Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1996-09-11 FINAL • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , SEPTEMBER 11 , 1996 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 , September 11 , 1996 , 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 Edwin Hallberg , Jr . , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an attached garage with a front yard building setback of 25 + feet ( 30 feet required ) , as specified on the approved subdivision map for the Deer Run Subdivision , Phase IIIA , dated April 22 , 1993 , at 129 Whitetail Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 1 - 155 , Residence District R- 15 Cluster . APPEAL of Gary J . And Mary E . Stewart , Appellants , Attorney William Highland , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single - family home with a west side yard building setback of 9 . 2 feet ( 15 feet required ) , at 110 Tudor Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 57 - 1 - 8 . 149 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Constance H . Shapiro , Appellant , Attorney James Salk , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single - family home with a south side yard building_setback of 14 . 4 feet ( 15 feet required ) , at 326 Siena Drive , Town of . Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 1 - 11 . 29 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Benjamin Richards , Appellant , Attorney Robert Mulvey , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single - family home with a west side yard building setback of 16 . 3 feet ( 40 feet required ) and a building lot width at the street line of 90 . 03 + ( 100 feet required ) and a lot width at the maximum front yard setback of 90 . 03 + feet ( 150 feet required ) , at 1487 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 23 - 1 - 4 , Residence District R- 30 . APPEAL of Joseph Giordano , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to maintain a two - family home with four unrelated persons in one dwelling unit ( a maximum of 2 unrelated permitted ) , at 111 Tudor Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57 - 1 - 8 . 163 , Residence District R- 15 . 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 . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs , as appropriate , will be provided with assistance , as necessary , upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : September 4 , 1996 • Publish : September 6 , 1996 l F1 NAL Fii "� [Date.,, OWN O ITI-iACA • TOM OF ITHACA �6 \ b �_-- ZONiNC3 BQARD OF APPEIKCSk�� WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 11 . 19K -� �- The following appeals were heard by the ZonW Board Of Appeals on September .11 , 19960 APPEAL of Edwin Hallberg, Jr. , Appellant; requesting a variance from -the requirements of Article IV; Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an attached garage with a front yard building setback of 25 +A feet (300 feet required), as specified on the approved subdivision map lbrthe Deer Run SubdiWsion, Phase IIIA, dated Apr# 22 , 1993s at 129 Whitetail Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44- 1155, Residence District R-15 Cluster. GRANTED APPEAL of Gary J . and Mary E. Stewart, Appellants, Attorney William Highland, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be pernr>Iited to maintain an existing single-family home with a west side yard building setback of 9. 2 feet ( 15 feet required) , at 110 Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57= 14. 149, Residence District R- 15. GRANTED APPEAL of Constance H. Shapiro, Appellant , Attorney James Salk, Agent, requesting a variance from • the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single-family home with a south side yard building setback of 14 .4 feet (15 feet required), at 326 Siena Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 1 -11 . 29 , Residence District RA 5. GRANTED APP of Benjamin Richards , Appellant , Attorney Robert Mulvey, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single-family home with a west side yard building setback of 16. 3 feet (40 feet required) and a building lot width at the street line of 90.03 +/- ( 100 feet required) and a lot v ift at the mwma iuh1 front yard setback of 90.03 +/- feet ( 150 feet required) , at 1487 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23- 1 -4, Residence District R40. GRANTED APPEAL of Joseph Giordano , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to maintain a two-family home with four unrelated persons in sonn one &weft unit (a maximum of 2 unrelated permitted) , at 111 Tudor Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 14. 163 , Residence District R- 15 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS F OF 17FJACA �o 10 �c • TOWN OF ITHACA clerk , �� \ �or� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 11 . 1996 PRESENT: Chairman David Stotz, Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Ronald Krantz, Andrew Frost , Director of Building and Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; JoAnn Cornish, Planner. OTHERS: Wiliam Highland , Patrick Hughes, Susan Wohlhueter, Dave Wohlhueter, Richard J. Schissel, Marilyn Jordan, Edward P . Jordan , Randle Blooding, Henry DeVries, Marilyn Martin, Barbara O'Leary, Gerrit Van Loon, Joseph O'Leary, HanyA Taggart , Jr. , Mary Stewart, Ed Hunner, Robert Kohut, Gregory Page , BeNamin Richards , Bob Mulvey, Lou Anne Bangs, David M . Jones , Jr. , Phyiss L . York , Steffi White, Nancy Thompson , Sung-Sook Smith, Menu Brenter, Radhe Dave , Richard Lovelace, Gary Sforzo , Kevin Harlin, Christopher D . Faraday, Philippe Baveye , Jules Benjamin, Elaine Benjamin , Charlotte Cowles, Jim Salk, Bernard Gittelman, Carol E. Brinkerhoff, Sandra Gittelman , Robert. Foote, Jim Brinkerhoff, Diana Yee, Michael Feng, Liz Colucci, Virginia Steele, Edward Harley, Donald C . Bingham, Mark A. MacDonald, Christine Zinder, Joseph Giordano, Patricia Carnell, Menequita A. R . Gonzales . • Chairman David Stotz called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p. m . , stating that all posting, publication , and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in order. The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follow: APPEAL of Edwin Hallberg, Jr. , Appellant, requesting a variance from the requ wi nients of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an attached garage with a front yard building setback of 25 4i- feet (30 feet required), as specified on the approved subdivision map for the Deer Run Subdivision, Phase IIIA, dated April 22, 19932 at 129 Whitetail! Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 441 -155, Residence District R46 Cluster. Mr. Frost said this is a Phase III of the subdivision, and he has an approved map. Mr. Frost said It was not quite clear from the minutes when the subdivision was created there is a 30 foot front yard i mp ement for for t yard building setback. The approved site plan map refers to a 30 foot wide front yard setback The use of the word "wide" proved confusing to myself and the Attorney for the Town because that usually is talking about the depth. A building permit was issued for the expansion of this building. Mr. Frost passed around photographs of the building. The existing garage was converted with the building permit to a bedroom to accommodate a handicapped child. The new garage was added onto the front. It was moved five feet closer to the road right-of-way, leaving a 25 foot yard setback which is the standard of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Frost said he later discovered after the • Ixicfng permit was issued that there was a 30 foot restriction . This was after the fact and the Building • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Z SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 Department was involved when issuing the building permit . It was not clear from reading the minutes or the resolutions for the subdivision of how the 30 foot front yard setback came about. There is no requirement any where else In the subdivision , other than the phase III , for the 25 foot setbacks throughout the subdivision. Edwn Hallberg, Jr. , of 31 Judd Falls Plaza , said Mr. Frost has explained it as it happened. Mr. Hallberg said Pastor Robert Foote came to town looking for a house that would accommodate the special needs of his daughter. Two hours before Pastor Foote is ready to leave he came to see this house (129 Whitetail Drive) , Mr. Foote came up with a plan in which we could convert 10 feet of the garage into a bedroom to accommodate his handicapped daughter needs. Pastor Foote was very arWous to sign a contract, and wanted to make sure the setback would be possible . Mr. Hallberg said he rated Mr. Frust who stated that a R- 15 zone has a 25 foot setback. Mr. Hallberg said he designed the addition to the building to be 9 feet 10 inches to make sure there was 25 feet for the setback. During the title search for the closing , the attorney called to say it was a 30 foot setback. Mr. Frost said when the Planning Board goes for a cluster subdivision they have the right to rearrange what the Zoning Board of Appeals may require for setbacks . This subdivision was created • where one building could be on the property line as long as the adjoining building is 30 feet away. Under a R=1 5 zoning , if the buildings were allowed 15 feet of side yards then there would be 30 feet between buildings. The adjustment for this cluster subdivision is that the buildings could move as close to the property line as long as the adjacent building is 30 feet away. this has nothing to do necessarily with this appeal, but this Is a leeway as permitted in a cluster subdivision . Mr. Els NWh asked Mr. Frost if he was just talking about side yard setbacks. Mr. Frost said he was taking an example for a cluster subdivision in a R- 15 zone, and those lines could vary back and forth. Chairman Stott asked Mr. Hallberg if the addition exists now. Mr. Hallberg responded, yes . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Frost if the Planning Board decided to make it 30 feet. Mr. Frost responded , yes . The Zoning Ordinance under Article IV, Section 14 , which states that they would need a 15 foot setback or the front yard depths shall not be less than 25 feet nor shall it be greater than 50 Beet except other wise specified . This appeal would be otherwise specified as part of Section 14 that the Zoning Board would be approving . The Zoning Board would be granting a variance from the Planning Board's 30 foot setback. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . • MOTION • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 SEPTEMBER 11, 1998 By Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth. RESO vin that this board grant the appeal of Edwin Hallberg of 129 Whitetail Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44- 1 - 155, to be permitted the setback of 25 feet where 30 feet is required, with this having to occur by over site after going through all the routine procedures of building permits and certificates of occupancy. From the appearance of the building , it does not have any detrimental effect on the community. Chairman Stolz asked Mr. Hallberg if it was exactly 25 feet . Mr. Hallberg said it is measured to the fouxation at 25 feet , and that he modified the building 9 feet 10 inches in order to get it exactly 25 feet . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . • The motion was carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Gary J. and Mary E. Stewart, Appellarrts, Attorney William Highland, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing single -family home with a west side yard building setback of 9. 2 feet (16 feet required), at 110 Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6744. 149, Residence District R-16. Wiliam Highland of 200 East Buffalo Street , said he is the representing attorney for Gary and Mary Stewart at 110 Tudor Road . This is a pre-existing wooden deck on one side of the Stewart's house. Mr. and Mrs Stewart had nothing to do with the wooden deck being built. When the deck was ac tu* bub is a bit of a mystery to everyone . Attorney Highland said he traced it in the title records back to the early to mid 1980's . Attorney Highland said to his acknowledge there has never been any objections, complaints , or protests by any of the neighbors in regards to this wooden deck, probably because the deck is attractive and relatively modest in size . Attorney Highland passed around photographs of the existing wooden deck to the Zoning Board Members . Mr. Frost said that there were no building permits issued by the Building and Zoning Department for this deck. Attorney Highland said the hedge on the side of the deck serves as a divider or a buffer • between the Stewart's house and the neighbors closest to the deck. The hedge seems to eliminate any visual impacts of the deck, and it assures privacy to the neighbors . This deck does not present TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 any ascetic or detrimental affect to the neighborhood . If it had, one of the neighbors would have said something in the past . The Stewart's protected coverance , which attracted the Zoning Ordinance in this regard, are required the same 15 foot distance . There has not been any attempt to enforce these coverance against this deck. The neighbors next door at the present time or in the past , have never made any objections. Another mitigating factor is that this deck violates the 15 foot restriction mostly at the rear comer, of 9. 2 feet from the boundary line . The front corner of the deck is in violation of approximately 6 inches that is most visible from the street . It would seem unfortunate if the Stewarts had to remove the deck because there are sliding glass doors leading out onto the deck now that would be suspended in the air. It would not be a simple proposition to remove the deck. There would have to be some major architectural reworking to make the sliding glass doors look right and function so that there c ould be an exit there . It does not appear to be any easy way to modify the deck either. If one were to cut it down enough to make it comply with the 15 foot distance , it would make it narrow. Mr. Scala asked Attorney Highland if he knows approximately how long the deck has been there for. Attorney Highland said Exhibit O is a survey map dated August 21 , 1985 when Mr. and Mrs . VYt w,s owned the house . The survey map shows the deck exactly as the present survey map does by going back at least 11 years . This is the first survey map he found at the County Clerk's Office • showing the deck. Mr. Scala asked Attomey Highland if the Wither's built the deck. Attomey Highland said he does not know. Mr. Frost said one of the most common construction projects in the Town of Ithaca without permits are decks . Chairman Stotz asked Attorney Highland , in Paragraph 4 of the appeal states "our attorney Wormed us that the deck violated Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance° , that there was some knowledge before the closing occurred that this was not in compliance . Attomey Highland said that was correct . He was the attorney at that time , and he felt it violated the protected coverance . Attomey Highland said he also found the deck violated by the Zoning Ordinance . The question was whether to call off the closing or not buy the property. He negotiated with the sellers (Nobuhiko and Emi Katayama) to give Mr. and Mrs . Stewart a credit toward the purchase price to enable them to pursue a variance . Chairman Stotz asked Attomey Highland if Mr. and Mrs . Stewart took the chance of getting the variance approved when they had the closing . Attorney Highland said that was correct . They waived the likelihood that the variance would be granted against all the hardship caused by the Stewart's not closing and having to look for another house . They decided that the hardship out weighed the risk. Mr. Ellsworth asked Attorney Highland when the Stewarts had their closing . Attorney Highland said it was June 27 , 1996 . Attomey Bamey asked Attorney Highland if he drafted the affidavit for Mr. and Mrs . Stewart . • Attorney Highland responded, yes. He noticed the problem that was not taken care of in the past , and suggested the variance should be taken care of now. Attomey Bamey said he is not sure it needed • TOWN OF rrHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8 SEPTEMBER 11, 19M a variance . Chairman Stotz asked Attorney Highland if the Stewarts would end up with a patio door opening to no where on the second floor. Attorney Highland said that was correct . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . MOTION By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Ronald Krantz: RESO VW that this board grant the variance for the appeal of Gary J . and Mary E. Stewart of 110 Tudor Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 -8. 149 , Residence District R- 15 , to maintain an existing wooden deck which has a building setback of appt,oxirrlately 9 . 2 feet whereas 15 foot setback is required. The following variance be for the current deck only, not for the construction of a new deck or enclosure of the deck to turn it into another room . • A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth, Scala , Krantz. NAYS a None . The motion was carried unanimously. The third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows . APPEAL of Constance H. Shapiro, Appellant, Attomey James Salk, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Mac Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing singledamily home with a south side yard building setback of 14.4 feet (16 feet required), at 326 Siena Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -11 . 29, Residence District R- 16. James Salk of 200 East Buffalo Street , said that he is the attorney representing Contance H . Shapiro of 326 Siena Drive. This is a request of a side yard variance of 14 .4 feet from the requirement of 15 feet at one comer of the home at 326 Siena Drive . The neighbor to the south of this parcel is the Town of Ithaca. On the survey map dated July 12 , 19961 it shows a proposed road and a bike route . • The actual distance between the house and other uses are considerably greater than 15 feet approaching 30 feet appro)amately. This house addition was built in accordance with a building permit • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 issued by the Town of Ithaca in 1982 . On a copy of the sketch it was suppose to be 15 feet . The budder ether did not get it quite right or the surveyor's measurements might be slightly off. Attorney Salk said for what ever reasons, it is several inches less than it ought to be . This was not discovered between 1982 or 1983 when the addition was completed . A survey was commissioned in July 1996 in conjunction of the sale of this property . He thinks it is apparent that there is no detriment to the health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood . It is not an undesirable change since it is the same as it has been right along . The request of the variance is substantial under any view of the situation . Attorney Salk said he would ask this board to grant the variance . Chairman Stotz asked Attorney Salk if this is 7. 2 inches to close to a bicycle path. Attorney Salk responded , yes . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . MOTION • By Mr. Ronald Krantz, seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED. that this board grant the appeal for Constance Shapiro at 326 Siena Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 71 - 1 - 11 . 29 , Residence District R- 15 , for the request of a variance for the building to be permitted to maintain an existing single family home with a south side yard setback of 14 .4 feet where 15 feet is required . Since this has been in existence fbr more than a decade , it would seem reasonable to allow this appeal which would not be detrimental affect to the surrounding community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES = Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows: APPEAL of Benjamin Richards, Appellant, Attorney Robert Mulvey, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing single= family home with a west side yard building setback of 15. 3 feet (40 feet required) • and a bulft lot width at the street line of 90. 03 +!- (100 feet required) and a lot width at the maximum front yard setback of 90. 03 +!- feet (150 feet required), at • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 1487 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23-14 Residence District R-30. Robert Mulvey of M &T Building , Suite 507 , Ithaca , said that he is the attorney representing Beryamin Richards of 1487 Trumansburg Road . Mr. Richards just acquired title on August 21 , 1996 from Isabel Hardy. In preparation for the closing it was determined that the side yard setback had a problem. Upon investigation k was determined that there were two other items with problems . It was fek best to remedy all three items at once . Mr. and Mrs . Hardy purchased the property in 1966 from Carkon and Alberta Shaw. Mr. and Mrs . Shaw purchased the property in 1946 . In 1959 , a few years after the Zoning Ordnance was enacted , they conveyed 110 feet of width to the north to a third party Waving them with a 90 foot road frontage . This left the house 16 . 3 feet from the side boundary. There is no hard evidence of this , but the house might have been built in the 1940's . The house to the north was bult approximately in the late 1950's or early 1960's . The house had been therefor at least 50 years, and granting the variance to allow the house situated as it is will not cause any detrimental or hardship to any neighbors . There is one letter from the neighbor ( Mr. and Mrs . Hagaman) to the south stating that they approve the variance requested by Benjamin Richards of 1487 Trumansburg Road maintain an existing family residence on this property, and to request that any future construction be no closer to the lot line than the present building . • Mr. Frost said in 1960 the Zoning Ordinance changed to 40 foot setback in R- 30 zones , so the existing side yard setback of approximately 16 feet is actually legally non-conforming . The Zoning Ordinance requires a 100 foot web , and that would be efficient . If the board should consider granting this variance , the board would be taking something non-conforming and allowing it . Mr. Krantz said he took a look at the house . It is in an amazing well landscaped area , where people can not see it from the Trumansburg Road . This house in question sets further back than the house adjacent to the north by approximately seven feet . Mr . Frost said there is nothing scientific or magical about numbers that deal with yard regulations and setbacks . What the board is seeing tonight could be a detrimental affect , and in a lot of cases it could be significant . Chairman Stotz asked Attorney Mulvey if he knows how far back Mr. Hagaman's house Is away from Mr. Richards. Attorney Mulvey said that he was not sure . Chairman Stotz said that Mr. and Mrs . Hagaman are requesting that any future construction be no closer to the lot than the present building . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . • MOTION • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 By Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED. that this board grant the appeal of Benjamin Richards of 1487 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 23- 14 , Residence District R-30 , to be permitted a 16 .4 foot setback where 40 feet is required considering the original setback requirement when the house was built was 10 feet , and that the house dates back a lot of years that there is no detriment to anyone in it's present location , and the house sits on a lot that is approximately one acre in size with considerable depth , that no future construction be permitted except in compliance with the normal setback requirements as in effect at that time . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES = Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. • The last appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Joseph Giordano, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to maintain a two-family home with four unrelated persons in one dwelling unit (a madmffn of 2 unrelated pernitted), at 111 Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67=14. 163, Residence District R-15, Mr. Frost said it is not clear to him as to who or how many people are living down stairs . There is some history on this property that the basement of this building was started with construction to convert the basement to an apartment without a building permit. When the Building Department discovered the issue of the building permit, they later discovered that there was an occupancy violation going on as well . . The lease was signed in April before the Building Department issued a permit , that is a significant violation of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Mr. Frost asked Mr. Giordano who he is employed by. Joseph Giordano of 100 Christopher Circle , said that he is employed by Lucente Homes and Apartments. Mr. Frost said that this Is a large real estate property management in Town . Most people often appear in from of the board with problems because they were ignorant to the law and they have difficulty understanding it . One of the most difficulties of understanding is when one works for one of the large- property managed real estate in Town , that he is not aware of the requirements for a building • permit or occupancy limitations . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 Mr. Giordano said he works in property management and has the opportunity to meet hundreds of graduate students looking for good housing in Ithaca . They have difficult time finding adequate housing . He found four nice mechanical engineering graduate students who wanted a home in April of this year. There was a home for sale on 111 Tudor Road . He signed a lease with the four graduate students for this property hastily. Due to the large demand , he is constantly renting properties in his employment to graduate students and saw this as a good opportunity to continue his investments for his children's college education . Mr. Giordano said he is not a well educated person , and that he is just a brick layer's son who knows how to rent apartments . He does agree that he was ignorant to the code . He goes to work each day , and rents what he is told to rent . He was eager to get into the business seeing the money that could be made . Mr. Giordano said that he found four very good tenants who he believes are of very high character, are very responsible , very quiet , and were the best tenants he has ever had. He saw a good opportunity, he jumped hastily, and he made a big mistake . He is wiling to pay for his mistakes , and ask for these gentlemen be granted to stay there for a limited time variance. Since he has been informed of the violation he made three of the gentlemen are living upstairs where two are permitted there , and one is living downstairs where two unrelated would be permitted. Their lease ends July 31 , 1997 . Mr. Giordano said he was advised to ask for time limited use variance by counsel based on this board's consideration for other people in this community. This • was done on a property at Taughannock Boulevard for a limited time use variance granted to some its that were not as good of tenants as his . Mr. Giordano said that he is asking that some leeway be given to the four students because they are mechanical engineering students who are very busy with their studies . He could rent the house to a family, and he will never be in violation of this code again at this property. It is a good neighborhood that is why he bought the house . He plans to keep the property as it is and well kept . He did this hastily, and it was a mistake. It would be a serious financial loss for him if he has to have the house vacant for a long period of time . Looking for tenants at this time of year is bad . He would like to have some time to look for tenants . He is requesting the needs of the tenants by letting them fulfill their lease until July 31 , 1997 , or until someone can take it over. He would do this for a limited amount of time , and it would never happen again . Mr. Giordano said he is very nervous and very sorry to all he has inconvenience by this . He did enter into this very hastily based on the large amount of properties in the Town of Ithaca . He has seen this done in Eastern Heights , and he understands why the residences would not want this kind of thing going on any longer. Chairman Stutz asked Mr. Giordano what his occupation is . Mr. Giordano said he is a leasing agent for a property management company. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Giordano , in spite of all his eience as a leasing agent working in Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca , he does not have any knowledge of the Zoning Ordinance requirements for the properties . Mr. Giordano said yes . He met with the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector about a building permit , and he thought since it was his own property that he could start the construction . He was doing the work himself. Mr. Giordano said he was ignorant to it. The construction is done by the people he works for. He is just the leasing agent , which his job consists of showing apartments . He puts data into the computer, calls on the tenant's references , and collects their deposits and rents . He does not handle the legal aspects of the • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 operation where he works . Mr . Frost asked Mr. Giordano how many years has he worked for Lucente Homes . Mr. Giordano said eight years . Mr. Frost said that he finds it extremely hard to believe knowing the operation of Lucente's , that Mr. Giordano does not know the regulations . Mr. Frost said when his assistant , and himself, questioned Mr. Giordano with regards to a building permit and occupancy, they both got one set of answers and then the answers were modified several times . The information that was supplied to the Building Department by Mr. Giordano initially was not accurate . He then changed his story a number of times . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Frost if this residence was legal two family residence now. Mr. Frost said that legally a two=1hm ly residence could have two unrelated people upstairs and two unrelated people downstairs . What he has heard through telephone conversation that is not an objection of having students. Legally they could have two students upstairs and two students downstairs for a total of four occupants in the building . Under this scenario , people should be reminded that the Town has a noise ordinance and a garbage ordinance in the Town of Ithaca to protect their interest . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Frost the way the house stands now, is it a one-family residence . • Mr. Frost said the permit would convert the basement , but it is not finalized . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Frost if the construction had occurred . Mr. Frost said the construction has been commenced , but not with a certificate , He does not know what the status is , and the Building Department has not issued a certificate of occupancy yet . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Giordanio how close is he to completing the work. Mr. Giordano said the work is almost finished , just the kitchen sink needs to be completed . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Giordano what his plans would be assuming he receives the certificate of occupancy for a two-family house . Mr. Giordano said the four graduate students would prefer to live in the house with three of them living upstairs and one person living downstairs . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Giordano if that would be three unrelated people living upstairs in the apartment . Mr. Giordano responded , yes . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Giordano how big is the apartment in the basement . Mr. Giordano said it is a one bedroom apartment with a living room , a kitchen , and one bath . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Giordano how marry bedrooms are upstairs . Mr. Giordano said there are four bedrooms upstairs . Mr. Scala asked Ms. Cornish if there was adequate parking at this property. Ms . Cornish said there is space for four or five vehicles in the driveway, so there would adequate parking . Chairman Stotz said those issues will be covered in the Environmental Assessment part of this appeal . • Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 11 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 Henry DeVries of 104 Eastern Heights Drive , said the restriction of what Mr. Giordano is not with standing the fact that there are students involved as an emotional content to this issue . Some of us are very favorable to having renters . He bought his house in Eastern Heights Drive when he was a student and had students in the basement to pay the mortgage . This is why he could afford to live in a very fine neighborhood . He considers the Zoning Board to be two fold . The legal compliance of the proceedings are of some concern to the neighborhood as to the actual number of occupants in a dwelling. Mr. DeVries said his concern and issue is that this particular neighborhood is very close and very active . This board may recall a number of years ago the concern about the extension of Park Lane and the Eastern Heights Park , and this neighborhood mobilized their common well being and common good. The issue here and the nature of zoning for the community's good . The community has a strong opinion . There are individual concerns that he urges the board to remember that the nature of zoning is the benefit of the community. It seems that the community around the resident is not necessarily in favor of the appeal that has been requested . Gary Sfazo, 8 John Street , said he wants to thank the board for the opportunity to speak. On Monday, September 9 , 1996 , at the home of Tim and Lou Anne Bangs , over 50 individuals from the Eastern Heights subdivision met to discuss the issues surrounding the variance requested for 111 Tudor Road . These 50 or more residents expressed the understanding of the zoning laws and appreciation for the needs of such laws as well as variances for those laws when necessary. The neighbors also emphasize with the homeowner, Mr. Giordano , as well as the tenants who currently reside at 111 Tudor Road . With the regards of Mr. Giordano , many of the neighbors are also in business and attempting to earn a fair wage while using our best skills . With the regard to the current tenants , many of the neighbors were and are graduate students who understand the difficulty in finding comfortable and affordable housing . There are many good apartments still available in the Town of Ithaca at this time. Mr. Sforoz said with these sympathies aside , we can not condone activities directed at business for profit , if the activities are outside the law and impact negatively on the lives of the families that currently reside on the locality. Therefore , the purpose of the Eastern Heights homeowner's presentation is to facilitate the denial of the variance requested on the property at 111 Tudor Road. To support this purpose , the board will be hearing from four speakers who live the close to 111 Tudor Road, and who were authorized by the group to present information to the board prudent to the variance requested . We will first discuss thes issue in light of three tests or elements of hardship. He is sure the board is familiar with the document by Corn and Damsky, Esq . , as published by the New York Planning Federation in 1991 . According to that document , three tests were upheld in Otto versus Steinhifbler. 1 ) . That the variance will not alter the central character of locality. 2) . That the land in question can not yield a reasonable return due to current zoning laws . 3) . That the owner is subject to any circumstances that does not prevail throughout the area . According to Corn and Damsky, Esq . , a successful variance application should demonstrate all three elements before being granted. The neighbors of Eastern Heights do not believe the variance requested for 111 Tudor Road passes any of these tests . Mr . Sforzo said he would present the information related to the first • test, which is the central character of the locality. Mr. Harry Taggart will address the second and third issue of reasonable return and unique circumstances . Mr. Phillipe Baveye will describe the extent of TOWN OF IT14ACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 12 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 neighborhood opposition to this request . Mr. Joseph Weary will capsulize the arguments and bring conclusion to the position . For the board's consideration , we hope to be brief and not to exceed 24 minutes total. With regard to the central character of the locality, the Eastern Heights subdivision and Tudor Road in particular is best described as quiet residential areas with Tudor Road consisting of 21 homes, 20 of which are presently certified as single-family occupancy. None of which possess a variance for allowing more than two unrelated people to reside . All the homes on Tudor Road are owner-occupied . None of them will be classified as multiple dwelling high occupancy rental units . None of these homes are the site for any primarily commercial use . To further describe the central character of the immediate vicinity surrounding 111 Tudor Road , that three homes immediately adjacent to the property are family owned with six children between the ages of five and thirteen years . We expect these children play regularly in the vicinity. Many of the young families are within a stone throw of 111 Tudor Road. This leads to an issue of safety. Presently Tudor Road would be described as an area with low flow of traffic primarily caused by homeowners , many of whom have children . Tudor Road is bordered on the east by the Eastern Heights Park and the western end by another residential street , Park Lane . There is no flow thru traffic on Tudor Road , and all vehicular activities are limited to adult family members driving to or from work or attending to house hold needs . If the variance is granted it would not only potentially double the traffic , but it will also change the nature of the prespective drivers of these vehicles . By enlarging the tenants to occupy 111 Tudor Road would • not be homeowners nor be parents who are sensitive to the activity patterns of children . The Eastern Heights residents see this as a threat to safety and they moved to this neighborhood with the expectation that they would be protected by the existing zoning laws from such conditions . A point that characterizes Tudor Road , is the residents are year round and permanent . Most of the homeowners on the street have lived there for more than five years and represent a stable environment . These people are regularly employed and pay taxes , including property taxes in the Town of Ithaca . If the requested variance is allowed it would encourage 111 Tudor Road to forever become a dwelling occupancy. A long term and deep commitment to the existing residents of 111 Tudor Road fosters the environment which cultivates strong neighborly relations . The Eastern Heights residents would hate to see this threatened by rental properties . In summary , the Eastern Heights subdivision and Tudor Road is a family neighborhood with owner occupied homes that all conform with current zoning occupancy laws. The central character of this locality is not described by multiple units with unrelated occupants . The variance being requested for 111 Tudor Road would impact upon the traffic , noise level, safety, and the stability of the area . Therefore , it would not be in accordance with the essential character of this locality. We whole heartily agree with the recommendation of Planner JoAnn Cornish , when she stated that the community and the neighborhood character may be adversely impacted . In conclusion , one reason for the variance at 111 Tudor Road should be denied is because it does not meet with the presence established in Otto and Steinhimblier, which requires a variance that will not alter the essential character of the locality. Mr. Krantz asked if the board is dealing with a one-family home or a two-family now . Attorney • Barney said this board is dealing with a one-family home . Mr. Krantz said the environmental assessment is incorrect. Attorney Barney said it is incorrect in a sense as it speaks as of today. Ms . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS 13 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 Cornish said she did not realize they did not have a Certificate of Occupancy. Attorney Barney said the board should look at this appeal assuming the construction is completed in accordance with the certificate of occupancy. Mr. Scala said the situation is that there is a one-family home with four unrelated people living there . Attorney Barney said that is correct . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Frost how many occupants could live in an one-family home . Mr. Frost said three unrelated people could live in an one-family home . Mr. Frost said a certificate of occupancy can not be issued because of the zoning violation . In theory , it could be a two-family home at the moment without a certificate because as long as there is a zoning violation , he can not certify it with a certificate of occupancy for a two-family home even though the mechanical parts of the building are of a two-family home . Harry Taggart of 107 Tudor Road , said the first topic is about reasonable return . Doctoring of a self created hardship plays the most important role in denying this use variance . Mr. Giordano signed a lease with the four tenants on April 1 , 1996 , then he purchased the home on June 12 , 1996 . The tenants moved in on August 1 , 1996 , and then they applied for a use variance on August 22 , 1996 after the fact. Use variances can not be granted where unnecessarily hardship by the applicant , • Mr. Giordano, or acquired by the applicant of the particular property knowing the condition that is now being seeked of the Zoning Board . Mr. Giordano should be aware of the zoning laws , since he is involved in real estate and owns three other properties . Mr. Giordano probably went through a realtor with this property. If he was unsure he should have asked the realtor about what he could do with the property at that time . Mr. Giordano 's intention was to make this a rental property in April when he signed the lease . He put a purchase offer in May, which a realtor would have been present for that meeting, and then in June Mr. Giordano closed on it . Mr. Giordano had some idea of what he planned to do and should have discussed this with his realtor if he was not sure . Mr. Taggart said in another court case in New York, it was the case of Clark versus the Board of Zoning Appeals , that the court noted nevertheless the applicant purchased the house then applied for the use variance . We can not end this opinion at this point saying that one who normally acquires land for a prohibited use can not there after have a variance on the ground of hardship . JoAnn Cornish also noted this in her report . In conclusion , Mr. Giordano has not met any of these tests , and he should have done this prior to putting in his purchase offer. Mr. Giordano is required to meet all three tests , but has not meet any of them . Mr. Taggart said he is recommending to keep the neighborhood like it is and go by the Zoning Laws , Phillippe Baveye of 108 Tudor Road , said his objective tonight was to provide evidence to the board that there is a strong position in the neighborhood to the variance being requested . The attendance tonight is ample evidence that this is in deed the case . The benefit of the board member who may not have seen the documents on September 5 , 1996 , a petition was forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeal. In Ms . Cornish's report to the board where it makes mention to it . By the time this • petition was forwarded to the board , there was approximately 120 signatures . Some of the copies of the petition have continued to circulate in the neighborhood . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 LouAnne Bangs of 201 Tudor Road , said she would like to hand in the two extra sheets that were completed with the signatures . Ms . Bangs said it did brings the total up to over 120 signatures . Ms. Bangs said she has a visual that shows all the surrounding properties of 111 Tudor Road . Ms . Bangs pointed out on the visual where the surrounding properties are . Joseph O'Leary of 101 Park Lane , said he and his wife , Barbara , have lived in Ithaca for more than 15 years, and both of their children were born here . They purchased their first home earlier this year after looking for a year and a half for the perfect house . They wanted a friendly neighborhood , quiet streets , friendly neighbors , and a convenient location . They found all of that and more in this neighborhood being discussed here tonight . When they bought the home , they specifically asked what the zoning was in this area . They were told at that time and assured that it was all zoned for single and two-family houses . That played a large part in our decision to purchase a home in the Eastern Heights area. They believe that this request for a variance was meant to set a precedent . We are all concerned with the resulting change in the character of a quiet family neighborhood . They are worried about the increase in traffic , in an area which has little to no flow thru traffic and is filled with children . They sympathize with the Town's plan , and they are appauld with the liberties that Mr. Giordano has already taken. The fact that four unrelated tenants signed a lease on April 1 , 1996 , well • over two months before the house was purchased , and that this variance is being requested after a month of being in direct violation of the zoning , leads us to the question of what Mr. Giordano's original intents were. They noted that there appears to be no certificate of occupancy for the second unit , yet , they have a Cornell directory with six people using the same telephone number, which has been verified to ring into 111 Tudor Road . Edward Harley of 111 Tudor Road , said that he transferred the same phone number from the previous house he lived at . Therefore , two of the students did not change their directory when they left the university. There are only four people living at the house with this number. Mr. O'Leary said as he stated before , it appears that there are six unrelated names ringing into the same house . It is for those reasons and the reasons set before the board tonight , that we respectively request that the board follow the recommendations of JoAnn Cornish to deny this variance and allow the current zoning to continue to protect the neighborhood . Dave Wohlhueter of 202 Tudor Place , said he has not associated with his neighbors because he works seven days a week, but he has been in the neighborhood for 20 years . He just wanted the board to know what a grave situation the neighbors have , and how important they think this decision is. Mr. Wohlhueter asked if a lease is valid that was signed in April by a person who did not even own the place . It seems funny that Mr. Giordano signed a lease in April and then had a closing on the house in June . Mr. Wohlhueter said Bud Larkin is a good friend of his , who sold the house . Mr. Larkin told him that the house was being purchased by a realtor that was going to have is brother live • there. Must be a lot of things happened since that time . He also heard that when the basement was finished there was going to be five people living there . There is plenty of housing around . His son • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 15 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 lives in College town and pays those high rates . Jules Benjamin of 204 Tudor Road , said he is responding to what Mr. Giordano said originally. Mr. Benjamin said it seemed to him that he only had one leg to stand on , and that was sympathy. He suggests the board to take this issue of sympathy for the tenants under consideration . Mr. Benjamin said he is not suggesting to do so , but if the board takes it under consideration that the board try to work out an arrangement that would relieve the financial hardship from the students rather than from Mr. Giordano . It is not our purpose to make the lives of these four graduate students miserable . In some creative way to work for an alternative attendance for them would be satisfactory. He would be opposed to a ruling based upon financial concerns of Mr. Giordano that benefitted him . As he understands this situation , Mr. Giordano is not entitled to such a benefit . Michael Feng of 111 Tudor Road , said he would like to outline what kind of hardship this would impose on the four occupants facing eviction . We are four graduate students in the mechanical engineering department, and in the M . S . PhD . Program . The four of us plan to stay in the Ithaca area on a long term basis . Two of us are entering our third year and two of us are entering our second year. Generally the programs lasts four to five years . Mr. Feng said he is preparing for his A exam , which is the admission to the PhD candidacy. This would include two to three weeks of steady • studying for this oral exam , and then he is an official candidate for the PhD program . For him personally, if they were evicted very soon , would seriously disrupt his PhD program and his academic career. For his three house mates , they are all taking classes this semester. Most people could probably imagine trying to find a house , moving , packing , studying for a test , and taking examinations , could probably lead to a very stressful life style . If we were evicted early this would represent a major hardship on their academic careers . By the way the audience is sounding , they would be lucky if they could stay there until Christmas. They would prefer to stay there for the full year, but does not see that happening . Attomey Barney asked Mr. Feng when is his oral exam . Mr. Feng said he has not scheduled that yet because of this meeting. He would like to take it at the beginning of October. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Feng if the oral exam would be over with the next few months . Mr. Feng said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Feng when is Fall Break for the College . Mr. Feng said he thinks the break is around October 12 , 1996 . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Feng which of the four tenants are living in the downstairs . Mr. Feng said Mr. Mark MacDonald is living in the basement . Mr. Frost asked Mr. MacDonald if he is aware that he is living downstairs illegally. Mr. MacDonald said he was not aware he was living illegally. • Attorney Barney asked Mr. Feng if anyone else was living in the house besides the four students. Mr. Feng responded, no. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Feng if any one had been visiting them • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS 16 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 for any length of time . Mr. Feng said yes . They had people visit them for two to three days . They were coming back to finish their masters degree , which a lot of them were friends of Edward Harley, Mr. Harley said they were friends of his that only stayed with them for a few days at a time . Attorney Barney asked if they are gone now. Mr. Feng said there are no guests staying with them right now. Attorney Barney asked if there was any need for guests over the next several months . Mr. Feng said he does not expect any guests , but they like to be social . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Feng if they have any parties . Mr. Feng said they have not had any parties. Chairman Stolz asked Mr. Feng if all the tenants were mechanical engineering students . Mr. Feng responded , yes . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Frost if the Town had any calls from the neighbors with any problems . Mr. Frost said there have been telephone calls about this appeal only . Mr. Ellsworth said he is only talking about their character. Attorney Barney said there has not been any disorderly type of activity, just that there are more people than there is suppose to be there . Mr. Frost said often in the years with working for the Town , he has often heard people criticize the Zoning Board of Appeals for granting variances , which he is not suggesting that this board is going • to grant this appeal, but people need to be aware that this board grants variances to people that come before this board with real life problems . The three of the four cases seen before this board tonight , he thinks in some ways , is not a real significance in granting , but they were important issues to the property owners . The Zoning Board grants variances because people come here with real life problems. It does not necessarily fault these young men because they seem like nice students , and they are real people too, and they have problems . In a way he does have sympathy or desire to see the board grant the variance tonight for this case , but they are real people with real life problems . The board would recognize this and grant the variances if appropriate . At the same time , the board is very sensitive to public input . This might be the best group that he has seen even from a standpoint to presenting their opinions . Being such a large number of people from the community , it should be commended to how well these people act . He has not seen so many people in the neighborhood come before the Town as well organized as these people have been . Mr . Ellsworth said he is quite sensitive to the issue because he has a situation in his own neighborhood where the Town granted a variance , and things are still going on , and things happen . Mr. O'Leary said there is no problems in this community toward the students , and having been there themselves they fully understand what they are going through . It seems that the compromise would be, if it does become a two family house , with two tenants living upstairs and two tenants living downstairs, that these four students could continue to live there . To assure the students , there is no hard feelings from the community , they just think the students were taken and their sympathies go with • them . • TO WN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 97 SEPTEMBER 99 , 1996 Chairman Stotz said if this house becomes a two-family dwelling , there is an issue of definition of a family. Chairman Stotz said his understanding is that the Zoning Ordinance states that the house could not be occupied by more than two families and those families could have an unrelated person Wing with them . Mr. Frost said no . A single family could have a boarder to make it three , and a two family could have two unrelated , but no boarders in each unit . If the board were to consider for a variance for a limited time period by putting three tenants upstairs and one downstairs , it would still give them four people in the house . This is something the board could consider. Attorney Barney said what people need to understand , is that the variance that is being requested right now is a time limited variance for the life of the lease . Sandra Giittelman of 109 Tudor Road asked Attorney Barney what kind of influence would that have on the future . Attorney Barney said at the end of the lease the property is converted to what it Is committed to do under the ordinance and only what is permitted . Ms . Gittelman asked Attorney Barney if the appeal could be reappealled at another time . Attorney Barney said ignorance may be an excuse at first , but it is very difficult to plee ignorance the second time . It is not likely that this particular house would come back with this same problem . The precedent has been set . There have been situations in the past where the solution has been a time limited variance to allow the tenants to • remain with the understanding and a deed restriction that the house converts back to what is required. Mr. Frost said the time limit does not have to be the full term of the lease . If there was a consideration of putting three tenants upstairs and one tenant downstairs , to still keep the four students in the house as allowed , they would all have their own bedroom . Nancy Thompson of 107 Park Lane , said she would like to say that Mr. Giordano can not plee ignorance as an excuse , because all people have to do is call Mr. Frost at the Building Department , and he would give them a book of all zoning regulations . She has been here before to apply for a variance , and Mr. Frost was very up-front , honest , and very helpful in giving any information that people need . Mark MacDonald of 111 Tudor Road , said he did not plan to speak tonight . He wanted to let everyone know that he respects everyone 's right to try and protect their neighborhood from students making a mess because it is true . He lived in some really seedy student neighborhoods through his undergraduate studies in Canada where there are a lot of houses that were not taken of. The whole reason they looked away from College Town is because they are very close , and work together eight or nine hours a day, then go home and work some more . They live fairly regular lives , and they were trying to distance themselves from that sort of environment to find a nice quiet neighborhood in which they could live . The neighbors should not be concerned with a lot of noise coming from the house . He could see why the neighbors would be worried about setting a precedent for future students moving into the neighborhood. It was startling to know that the safety of the children was an issue , and . yes, it is an issue . Each of the them own a car, but they do commute as a car pool , so there would only be one car used at any one time , and most of them bicycle to school . They realize the neighbors have nothing against them in particular , and they would just like to stay with their lease so it does not TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 18 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 disrupt the rest of their year. Mr. Ellsworth said the Zoning Ordinance was created so that College Town did not spread throughout the Town of Ithaca . Mr. Wohlhueter said that one of the students must be well off because there are five cars there most of the time . He is not sure who is living there or who is not . Mr. Wohlhueter asked what guarantee does the community have on how many tenants are living there . When he called the Town to see what the rules and regulations are , he was told . Then he received a call back saying the Town talked to the owner and he is a little bit abrasive of who is living there , but keep an eye on the house for the Town . This proves it , there could be any number of people living there , and that there is no guarantee . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Wohlhueter if someone from his office ( Building and Zoning Department) gave him that response " by keeping an eye on the house" . Mr. Wohlhueter said it was from the Town of Ithaca . Mr. Frost said the Building and Zoning Department would solicit the neighborhood to report information because they would not be able to be there 24 hours a day. Mr. Wohlhueter said all he is saying is that the neighborhood can not be sure of how many students are living there . • Attorney Barney asked when were there five cars in the driveway. Ms . Gittelman said there were five cars in the driveway last night . Mr. Harley said there were four cars parked in the driveway last night , and there are two cars in the garage . Mr. Feng said he is restoring an old Volkswagen Beetle , so he has his regular car in the driveway and the other car in the garage . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Feng if the two cars in the garage are inoperable and unlicensed , or licensed. Mr. Feng said they are licensed and inoperable . Attorney Barney asked Ms . Gittelman if there were five cars outside last night. Ms . Gittelman said there were two cars in the garage and four cars in the driveway. Christine Zinder of 108 Park Lane , said she just heard from several people that there are unoccupied apartments in the neighborhood , she would love to have these guys as tenants . Ms . Gittelman said she does not think the argument is over these particular tenants , but that the argument is over the future . She lives next door to the tenants , and they are very nice neighbors to have . She worries about the future , with the roll over of who will come in next if this becomes student housing. Attorney Barney said he does not prejudge what this board will do , but if a variance were granted for a limited period of time , which would be until July 31 , 1997 . Mr. DeVries said the community's interest is that the compliance to date gives them no insurance that this will not continue . Mr. Frost said even if the board denies it , he is constantly getting calls from people who potentially violate the law, and everyone needs to be aware that the tenants do not own the building . This is subject to the property owner allowing this to happen . Mr. Frost said he does not know how bound the tenants are to the lease given how this lease came about . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 19 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 Mr. Wohlhueter asked Attorney Barney if the lease was legal at this time . Attorney Bamey said the lease is legal , because it has a contingency built into it that the landlord will obtain the title to the house . Mr. Giordano actually took a chance . If the tenants break the lease because it is an illegal occupancy the tenants would not be exposed too much . Ms . Gittelman asked Attorney Barney if there were time limited variance , would the house convert back to a one4amiy home. Attorney Barney said it would revert back to what ever it would be permitted at that time . Mr. O' Leary said he is very worried about the limited time variance because there would not be as big tum out the time this issue came up again . Attorney Barney said the Zoning Board's experience has been that they have not had the same applicant ever come back again . The other thing this board might want to suggest that the occupancy at the present is of violation of the penal law as well . What the board has done in the past was to suggest , that in lieu of bringing a criminal proceeding , which would result in a fine of approximately $250 . 00 per week for a violation , that the board suggest to the applicant that if they want this variance they pay part of a fine or other wise be imposed . This would hopefully help the situation from happening again . • Stephie White of 101 Eastern Heights Drive , asked if there are four bedrooms upstairs . Mr. Giordano responded , yes . Ms . White said when Mr. Giordano started to build two more bedrooms downstairs , that he was in visioning approximately six occupants . Mr. Frost said that there is only bedroom downstairs , and that does not mean he could not put someone in the living room and put someone in the bedroom . Ms . White said at the present time , without doing anything downstairs , Mr. Giordano could have very easily have four people upstairs , one person to a room . Mr. Ellsworth said there could be a family with four people . Mr . Frost said everyone here is concerned about what happens to the occupancy of this building from now until eternity . Mr. Giordano said he would like to reassure everyone that this building would never be in the violation of the code ever again . His brother will possibly be living in the basement apartment , and that his own family has considered moving into this house once they could afford to live there . It is a very nice neighborhood , and he would love to live there . He would Ike to speak to the allegations of the property . He said he did make a lot of mistakes here . He works two jobs and he did this very hastily. He works very hard and wants this to be a very nice home . The house would be maintained to top standards , good condition , and he offered to the neighbors to visit the house to see the work inside that has been done . He would assure everyone that he does not ever want to do through this again , and he will never be in violation again . Mr. MacDonald said in terms of the bedroom situation upstairs , most rental places that they looked at called every room in the house a bedroom , kitchen , and a hallway. Upstairs there are four • rooms, one is large enough to put a bed in . He slept there for a few weeks as the basement was being finished , but as most reasonable people would not think of putting a person in the smallest room . It • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 20 SEPTEMBER 11, 9996 is more Ike a study . Mr. O' Leary said the house was listed on the market as a five bedroom house . They were considering the basement to be one big bedroom . Chairman Stotz said the issue that is before the board now is the appeal of Mr. Giordano , and whatever happens in the future could be anybody's speculation . If there is something in the future , it would need to be addressed at that time , but this specific appeal needs to be addressed now. Chairman Stotz asked if any one else from the public would like to speak . Ulfith no one else present to speak, the pubic hearing was closed . Chairman Stotz brought the matter back to the board for further discussion . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the board were to extend this just till the end of the semester, what type of hardship would that be on the students . Mr. Feng said anything would be better than in the middle of the semester. They really do not want to move during Christmas time , but if that is the best they could do it would be realistic. If it was next month , he would be upset . Mr. Harley said the four of them would like to stay together no matter where they live , and he thinks it would be hard to find a house in December. Mr. Ellsworth said that someone offered a house across the street . Mr. Harley said he does not expect them to find a house in the middle of December that easily. Mr. Ellsworth asked if the students will be there through this period (present time to July 31 , 1997), what would be the tum over of the students . Attorney Barney asked if the students could sublet their lease . Mr. Giordano said no . Mr. MacDonald said being PhD students , they would be working year round at the University . Mr. Ellsworth asked if they are sent over seas to do things . Mr. MacDonald said no . They do their work in labs , so their experiments are strictly on campus . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Giordano if their apartments could be sublet with his permission . Mr. Giordano said with his permission only. Mr. MacDonald said their salaries come from research grants , so if they leave the University they would be losing their own source of income . Attomey Barney asked , assuming they do not have problems with academics , would the four of them be living together. Mr. MacDonald said they intended to move into the house for three or four years until they finished their schooling . Mr. Scala said in the report by JoAnn Cornish , it spells out the negative determination of the Environmental significance , but then it goes on to say that the Planning Staff does not recommend granting the variance because this area is primarily single family residence and no evidence of other multiple occupancy. There is nothing to prevent a single family dwelling from becoming a two family dwelling as long as it meets all the requirements . Among the 120 signatures that were submitted to the board , that there are people who have others living in the house . Ms . Cornish showed a map • showing the legal two family units in the area . Mr. Scala stated that there are other two family residences in the area, so this is not setting a precedent . Attorney Barney said that two family is legal . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 21 SEPTEMBER 11 , 1996 Mr. Scala said at the present time this is a single family resident , and if it were to become a two family unit at some fixture point is a separate issue . People should realize that this house will remain a single family residence which should particular apply to the planner. Mr. Scala asked Ms . Cornish why she put this in the Environmental Assessment Form , Ms . Cornish said the Town has not had any other complaints in this area for this particular type of situation where there is more than two unrelated people. Mr. Scala said the two family residences are very common factor of the Town of Ithaca . Mr. Scala asked Ms. Comish why she recommends against it . Mr. Frost said because it is allowing more occupants than permitted , which is not legal . Mr. Scala said he agreed on the occupants , but the concept of two family residents . Mr. Frost said the intent of the Environmental Assessment Form is to deal with the occupancy. People need to be careful with the word precedent , because each case is decided on specific particulars of that property just as with the building code . The State grants a variance to a building code that make it very clear is to that building involved . Chairman Stogy said what he is concerned about is any rationale that could point to say a time limited variance in this case was justified aside from the situation of the four people that are renting the apartment. He could foresee a situation where some property owner would go on sabbatic for a year and would rent to unrelated people , and have the same sort of request for a time limited variance . This would take care of their problem simply by getting a variance . This board needs to consider if • any sort of variance is granted whether it is for the full term of the lease or for a time limited variance that it is based upon some clear and distinct rationale . Mr. Scala said for clarification , the notice of appeal talks about maintaining a two family home , which this is not the case it is a single family . Mr. Frost said two weeks from now it will be a two family home . Without a certificate of occupancy, if it has an area that provides separate living accommodations , it would be a two family home . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Frost if the board should consider this a two family residence when the board makes the resolution . Attorney Barney said if the board decides to grant a variance , it would be one of the conditions of any variance which is considered. The conversion to a two family home be completed within some specified period of time and a certificate of occupancy be issued within a certain specific time , so that the house meets the requirements of a two family dwelling . Mr. Scala said in the appeal it states that a maximum of two unrelated people permitted , and asked if it were three unrelated people permitted . Mr . Frost said for a two family home there could be no more than two unrelated people in each unit . Mr . Krantz said there would not be a big objection to let the four guys stay there unless the board is setting a precedent . Mr . Scala said he thinks the board has an obligation to protect the neighborhood and the people who are represented here . If the board arrives at anything that it be with that in mind . . Mr. Frost said in some ways the community here knows what type of tenants they have next • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS yZ SEPTEMBER 11 , 1996 door. He supposed if they move out and two families move in , the neighbors would not know what those families were like . To some extent the neighbors know what they have already with these students . Mr . Frost said he is not saying that the variance should be granted , but he just wanted to give his point of view. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz said the findings in the environmental assessment were that there was no significant adverse impacts to the air quality , water quality, and so forth . There is a statement that a minor increase of traffic patterns and maneuvers may result with the increased number of occupants and this may have an adverse impact on the area as it is a family oriented neighborhood . As far as the aesthetic, archeological, historic, natural or cultural resources there are no adverse impacts , except that the community neighborhood character may be adversely impacted , since non-owner occupied are not characteristic in the area . Referencing the Town's Comprehensive Plan , that there is a note saying that a granting of the variance is requested would be contrary to certain community goals as officially adopted . Referencing , again , the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan , Chapter III , Goals , Objectives , and Recommended Actions , A2-3 , recommends as quoted : " Establish zoning standards ( e . g . , occupancy and usage limits) to minimize the negative effects of dwelling units occupied by • students . " Chairman Stotz said that the variance can not be granted where unnecessarily hardship has been created by the applicant , and a note that Mr. Giordano bought the property within the last year and should have been aware of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Regulations regarding the rental of properties and the number of occupants allowed within the Town of Ithaca . There is a concern that the appeal of the requested variance may set a precedent resulting in similar requests from zoning restrictions from other property owners in this area . The Planning Staff does recommend a negative determination of environmental significance . However, this is primarily a single family resident and has no evidence of other multiple occupancy rentals , the planning staff does not recommend the granting of this variance . MOTION By Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED. that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property of Joseph Giordano in reference to 111 Tudor Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 -8 . 163 , R- 15 , by the planner . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES _ Stotz , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. • NAYS a None . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 23 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 The motion was carried unanimously. MOTION By Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED, that the board grants the appeal of Joseph Giordano in reference to 111 Tudor Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 51- 1 -8 . 163 , R- 15 , for the request of a variance to allow the present four occupants (three upstairs and one downstairs) to continue their lease until December 31 , 1996 . Thereafter the house would need to conform to the requirements of a two family residence . This would allow only two unrelated occupants per residence . This board does not expect to see a recurrence of this violation. The arrangements for allowing the students to remain as they are now is to prevent any hardship to them . The following amendments are added to the motion : 1 ) . That the landlord maintain the outside of the premises to be conformance with • the character of the neighborhood including adequate maintenance . 2) . That no more than four cars be parked outside at any given time . Approval shall be obtained by the Zoning Officer ( Building and Zoning Department) prior to any visitors parking on the premises . 3) . That there would be full compliance with all existing noise ordinances . 4) . That the contemplated conversion of the house to two single family units be completed by October 1 , 1996 , or else the occupancy will be reduced to a permitted single family house . 5) . That the apartment shall not be sublet during the period ending December 31 , 1996 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . • TOWN OF ITI4ACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 24 SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 Chairman Stotz adjourned the meeting at 9 : 20 p . m . r Deborah A. Kelley // Keyboard Specialist/ Minutes ecorder G � a David St hairma