the Architectural Review
Committee meeting , and Mr . Kaiser told him that he was not . Mr . Kaiser said there
was a meeting of the community about this site . Chairman Austen said that they were
looking at the cape at that time , and Mr . Kaiser indicated that was true .
Mr . Kaiser questioned that the Board mentioned that there were four other
variances . He said that it seemed to him that everyone who lives up there should be
notified . He wanted to know if there was anything in the law to mandate that .
Attorney Barney said that he believed those variances were given very early on in
the development . Chairman Austen said that #9 was given in 1989 and that he did not
recall when the others occurred . Attorney Barney said that he thought it was the
Chase , the Metropolis Group or whoever the initial developer was who was building the
• houses .
Mr . Frost said that the Board should understand that at one time , the Town
measured the height , and still does in fact , measure the height to the lowest floor
of the building . He said that what they ran into with water problems , not necessari -
ly on Chase Farms , was the fact that the people putting cellars in were , in a sense
being penalized for a height that was higher than normal . Therefore the Town
modified the definition somewhat to accommodate cellars .
Chairman Austen said that it was not uncommon on the side hill terrain to have
the basement level open out onto the ground rather than carry fill all around and
build a high retaining wall or something to bring the home into compliance . He said
that , probably it would be more detrimental to people to look at a five or six foot
retaining wall and see the basement of the house .
Mr . Macaluso said he had two questions . He wanted to know if the colonial plan
contained a walkout basement as part of the design . Chairman Austen said it was
shown to the Board as a walkout .
Mr . Haverlock said that perhaps he could answer some of the questions . He said
that he guessed relative to the height variance , he said that he put the sign up and
everyone received the letter at Chase Farms and then started to . . . he said he talked
to Chantel Williamson and she started to tell him of the concerns that some of the
people had . He said he heard the concerns about the cape , and he said he would take
it into consideration and would try to go with the colonial . He said Ms . Williamson
• said that was good . Mr . Haverlock said he talked with the individual across the
street who is Rich Benson , Mr . Haverlock said he spoke with him for a long time on
the telephone . He said Mr . Benson ' s one big concern was that the style would be
colonial . Mr . Haverlock said that if there was anyone ' s view which would be
blocked , it would be the Bensons ' across the street . Mr . Haverlock said that it
Town of Ithaca 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• seemed like he is in a position that he is " damned if I do , and I ' m damned if I
don ' t . " He said that everyone seems , from what he can gather , to want a colonial ,
but a colonial would obstruct someone ' s view . He said that any house put on that lot
now will obstruct someone ' s view because there is no house there . He said that
everyone has a good view , and as soon as you put a house on that lot , you are going
to obstruct it . He said that the only house that can probably stay within the
guideline there is probably a ranch because of the low roof line , only one story
high , and he further said that he cannot imagine anyone at Chase Farms wanting a
ranch on that lot because there is not one ranch in Chase Farms . He said that any
house that he would basically put there would require some type of variance unless he
were to fill in the entire back .
Mr . Haverlock said that the lot next door to him has the same situation . He said
it has a slope just like the one he has , and that these are the last two lots left ,
and they would block everyones ' view up there . He said that it seems like the only
two lots left to be sold up there are the only two lots that are sloped . When
addressed , Mr . Macaluso said that he believed there was another sloped lot for sale
across the street . Mr . Haverlock believed that one was already sold .
Chairman Austen said that the Board has no architectural drawings to which Mr .
Haverlock agreed . Chairman Austen asked if the height of the foundation is limited
by rock or something . Mr . Haverlock answered that he did a test hole . He said that
in addition to accommodating the basement , he said he tried to recall what the
typical crawl space foundation ' s depth is and he asked the Board if anyone knew what
the typical depth was . Mr . Macaluso answered four feet , and Mr . Haverlock said four-
to- five feet , somewhere in that area . Mr . Frost said the crawl space would vary from
four- to- five feet .
Mr . Haverlock said that it would not matter much if he put in the crawl space or
the full basement because the way the lot is situated , the lot crowns a little bit
and then it starts coming down . He said that the house would have to be put further
back from where the crown is , and he did the drawings for the Architectural Review
Committee to show that at one point he would have to continue the grade up to the
house . He said he was trying to explain that if he wanted a crawl space or a full
foundation , it would not matter because he is bringing in some fill to the front to
sort of blend it up to the house and keeping it a very , very slow pitch because the
lot goes up , then crowns back down and the house is going to be built slightly beyond
the crown . Therefore , he said he would have to continue it up .
Mr . Frost said that the bottom line is that if Mr . Haverlock was to have a
basement apartment and having habitable space in the basement , the floor of the
basement cannot be deeper than 4 feet into the ground . Mr . Frost said that if Mr .
Haverlock was on a steep hillside , and say that the lowest finished grade was to the
back , he could have the uphill side entirely underground or have one wall of about 8
foot depth as long as the downhill side was at a ground level . He said that this was
the only way Mr . Haverlock could get an apartment in there because he is limited as
to how far he could put the floor into the ground .
Mr . Haverlock said that in terms of doing it , he said that he is going to bring a
little bit of fill into the front and the existing height of the house would not
• change much because he would probably build it at the same height . Mr . Frost asked
about the street side , and Mr . Haverlock continued that the street side would
probably be the same anyway because he plans on bringing in a load of fill because
the crown and the back will get higher but the front of the house , which will be
blocking anyone ' s view , will be at the exact same height .
Town of Ithaca 17
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• Mr . Frost said that the one point he was trying to make here now is that
regardless of how the Board decides will not make a real difference in what you see
on the street side .
Mr . Macaluso asked what was the suggested roof pitch , and Mr . Haverlock said
" 712 " . He said that is the minimum roof pitch required by Chase Farms . He said that
so , even if he wanted to decrease the pitch , he could not decrease it in order to
stay with the aesthetics of the other houses in the development which tend to be 712
and 912 on the colonials . He said that whichever way he turns , he has some type of
problem . He said that he knows that anyone who develops the land wants to sell the
lots , but he got the closing statement yesterday . Therefore , he actually owns the
lot now . He said that Chase Farms , whether it is a partnership , a holding company ,
or exactly what it is , his lot , from what he understands from Judy and Doug Wilcox
that it is the last lot to be sold by Chase Farms with the possibility of the one
next door to him . He said all the rest of the lots on King Road , they have purchased
individually . Therefore , Chase Farms development which sold him his land , according
to Mr . Haverlock , is the same developer that sold them their land . Mr . Haverlock
told those present that the individuals who set on the particular committee will be
owning , individually , the lots on King Road , themselves as opposed to the development
itself selling this lot to him .
Chairman. Austen asked if there were any further deed restrictions on this . Mr .
Frost said there are deed restriction on Chase Farms but nothing that the Board has
to deal with .
Mr . Pope stated that it was mentioned that height variance granted to other
homes , one being the Semel home . He said that the Semel home is right opposite his
home which he believed is a one foot variance . He said the second home is the
Dunnocks and he believed that they have a walk- out basement which backs out onto the
woods so that cannot be seen . He said that when each of them has come up , the Board
has asked each of them to point out where their houses are on this lot . He said
that , however , they really are a community and they are interested in the development
of the whole community . He said that , as far as he could see , from the houses that
will be built on the King Road lots , they will look up at this house and they will
see a 3- story house that will be seven feet above the height ordinance .
Mr . King said that Mr . Pope said they would look up at a 3 - story house , and he
asked what is the level of the King Road lots as compared to the level of this . Mr .
Macaluso said the change in grade is approximately 30- 40 feet from King Road to Chase
Lane ,
Mr . Haverlock said that part of the rear of the house would not be exposed to
someone on King Road due to the fact that he will have some perimeter brush and trees
along the back edge of the lot which they want to have him maintain . Mr . Haverlock
said that he believed that the height is about 12 feet along the back of the lot
which he is leaving . He said that the neighbor next door , Jack Little , said he would
be looking at most of the back more than anyone else because Mr . Little is right next
door . Mr . Haverlock said that Mr . Little did not voice many concerns when Mr .
Haverlock said that he would like to side the back of the house with cedar , as
opposed to leaving an 8 foot wall exposure . He wants to bring the cedar down on the
• backside so as to blend in to the back of the house . Mr . Haverlock said that Mr .
Little was concerned about seeing 8 feet of concrete come soaring out of the ground ,
and he told Mr . Little that he would not because the cedar would be coming down so as
to make a softer view on the eye at the back of the house .
Town of Ithaca 18
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
Mr . Haverlock continued by saying that since learning about the problems , his
knowledge of the concerns being expressed by the residents of Chase Farms which he
said that on Saturday night or Sunday morning , he just learned about the majority of
concerns , he has been trying to change the design , do anything he possibly could do
because the last thing he said he needed is to move into an area that he would feel
that the people would somehow feel that he was ruining their quality of life . He
said he is trying to do everything he possibly could do and do the best he could to
try to fit into the neighborhood . He further said that , given the slope of the lot
and some of the other things , he does not know what else he could do . He said that
he hopes what he is doing is enough .
Attorney Barney said Mr . Haverlock could elect not to have a lower level walkout .
Mr . Haverlock said that he would still have to bring in fill . He said , from talking
to his neighbor Jack Little , Mr . Little had some water problems flowing across the
back of his lot . Explaining Mr . Little ' s problems , Mr . Haverlock said that Mr .
Little said that if Mr . Haverlock built it up any more , he said that even more water
would be directed onto his lot . Mr . Little said that Mr . Haverlock should try and
keep the lot as level as possible in the back and not to try to change the grade .
Mr . Haverlock said he did think about filling the back of the lot in entirely , and he
has not ruled it out . Mr . Haverlock said he tried to do whatever he could , and he
continued that if that is the only way he can do it , then he would probably have to
fill in the back of the lot .
Attorney Barney asked how far does the lot drop from the back . Mr . Haverlock
asked if he meant the space that the house would occupy , the 28 feet and Attorney
Barney said yes . Mr . Haverlock said 5 feet , perhaps 4 - 5 feet because it changes . He
said it slopes front to back , and it slopes from right to left . He reiterated that
if he puts any more fill on the back of the house , the lot will drain even more onto
Mr . Little ' s property . He said that Mr . Little had to put in a drainage pipe ,
diversion ditch for his garden . Mr . Haverlock told the Board that Mr . Little said
that the last thing he needs is for anyone to build up even more of a slant to cause
even more problems on his property .
Mr . Kaiser asked Mr . Haverlock about StyleCraft . Mr . Haverlock said he put a
purchase offer on this lot in the first week in April and now four months later , he
just closed on it . Mr . Haverlock thought he would be in the house , he would have no
problems , but he has had problems one after another . Mr . Haverlock said that given
how much time he put off getting this lot approved that Stylecraft may not even be
able to build it this year .
Mr . Frost asked for the name of the builder . Mr . Haverlock said he was discuss -
ing this with two builders , one is out of Cortland , one is a pier stick builder and
one is a modular one . He said he was talking with two different builders because he
is at the point right now that he has waited four months to close on a lot which he
thought was going to take one month to do . He said he was running out of time to get
the house in this year , and he said he is faced with tax consequences in a rollover .
He said he has to build this year regardless . He said he was into it four months by
just getting a lot , and he said Chase Farms had the plans for three months and now
they finally got approved . Mr . Haverlock said the representative of the homeowners
association , as Mr . Haverlock understands , did not have the materials . However , he
said the owners had it to whom he had to submit the actual blueprints and everything .
He said they had them three months , and he said he finally , just now , got the
approval to build there . Mr . Haverlock said he was pressed and he was trying to
figure his best way out of it . He said that if he has to build to grade , he will
build to grade . Mr . Haverlock said he owns the lot now , and he has to do something
to get a house on it .
Town of Ithaca 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
Mr . Ellsworth asked if the approval organization approved the Cape Cod , and Mr .
Haverlock said that they did but he said that no one wants the Cape Cod and no one
wants the increased height of the colonial .
Mr . Kaiser asked what was the vote of the committee , and Mr . Haverlock answered
that he did not know because he is not privy to that information . Mr . Haverlock said
all he got was the letter that said that they approved it . Mr . Kaiser responded , and
Mr . Haverlock said that all he knew was that every one of the other home builders had
the same numbers on the committee . He said that everyone who built had the two
owners against the homeowner , therefore , it was the same type of situation .
Chairman Austen asked if there were no more comments , he would close the public
hearing .
Mr . King said to Mr . Haverlock , that when he mentioned that he would bring cedar
siding down , did Mr . Haverlock mean all around , and Mr . Haverlock answered that ,
depending upon the slope and all , he was concerned about the sides and all . Mr .
Haverlock said that the slope on the sides would cover most of the basement , however ,
he said he was concerned with the back being exposed . He said that probably anyone ,
no matter who it is , would not want to see 8 feet by 40 feet of concrete . He said he
wants to keep it covered so that it blends in more . Mr . King clarified that that
would be the north wall of the basement . Attorney Barney said it would be the
northeast wall . Mr . Haverlock said he did not know but it would be wherever the
windows would be . Mr . King said that it would be the northeast .
• Chairman Austen asked if the cedar siding would also cover the end of the garage ,
and Mr . Haverlock said that where it would blend in as much as he could possibly
cover it . He said that he wants it to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible as
well . He said that if the colonial is approved by the Board for the height variance ,
he said he has to go before the Architectural Review Committee again because he does
not have this particular plan approved . Mr . Haverlock said , therefore , he would be
back with the same problem again in that the owners simply overruling the one
homeowner on the committee and , then , everyone saying that he simply did not take
their wishes into account .
Mr . Haverlock continued that he has even gone so far , with some individuals being
angry ( and he commented that he did not blame them ) , because he is trying to get an
in- law apartment within the house because no other house up there has one , even
though the area is zoned for it . He said the one homeowner , Rich Benson , asked him
to sign a sort of a document which his lawyer has drawn up stating that while Mr .
Haverlock occupies the house , he would never rent it out to someone other than a
relative . Mr . Haverlock said that he would . He said that although this may not be
an issue before the Board , he knows that it is an issue to those who spoke out
against the Appeal , he would never ever let anyone live there other than a relative .
He knows that there are concerns , and so he said he got himself into a position of
signing documents such that he could never rent the apartment out , if he does have
his parents live there , to no one other than a relative . He said he had to change
the design of the house from a cape to a colonial . He said he was going out of his
way as much as he could .
• Attorney Barney questioned Mr . Haverlock as to whether he asked Mr . Benson to
sign a lateral agreement that he would not rent any of his property out . Mr .
Haverlock said that no one else could do what he is doing . Attorney Barney said that
when Mr . Benson asked Mr . Haverlock to do this , did Mr . Benson agree to sign a
Town of Ithaca 20
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• similar document? Mr . Haverlock said that he was not asking him to , and Attorney
Barney said that if Mr . Benson were to put an apartment in his house , would Mr .
Haverlock have him sign an agreement . Mr . Haverlock said that he was not asking Mr .
Benson to do such a thing because all Mr . Haverlock wants is a house .
Addressing Mr . Pope , Mr . Macaluso , and Mr . Kaiser , Mr . Haverlock said that what
he wished he could have done from the start , having looked at this all over again ,
that the next time he submits the plans to the committee , is to call a meeting of the
entire development , and everyone could sit there , " hash " it out in one day and be
done with it . He said he does not have the time to go through this anymore .
Environmental Assessment
Chairman Austen read letter from the Tompkins County Planning Department , dated
August 9 , 1993 , signed by James W . Hanson , Commissioner . The letter is as follows :
" Dear Andy :
" This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified
above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Depart-
ment pursuant to § 239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General Munici -
pal Law .
" The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious
impact on intercommunity , County , or State interests . Therefore , no
• recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Depart-
ment , and you are free to act without prejudice .
" The Planning Department would , however , like to make a few comments
on this proposal . Firstly , it was difficult to make comments on this
plan because there were no contour lines indicated on the drawings .
Is it possible to locate the building somewhere else on the site , so
that the 30 ' height restriction should not be violated? Additional -
ly , it is unclear whether the applicant is planning on building the
' cape ' or the ' colonial ' building style . Obviously , considering the
height restrictions , it would be preferable to build the cape style
house .
" Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of
the record . "
Chairman Austen stated that the reviewer on the assessment form was Louise
Raimando , and the review was made on August 3 . Because of the number of members from
the public present , Chairman Austen read the entire Part II of the Environmental
Assessment .
Environmental Assessment
MOTION
• By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendation of the Town Planning staff and
the reviewer in making a negative determination of environmental significance ,
pointing out that Under subdivision C , the reviewer indicates the proposal would
not have any adverse surface drainage problems , thus finding :
Town of Ithaca 21
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• 1 ) Mitigating the height problem would require filling in and probably cause
adverse drainage problems which would reinforce the determination of negative
impact .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - King , Austen , Ellsworth .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen stated that he would like to see architectural plans on the
building . He said he felt it would be helpful as well as seeing the contour map for
that lot . . Mr . King said that Mr . Haverlock could submit the architectural plans
without knowing if the Board would grant the requested variance and that the granting
would be conditioned upon ultimately producing the architectural plans . Mr . Frost
said standing plans for building and permit approval . Mr . King said that they have
to be produced ultimately , including being reviewed by Chase Farms ' Architectural
Review Committee , not that the Board has anything to do with that committee , whose
purpose is only to approve the cape or colonial design .
Chairman Austen questioned that if there is a height difference " here " , whether
" this " could be lowered to 30 feet . Mr . King wanted to know if that meant building
up the ground level in the front , and Chairman Austen said that it could be either
that or . . . . Mr . Frost repeated what he said before , without seeing any architectur-
01
plans , in that the basement floor could be no deeper than 4 feet into the ground ..
said that an alternative could be to have the street side be a full 8 foot cellar
wall as well as the back side is at grade level . He said that would require some
fill . Chairman Austen said that would be an average of 4 feet , and Mr . Frost said
that would not be the average as long as the back side is entirely at grade . He said
that would result in an 8 foot drop from front to back . He said an alternative to
that would be a grade within 4 foot with no greater than 4 feet into ground to
qualify for habitable space .
Mr . King said that Mr . Haverlock ' s willingness to mitigate the exposure of
concrete by siding the most exposed wall impressed him . He said that he also has the
feeling that the proposal is for a 1 foot variance at the road side , a 1 foot height
variance at the peak of the roof which would be 31 feet rather than 30 feet . Mr .
King asked that , to get it down one foot , would Mr . Haverlock have any problem?
Mr . Haverlock said that if the Board made it conditional upon the fact that from
ground level to peak level at the front part is 30 feet , then he would accommodate 30
feet . He said he has been trying to be as accommodating as possible . He said that
if this is a " sticky point " that the Board could put that as a condition and he would
live with it . Mr . King said that he did not think that would particularly enhance
the plan . Mr . Haverlock said that if that was a condition the Board wanted to place
on him , then do so , and he would live with it . He repeated that he owns the property
now , and he needs to do something with it . He said that if it enhances it from the
street side or that it will not be a problem then Mr . Haverlock said he would do it .
He said that if the Board wants him to bring the cedar down a little further on the
front of the house and not expose as much concrete , he would do that . Mr . Haverlock
aid that the Board could tell him the conditions under which he has to live , and he
aid he would comply with them .
Town of Ithaca 22
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
Attorney Barney said that the problem is that what Mr . Haverlock presented is
concepts only . Attorney Barney said that the presentation does not have much in
terms of specifics for the Board to make an intelligent judgment as to whether there
is a need for the variance . Mr . Haverlock said that the problem is when he went up
there that they would only allow him , as a condition to buying the lot , to dig a test
hole . However , they said he could only dig two tests holes . Therefore , he went onto
the lot , trying to figure out where , approximately , he would place the house . 0n
that basis , he had to determine how far down he could go . Mt . Haverlock said that ,
now that he owns the lot , he presumed he could now go and " rip it all up " .
He said that , however , on the basis of the test holes the excavator dug , he tried
to figure out the depth the Haverlocks could go down , and , on that basis , try to
determine what the height of the house would need to be . Mr . Haverlock said he could
always bring the grade up further in the front . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Haverlock
what the test hole showed as to how far down he could go . Mr . Haverlock repeated
that the property crowns . He said it depended on several things . He said that if he
dug at the crown he could go down a little over 4 feet ; he added that as he went
back , he lost the 4 feet because it seemed like the table of bedrock was quite flat
going back , once you got down . He said therefore from the crown , probably , back to
the end where the house would be would probably be 4 - 1 / 2 or 5 feet , going down ,
before bedrock is hit . Attorney Barney asked for clarification .
Mr . Haverlock said at the crown it was 4 - 1 / 2 feet before he hit bedrock .
Attorney Barney then asked Mr . Haverlock what would happen if he moved backwards 28
feet towards the back of the lot . Mr . Haverlock said that not much would happen ,
again , depending on the lot slope . Mr . Haverlock said that at each corner there
would be a different depth ; i . e . , corners of 4 feet , 4 feet , 1 foot , 6 feet .
However , he said in the front there was quite a bit to go . He said it depends if
they try to dig right in the middle where the house would be planned to be , then
seeing if the bedrock was tipping or if it was pretty much straight going back . Mr .
Haverlock said that , on that basis , he tried to make a determination . He said the
excavator he used was a person who had dug quite a few of the test holes at Chase
Farm and had done quite a bit of the original work on Chase Farms . Mr . Haverlock
thought that this excavator would know better than anybody what the bedrock would
look like , and Mr . Haverlock said that what the excavator told him up front ended up
to be true .
Mr . Haverlock said that he did not know if the Board could make him be subject to
some type of blueprints or whatever , and pertaining to what Mr . Frost said , Mr .
Haverlock had to get the architectural prints anyway . Mr . Haverlock said that , if it
is a condition , the Board wants it to be only 30 feet in height at roadside , then he
will have to bring more fill in to bring it up so that it is only 30 feet . There -
fore , instead of having an extra stair or so going into the house on the front
entrance way , he said he will simply have to just bring in more dirt . Mr . Haverlock
said the problem results in that the higher he brings the grade up in the front is
the more the grade is going to slope off on the side to the neighbor . Mr . Haverlock
said that regardless of how far he goes down , he is trying to appease the neighbor .
He mentioned that the lot next door to him is the only other lot , except for the one
across the street , in the same situation if not worse . He said the lot next door is
in a valley with the backwards lot also . Mr . Haverlock said that he has to make sure
that , although he could do anything he wanted , he figured the next person would be in
the same exact situation as he is now . He said that person would have to bring in
even more fill in the front , but that person would have the same problem with the
back end being pretty much exposed and it having quite a large slope from the person
Town of Ithaca 23
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 1. 1 , 1993
on the side . Mr . Haverlock said that it was hard to tell what the best thing was to
do other than to try to leave the back end alone where it could cause some type of
drainage problems . He said the lot next door may have even more of a problem because
the lot is a bit lower .
Chairman Austen and Mr . Ellsworth reviewed the maps . ' Mr . Haverlock spoke to the
pitch of the house . He said the minimum pitch on any house in Chase Farms is 712 .
He said that pitch is adding more height than it would be in some developments where
there is a 512 pitch . He said that if he changed the pitch , everyone would then get
upset with him for lowering the pitch on the house in order to come in with the 30
feet , Mr . Haverlock said that if 30 feet is what the Board is looking for the house
to appear from the front grade such that it does not violate the variance , he said he
would have to comply . He said that if that is the Board ' s findings such that the
house will not violate the height variance on the front , and the Board will give him
the room on the back , he said he would have to comply with it . He asked the Board if
there was any problem or hesitation on its part , what is it the Board wants or needs
from him to deliver to the Board so that the Board can render what it feels is an
informed decision ?
Attorney Barney said that , typically , there would have to be a site plan with the
contours shown on it and an architect ' s dimension on the side rather than a sketch
which has been submitted . Mr . Haverlock said it was his mistake . Attorney Barney
said that what was submitted gets the Board started , but that some of the questions
such as what the slope is from the front to the back is shown on a contour map lets
the Board have something more concrete to work with . Attorney Barney said that he
did not know how the Board felt about if they wanted a scientific version of the
documents . Mr . Haverlock said that he knows now that a contour map would have been
of assistance .
Mr . Haverlock said that if he , perhaps , changed the design , he said he would have
to go back to Chase Farms again to ask them where would they allow him to put the
house - -which might change again . Mr . Haverlock said he was " stuck between a rock and
a hard place " because of the location , the type of the house , and the contours . He
said he was putting it a little ways back from the crown because he had to stay
within the setback requirements set by the Town . He said that if he went back any
further than that ( he said he talked to Judy and Doug Wilcox ) because of the way the
road curves , the Wilcoxes wanted him to keep the house in a certain location so that
the house is sort of blending in . He repeated his concerns about what the Architec -
tural Review Committee ( i . e . , the owners ' committee ) want , what the Board wants ,
etc . , and he said that he does not even know how much input the homeowners had in.
terms of where he was allowed to site the house to begin with .
Mr . King asked Mr . Haverlock that if he could re - site the house from what he is
presently planning , would it make any great difference to this problem? Mr .
Haverlock stated that it would not . When Mr . King asked that it would not make any
significant difference to which Mr . Haverlock answered no because all he would do is
to bring in more fill and have a longer driveway and cause more drainage problems for
his neighbor . He said that the Town would have to actually approve it when he puts
it in .
Attorney Barney told Mr . Haverlock not to overestimate what the Town does .
Attorney Barney said that what the Town has to do is to satisfy itself that the
building code is not violated and the architect would provide that information .
However , Attorney Barney said that in terms of siting the house and that sort of
thing , as long as it is within the setback and side yard requirements , that is the
Town of Ithaca 24
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
limit of the Board ' s actions . Mr . Haverlock said that he felt that the less he sets
the house back from what the restrictions are , the less fill he has to bring in the
less slope he will have on the neighboring side . He said the more of a slope he
develops , the more of a slope the neighbor has to contend with . Mr . Haverlock made
note that the neighbor was starting to build up the side of his house a bit tonight
by bringing in dirt . The neighbor told Mr . Haverlock that prior to Mr . Haverlock
getting in the lot , the neighbor wants to be able to get his truck in to dump some
dirt .
Chairman Austen asked for a motion . Mr . King stated that he was unsure of what
to move and that his inclination was to go along with the appellant upon seeing a
particular drawing of a site plan with contour lines and making the resolution
attached to a particular proposal . Mr . King added that whether at this meeting the
Board should give the appellant a " trial " vote or , at least , an expression of what
the Board members feel about granting or not granting the variance . Mr . King said
that it might be helpful to the appellant to know whether he should go ahead . He
said that for the purposes of getting the additional material , Mr . King said that he
felt the hearing would have to be adjourned to let Mr . Haverlock proceed with his
plans , the first step of which would be to go before his Architectural Review
Committee and then come back to the Board with specifics .
Mr . King asked Mr . Haverlock how long he would think that would take him to go
through that process , and Mr . Haverlock said that he already had the plans , he had to
throw away the blueprints , he spoke to the architect and the architect said ,
hopefully , he should be able to ( given the changes Mr . Haverlock wants to make ) give
• Mr . Haverlock a new set of blueprints within two weeks with all the changes to the
house . Chairman Austen asked if Mr . Haverlock could get the approval from Chase
Farms in that length of time , and Mr . Haverlock said they had his last plans for
three months . He said Chase Farms said it would render an opinion in a month . Mr .
Haverlock conjectured that , now that he owns the lot , they would move a little
faster . In terms of the actual house itself , not the height restriction , the
inclination was , if he heard correctly tonight , Mr . Haverlock said he wanted to be
corrected if he was wrong , that most of the people at Chase Farms would probably be
more receptive of the house if it was a colonial . Therefore , Mr . Haverlock said he
felt there would be less opposition to the design of the house but perhaps the same
amount of opposition to the height . Mr . Haverlock said that as soon as he receives
them , he could drop them off to have the Board look at them , and if he needs the
contour of the land . He said he will find someone to go up there and actually draw
the contour and submit that in conjunction with the house plans through the commit-
tee , such that they could render a more informed opinion .
Chairman Austen asked if Chase Farms has contour maps . Mr . Haverlock thought the
Town had them . Chairman Austen said he was sure there were some contour maps . Mr .
Frost said the Town has the soil survey maps which should show the contours .
Attorney Barney said that the Book of Soil and Survey of Tompkins County from 1965
shows the contours . Mr . King wondered if anything had been changed at Chase Farms to
change those maps to which Attorney Barney said that he was sure there has been
changes . Mr . Haverlock said there had been changes , noting that certain lots had
been filled in depending upon the particular lot . He said he understands that the
Board is in a particular bind by not having sufficient information to feel that
• whatever the decision the Board renders is an accurate one , and Mr . Haverlock said he
will provide the particular items the Board wants provided .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Frost if the Board adjourned this matter for two weeks ,
was there any opening for the Appeal . Mr . Frost said that this Board will be meeting
on August 25 but that he would have to write it up and advertise it . Attorney Barney
Town of Ithaca 25
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• said that the public meeting was already held and that the matter could be adjourned
for decision . Mr . Frost told Mr . Haverlock that he would have to have everything
ready for that meeting and a mailing would be done on August 20 . Mr . Haverlock said
that based on the way things have been going , he said he would probably prefer to
wait until another time when the Board meets because he would not want to get
involved in a situation where he would have to have everything in ten days to two
weeks and not have it . Mr . Haverlock said that he would feel more confident if it
was for the next regular monthly meeting . He said he did not want to promise
something and not be able to have it before the Board , wasting everyone ' s time . Mr .
Frost noted that would be on September 8 .
Mr . King suggested it be adjourned " C&DA " and for not a particular day , and as
soon as Mr . Haverlock is ready for his site plan . Mr . Haverlock reviewed that he
would need the plans for the house itself , the colonial , and the contour map done on
the lot . Attorney Barney added that , to the extent that it was feasible , some sort
of an indication where the house would be located on the lot and the effect it would
have on the contour . Mr . Haverlock said he would probably be able to find someone to
do that , and Attorney Barney told him his architect should be able to give him a
pretty good idea where it would go . Attorney Barney said that he did not believe
that it would have to be anything terribly sophisticated and that he would not want
Mr . Haverlock to have to spend an unwarranted amount of money .
Attorney Barney asked the Board if it wanted to give the appellant an indication
as to its wishes . He said he did not want to send Mr . Haverlock to get all of these
pieces of paper and then in the end that he would not get his variance . Attorney
• Barney said that he might as well start his design all over again right now .
Chairman Austen stated that he was not terribly upset with 31 feet in the
building showing from the roadway , but no more than 31 feet . He further stated that
he thought , in back the way the land ( the site ) drops off , would be a hardship not to
have an open basement . Chairman Austen said he thought it would be a bigger hardship
for the neighbors to have fill brought in and bring it up to the 30 foot height and
31 feet in the rear . He said he thought it would look worse than having the building
show that as long as it was sided down and not have a concrete basement wall showing
unless it was some sort of decorative wall that tied in and looked attractive .
Mr . Ellsworth said that Mr . Haverlock indicated that if that was done , it would
create some drainage problems for the neighbors . Mr . Haverlock said that would
happen if he had to bring in fill . Mr . Haverlock said he would get the neighbor to
draft something to give the Board his feelings as to what the neighbor thinks it
would do to his lot rather than taking Mr . Haverlock ' s word . Mr . Haverlock commented
about his feelings on the drainage ditches Chase Farms has , and he said he told the
owners that he wanted the drainage ditches dug even deeper . He said they went to the
Town , and the ditches were dug out deeper . Mr . Ellsworth said that he felt that Mr .
Haverlock should get a statement from the people from whom you are getting the
documents that if you raise that back end that it will present a drainage problem .
Mr . Haverlock asked if he should get the neighbor ' s statement . He said he will get
the contour drawing and something to include statements in there as to what detri -
ment , if any , it would cause to the surrounding lots and also attempt to get some
sort of statement from the person who would have most lose by him raising the grade .
• Mr . Ellsworth said that if it is going to affect the other lots , then it would affect
the environmental statement . Attorney Barney said that the variance will not create
the problem . Attorney Barney told Mr . Ellsworth that what Mr . Ellsworth is looking
at , is if the variance is not granted or to avoid the need for a variance , fill was
brought in , there would be a negative effect . Mr . Ellsworth agreed with Attorney
Town of Ithaca 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
Barney . Mr . Haverlock asked Attorney Barney to that effect or did the Board just
want to use the one the environmental impact study stated . Attorney Barney indicated
no . General discussion ensued as to what the Board required , stating that the Board .
wanted landscape architect and contour plans to which Attorney Barney agreed that it
was something like that .
Chairman Austen told Mr . Haverlock that there would probably be two more Board
members at that later date who will be available and will be somewhat interested .
Mr . Haverlock said that as soon as he gets the prints , sooner or later , he will take
them to the Architectural Review Committee , providing the blueprints , the contours to
the representative and have her disseminate that information to the other homeowners
such that when he comes before the Board he knows what the homeowners want and what
he can do to perhaps try to alleviate some of the problems and then the Board can
render an informed decision upon the information the Board has .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Chairman Edward Austen .
RESOLVED , that the Board adjourn the matter for decision to such subsequent
meeting of this Board ' s regular meeting when the Appellant has his architectural
plans and contour site plan and with the request that the Appellant submit
whatever documentation he has to the Building Commissioner before the meeting so
that he can get the Appellant on the schedule .
Ayes - King , Austen , Ellsworth .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
Mr . Pope asked a question about procedure . He said that it is his understanding
that at the meeting in September additional information would be presented . Chairman
Austen said that the Board will be looking at an architectural detailed drawing and
the contour map . Mr . Pope said that his question was if there would be an opportuni -
ty for the public to make comments on the new information as presented . Chairman
Austen said that the public could if there is only any unusual new information then
the Board may open the public hearing again . Chairman Austen said that it would have
to prove to be some significant information , different than what was talked about
tonight .
Chairman Austen read the fourth and last Appeal on the Agenda as follows :
APPEAL OF COYOTE LOCO RESTAURANT , APPELLANT , DANIEL J . STRAWBRIDGE , AGENT ,
REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII ,
SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO
ENLARGE AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BY CONSTRUCTING A 250 + SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR
DECK AT 1876 JUDD FALLS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 62-2 - 1 . 123 ,
BUSINESS DISTRICT C . SAID RESTAURANT IS NONCONFORMING SINCE THE BUILDING HAS
AN EXISTING SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 18 . 68 + FEET AND
25 + FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE , WHEREAS BUILDING SETBACKS OF 30 FEET ARE
REQUIRED IN BUSINESS ZONES .
Chairman Austen stated to Mr . Strawbridge that the deck in question , from Judd
Falls Road , is on the rear of the building to which Mr . Strawbridge answered that was
correct . He said it was on the rear of the building and it backs up to the P&C ' s
Town of Ithaca 27
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
• back . Mr . King remarked that would be the southeast corner of the building to which
Mr . Strawbridge acknowledged that it would be the southeast corner . Chairman Austen
asked if there was presently a small deck there now , and Mr . Strawbridge said that
there was . Mr . Frost circulated a picture of the area in question . Mr . King stated
that there was not going to be a roof over it , and Mr . Strawbridge said there were no
plans of putting a roof on it . Mr . Strawbridge said that the owner thought that a
simple canvas canopy over the existing part but not over the entire thing could
possibly be in the future but not at this point . He said the plans included only a
deck for eating on .
Chairman Austen asked if the deck would be screened off as the similar deck is ,
and Mr . Strawbridge said that it would not be screened off with screening but with a
visual screen such as lattice , simple lattice which would be more tasteful than what
is presently there .
Mr . King asked how far out to the south it would extend . Mr . Strawbridge said it
would go 12 feet towards the P&C and 12 feet towards the back towards the car wash .
Mr . King asked if the 12 feet meant 12 feet south of the present south wall of the
main building . Mr . Strawbridge said that it was actually 8 feet . He said it would
be 12 feet from the existing deck , but from the building it would be 8 feet because
of the 4 foot jog . Chairman Austen restated that it would extend out 8 feet from the
building but 12 feet from the existing deck . Mr . Strawbridge said that was correct .
Mr . King inquired if that still gave 15 feet from the south line of the property .
Mr . Strawbridge said that was correct .
• Chairman Austen commented that he observed stairs down from the deck . Mr .
Strawbridge said that was correct and they would go to the back door . Chairman
Austen questioned if the gravel parking lot would be kind of dusty and dirty for an
eating area to which Mr . Strawbridge said that the owner has talked about paving that
at some point , but he said his client is not overly worried about that . He said that
people travel really fast around there , and he said that he did not think that was a
concern .
Chairman Austen observed this matter had been before Planning Board and that the
Planning Board made a recommendation in their resolution to the Zoning Board of
Appeals .
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing and because there was no one present to
be heard , he closed the public hearing .
Environmental Assessment Form
Chairman Austen stated George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , prepared the form
on July 15 , 1993 , and since Board members had a copy of the form , the Chair went to
the Staff Recommendation .
MOTION
By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King .
® RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the environmental assessment indicating negative
determination of environmental significance for the project , Coyote Loco
Restaurant , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 - 2 - 1 . 123 , as shown on the site plan
for this property and as reviewed by George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner on
July 15 , 1993 .
Town of Ithaca o28
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
Chairman Austen read the letter from Tompkins County Planning Department
Commissioner James W . Hanson , Jr . , dated August 6 , 1993 .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - King , Austen , Ellsworth .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen inquired if this would be a wooden deck , and Mr . Strawbridge said
that was correct . Mr . Ellsworth asked if this requires a special authorization , and
the Chair said it requires a special approval . Mr . Frost commented that the property
is non- conforming because the setback on the side of the building does not conform to
current standards which was changed approximately in 1991 which put the building into
a non- conforming structure . Attorney Barney answered the Chair by stating that the
Board would be enlarging a non- conforming structure , using Section 77 , Paragraph 7 ,
Subparagraphs a-h .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the application to Coyote Loco
for the enlargement of the open air deck at the southeast corner of the building
• at 1876 Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 - 2 - 1 . 123 , which is a
Business District C , with the following findings and condition :
1 ) The deck is to be used as part of the existing restaurant operation and is to
be built in accordance with the plans submitted and drawn by Strawbridge &
Jahn Builders , as submitted to the Planning Board and approved by that Board ,
the plan being dated June 29 , 1993 .
2 ) With the condition of the approval being the same conditions as adopted by
the Planning Board , namely that an original and two copies of the final site
plan be submitted to the Town Engineer and the Town Planner .
3 ) The second condition is being fulfilled at this moment , that being the
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals .
4 ) The proposal of this Special Approval meets all the conditions of the Zoning
Ordinance in Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- h .
5 ) That the proposed addition will not adversely impact the neighborhood or be
out of character with the existing uses in the neighborhood .
6 ) That it will not increase traffic to a significant degree beyond that
existing and certainly will be fully within the capabilities of Judd Falls
Road to handle that traffic .
® 7 ) That the proposed use , location and design is consistent with the character
of the district and should not be detrimental to the general amenity or
neighborhood character .
Town of Ithaca 29
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 11 , 1993
Further discussion ensued with the question by Chairman Austen relative to the
square footage of the addition . Mr . Strawbridge said that the new part was 804
square feet . Chairman Austen said the square footage was going from 250 to 804 , and
Air . Strawbridge said that was incorrect . He said the existing square footage was
384 . Chairman Austen said therefore , the total , including the old deck would be
around 1 , 055 square feet .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - King , Ellsworth , Austen .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 9 : 50 P . M .
Roberta H . Komaromi
Recording Secretary
Edward Austen , Chairman
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY , AUGUST 11 , 1993
7 . 00 P . M .
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday ,
August 11 , 1993 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) ,
Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters :
APPEAL OF TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL , APPELLANT , GRAHAM KING , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE
PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH OCCUPANCY BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS
AT 101 DATES DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 24 - 3- 2 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE
UNRELATED PERSONS WILL BE MEDICAL STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN A RESIDENCE PROGRAM WITH THE
HOSPITAL .
APPEAL OF JOSEPH CIASCHI , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL LAW # 1 - 1987 ( AS AMENDED ) , TO BE PERMITTED TO
MAINTAIN A SCHOOL FOR MASSAGE KNOWN AS THE NEW YORK STATE INSTITUTE OF MASSAGE , AT 1251
TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 24 - 3- 3 . 4 , SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT #4 .
d1PPEAL OF KEVIN HAVERLOCK , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE
IF IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO
CONSTRUCT A TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 + FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM
HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 5 CHASE LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 45- 1 - 59 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R- 15 .
APPEAL OF COYOTE LOCO RESTAURANT , APPELLANT , DANIEL J . STRAWBRIDGE , AGENT , REQUESTING
AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN
OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BY
CONSTRUCTING A 250 + SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR DECK AT 1876 JUDD FALLS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 62 - 2 - 1 . 123 , BUSINESS DISTRICT C . SAID RESTAURANT IS NONCONFORMING SINCE THE
BUILDING HAS AN EXISTING SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 18 . 68 + FEET AND
25 + FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE , WHEREAS BUILDING SETBACKS OF 30 FEET ARE REQUIRED IN BUSINESS
ZONES ,
Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons
in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person .
Andrew S . Frost
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer
273- 1783
Dated : August 3 , 1993
Publish : August 6 , 1993
0