HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1981-07-22 r
Z S ilYl uv=� /ZZI V �� Y
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JULY 22 , 1981
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session
on Wednesday , July 22 , 1981 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Jack D . Hewett , Edward N . Austen , Edward W . King ,
Henry Aron , Joan G . Reuning , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , Nancy M . Fuller ,
Secretary ,
ALSO PRESENT : Lily Pakkala , Ronald Kerfoot , R . James Miller , Esq . ,
Alfred C . Eddy , Mildred Eddy , Julia P . Hughes , Karen
Arnold , Kathy Duffy , Stephen Eddy , Patricia Oesterle ,
Attorney at Law , James Iacovelli , Henry W . Theisen ,
Esq . , Paul J . Beckley , Joel Lansdowne , David M . Slater ,
Robert R . Johnston , Wesley J . Wells , John D . Powers ,
Don Ross ( Ithaca Jr)urnal ) , Dave Maley ( WTKO News ) , Jane
Waldman ( WHCU News ) .
Chairman . Hewett declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . 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 July 14 , 1981 and July 17 , 1981 , respectively ,
together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under
discussion , upon the Finger Lakes State Parks and Recreation
Commission , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon
the Regional Director of the New York State Department of
Transportation , upon the Tompkins County Attorney , upon the Tompkins
County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Clerk of the City of
Ithaca , and upon each of the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate ,
on July 15 , 1981 .
APPEAL OF ALFRED Co EDDY , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE SALE OF NURSERY PRODUCTS , SOFT
DRINKS , AND ANY FARM PRODUCTS NOT INCIDENTAL TO FARMING , AT EDDY ' S
ROADSIDE STAND , ELMIRA ROAD , PARCEL NO . 6 - 35 - 1 - 10 . 100 ITHACA , N . Y .
PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE V ,
SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 13 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Hewett stated that , as long as the bulk of the audience
is concerned with one matter , that of the Eddy Appeal , the Board will
proceed to that matter first this evening .
Chairman Hewett stated that , at this time , he will declare this
Board to be the lead agency as to the environmental impact review in
the matter of the Eddy application for variance , and noted that the
® Town Engineer , Lawrence P . Fabbroni , has recommended a negative
declaration after extensive review .
�i
Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - July 22 , 1981
® MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting
as lead agency in the review of the request for variance by Alfred C .
Eddy , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment
Form as completed , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted ,
and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all
pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not
significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require
further environmental review .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
® RESOLVED , that , as to the substance of this Board ' s decision in
the matter of the Alfred C . Eddy Appeal , this Board adopt , and hereby
does adopt , the resolution to the effect that we interpret the
existing zoning ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as permitting Mr . Eddy
to sell the various farm products from his present building as a road
stand , just as he has in the past twelve years , but that we rule that
the zoning ordinance would not permit the sale of soft drinks , nor
canned goods , nor processed foods , nor barbequed chicken , nor many
other items that would normally be found in a retail grocery store ,
and
THAT we further rule that this would permit him to sell milk and
eggs , and
THAT we further rule that the proposed new zoning law for the
Town of Ithaca would mean exactly the same thing - - that it would not
change the situation for Mr . Eddy nor the owner of any other roadside
stand in the Town of Ithaca , and
FURTHER , that this Board shall complete and publish , when ready ,
the opinion as it has been written and passed back and forth between
the members and that we try to formulate it as a single document as
soon as possible .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron , Reuning .
Nay - None .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - July 22 , 1981
® The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Hewett stated that copies of this document will be
available within the next few days and he directed that copies of this
decision should be sent to the members of the Town Board and the Town
Attorney , as well as Messrs . Eddy , Miller , and Seldin .
Chairman Hewett delcared the matter of the Eddy Appeal duly
closed at 7 : 41 p . m .
Herewith , the Opinion :
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
' Public meeting July 22 , 1931 after Public hearing June 24 , 1981
ON TEL ►vi[-1'T"TER OF `IT1E APPEAL OF ALFRED Co EDDY , APPELL Ull' , FROvi THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPEC'T'OR DENYING PEkv9ISSION FOR THE SALE OF NURSERY PRODUCT'S , SOF1' DRINKS , AND ANY OTI:16R
FAillvl PRODUCTS NOT INCIDENTAL TO FARMING FROM THE BUILDING DL:SIGNATED AS " EDDY ' S k0AL6IDE
STAND" ON THE ELMIRA ROAD,, PARCEL NO . 6- 35-1 -10 . 1 , SUCH PERIviISSSION HAVING BEEN DENIED Ui� DER
AR'T' ICLE V , SECTION 18 , SUBDIVISION 13 01' THE 'T'OWN 01' I'THACA 'ZONING ORDINANCE ;
AND IN THE lvJATTER OF TETE APPLICATION OF LC , EDDY FOR A CONSTRUCTION OF PER'T'INEIv'I' SEC`T'IONS UF '
THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING SUCH ROADSTAND SALES ,
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AND DECIDES AS FOLLOWS
( I ) . RiJGARDING THE CONST '" UCTION OF SECTION 18 , SUBDIVISION ( 13 ) , OF THE TUvN
01' ITHACA ZONING ORDINA NCE .e
The 1968 Zoning Ordinance of the 'Town of Ithaca provides by Article V for " Residence
Districts R-30 " in which one -family and two -family dwellings and certain other uses are
permitted . Section 18 delineates the uses here pertinent as follows :
" ( 8) Garden , nursery or farm . . . Sale of farm and nursery
products shall be subject to the provisions of Section 18 ,
Subdivision 13 . * * *
* * *
" ( 13 ) A roadside stand or other structure for the display and
sale of farm or nursery products incidental to farming and
as a seasonal convenience to the owner or owners of the
land . * * * " ( Underlining added . )
We are called upon to interpret these provisions in light of the operations now being
conducted by the appellant , Alfred C . Eddy , at the edge of his farmland on Route 13 near the
southerly end of the Township , where for 12 years he sold produce from a little wagon near
the roadway , and where he has now constructed ( further back from the roadway ) a 4 , 800 square
foot pole barn with cement floor , restrooms , a walk -in storage cooler and washing room and
two large overhead doors for loading ; and wherein some 33 % or so of the space is devoted to
the seasonal display and sale of farm produce , nursery stock , and soft drinks and milk from
traditional vending coolers . Moreover , there is now in operation at the corner of the lot a
commercial chicken barbeque pit from which the cooked chicken is sold .
The questions presented are whether these operations are legal under the ordinance as
it stands ; whether the indoor sales can be expanded to include merchandise such as bread ,
cheese , canned goods , etc . , etc . ; and whether the building may be used as a " roadstand or
other structure " for permitted sales under the ordinance .
(A ) . The Products Offered for Sale :
We note the statement made by Anderson in his authoritative work " New York Zoning Law
and Practice " ( 1973 Ed . , pg . 509 ) which was cited by Mr . Seldin , attorney for some of the
interested neighbors here , that passage reading :
" Some zoning ordinances extend farming to include the
sale of produce from a roadside stand . Where this use
is permitted , it is usually provided that the produce }
sold must have been raised or produced on the farm
where the stand is located . "
i
1
S
This Board recognizes the implications of the above -quoted language of our own
ordinance , which in effect seems to say : ( a ) that ONLY produce grown upon the adjacent
Isands of the farmer /nurseryman landowner may be sold from such a stand ; ( b ) that the
isplay and sale must be quite INCIDENTAL to the farming operation - and that it will
usually and consequently be a quite limited business ; and ( c ) that it will be SEASONAL to
the crops being grown there . It is as if the ordinance spelled it out that
" . . . . the display and sale of farm or nursery products [shall
be ] incidental to [ the ] farming [ there conducted ] and as a
seasonal convenience to the owner ( s ) of the land . * * "
However the Board also recognizes that it has long been the custom for owners of
roadside stand i n the Town to offer agricultural produce not locally grown , including such
exotic fruits as oranges , bananas , avocados , etc . , etc . And Town Zoning Enforcement Officers
have not heretofore sought to curtail such sales of non -local produce from these stands . We
presume that the farmers operating these stands felt it necessary to offer the foreign
fruits and produce to enhance the appeal of the stand from the roadway , and we further
presume that the enforcement officers considered it a matter of such limited extension as to
be not worthy of notice . At any rate , the custom did grow and has been long established .
But here we are witnessing the expansion of roadside stand sales into the realm of
canned and bottled conunercially-produced soft drinks , processed dairy products from beside a
non -dairy farmstand , and barbequed chicken from smoking charcoal pits .
We are of the opinion , and we hereby interpret the strict language of the Zoning
Ordinance to mean . that while the law has in the past and may well in the future continue
to permit departures from the category of " locally-grown " crops and produce which may be
sold from roadside stands in R - 347 Zones , it definitely will not permit the sale of dairy
Oroducts from beside a crop farm , nor will it permit the sale of soft drinks , barbequed
hicken , and most ( if not all ) processed foods and other items from such stands in an R - 30
Zone . Produce not locally grown will be permitted under the ordinance as in the past : and
we interpret that to mean that the foreign goods should constitute a limited , minor and
incidental offering rather than constituting the bulk or a substantial portion of the
inventory .
It seems clear to us that the R - 347 Roadside Stand permitted was never meant to
resemble or become the equivalent of a retail food store , convenience store , or shopping
mart such as are permitted in Business Zones under the Ordinance . When a stand operation
begins to resemble any of these enterprises , it is clearly trespassing into forbidden
territory , and is running the risk of a citation for violation of the Ordinance .
It may be that the Town Board would disagree with our interpretation of the present
Ordinance , and that it would sanction a definitive extension of permitted sales from R - 30
roadside stands . If so , this is an excellent time to take up the matter now that a new
zoning ordinance is being considered . We think the proposed ordinance is even less clear in
this particular area than the present law , and that it could be and ( if the 'Town Board
disagrees with our interpretation) , that it should be improved with some specific
descriptions and limitations upon what may be sold from these stands . We have examined the
applicable section of this proposed new Ordinance in the light of this case , and we have
decided , and now declare , that we would interpret its language on this subject in exactly
the same way as we are now interpreting the existing Ordinance . If the Town Board believes
our interpretation to be incorrect , it would then be helpful and prudent for it to add clear
parameters to proposed new ordinance .
2
( b ) . Phe Roadside Stand :
The " Use Regulations " for R -30 Zone building construction as here concerned are also
contained in Section 18 of the Ordinance . Under Subdivision " 8 " of that Section the
Farm-residential interface problem is addressed by provisons that :
" . . . no building shall be erected and no land or building or part thereof
shall be used for other than any of the following purposes .
8 . Garden , nursery or farm . . . * * * Usual farm buildings are
permitted . . . "
Is Mr . Eddy ' s building a " usual farm building " within the meaning of this language ?
As noted at the beginning of this Decision , it is a 4 , 800 square foot pole barn building
with extensive facilities for the washing and storing of farm crops . The indications are
that no more than 33 % or so of the structure is devoted to display and sales purposes , so
that they are somewhat incidental to the main purposes of the structure . And it seems clear
that most of the substantial cost involved in the construction was indeed occasioned by the
need for the washing and cold -storage facilities , not by the provision of enhancements for
merchandise display and sales .
As for this building being a qualified " roadstand or other structure " intended for
the incidental display and sale of farm or nursery products within the meaning of
Subdivision 13 of this Section 18 , we must acknowledge that it does not fit the usual image
of a " stand " — which is defined by Webster as
® "A stall or booth for business ; a small table . "
However , despite our impressions and imagery , there is no particular reason wiry a
portion of some other building on the farm could not serve as the sales and display
structure for these incidental operations . So long as the building is otherwise permitted
and properly located under the Ordinance , and so long as the extent and intensity of sales
do not begin to mark the operation as the conducting of a full -fledged retail food store
business , or an all -seasons retail outlet , we would hold that it can properly qualify as a
permitted " roadstand " under the Ordinance . But we would also urge caution in the develop-
ment and execution of plans for the utilization of new , expanded , or remodelled structures
for this purpose in the future : wisdom would dictate a prior review of the matter by this
Board wherever opinions in the matter might reasonably differ . Especially so when , as here ,
the building and the operations seem headed toward the development of a STURE in place of a
STAND . It is then time to take a second look .
In light of the foregoing discussion , we accordingly FIND AND HOLDthat Mr . Eddy ' s
building was properly permitted and comes within the classification of a usual farm building
for a modern farm crop operation .
( II ) . THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE :
Mr . Eddy requests a Variance to permit him to expand the list of items for sale to
include dairy products , soft drinks , barbequed chicken , bread , crackers , etc . We do not
find any proof of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship to Mr . Eddy to justify the
variance sought . Me variance which he seeks would indeed permit him to operate a retail
food store in this residential and Agricultural area and Zone , in disharmony with the
® character of the immediate neighborhood . It would be tantamount to a spot zoning of his
land .
WE FIND that the area from the south line of the Township northerly along Routes 34
and 13— a distance of about one mile , is now rural -residential in character (except for the
small pocket of Light Industrial just south of the Newfield Hill intersection , whic1h is
sparsely and unobtrusively developed far off the highway to contain a propane gas storage
- 3 -
facility ) . As one approaches the City of Ithaca from Newfield Hill , there is a most
rewarding and beautiful view ; and the beauty of the green area continues from the foot of
®he hill on past the impressive " Sunnygables Farm" house (now Turback ' s Restaurant ) , and
past Mr . Eddy ' s farm , the Miller ' s residential acreage , the State park entranceway , and on
for a total of about3/ 4 miles up the valley to the Calkins Road area , where Route 13
suddenly plunges into a clearly commercial strip .
One is thereafter assaulted for 3/ 10 of a mile by the signs , sights and sounds of
commercial traffic and enterprise until ---at Five Mile Drive - - - a measure of quiet
' undevelopment ' returns for the last half mile past die entrance to Buttermilk State Park
and up to the City line . And from there on north we have another 2 1/2 miles of unremitting
commercialism .
In asking us to grant him a variance for the expansion of his roadstand business into
something akin to a grocery store with outdoor chicken barbeque stand , Mr . Eddy is in effect
asking us to sanction the extension of the convnercial area southerly into and opposite our
Enfield State Park entranceway ; into the " Shady Corners " gateway to our Town from Newfield
Hill .
We can find no good reason for doing so . We are of the opinion that the
commercialized areas along this stretch of Route 13 in the Town should be confined in their
southern extension to the area they now occupy .
Nor do we wish to encourage the development of any R - 30 roadside stand business into
another full -blown rural retail emporium such as the LUDGATE FARMS development out on
Hanshaw Road in the Town of Dryden . We see a variance as an invitation to such a
development . THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS ACCORDINGLY DENIED.
® As we have interpreted this Ordinance and the established custom in the matter of
these sale of products from permitted Roadstands in R- 30 Zones , , we see no need to issue a
variance as a pre -requisite for Mr . Eddy to continue selling produce of the sort he has been
selling for the past 12 years at this spot . Our opinion means to indicate that the
Ordinance will tolerate the R-30 roadside sale of foreign goods in reasonable quantity and
measure as in the past , without the necessity of a special dispensation , license or
variance . We have drawn the line clearly at the point where soft drinks , canned and
processed foods , and barbequed chicken enter the picture . such items are not to be
permitted in R - 30 zones under sections and circumstances cited . And although we had more
difficulty in obtaining agreement upon it , we further decided that eggs and milk could be
properly sold from such stands , but that other dairy products (and in this the opinion was
unanimous ) could not be sold there . To the extent that the nursery products Mr . Eddy would
sell are grown by him , they too would be permitted items for sale . Beyond that listing , it
is up to the good judgment of the stand operator to hold his offerings within the realm of
recognized custom .
July 22 , 1981
THE ZONING BOARD OI' AP EA �•
By : qUA
Oa k D. Hewett , Chairman
ancy M . uller =
Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
July 27 , 1981
4
Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - July 22 , 1981
® APPEAL OF L . DALE AND DONNA R . BAKER , APPELLANTS , ATTORNEY PATRICIA M .
OESTERLE , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR PROPERTY WITH 4 FOOT SIDE YARD
( EAST ) , 15 FEET BEING REQUIRED , AT 105 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , PARCEL
NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 27 , ITHACA , N . Y . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 1'4 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 76 ,
OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 42 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Attorney
Patricia M . Oesterle was present .
Attorney Oesterle appeared before the Board and stated that the
Bakers are requesting a Certificate of Compliance which requires a
variance and were that variance not to be granted , it would cause
great hardship and practical difficulties for them . Attorney Oesterle
stated that the house was built in 1967 in violation of the 15 - foot
side yard requirement .
Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to this matter . No one spoke . Chairman Hewett closed the
Public Hearing .
Mr . Aron , noting that the house has been in violation well over
® ten years , stated that he did not hold Attorney Oesterle responsible ,
but whoever built that house should have known the zoning . Attorney
Oesterle stated that her clients bought the house in 1975 , with no
survey required at that time nor certificate of compliance , adding
that they are now trying to sell their house . Mr . Aron noted that for
that reason they are now asking for a variance , and commented that
Attorney Oesterle ' s clients did not know about this violation .
Attorney Oesterle responded that her clients did not know about the
violation , adding that the banks did not require a survey at that time
and they did no survey on their own . Attorney Oesterle stated that
her clients ' purchasers ' bank is now requiring a survey and the survey
showed the violation . Mrs . Reuning asked how far away the next door
residence is , with Mr . Cartee responding , 30 feet to 40 feet to 50
feet away . Mr . King asked Mr . Cartee if he could tell when this house
was put up from the building permit application , with Mr . Cartee
responding that at the time they were developing Eastern Heights
applications came in en masse .
Mr . King stated that the record ought to show that this is a
triangular - shaped lot and that the violation is not uniform in that
there is a 15 } foot side yard on the northeast corner ; it is only the
southeast corner that is 4j feet from the side lot line .
MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant {
® and hereby does grant an area variance to the property known as 105
Eastern Heights Drive to permit the southeast corner of the existing
house to remain 4 ± feet from the east side lot line , and to allow for
Zoning Board of Appeals - 5 - July 22 , 1981
® the issuance of a certificate of occupancy , as the other three corners
of the house are within legal setbacks .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen ,, King , Aron , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the L . Dale and Donna R .
Baker Appeal duly closed at 7 : 50 p . m .
APPEAL OF JAMES IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONVERSION OF AN
EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE , SIDE AND REAR
YARDS BEING DEFICIENT IN SIZE , AT 111 KENDALL AVENUE , PARCEL N0 ,
6 - 54 - 4 - 441 ITHACA , N . Y . PERMIT IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 71 AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN
OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 51 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Iacovelli was present .
® Mr . Iacovelli appeared before the Board and stated that he would
like to convert an old storage building into a single family house .
Mr . Iacovelli stated that the building has been on this foundation for
22 years , adding that the property is too close to the property lines
bordering railroad property on the east side and too close on the
north side which borders a paper road . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it
is not feasible to move this building and lose the existing
.foundation , adding that there is already an existing sewer tap for
this building . Mr . Iacovelli noted that the property is bordered by
the Therm fence on one side and the paper road is called Tennessee
Avenue which has been on the map for many , many years but never built .
Mr . Iacovelli stated that Therm has erected a fence along the back of
this property and the particular structure in question is
approximately 4J feet from the rear lot line , therefore , there is a
251 foot deficiency in the rear .
Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to this matter .
Mrs . Lily Pakkala , 109 Kendall Avenue , spoke from the floor and
stated that her husband built this structure and she was objecting to
the request .
Mr . Cartee noted that variances are being requested for 25 . 5 feet
for the northerly rear lot line and for 6 feet to the west lot line to
® the paper road , adding that this will be rental property .
Mrs . Pakkala stated that she did not want students next door to
Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - July 22 , 1981
® her .
Mr . Iacovelli stated that he only rents to within the limits of
the law , adding that Therm has a lot of engineers down there that are
looking for homes ,
Mrs . Pakkala stated that Mr . and Mrs . Alfred George , 117 Kendall
Avenue , object also , but they could not come tonight .
Mr . Iacovelli , commenting that he could come in tomorrow and get
a permit and build a home in another part of the lot , stated that this
way he could use the building .
Discussion followed with respect to the paper road .
Mr . Aron . stated that he would like to suggest that the Board
members should go down and look at the property and find where the lot
is and the sewer and water and the existing building . Mr . Aron stated
that the Board could discuss the matter more intelligently after it
has seen it . Mr . King commented that the Board ' s problem is to solve
the question of the impact of this proposed variance ,
Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone else who wished to
speak . No one spoke . Chairman Hewett closed the Public Hearing at
8 : 06 p . m .
® MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward King ,
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal concerning 111 Kendall Avenue be
and hereby is adjourned to the first meeting of the Board in September
1981 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron , Reuning .
Nay - None ,
The MOTION was declared to ' be carried unanimously .
Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal
duly adjourned at 8 : 07 p . m .
APPEAL OF TOMPKINS COUNTY EXPO . ASSOCIATION , APPELLANT , WESLEY J .
WELLS , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A COUNTY FAIR TO BE HELD FOR FIVE DAYS , SEPTEMBER
15 - 191 1981 , ON THE SITE OF THE FORMER RUMSEY - ITHACA CORP . PROPERTY ,
NOW OWNED BY THE FINGER LAKES STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ,
SOUTH OF EAST BUTTERMILK FALLS ROAD AND STONE QUARRY ROAD , TAX PARCELS
NO . 6 - 35 - 1 - 1 , 6 - 35 - 1 - 2 . 1 , AND 6 - 35 - 1 - 2 . 2 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMIT IS
DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 ,
® PARAGRAPH 5 , AND ARTICLE XII , SECTION 53 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 7 - July 22 , 1981
� • Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 07 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Wells
was present , . as was Mr . Robert R . Johnston .
Mr . Johnston appeared before the Board and stated that he would
first like to point out that it is Sand Bank Road , not Stone Quarry
Road , Mr . Johnston recalled that the Board had granted approval for
the Expo to be at this site last year [ July 9 , 19801 and stated that
the Army was called off the job last year so they ran into additional
expenses . Mr . Johnston stated that they would like to move an
existing fence line to give them more parking . Mr . Johnston stated
that the State Park Commission has requested that they clean up more
of the brush and bad dead trees which they have said they would do .
Mr . Johnston stated that they are negotiating with the City to go into
the Southwest Park next year .
Referring to the plan before the Board , Mr . King asked where the
swimming area is shown . Mr . Johnston stated that the Parks Commission
has given them permission to use their parking area , only in their
tarred area , and in their [ Expo ' s ] area . Mr . Johnston noted that the
horse show will be up at Cornell .
Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to this matter .
® Mr . John D . Powers , 106 West Buttermilk Falls Road , spoke from
the floor and stated that he had a note from Geraldine M . Powers and
Mary S . Mursko , and a note from Margie Rumsey , as follows :
" To : Ithaca Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Date : Wednesday , July 22 , 1981
Re : Tompkins County Expo . Association
The undersigned do not support the granting of a Special Permit to
allow the use of the former Rumsey- Ithaca Corp . property for a County
Fair .
( sgd . ) Geraldine M . Powers , 106 W . Buttermilk F1 . Rd .
( sgd . ) Mary S . Mursko , 102 W . Buttermilk Falls Rd . "
" To the Zoning Board of Appeals
We did not oppose the County Fair last year , because we didn ' t know
what it would be like , and we were promised it would be one time only .
Because the noise level was extremely loud , continuous , and
disagreeable , and because the parking is inadequate and we were
bothered with strangers driving through our property and wanting
bathroom privileges in our neighborhood . We adamantly oppose any
zoning change to allow the Tompkins County Fair to use the old
Rumsey - Ithaca grounds for their use .
( sgd . ) Margie Rumsey , Buttermilk Falls , Ithaca , N . Y .
7 . 22 . 81 "
® Mr . Powers stated that there were intruders last year ; the level
of noise was high , and also the level of dust and just the general
congestion was objectionable . Mr . Powers stated that the general
Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - July 22 , 1981
® consensus is that it is non - conforming and does not fit with the
general scheme of things in the neighborhood . Mr . Powers stated that
last year he went to the Board meeting on the Tompkins County Expo
Association and he was assured that it would be only for one years it
is now back . Mr . Powers stated that the neighborhood feels it will be
a rolling thing and next year they will say they want it again , adding
that he did not know what they are planning on doing , but if this
enlargement is any indication , this will be a permanent site . Mr .
Powers stated that this takes money to develop the land for this use .
Mr . Johnston stated that they do have expenses because the Army
has been lost to them . Referring to the matter of expansion , Mr .
Johnston stated that they are not expanding , but they are making
improvements , such as raking , and they are using the horse area for
parking . Mr . Johnston stated that they are not making any general
plans for a permanent location , adding that they definitely want to be
in the Southwest Park , Mr . Johnston stated that there are 50 or 60
acres available there , commenting that they would have had this last
year if they could have . Mr . Johnston stated that they will
definitely not be using Buttermilk Falls Park next year . Mr . Johnston
stated that they hope to have something done about the dust and to
fill in the potholes . Mr . Johnston stated that they have received
letters of support from the City of Ithaca Mayor Raymond Bordoni , from
Duane Winters , President of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce ,
from Robert G . Cutting , President of the Elmira Road Merchants
® Association , and from Mr . Al Becker , property owner at Routes 13 / 13A .
Mr . King asked what _ response the applicants had gotten about
keeping the dust down . Mr . Wells stated that he talked to the Manager
of the Park and he was not too sure who owns that road , but he is
investigating . Mr . King asked what measures they would use to control
dust , with Mr . Wells responding , chemical stuff like the Town uses .
Mr . Cartee stated that salt or waste fuel oil can be used , adding that
he thought the Town would try to be of some assistance as they were
last year .
Mrs . Reuning stated that , since this is an R- 30 residential area ,
and , since the letters the Board have received are from business
people , she was very skeptical about this in an R- 30 area .
Mr . Aron asked if the applicants had a letter from Andrew
Mazzella that this would be the last year , with there being no
response . Mr . Aron asked about the hours , with Mr . Wells indicating
3 : 00 p . m . to 12 : 00 midnight on Tuesday , Wednesday , and Thursday ; 3 : 00
P . M . to 1 : 00 a . m . on Friday and Saturday , and after noon on Sunday .
Mr . Aron spoke of the high noise level and asked if they could keep
that down , mentioning the noise from the rides , etc . Mr . Johnston
stated that it would be very difficult to keep the noise down from the
rides . Mr . King wondered where this would be located from the
existing homes , with Mr . Johnston responding that the rides area would
have to be moved somewhat .
Mr . Aron asked if the applicants were making arrangements for
policing that place , with Mr . Johnston responding , yes , and adding
Zoning Board of Appeals - 9 - July 22 , 1981
® that off - duty policemen and on - duty Sheriffs would be used . Mr . Aron
asked if there would be policing of the traffic , with Mr . Johnston
responding , yes , with the Sheriffs . Mr . Aron pointed out the 55 mph
speed zone there . Mr . Aron wished to be assured that Mr . Johnston
could tell him that this will be the last time they would be at
Buttermilk Falls , Mr . Johnston stated that he will not come back to
this Board again , adding , however , they have to recoup the money they
have expended .
Mr . Aron asked what they , have planned for the Fair , with Mr .
Johnston responding , just a show and the amusements , adding that the
Demolition Derby is the biggest draw . Mr . Johnston stated that there
will be shows , the amusements , and they will have complete control
over the exhibits . Mr . Aron asked Mr . Johnston if he could promise
the Board that everything will be orderly , with Mr . Johnson
responding , yes , as far as humanly possible , adding that he will bring
a Sheriff with him .
Mr . Aron asked Mr . Johnston if they had facilities for parking ,
with Mr . Johnston responding that last year they estimated 700 cars in
" this " place [ indicating ] and it worked well until the parking
attendants got a little mixed up . Mr . Johnston stated that by
utilizing space behind the grandstand , they can have 1 , 000 cars . Mr .
Aron asked if it will be well lit , with Mr . Johnston responding , yes ,
and adding that they will be on poles with vapor lights which will not
shine on the road . Mr . Aron asked if first aid will be available ,
with Mr . Johnston responding , yes , adding that it will be fully -manned
by the Red Cross ,
Mrs . Reuning pointed out that Mrs . Rumsey said that the noise
level just kept going on and going on and they did a show most of the
time .
Mr . Powers stated that the shows stopped a little after midnight
and then there was the noise from the cars . Mr . Powers stated that he
was sympathetic to the Expo cause but he did not think the area was
right for them , adding that he felt he must protect the investment of
the homeowners and the status of the community . Mr . Wells offered
that it was not the site they are looking for .
Mr . Aron pointed out that they will have bands there , and asked
if they play all at once or separately one at a time , with Mr .
Johnston responding , separately , adding that they can control the
direction of the speakers . Mr . Wells stated that the promoter is from
Rochester and puts on good quality shows .
Mr . Cartee asked Mr . Powers if people had parked on his street
last 'year , with Mr . Powers responding , only occasionally which
stressed them , adding that they did park over on Rumsey ' s office area .
Mr . Cartee asked if West Buttermilk Falls Road can be blocked off only
for the residents , and further asked if , on East Buttermilk Falls
® Road , they can do the same thing there . Messrs . Johnston and Wells
both responded that , as far as they know , they can . Mr . Cartee
offered that this way the patrons have to go to the south around the
Zoning Board of Appeals - 10 - July 22 , 1981
® maintenance building and keep away from Powers and Rumsey .
Chairman Hewett stated that he would like to see something done
for these people , in particular , Rumsey , Mursko , and Powers , adding ,
even someone to watch that area in particular and only that area . Mr .
Austen stated that he thought that this would have to be written such
that this is the last year that this would be done . Mr . Cartee
wondered if the Board would wish to also impose the same conditions as
last year . Mr . King wondered if the Board members had any problem
with that July 9 , 1980 resolution , with the Board members indicating
that they did not .
MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting
as lead agency in the review of the proposed County Fair to be held
September 15 - 19 , 1981 , on the site of the former Rumsey - Ithaca Corp .
property , now owned by the Finger Lakes State Park and Recreation
Commission , south of East Buttermilk Falls Road and west of Sand Bank
Road , Tax Parcels No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 1 , 6 - 35 - 1 - 2 . 1 , and 6 - 35 - 1 - 2 . 2 , Ithaca ,
New York , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment
Form ( Short Form ) as completed by Wesley J . Wells , Executive Secretary
of said Tompkins County Expo . Association on July 19 , 1981 , with the
Reviewer ' s Recommendations being that " Parking must be carefully
policed on W . Buttermilk Falls Road and in and around the Rumsey
® premises . Noise & loitering should also be strictly limited during
the fair hours in these areas & after hours everywhere . Beyond these
areas of concern , the fair was running very professionally & orderly &
I recommend a negative declaration for a second year . " , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted ,
and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all
pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not
significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require
further environmental review .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Reuning .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Henry Aron :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , having
® interpreted Section 18 , paragraph 5 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance as providing its authority , grant and hereby does grant a
Special Permit to the Tompkins County Expo . Association , Wesley J .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 11 - July 22 , 1981
® Wells , as Agent , for a County Fair to be held for five days , September
15 - 19 , 1981 , on the site of the former Rumsey - Ithaca Corp . property ,
now owned by the Finger Lakes State Park and Recreation Commission ,
south of East Buttermilk Falls Road and west of Sand Bank Road , Tax
Parcels No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 1 , 6 - 35 - 1 - 2 . 1 , and 6 - 35 - 1 - 2 . 2 , Ithaca , N . Y . ,
subject to the condition that the Executive Secretary of said Expo .
Association and the Fair officials will cooperate fully with the Town
of Ithaca Building Inspector and with the Town of Ithaca Engineer , and
during the course of the operations will listen to and abide by any
recommendations that they may have , and further , upon the
understanding that the Expo . will provide sixteen ( 16 ) porta - johns
initially , and further , with additional provisions requiring that the
Fair Administrators see to the barricading or blocking off of the two
areas or streets known as West Buttermilk Falls Road and East
Buttermilk Falls Road to prevent traffic there , and that they also
provide safety personnel in these areas to see that private property
rights are respected and that there is no trespassing , and further ,
that they make every effort to keep the dust down on that roadway and
to minimize the impact of the noise in the residential zones whether
it be by moving the speakers around or in any way that they can , and
further , that the water be tested again and okayed by the Tompkins
County Health Department , and further , that the food services be
okayed by the Tompkins County Health Department , . and
FURTHER RESOVED , that this will be the last time that this Board
will recommend the granting of a permit for the Fair for this site and
® that this Board hopes that the Fair can be located in the future in
the Southwest Park Site or wherever it desires to locate permanently .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Reuning .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of
the Tompkins County Expo . Association Appeal duly closed at 8 : 44 p . m .
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JOHN AND DORIS PERIALAS , APPELLANTS ,
VALERIE LITTLEFIELD , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A NURSERY SCHOOL AT
139 HONNESS LANE , PARCEL NO , 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 6 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS
DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 ,
PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , SPECIAL APPROVAL
OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEING REQUIRED AFTER REFERRAL TO THE
PLANNING BOARD . ( PUBLIC HEARING JULY 81 1981 . )
At 8 : 45 p . m . , Chairman Hewett stated that the matter of the
Perialas / Little field Appeal for special approval of this Board to
® operate a nursery school at 139 Honness Lane needs to be addressed .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
Zoning Board of Appeals - 12 - July 22 , 1981
® RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting
as lead agency in the review of the proposed operation of a nursery
school at 139 Honness Lane , Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 6 , Ithaca , N . Y . , by
Valerie and John Littlefield , approve and hereby does approve the
Environmental Assessment Form as completed July 8 , 1981 , and reviewed
by the Town Engineer July 8 , 1981 , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted ,
and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all
pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not
significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require
further environmental review .
By way of discussion , the Board noted the Town Engineer ' s
comments in his review of the action : " Traffic drop off and pick up
should be carefully regulated . I recommend no less than 10 parking
spaces with ease of entering and exiting . Exiting should be front
first , no backing . Land use shall be carefully regulated by hours ,
numbers , limitation to existing space and a permit to be reviewed in 1
or 2 years might be considered . It seems nuisance possibilities
beyond the above controls relate to the quality of the operation which
® can only be assessed with time . "
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried . unanimously .
[ Secretary ' Note : Mrs . Reuning has left the meeting at the close of
the Tompkins County Expo . Association Hearing due to a prior
commitment . ]
MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca
grant and hereby does grant Special Approval to Valerie and John
Littlefield for the operation of a nursery school at 139 Honness Lane ,
Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 6 , Ithaca , N . Y . , pursuant to the provisions of
Article IV , Section 11 , paragraph 4 , and Article XIV , Section 77 ,
paragraphs 7 and 8 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with the
following conditions :
1 . Because Honness Lane is a narrow , high - crowned road with very
narrow shoulders and open ditches on each side , there is to be
absolutely no parking or standing of vehicles along Honness Lane
® or its shoulders insofar as the same relates to the subject
nursery school herein referred to . All parking and standing is
to be accomplished in off- street sites .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 13 - July 22 , 1981
2 . Because this Board feels that the practice of packing five or six
vehicles into the small driveway on the premises - - open as it is
to clear view up and down the street - - would constitute somewhat
of an eyesore , and that , more importantly , there should be
maintained there ample room for access and egress of emergency
vehicles , the Board imposed the condition that no more than three
( 3 ) vehicles are to be parked , as a rule , in the driveway on the
premises .
3 . That at least ten ( 10 ) clearly -marked parking places , placed well
back from the roadway , are to be provided across the street on
the premises owned by John and Doris Perialas , known as 142
Honness Lane , and that the U - shaped driveway accessing that lot
be made one -way with appropriately - sized directional signs to
require entrance into the east branch and exiting onto Honness
Lane from the west branch of such U- shaped driveway . The
applicant should consider some trimming of the tree at the
easterly ( uphill ) entrance to the driveway as a safety measure to
improve visibility .
4 . That the parents or others who enroll children in this school are
to be advised of these parking , delivery , and loading rules by
clear , written instructions from the permittee , who shall be held
responsible for their implementation and enforcement . It is the
intent of this condition that not only is the matter of parking
® to be adequately addressed but also that the children enrolled in
the school be delivered to and retrieved from the actual school
premises in the company of an adult or person otherwise qualified
to enable them to cross the street safely .
5 . That the back yard of the school be fenced in completely .
6 . That the Special Approval herein granted is subject to all
conditions and regulations required by the New York State
Education Department and the Tompkins County Health Department ,
7 . That the Special Approval herein granted is personal to the
applicants , Valerie and John Littlefield , is not transferable ,
and does not run with the land .
8 . That the duration of this permit shall be twenty - four ( 24 ) months
with the possibility of extension upon review .
9 . That this Board reserves the right to impose additional
conditions at any time .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Hewett , Austen , King , Aron .
Nay - None .
® The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the Perialas / Little field
Zoning Board of Appeals - 14 - July 22 , 1981
Appeal duly closed at 9 : 00 p . m .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon . Motion , Chairman Hewett declared the July 22 , 1981 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 02
p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
Jack D . Hewett , Chairman