HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1996-11-13 INAL
F4 : 9
TOWN 0�
TOWN OF ITH ACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DFRJ".��
WEDNESDAY . NOVEMBER 13, 1996 �Qk�
Cierl;
The following Public Hearings were heard on Wednesday, November 13 , 1996 : �`�
APPEAL of David Warden , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 23 of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to create two building lots widths at the street line and
at the maximum front yard setback approximately 50 feet and 69 .22 for each lot , at 1343 Mecklenburg Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -23 . 2 , Residence District R-30 . Said Ordinance requires a lot width of 100
feet at the street line and 150 feet at the front yard setback.
PARCEL 1 - REQUEST GRANTED
PARCEL 2 - REQUEST GRANTED
APPEAL of Julie Vann , Appellant , Attorney Bruce Wilson , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements
of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a carport with a
setback from the north side lot line of 4 . 6 feet ( 10 feet required) at 102 Haller Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 29-6-8 , Residence District R- 15 .
REQUEST GRANTED
APPEAL of Patsy VonDreusche , 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 existing single-family residence with
a building setback of 11 +/- feet from the south side property line ( 15 feet required) at 14 Lisa Lane , Town of
• Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 1 - 9 .5 , Residence District R- 15 .
REQUEST GRANTED
APPEAL of Richard Marin , Appellant , Jack Jensen , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of
Article V . Section 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an accessory
building with a height of 21 +/- feet (maximum 15 feet allowed) at 313 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 68- 1 - 5 , Residence District R- 30 . A special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII ,
Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance is also being requested to permit modifications to an existing non-
conforming residential building . The building is non- conforming since it has a front yard building setback of 20 . 1
feet (30 feet required) . The modification involves the demolition and reconstruction of new living space at the
rear of said building on said lot .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT- MOTION GRANTED
MOTION GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
APPEAL of Martha Armstrong , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 4 of the Town
of Ithaca Local Law #7 , 1988 , `Requiring Sprinkler Systems to be Installed in Buildings in the Town of Ithaca "
at two existing multiple residence buildings located at 766 and 770 Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 28- 1 - 28 .4 , Residence District R- 30 . The variance is being requested under Section 9 of said Law .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - MOTION GRANTED
VARIANCE - MOTION DENIED
•
0':
NAL
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
� �c o
• WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13 , 1996 ler
ll
PRESENT : Chairman David Stotz, Edward King , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Ronald Krantz,
Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning , John Barney , Attorney for the Town ,
JoAnn Cornish , Planner.
OTHERS : Attorney Bruce Wilson , Peter Newell , Bob Langhans , David Warden , Robin Botie ,
Charles VonDreusche , Matthew MaCarty, Martha Armstrong , Margaret Smith ,
Stefan Einarson , Sully Wessels , Clover Drinkwater, Julia Vann ,
Chairman David Stotz called the meeting to order at 7 : 07 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 began at 7 : 09 p . m . , and was as follows :
APPEAL of David Warden, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements
of Article V, Section 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to
create two building lots widths at the street line and at the maximum front yard
setback approximately 50 feet and 69. 22 feet for each lot, at 1343 Mecklenburg
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28=1 -23. 2, Residence District R -30 . Said
Ordinance requires a lot width of 100 feet at the street line and 150 feet at the front
• yard setback.
David Warden of 1343 Mecklenburg Road said he and Robin Botie have a lot approximately 16
acres with one house on it . This property was divided from a larger parcel . There is a 119 foot corridor
back to where the main parcel is . There is one section of the parcel that is considered landlocked , and
they would like to gain access to that parcel to build a second house . Mr. Warden said Ms . Botie closed
her business , which was part of the house , so they want to build a small house on the back lot .
Director of Building and Zoning Andrew Frost said this appeal has had Planning Board action , and
a copy of their adopted resolution was handed out to each board member. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Warden
if they would be using the same driveway that exists now.
Mr. Warden said it was his preference , and the Planning Board seemed to agree . The survey
map shows the 30 foot rig1*of--way, and then they would branch off before the circle to the existing house
to follow the 50 foot corridor in . Approximately a third to a half of the driveway would be joined .
Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Warden if the dotted line on the survey map shows the approximate
location of the existing driveway with the circle at the end .
Mr. Warden responded , yes .
•
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Chairman Stotz said the survey map shows the driveway on other side of the proposed division
line to the existing house side .
Mr. Warden said that is not the proposed driveway, that is the existing driveway.
Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Warden if they would be changing the driveway.
Mr. Warden responded, yes. The existing driveway will be staying the way it is , and approximately
two-thirds of the driveway from the circle would be where they branch off into the 50 foot corridor.
Edward King asked Mr . Warden if the easterly parcel will have a 50 foot corridor from
Mecklenburg Road .
Mr. Warden responded , yes .
Mr. King asked Mr. Warden if the new owners would have their own corridor approximately half
way back.
• Mr. Warden said that was correct . He would be using the western parcel of land , and there will
be a survey of the right- of--way that would be written into the deed .
Mr. King asked Mr. Warden what is the depth of the parcel from Mecklenburg Road south back
into the main body of the parcels .
Mr . Warden said that it is approximately 400 feet .
Pete Scala asked Mr . Warden if the corner of the Schimmenti property would be a right-of4ay
or an actual purchase .
Mr. Warden said they are negotiating a land swap with the Schimmenti's property for Parcel A for
Parcel B on the survey map . They would be owning the parcel for the corridor to get access to Parcel
2 where they want to build another house .
Chairman Stotz said there is a letter from the Tompkins County Planning Department with a
concern about the sight distance along this section of Mecklenburg Road . Chairman Stotz asked Mr.
Warden if the amount of traffic that would be coming out of the existing driveway would double .
Mr. Warden said that would be correct .
Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Warden if there are any buildings or anything along a sight line left and
• right of that driveway that would need viewing .
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr. Warden said they never had any problems pulling out of the driveway . There is a crest up the
road , but still it gives them time to pull in or out of the driveway.
Ronald Krantz said he visited the site , and it does not seem like there would be any problems with
the view of the driveway .
Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was
closed .
Mr. King said Section 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance states that the minimum width
of a lot at the street line shall be 100 feet . Mr . Warden and Ms . Botie are dividing the street line width
of 119 between Parcels A and B . The total of 119 feet is fairly well maintained southerly from
Mecklenburg Road for approximately 400 feet , and that is why there is not 150 feet at a 60 foot setback
if the road is being used as the base point . Mr . King asked Mr. Warden how many acres would each
parcel be .
Mr. Warden said Parcel 1 will be approximately 7 . 25 acres and Parcel 2 will be approximately 8 . 5
acres .
• Chairman Stotz asked if the area is an open area .
Mr. Warden said that was correct . There are the Hubbles and the City Lights at the top of the hill
to the east of the driveway. Then there is the EcoVillage . Across the street from EcoVillage is open
fields . At the crest of the road to the west of the driveway there are a few more houses .
Mr. Frost said these are two building lots that they are requesting a variance for each parcel ( 1 and
2) , for the street line and setback efficiency . This appeal was advertised as the street line approximately
being the same as the 60 foot setback .
Chairman Stotz said an environmental assessment form is not required because of the action by
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board . One of the conditions in the adopted resolution from the Planning
Board dated October 29 , 1996 , states that any required variances or other approvals granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals be prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairperson of the Planning Board .
MOTION by Mr. Edward King , seconded by Mr. Ronald Krantz:
RESOLVED,that this board grant the western parcel with the existing house ( Parcel 1 on
the survey map ) for a variance to be permitted to subdivide the property at 1343
Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -23 . 2 , as shown on the survey
• map resulting in a 69 . 22 foot frontage on the south side of Mecklenburg Road . That this
variance is given in recognition of the fact that the changed entrance of the driveway
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
egresses to Mecklenburg Road does not materially affect the density of the area essentially
in keeping with the semi-rural nature of the surroundings , subject to the Planning Board
conditions . This variance being from Section 23 , subdivision 3 of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance , and the reason for varying it being that the parcel has a substantial
width of at least 200 feet , and granting of the variance does not work any hardship of the
Ordinance .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Stotz, King , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz.
NAYS - None .
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth :
RESOLVED , that this board grant the eastern parcel ( Parcel 2 on the survey map) for a
• variance to be permitted to subdivide the property at 1343 Mecklenburg Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 23 . 2 , as shown on the survey map resulting in a 50 foot
frontage on the south side of Mecklenburg Road , and that the proposed house would be
approximately 500 feet back from the road . That this variance is given in recognition of the
fact that the changed entrance of the driveway egresses to Mecklenburg Road does not
materially affect the density of the area essentially in keeping with the semi-rural nature of
the surroundings , subject to the Planning Board conditions . This variance being from
Section 23 , subdivision 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and the reason for
varying it being that the parcel has a substantial width of at least 200 feet , and granting of
the variance does not work any hardship of the Ordinance
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Stotz, King , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz.
NAYS - None .
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Stotz closed this segment of the meeting at 7 : 24 p . m .
The second appeal to be heard by the board began at 7 : 25 p . m . , and was as follows :
• APPEAL of Julia Vann, Appellant , Attorney Bruce Wilson, Agent, requesting a
variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a carport with a setback from the
north side lot line of 4. 6 feet ( 10 feet required ) at 102 Haller Boulevard, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29=6-8, Residence District R -15.
Bruce Wilson stated that he was the attorney involved in a real estate transaction with Julia Vann
of 102 Haller Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 29m &8 , Attorney Wilson said Ms . Vann lived at
this property for many years with her husband before he passed away. The new owner of the property
is Matthew MacCarty, who is in the audience tonight . The carport has already been put in , approximately
seven years ago, by a contractor that Ms . Vann had hired . The contractor miscalculated , and Ms . Vann
did not realize it was too close to the side property line . The variation was suppose to be approximately
ten feet from the side property line , but it is located 4 . 6 feet from the side property line . There would be
an economic injury to Ms. Vann for moving the carport . In terms of the agreement of counsel and the real
estate closing was $ 3 , 000 . 00 for an escrow for that purpose . Ms . Vann is on a fixed income . In terms
of the criteria , it does not change anything in the neighborhood . Two of the neighbors contacted him , and
they were perfectly happy where the carport is located . The carport has been in existence for
approximately seven years , and was not brought to anyone's attention until a survey was done for the
sale of the property. There was an error on part of the contractor that Ms . Vann hired . This was not self
created . She made every effort she could to hire someone who would do the job properly. The carport
is not noticeable from the road. There are no adverse effects on any environmental or physical conditions
in the neighborhood . Ms . Vann is requesting for the minimum variance that is required to keep the
carport there .
Chairman Stotz asked if this is used for a carport only .
Attorney Wilson responded , yes .
Mr. Krantz said there is a line of trees right adjacent to the driveway and the carport , which shields
the carport totally from one direction . The adjacent property is set a ways back in distance from the
carport .
Chairman Stotz asked if there were any plans to convert the carport into a garage .
Attorney Wilson said there are no plans at this time .
Mr . Frost asked if they remember who the contractor was .
Julia Vann said the contractor was Phil Genova .
Mr. Frost said if this board grants the variance , that in the resolution it should be made clear that
• this board is not certifying the structure itself. Mr . Frost said he does not think there were any building
permits issued for the construction of the carport .
. I
i
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Attorney Wilson said that Ms . Vann relied heavily on the contractor. Attorney Wilson said he
called Mr. Frost to let him know there was a problem , and Mr . Frost could not find a building permit for
the construction of the carport .
Mr . King asked if the property has been sold now.
Attorney Wilson said that is correct .
Chairman Stotz asked if there is a contingency fund set aside in case there is an adverse decision .
Attorney Wilson said that was correct .
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 variance be requested by Julia Vann at 102 Haller
Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 29-6-8 , to be permitted to maintain a carport
with a setback from the north side lot line of 4 . 6 feet where 10 feet is required by the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Article IV, Section 14 , and that this is in no way to certify the
carport itself, but to permit the existing structure of approximately seven years to remain ,
and that no walls or door shall be added .
A vote on the motion resolution resulted as follows :
AYES - Stotz, King , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz.
NAYS - None .
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Stotz closed this segment of the meeting at 7 : 32 p . m .
The third appeal to be heard by the board began at 7 : 33 p . m . , and was as follows :
APPEAL of Patsy VonDreusche, 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 existing single -family residence with a building setback of
11 +/= feet from the south side property line (15 feet required ) at 14 Lisa Lane , Town
0
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 -1 -9 . 5, Residence District R15.
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
Peter Newell of Newell Associates Architects said the VonDreusches came to him for a modest
400 square foot addition for their house . In the process , they determined that the building had been
granted a certificate of occupancy and compliance on a non- conforming lot . On the south side of the
property, there are bedrooms over the garage where 15 feet is required , but there is only 11 feet existing
on one end and approximately 20 feet at the other end . The VonDreusches would like to put a 400
square foot addition to the north side of the property, but would need to get approval from the Zoning
Board of Appeals because it is a non-conforming property. Mr. Newell said this would not be changing
the characteristics of the neighborhood , and there would be undue hardship for purchasing the land . The
original plot plan was suppose to have a 15 foot setback, but as built it was 11 feet , and no one had
noticed it .
Mr. Frost asked if there was an early building permit on this property.
Mr. Newell said there was a building permit on this , and a certificate of occupancy was given in
compliance .
Mr. Frost said the original structure , when it was built in the 1980' s , had a plot plan that showed
the 15 foot setback. There was no survey done with the as built , and then the Town issued a certificate
• of occupancy relying on the information from the building permit application . The structure was in fact
built to close to the property line. It should be clear that the garage has living space above it . If there was
no living space over the garage then the setback would be 10 feet , but since there is living space over
the garage , it is required to have 15 feet for the setback.
Mr. Newell said since this condition was discovered , the project has been broken into two different
phases . There would be an interior addition and setting the ground work in preparation for the new
addition .
Mr. Frost asked Mr. Newell if the VonDreusches know that there were no guarantees that this
would be granted a variance .
Mr. Newell responded , yes , that they have not started the construction addition , but have done
some ground clearing .
Charles VonDreusche said he signed a waiver stating that what ever landscaping is done is done
by himself. Any ground moving he would be doing would be done at his own risk. Mr . VonDreusche said
he had visited each neighbor in the neighborhood , and they are all in support of the project . A lot of the
neighbors approve the project because it will enhance their property values . There is a letter from the
Town Paries Department, who owns the adjacent strip of land . Richard Schoch ( Parks and Open Space
Manager for the Town of Ithaca Parks Department ) , visited the site for review. Mr. VonDreusche said he
• thought he could purchase a house and redesign it himself. He has been at this since January to design ,
get contractors lined up , and then went to Mr. Frost . At Mr. Frost 's office it was discovered that the side
1
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
of the house is non-conforming .
Chairman Stotz asked if the addition would be on the northwest side of the house , and one side
of the addition would be parallel to the side lot line with a slight bend .
Mr. Newell said that was correct , which would be a 5 . 5 degree angle . That is because the entry
being created would be a little tight .
Chairman Stotz asked if that would still be maintained at 15 . 6 foot setback.
Mr. Newell said that was correct. The non-conforming issue is at the south side of the lot , and they
would be building in the corner. The terrain is approximately 15 feet above the cul-de-sac .
Attomeyforthe Town John Barney asked if the addition would be approximately 15 feet or more
from the property line .
Mr. Newell said that is correct .
• Chairman Stotz asked what would be in the addition .
Mr. Newell said the bedrooms, basement , and the lower level of the house would not be changing .
They have a kitchen/ dining room/living room . They would be making an eat in kitchen , which the living
room will become the dining room . The new addition would be the new living room with a deck.
Chairman Stotz asked how would the exterior be finished .
Mr. Newell said the exterior would be finished in stained cedar .
Chairman Stotz asked if the exterior addition would be stained the same .
Mr. Newell said it is board and bat right now , and the portion on the back of the house would be
cedar. There would be trim lines that would delineate the differences , so it would not be identical to the
existing house . It would be an improvement .
Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, the public hearing was
closed .
Mr . Frost asked if the addition would not be moving any closer to the northeast corner of the
house , which shows 15 . 6 feet .
• Chairman Stotz asked if they would be maintaining the setback along that line .
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr . Newell said that was correct .
Planner Cornish asked if that would be included with the deck .
Mr. Newell said the deck would encroach into the 15 foot setback , but the deck would be on grade .
The deck would not be considered a deck , but a wood patio .
Attorney Barney asked if there would be a fence or railing on the patio .
Mr. Newell responded , no , just a wood deck on grade .
Mr. Frost asked if the patio would be less than 18 inches off the ground .
Mr. Newell said that was correct , the wood deck would be 8 inches off the ground .
Mr. Frost said the code would require a railing if the platform was 18 inches or more above the
ground .
• MOTION by Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Ronald Krantz:
RESOLVED,that the board grant the appeal of Patsy VonDreusche of 14 Lisa Lane , Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 = 1 - 9 . 5 , Residence District R- 15 , that the setback of 11 feet at
the south side property to be permitted the variance where 15 feet is required , and that the
proposed addition on the northwest corner to be permitted no closer to the 15 foot setback
of the property line in contravention of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Section 66 ,
that no such projections may extend more than 2 feet into any required yard .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Stotz, King , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Stotz closed this segment of the meeting at 7 : 58 p . m .
The fourth appeal to be heard by the board began at 7 : 50 p . m . , and was as follows :
APPEAL of Martha Armstrong , Appellant , requesting a variance from the
• requirements of Section 4 of the Town of Ithaca Local Law #7 , 1988 , " Requiring
Sprinkler Systems to be Installed in Buildings in the Town of Ithaca" at two existing
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
multiple residence buildings located at 766 and 770 Elm Street Extension , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 =1 -28 . 4, Residence District R -30. The variance is being
requested under Section 9 of said Law.
Martha Armstrong said she is an architect who is acting as an agent for the Longhouse
Cooperative , Inc . The Longhouse Cooperative , Inc . is on a private water system that serves nine
households , and two of the buildings are triplexes that fall under the Sprinkler Regulations as being multi-
family housing . The other buildings are made up of a duplex and a single house for the Longhouse
Cooperative , Inc . William Albern , who is a mechanical engineer, did a preliminary feasibility look over
of would be needed to operate the sprinklers to meet the requirements of the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 13 R . There is not a local sprinkler guide , so she referred to the NFPA 13R as a
guide. The requirements include a 3 , 000 gallon water storage tank , so four sprinklers could be operated
for a half hour at 25 gallons per minute . A pressure pump would be needed to have adequate head for
the water to go up to the sprinklers. An emergency generator would be needed in case the electricity was
knocked out , so there would still be water supply . Ms . Armstrong said she priced in a larger supply
piping , which Mr . Albern mentioned they would either need a larger pressure pump or a larger supply
of piping. In order to house the new equipment it would require a 500 square foot shed that was heated
for the tanks and related supplemental equipment to allow the sprinklers to operate . Ms . Armstrong said
• she estimated the cost of each item Mr . Albern recommended that they would need . (The board
members were supplied with a cost estimate sheet provided by Ms . Armstrong . ) Ms . Armstrong said the
cost estimate was based on the Means Cost Data , which is a standard pricing list used in 1995 and 1996 .
She projected a low and a high anticipated cost based on the Means Cost Data , and she came up with
a range of $93,450.00 to $ 132 ,270 .00 for all the equipment that would be needed from Mr. Albern Is initial
feasibility analysis . The totals would be divided into six households that would cost approximately
$20 ,000 . 00 per household . Ms . Armstrong said she would consider that an undue burden . This price
does include the piping inside the houses as well as all the other equipment , such as the general contract
over head .
Mr . Ellsworth asked Ms . Armstrong where the nearest water supply was to this area .
Ms . Armstrong said that it would be West Haven Road , which is approximately . 7 miles up the
road from West Haven Road to the driveway .
Mr. Scala asked if there was any anticipation of water being brought up to this area because other
houses being built .
Mr . Frost said there had been discussions about servicing the Drew Road Subdivision , which
would be the opposite direction of where EcoVillage is located . When that happens or if it will happen ,
there is not a time frame for that .
• Mr . Scala asked if EcoVillage put their pump house in themselves .
ly / '
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 11
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr. Frost said that was correct . EcoVillage is taking the Water up West Haven Road , which is a
fair distance .
Ms. Armstrong said the Longhouse Cooperative , Inc . already has a water system with pumps , but
it is just for residential . It is no where near that kind of water storage and adequate pressure for the
volume to put it into the sprinkler heads .
Mr. Frost said the 500 square foot shed seems rather large , and it does not change the essence
of what Ms . Armstrong is arguing with the cost .
Ms. Armstrong showed the board a rough sketch of the proposed water shed . Ms . Armstrong said
she would need to put an electric generator, and there would need to be two to three horse power pumps .
Mr . Ellsworth asked Ms . Armstrong what the diameter of the tank is .
Ms. Armstrong said it is a seven foot diameter by a twelve foot long tank. She is not sure what size
the tanks come in because she only saw a 24 foot long by a four foot diameter listed in the Means Cost
Data .
• Mr. Ellsworth said there is a pond close by .
Ms. Armstrong said the Cooperative would still need to pump it , and have it unfrozen in the winter.
Last winter after the drought there was hardly any water in the pond .
Mr . Frost said even if they reduce the size of the shed , he does not think it would significantly
change the cost .
Mr. Scala asked Ms. Armstrong if the tank could be installed into the ground under the frost level .
Ms. Armstrong said she did not ask about it . She is not sure if it would be a significant cost saving ,
but the pumps and generators will still be needed . There might be a way to save some money on this ,
but she is not sure .
Chairman Stotz said he is concerned about the two conditions in which this board could exempt
the Sprinkler Law. One is hardship , and the other is the assurance that the lack of the sprinkler system
does not endanger the safety of the occupants . To the first condition , Ms . Armstrong might have an
argument. To the second condition , he can not answer it because he does not know what these houses
look like or where the heating systems are . If this board granted the variance , a part of it could stipulate
alternatives for fire prevention , but the board can not do that until they have a more detailed lay out of the
buildings . Chairman Stolz said he is a little hesitant to make a decision without that type of detailed
• information .
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 12
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr . Scala asked Ms . Armstrong how long have the houses been there .
Ms . Armstrong said they were built in the mid 1970's .
Mr . Scala asked Ms . Armstrong what about the requirement for the sprinkler system now .
Chairman Stotz said the Local Law for the Sprinkler Law was passed as a ten year window.
Ms . Armstrong said the Town did not grandfather existing building into this law. The Town said
people must come into compliance within ten years after the law passed , which would be until 1998 .
Mr. Krantz said the Longhouses are set back in a good long way , and the top of Elm Street has
a weather pattern all it' s own , which gets bad in the winter time . This area gets a lot of snow and the
Longhouses are setback from the road approximately 500 feet .
Mr. Ellsworth said the fire truck accessability is very poor in the winter time .
Mr . Krantz said Elm Street is the highest part in Tompkins County .
• Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Krantz if the weather could adversely effect fire trucks getting to the
houses .
Mr. Krantz said if there is a fire at the Longhouses in the winter time , there would be a big problem .
Mr. King asked Ms . Armstrong what kind of accesses are into these buildings .
Ms . Armstrong said it is a single driveway.
Mr . King asked Ms . Armstrong what is the material of the driveway .
Ms . Armstrong said there are some stones on it with some mud .
Mr. Ellsworth asked Ms . Armstrong how many people live in the Longhouse Cooperative , Inc .
Ms . Armstrong said there are 13 people between the two triplexes .
Mr. Frost said the Town has operating permits for these two buildings , and fire safety inspections
were conducted in January .
Ms . Armstrong said she thinks the fire inspections are done annually .
•
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 13
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr . Frost said his office does not do them annually, but every three years .
Attorney Barney asked Ms . Armstrong if each house has it 's own well .
Ms. Armstrong responded, no , it is just one system . The Longhouse Cooperative , Inc . is a private
water system that is regulated by the Health Department . There is an underground system , but she is
not sure what the volume size is . There is a well that the water goes into a pressure tank in the shed ,
which has a chlorination system in there , and a pressure tank in the existing shed .
Attorney Barney asked Ms . Armstrong if everyone turns their water on at once , would there be a
pressure problem .
Ms . Armstrong said usually they would not because the pumps keep it between 30 and 50
pounds. The Longhouse Cooperative Inc . had the pump go down once , and the residences were without
water last winter for a couple weeks while the pump was being repaired .
Mr. Ellsworth asked Ms . Armstrong what is the size of the sistern .
• Ms . Armstrong said she does not know.
Mr. Scala said the ten year window has approximately two years left to it . Mr. Scala asked Ms .
Armstrong what has happened in the last eight years .
Ms. Armstrong said they received a letter from Mr . Frost a year ago about the sprinkler systems .
Mr. Frost said there was a reminder letter sent out to the residences . Some home builders came
into talk to the Town Board approximately a year ago . He and Supervisor Valentino had a meeting with
the Local Home Builders and Landlord Association approximately eight months ago , and asked them to
provide the Town with a letter making an argument and suggestions to what they wanted to see . There
has been some discussions with the Town Board , but there is no indication whether the Town would
modify the Law that was requested by the group . A lot of people have been waiting to see what is going
to happen. Mr. Frost said Ms. Armstrong had talked to him approximately a year ago , and he suggested
to wait and see what happens between the group and the Town Board . Nothing has happened at this
point , and Ms . Armstrong decided to go ahead and look into what it would take .
Ms . Armstrong said she has been researching into a linked fire alarm system as an alternative .
Ray Wheaton from the fire department inspected the houses , and considered what the next best life
safety feature would be affordable for the residences . Simplex inspected the houses also , and she had
a quote from a local electrician which was approximately $ 7 , 500 . 00 for the two houses . This would be
• for an interlink alarm system .
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
Mr . Frost asked how much the electrician would be .
Ms. Armstrong said it was $4 , 000 . 00 for the larger house , and $ 3 , 500 . 00 for the smaller house .
Mr. Frost said he has not been in these buildings himself, but the staff from his department has .
These are two story buildings by definition . Each dwelling unit opens directly to the outside , so there is
not any interior corridors or stairwells . A lot of the regulations pertaining to sprinklers often make a bigger
deal when there is a three story building versus a two story building . When there is an interior corridors
and an interior stairwells , it becomes more of a life safety feature because egress from the building is
going to be contingent on common corridors . Mr. Frost asked Ms . Armstrong if these estimates include
layouts for smoke detects in all the rooms .
Ms . Armstrong said she does not have the Simplex drawing with her. Simplex does not show the
smoke detectors in the rooms , but it shows the detectors outside the bedrooms , heat detectors in the
kitchen , and a heat detector above the laundry area .
Mr. Ellsworth said Simplex would locate the smoke detectors by the exit doors to the hallways , top
of the hallways , and the bottom of the hallways . It would be just like the City for smoke detector
• regulations .
Mr . Frost said for example , the current code for new construction in New York State requires
smoke detectors in all the bedrooms on each floor level and outside theb bedrooms , and to have all the
detectors all interconnected . Mr . Frost said he does not know how this board will handle this , but he
would make recommendation to attain an alarm system .
Ms. Armstrong said they have not include them into every bedroom in the initial estimates . Ms .
Armstrong said the detectors would need to be replaced every ten years according to Simplex, and have
the batteries replaced regularly . There is some maintenance cost with it , which would be approximately
$ 800 . 00 on the ten year cycle for one building .
Mr. Frost asked Ms . Armstrong if Simplex explained why the detectors would need to be replaced
everyten years . He mentioned it to underwrite' s , and they suggested they do not need to be replaced
every ten years .
Ms. Armstrong said Robert Sparks stated they would start deteriorating and start going off faulty
in about ten years , and they should anticipate replacing them then .
Mr. Frost asked Ms . Armstrong if that would include cleaning them regularly and the regular
maintenance under normal circumstances .
Ms . Armstrong said she was not sure , Mr . Sparks just mentioned it .
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 15
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr. Frost said he felt a lot of smoke detectors are what they call analysisation type , which utilities
have radioactive material . Radioactive materials have half life , so he feels that the strength of protectors
would loose some degree of function as time goes by because it would only be getting half life of
radioactive material .
Attorney Barney asked Mr . Ellsworth what kind of pressure would be needed at the sprinkler
heads .
Mr . Ellsworth said it would be 20 pounds .
Ms . Armstrong said it is not the pressure so much as the volume of flow that they are looking for.
Mr . Ellsworth said if the pressure is not there then the volume will not be there .
Attorney Barney asked if the flow of 100 gallons per minute would make four heads go off.
Ms . Armstrong said that was correct .
• Mr . Ellsworth said they are 20 gallons a minute per head .
Mr. Frost said that would be if there are two heads in a room , but one head in a room would be 13
gallons .
Attorney Barney asked to translate that into pressure again .
Mr. Ellsworth said the pressure would depend on the size of the piping . If the piping is oversized ,
the pressure would be decreased . It is all designed by hydrologic . There is no pipe size schedule
allowed by NFPA .
Ms. Armstrong said to answer Attorney Barney's question , that the concern is not that they do not
have adequate pressure , it is there is not adequate volume at that pressure . The Longhouse
Cooperative , Inc . only has a residential pressure tank .
Attorney Barney said the most expensive part of this operation is the tank, shed , and piping , but
the question is what type of protection would the Longhouse Cooperative , Inc . , get by using the current
water system . They would not get 100 gallons per minute . Attorney Barney said he sat through a
demonstration in a trailer with one sprinkler head going off to put a fire out , and he got pretty wet . He said
he was impressed with just one head working action .
• Ms . Armstrong said her concern would be if one head goes off, would it flow for ten minutes and
all the water is gone , and the fire was not out , and not everybody has been altered to get out .
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Attorney Barney said he is not suggesting that is the only recourse to deal with .
Chairman Stotz asked Attorney Barney when the board predicates an approval based upon
unnecessary hardship because of the $20 , 000 . 00 per unit , would this set a precedent . People could
come in and say this board exempted so and so , so exempt us .
Mr. Ellsworth said he is going to abstain to this appeal , but the board made EcoVillage go ahead
with it , and connect to a future water main . This board should be very careful of what they are doing .
Attorney Barney said EcoVillage is a little different because it was a new construction , more
people , and the cost and effort of putting in a new construction . They came in with the ordinance in place
knowing that it was a requirement of the Town of Ithaca as they came through the door. The retrofits are
a little different story, and the board could make a distinction between one or the other . Attorney Barney
said he thinks $ 20 , 000 . 00 would not be a hardship if they were Nelson Rockefeller, but $20 , 000 . 00
would be a big hardship for someone that only earns $ 10 , 000 . 00 a year. Hardship is a relative thing , and
this board can not point to one number and say that is always the right number.
Ms . Armstrong said one of the units was just purchased with the help of a first time homeowner
buyer grant (HUD) , another unit is on the market for $55 , 000 . 00 . The other four units are larger than that ,
• which two are having additions to them . They are still under $ 150 , 000 . 00 in value for those units . The
recent purchased unit sold for $ 80 , 000 . 00 .
Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Armstrong if the additions were being added to the houses .
Ms . Armstrong responded , yes . The additions are being added to the two ends of the triplexes .
Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Armstrong if these would be additional rooms .
Ms . Armstrong said that was correct .
Mr. Scala said he remembers the appeal with the Rumseys , which was denied . It was a much
smaller residence requiring a sprinkler system . The board would not give a variance .
Attorney Barney asked Mr . Scala if it was Markie Rumsey.
Mr. Scala said that was correct , it was for the Bed & Breakfast in Buttermilk Falls .
Attorney Barney said the problem with the Rumseys was that they did not comply with a lot of
building code , and she was given an alternative to put in sprinklers .
• Mr. Scala said it did require a sprinkler system basically . The EcoVillage represents another case
! 1 . t
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 17
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
that this board has seen .
Attorney Barney said Markie Rumsey did not require a sprinkler system .
Mr. Frost said the Rumsey issue was with an open stairwell railing .
Mr. Scala said , eventually she would need a sprinkler system or a variance . He does not think
that the board could trade the cost for the threat , the board does not have any basis for that . The law
requires this and it is a safety requirement , so why is the board looking at this . The board should not
judge one technical situation against the another .
Mr. Frost said the law states that there is a procedure for obtaining variances .
Chairman Stotz said whether or not somebody meets those two criterias , it is up to this board to
decide .
Mr. Krantz asked if they would need to meet both criterias or just one .
Chairman Stotz said both criterias , which brings it back to his original point . He feels very
• uncomfortable unless he could look at the plans of the houses or go into the houses for an inspection .
Ms . Armstrong asked Chairman Stotz what he would like to know.
Mr. Frost said the board could recognize a multi-story building exceeding two stories in height
create a higher risk. A building that has a common corridor and common exits creates a high risk , which
none apply here . The board is basically looking at a three family home , two stories in height , individual
exits to the outside , and egress windows that would get people out of each room .
Chairman Stotz asked if there is a common hallway coming down .
Ms . Armstrong responded , no , they all enter from the outside independently .
Chairman Stotz asked if there are fire extinguishers in the hallways now.
Ms . Armstrong responded , yes .
Mr. Frost said in 1984 , 500 people died with fire extinguishers in their hands . People should not
rely on fire extinguishers to put a fire out .
• Chairman Stotz said those comments would be taken under advisement , but alternative forms of
life safety for fire hazard is what this board needs to consider .
• f
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 18
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr. Frost said he agrees with Chairman Stotz, and he is suggesting that fire extinguishers are not
always the way to go . The key thing is , an early warning and get out of the building .
Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Armstrong how much would the alarm system cost .
Ms . Armstrong said it would be approximately $7 , 500 . 00 for the two buildings .
Mr . Ellsworth asked Ms . Armstrong if that would include a dial in to the fire station .
Ms . Armstrong said it does not include the connection to the fire station , that would be an
additional $400 .00 per building plus the phone lines . Ray Wheaten indicated that he did not recommend
that because of false alarms . Ms . Armstrong said the Cooperative might want to add an exterior horn for
all the buildings to hear if there was a fire . It is a very loud horn that comes with a system .
Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, the public hearing was
closed .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
• Chairman Stotz said an environmental assessment was prepared by Planner JoAnn Cornish of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Department . The board should pay special attention to paragraph C4 of
the assessment review , which reads "this variance may set a precedence for relief from the installation
of a sprinkler system in other properties in the Town of Ithaca " .
Mr . Ellsworth said anybody that does not receive City water , would be a precedent .
Chairman Stotz said a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended .
Planner Cornish said for the record , this is not really an environmental issue , but a life safety
issue , which is why it was differed to this board .
MOTION by Mr. Edward King , seconded by Mr. Ronald Krantz :
RESOLVED, that this board make a negative declaration of environmental impact for the
appeal of the Longhouse Cooperative , Inc . , at 766 and 770 Elm Street Extension , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 28 .4 , Residence District R-30 , agreeing that the sprinkler
system ' s addition or deletion would not involve any adverse environmental effect .
Chairman Stotz asked if $ 132 , 000 . 00 system went into affect , would it be an environmental issue .
• Planner JoAnn Cornish said it would be , and then it would go back to the Planning Board for a site
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 19
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
plan approval . It would be a modification to the existing site plan , which those issues would be
addressed at that time . If they build the pump house and install the piping , it would be come an
environmental issue .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Stotz, King , Krantz.
NAYS - Scala .
ABSTAIN - Ellsworth .
The motion was declared to be carried .
Mr. King said he does not feel that this board has enough solid information to make a judgement
to what measures would be added to minimize the risk to human life , if this board grants the variance .
Mr. Ellsworth asked Attorney Barney , for future people that come in here without a water main ,
would this be setting a precedent .
Attorney Barney said this board did grant a variance once before on this issue in regards to a
property on Elmira Road . The requirement at that time was for a veterinary facility to put in a 3 , 000
storage capacity tank , and this board granted a variance from the requirement .
Mr . Ellsworth asked what was the property on Elmira Road .
Mr. Frost said it was Briar Patch Veterinary Hospital .
Attorney Barney said this board granted the variance from all the requirements that would be
applied at that particular point and time when it was built , because public water was on it's way. This
board did require a sprinkler system which was later hooked up to the public water system . Each appeal
should be taken on their individual facts and judge hardship versus the life safety aspect of it . The most
conservative approach would be to never grant a variance , but when the language of the law was being
produced, it was built in for people to have an opportunity to come before the board to get a variance .
Chairman Stotz said the most trouble he has is what other alternatives would assure that human
life would not be jeopardized . The law clearly states the initiative of an improved sprinkler system in all
or part of the building will not significantly jeopardize human life . He is confused about making that type
of determination , by saying , not having a sprinkler system will in fact not jeopardize human life .
Chairman Stotz asked what would it take to ensure that human life would not be jeopardized .
Mr. Ellsworth said the next closest alternative outside of sprinklers , which would be a faster
• response , would be the system that Ms . Armstrong has priced . As Mr. Krantz mentioned earlier, It would
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ?d
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
be difficult to get the fire department in this area due to the weather.
Mr . Frost said there has been a variety of national building codes that have been attempted to
increase the requirements for sprinklers where they might be exempt , but now they are required . He
does not think putting dollars aside would compare to a sprinkler system to provide the ultimate of life
safety . Money is the big issue , and that is nationwide . The board will not find anything that will equal
the sprinkler system in regards to the best provisions for life safety . If they go to a full fire alarm system
with full smoke detectors in all spaces , and providing a high level of life safety, would not be the same
as a sprinkler system. The response time to a smoke detector is a bit faster than a sprinkler head , which
in all intense purposes is a heat detector. The sprinkler head goes off when a certain amount of heat is
achieved just as a heat detector does . In terms of the time period between the response of a smoke
detector and a sprinkler with a heat detector, there is not a whole lot of time , but seconds due count .
Mr. Ellsworth said there would be smoke well ahead of the temperature rising .
Mr. Frost said that is correct , but an explosion is not like smoke .
Mr . Ellsworth said the sprinkler systems they have now react pretty quick , and it would give a
• sheltered exit from the building .
Mr. Frost said there is also a situation where the sprinklers are providing a level of safety for the
firemen who are fighting the fire .
Mr. Ellsworth said there was a case recently , before the City of Ithaca firemen got to the building ,
where the sprinklers had the fire out . During Former Supervisor Desch was here , the idea was that there
was high costs in the City , so they built two fire stations outside the Town . The City trucks would have
to go out fewer times because the sprinklers would put the fire out .
Mr. Krantz said one thing that would make this decision easier is the following statement , that
during many days in the winter the residents are unable to travel their road to the Longhouse , so they
needed to park in the area or adjacent to the Elm Street Extension . The road would be unpassable , so
the fire trucks would not be able to pass for fire protection .
Mr. Scala said the comment made earlier about not having sufficient information for this board ,
certainly applies if this board is trying to make some technical judgement . Nevertheless , that would be
a way of postponing the issue by deferring it by having them come back with a complete design system
with a final cost . The real issue is , does this board set a precedent for allowing other people to apply and
get a variance . There is no question that it does not have anything to do with the need for detection
systems or warning systems , that should be automatically involved whether there is a proper fire
department or a proper sprinkler . Mr . Scala said the issue here is to either postpone it for further data
• to make a better decision or the board decides this is the law and they need to meet it . The fact that is
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 21
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
it a financial hardship is understood . The cost to do this would be approximately $ 100 . 00 a month . Very
high relative to the total risk . This is not something that could be differed because they had ten years to
do this, and they have to do any way . Mr . Scala said he would recommend this board to turn this down
because of the law as it is known or defer it for further information .
Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Scala if the board should asked for additional information and table the
matter for a future meeting , or act on the motion now .
Mr . Scala said that was correct .
MOTION by Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Ronald Krantz:
RESOLVED, that this board deny the request for a variance for the appeal of the
Longhouse Cooperative , Inc . , at 786 and 770 Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 28- 1 -28 .4
Mr . Frost asked could they have an opportunity to come back for a second appeal with new
information assuming that this appeal was denied .
Attorney Barney said they would be able to appeal again .
Ms . Armstrong asked what additional information is the board looking for. It seems like the
additional information the board is requesting does relate to this project . Ms . Armstrong asked if the
board would like to set up a site visit or take a look through the houses .
Mr. Scala said with the respect to EcoVillage , this board had requested them to come back with
a complete plan with an estimate .
Mr. Ellsworth said Ms . Armstrong has an estimate .
Mr . Frost said the problem with EcoVillage is that it was an area of public assembly and a new
construction .
Mr . King said when . he was referring to this board not having enough information , that he was
referring to the fact that the board does not have enough information on what alternatives would be
proposed . What alternatives would the board propose to this , why and how .
Ms . Armstrong said Simplex has a plan for where they would put the smoke and fire detectors , and
have a quote from Mr . Sparks on how much this would be .
• Chairman Stotz said he would like to see more details on what the Longhouse is suggesting .
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 22
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
Mr . King asked Ms . Armstrong how many exits are there to each unit .
Ms . Armstrong said there is egress out of each window .
Mr . King said if there was a plan she would be able to show where the exits are .
Ms . Armstrong asked if the board wanted to see details of the fire alarm system .
Chairman Stotz responded , yes .
Ms . Armstrong asked if the board wants to see details on egressing from the building .
Attorney Barney said that would be helpful with a floor plan .
Ms . Armstrong asked if it could be a schematic drawing rather than a fully dimensional one .
Mr. Ellsworth said all the board needs is the same kind of plan that Simplex has that shows where
the fire equipment would be . There can be egress out a window without dropping out 20 feet or so .
Mr. Frost said the standards would allow a 14 foot drop .
Chairman Stotz asked if the appeal is denied what does the appellant have to do .
Attorney Barney said the appellant would have to file another application for a rehearing . If a
majority of the board is convinced not to grant the variance , so it would be appropriate to consider the
motion . If a majority of the board is willing to take a look at additional information before making a
decision , then the motion should be defeated or the motion should be tabled .
Mr. Scala said if someone comes in with all the bells and whistles , except the sprinkler system ,
that would not have any bearing on his decision as to the lack of a sprinkler system saves people or not .
He knows the sprinkler system can do it 's job , and that is why it is being required .
Mr . Frost said systems have failed , and all sprinkler systems are not guaranteed 100 percent .
Attorney Barney said if this board is going to take that position , there is no reason for this exception
of the law .
Mr . Scala said the board should recognize this is not a variance that has to with somebody's
judgement , this is a technical requirement . The board would need to indicate how many gallons per
• minute per unit area , it would be . If there is a line to draw somewhere and they could only produce so
many gallons per minute with the existing system until they connect to City water, that would be okay.
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 23
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
Mr. Scala said he is only considering this case . If they need 20 gallons per minute and they can deliver
2 gallons per minute , that would be considered if in the future they connect to public water. They would
have the system already installed , and then pressure could be increased .
Mr. Frost asked Mr. Scala if someone lost their life , and there was a law suit , how would this board
justify recognizing standards are not being met .
Mr. Scala said that would be the judgement situation as distinct from the technical part of the alarm
versus the sprinklers. He said this is the only window available to allow them to build something that they
could afford .
Attorney Barney asked if they come back with a proposal where the sprinklers were going to be
installed , but the total volume may not be up to standard , that this board may look at it .
Mr. Scala said that is correct . There needs to be a fire alarm system that gives the smoke alarm ,
which is a separate issue . As a proposition , they design and propose to install adequate pipe sizes and
pumps that could handle the water as if they had the water . Installation is in there with the understanding
that eventually the City is going to bring water .
• Mr. Ellsworth said that is what EcoVillage is doing . They are to put everything in , but the header
pumps will be installed when the main is extended to there .
Attorney Barney said EcoVillage was permitted to put in something less than what was normally
required .
Chairman Stotz said there is an alternative to the motion , and that is to table the matter and ask
the party to provide the information that the board has requested so far as opposed to denying the
appeal .
Mr. Scala said they could come in with a proposal that includes the alarm system , smoke and fire
detections , and it includes some kind of installation of the sprinkler system which would allow for the
future access to all the water that is available .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz .
NAYS - Stotz, King .
The motion was declared to be carried . (This appeal was denied . )
• Chairman Stotz closed this segment of the meeting at 8 :44 p . m .
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 24
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
The last appeal to be heard by the board began at 8 :45 p . m . , and was as follows :
APPEAL of Richard Marin, Appellant, Jack Jensen, Agent , requesting a variance
from the requirements of Article V, Section 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an accessory building with a height of 21
+!- feet ( maximum 16 feet allowed ) at 313 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 68-1 -6 , Residence District R -30. A special approval from the Zoning Board of
Appeals under Article XII, Section 64 of the Zoning Ordinance is also being
requested to permit modifications to an existing non-conforming residential
building. The building is non -conforming since it has a front yard building setback
of 20 . 1 feet (25 feet required ) . The modification Involves the demolition and
reconstruction of new living space at the rear of said building on said lot.
Jack Jensen said he is the agent for Richard Marin of 313 Warren Road . Mr . Jensen submitted
a letter to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on October 8 , 1996 , explaining what Mr . Marin had
planned to do with the carriage house . The original intention was to renovate the structure , but upon
closer examination by the contractor and himself, it did not seem to be feasible or cost effective to
renovate that structure . The existing structure foundation was grossly inadequate and wrecked , and in
• addition to the siding , roofing , and other structural problems with energy code issues to renovate it . It
was decided it would not cost effective to renovate this structure , and that it was more cost effective to
tear it down and rebuild a duplicate of it . With the decision being reached , it also made sense , for the
use of this property, to move the building slightly closer. These were the decisions they came to . The
problem is , the existing structure was in access of the 15 foot height for an accessory use building .
Mr. Frost said there are two issues here . One is the construction of the accessory building with
a height that exceeds the 15 foot limit for accessory buildings . The second issue is for a modification of
the existing house , which is non-conforming because it is too close to property lines . The modifications
include some increase in the size of the footprint of the building . The overall square footage of the
existing residential building is probably less , but the footprint is changing .
Mr . Jensen said the carriage house is the accessory building .
Mr . King asked if the original carriage house had been torn down yet .
Mr. Jensen responded, yes . Mr. Jensen passed around photographs of the carriage house before
it was torn down .
Mr . Scala asked how high was the carriage house .
• Mr. Jensen said it was approximately 25 feet in height .
' at
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 25
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
Mr . Scala asked when the carriage house was torn down .
Mr . Jensen said approximately three weeks ago .
Mr. Frost said, for the record , he was in the building before the Town issued the demolition permit .
Mr. Frost said he said he would view it more as a barn rather than a carriage house . The use , as it was
before the carriage house was torn down , was quite a bit different from the use of the proposed use of
the new construction .
Mr. Ellsworth asked if this is part of the Cornell Golf Course on Warren Road .
Mr. Jensen said this property is surrounded by the Cornell Golf Course .
Planner Cornish showed the board a tax parcel map that shows the property in question , and the
residential properties to the north . Ms . Cornish showed where the golf course and Cornell owned land
were in conjunction with this property on the tax map .
• Mr. Jensen said the original intention was to renovate the structure . If the structure was recreated
it would not be in conformance .
Mr . King asked if the old barn had the facilities that are being proposed in the new accessory
building .
Mr . Jensen responded , no . Mr . Marin approached him with the intention of renovating the
structure into a combination of a partial garage and flexible use area on the second floor. The existing
second floor had a six foot height at the eve , and a vaulted ceiling . There was a lot of space there , and
Mr. Marin wanted to use it. When professionals looked through the building , it was not logical to renovate
this structure .
Mr. Scala asked if Mr. Marin ' s intent was to have utilities in the new accessory building .
Mr. Jensen responded , yes .
Mr. Ellsworth asked what the second floor of the accessory building would be used for .
Mr. Jensen said it is flexible . Mr . Marin plans to use the area of the second floor of the accessory
building for an office area , play area for his children , and an occasional guest space .
Mr. King asked if that space would be for residential over night guests .
Mr. Jensen � Y
res onded es .
p
41
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 26
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr. Frost said if Mr. Marin submitted a building permit for the barn to make the improvements , that
he would have denied the permit on the basis that the change of use is not necessarily anything that is
grand fathered in . If the barn is non- conforming , they would still need to come to this board for a variance
for the use , which Article XII , Section 54 would require , with special approval , for any changes in use .
Mr . Ellsworth asked what would be the height of the new accessory building .
Mr. Jensen said it would be approximately 22 feet , which would be a little lower than the previous
structure . The new accessory building would have an eight 12 pitch .
Mr. Frost said the big issue is the non- conformity feature of the existing residential building , which
is the other part of the appeal . If they build the new accessory building within the 15 foot height , it is not
clear whether they would need to come back for special approval . Mr . Frost asked if the accessory
building would comply with the Ordinance including the height , to be permitted without an approval from
this board , because the house is not non-conforming .
Attorney Barney said that it probably would be , but after looking at the plans of the new accessory
building , it would be closer to the existing residential building . The proposed accessory building is going
• to have a tiled bathroom , carpeted floor , washer and dryer , but it would be lacking a hot plate .
Mr. Frost asked in terms of close , would mean that the use of a dwelling unit will not be close in
terms of proximity location .
Attorney Barney responded , yes .
Mr . Frost said that was a concern with the original plans , that there is no kitchen . There is a
bathroom , a living space , and a laundry area .
Mr. Jensen said this property was obtained on a 99 year tease hold from Cornell University by Mr .
Marin, and upon his death it would revert back to Cornell University as a donation . Mr . Marin is a fairly
wealthy , alumnus from Cornell University , and he does not have any intentions to turn this space Into a
rental unit for additional income . This is meant to be an occasional residents for him and his family, for
summer vacations , alumni weekends , and occasional use by visiting lecturers from the business school .
Attorney Barney asked if that was included for the house or the accessory building .
Mr . Jensen said the whole complex . This board's concern is that Mr . Marin would be building
something, which in three , five , or ten years down the road would be turned into student housing . There
is no likely scenario for that .
• Chairman Stotz asked if Mr . Marin' s intention was for the occasional occupancy of this property ,
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 27
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
such as a lecturer would need to eat somewhere else .
Mr . Jensen said that was correct . It would be for the overflow for alumni weekend , reunion
weekend , or homecoming weekend .
Mr. Frost said a scenario could be if Mr. Marin is staying the weekend in the house and some
classmate of his could be hanging out in the accessory building .
Mr. Jensen said that sounds about right .
Mr . Scala said in the past , people used to build a carriage house to take care of friends or the
mother-in-law, and some times the people would eventually move in there after retiring . This would be
considered a potential second residence because it has all the necessities , except a kitchen area .
Mr. Ellsworth asked if the board could stipulate that this be owner occupied .
Attorney Barney asked if the whole property or this unit should be owner occupied .
Mr. Ellsworth said both units .
• Aitomey Barney said it could be stipulated as owner occupied . The more to the point would be
that the accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unit , and it will not be occupied no more than
so many days per year .
Mr . Scala asked if the carriage house would be defined as a second dwelling unit .
Attorney Barney responded , no .
Mr. Frost said the definition of a dwelling unit is a place that provides sanitary, cooking , sleeping ,
and living provisions . If there is no kitchen there , then there is no cooking there , so it is not a dwelling
unit .
Chairman Stotz said it could be stipulated that there be no cooking or no kitchen area or any form
of preparing food added to the accessory building .
Mr . Frost said one of the bigger questions here was why would they need a building exceeding
15 feet height limitation .
Mr. Scala said proper carriage houses are not 15 feet high . This is an architectural requirement ,
and a requirement for the future resident .
• Chairman Stotz asked if there are any other structures on the property other than the house .
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 28
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Planner Cornish said there is another barn on the property .
Mr. Jensen said it is a tool shed .
Chairman Stotz asked if the tool shed was of this height that is being requested .
Planner Cornish responded , no .
Mr . Ellsworth said there are several other barns in the neighborhood .
Planner Cornish said there are not several other barns on this property , but Cornell has several
barns on the surrounding property, but in the immediate vicinity it is just open land .
Chairman Stotz asked if there was a possibility of lowering the roof.
Mr. Jensen said they might be able to lower the roof. They are starting with a six foot high side
wall and use scissor trusses . For example , if there was an eight 12 top pitch , that would be a four 12
anterior pitch , so they can bring it down a whole lot without not having enough ceiling height .
Chairman Stotz asked if there would be a cathedral ceiling .
Mr. Jensen responded , yes . It would be bolted ten feet to the pitch .
Chairman Stotz asked if a flat ceiling would be possible .
Mr. Jensen said it could be possible with an eight foot wall height and a four to six 12 pitch roof.
Mr. Ellsworth asked if it would be possible to bring the height down to 20 feet or closer to 20 feet .
Mr. Jensen said it would be 17 feet , plus the pitch on a 22 foot structure .
Mr. Scala said he does not see why height is a factor at all . It would still be lower than the house .
There are all kinds of big barns nearby , and a big area . The concept of the carriage house fits in well
with the Country Club and the riding stable near by. Mr. Scala said he thinks it ought to be considered
the carriage house, not a garage . It would be in keeping with what Cornell University would be proud of
as well as Mr . Marin . The height would be a factor as far as the Town of Ithaca codes are concerned .
Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing .
Clover Drinkwater of 317 Warren Road , said she is the person that this property abuts . She hopes
• Mr . Marin is a person who would be considered as another landowner in the Town , and not a wealthy
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 29
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
influential alumni from Cornell University . Ms . Drinkwater said she has heard that this building being
built , Cornell would be proud of. She hopes that is not a structure that the Town would allow them to
build so Comell could be proud , but a simple structure for a private resident in the Town . Ms . Drinkwater
said with respect to the carriage house , she does not have any particular concern about the height . With
respect to the barn that was torn down , it was just a barn . To characterize it as a carriage house is a
misleading . She does not think it would ever be used as a carriage house because this was not a
neighborhood that had carriages . The neighborhood was one large farm parcel at the time . She does
not mind them rebuilding it and moving it , because the way they plan to place it would be further away
from her property. Ms. Drinkwater said her principal concern was for the use of the proposed accessory
building . This multi use purpose of this building is going to concern her because they could write into
the variance "no hotplates" , but she knows what will happen . She is also concerned that the accessory
building will turn into a second dwelling unit , and she thinks it would be very difficult for the Town to
police the area . Ms. Drinkwater asked if she has to call the Zoning Officer because she snooped around
at night and smelled food. Apart from the height issue , she believes that there is a second issue related
to the application as to the use of the property . Ms . Drinkwater asked if that was correct .
Mr . Frost said not necessarily , it is just the enlargement and the change of the footprint of the
• residential building .
Ms. Drinkwater said there was just a lengthy discussion of what this building is going to look like .
Attorney Barney said that is because of what Mr . Marin wants to put in it .
Ms . Drinkwater asked if Mr . Marin would need permission from this board to do that .
Attorney Barney said technically , the variance Mr. Marin needs is for the height .
Ms. Drinkwater said in earlier discussions , if Mr. Marin rebuilt the same size , he would not need
the height variance , but they would need a variance for the use .
Attorney Barney responded, no , that is not correct . Once Mr . Marin moved the building , he would
need to get a height variance anyway .
Ms . Drinkwater asked if Mr . Marin did not tear down the existing building and wanted to renovate
it , could it be where people stay.
Mr . Frost said Mr . Marin would have to apply for a building permit that was clear of the use
changes . If Mr. Marin changed the use of the building he would need to come before this board for
making a change to a non-conforming building .
• Attorney Barney said because the house itself is non- conforming .
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 30
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr. Frost said the building height was non- conforming as well .
Ms . Drinkwater asked if the only issue is the height and not the use .
Mr. Frost responded , yes . One of things the board would need to focus on , if Mr . Marin was
building this structure within the 15 foot limit , he would not be here tonight requesting an appeal just for
the carriage house .
Mr. Scala said to correct Mr . Frost 's statement , because the other issue is that this could not be
a second residence .
Chairman Stolz said Mr. Marin has satisfied that issue because there is no kitchen in the new
accessory building .
Mr. Frost said there is a concern that people could build a garage and put an apartment in it , but
in the plans before the board with the height were fine , it would not be considered a dwelling unit because
there would be no kitchen .
• Ms . Drinkwater asked what the definition of a kitchen would be .
Attorney Barney said the kitchen would need to have a stove , a sink , and usually a refrigerator .
Ms. Drinkwater asked if they could have a refrigerator without a stove and not be a dwelling unit .
Attorney Barney said that is correct .
Ms . Drinkwater asked if they could have a microwave or an electric frying pan . She said she sees
a kitchen there .
Attorney Barney said the main concern , is that there have been enforcement cases where people
have done exactly this by coming in with plans that do not show everything that would be going in there ,
and the enforcement goes by and sees something different .
Ms. Ddnkwater said that is her concern . This area is basically a residential area , and there is a
golf course . The riding stable does not have a lot of people living there . There are not a lot of big barns
in the area , that is not the case .
Mr . Frost said deed restrictions could be imposed on the board ' s approval .
. Ms . Drinkwater asked if Mr . Marin will have parking garage space in the accessory building .
TOWN OF ITHACA
. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 31
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr. Jensen responded , yes .
Ms. Drinkwater was shown the plans of the proposed construction at Mr. Marin's property. Ms .
Drinkwater asked if the permits for demolishing was the only thing they needed to tear down the old
carriage house .
Mr . Jensen said they acquired a demolition permit .
Ms . Drinkwater asked if they needed a permit from the Zoning Officer.
Mr . Frost said to reconstruct the carriage house and to modify the existing building they would
need a building permit , but they do not have the permits yet .
Chairman Stolz asked if the renovation of the house encroach on this .
Mr. Frost said it does not encroach on it . The foot print change will change the square footage of
the house .
• Planner Cornish said it does not increase the non- conformity .
Mr. Frost said that was correct .
Chairman Stotz asked if there were any regulations for the pool and the addition .
Mr . Frost said they would need a building permit .
Chairman Stolz asked if they could build a pool close to the side lot line .
Mr. Frost said a pool could be located as close as three feet from a side yard lot line , because it
would be considered an accessory structure . A R- 30 zone could be up to five feet to a side yard property
line .
Ms . Drinkwater said she does not have a problem with the height , just the use . Ms . Drinkwater
asked if the new structure would be larger than the building that was torn down .
Mr. Jensen said no , the same size or a little shorter .
Ms . DrinWmter said sooner or later they will find some people living there . It does seem strange
to have a washer and dryer in the accessory building separate from the main house .
• Mr. Jensen said there is not any laundry facility in the house or any plans to put a laundry facility
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 32
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
in the house . This is not going to be a full time year round residence .
Attorney Barney asked if the variance were granted for the height , would there be a problem with
the condition be opposed for no kitchen area of any sort in the accessory building nor a restriction that
the residence could not be occupied more than 50 days a year.
Ms. Drinkwater said the issue is not the number of days , but the number of how many consecutive
days .
Mr . Krantz asked if any time during the demolish of this building has Mr. Marin or Mr. Jensen
contact Ms . Drinkwater about the construction that would be going on .
Ms . Drinkwater responded , no .
Mr. Krantz said there is a word for that called "arrogance " .
Ms . Drinkwater said yes , that is not very neighborly. Everyday she notices that there is more stuff
torn off.
Mr. Scala said his concerns are the same as expressed by Ms . Drinkwater, and that the board is
talking about a second residence . It does not matter that it is 50 days or two days consecutive , he is not
sure that the board can allow that even if the board allows the variance for height . The use in the end
is what counts . This is what is being objected here , and he is inclined to agree . The fact that it does not
have a kitchen outlined , it is trivial because people could plug in all kinds of units in the accessory
building , and there could be deliveries of food . Mr . Scala said he would object to having a second
residence being allowed on the property.
Chairman Stotz asked how could the board mitigate that in terms of conditions such as
suggestions about restricting the number of days for using the property.
Mr. Frost said if he receives a building permit application and height was not an issue , he would
not be able to deny a permit because they might put a kitchen in there .
Ms. Drinkwater said the only other remedy would be for a neighbor to check on this and complain
to the Town that they created a second dwelling on the premises .
Attorney Barney said the need for the height variance is because they are putting a fairly large
multipurpose guest bedroom/ other items on the second floor in an accessory building . Attorney Barney
asked if the room was not there would there be a need for a height variance .
• Mr. Jensen said that would be correct because the building could have a bolted ceiling in it , then
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 33
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
it would not be a legal space at that point .
Ms . Drinkwater said the barn was used as a barn at that height . The second floor in the old
building was probably the hay loft . If the board had seen the old structure before the demolition , it was
an old fashion barn . There was no way the old structure was a carriage house with the maid or butler
living upstairs .
Mr. Scala asked if Mr. Marin came within the 15 feet and rebuilt the carriage house with the floor
plans that were submitted to the Zoning Office , would they have been allowed a permit even if it looks
like a residence .
Mr. Frost said that was correct because there was no kitchen in there .
Ms. Drinkwater said people could cook a meal with a microwave , hot plate , or an electric frying
pan .
Chairman Stotz said that would be true .
Mr. Frost asked if he received a building permit application that shows a basement like any other
• house basement , would he need to deny it because there would be potentials that they could put a
kitchen in .
Mr . Scala responded , no .
Mr . Frost asked if that would be the same as if they have a bedroom in the basement .
Mr. Scala responded , no . What Mr. Frost is saying , the drawing as it exists now , except for the
height , would have been allowed . Mr . Scala asked if it was used as a second residence , it would not
bother this board .
Mr. Frost said it would bother him . If they put in a kitchen , he can not deny the permit because
he thinks they are going to do something .
Attomey Barney said this board was strict with the construction on the previous application , and
now this board needs to be strict with the construction on this application . A dwelling unit is defined as
a complete living facility . A complete facility is defined , among other things , a kitchen . This proposal
does not include a kitchen , therefore , it is not a dwelling unit . So , therefore , this board can not deny a
permit because of the way it is constructed , except for the height .
• Chairman Stotz asked if the board could incorporate some conditions on the use .
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 34
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
Mr . Scala responded , yes .
Ms. Drinkwater asked if Mr . Marin needed to come to this board for a variance on the height , that
this board can add some restrictions .
Chairman Stotz said that was correct .
Mr. Frost said the appeal is to accommodate the use that is being proposed . It would enable the
board to put conditions on the variance to regulate the use .
Ms. Dhnkwater said she would not like to see the board in a position where the property can not
be used more than 50 days a year. Ms. Drinkwater asked what would Mr . Marin do , have to check in with
the Town to see if it was okay for someone to sleep there . That would not be fair, but maybe a condition
could be set that it could not be used as anything resembling a second dwelling .
Chairman Stotz said it is true , how would the Town enforce it so it does not turn into a second
dwelling unit .
Attorney Barney said these are typically policed by the neighbors . The problem with this , to say
it will not be used as a general residence , would be difficult to enforce . It could say that periodically there
would not be people there more than so many consecutive days . This would give something the Town
could go on .
Mr . Ellsworth asked how would the Town be able to check that .
Attorney Barney said if it was quietly used , the neighbors would not care . But if it is noisily used ,
then the neighbors would complain .
Mr. Jensen asked if Mr. Marin' s children , which are small at this point , wanted to have a bedroom
in the accessory building for the summer, would there be a problem with that .
Ms . Drinkwater said no , as long as it was not noisy.
Planner Cornish said the problem would also come if a couple was living in the accessory building
with a vehicle or two , and someone lived in the main house with a vehicle or two , that these would be
problems of too many vehicles .
Mr. Frost said it could come with the house as well .
Attorney Barney said the objective is if this board is going to permit something that looks like ,
• smells like , and feels like a second dwelling unit , that this board would need to put some restrictions on
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 35
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
the variance to make sure that does not turn into a second dwelling unit .
Mr . Scala asked if there was a definition for a temporary dwelling or intermittent dwellings .
Mr . Frost said Health Department regulations for temporary residences , where they get into a
period time that a place could be occupied , and not be called a temporary unit where there are time limits .
Chairman Stotz asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. With no one wishing to
speak , Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing .
Mr. Frost said the main house is non- conforming in a R- 30 zone . The front yard setback requires
30 feet , which there is not . The side yard is required 40 foot , which there is not . Mr. Frost said he put
down special approval Article 12 , Section 54 to cover this project to be conservative . The footprint
increased the porches that are visible in the elevation sketches . In the elevation sketches , there is a
porch wrapping around the south side of the existing building , which was not there before . In the west
elevation, the porch was much larger than it was before . An increase footprint of the porches are shown
on the south elevation and west elevation of the sketches .
Mr. Jensen said the plans for the existing house is to tear off a 40 foot long section on the back
• of the house , which was in terrible shape . They were going to leave the bulk of the main house alone ,
and simply add a 22 foot back side of the area they taken off.
Mr. Frost showed the board sketches between the existing house and the proposed construction
for the house . He also showed what was going to be removed and what decks were going to be
constructed , which changes the footprint of a non-conforming building that requires a special approval
prior to the change of occupancy.
Chairman Stotz asked what the addition would be on the existing house .
Mr. Jensen said it would be the kitchen , mudroom , and storage space .
Attorney Barney asked if the washer and dryer could be put in there .
Mr . Jensen said that might be possible .
Chairman Stotz said it would be a real chore to travel back and forth to the accessory building and
house for the laundry facilities in the winter .
Mr. Jensen said it is not proposed as a year round residence . Mr. Marin 's intention is to use the
property as summer time visits , alumni weekends , and reunion weekends .
•
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 36
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Chairman Stotz asked if the restrictions for occupancy during certain months of the year would
be a problem .
Mr. Jensen said the only problem with that is Mr. Marin intends to have a caretaker on site to
watch the building .
Attorney Barney asked where would the caretaker live .
Mr. Jensen said he thinks in the house .
Attorney Barney asked where would the caretaker go when Mr . Marin's family Is visiting .
Mr. Jensen said he is not sure .
Mr . Scala said the Village of Cayuga Heights turned Cornell down when they wanted to the
President ' s House , which the Alumni was going to take over for temporary housing . The reason was
because it was restricted to residences .
Mr. Frost said , for example , Mr . Marin lived in the house for a year and never came to Town for
• anything , he could rent the house out .
Mr. Scala said it is too late he is already on the table . They turned down Cornell that wanted to
have a group of alumnus take over the place to use it for football weekends and etc .
Chairman Stotz said since this is a two part appeal , he would open the public hearing on this
issue .
Ms . Drinkwater asked if the north side of the house would be the side that would be facing her
property .
Chairman Stotz said that was correct .
Ms . Drinkwater asked if this project would be any closer to her boundary line than the existing
footprint .
Mr. Jensen responded , no .
Ms . Drinkwater asked if the sliding glass door and porch would be facing her property.
• Mr . Jensen said there would be a deck facing her property .
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 37
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
Ms . Drinkwater asked if the deck would give access to a pool deck .
Mr. Jensen said that was correct .
Ms. Drinkwater asked if people would be egressing and ingressing through the sliding glass doors
to the pool on the side that facing her property.
Mr. Jensen said that was correct .
Ms . Drinkwater asked how many bedrooms would this have .
Mr . Jensen said there are three bedrooms in the house , which one of them is extremely small .
Mr . Frost said the pool deck would need a fence that should be no less than four feet high .
Chairman Stotz asked how far would the pool come to the side lot line .
Mr . Jensen said it would not be within 40 feet of the side lot line .
• Mr. Frost said they could locate the pool anywhere in the rear yard as close as three to five feet
from the property line . They would not need prior approval for a pool as long as it is in the back yard .
Ms. Drinkwater asked if the caretaker would be banished to the carriage house for the weekend
when Mr. Marin came to visit , with their hot plate .
Mr. Jensen said he is not sure .
Ms . Drinkwater asked if the over all structure , with the change of the footprint , would mean the
physical space of the foundation where it sits .
Mr. Frost said this is only to accommodate the porch on the south side . If they did not change the
porch and renovated the back of the house then the footprint would not change .
Ms . Drinkwater asked if they had a demolition permit to take off the back of the house .
Mr. Frost said in the case where they need to get a building permit , they get one .
Ms . Drinkwater said it would be awkward if they torn off the back part of the house if the board
denied the variance .
• Mr. Frost said no , they could rebuild it without coming to the board if they do not build the porches .
r �
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 38
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
The porches are what changes the footprint .
Ms. Drinkwater said there is a serious water table on this property . Ms . Drinkwater asked if the
carriage house would have a foundation .
Mr. Jensen said the carriage house would have a frost swell foundation slab on grade .
Ms . Drinkwater said she does not know what this does to displace the water table .
Planner Cornish said she was on the site with a contractor, which are putting in new pipes and
diverting the water. There was a wet area that they are containing . The contractor is trying to contain
the water with the piping .
Mr. Jensen said the addition that would be put back on the house would be a craw space only.
They found a big pipe that puts a lot of water onto the property from the east .
Ms . Drinkwater said it is not a wetland area .
Chairman Stotz asked if anyone from the public wished to speak . With no one present who
• wished to speak , Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Planner Cornish said she walked around the property with a contractor looking at the drainage .
It appears that some vegetation needed to be removed and a lot of soil had been mucked up . It is a fairly
level site , and she is not worried about erosion control because it is level .
Mr . Scala asked if there were septic tanks there .
Mr. Jensen said there is a septic system installed to the south of the house .
Mr. Frost asked Mr. Jensen if he submitted plans to the Health Department ,
Mr . Jensen responded , yes .
Chairman Stotz asked if the bathroom to the carriage house would be tied into the existing septic
system for the house .
Mr. Jensen responded , yes .
• Mr . Frost said it would be conditional upon what the Health Department approves .
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 39
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Mr. Scala said the question is the number of people that would effect the system when it is
complicated by the high water table .
Planner Cornish said she is assuming when the Health Department comes to look at this , that this
carriage house would be considered a bedroom which would be configured into the size of the septic
tank.
Mr. Frost said the 1992 certificate from the Health Department was designed for a four bedroom
building . He needs to verify through the Health Department if three bedrooms in the main house and one
bedroom in the accessory building would be considered four bedrooms for certification .
Mr. Jensen said according to the Town ' s Engineer, there is no public sewer available .
Ms . Drinkwater said the public sewer is available , but she is not hooked up to it .
Chairman Stotz said the report shows that there is a substantial buffer between the two properties .
Planner Cornish said there are a few trees along the property line , and there are some deciduous
• trees as well . This is in no way a screen , it just softens the view . The carriage house would be visible
from the Drinkwater property .
Chairman Stotz asked if there would be any screening of the pool besides the fence .
Mr . Jensen said the landscaping plan includes a small bern and a lot of plantings between Ms .
Drinkwater property , the pool , and the main house .
Chairman Stotz asked if Ms . Drinkwater would be able to see the pool from her house .
Mr . Jensen said Ms . Drinkwater would be able to see the top of the pool itself, but when the
screening grows up she would not be able to see the pool at all .
Attorney Barney asked if why would there be a footing on the drawing .
Mr . Jensen said there would be a bearing petition . The footing would be poured underneath
where the petition goes .
Planner Cornish said she called the Historian of Ithaca and looked over some old aerial
photographs. The 1858 aerial photographs did not show this building . Ms . Cornish said that the house
was built around the 1870 ' s , but there is no historical significance to this particular house , but the
• Historian said the Drinkwater property is very unique historically .
it
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .40
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Chairman Stotz asked if the overall recommendation is a negative determination of environmental
significance .
Planner Cornish said that was correct .
MOTION by Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala :
RESOLVED, that this board in regards to both variances at 313 Warren Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 68- 1 -5 , Residence District R-30 , make a negative determination of
environmental significance for this application incorporating as the findings of the board
of the comments by JoAnn Cornish of the Town of Ithaca Planning Department .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Stotz, King , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz.
NAYS - None .
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
• MOTION by Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth :
RESOLVED, that this board for the appeal of Mr. Marin of 313 Warren Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 68- 1 - 5 , for the construction of an accessory building with the height
of 21 feet to be granted the variance with the following conditions :
a . That there be no occupancy other than by the owner and his family, and
b . That there be no kitchen facilities , such as a stove , refrigerator, a sink, microwave ,
hot plate , or anything else in the similar nature for cooking .
Mr . Krantz said he thinks both appeals should be tabled until Mr . Marin can discuss with his
neighbors and report back to this board with their reactions to this plans . Mr. Krantz said he has not been
on this board very long , but most of the appeals come with a list where people discuss things with their
neighbors. This is Ithaca , New York, that is why he lives here , and he aims to keep to try and keep it that
way .
Mr . Scala said he is in favor of that , but there is nothing requiring them to do that .
Attorney Barney said most of the people who come in with the lists are doing it as en effort to
pursue the board to grant their proposal . Everyone is given notification that is adjoined to the property
• in question , plus a copy is advertised in the Ithaca Journal .
r K .
TOWN OF ITHACA
. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 41
NOVEMBER 13 , 1996
Chairman Stotz asked what happens to the guests that come to stay with the Marins .
Mr. Scala said they could stay in the house .
Mr . Krantz asked if that would be enforceable .
Attorney Barney said it could be .
Planner Cornish said it is not enforceable if it is not written anywhere .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Scala , Ellsworth , King .
NAYS - Stotz, Krantz.
The motion was declared to be carried .
MOTION by Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth :
• RESOLVED, that this board grant the request for approval of the reconstruction of the
house on the property at 313 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 68- 1 - 5 , which
is non-conforming because it is only 20 . 1 feet setback where 25 feet is required . The said
request for reconstruction includes the extension of the footprint with a porch as well as the
interior reconstruction of the house to be permitted with the condition for screening of the
property in terms of putting necessary shrubbery trees , etc , and that some attempt to be
made to screen in terms of fencing until the shrubby takes over to protect the neighbor from
activities that go on this property . Also , the appearance and color of the building be
commence rate with the rest of the area that the exterior decoration be compatible with the
local community in terms of appearance .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Scala , Ellsworth .
NAYS - Stotz, King , Krantz.
The motion was denied .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala :
RESOLVED,that this board grant special approval under Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance for the change of the construction of the house as proposed in the plans
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 42
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
being condition upon the owners going forward with the plans as Indicated for the
landscaping at 313 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 68- 1 -5 .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Stotz, King , Ellsworth , Scala .
NAYS - None .
The motion was declared to be carried .
Chairman Stolz closed this segment of the meeting at 10 : 05 p . m .
Chairman Stotz adjourned the meeting at 10 : 07 p . m . .
Deborah A. Kelley ,
Keyboard Specialist/ Minutes Recorder
a17
vid Ston , Ch irma
•
c
FINAL
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 13 , 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 , November 13 , 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 David Warden , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of
Article V , Section 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to create
two building lots with lot widths at the street line and at the maximum front yard
setback of approximately 50 feet and 69 . 22 for each lot , at 1343 Mecklenburg Road , Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 23 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said Ordinance requires a
lot width of 100 feet at the street line and 150 feet at the front yard setback .
APPEAL of Julie Vann , Appellant , Attorney Bruce Wilson , Agent , requesting a variance
from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
to be permitted to maintain a carport with a setback from the north side lot line of
4 . 6 feet ( 10 feet required ) at 102 Haller Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 29 -
6 - 8 , Residence District R- 15 .
APPEAL of Patsy VonDreusche , 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 existing single - family residence with a building setback of 11± feet from
the south side property line ( 15 feet required ) at 14 Lisa Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 71 - 1 - 9 . 5 , Residence District R- 15 .
APPEAL of Richard Marin , Appellant , Jack Jensen , Agent , requesting a variance from the
requirements of Article V , Section 20& of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be
permitted to construct an accessory building with a height of 21 + feet ( maximum 15 feet
allowed ) at 313 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 68 - 1 - 5 , Residence District
R- 30 . A special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section
54 of the Zoning Ordinance is also being requested to permit modifications to an
existing non - conforming residential building . The building is non - conforming since it
has a front yard building setback of 20 . 1 feet ( 25 feet required ) . The modification
involves the demolition and reconstruction of new living space at the rear of said
building on said lot .
APPEAL of Martha Armstrong , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of
Section 4 of Town of Ithaca Local Law # 7 , 1988 , " Requiring Sprinkler Systems to be
Installed in Buildings in the Town of Ithaca " at two existing multiple residence
buildings located at 766 and 770 Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
28 - 1 - 28 . 4 , Residence District R- 30 . The variance is being requested under Section 9 of
said Law .
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 : November 4 , 1996
Publish : November 8 , 1996
� THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING FOR
WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 11 , 1996
• HAS BEEN CANCELED .
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON
JANUARY 8 , 1997 ,
Dated: December 2. 1996
•
• THE TOWN OF ITHACA
Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing 'for Wednes.
day, December 11 , 1996
has been cancelled. The next
81 19 g will be on January
8, 1997
December 6, . 1996
•