Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (68) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 71.-7-1 1011 Hanshaw Rd Tax Parcels involved, with address if known: Current 1011 Hanshaw Rd 71.-7-1 with no subdivision or readdressing. History: 1984 - Height Variance for fence - Approved 1981 – Height Variance for fence - Approved TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC, HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21; 1981 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, October 21, 1981, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:30 P.M. Decision in the matter of the Appeal of Leo Deeb. (Public Hearing closed.) 7:40 P.M. Appeal of the Country Club of Ithaca, Appellant; George J. Vignaux; General` Manager, as Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to erect a. fence 7:50 P.M. 8:00 P.M. .¢i 8:10 Pam* greater than six (6) feet in height.at the north property line at 1011 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No.. 6-71-7-1; Ithaca, N.Y: Permission is denied under Article XIII, Section 652 and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Appeal of Mrs. Curt Foerster, Appellant, Rane Randolph, as Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to reconstruct an existing building creating a side yard deficient in size at 881 Taughannock Blvd., Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-20, Ithaca, N.Y. Permission is denied under Article IV, Section 14, and Article XIV,'Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Appeal of Dr. Roger H. Perry and Dr. L. Anthony Speno, Appellants, from the decision of the -Building Inspector denying permission to erect a freestanding sign greater than four (4) square feet at 112 Nest Buttermilk Falls Road, Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-9, Ithaca, N.Y. Sign permit is denied under Section 4.01-1(a) of the Town of Ithaca Sign -Law, Local Law No. 6-1980. Appeal of Sal -Aug Corp., Appellant, Joseph Salino, Owner, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to construct a 10' x 12' addition to an existing. structure creating a side yard deficient in size at 630.ELnira Road, Tax Parcel No. 6-33-3-3, Ithaca, N.Y. Permission is. denied under Article VIII, Section 44, paragraph 2, and Article XIV;,,Sec-tion 75, of the Town -of Ithaca ZoninU Ordinance 132 Forest Home Drive fir. Robert Krizek 1011 Hanshaw Aoad I thic -i, New York Dear ter. Krizeks April 1, 1953 As you know from previous correspondence from this office, the parking or storage of junk or used care within the Town of Ithaca is prohibited by the Zoning; Ordinance regulations. I note that, still this spring, there are about five junk or used cars locnted on the lot e€int of your house. These oars constitute a viola. tion, and this letter is meant as a preliminary notification of action to be taken if these cars are not removed within two weeks. Your consideration to this matter and corrective action thereon witbout further Town intervention would be most appreciated. Please advise should you have questions on the mat';er. RJWIbo Very truly yours, Robert J. Wells Zoning Officer April 13, 1960 Mr. Robert Krizek 1011 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, New York Dear Mr. Krizek: I have. noticed that your•lot on Hanshaw Road is becoming.more and more cluttered up with old auto- motive parts and other unsightly objects. Due to the general character'-.of your neighborhood, and also that our Zoning Ordinance does not permit junk storage_ in a Residence zonep I must request that you please take some action which will improve the situation.' Thank you for your attention to this matter., Very truly yours,, Robert J. Wells, Zoning Officer RJW/r, t . loft 41 9 TOWN OF.ITHACA - AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATIOW I�. Jean H. Swartwood , being -duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca,. -Tompkins County, New " York; 'that the -following -notice has •been duly posted on the" sign .board_ of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and that the notice has been dulypublished in the local newspaper: (Ithaca Journal) -' Notice of Pubfic Hearings to the held by' the Town- of Ith2e• .9nning 'Baarr3 of Appeals on'Wednesday, October 212 19819 in Town Hall, 126 East Sen-eca - Street, Itliaca,'N.Y., commencing at 7:40 p.m., as per attached. Location of signboard used for posting:. 'Front Entrance to Town .Hall, .Out.side Front- -Door of Town Hall, Outside Door.of•Town Hall Meeting.Room. Date of Posting: October.13, 1981 Date of Publication: October 16, 1981,__ Clerk; STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 19 81 CONSTANCE E. ALLEN I\Totary Public. Sate of New York N6. fl o'a06615 Qualified in io:npkins Count of Ithaca 20th day of October', Te.rpl. Expires ilorarch 30, 19*Notary Public Friday, Oct. 16, 1981 ITHACA JOURNAL t Legals TOWN OF ITHACA, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21„ 1981 By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NO- TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that - Public HearingI3 will be held by -the Zonimg Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithacaon Wednesday, October 21, 1981, in the Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street (FIRST floor, REAR entrance, WEST side), Ithaca, N.Y, at the follow- ing times and on the following matters: 7:30 P.M. Decision in the matter of the Appeal of Leo Deeb. (Public Hearing closed.) 7:40 P.M. Appeal of the Country Club of Ithaca, Appellant, George J. Vignaux, General Manager, as Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to erect a fence greater than six (6) feet in height at the north property line at 1011 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No. 6.71.7.1, Ithaca, N.Y. Permission is denied under Article XI I I, Sec- tion 65, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. 7:50 P.M. Appeal of Mrs. Curt' Foerster, Appellant, Rane Ran- dolph as agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to reconstruct an existing building creating a side yard deficient in size at 881 Taughannock Blvd., Tax Parcel No. 6.25-2-20, Ithaca, N.Y. Per- mission is denied under Article IV, Section 14, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. 8:00 P.M. Appeal of Dr. Roger H. Perry and Dr. L. Anthony Speno, Appellants, from the de- cision of the Building Inspector denying permission to erect a freestanding sign greater than four (4) square feet at 1.12 West Buttermilk Falls Road, Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-9, Ithaca, N.Y. Sign permit is denied under Sec- tion 4.01-1(a) of the Town of (Ithaca Sign Law, Local Law No. 6.1980. 8:10 P.M. Appeal of Sal -Aug Corp., Appellant, Joseph Salino, Owner, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to construct a, 10'x12' addition to .an existing structure creating a side yard deficient in size at 630 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. ,5-33-3.3, Ithaca, N.Y. Permission is denied under Article VIII, Section'44, paragraph 2, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. 8:20 P.M. Appeal of Frank L. and Toni D. Prudence, Ap- 1 pellants, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for an addition to an existing warehouse (legal non- conforming use; F & T Distribut- ing Co.) at 1395 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No'. 6-28.1.11.2, Ithaca, N.Y. Permission isdenied under Article XII, Section 54, and i Article XIV, Section 75, Of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. 8:30 P.M. Appeal of David Wex- ler, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to construct a garage with a side yard deficient in size at 209 Roat Street, Tax Parcel No. 6-71-5.1, Ithaca, N.Y. Permission is denied under Arti cle IV, Section 14, .and Article XIV, Suction 75, Of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Said Zoning Board of.Appeals will at said times and said place hear all persons in supportof such matters or objections thereto. Persons mev, appear by agent or in person. Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Town of Ithaca, ' October 16, 1981 TOTS OF ATMACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 December 20, Manager The Country Club of Ithaca. 189 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Special Permit for Fence Dear Sir: 1983 Your special permit to maintain a plastic mesh fence on the Country Club property expired on December 17, 1983 and I have been advised by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the permit will not be renewed. The fence and poles must be removed on receipt of this letter, If you have any questions, call me at 273-1747. Very truly yours Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector LDC/nf CERTIFIED MAIL Return Receipt Requested �, Zoning Board of Appeals 5 December 14, 1983 555 Warren Road, Ithaca. This Club does have our permission to use space at the Vocational Center to operate its equipment, as well as our permission to install an appropriate antenna for this operation. %Our contact person is Wanda Lovejoy. She will be contacting you with the appropriate forms to receive permission for installing the equipment and the tower. Please contact Mr. Charles Gruman, the Vocational Principal, at the above number if we can be of further assistance in processing these applications. $Thank you for your assistance with this matter." Mr. Hewett stated that he thought it was just marvelous what Mrs. Lovejoy is doing. MOTION by Mr. Jack Hewett, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance of six feet from the 30 -foot height of structure requirement of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the erection of a 36 -foot radio tower/antenna for educational purposes, as requested by the Tompkins County Amateur Radio Club, Wanda G. Lovejoy, President, such tower/antenna to be erected as described by said Wanda G. Lovejoy at B.O.C.E.S., 555 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-73-1-1.31. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, Hewett, King; Austen, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman the Tompkins p.m. DISCUSSION. COUNTRY CLUB Aron declared the Public Hearing in the matter of County Amateur Radio Club Appeal duly closed at 7:32 EXPIRATION OF SPECIAL PER14IT FOR FENCE AT THE OF ITHACA. Mr. Cartee referred to his Memorandum to the Board dated December 6, 1983, reading as follows: "On December 17, 1981 the Zoning Board granted a special permit to the Country Club for a fence over six feet in height, in the vicinity of 1021 to 1025 Hanshaw Road. IThe permit was designated as 'a temporary permit' by the Board 'to be reviewed in two years from the date of this grant at which time, if the Country Club has been able to purchase more land to change the driving range, the fence would then be removed.' %I have been unable to determine the status of land acquisition -- or non -acquisition -- on the part of the Country Club. Therefore, I am requesting that this matter be ,placed on the Board's Agenda as a discussion item at which time I hope to have the Board determine the direction in which I should proceed. 51Thank you." Zoning Board of Appeals 6 December 14, 1983 Mr. Cartee informed the Board that the fence is still in place, adding that he checked two days ago. Chairman Aron noted that Mr. Cartee had attached to his memo a letter which he wrote to The Country Club on .November 8, 1983 apprising them of the December 17th review date, adding that no response has been forthcoming and the special permit has three days to go. Chairman Aron stated that he would recommend that, after the 17th of December, if nothing has been heard from the Country Club, Mr. Cartee should issue a notice of violation which would, therefore, make them come to the Board of Appeals. Chairman Aron pointed out to the Board that it is up to this Board to direct Mr. Cartee as to what it wants him to do. Board discussion followed with the consensus being arrived at that Mr. Cartee should, after December 17, promptly inform the Country Club that the special permit for the plastic mesh fence expired on that date, will not be renewed since there has been no opportunity for review of the situation, and that the fence and poles must be removed forthwith, ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairman Aron declared the December 14, 1983 meeting of the Town of- Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned, at 7:45 p.m. at which time everyone wished everyone else a very happy and healthy holiday season. Henry Aron, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. I Zoning Board of Appeals 6 December 14, 1983 Mr. Cartee informed the Board that the fence is still in place, adding that he checked two days ago. Chairman Aron noted that Mr. Cartee had attached to his memo a letter which he wrote to The Country Club on .November 8, 1983 apprising them of the December .17th review date, adding that no response has been forthcoming and the special permit has three days to go. Chairman Aron stated that he would recommend that, after the 17th of December, if nothing has been heard from the Country Club, Mr. Cartee should issue a notice of violation which would, therefore, make them come to the Board of Appeals. Chairman Aron pointed out to the Board that it is up to this Board to direct Mr. Cartee as to what it wants him to do. Board discussion followed with the at that Mr. Cartee should, after December Country Club that the special permit for expired on that date, will not be renewed opportunity for review of the situation, poles must be removed forthwith. ADJOURNMENT consensus being arrived 17, promptly inform the the plastic mesh fence since there has been no and that the fence and Upon Motion, Chairman Aron declared the December 14, 1983 meeting of the Town of, Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 7:45 p.m. at which time everyone wished everyone else a very happy and healthy holiday season. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Henry Aron, Chairman V 0 t Zoning Board of Appeals 5 December 14, 1983 555 Warren Road, Ithaca. This Club does have our permission to use space at the Vocational Center to operate its equipment, as well as our permission to install an appropriate antenna for this operation. JOur contact person is Wanda Lovejoy. She will be contacting you with the appropriate forms to receive permission for installing the equipment and the tower. Please contact Mr. Charles Gruman, the Vocational Principal, at the above number if we can be of further assistance in processing these applications. JThank you for your assistance with this matter." Mr. Hewett stated that he thought it was just marvelous what Mrs.. Lovejoy is doing. MOTION by Mr. Jack Hewett, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance of six feet from the 30 -foot height of structure requirement of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the erection of a 36 -foot radio tower/antenna for educational purposes, as requested by the Tompkins County Amateur Radio Club, Wanda G. Lovejoy, President, such tower/antenna to be erected as described by said Wanda G.. Lovejoy at B.O.C.E.S., 555 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-73-1-1.31. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, Hewett, King, Austen, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman the Tompkins p.m. DISCUSSION: COUNTRY CLUB Aron declared the Public .Hearing in the matter of County Amateur Radio Club Appeal duly closed at 7:32 EXPIRATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FENCE AT THE OF ITHACA. Mr. Cartee referred to his Memorandum to the Board`�dated becember 6, 1983, reading as follows: On December_ 17, 1981 the Zoning Board granted a special permit to the Country Club for a fence over six feet in height, in the vicinity of 1021 to 1025 Hanshaw Road. y[The permit was designated as 'a temporary permit' by the Board 'to be reviewed in two years from the date of this grant at .which time, if the Country Club has been able to purchase more land to change the driving range, the fence would then be removed.' %I have been unable to determine the status of land acquisition -- or non -acquisition -- on the part of the Country Club. Therefore, I am requesting that this matter be placed on the Board's Agenda as a discussion item at which time I hope to have the Board determine the direction in which I should proceed. %Thank you." MEMORANDUM TO: Henry Aron, Chairman and Members, Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Lewis D. Cartee Building_Iispector RE: FENCE - Country Club of Ithaca DATE: December 6, 1983 -On December 17, 1981 the Zoning Board granted a special permit to the Country Club for a fence over six feet in height, in the vicinity of 1021 to 1025 Hanshaw Road. That.permit was designated as "a temporary -permit" by the Board "to be reviewed in two years .from the date of this grant at which time, if the Country'Cli.ib has been able to purchase more land to change the driving range, the fence would then be removed." I have been unable to determine the status of land acquisi- tion -- or non -acquisition -- on the part of the Country Club. Therefore, I am requesting that this matter be placed on the Board's Agenda as a discussion item Cat which time I hope to have the Board determine the direction in wii:i.ch I should proceed. Thank you. of TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STPUT ITHACA, NEW YORK f November 8, 1983 The Country Club of Ithaca 189 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Attention: Mr. George J. Vignaux Re: Special Permit granted by Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on December 17 ,1981 Dear Mr. Vignaux: Your Special Permit to maintain a plastic mesh fence on the Country Club property will be up for review on Decem- ber 17, 1983. Please advise me as to the status of changing the location of the driving range and the removal of the fence. LDC/nf Very truly yours Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Lew: Just as it is in the steno book -- no improvements. MOTION - Ed King: I would move that we grant the special..permit to erect the fence as now proposed being a removable plastic mesh fence strung between not more than three poles extending not more than 250' in length from about centre of the property at 1021 Hanshaw Road (south of that property) easterly about 250' to the centre of 1025 Hanshaw Road and that it be at least 8' south of the north line of the appellant's property, that it be not more than 30" high, and that it be a temporary permit to be reviewed in two years from the date of -this grant, at which time.if the Country Club has been able to purchase 0. more land to change the driving range, the fence would then be removed. SECOND - Joan Reuning. Present: King, Reuning, Aron. December 17, 1981. �Yll .1 1025 Hanshaw V Qp �T Ithaca, NY November 19, Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Attt Mair. Jack Hewitt, Chairman Gentlemen: We have been the owners of record of'the 1025 Hanshaw Road since June 1981. Road 1.850 1981 40 property at 44 a; •"4:, The notice of the October 21 Zoning hearing was addressed to the former owners of the property and was apparently ' forwarded to their new address. The former owner's were Louise and Clement Rosetti. The notice stated that the Country Club of Ithaca was appealing the decision of the building inspector denying a building permit "to erect a fence, a fence greater than six feet at the north property line at 1011 Hanshaw road." This innocent sounding statement probably would _not have aroused our interest as a fence at 1011 Hanshaw Road would not have disturbed us, However, during recent conversations with Mr, Cartee we discovered that the fence is to be erected along their north property line behind 1025 Harishaw.road and not 1011 Hanshaw Road as stated in the zoning board notice. If this is indeed the true situation we are quite disturbed b the decision of the Board and are therefore servin y with this notice of complaint. g y°i� Cur complaint is; that, the 30 fte fence will destroy the view from the back yard, which is one of the features of this house, that the fence itself will be an esthetic eyesore, and will serve to lower the value of our property. Furthermore, it will not serve the best interest of either the Country Club or ourselves as erecting a fence along our north property line will not solve the problem of hook shots off the practice tee which in some instances have landed on our front lawn. Others have come close to the house, one actually striking the rear of the house. These balls were not screened out by our high trees on our property, The range has prevented us from enjoying free and easy use Of our property living in constant anxiety because of incoming balls. EXHIBIT D continued N 4, N --2- We have collected over 1500 balls which have landed on our property since we moved in. We can illustrate graphically to the Board why we believe a 30 fte high fence along our back property line will not work. Also. the fence once installedo whether it works or not, may lead the Country Club and others to believe that the problem has,been solved, whereas the true solution is to cease the use of..the non conforming practice range and relocate it to a place that will not constitute a hazard. In accordance with Section 267, Paragraph 6, of the Tovm Law we respectfully request a re -hearing on this matter so that we may present our side'of the case to the Board for their consideration. We would appreciate an early reply on this matter. Thank you for your attention to this.matter. Very truly you: D A ed Mul omo t ,e Mary Di Giacomo ccs Aavid Gersh oel Desch Jack Hewitt EXHIBIT D § 267. Board of appeals Appointment of members; compensa- 1. Such town board shall appoint a board of appeals consisting of five tion, staff, expenses members, shall designate its chairman and may also provide for compensa- tion to be paid to said members, experts, clerks and a secretary and provide for such other expenses as may be necessary and proper, not exceeding in all the appropriations that may be made by the town board for such board of Member of town board precluded from appeals. No person who is a member of the town board shall be eligible for membership membership on such board of appeals. Of the members of the board first. Terms of office, additional members appointed, one shall hold office for the term of one year, one for the term of two years, one for the term of three years, one for the term of four years, one for the term of five years from and after his appointment; provided, however, that such town board may, by resolution, increase the number of members of the board to seven, and provide for their compensation and thereafter such additional members shall be first appointed for terms of two and four years respectively. Their successors, including such additional members as may be appointed by the town board, shall be appointed for the term of five years from and after Filling Of vacancy the expiration of the terms of their predecessors in office. If a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of term, it shall be filled by the town board by appointment for the unexpired term. The town board shall have the Removal of member power to remove any member of the board for cause and after public hearing. Aleetings All meetings of the board of appeals shall be held at the call of the chairman and at such other times as such board may determine. Such chairman, or in his absence the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. All meetings of such board shall be open to the public. Such board shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon every question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, and shall also'keep records of its examinations and other official Filing of decisions actions. Every rule, regulation, every amendment or repeal thereof, and every order, requirement, decision or determination of the board shall immediately be filed in the office of the town clerk and shall be a public record. Powers and duties of -board of appeals 2. Such board of appeals shall hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an adminis- trative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance adopted pursuant to this article. It shall also hear and decide all matters referred to it or upon which it is required to pass under any such ordinance. The Majority vote concurring vote of a majority of the members of the board shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of any such administrative official, or to decide in favor of the applicant any matter upon which it is required to pass under any such ordinance or to effect any variation in such ordinance. Such appeal may be taken by any person . aggrieved, or by an officer, department, board or bureau of the town. .appeal procedure 3. Such appeal shall be taken within such time as shall be prescribed by the board of appeals by general rale, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board of appeals a notice of appeal, specifying ° the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. Stay of proceedings, except if life or 4. An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed property is imperiled from, unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the board of appeals, after the notice of appeal shall have been filed with him, that by reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay, would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property, in which case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order which may be granted by the board of appeals or by a court of record on application, on notice to the officer from whom the appeal is taken and on due cause shown. Notice and hearing 5. The board of appeals shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal or other matter referred to it and give public notice thereof by the publication in the official paper of a notice of such hearing, at least fivedays prior to the date thereof, and shall, at least five days before such hearing, mail EXHIBIT D m i�.+�.,A'.fs!^t.�i+..+I.f''- - � �.._iiiabu+.<+.s+.r...s--:+.'+-..y-..._�u:=:a„am:..V.....:.+a..•�`.r:�it.Lw.: �c.. mow::_:.......-. --_ - .�...w�asYOa:^�j."_.c�__t�..:`_ - _•�.., r � Action by board Power to grant variances . criteria Rehearing Appeal to Supreme Court from decision of board Time limit for appeal Costs Appointment of referee to hear and report notices thereof to the parties, and to the regional state park commission having jurisdiction over.any state park or parkway within five hundred feet of the property affected by such appeal, and shall decide the same within sixty days after the final hearing. Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. The board of appeals may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and shall make such order, requirement, decision or determination as in its opinion ought to be made in the premises and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of such ordinances, the board of appeals shall have the power in passing upon appeals, to vary or modify the application of any of the regulations or provisions of such ordinance relating to the use, construction or alteration of buildings or structures, or the use of land, so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done. 6. Upon motion initiated by any member and adopted by. the unanimous vote of the members present, but not less than a majority of all the members, the board of appeals shall review at a rehearing held upon notice given as upon an original hearing, any order, decision or determination of.the board not previously reviewed. Upon such re -hearing, and provided it shall then appear that the rights vested prior thereto in persons acting in good faith in reliance upon the order, decision or determination reviewed will not be prejudiced thereby, the board may, upon the concurring vote of all of the members then present, reverse, modify or annul its original order, decision or determination. 7. Any person or persons, jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of appeals or any officer, department, board or bureau of the town, may apply to the supreme court for review by a proceeding under article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules. Such proceeding shall be instituted within thirty days after the filing of a decision in the office of the town clerk. The court may take evidence or appoint a referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report the same with his findings of fact and conclusions of law, if it shall appear that. testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter. The court at special term shall itself dispose of the cause on the merits, determining all questions which may be presented for determination. 8. Costs shall not be allowed against the board of appeals unless it shall appear to the court that it acted with gross negligence or in bad faith or with malice in making the decision appealed from. 9. All issues in any proceeding under this section shall have preference over all other civil actions and proceedings. 10. If upon the hearing at a special term of the supreme court, it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report the same to the court with his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review. EXHIBIT D 9 31 Zoning Board of'Appeals -5- October 21, 1981 Vice -Chairman Austen declared the MOTION to be carried unanimously. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of Leo Deeb duly closed at 7:50 p.m. APPEAL OF THE COUNTRY CLUB OF ITHACA, APPELLANT, GEORGE.J. VIGNAUX, GENERAL MANAGER, AS.AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO ERECT A FENCE GREATER THAN SIX (6).FEET IN HEIGHT AT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AT 1011 HANSHAW ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 6-71-7-1, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 65, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:50 p.m. and invited Mr. George Vignaux to speak to" the Board. Mr. Vignaux stated that the appeal is self-explanatory, as noted on the Appeal Form as submitted under date of September 23, 1981, a copy of which with attached drawing each Board member.had received with his/her Agenda, and which reads as follows: "... A potentially hazardous situation exists along the north side of the driving range of the Country Club of Ithaca, New York in that persons hitting practice balls from West ,to East on said range occasionally misdirect balls over the property line and onto the property of our neighbors. Extending the existing fence'both in length and height will preclude said errant balls frog crossing into our neighbors' properties where they might cause damage to persons or property. In the interests'of our neighbors' safety and the peace of mind of them as well as that of the Club's membership, we respect- fully request that this appeal be affirmed," Mr. Vignaux.described the "driving range" or practice tee and its proximity to five private properties. He stated that balls do go into the property of nearby owners and so, last year they put up a 4-5' high fence, 80' long, 'and that helped, but, it does not help those balls on the fly. He stated that if they erected a 28-30' high fence it would work and they are so proposing utilizing telephone poles and a heavier gauge wire. He stated that this would protect their neighbors, adding that they have a fear of injuring someone. He stated that they are also exploring other avenues for a possible. relocation of their driving range, but that takes time, however, they are actively exploring that, Iie.stated that the proposed fencing would be a big -help in this situation on a short term basis -- one, two, three years or so. � Mr. Austen inquired if any of the houses have a separation from the range. Mr. Vignaux stated that some have fences, some have trees, some have bushes, some have evergreens. He stated that they would still be able to see the.golf course though it will not be very beautiful. Mr. Austen asked if there as to were anyone from the public who wished :to be heard on this matter. No one spoke. Q Mr. Aron inquired as to the length of the driving range. Mr. Vignaux F described the siting of the driving range and stated that the Club rules allow the use of irons only and the fencing would help when persons hook, x their shots, Mr. Aron asked what kind of fence would.be used. Mr. Vignaux X stated that it would be like a'heavy gauge chicken wire. Mr. Aron wondered why the balls go that way�from the practice tee and why a 30 -foot fence would be needed. Mr. Aron confessed that he was not a golfer and so he hoped.that Mr. Vignaux would not mind his questions. Mr. Vignaux stated Zoning Board of. Appeals -6- October 21, 1981• that when one hooks his shot it soars off to the left and also when one hits the ball off the heel of the club it scoots off to the left.. Mr. Vignaux stated that the wire is virtually in Mr. Aron asked if it will hold a ball. Mr. Vignaux stated, yes,. absolutely, it.being of welded wire. Mr. Aron asked how.far apart the telephone poles will be. Mr. Vignaux stated that there will be approximately three poles and then guy wires. Mr. Aron asked where the present fence is located. Mr, Vignaux stated that it is about 8 feet inside the property line and added that he did not want the fence on the property line. Mr. Aron inquired as.to what relocating the driving range.means. Mr. Vignaux stated that they are hoping to purchase more land which would permit such a relocation. Mr. Aron stated then that the proposed fencing might be termed "temporary". Mr. Vignaux stated that that was correct, but he would term it "long-term temporary". Mr. Vignaux stated that they have no guarantees that they will be able to acquire the property that they hope to acquire. Mrs. Reuning stated that she felt that this -.is for the protection of the neighbors and no.one is here to oppose and it may be temporary. Mr. Austen asked the Secretary to read the list of those notified, as follows: 1. George J.. Vignaux, General Manager 6. Reha J. Loosl The Country Club of Ithaca 406 S.W. 40th Street 189 Pleasant Grove Road Gainesville, Florida 32607 Ithaca, NY 14850 7, Robert and Zetta Sprole 2. Michael and Betty David 630 Highland Road 1019 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 8e Salvatore Indelicato .3. Philip Ierardi Grand Central Avenue 1021 Hanshaw Road Horseheads, NY 14845 Ithaca, NY 14850 9. George Gibian 4. Hildegard Agard 311 Roat Street 1023 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 10. Frank R. Liguori, P.E. 5. Clement & Louise Rosetti Commissioner of Planning 1025 Hanshaw Road Tompkins County Department Ithaca, NY 14850 Planning 128.East Buffalo Street Ithaca, NY 14850 . of Mr. Cartee stated that he did see golf balls in the neighbors' proper- ties, and added that he thought it should be provided with a fence, and stated that he commended the Country Club for proposing this. Mr. Vignaux stated that Mr. Agard did have a window that he.claimed was broken by a golf ball, adding that the Club did fix the window. Vice -Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak -- Board members or public. There was no one who spoke. EXHIBIT D Mrs. Reuning stated that this kind of wire.does not offer an eyesore. Mr. Aron asked Mr. Cartee if he had heard any complaints from the persons in the area. Mr. Cartee stated that some months ago, Mr. Ierardi called him to say that he had heard the Country Club was going to put up a fence and he (Ierardi) said. that balls were coming into his ,yard and he wanted to be told of a request for a fence. Mr. Cartee pointed out that Mr. Ierardi. was notified by mail of this meeting, but he did not appear. Mr. Vignaux stated that Mr. Agard did have a window that he.claimed was broken by a golf ball, adding that the Club did fix the window. Vice -Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak -- Board members or public. There was no one who spoke. EXHIBIT D 19 Zoning Board of Appeals -7- October 213, 1981 The Secretary noted for the record that the following letter was received from Mr. Frank Liguori, Commissioner of Planning, Tompkins County: "October 20, 1981 Mr. Lewis D. Cartee... RE: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. CASE: Appeal for dimension variance by Country Club of Ithaca at 1011 Hanshaw Road (within 500 feet of county highway and municipal boundary). will ...This/acknowledge the receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, county, or state interests. Therefore, no recommenda- tion is indicated by the County Planning Department.and you are free to act without prejudice. (sgd.) Frank R. Liguor0. i" MOTION by Mrs. Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that the Town .of Ithaca'Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a dimension (area) variance from the requirements of Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to the Country Club of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-71-7-1, to permit: the construction of a fence thirty feet (30') high, maximum, and two hun= dred fifty feet (250') long (maximum) adjacent to the north property line of said Country Club at 1011 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, N.Y., with the stipulation that the matter.be reviewed in two years from the date of this grant of variance, at which time if the Country Club of Ithaca has been able to pur-. chase more land to change the driving range, the fence would then be removed. There being no further discussion, the Vice -Chair called for a vote. Aye - Austen, Nay - None. Reuning, Aron. 0 The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of The Country Club of Ithaca duly closed at 8:11 p.m. APPEAL OF MRS. CURT FOERSTER, APPELLANT, RANE RANDOLPH, AS AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING BUILDING CREATING A SIDE YARD DEFICIENT IN SIZE AT 881 TAUGHAN- NOCK BLVD., TAX PARCEL NO. 6-25-2-20, ITIiACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:12 p.m. and invited Mr..Rane.Randolph to speak to the Board. w i EXHIBIT B F7 N 7 O 7 J O EXHIBIT A October 3, 1981 To whom it may concern; If between the dates of October 6 and October 27, 1981, the Town of Ithaca holds a hearing on the Country Clubs request to erect a high fence between their property and ours at 1023 Hanshaw Road, we shall be out of town and unable to present our arguments at the meeting. If present, we the undersigned would make the following three points in opposition to authorizing said fence: (1) The fence would be unsightly and would therefore detract from the market value of our property for any potential purchaser who appreciates the view to the south; (2) The fence would not even succeed in screening out the high, _. vicious hook shots off the practice tee which have been constantly endangering our property, life and limb ever since the range was located where it is; (3) The fence, if authorized, might well lead the Country Club to believe they had solved the problem and therefore to postpone action toward the true solution, which would be to relocate the practice range where it no longer constituted a threat to neighboring residential properties, Signed EXHIB1T C TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 17, 1981 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in Special Session on Thursday, December 17, 1981, in Town Hall, 126 East. Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Henry Aron, Edward W. King, Joan G. Reuning, Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary). ALSO PRESENT: George J. Vignaux, Frederick Agard, Hildegard Agard, Alfred DiGiacomo, Mary DiGiacomo, Jeremy House (WTKO). Neither the Chairman nor the Vice Chairman being present, the Secretary opened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. MOTION by Mr. Edward .King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals appoint and hereby does appoint Henry Aron -as Acting. -Chairman for this meeting. Aye - King, Reuning, Aron. Nay - None. Acting Chairman Aron called the meeting tp order and accepted for the record the Clerk'.s Affidavit. of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 9, 1981, and December 12, 1981, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property under discussion, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon the Appellant on December 9, 1981. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF THE APPEAL OF THE COUNTRY CLUB OF ITHACA FOR PERMIT TO ERECT A FENCE GREATER THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. Acting Chairman Aron opened discussion of the above -noted matter at 7:17 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. King stated that the first order of business seems to be that this Board, as a sitting Board, vote on the question of a rehearing on the matter of the Country Club fence. Mr. King stated that, as he understood it, the Board would have to vote unanimously to rehear the case and if the Board did rehear it would then require a unanimous vote of those members of the Board present to take any action for any change in the situation. Mr. King stated that one of the first considerations in deciding whether the Board wants to rehear the case is to find out what the Appellant has done on acting on the variance from October 21, 1981. Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 1981 Mr. George Vignaux, General Manager of the County Club, spoke from the floor and stated that, under the permit which he received, he investigated more thoroughly possible ways of erecting the fence, however, he would do nothing about building the fence until he spoke to the neighbors. Mr. Vignaux stated that he has told them that he was talking about the purchase of land which would allow the Club to alter the driving range and which would mean that there would be no need for the fence. Mr. Vignaux stated that it was at this point that he was informed that his permit had been set aside. Mr. King asked if the Country Club had purchased materials for the fence. Mr. Vignaux stated that he has purchased nothing, however, the materials are available to him. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca and hereby does proceed to rehear the Club fence. There being no further discussion, vote. Aye - Aron, King, Reuning. Nay - None. Zoning Board of Appeals proceed entire matter of the Country the Acting Chair called for a The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. REHEARING, ON CORRECTED NOTICE, OF THE APPEAL OF THE COUNTRY CLUB OF ITHACA, APPELLANT, GEORGE J. VIGNAUX, GENERAL MANAGER, AS AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO ERECT A FENCE GREATER THAN SIX ( 6 ) FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG A PORTION OF THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF SAID COUNTRY CLUB OF ITHACA PROPERTY KNOWN AS 189 PLEASANT GROVE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-68-1-1.2. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 65, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Acting Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:20 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Acting Chairman Aron asked Mr. Vignaux about his intent as to the fence. Mr. Vignaux responded that, if they should.go ahead with the fence, they would erect it with a maximum of three telephone poles, possibly on two telephone poles, with cable strung over the top of the poles and then on an angle to two poles on the ground. Mr. Vignaux stated that there would be a plastic type mesh, manufactured for golf driving ranges specifically, hanging from the cable to the ground. Mr. Vignaux stated that this could be dropped in the off-season, leaving only the two or three poles visible. Mr. King asked what the total length of the fence would be, with Mr. Vignaux responding, approximately .250 feet long by 30 feet high, and adding that, in fact, they could probably drop it to 28 feet or Zoning Board of Appeals -3- December 17, 1981 so, and noting that the mesh is available in 25 -foot lengths. Acting Chairman Aron asked what the necessity of the fence being there by the driving range is, noting that the driving range is parallel to the backs of the houses. Mr. Vignaux stated that there is no area for the driving range, other than that now, adding that they are actively pursuing additional land. Mr. Vignaux stated that they have talked to Cornell to purchase fallow swamp land, however, they have indicated that they do not own it and they may turn it back to the State and have it declared public land and put up for auction. Mr. Vignaux reiterated that thi.s area was really and truly swamp land, but it could be another golf hole with a water hazard and that would free up the ninth hole. Mrs. Reuning wondered how long the Club has had the driving range where it is, with Mr. Vig.naux responding that he did not know. Mr. King asked if Mr. Vignaux had any idea, with Mr. Vignaux responding, twenty. years at least. Acting Chairman Aron noted that this was a public hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak. Mrs. Hildegard Agard, 1023 Hanshaw Road, spoke from the floor and stated that they bought their property in 1966 and it was started after they bought their property. Acting Chairman Aron asked Mrs. Agard if she had voiced an _opinion that she was not interested in it at that time. Mrs. Agard indicated that she had not. Mr. King asked when that might have been, with Mrs. Agard responding, 1967 or 1968. Mr. Alfred DiGiacomo, 1025 Hanshaw Road „spoke from the floor and presented a sketch to the Board showing.. Hanshaw Road, four houses on Hanshaw Road, including 1023 and 1025, the practice range, the Club House, the 9th hole, and 30 -foot high evergreens. [Said sketch attached hereto as Exhibit A.] Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the houses getting most of the balls are Agard's and himself. Mr. DiGiacomo thanked the Board for letting him and Mrs. Agard speak to them tonight. Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the practice range parallels Hanshaw Road and lies along the group of four houses that were once Cornell property. Mr. DiGiacomo noted that he was at No. 1025, and adjacent to him is a row -of high evergreens which prevent others from being in the way .of balls. Mr. DiGiacomo stated that he bought his place in June. Mr. DiGiacomo stated that he was not fully convinced that the fence is going to protect them from the high flying balls and it was his contention that the erection of the fence, which neither of us wants, neither the Country Club nor us, will do any good, particularly since the balls are also in his front yard. Mr. DiGiacomo now presented a sketch to the Board [attached hereto as Exhibit B] in the same format as the first sketch, but with the addition of lines indicating the path taken by balls hit from the practice range. Mr. DiGiacomo described the beautiful view which they have of the Country Club, Mr. Fred Agard, 1023 stated that he was fully [October 21, 1981], but an Mr. DiGiacomo just in case Harishaw Road, spoke from the floor and expecting to attend the original hearing intuition had told him to leave a note with it was held in October which it was and he Zoning Board of Appeals -40n, December 17, 1981 may have known about it. Mr. Agard then proceeded to read his note [attached hereto as Exhibit C]. Mr. Agard stated that the last point in his note -- "(3) The fence, if authorized, might well lead the Country Club to believe they had solved the problem and therefore to postpone action toward the true solution, which would be to relocate the practice range where it is no longer constituted a threat to neighboring residential properties." -- Mr. Vignaux has spoken to which may mitigate this point, nonetheless, his points stand. Mr. King asked .that the Secretary enter the exhibits into the record. [Entered.] Mr. Vignaux stated, in response to the comments that have been made by his neighbors, he thought the Club is on record already as saying that it does not intend to .make a permanent fence out there. Mr. Vignaux stated that this is a temporary solution, reiterating that the term was temporary which necessitated review in 1982, so, they are not sticking up a fence and walking away from it. Mr. Vignaux stated that he wished to point out that the design:of the fence is such as to not obstruct view, adding that he has been in the living room of the Agards which overlooks the existing fence, and further adding that the focus is carried out, however, from the Golf Course the poles can be seen. Mr. Vignaux stated- that he believed there would be no golf balls in the yard and little limitation of light, but no view restriction. Mr. Vignaux stated that they are actively looking to alleviate the problem in thelong term. Referring to Exhibit B, Mr. Vignaux stated that he believed it was a.little slanted, at first glance, because it gives -an impression that all of the balls go to the left. Mr. Vignaux stated that in his letter to the Board of Appeals of November 19, 1981, [attached hereto as Exhibit D], Mr. DiGiacomo stated that he has collected over 1,500 balls which have landed on his property since he moved into his house in June. Mr. Vignaux stated that the fence would eliminate 90% of these errant balls. Mr. Vignaux stated that the Club could plant evergreens and allow them to reach 30 feet or 40 feet in height and double -row them, but then there would be no view at all, but that would' stop the balls. Mr. Vignaux stated that if it were the Club's desire to just stop the balls, it could do that, however, this is the best solution on a temporary basis. Acting Chairman Aron asked Mr. Vignaux what made- him decide to put up a fence, adding, were there complaints by the Agards or the DiGiacomos, or anyone else who complained about personal injury, or damage, or balls on their properties. Mr. Vignaux stated that the complaints were primarily by the Agards and the DiGiacomos, adding that Mr. Ierardi, 1021 Hanshaw Road, does play golf and he does get some balls, but he does not seem to care. Mr. Vignaux stated that from the tee to the Davids' house, 1019 Hanshaw Road, there are no balls in their yard, adding that the fifth house down, is protected by high trees and there have been no complaints so far from them. Acting Chairman Aron asked if there had been any claims for property damage, with Mr. Vignaux responding that there have been claims from the Agards which he has paid as a good neighbor. a Zoning Board of Appeals -5- December 17, 1981 Mr. DiGiacomo stated that they have had one ball strike the house and do damage to the siding; they have had the house surrounded by balls and on the weekend there are fifteen or twenty in their yard and in the bushes. Mr. DiGiacomo stated that they have a large blue spruce which stops many and a large oak tree which stops many. Mr. DiGiacomo presented everybody with a golf ball from his yard. Mrs. Reuning wondered if people walk into the yard, with Mr. DiGiacomo responding, no. Mr. Agard stated that the people playing the ninth hole, if they sl -ice, they come and get it. Acting Chairman Aron asked if anyone else had any comments. There being none, Acting Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 7;40 p.m. Mr. King noted that- "these" are yellow range balls and asked if that was usual. Mr. Vignaux responded, yes, adding that they are marked to delineate them from the -other balls,in play, Acting Chairman Aron opened the Public Hearing again. Mr. King, referring to the balls that have hit the house, asked if they were the marked balls -= the range balls, with Mr. DiGiacomo responding, yes. Mr. King asked Mr. DiGiacomo whether he would like to see thirty-foot high trees or.a twenty -foot high picture of balls, with Mr. DiGiacomo responding that he did not think either will work. Mr. King wondered where the fence would go. The Secretary showed .. Mr. King, and the Board, the drawing submitted by Mr. Vignaux at the October 21st hearing. Mr. Vignaux suggested that the Board should grant him 250 feet from the middle .of the property line of 1021 Hanshaw to the middle of the property line of 1025 Hanshaw, that is, approximately 250 feet in length as an expansion of the placement. Mr. King asked if Mr. Vignaux thought Exhibit B accurately describes the situation, with Mr. Vignaux responding, no, and adding that there are four or five a year maybe in. the area of the heavy lines [referring to the sketch]. Mr. Vignaux stated that the neighbors described the situation .very well as to trees and bushes, adding that, obviously, the protection is there. Mr. Vignaux stated that they could put up trees such as evergreens and Lombardy poplars. Mr. DiGiacomo wondered why they would consider trees if they are actively pursuing the purchase of more land. Mrs. DiGiacomo asked if Mr. Vignaux really wishes a fence or would the fence be temporary until October 1983, Acting Chairman Aron noted that Mr. Vignaux had stated that the Country Club is actively pursuing the purchase of property. Mr. Vignaux stated that they have approached Cornell University and they have been receptive to advising them of the land, adding that they are progressing on that. Mr. Vignaux stated that the alternative to the path that they are progressing on now would be someone in the State Legislature endorsing a bill declaring it -public land and then selling it to the Country Club. Mr. Vignaux commented that they are plodding along with making an offer to purchase. Acting Chairman Aron Zoning Board of Appeals -6- December 17, 1981 asked if they have made that offer. Mr. Vignaux stated that they have had oral discussions with the Ag School, adding that they will be talking with the Dean of the Ag School. Mr. Vignaux stated that they would offer to have the land surveyed for the Ag School., adding that they provide a survey if the State declares it surplus land, and further adding that the State Assessor assesses it. Mr. Vignaux stated that Cornell would demand from them an intent to purchase prior to their divesting themselves of it, adding that they are going one step at a time. Acting Chairman Aron asked if that will take place before their golf season starts, with Mr. Vignaux responding, no way, and adding that, if they accomplish this, they will have to put a hole in there, and there would be the matter of the environmental review. Mr. King asked Mr. Vignaux what this fence would cost for 250 feet. Mr. Vignaux-added the following figures up in his head -- $2509 erection cost; poles and anchors $200. a.pole unless they replace the poles plus trucking, equals $600.; approximately $500. for material; for a total of, say, $1,600. on estimating at this point. Mr. King wondered if that would-be more than chicken wire. Mr. Vignaux stated that it would be in the same range, but it would be permanent -- this is not. Mr. Agard stated that it seemed quite totally irrelevant to discuss cost; it seemed the fence going up is what is relevant. Mr. Agard stated that he would like to make one other point, that is, if there were to be a fence put up unless it were to be exactly on the property it would be useless, adding that a person's fence is not on the property line; it -is six feet or seven feet inside. Mr. Agard stated that, also, their housekeeping is deplorable at this time. Mr. Agard stated that he was also concerned about whether there would be any way to get behind a 250 -foot fence and mow. Mr. King asked if the fence netting would go clear through to the ground, adding, did Mr. Vignaux see a need to put the fencing right to the ground. Mr. Vignaux responded, probably. Mr. King asked if there have been any injuries from thins range -- that is, people being hurt. Mr. Vignaux indicated that he knew of no injuries to the neighbors. Mr. King noted that the fence would be inside, south of the Club's north property line, and asked by how many feet. Mr. Vignaux responded that that would be by as many feet as would make their neighbors happy, and spoke of 7 feet into the ground or a 5 -foot leeway. Mr. King pointed out that the previous record shows an 8 -foot inset, and asked about mowing. Mr. Vignaux stated that this would be no problem because with this type of mesh you just roll up the fence, adding that they use a gang mower, and further addingthat insofar as the Agards' point, he mows this wayin his gardening chores, and they just lift this up and sweep under. Acting Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions. Mr. DiGiacomo stated that, with reference to anyone being injured, one time when his grandchildren were visiting they were near the oak tree and a ball landed right where they were standing. Zoning Board of Appeals -7- December 17, 1981 Acting Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Vignaux wondered why someone whose grandchild was almost hit by a ball would not want a fence. Acting Chairman Aron asked if there were anything more from the members of the Board. Mr. King asked Mr. Vignaux how far north of the Club's north line the backs of these houses are, with Mr. Vignaux responding, probably back 70 to 75 feet. Mr. DiGiacomo stated that it is 100 feet from the rear of the house to the Country Club property line and they are all about the same. Mr. King commented that the fence would be 110 feet south of the south line of these house walls. Mr. King noted that Mr. Vignaux had said that this type of mesh is even more invisible than steel. Mr. Vignaux agreed, adding, especially in the winter when it is not there. Mrs. Reuning stated that part of the Board's problem is speculation as to how effective the fence .would be, adding that they really cannot tell until it is tried out. Mr. King asked where the present fence is, with Mr. Vignaux responding, in the rear of the Agard property -- four feet high or so. - Mr. King stated that he thought this is a much better solution, that is, removable netting, eight feet at least inside their property line. Mr. King noted that the poles would;be there, but they are everywhere. Mr. King asked if the mower would fit, with Mr. Vignaux responding, yes. Mrs. Reuning stated that she thought it is very helpful for the Board to know the cost because if they put in a lot of money they are more likely not to remove it. There appearing to be no further :comments, Acting Chairman Aron asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, 'seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant thespecial permit to erect the fence as now proposed, being a removable plastic mesh fence, strung between not more than three poles, extending not more than 250 feet in length from about the centre of the property at 1021 Hanshaw Road (south of that property), easterly about 250 feet to the centre of 1025 Hanshaw Road, and further, that it be at least 8 feet south of the north line of the Appellant's property, that it be not more than 30 feet high, and that it be a temporary permit to be reviewed in two years from the date of this grant, at which time, if the Country Club has been able to purchase more land to. change .the driving range, the fence would then be removed. vote. There being no further discussion, the Acting Chair called for a Aye - Aron, King, Reuning. THE ZWERMANS \ I it yZ�Lv Collectible Gifts, Figurines, Philatelic Stamps and Greeting Cards 1462 SLATERVILLE RD., ITHACA, NY 14850 607-273-2390 l Hours 2 - 6 p.m. or by appointment % ti;r;: ` ? ,JJ1 We have'for sale upwards of 100 Hummels that range in priceLftom twenty-three to tq fourteen Mindred dollars. Our stamp collections cover USA and!United illations, Holland, Canada',Germany, England, and a range of other countries, 'Plate blocks and whole sheets are in good supply. A wide selection of imported, reasonably priced, i greeting cards are also in our display room. We also have find bone china cups and saucers from 'England. They are Royal Albert, Royal Chelsea, and She liy(collectible), and now ten inch plates Wedgewood Flowers of the month. Also one set of fine bone china from Syracuse, hand painted, Sweetheart heart pattern (eight'place setting). i For Christmas shop in a relaxed comfortable atmosphere. Visit the Zwerman's display room at 11+62 Slaterville Road. We have lots of free parking. More gifts and card, eomming. Open 12/7/81, ri EXHIBIT E 1 �•i � + THE ZWERMANS \ I it yZ�Lv Collectible Gifts, Figurines, Philatelic Stamps and Greeting Cards 1462 SLATERVILLE RD., ITHACA, NY 14850 607-273-2390 l Hours 2 - 6 p.m. or by appointment % ti;r;: ` ? ,JJ1 We have'for sale upwards of 100 Hummels that range in priceLftom twenty-three to tq fourteen Mindred dollars. Our stamp collections cover USA and!United illations, Holland, Canada',Germany, England, and a range of other countries, 'Plate blocks and whole sheets are in good supply. A wide selection of imported, reasonably priced, i greeting cards are also in our display room. We also have find bone china cups and saucers from 'England. They are Royal Albert, Royal Chelsea, and She liy(collectible), and now ten inch plates Wedgewood Flowers of the month. Also one set of fine bone china from Syracuse, hand painted, Sweetheart heart pattern (eight'place setting). i For Christmas shop in a relaxed comfortable atmosphere. Visit the Zwerman's display room at 11+62 Slaterville Road. We have lots of free parking. More gifts and card, eomming. Open 12/7/81, ri EXHIBIT E r Zoning Board of Appeals CONSIDERATION OF ZONING BOARD OF -4- December 5, 197ii APPEALS VACANCY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1979. It was noted by the Board that Mr. Edward N. Austen's term as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals expires on December 31, 1979. Mr. Austen expressed his willingness to serve on the Zoning Board and his enjoyment of his past years of service. MOTION by Mr. Jack D. Hewett, seconded by Mr. Edward W-, King: RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that Mr. Edward N. Austen be re -appointed as a member of said Zoning Board of Appeals, the term of such office commencing January 1, 1980 and terminating December 31, 1984. There being no further discussion, the Vice -Chairman called for a vote. Aye - Hewett, King, Reuning. Nay - None. Abstain - Austen. The MOTION was declared to be duly carried and will be transmitted to the Town Board. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION Jack D. TO TOWN BOARD IN RE CHAIRMAN AND VICE- CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD 01' Zoning APPEALS. of Appeals for the MOTION by Mr. Edward N. Austen, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: a% RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that Mr. Peter K. Francese be reappointed by said Town Board as Chairman of said Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 1980; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that Mr. Jack D. Hewett be reappointed.by said Town Board as Vice -Chairman of said Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 1980. There being no further discussion, the Vice -Chairman called for a vote. Aye - King, Reuning, Austen. Nay - None. Abstain - Hewett. The MOTION was declared to be duly carried and will be transmitted to the Town Board. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Vice -Chairman Hewett declared the December 51 1979, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly closed at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, EXHIBIT F Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, TOWN -OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1981 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 Thursday, December 17, 1981, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, -WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of request for Rehearing of the Appeal of the Country Club of Ithaca for permit to erect a fence greater than six feet in height. 7:10 P.M. ''Rehearing, on Corrected Notice, of the Appeal of the Country Club of Ithaca, Appellant, George J. Vignaux, General Manager, as Agent from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to erect a fence greater than six (6) feet in height along a.portion of the north property line of said Country Club of Ithaca property known as 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-68-1-1.2. Permission is denied under Article XIII, Section 65, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Dated: Publish: December 9, 1981 December 12, 1981 Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Town of Ithaca 4 r TOWN OF. ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I� Jean H. 'Swartwood , being -duly sworn, say that I am the Town 'Clerk of the Town of Ithaca,.-Tompkins County, .New York; that the-following-notice has been duly posted on the sign .board .of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithacaand that' the notice has been duly published in the local newspaper: (Ithaca Journal) Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Zoning Board'o.f Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Thursday., December 17,: 1981-; in Town Hall,-126- East Seneca St=reet , Ithaca, N . Y : , commencing at, 7 :-00-. P.M. , as :-per attached. Location of sign- board -used for posting Front Entrance to. Town -.Hall; outside.frout'door of Town Hall; outside`of door to Town Hall Meeting.Room Date of'Posting: December-9, 1981 Date of Publication: December 12, 1981 n—Clerk; Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS 3 ss, TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 17th day .of December, 19 81 CONTSTANCE E. ALLEN NTWary Public, S,r`e „r 'New York County rer,,, Ufa•:: 30, 19$3 *Notary Public 22 ITHACA JOURNAL • Saturday, Dec. 12, 1961 Legals TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF1 PUBLIC. HEAR - THURSDAY, 198ECEMBER 17, 7:00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NO- TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Boardof Appealsof the Town of. Ithaca on Thursday, De- cember 17, 1981, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street (FIRST Floor, .REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca,N.Y., at the following times and onthefollowing mat- ters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of re- quest for Reheaing of the Appeal of The Country Club of Ithaca for permit to erect a fence greater than six feet in height. 7:10 P.M. Rehearing on Cor- rected Notice, of the Appeal of the Country Club, of Ithaca, Ap- pellant, George J. Vignaux, Gen- eral Manager, as Agent from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a a fence greater than six (6) feet in portion of thnorth r heightalong Ilne oof said country Club of Ithaca property known as 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-68-1.1.2. Permission is denied under Arti- cle XIII, Section 65, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.' Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said t mes and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Town of Ithaca December 12, 1981 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1981 7:OO 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 Thursday, December 17, 1981, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 .P.M. 7:10 P.M. Consideration of request for Rehearing of the Appeal of the Country.Club of Ithaca for permit to erect a fence greater than six feot in hoight. Rehearing, on Corrected Notice, of the Appeal of the Country Club of Ithaca, Appellant, George J. Vignaux, General Manager, as Agent from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to erect a fence greater than six (6) feet in height along.a.portion' of the north property line of said Country Club of Ithaca. property known as 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-68-1-1.2. Permission is denied under Article XIII, Section 65, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Dated: December 9, 1981 Publish: December 12, 1981 Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Town of Ithaca AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Nancy M. Fuller, being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years ofage and resides at 316 Turner Place, Ithaca, N.Y. That on the 9th day of December, 1981, deponent served the within Notice upon: George J. Vignaux, General Manager Reha J. Loosli The Country Club of Ithaca 406 S.W. 40th Street 189 Pleasant Grove Road Gainesville, Florida 32607 Ithaca, NY 14850 Michael and Betty David 1019 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Pilip Ierardi 1021 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Hildegard Agard 1023 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Mr. and Mrs. Alfred DiGiacomo 1025 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert and Zetta Sprole 630 Highland Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Salvatore Indelicato Grand Central Avenue Horseheads, NY 14845 George Gibian 311 Roat Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Frank R. Liguori, P.E. Commissioner of Planning Tompkins County Department of Planning 128 East Buffalo Street Tthaca, NY 14850 By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United. States Post Office Department within the State of New York. Sworn to before me this 17th day of December, 1981. lie JEAN H. SWARTWOOD Notary Public, State of New York No. 4702044 Qualified in Tompkc ns County Commission expires March 30, 19.0'7.3 Nancy PYA. F er TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1981 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 Thursday, December 17, 1981, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, -WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following. matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of request for Rehearing of the Appeal of the Country Club of Ithaca for permit to erect a fence greater than six feet in height. 7:10 P.M. Rehearing, on Corrected Notice, of the Appeal of the Country Club of Ithaca, appellant, -George J. Vignaux, General Manager, as Agent from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to erect a fence greater than six (6) feet in height along a.portion. of the north -property line of said Country Club of Ithaca property known as 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-68-1-1.2. Permission is denied under Article XIII, Section 65, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town.of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Dated: December 9, 1981 Publish: December 12, 1981 Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Town of Ithaca I i � r r Zoning Board of Appeals =5- October 21, 1981 Vice -Chairman Austen declared the MOTION to be carried unanimously. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of Leo Deeb duly closed at 7:50 p.m. APPEAL OF THE COUNTRY CLUB OF ITHACA, APPELLANT, GEORGE J. VIGNAUX, GENERAL MANAGER, AS AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO ERECT A FENCE GREATER THAN SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT AT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AT 1011 HANSHAW ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 6-71-7-1, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 65, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:50 p.m, and invited Mr.,George Vignaux.to speak to the Board. Mr. Vignaux stated that the appeal is self-explanatory, as noted on the Appeal Form as submitted under date of September 23, 1981, a copy of which with attached drawing each Board member had received with his/her Agenda, and which reads as follows: ?IGO& A potentially hazardous situation exists along the north side of the driving range of the Country Club of Ithaca, New York in that persons hitting practice balls from West to East .on said range occasionally misdirect balls over the property line and onto the property of our neighbors. Extending the existing fence both in length and height will preclude said errant balls from crossing into our neighbors' properties where they might cause damage to persons or property. In the interests of our neighbors' safety and the peace of mind of them as well as that of the Club's membership, we respect- fully request that this appeal be affirmed." .Mr. Vignaux.described the "driving range" or practice tee and its proximity to five private properties. He stated that balls do go into the property of nearby owners and so, last year they put up a 4-5' high fence, 80' long, and that helped, but, it does not help those balls on the fly. He stated that if they erected a 28-30' high fence it would work and they are so proposing utilizing telephone poles and a heavier gauge wire. He stated that this would protect their neighbors, adding that they have a fear of injuring someone. He stated that they are also exploring other avenues for a possible.relocation of their driving range, but that takes time, however, they are actively exploring that. He stated that the proposed fencing would be a big help in this situation on a short term basis -- one, two, three years or so. a Mr. Austen inquired if any of the houses have a separation from the range. Mr. Vignaux stated that some have fences, some have trees, some have bushes, some have evergreens. He stated that they would still be able to see the golf course though it will not be very beautiful. Mr. Austen asked if there were anyone from the public who wished to be heard on this matter. No one spoke. Mr. Aron inquired as to the length of the driving range. Mr. Vignaux described the siting of the driving range and stated that the Club rules allow the use of irons only and the fencing would help when persons hook their shots. Mr. Aron asked what kind of fence would be used. Mr. Vignaux stated that it would be like a heavy gauge chicken wire. Mr. Aron wondered why the balls go that way from the practice tee and why a 30 -foot fence would be needed. Mr. Aron confessed that he was not a golfer and so he hoped that Mr. Vignaux would not mind his questions. Mr. Vignaux stated Zoning Board of Appeals -6- October 21, 19 that when one hooks his shot it soars off to the left .and also when one hits the ball off the heel of the club it scoots off to the left.. Mr. Vignaux stated that the wire is virtually invisible. Mr. Aron asked if it will hold'a ball. Mr. Vignaux stated, yes,, absolutely, it being of welded wire. Mr. Aron asked how.far apart the telephone poles will.be. Mr. Vignaux stated that there will be approximately three poles and then guy wires. Mr. Aron asked where the present fence is located. Mr. Vignaux stated that it is about 8 feet inside the property line and added that he did not want the fence on the property line. Mr. Aron inquired as to what relocating the driving range.means. Mr. Vignaux stated that they are hoping to purchase more land which would permit such a relocation. Mr. Aron stated then that the proposed fencing might be termed "temporary". Mr. Vignaux stated that that was correct, but he would term it "long-term temporary". Mr. Vignaux stated that they have no guarantees that they will be able to acquire the property that they hope to acquire. Mrs. Reuning stated that she felt that this is for the protection of the neighbors and no one is here to oppose and it may be temporary. Mr. Austen asked the Secretary to read the list of those notified, as follows: 1. George J. Vignaux, The Country Club of 189 Pleasant Grove. Ithaca, NY 14850 General Manager 6. Reha J. Loosli Ithaca 406 S.W. 40th Street Road Gainesville, Florida 32607 2. Michael and Betty David 1019 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 3. Philip Ierardi 1021 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 4. Hildegard Agard 1023 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 5. Clement & Louise Rosetti 1025 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 7. Robert and Zetta Spr.ole 630 Highland Road Ithaca, NY 14850 8. Salvatore Indelicato Grand Central Avenue Horseheads, NY 14845 9. George Gibian 311 Roat Street Ithaca, NY 14850 10. Frank R. Liguori, P.E.- Commissioner of Planning Tompkins County Department of Planning 128 East Buffalo Street. Ithaca, NY 14850 Mr. Cartee stated that he did see golf balls in the neighbors' proper- ties, and added that he thought it should be provided with a fence, and stated that he commended the Country Club for proposing this. Mrs. Reuning stated that this kind of wire.does not offer an eyesore. Mr. Aron asked Mr. Cartee if he had, heard any complaints from the persons in the area. Mr. Cartee stated that some months ago, Mr. Ierardi called him to say that he had heard the Country Club was going to put up a fence and he (Ierardi) said.that balls were coming into his yard and he wanted to.be told of a request for a fence. Mr. Cartee pointed out that Mr. Ierardi was notified by mail of this meeting, but he did not appear. Mr. Vignaux stated that Mr. Agard did have a window that he claimed was broken by a golf ball, adding that the Club did fix the window. Vice -Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak -- Board members or public. There was no one who spoke. Zoning Board of Appeals -6- October 21, 198 that when one hooks his shot it soars off to the left and also when one hits the ball off the heel of the club it scoots off to the left.. Mr. Vignaux stated that the wire is virtually invisible. Mr. Aron asked if it will hold'a ball. Mr. Vignaux stated, yes,. absolutely, it being of welded wire. Mr. Aron asked how far apart the telephone poles will be. Mr. Vignaux stated that there will be approximately three poles and then guy wires. Mr. Aron asked where the present fence is located. Mr. Vignaux stated that it is about 8 feet inside the property line and added that he did not want the fence on the property line. Mr. Aron inquired as to what relocating the driving range means. Mr. Vignaux stated that they are hoping to purchase more land which would permit such a relocation. Mr. Aron stated then that the proposed fencing might be termed "temporary.". Mr. Vignaux stated that that was correct, but he would term it "long-term temporary". Mr. Vignaux stated that they have no guarantees that they will be able to acquire the property that they hope to acquire. Mrs. Reuning stated that she felt that this is for the protection of the neighbors and no one is here to oppose and it may be temporary. Mr. Austen asked the Secretary to read the list of those notified, as follows: 1. George J..Vignaux, The Country Club of 189 Pleasant Grove. Ithaca, NY 14850 General Manager 6. Reha J. Loosli Ithaca 406 S.W. 40th Street Road Gainesville, Florida 32607 2. Michael and Betty David 1019 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 3. Philip Ierardi 1021 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 4. Hildegard Agard 1023 Hanshaw.Road Ithaca, NY 14850 5. Clement & Louise Rosetti 1025 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 7. Robert and Zetta Sprole 630 Highland Road Ithaca, NY 14850 8. Salvatore Indelicato Grand Central Avenue Horseheads, NY 14845 9. George Gibian 311 Roat Street Ithaca, NY 14850 10. Frank R. Liguori, P.E.. Commissioner of Planning Tompkins County Department of Planning 128 East Buffalo Street. Ithaca, NY 14850 Mr. Cartee stated that he did see golf balls in the neighbors' proper- ties, and added that he thought it should be provided with a fence, and stated that he commended the Country Club for proposing this. Mr. Vignaux stated that Mr. Agard did have a window that he claimed was broken by a golf ball, adding that the Club did fix the window. Vice -Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak -- Board members or public. There was no one who spoke. Mrs. Reuning stated that this kind of wire.does not offer an eyesore. Mr. Aron asked Mr. Cartee if he had heard any complaints from the persons in the area. Mr. Cartee stated that some months ago, Mr. Ierardi called him to say that he had heard the Country Club was going to put up a fence and he (Ierardi) said.that balls were coming into his yard and he wanted to.be told of a request for a fence. Mr. Cartee pointed out that Mr. Ierardi was notified by mail of this meeting, but he did not appear. Mr. Vignaux stated that Mr. Agard did have a window that he claimed was broken by a golf ball, adding that the Club did fix the window. Vice -Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak -- Board members or public. There was no one who spoke. 0 s Zoning Board of Appeals =5- October 21, 1981 Vice -Chairman Austen declared the MOTION to be carried unanimously. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of Leo Deeb duly closed at 7:50 p.m. APPEAL OF THE COUNTRY CLUB OF ITHACA, APPELLANT, GEORGE J. VIGNAUX, GENERAL MANAGER, AS.AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO ERECT A FENCE GREATER THAN SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT AT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AT 1011 HANSHAW ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO.. 6-71-7-1, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 65, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:50 p.m, and invited Mr. George Vignaux to speak to the Board. Mr. Vignaux stated that the appeal is self-explanatory, as noted on the Appeal Form as submitted under date of September 23, 1981, a copy of which with attached drawing each Board member had received with his/her Agenda, and which reads as follows: 11640 A potentially hazardous situation exists along the north side of the driving range of the Country Club of Ithaca, New York in that persons hitting practice balls from West to East. _on said range occasionally misdirect balls over the property line and onto the property of our neighbors. Extending the existing fence both in length and height will preclude said errant balls from crossing into our neighbors' properties where they might cause damage to persons or property. In the interests of our neighbors' safety and the peace of mind of them as well as that of the Club's membership, we respect- fully request that this appeal be affirmed." .Mr. Vignaux.described the "driving range" or practice tee and its proximity to five private properties. He stated that balls do go into the property of nearby owners and so, last year they put up a 4-5' high fence, 80' long, and that helped, but, it does not help those balls on the fly. He stated that if they erected a 28-30' high fence it would work and they are so proposing utilizing telephone poles and a heavier gauge wire. He stated that this would protect their neighbors, adding that they have a fear of injuring someone. He stated that they are also exploring other avenues for a possible.relocation of their driving range, but that takes time, however, they are actively exploring that. He stated that the proposed fencing would be a big help in this situation on a short term basis -- one, two, three years or so. .0 Mr. Austen inquired if any of the houses have a separation from the range. Mr. Vignaux stated that some have fences, some have trees, some have bushes, some have evergreens. He stated that they would still be able to see the golf course though it will not be very beautiful. Mr. Austen asked. if there were anyone from the public who wished:to be heard on this matter. No one spoke. Mr. Aron inquired as to the length of the driving range. Mr. Vignaux described the siting of the driving range and stated that the Club rules allow the use of irons only and the fencing would help when persons hook their shots. Mr. Aron asked what kind of fence would be used. Mr. Vignaux stated that it would be like a heavy gauge chicken wire. Mr. Aron wondered why the balls go that way from the practice tee and why a 30 -foot fence would be needed. Mr. Aron confessed that he was not a golfer and so he hoped that Mr. Vignaux would not mind his questions. Mr. Vignaux stated e. Zoning Board of Appeals -7- October 21, 1981 The Secretary noted for the record that the following letter was received from Mr. Frank Liguori, Commissioner of Planning, Tompkins County: "October 20, 1981 Mr. Lewis D. Cartee... RE: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. CASE: Appeal for dimension variance 1011 Hanshaw Road (within 500 municipal boundary). will by Country Club of Ithaca at feet of county highway and ...This/acknowledge the receipt of the proposal for' review under Section 239-m. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, county, or state interests. Therefore, no recommenda- tion is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice. (sgd.) Frank R. Liguori" MOTION by Mrs. Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that.the Town.of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a dimension (area) variance from the requirements of Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to the Country Club of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-71-7-1, to permit the construction of a fence thirty feet (301) high, maximum, and two hun= dred fifty feet (250') long (maximum) adjacent to the north property line of said Country Club at 1011 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, N.Y., with the stipulation that the matter.be reviewed in two years from the date of this grant of variance, at which time if the Country Club of Ithaca has been able to pur- chase more land to change the driving range, the fence would then be removed. There being no further discussion, the Vice -Chair called for a vote. Aye - Austen, Reuning, Aron. Nay - None. a The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of The Country Club of Ithaca duly closed at 8:11 p.m. APPEAL OF MRS, CURT FOERSTER, APPELLANT, RANE RANDOLPH, AS AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING BUILDING CREATING A SIDE YARD DEFICIENT IN SIZE AT 881 TAUGHAN- NOCK BLVD., TAX PARCEL NO. 6-25-2-20, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:12 p.m. and invited Mr. Rane Randolph to speak to the Board. Zoning Board of Appeals -8- October 21, 19'81 Mr. Austen read the Notice of Public Hearing as noted above, and read from the Appeal Form submitted by Mr. Randolph, dated September 24, 1981) with accompanying Survey and Tompkins County Health Department Sewage Cons- truction Permit dated September 1, 1981, said Appeal Form reading as follows: "...Having been denied permission to renovate existing structure at 881 Taughannock Blvd. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows...Tompkins County Health Department will not permit reconstruction of the existing structure at any other location than 1121 feet from the north property line and allow the installation of a septic system. Must maintain its status as a pre-existing use prior to enactment of their 200' diameter regulation." (It should be noted that each Board member had received with his/her Agenda a.copy of the above-mentioned documents.) Mr. Joseph Humble stated that he saw no reason why Mr. Randolph has been there for many years and stated that the Town calls for 15' years and he saw no reason not to he owned 883 Taughannock Blvd. and t.hat cannot reconstruct it. He stated that it they have had no problems. Mr. Humble but the cottage has been there for many reconstruct it where it is. Mr. Cartee stated to the Board that Mr. Randolph came in to the Office to request this Appeal and our question to him was -- why do you not move the house over in order to comply since you are planning to reconstruct any- way? Mr. Cartee stated that the answer is.that in 1977 the Tompkins County Health Department enacted'a law that any existing house on a lot of this nature could be rebuilt provided that it was rebuilt on its existing foundation. Mr. Cartee stated that this cottage does not have a sewage sys- tem -- it will be built -- so, the Health Department says that the.cottage must be built exactly where it is. Mr. Cartee stated that Mr. Randolph has no other recourse except through this Board. Mr. Aron pointed out that Mr. Randolph had said that he is going to enlarge this house. Mr. Randolph stated that that is a possibility. Mr. Aron wondered how this would affect the Health Department requirements. Mr. Cartee stated that it would not, adding that he could rebuild any size house, 1 to 4 bedrooms; there are no.requirements for that. Mr. Cartee noted that this is Lake Shore property and a sand filter would probably be utilized downhill toward the Lake. Mr. Cartee commented that probably 450 gallons per day would be a maximum he could design for which is common to a three bedroom house. Mr. Aron asked if Mr. Randolph owned the house. Mr. Randolph said he did not own it yet. Mr. Austen asked if the foundation were of concrete. Mr. Randolph replied that it was not; the house is set on stone. Mrs. Reuning noted the location of one oak tree on the property and its relation to the proposed sand filter. Mr. Randolph stated that he thought that the map (Survey) and what Mr. Austen had just read are problably self-explanatory. Mr. Randolph stated that Mrs. Curt Foerster is present and also the neighbors to the south of her, the Humbles. Mr..Randolph stated that he would like to reconstruct the cottage as it was constructed in the 1920s or 130s. He stated that the cottage predated zoning and was 112' from the lot line. Mr. Randolph stated that the dimensions of the structure may increase, but at no point would it be more than the 112' from the lot line. He stated that it is presently a cottage, however, it may be reconstructed as a year -round -living home. Mr. Joseph Humble stated that he saw no reason why Mr. Randolph has been there for many years and stated that the Town calls for 15' years and he saw no reason not to he owned 883 Taughannock Blvd. and t.hat cannot reconstruct it. He stated that it they have had no problems. Mr. Humble but the cottage has been there for many reconstruct it where it is. Mr. Cartee stated to the Board that Mr. Randolph came in to the Office to request this Appeal and our question to him was -- why do you not move the house over in order to comply since you are planning to reconstruct any- way? Mr. Cartee stated that the answer is.that in 1977 the Tompkins County Health Department enacted'a law that any existing house on a lot of this nature could be rebuilt provided that it was rebuilt on its existing foundation. Mr. Cartee stated that this cottage does not have a sewage sys- tem -- it will be built -- so, the Health Department says that the.cottage must be built exactly where it is. Mr. Cartee stated that Mr. Randolph has no other recourse except through this Board. Mr. Aron pointed out that Mr. Randolph had said that he is going to enlarge this house. Mr. Randolph stated that that is a possibility. Mr. Aron wondered how this would affect the Health Department requirements. Mr. Cartee stated that it would not, adding that he could rebuild any size house, 1 to 4 bedrooms; there are no.requirements for that. Mr. Cartee noted that this is Lake Shore property and a sand filter would probably be utilized downhill toward the Lake. Mr. Cartee commented that probably 450 gallons per day would be a maximum he could design for which is common to a three bedroom house. Mr. Aron asked if Mr. Randolph owned the house. Mr. Randolph said he did not own it yet. Mr. Austen asked if the foundation were of concrete. Mr. Randolph replied that it was not; the house is set on stone. Mrs. Reuning noted the location of one oak tree on the property and its relation to the proposed sand filter. Zoning Board of Appeals -8- October 21, 19'81 Mr. Austen read the Notice of Public Hearing as noted above, and read from the Appeal Form submitted by Mr. Randolph, dated September 24, 19812 with accompanying Survey and Tompkins County Health Department Sewage Cons- truction Permit dated September 1, 1981, said Appeal Form reading as follows: "...Having been denied permission to renovate existing structure at 881 Taughannock Blvd. ... PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows...Tompkins County Health Department will not permit reconstruction of the existing structure at any other location than 112 feet from the north property line and.allow the installation of a septic system. Must maintain its status as a pre-existing use prior to enactment of their 200' diameter regulation." (It should be noted that each Board member had received with his/her Agenda a.copy of the above-mentioned documents.) Mr. Joseph Humble stated that he saw no reason why Mr. Randolph has been there for many years and stated that the Town calls for 15' years and he saw no reason not to he owned 883 Taughannock Blvd. and t.hat cannot reconstruct it. He stated that it they have had no problems. Mr. Humble but the cottage has been there for many reconstruct it where it is. Mr. Cartee stated to the Board that Mr. Randolph came in to the Office to request this Appeal and our question to him was -- why do you not move the house over in order to comply since you are planning to reconstruct any- way? Mr. Cartee stated that the answer is.that in 1977 the Tompkins County Health Department enacted'a law that any existing house on a lot of this nature could be rebuilt provided that it was rebuilt on its existing foundation. Mr. Cartee stated that this cottage does not have a sewage sys- tem -- it will be built -- so, the Health Department says that the cottage must be built exactly where it is. Mr. Cartee stated that Mr. Randolph has no other recourse except through this Board. Mr. Aron pointed out that Mr. Randolph had said that he is going to enlarge this house. Mr. Randolph stated that that is a possibility. Mr. Aron wondered how this would affect the Health Department requirements. Mr. Cartee stated that it would not, adding that he could rebuild any size house, 1 to 4 bedrooms; there are no requirements for that. Mr.Cartee noted that this is Lake Shore property and a sand filter would probably be utilized downhill toward the Lake. Mr. Cartee commented that probably 450 gallons per day would be a maximum he could design for which is common to a three bedroom house. Mr. Aron asked if Mr. Randolph owned the house. Mr. Randolph said he did not own it yet. Mr. Austen asked if the foundation were of concrete. Mr. Randolph replied that it was not; the house is set on stone. Mrs. Reuning noted the location of one oak tree on the property and its relation to the proposed sand filter. Mr. Randolph stated that he thought that the map (Survey) and what Mr. Austen had just read are problably self. -explanatory. Mr. Randolph stated that Mrs. Curt Foerster is present and also the neighbors to the south of her, the Humbles. Mr. .Randolph stated that he would like to reconstruct the cottage as it was constructed in the 1920s or 130s. He stated that the cottage predated zoning and was 112' from the lot line. Mr. Randolph stated that the dimensions of the structure may increase, but at no point would it be more than the 112' from the lot line. He stated that it is presently a cottage, however, it may be reconstructed as a year -round -living home. Mr. Joseph Humble stated that he saw no reason why Mr. Randolph has been there for many years and stated that the Town calls for 15' years and he saw no reason not to he owned 883 Taughannock Blvd. and t.hat cannot reconstruct it. He stated that it they have had no problems. Mr. Humble but the cottage has been there for many reconstruct it where it is. Mr. Cartee stated to the Board that Mr. Randolph came in to the Office to request this Appeal and our question to him was -- why do you not move the house over in order to comply since you are planning to reconstruct any- way? Mr. Cartee stated that the answer is.that in 1977 the Tompkins County Health Department enacted'a law that any existing house on a lot of this nature could be rebuilt provided that it was rebuilt on its existing foundation. Mr. Cartee stated that this cottage does not have a sewage sys- tem -- it will be built -- so, the Health Department says that the cottage must be built exactly where it is. Mr. Cartee stated that Mr. Randolph has no other recourse except through this Board. Mr. Aron pointed out that Mr. Randolph had said that he is going to enlarge this house. Mr. Randolph stated that that is a possibility. Mr. Aron wondered how this would affect the Health Department requirements. Mr. Cartee stated that it would not, adding that he could rebuild any size house, 1 to 4 bedrooms; there are no requirements for that. Mr.Cartee noted that this is Lake Shore property and a sand filter would probably be utilized downhill toward the Lake. Mr. Cartee commented that probably 450 gallons per day would be a maximum he could design for which is common to a three bedroom house. Mr. Aron asked if Mr. Randolph owned the house. Mr. Randolph said he did not own it yet. Mr. Austen asked if the foundation were of concrete. Mr. Randolph replied that it was not; the house is set on stone. Mrs. Reuning noted the location of one oak tree on the property and its relation to the proposed sand filter. 1 toning Board of Appeals -7- October 21, 1981 The Secretary noted for the record that the General following letter wase received from Mr. Frank Liguori, Commissioner of Planning, Tompkins County: "October 20, 1981 Mr. Lewis D. Cartee... RE: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. CASE: Appeal for dimension variance by Country Club of Ithaca at 1011 Hanshaw Road (within 500 feet of county highway and municipal boundary). will ...This/acknowledge the receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, county, or state interests. Therefore, no recommenda- tion is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice. (sgd.) Frank R. Liguori" MOTION by Mrs. Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that.the Town.of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a dimension (area) variance from the requirements of Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to the Country Club of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-71-7-1, to permit the construction of a fence thirty feet (301) high, maximum, and two hun= dred fifty feet (2501) long (maximum) adjacent to the north property line of said Country Club at 1011 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, N.Y., with the stipulation that the matter .be reviewed in two years from the date of this grant of variance, at which time if the Country Club of Ithaca has been able to pur- chase more land to change the driving range, the fence would then be removed. There being no further discussion, the Vice -Chair called for a vote. Aye - Austen, Reuning, Aron. Nay - None. A The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of The Country Club of Ithaca duly closed at 8:11 p.m'. APPEAL OF MRS. CURT FOERSTER, APPELLANT, RANE RANDOLPH, AS AGENT, FROM'THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING BUILDING CREATING A SIDE YARD DEFICIENT IN SIZE AT 881 TAUGHAN- NOCK BLVD., TAX PARCEL NO. 6-25-2-20, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice -Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:12 p.m. and invited Mr. Rane Randolph to speak to the Board. 4 TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Frank R. Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning October 20, 1981 Mr. Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law, CASE: Appeal for dimension variance by Country Club of Ithaca at 1011 Hanshaw Road (within 500 feet of county highway and municipal boundary) Dear Mr. Cartee: This will acknowledge the receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, county, or state interests. Therefore, no recommenda- tion is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice. Sincerey, Z100 4`1 Frank R. Ligi Commissioner FRL:ys of Planning C) 128 East Buffalo Street, Ithaca, New York Telephone (607)274@5286/274p5287 TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK A P P E A L to the Building Inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York 30 Having been denied permission to extend a fence along the property line of the Country Club of Ithaca, iNerri York at 189 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, New York, as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of Articles) Section(s) 5 , S of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and, in support of the appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: A potentially hazardous situation exists along the north side nf: the cir;vir. range of the Country Club of Ithaca, New -York in that persons hitting practice balls from West to East on said range occasionally misdirect balls over the property line and onto the property of our heighbors. Extending the existing fence both in length and height will preclude said errant balls from crossing into our neighbors' properties where they might cause damage to persons or property. In the interests of our heighbors' safety and the peace of mind of them as wellis hat of the Club's membership, we respectfully reque-M LTiau se i sbe affirmed. g � Fee: $7.5n - � /1 n / Jh r, L X prGc,4,c.e. I(e (e, w } �A - x 07 •n Qi % y CJ CJ h0 ^ o z-3 cd •:-i M p Cil S �.1 U v7 >� > F -D ri r 1 I i 0 �CD co to U 60 v C) cC r? ; o r -j -x Ci C) U U U •r1 •r -i � Q� 3 UU) co a, H cd C) b J r -i Z -W