Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2002-04-15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FILE FATE MONDAY , APRIL 15 , 2002 7 : 00 PM APPEAL of JMS Realty , Owner/Appellants , Integrated Acquisition and Development Corporation/ Herman Sieverding , Agent , requesting modifications to previously granted approvals for the College Circle Apartments from January 24 , 1990 and variances from Article VI , Section 26 and 29 , and Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit an increase in the number of persons allowed to reside in said apartments and to allow for vehicular parking variations at 1033 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43- 1 -2 . 2 and 2 . 3 in a Multiple Residence Zone . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Deborah Valentine , Appellant , Attorney Paul Tavelli , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing two-family home with a north side yard building setback of 7 + feet from an attached garage ( 10 foot setback required ) at 120 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58- 2 -20 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Conifer Realty LLC , Appellant , John Fennessey , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law , to be permitted to create , by land subdivision , building lots not having frontage on a Town , County , or State highway near 1300 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 13 . 16 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of John Tilitz , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirement of Article V , Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single-family home on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and at the maximum front yard setback , whereas 100 feet and 150 feet respectively is required , near 1447 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 23- 1 -41 . 2 , Residence District R-30 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Michael and Lorie Lupo , Appellants , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to build a residence on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and at the maximum front yard setback , whereas 100 feet and 150 feet respectively , is required , near 125 Iradell Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 -7 . 2 , Residence District . R-30 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of George Blanchard , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law , in order to create by subdivision , a building lot that does not front on a Town , County, or State highway near 165 King Road East , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44-2 - 7 , Residence District R- 30 , APPEAL GRANTED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE ' Z MONDAY, APRIL 15 , 2002 7 : 00 PM PRESENT: Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; David Stotz, Board Member; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andy Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; Randy Marcus , Attorney; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner, ALSO PRESENT : Herman Sieverding , IAD ; Tom Salm , Ithaca College ; Deborah Campbell , 1445 Trumansburg Road ; Paul Tavelli , 120 Pine Tree Road ; Tom Gilbert , 15 Thornwood Drive ; Mike & Lorie Lupo , Iradell Road ; Kim Dunnick , 10 La Grand Court ; Bob Shaw , 313 Roat Street ; John Fennessey , Conifer Realty. Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 06 p . m . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : DECISION of College Circle Apartments , adjourned from March 25 , 2002 , 1033 Danby Road . This appeal was not recorded due to technical difficulties. RESOLUTION NO. 2002= 14 - JMS Realty, 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 1 -2.2 and 43. 41 2. 3, April 15, 2002. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of JMS Realty, requesting modifications to previously granted approvals for the College Circle Apartments from January 24, 1990 and variances from Article Vl, Section 26 and 29, and Article X111, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit an increase in the number of persons allowed to reside in said apartments and to allow for vehicular parking variations at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -2. 2 and 2. 3 in a Multiple Residence Zone based upon the following: Findings: The requirements for an area variance have been met. Conditions: All conditions imposed by the planning board in their Resolution No. 2002-33 are also included as conditions of this resolution. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: ;'igel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Deborah Valentine , Appellant , Attorney Paul Tavelli , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing two-family home with a north side yard building setback of 7 + feet from an attached garage ( 10 foot setback required ) at 120 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58- 2-20 , Residence District R- 15 . Paul Tavelli , 120 Pine Tree Road - I 'm the attorney agent for the current owner, Deborah Valentine . This is the home that I grew up in so I assume I have more knowledge about this house than anyone else . This house was built 41 years ago this month . My father and I built it when the Town of Ithaca was a little quieter and a little gentler. It was the first house as you go up Pine Tree Road on the hill . There were a lot of houses on the top , but none of them were in what we called the Marion Fields in those days . My father and I built it when I was in college . In those days , I 'm sure Randy even remembers , they did not have surveyors as frequently as we do now . We laid this thing out ourselves . We built this house in 1961 . My parents lived there thirty-some years . They have now passed away . They sold it to Deborah Valentine . When she obtained the mortgage , she found out that the north side setback was just 7 . 6 feet from Carmichaels . The Carmichaels have been there as long as I remember. I would submit that this is almost a textbook case for an area variance . I 'm sure you are far more familiar with 267b of the Town Law than I am with criteria for area variances . This is on the garage side . There really is no way to rectify it . I submit the character of the neighborhood has been the same for the last 41 years . This mistake is something that just happened . I think I was probably the one who got the building permit . I 'm not even sure if it was at Rachel Hanshaw's place up on Hanshaw Road or where in those days because I don 't think there were town offices back in 1961 . 1 would submit that an area variance in this particular case would be appropriate . Chairperson Sigel - It appears that the house to the south is practically on the property line . Mr. Tavelli - No . You are talking about Turnbull , which is the house to the south . That is quite a ways from the property line . Mr. Frost - I would just say that what he is looking at, Paul is a tax map . Mr. Tavelli - I can 't tell you how far. The Turnbulls still live there . They lived there when I lived there 25 years ago . I can 't speak to how close their house is to the lot line , but it is not right on top of the lot lane . Mr. Smith - Those buildings were digitized from aerial photographs . They are not accurate . Mr. Frost - In the photograph that is from the south you will see that . . . 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Tavelli - Both of these houses have basement apartments as I recall . The entrance is on that side of the house . I recollect quite a bit of room down there with the sidewalks . Chairperson Sigel - It seems pretty straightforward . Any questions ? Mr. Stotz - Was this house originally built with a 2 -car attached garage or was that added later? Mr. Tavelli - No , it was built . . . it was all part of the house . Mr. Frost - I do have a building permit on this , which when it was submitted it showed proper setbacks . Mr. Stotz - With a 2-car garage ? Mr. Tavelli - Yes . That was there in 1961 . Mr. Frost - The property does seem to in my mind blend well into the character of the neighborhood . I didn 't notice anything different . Mr. Krantz - It certainly seems quite straightforward . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 26 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 27 p . m . Chairperson Sigel - Any other questions or comments? If not would someone like to make a motion on the appeal . RESOLUTION NO. 200245 - Deborah Valentine, 120 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No 58. =2=20, April 15, 2002. MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Deborah Valentine, 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 two-family home with a north side yard building set back of 7 feet from an attached garage at 120 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58. -2-20, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following: Findings: a . This house was built in 1961 (at a time when the Town of Ithaca did not maintain a close control over buildings as they do at the present time), and b. The variance does not create any detriment to the character of the neighborhood, and C, The requirements for an area variance have been met. 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Krantz - I think we 've shown that Ithaca is still kind and gentle . The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Conifer Realty LLC , Appellant , John Fennessey , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to create , by land subdivision , building lots not having frontage on a Town , County , or State highway near 1300 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 13 . 16 , Residence District R- 15 . Mr. Frost - I just wanted to make it clear that Conifer Realty's request here while it is a part of what is happening with Linderman Creek Apartments really has nothing to do specifically with any kind of site plan . It is a byproduct of land that is basically becoming landlocked by way of the subdivision of lands that are part of the Linderman Creek Phase II apartments . John Fennessey , Conifer Realty - I am the Vice President of Conifer Realty . I am here tonight in the capacity to seek a variance for the back open lots that wouldn 't have access onto a public highway. Just for background , this is Mecklenburg Road here . This is the line between the City and the Town . A few years ago we developed this parcel of land right here with 56 apartments . At that time we entered into a purchase agreement with Mr. Ceracche to buy half of his property here . In the process , the Mr. Ceracche dedicated the Town a park . Then we went ahead and finished Phase I and now we want to begin Phase II . That would be this area here outlined in orange . We have Conifer Drive coming in here . Now all of a sudden we find ourselves with two remaining lots here with no access to a public road . So that is the purpose of our being here . We have an easement agreement that will give access over Conifer Drive into this piece of property for the future . Our hope is that this will be a temporary measure and that we will continue the developments back up in through here . This road is actually proposed to connect up to Bundy Road up here . In the interim until that happens , these two pieces of property here in the green and the blue will not have access to a public road . So this easement here in the hashed mark will enable that to take place . Mr. Ellsworth - There is a road that comes in and circles around . Mr. Fennessey - Right now the road comes in here , turns to the right and down around here . The plan that the Planning Board has given preliminary approval to has another circle here . Mr. Stotz - What are the long term plans for those two parcels? 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Fennessey - We are exploring ways to develop this balance of land with single-family homes and possibly some elderly housing . This is one of the schemes that we are working on . This would be the road that comes up . We were looking at 70 lots . Mr. Frost - Was part of the proposal for our parkland . . . did you say that Ceracche's land was adjacent to land from Dick Perry? Part of the parkland that the Town got from Ceracche is also part of the adjacent land owned by Dick Perry, or not? Mr. Smith - There are two parcels there to combine to make a park. Chairperson Sigel - At this time you are not asking for any permission to build on these lots , just the creation of lots that don 't front . Mr. Fennessey - This easement agreement will . . . Mr. Frost - I think the wisdom , if I can speak for John Barney , is this is not unique where the Town has been involved with granting subdivision approvals that left some portion of land landlocked . We have preferred that the part of the subdivision include any of the necessary variances . The Town theoretically is creating a landlocked parcel by the way of the variance . Mr. Ellsworth - If you don 't straighten out we have a landlocked park , too . Mr. Niefer - There was one item that I am somewhat concerned about or interested in and that is in granting this proposed variance , I noticed that this one plot plan show an unopened street going into Oakwood Lane that goes into the back corner of this large parcel . I know at the time that this whole development was proposed that the people on Oakwood Lane were very much concerned about the change in the character of the neighborhood . That I guess was litigated and not successful . However, this unopened street situation , granted I know the unopened street is in the City of Ithaca , but that little plot plan that you have showed us shows a connecting street that very well could go to the unopened street thus dumping traffic from this development over into the City of Ithaca . The City of Ithaca people on Oakwood Lane were very much concerned about . Although I realize this is somewhat in the future , it is a concern to me that this could have a significant impact on our neighbors in the City of Ithaca . Dumping a lot of traffic into Oakwood Lane , which as such would I don 't think necessarily the Town of Ithaca is being a good neighbor to the Oakwood Lane residents . This concern may be much premature . It may not even be addressable at this time . I don 't know. I raise it and make it part of the record . I have expressed my concerns for this development in the future . Mr. Fennessey - That is an issue that we have known existed ever since we have been involved with the property. We would not propose to have any traffic come from this development to that street . We would suggest , if the Town wants it , to have some type of a break away barrier there for fire emergency access . We tried to do the same thing down here , but DOT wouldn 't allow it . This is also the Town 's access to its property. Our intent in moving ahead with other areas of development would be not to , under any circumstances , for us to propose to the Town that that should be an ingress/egress to serve this property . It could be for emergency access only . 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - Any other questions ? Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 36 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 37 p . m . Chairperson Sigel - The environmental review is the same situation . Mr. Smith - Yes . It was a Type I action . The Planning Board is the lead agency. You should have a copy of the neg . dec . in your packet . Chairperson Sigel - Okay, we don 't have to deal with that unless someone wants to voice a different opinion with the Planning Board . Chairperson Sigel - If there were no further questions , would some one like to make a motion ? Mr. Krantz - Kirk , is that considered two building lots? Is that what you said ? Chairperson Sigel - That is what I said . It is two lots . Mr. Krantz - Even though each one will encompass so many houses ? Chairperson Sigel - Right now they are just two lots . They would have to be further subdivided . RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 16 - Conifer RealtV, Tax Parcel Nos. 27. - 1 - 13. 12 and 27 - 1 - 1316, April 15, 2002. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Conifer Realty, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to create by land subdivision, two building lots not having frontage on a Town, County or State highway near 1300 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 - 1 - 13. 12 and 27 - 1 - 13. 16, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following: Finding: a . The requirements for an area variance have been met. Condition: a . That the Attorney for the Town approve the proposed easement. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of John Tilitz, Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirement of Article V , Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single-family home on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and at the maximum front yard setback , whereas 100 feet and 150 feet respectively is required , near 1447 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 23- 1 -41 . 2 , Residence District R-30 . Bob Shaw , Shaw Real Estate - John sends his regrets that he can 't be here . He's had to go with his family to California on Friday . So he asked me to stand in for him tonight . I do have a little bit of history with the property. I sold it to him back in 1991 as a realtor representing the owners of the property. He at that time through the Town of Ithaca created a 9- lot subdivision with the intent fully to build 9 properties out there at a certain range and dollar value . That fell by the wayside especially as the housing market went sour. He has held onto it . I think recently he sent it back out of subdivision . Mr. Frost - He consolidated . He never actually followed through . The tax map did show the subdivision . Mr. Shaw - So intent now , although there is 60 feet and the 60 feet originally was for a road to go in there and to have 9 lots off that road . Now it's just a matter of a driveway going in and building a more substantial house back there on the 9 acres . The intent is to build again with the cul-de-sac . Mr. Frost - It is basically the same thing , but I believe it's with the subdivision . Mr. Shaw - That is why he needs the variance in order to do that . It is a hardship at this time to go back and make 9 lots out of it . Mr. Frost - So what would have been a 60-foot wide area for a Town road now becomes a driveway, the 60-foot width being what is fronting on the road . It 's the same with the maximum front yard setback . Mr. Stotz - So there are no plans that you know of after he builds this house to go back and subdivide the land again . Mr. Shaw - No , not that I know of . Mr. Frost - If he did , he would have to go back before the Planning Board . Mr. Krantz - That is a fairly rural area up there . The only problem I saw with it is when you drive down that road - it gets more and more narrow , the rough road , and it's impossible to turn around . 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Shaw - That' s why I probably haven 't gotten a lot of calls on the sign . He put that in just to get back there to get an idea what it looked like back there after he decided to go away from the subdivision and back to the single family. Mr. Stotz - He also cut a lot of the brush out of there over the past few years . Mr. Shaw - Originally, I remember showing him the property and I have a 4 wheel drive that I got stuck back there . There was a lot of water that I didn 't realize and a lot of mud . When we were first looking at it , his idea was to find a place somewhere in the Town where he could build a subdivision . But 1991 wasn 't the year to stick your neck out that far. Mr. Stotz - No . Mr. Shaw - Now he is going back and he wants to build a more substantial house . He has done quite a lot of construction in the Town of Ithaca , $200 , 000 to $500 , 000 . Chairperson Sigel - Is this house for him ? Mr. Shaw - No . This is for speculation . He is hoping to come back here . We've had a couple of inquiries actually . Mr. Stotz - It's a nice spot up there on that slope . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 44 p . m . Deborah Campbell , 1445 Trumansburg Road - 1447 would put this to the north of my property. Mr. Frost - For the public notice , if that' s what you are referring to , I plugged in an approximate address . Ms . Campbell - This property has had a for sale sign on it forever. Mr. Shaw - Right . Ms . Campbell - The part that I was supposed to buy, but it was . . . I don 't understand why, I mean 60 feet compared to 100 feet seems to be an awful lot . It is not going to be set back any further than the other houses , right? . Mr. Shaw - Here is the road , it going to go back behind the houses that are on the road . Mr. Frost - So what could have been 9 houses in your back yard . . . Ms . Campbell - Well , I was scared to death . I was very worried about that . I guess I understand now. I still wonder why all of this . . . its looks like something else is going to happen . Mr. Shaw - No . This is what was approved back in 1991 to do that . 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - Its been turned back into one lot . Ms . Campbell - There is something very curious here , which is none of your concern at all , but I had this property and I lost it in the last minute of the deal . Mr. Shaw - The Durrells sold this property to him . Ms . Campbell - They promised me certain acreage , then at the sale of the house that acreage suddenly disappeared . Anyway, it was kind of an odd thing to happen . Chairperson Sigel - Do you have any objections to the . . . ? Ms . Campbell - I think at this point no . I think it is a very strange configuration for a property . I assume that it is going to be a private residence and not a day care center or anything else so there won 't be a lot of cars going in and out of there . Chairperson Sigel - That would require a separate approval . Thank you . Would anyone else from the public like to speak? Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 47 p . m . Chairperson Sigel - Any further questions or comments ? Again , we have no environmental assessment on this one . Would someone like to make a motion on the appeal ? RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 17 - John Tilitz, Tax Parcel No. 23. = 1 -41 .2, April 15, 2002 MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of John Tilitz, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a single-family home on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and a maximum front yard setback, near 1447 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23. - 1 - 41 .2, Residence District R-30, based upon the following: Findings: a . This action will have less of an impact on the Town of Ithaca in terms of housing density and traffic than what was proposed previously, and b. The requirements of an area variance have been met. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None, ABSTAIN: None. 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fifth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Michael and Lorie Lupo , Appellants , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law , to be permitted to build a residence on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and at the maximum front yard setback , whereas 100 feet and 150 feet respectively, is required , near 125 Iradell Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 -7 . 2 , Residence District R-30 . Mr. Frost - We seem to have the same types of variances come all together at one particular meeting . At one time we had three or four height variances at one meeting . Mr. Stotz - Tonight is flag lot night . Mr. Ellsworth - Its seems kind of tough to approve one down when you have approved two . Mr. Krantz - These two are in such similar neighborhoods . They are really close together. Mr. Ellsworth - This is West Hill night . Mr. Krantz - They are almost across the street from each other. Mr. Frost - The next one is on South Hill . Mike Lupo , Iradell Road - The plans are to ask for a variance to allow us to build a single family home , three bedrooms , about 2200 square feet with no plans to subdivide . We are looking for privacy and we found a lot that we think will offer that to us . So therefore we are here before you to ask for a variance due to the insufficient road frontage . Mr. Frost - I was just going to say on the map that you submitted , which is part of the tax map , you show the house , a proposed garage and a barn . There is no scale on the map . A lot of structures seem like they are fairly close to the property line . You should be aware that you need to be at least 50 foot from the back lot line . That shouldn 't affect your plans dramatically. Mr. Lupo - We were up there yesterday. We are about 85 feet from the property line to the back of the proposed building . The house would sit about 1200 feet from the road . Mr. Frost - The garage is obviously for parking a car. What are you proposing for the barn , which looks quite a bit larger than the other two structures? Mr. Lupo - The plans are to build a horse barn so that we can house about eight horses , a tack room and wash down , storage of a tractor. The tractor is required to mow 10 . 5 acres . Mr. Stotz - How long a road is that going to be into your property? 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Lupo - Right around 1200 feet . Mr. Stotz - How wide is that going to be ? Mr. Lupo - Twelve feet . Mr. Stotz - Twelve feet wide ? Mr. Lupo - Yes . Mr. Frost - You will have the turnaround down at the end of the driveway. That is going to be important for the fire department . Mr. Stotz - How is the road going to be . . . what is the base on the road ? Mr. Lupo - We had a contractor in there proposing that he would bring in 65 loads of shale pieces . It is about 1450 tons of shale being brought in as a base . Then after all the heavy equipment has been there for concrete and building supplies and so forth , then we will top it off with number 2 stone . Mr. Frost - Number 2 or just crusher run ? Mr. Lupo - Yes . Mr. Stotz - Andy , when you issue a building permit you take into consideration the ability of that road to carry a fire engine and the width ? Mr. Frost - Yes and no . In the building code without going to what they reference standards there would be no particular requirement . That becomes more satisfying what our local fire department wants to see . I will say based on what he is saying with the heavier stone . . . the only reason I bring this up is because we are dealing with another property and from what I have gotten from the Engineering staff this seems almost consistent with a driveway that will support about 45 , 000 pounds , which is what the fire truck maximum weight is . That is with the 12- inch base under the crusher run . Is it real muddy up there ? Mr. Lupo - Right now the access road that is there now is what I call a tractor lane . Tractors have been up in there to take hay off that field . There are two spots that are a little wet . The contractor proposed putting in a 24- inch culvert and topping it off with the shale . Over the top of the culvert he said it would be somewhere around 3 feet deep with the shale . Mr. Frost - I do think some of those concerns can be addressed during the building permit process . Chairperson Sigel - Is their proposal for a horse barn . . . ? Mr. Frost - I ' m just looking . I think in the R- 15 they talk about one acre per horse . I ' m having trouble finding it here , but I ' ll find it . I guess in an R- 15 , which this is not , R- 15 being more restrictive you can 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED have one horse if two acres of land is provided and one additional horse for each acre , but no more than a total of 3 horses . This is R-30 . I don 't see anything in R-30 that limits the number. They can 't keep horses for hire , which has been an issue before this board . So if you intend to board horses for people that could be a zoning issue . If they are your own horses , it doesn 't seem to be a problem . Horses for hire also means riding horses . Chairperson Sigel - The horses are just going to be your privately owned horses? Mr. Lupo - Yes . Chairperson Sigel - Any other questions? Again , we have no environmental assessment on this appeal . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 57 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7: 58 p . m . Chairperson Sigel - If there were no further questions , would someone like to make a motion on the appeal itself? Mr. Frost - This is an agricultural district . While R-30 regulations do apply in agricultural districts , agricultural districts do also allow for riding academies . RESOLUTION NO. 200248 - Michael and Lori Lupo, Tax Parcel No. 24. - 1 -7.2, April 15, 2002 MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Michael and Lori Lupo, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to build a residence on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and at the maximum front yard setback, near 125 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24. - 1 - 7. 2, Residence District R-30, based upon the following: Findings: a . This is a narrow property and that the driveway would be approximately 12 feet wide and 1200 feet long, and b. This would give access to this property for a single family home, and C, The requirements of an area variance have been met. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Ellsworth. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED The sixth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of George Blanchard , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, in order to create by subdivision , a building lot that does not front on a Town , County, or State highway near 165 King Road East , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 44-2 -7 , Residence District R- 30 , Kim Dunnick , 10 La Grand Court - George is out of town . He asked me to come . He wrote a letter. There is road frontage there . It' s a 50-foot strip . It's not a right-of-way . It's actually a flag lot . So that little 50-foot strip would be owned . Mr. Frost - Mr. Blanchard did call me . He , in this application , had talked about having a 50-foot right- of-way I believe on his application . It's not a right-of-way. Its actually frontage . It shouldn 't change what has been advertised . Mr. Smith - The subdivision map you should be looking at is the one dated March 10th and not the one dated February 13th . The February 13th one is an old one . The March 10th one reflects the Planning Board approval . Mr. Dunnick - George says , " The following statement will be read at the request of George Blanchard residing at 165 East King Road in the Town of Ithaca " . George is the owner of the subject property identified by tax map 44 . -2-7 . " Members of the board , I apologize for not being able to attend tonight's meeting . In my absence , Kim Dunnick has graciously offered to act as my agent . On March 19 the Planning Board voted unanimously to approve my subdivision request . This request allows for my existing 24-acre lot to be divided into 3 lots of approximately 8 acres each . We are here tonight because lot c is considered a flag lot , not meeting the required road frontage . To prepare for the event that a home would some day be built on this lot , I am proposing a 50-foot right-of-way . This is more than twice the width needed to insure that any required crowning , tapering , etc , can be achieved to a base that would support construction and safety vehicles . Prior to the Planning Board meeting , I have reviewed this proposal with the Town Zoning Officer, Andy Frost , and he did not suggest changes to the proposal . With the Planning Board ' s approval and the anticipation of a positive outcome from this meeting I have accepted three purchase offers , one for each of the three lots . Lot b includes my home . These offers to purchase represent considerable time , money and effort and are all contingent upon approval of this zoning variance . In light of the importance of the outcome of this meeting , you may ask why Mr. Dunnick representing me here . Kim is the originator of one of the purchase offers that is lot c , which is the flag lot . I appreciate the board 's time and hope for a positive outcome that will allow myself, Kim and the two other parties to conclude the agreements that we have made . Sincerely, George Blanchard " Chairperson Sigel - So , it's your intention then to purchase this lot once created and to build a house on it? Mr. Dunnick - No . It's my intention to purchase the lot and have the option at some later time . I own land on the other side of the lot , which abuts the lot . So my immediate purpose is to have a larger 13 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED back yard . I want when I 'm old and the kids take over their property I wanted them to be able to subdivide that . It then affects the price of what I am willing to pay for the lot . Mr. Stotz - There have always has been arguments against flag lots . What are some of the reasons why flag lots are not considered to be acceptable ? Randy Marcus , Attorney - The standard reasoning in the zoning literature is that if you allow for multiple flag lots on a given road , you ' re allowing for more driveway accesses than would be the case if you maintained your frontage requirements . For example , if you had 1 , 000 feet of road frontage and it was divided into 10 100-foot lots , then you would have 10 driveways . If you were allowed flag lots that were 50-foot frontage each , you could have 20 driveways in that same distance . It impacts traffic safety . Site distance is often a problem as well . That is the primary issue that is brought up in discussing these things . The secondary issue is relative to density. It's a little bit difficult to be concerned about this given the two preceding cases where your flag lot is actually quite a large parcel , but if you think about the potential for flag lots that might themselves not have more acreage than a typical lot in that given district , you could end up in a situation where you are potentially taxing the environment more . Even though you have the same acreage , you may have more houses clustered together and that ties into arguments that you might read about pros and cons about clustering . There is the possibility that you would have a lot of septic systems nearby one another. The possibility that you have other environmental impacts that could relate to bringing a number of homes closer together than would be the case if you had more regularly shaped lots . Mr. Stotz - That is interesting . I never knew . . . I knew flag lots were not considered to be the way to provide property, but I never quite knew the reasons why. All of those objections to flag lots don 't necessarily apply in this case . Mr. Marcus - No , they don 't really because you have such large lots involved in each of these cases . Mr. Stotz - Thank you . Mr. Frost - The only thing I would ask if you consider this is that the driveway for lot c is rather long . Fire trucks generally do not like back out more than 300 feet . You might want to consider a requirement for parcel c that requires either a cul-de-sac or a hammerhead turnaround to be approved by the building inspector as part of the building permit process . Mr. Marcus - Each of the previous two cases showed that as part of the application . Mr. Frost - Now he could do that as a cul-de-sac , or a hammer head , where they can back in and back out to turn around . It doesn 't sound like you have immediate plans for construction anyway. Mr. Dunnick - There is a lot of room back there for a cul -de-sac or a hammerhead . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 07 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 08 p . m . 14 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - Again , no environmental assessment form for this case . So if there are no further questions I will move to grant the appeal . RESOLUTION NO . 2002-19 - George Blanchard , Tax Parcel No. 44. -2-7, April 15 , 2002. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by David Stotz . RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of George Blanchard , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law , in order to create by subdivision , a building lot that does not front on a Town , County or State highway near 165 King Road East , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 . -2- 7, Residence District R-30 , based upon the following : Finding : a . The requirements of an area variance have been met . Condition : a . When a home is built on this lot and a driveway is constructed that there be a means of turnaround satisfactory to the Town Building Inspector for the purposes of emergency vehicle access . The vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer. NAYS : None . ABSTAIN : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8 : 09 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chairperson Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, APRIL I54 2002 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 Monday, April 15 , 2002, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M. , on the following matters: APPEAL of Deborah Valentine, Appellant, Attorney Paul Tavelli, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing two-family home with a north side yard building setback of 7 + feet from an attached garage ( 10 foot setback required) at 120 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2-20, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Conifer Realty LLC, Appellant, John Fennessey, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to create, by land subdivision, building lots not having frontage on a Town, County, or State highway near 1300 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 13 . 16, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of John Tilitz, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirement of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a single-family home on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and at the maximum front yard setback, whereas 100 feet and 150 feet respectively is required, near 1447 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23- 1 -41 .2, Residence District R-30. APPEAL of Michael and Lorie Lupo, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to build a residence on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and at the maximum front yard setback, whereas 100 feet and 150 feet respectively, is required, near 125 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 2444.2, Residence District R-30. APPEAL of George Blanchard, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, in order to create by subdivision, a building lot that does not front on a Town, County, or State highway near 165 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44-24, Residence District R-30. 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: April 4, 2002 Published : April 8, 2002 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on Monday, April 15, 2002 , commencing at 7 : 00 P. M ., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of posting: April 5, 2002 Date of publication: April 8, 2002 Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning De artment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8th day of April 2002 . Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary public, State of New York ,No. 01 WH6052877 Commission Expires December 26,04