Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1964-03-12 r 2 17' { TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 129 . 1964 A meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Highway Building on Thursday March 12 , 1964 at 7 : 40 P ,sM . i1embers of the Board present were * Chairman David F . Powers , Roger Sovocool , William Scott , Al Tilton , and Z. oning Officer Robert J . Wells . Also present were . Attorney Robert Williamson , Attorney Allan Treman , Supervisor Heslop , Superintendent Howard Stevenson , Mr . and Mrs .' Robert Child and approximately 50 other persons including. Supervisors and area residents . FIRST CASE : Chairman Powers called the meeting to order .at P . M . and requested the Zoning Officer to read the appeal and legal ad and state the proposition . The Zoning Officer read the appeal signed by Board of Supervisor Ghairman Clifford Bower stating that the County was desirous of building a County Highway Operation facility on the Bostwick Road on land to be purchased from E . Tomlinson at an approximate total cost of $ 400 , 00 . 00 . The Zoning Officer also read the legal ad as published in the Ithaca Journal on March 2 , 1964 . Chairman Powers introduced Attorney Robert William- son as representative .--: of Tompkins County in this action and Mr . Williamson outlined the Countys . proposition and related it to the existing Zoning Ordinance regulations and made the following three points as grounds for the Counties appeal : 1 . Unnecessary hardship Requirements - a . central area at end of lake b . adequate sewage drainage C . central area of county 2 . Ordinance now authorizes and permits such use 3 . New York law authorizes the same Mr . Williamson read the applicable sections of the Ordinance , referred to the January 7 , 1964 Planning Board minutes and the Proffessor Chapin interpretation contained therein on the word utility and c6ntLended thereby that the proposed use would be a permitted use in this proposed area , and that the County would suffer hardship if not permitted to use same as - proposed . Mr . Williamson also referred to a court case 218 from 2nd . New York 190 Nerabos versus Village of . Lloyd Harbor and read in part from this cases Mr . Williamson introduced Supervisor H . Heslop and indicated that his talk would deal with the first ground of hardship . Mr . Heslop indicated that the County did not wish to hurt any taxpayer by their action . He introduced and referred to a County Highway map of 1963 and pointed out the amounts of County , Town , and State roads in the area . He stated that the County planned to landscape and maintain the proposed area , and he maintained that over the years the County would save considerable money by operating from this area . Mr . Powers introduced Mr . Howard Stevenson , County Highway Superintendent , who spoke of the Counties search for a satisfactory site near the end of the Lake , centrally located in the County . _ He referred to the contract that the County has with the State for maintenance of State roads in the area . He outlined the proposed new County facility for equipment storage near Groton . The present barn built in 1932 , was adequate then , but now is not efficient nor large enough and the access to it is poor . The study of the problem has covered several years and the Bostwick Road area was settled on as the best location and it was felt that here would result in the n least objection from the taxpayers . He spoke of the need to move and of the March 5 , 1964 flood condition that they experienced . He spoke of the proposed use of the proposed site and indicated that the office would be nearest to the Bostwick Road , with the garage to -the rear and the storage of equipment , cinders , stone , pipe , etc . would be to the rear of the land ( area pointed out on map ) and should not be a nuisance to the . area . Landscaping and fencing would be done and the location would be the central hub of their future County Highway operation . Stockpiling would be accomplished from the Culver Road and not the Bostwick Road . Mr . Allen Treman , representing Mr . and Mrs . Robert Child , spoke in opposition to this proposal . The Child ' s property is at the corner of Bostwick Road and Five Mile Drive , directly across the Bostwick Road from the proposed location . He referred to both the Zoning Ordinance section quotations and the New York Law G.ase as outlined by Mr . Williamson and in turn indicated a different conflicting interpretation of each , and said that a municipal action or use , a government function , could not constitute a nuisance and does not have a carte blanche to operate . He defined Municipal Utilities as relating to water lines , sewers , storm sewers , etc . He pointed out that there are many areas in the County suitable for this use . Directly proposed is the railroad property near the present railroad station where the tracks are to be relocated south of the Town . Also proposed was the land located adjacent to the proposed location of the New Carton Company on industrially zoned land east of Five Mile Drive . He pointed out that Mr . Tomlinson paid approximately $ 500 . 00 per acre for the Siden- berg Farm less than one year ago and now would receive $ 1500 . 00 per acre for the same land . He also pointed out 219 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes -March 12 , 1964 Page 2 that the present County barn location would ` be satisfactory for continued use with new or additional facilities . He indicated its closeness to the new Route 13 ` by -pass ( Meadow Street ) and the ready access to any area of the County from here . He cited the increase in tax base if the Bostwick area grows residentially . He pointed out the sections of our Ordinance which outline the Appeals Boards responsibility in deciding such matters . He showed maps , pictures , eto , relating to the subject . and read a letter from a ' Mr . Perry , Appraiser from Cortland , New York , that indicated approximately a 25 % depreciation of the Child ' s property as a probable result of the County proposal . He cited the fact that a present Board of Officials cannot or should not bind a future Board on points of operation of a facility such as this . Pictures were shown and marked as evidence . Indication was given that the County contract with Mr . Tomlinson has a clause making it subject to Zoning clearance . Presented were photos of the Planning Board area studies for this section showing expected residential growth in - this section . It was also pointed out that previously this land was not available for development , but now would be . A copy of the 'County contract is to be furnished this Board by Mr . Williamson . Mr . Treman indicated no hardship to the County on the basis of the contract . He also pointed out that the flood control plans as previously presented are preliminary only and will not necessarily be the final ones and ^ the Clinton Street Bridge may not be removed . Mr . Williamson . pointed out that the County does not have definite plans on the proposal as yet and that they have spent no money at all on the project as yet . The X4009000 . 00 quotation . is as of now , only a 11 gue s spent . " The following persons spoke in opposition to the Countys proposed plan and generally requested that the area be caused to retain its residential character and grow residentially : Mr . H . Huntley - Glenside Mr . J . Graves - Glenside Mr . R . Todd - Glenside Mr . and Mrs . P . Stump - Glenside Mrs . Wooley - Glenside Mr . Tom Tomlinson - Owner of subject property Mr . P . Allen - Five Mile Drive Mr . Ao Cook - Five Mile Drive and Glenside Mr . - E . Florek - Five Mile Drive Mr . K . Kaywood - Five Mile Drive Mr . J . Hall - Buttermilk Falls Road Mr , J . Spencer - Glenside Mr . and Mrs . Terlouw - Bostwick Road Mr . S . McNeil - Glenside 22 ® Mr . and Mrs . William Jenks - Five Mile Drive Mr . H . Gordon - Trumansburg Road Mr . L . Marion - Burtt Place Mr . and Mrs . W . Schlaepfer - Bostwick Road Mr .. and hZrs . � C . Becker - Five Mile Drive Mr .. and Mrs . Co Camilli Glenside Mr . A . Turco - Glenside Mr . Powers and Mr . Treman read letters ( on file - ) in opposition to the proposal from two other residents of the section . A motion to recess was made by Mr . Sovocool and seconded by Mr . Scott : Mr . Powers recognized the same and recessed the. Board to consider the proposition and testimony . The Board of Appeals was reconvened by Chairman Powers after recess for review of - the facts and the follow- ing resolution was introduced by Attorney Roger Sovocool after remarking that he felt that the Board is fully aware of and recognizes the positions of both the County and the residents of the neighborhood in this matter and also that the Board feels that the facts of the matter have been fully developed by the testimony taken : " I move that the application for a variance be denied on the grounds that there is no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship shown and base this on the following facts : 1 . Mr . • Tominson , the owner of the land , claims no hardship . 2 . That the County , as a purchaser under contract , shows no hardship since they knew that the area was zoned residential and that under their contract they must comply with and receive approval of this Board before they purchase the property . 3 . That the area to be purchased is a large farm area and has no peculiar characteristics and is well suited to residential use . 4 . That also the area must conform to generally accepted standards of safety and it might not be such under the proposal . 5 . That this proposed use would not promote the general welfare of the community , is not in harmony with the general purpose of the Ordinance and is not in keeping with the general plan of development ofg� ithe area . The ' • . probable future use of this area is residential . I would also move to deny on the second grbund raised in this appeal that Sub g of both Article 5 and Article 3 contemplate a municipal or- public utility. purpose . It is the opinion of this Board that this Ordinance as it reads does not contemplate a County Garage . This Ordinance w !d 2 t ! Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes -March 12 , 1964 Page 3 is written as a permissive use Ordinance and if a garage is to be permitted it must be clearly stated and spelled out in '- the Ordinance . That the wording as now interpretated is ambiguous and must be resolved against the proposed use since it is not clearly stated in the Ordinance . " The motion was seconded by Mr . William Scott and approved by unanimous vote . Mr . Williamson requested a copy of the minutes of this meeting . Mr . Sovocool suggested that the Attorneys involved here make it clear which material and records , pictures , exhibits , etc, . that they wish made a part of the record . Mark same and make up a list for the record , but you can keep same until required further . This hearing was closed at 9 : 45 P . M . SECOND CASE : In`_ further business , the Board heard Mr . M . Stanton an Mrs . B . K . Hough , both of the Renwick Heights area , and representing the Renwick Heights Civic Association , on the matter of the Vasse appeal for variance which was withdrawn prior to the scheduled hearing for tonight . They wished it be made a matter of record that the Renwick Heights Association is unanimously opposed to any present or future Multiple Residence construction or use in that area . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 P . M . Respectfully submitted Robert J . Wells , . Zoning Officer Acting Recorder NOTE * A complete tape recording of this meeting is on file in the Town Office and available for use if required .