HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1981-10-21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 21 , 1981
• , The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday , October
21 , 1981 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Vice - Chairman Edward Austen , Joan Reuning , Henry Aron , Lewis
Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Leo Deeb , Sam Deeb , Dr . Joel Radin , Gary Lindenbaum ,
Barbara M . Mai , Rane F . Randolph , George J . Vignaux ,
W . C . Suzihenski ( sp . ? ) , Rita Comfort , Jack Burns ,
Curt Foerster , Joseph Humble , Margaret Humble , Joseph
M . Salino , Joe Salino , Frank L . Prudence , L . Anthony
Speno , M . D . , Roger H . Perry , M . D . , David S . Wexler ,
Roland Bentley , Prudence Bentley .
Vice - Chairman Austen 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 Agenda / Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal
on October 13 , 1981 , and October 16 , 1981 , respectively , together with the
Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice / Agenda on all the
various interested parties in andineighbors of the matters before the Board
including the parties to the actions on October 15 , 1981 .
IN THE MATTER OF : THE APPEAL OF LEO DEEB , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING
BUILDING HOUSING A NON - CONFORMING USE ( VEHICLE REPAIR ) TO A CONVENIENT
MARKET AT 522 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 16 - 1 - 3 , ITHACA , N . Y . PER-
MISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR . . UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 ,
AND ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . ( PUBLIC
HEARING HELD SEPTEMBER 2 , 1981 , ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPTEMBER 23 ,
1981 , PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED SEPTEMBER 23 , 1981 , FOR DECISION AT NEXT MEETING ,
BEING OCTOBER 21 , 1981 . )
Mr . Austen stated that , as the record will indicate , a decision in
the Deeb matter was to be rendered at this meeting of the Zoning Board of ;
Appeals , it being the next meeting of said Board subsequent to the September
231 1981 , meeting .
Mr . Austen stated that he would MOVE , in the matter of the Appeal of
Leo Deeb , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector denying
permission for the conversion of an existing building housing a non - confor -
ming use ( vehicle repair ) to a convenient market at 522 East Shore Drive ,
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 16 - 1 - 3 , Ithaca , N . Y . , said Matter being a change in a legp.YI �
non - conforming use - - gas station to grocery in part , and said Matter being
herein decided after Public Hearings held September 2 , 1981 and September 23 ,
1981 , and with said decision being rendered at a Public Meeting held October
21 , 1981 , that it be RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals make and hereby does make Findings of pertinent facts and Drawing
of conclusions in the Matter hereinabove written , as follows :
1 . The subject property consists of a triangular parcel of land located
on a curve on the westerly side of East Shore Drive , which is State Highway
route 34 - B , and it is located in an R- 15 Zone , which is the most restrictive
zone of residential use under the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca ,
but it is rather isolated from actual residential uses with the only visible
residence nearby being the adjacent home parcel of the applicant himself
( Tax Parcel No . 6 - 16 - 1 - 4 ) south of this parcel . The property west and north
of the subject parcel is Ithaca City School District property used for a high
school and a junior high school . The land to the east ( viz . across the
Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - October 21 , 1981
highway ) consists of a steep hill , no buildings being visible on it from the
level and location of the subject property . The only other residences in
® this area are located on the easterly side of the highway , but they appear
to be at least several hundred feet north or south of the subject property
and , because of the curve , there appears to be little or no direct visibility
of the subject property from the residential properties .
2 . There have been several automobile accidents at this site each year
for a number of years , but it appears that these occur in the very late night
and early morning hours ; that they involve motor vehicles failing to nego -
tiate the highway curve ; that they have not , so far as is know , involved
pedestrians , nor has the commercial use of the property or the physical -- set -
up of the property appeared to have effected these accidents - - all of which
appear to have involved vehicles travelling along the highway rather than
vehicles entering or exiting this property . There is no highway lighting in
the area of this curve .
3 . The property has long been used as a gas station and garage for
service and repair , this use long preceding the enactment of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . As so used , it operates as a legal , non - conforming
use .
4 . This commercial use has involved three above - ground storage tanks
for petroleum products , and there are several old vehicles continuously or
usually parked at the northerly end of the lot near the highway .
5 . The intensity of the non - conforming , commercial use has varied over
® the past few years ; garage service and repairs have dropped off considerably
in the past several years , and the hours of sales and service have been cut
back . Instead of remaining open from 6 a . m , to 10 p . m . and beyond as was
the case three or four years ago , the business is now operated only from
about 6 a . m . to 6 p . m . And , insteadlof having many cars per day in for ser -
vice and repair , it is now a matter of having only three or four per week .
Gasoline sales appear to have kept up however , and Mr . Deeb would continue
the use as a filling station under his application , utilizing three pumps
instead of the four formerly used .
6 . It appears that Mr . Deeb has in the past also sold from this site
some food products and miscellaneous items , including milk and other dairy
products , ice cream , bread and baked goods , candy , gum , soft drinks and
snacks , and continues to sell from this some food products and miscellaneous
items , including dairy products , ice cream , baked goods , candy , gum , soft
drinks , snacks , and fishing equipment .
7 . Mr . Deeb requests permission to close in his two motor vehicle ser -
vice and repair bays , remodelling that southerly end of the building into a
regular store area with shelving and counters in order to expand his sales
. in volume and variety into what is termed a convenient or convenience mar -
ket , completely replacing the vehicle service and repair business which
would be terminated , with only gasoline sales continuing . His convenient
store product line would be expanded into canned goods , jams and jellies ,
paper products , cereal , pet foods , packaged cold . meats , soap and detergents ,
etc . - - items common to a present - day grocery store .
8 . The proposed remodelling might add some useful life to the present
life expectancy of the aged building , but it would not significantly extend
that life nor would it . constitute a physical expansion of the building area .
It would expand the present retail sales area , of course . Under the pro -
posal , there would be neither an expansion nor contraction of the land area
Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - October 21 , 1981
involved in the commercial use here .
® 9 . It seems that Mr . Deeb contemplates at least the possibility of
extending the present hours of operation in the evening beyond the present
6 p . m . closing time . That would constitute an extension of a non - conforming
use under the Ordinance . So too , would the proposed addition of - a Market
sign to the building . And , it is likely that increased patronage would
result from the conversion , such intensification of use also being equivalent
to the expansion or extension of a non - conforming use .
10 . Such likely increases in patronage would likely come from both
directions : through vehicles exiting the highway to the premises , and from
school students entering the premises both from the school grounds directly
and from the near shoulder of the highway , which has long been used as a
pedestrian pathway . However , this Board does not think the pedestrian traf -
fic along the highway would increase substantially because of the presence
of a convenience market here , nor does this Board believe any increase in
both pedestrian and vehicular traffic that might be occasioned by the con -
version to a convenience market would necessarily worsen the potential traf -
fic and safety situation here , because the experience here indicates that it
is the darkness of late night hours on this unlighted curve that produces
accidents - - not traffic during daylight hours and hours when this property
has provided illumination .
11 . There has been no complete abandonment of any of the non - conforming
uses which this property has been devoted to , although there has been a
lessening and retrenchment in the intensity of some of those uses , and a
® curtailment in the hours of use .
12 . To the extent that a proposed change would " extend " a non - conforming
use , it must be authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals , according to Sec -
tion 54 of the Ordinance , and changes in use to a " more restrictive classi -
fication " of use shall be permitted , according to Section 55 , but once made ,
there shall be no right to revert to a less restrictive non - conforming use .
13 . This Board finds that the proposal to close the garage bays and to
utilize . that space for a convenience market does amount to a permitted
change to a more restrictive classification under the Ordinance , in that it
would devote a substantial portion of the building to a use relegated to
' Business District At zones , as compared to the ' Business District D ' use
classification for gasoline sales stations and garages for repairs and
vehicle servicing .
14 . This Board also finds and decides that once so converted , there
could be no reversion of the use of this portion of the building to a pur -
pose permitted in any less restrictive zone without special approval or a
variance .
15 . And this Board further finds . that it has the authority , at least
under Section 77 , paragraphs 7 and 8 , of the Ordinance , to impose conditions
upon any permit in order to promote the aims of the Ordinance and the public
safety and general welfare of the community , including the promotion and
enhancement of neighborhood amenities .
16 . It is the decision of this Board that the requested authorization
and permit to change the use . of the property according to the plans submit -
ted by Mr . Deeb be granted WITH CONDITIONS which this Board believes will
enhance the appearance of the property , and will promote the general welfare
and safety in the area to the extent that use , physical appearance , lighting ,
placement of signs and other items , provisions for parking , and the control
Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - October 21 , 1981
of hours of operation and of inventory and the like , can influence these
factors in the situation and setting here presented .
® 17 . Concurrently , this Board finds that there are legitimate concerns
over the possibility of having beer , wine , or other alcoholic beverages
available for purchase so near the school grounds , thus it is happy to note
that the applicant has , himself , volunteered that no such items would be
offered ; and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant
and hereby does grant the requested authorization to permit the conversion of
an existing building housing a non - conforming use to a convenient market at
522 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 16 - 1 - 3 , Ithaca , New
York , as proposed by Mr . Leo Deeb , Owner / Appellant , WITH CONDITIONS , as
follows :
1 . That the three above - ground fuel storage tanks and the one kerosene
pump be removed .
2 . That the fire truck stored on the subject property be removed .
3 . That the . bushes and small trees on the north side of the subject
property be removed to provide parking area .
4 . That all junk material in and around the building on the subject
property be removed .
5 . That any additional signage for the subject business not exceed
® four square feet pursuant to the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law ,
6 . That the existing freestanding Exxon sign be painted .
7 . That outside lighting at two points on the subject property be pro -
vided and maintained .
8 . That the building on the subject property be connected to the public
sewer .
9 . That - a minimum of ten parking spaces for customer parking be pro -
vided .
10 . That the hours of operation of the subject business be limited to
6 a . m . to 10 p . m .
11 . That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold .
12 . That the Town of Ithaca be . requested to request the State of New
York Department of Transportation to investigate and implement geometric
improvements to the roadway , SR34 - B in the vicinity of the subject property .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she would SECOND the MOTION .
Mr . Austen asked for any discussion of the MOTION now before the Board .
There was none .
Mr . Austen called for a vote . on the MOTION .
Aye - Austen , Reuning , Aron .
Nay - None .
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 N0 , 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 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 .
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 , 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 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 , General Manager 6 . Reha J . Loosli
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 8 . 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
102.3 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 of
Ithaca , NY 14850 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 - 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 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 ( 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 .
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 , 1981
. 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 . 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 1121 ' 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 1121 ' 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 owned 883 Taughannock Blvd . and that
he saw no reason why Mr . Randolph cannot reconstruct it . He stated that it
has been there for many years and they have had no problems . Mr . Humble
stated that the Town calls for 151
, . but the cottage has been there for many
years and he saw no reason not to 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 - 9 - October 21 , 1981
Mr . Randolph commented that he noticed that the Health Department Permit
requires that no more than 150 gallons of . sewage flow per day be discharged
® and that a one - bedroom house or equivalent fits that requirements .
Mr . Humble stated from the floor once again that he had no objections
if the house gets bigger , just not closer to the lot line than 112 ' .
Vice - Chairman Austen asked if there were any further comments or ques -
tions from the public or the Board . There were none from either . The
Secretary entered for the record the following letter , dated October . 20 ,
1981 , from Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of Planning , Tompkins County - -
" . . . RE : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New York
State General Municipal Law .
CASE : Appeal for dimension variance by Mrs . C . Foerster at 881 Taughannock
Boulevard ( State highway ) .
. . . 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 recommendation
is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act with -
out prejudice . "
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 of 32 ' from the requirements of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , as amended , Section 14 thereof , to permit the
reconstruction of an existing cottage 112 ' from the north side lot line of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 25 - 2 - 20 , being known as 881 Taughannock Blvd . ,
Ithaca , N . Y . , and to permit the issuance of a building permit for same
subject to the approval . of the Building Inspector as to Construction Code
requirements and any other requirements ; all in accordance with Survey dated
August 8 , 1980 , revised September 21 , 1981 , entitled " Survey for Estate of
Aleta Foerster " and prepared by George Schlecht , P . E . , P . L . S . , and Tompkins
County Health Department Sewage Construction Permit dated September 1 , 1981 ,
signed by Inspector Mary Ann Kozak , and valid for sewage flows not in excess
of 150 gallons per day ( one bedroom house or equivalent ) ; not valid for
inclusion of garbage grinder wastes .
There being no further discussion , the Vice - Chairman called for a vote .
Aye - Austen , Reuning , Aron.
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice - Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of Mrs . Curt
Foerster , Rane Randolph as Agent , duly closed at 8 : 24 p . m .
® 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 WEST 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 N0 , 6 - 1980 .
Vice - Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 25 p . m . Mr . Austen noted that each member had
Zoning Board of Appeals - 10 - October 21 , 1981
received with his / her Agenda a copy . of the Appeal Form dated 9 / 28 / 81 reques -
ting permission to erect a freestanding sign of 12 square feet and indicating
® that such sign is necessary to carry on business ; a copy of a photograph of
the sign which reads " Roger H . . Perry . M . D . L . Anthony Speno . M . D . " ; an
elevation drawing of the sign indicating that it sits on feet 30 " off the
ground and is located 30 ' back from the road and it is another 36 ' from the
sign to the porch of the house ( office ) ; and a copy of a portion of the
Planning Board . Minutes of September 15 , 1981 , in re its review , as the Sign
Review Board , of the sign .
Vice - Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to this matter . No one spoke .
Dr ..f Perry stated to the Board that the street is a dead - end road ; the
house is isolated ; and .the house is surrounded by Park lands . He stated
that a design was requested of the signmaker that would be appropriate to
a doctors ' office , would . look good , and would be appropriate to the building
itself , and , would be big enough to see and be big enough to be able to be
seen at night .
Mr . Aron noted the high recommendation for grant of variance by the
Planning Board - - as follows :
" RESOLVED , that the Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) , having found that the
sign proposed by Drs . Perry and Speno for their Medical Offices located at
112 West Buttermilk Falls Road , Town of Ithaca , is :
a . Compatible with the surroundings and appropriate to the architectural
character of the building . at which it is placed ;
b . Appropriate to the type of activity to which it pertains ;
c . Legible in the . circumstances under which it is seen ;
d . Expressive of the identity of the individual enterprise but not out
of character with the community ,
recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals that a variance be granted by said Zoning Board of Appeals for a
sign of 12 sq . ft . , as proposed by said Drs . Perry and Speno . "
Mr . Aron also noted that the . Planning Board could not directly grant
a variance but recommended a variance very strongly .
MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca grant
and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Section 4 . 01 - 1 ( a )
of the Town . of Ithaca Sign Law to . permit a 12 sq . ft . sign reading " Roger
H . Perry . M . D . L . Anthony Speno . M . D . " at 112 West Buttermilk Falls
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 9 , as shown on drawing and photo -
graph submitted by said Drs , i Perry and Speno .
There being no further discussion , the Vice - Chairman called for a vote .
Aye - Austen , Reuning , Aron .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to . be carried unanimously .
Vice - Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of Drs . Perry
and Speno duly closed at 8 : 27 p . m .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 11 - October 21 , 1981
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 ELMIRA ROAD , TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 33 - 3 - 3 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION Ia DENIED
UNDER ARTICLE . VIII , SECTION 44 , PARAGRAPH 2 , 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 : 27 p . m .
Mr . Joseph Salino appeared before the Board , the Board members each
having received a copy of his Appeal Form and attached drawing , a copy of
his 1976 building permit for another addition with a copy of the Planning
Board approval for same_ of April 6 , 1976 . The Appeal Form , dated September
28 , 1981 , signed by Mr . Salino , reads as follows :
" . . . Having been denied permission to add a 10 ' x 12 ' structure to existing
building . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows :
A 10 ' x 12 ' structure ( cinder block ) is urgently needed to clean up lawn -
mowers / snow blowers / small appliances outside main building . "
Mr . Salino described his property as to topography , the NYSEG power
line , Mancini ' s land adjacent , and the need to get in out of the cold .
Vice - Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to this matter . No one spoke .
The Secretary presented the following for the record :
® 1 . A portion of the Planning Board Minutes of October 20 1981 :
" . . . Public Hearing . . . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the requested addition is
for a washing area that Mr . Salino needs and would like to have . Mr .
Fabbroni pointed out that this addition requires Zoning Board of
Appeals action . Mr . Fabbroni stated that Mr . Salino is presently
doing his washing down of items on the ground now on a slab on which he
proposes the addition so he can be indoors . Mr . Fabbroni noted that
Mancini ' s open land is adjacent . Mr . Fabbroni described the topography
in the area , describing a steep drop - off as well as a power line that
runs perpendicular to the road . Mr . Fabbroni commented that this pro -
posal is really not a complicated thing . He noted that the access is
on the other side of the building . He commented also that this pro -
posal has little to do with the interior workings of the building .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is , tomorrow
night , October 21 , consid ring the side yard issue and requested
variance since the siMlq. 12 ' instead of 201 . He noted that the
Zoning Board will be looking for some sort of recommendation from the
Planning Board . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that Mr . Salino is surrounded
like a mountain in the middle of an oasis and he has had a valid type
of a basis there for both the addition and the variance . . . Mr . Fabbroni
noted again that the land drops off 151 . or. 20 ' at least and the
adjacent property is some 15 ' or 20 ' lower , : . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
® it is gravelly soil so there is no drainage problem , any water being
absorbed well . Mr . Baker stated that he would agree with Mr . Fabbroni ' s
description of the property in question and its various aspects-
. . . Mr .
May agreed that from a neighbor ' s standpoint , there would be no detri -
ment . . . . FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board ( as
lead agency ) has determined from the ( E . A . F . ) and all pertinent infor -
mation - that the above -mentioned action will not significantly impact
the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental
Zoning Board of Appeals - 12 - October 21 , 1981
review . . . RESOLVED , that the. Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant . and
hereby does grant Site Plan Approval for proposed addition of 10 ' x 12 '
® to Salino Electric Motors . . . Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 3 . . . pending the
approval of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals of a requested
side yard variance to permit the construction of such addition . . . CARRIED . '
2 . Telephone Call received 10 / 16 / 81 from Al Becker , Glenside Road , re Salino
Electric Motors Appeal 10 / 21 / 81 :
. . " Mr . Becker approves completely of the grant of variance . The addition
will not bother or hurt anyone . "
3 . Letter dated October 20 , 1981 , from Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of
Planning , Tompkins County Department of Planning :
" . . . RE : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New York
State General Municipal Law ,
CASE : Appeal for dimension variance by Joseph Salino at 630 Elmira
Road ( State highway )
. . . 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 . "
Mr .. Salino stated that the addition contains 120 sq . ft . and will be used
as a wash area .
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 of eight feet ( 81 ) from the north side
lot line of Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 3 , Town of Ithaca , N . Y . , owned . by Joseph
Salino ( Sal - Aug Corp . ) , to permit the construction of a 10 ' x 12 ' addition
to the . existing structure situated on said parcel , twelve feet ( 121 ) from
said north side lot line , and such grant of variance being a variation from
the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , as amended , Article
VIII , Section 44 , paragraph 2 , and it being noted that the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board on October 20 , 1981 , granted site plan approval for such
addition pending a grant of variance , and it being further noted that no one
appeared to object to or filed an objection to the grant of variance , and it
being noted further that said 120 sq . ft , addition is to be used for a wash
area .
There - being no further discussion , the Vice - Chairman called for a vote .
Aye —Austen , Reuning , Aron .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice - Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of Sal - Aug Corp .
duly closed at 8 : 33 p . m .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 13 - October 21 , 1981
APPEAL OF FRANK L . AND TONI D . PRUDENCE , APPELLANTS , FROM . THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR - DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
® WAREHOUSE ( LEGAL. NON- CONFORMING USE , F & T DISTRIBUTING CO . ) AT 1395 MECKLEN-
BURG ROAD , TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 -. 11 . 2. , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED
UNDER ARTICLE XII . , SECTION 54 , 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 : 33 p . m .
Mr . Frank Prudence appeared - before the Board and referred to his
Appeal , which the members had received prior to this meeting , and which reads
as follows :
" . . . Having been denied permission to extend a non conforming use by the
addition of 112 sq . ft , garage to house route trucks at 1395 Mecklenburg Road ,
. . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTUES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : We are
requesting an . additional 4 feet to : the east or our original proposal . The
original plans were my own and , :I wanted the east wall of the addition to run
in line with the existing wall . After being granted the first variance , we
contracted Mr . Norm Jordan to construct our addition . He felt that if we
went 4 feet more to the east and then come back into the existing wall , then
we would have a much sounder structure .
Dated : 10 / 9 / 81
( Sgd . ) Frank L . Prudence "
It was noted that at its September 23 , 1981 , meeting the Board had
_ granted a variance for an addition to Mr . Prudence ' s warehouse , as follows :
" RESOLVED , that , pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 54 of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , as amended , the Zoning Board of Appeals
of said Town grant and hereby does grant approval of the proposed 756 sq . ft ,
addition to the existing warehouse , being a legal non - conforming use by F &
T Distributing Co . , at 1395 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 28 - 1 - 11 . 2 , as requested by Frank L . and Toni D . Prudence , Appellants .
Mr . Prudence stated that the presently requested ". addition " is 4 . ' x 28 '
112 sq . ft . and is needed to make the addition to the existing warehouse
sounder .
Mr . Aron asked several technical questions of Mr . Prudence , including
if the existing building is metal to - which the addition , being cinder - blocks ,
is to be attached . Mr Prudence stated that that was the case . Mr . Aron
stated that Mr . Jordan ' s proposal is quite correct and that a pilaster would
be needed to attach a metal building to a cinder block building .
Vice - Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to this matter . No one spoke .
Mr . Aron stated that he thought that Mr . Prudence needed this additional
4 ' and he could see no reason not to grant it . The . Board members concurred
and noted that the building would still not be any closer to the road .
MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca grant
and hereby does grant , , pursuant to Section 54 of the Ordinance , approval of
an addition of 4 ' x 28 ' to that addition of 27 ' x 28 ' heretofore approved on
September 23 , 1981 , to the existing warehouse , being a legal non - conforming
Zoning Board of Appeals - 14 - October 21 , 1981
use by F & T Distributing Co . , at .1395 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 11 . 2 , as requested by Frank L . and Toni D . Prudence ,
® Appellants , such further addition being needed for soundness of . the structure .
By way of discussion , it was . noted for the record that the following
letter was received from Mr . Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of Planning ,
Tompkins County - Department of Planning , dated October 20 , 1981 . .
" . . . RE : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New York State
General Municipal Law ,
CASE : Appeal for permit to expand a nonconforming facility by Frank L .
and Toni D . Prudence at 1395 Mecklenburg Road (, State highway ) .
. . This will acknowledge the receipt of the proposal for review under
Section 239 -m .
The proposal , as sumbitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on
intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no recommendation is
indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without
prejudice . "
There being no further discussion , the Vice - Chairman called for a . vote .
Aye -. Austen , Reuning , Aron .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice - Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of Frank L . and
Toni D . Prudence duly closed at 8 : 40 p . m .
APPEAL OF DAVID WEXLER , . 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 N0 , 6 - 71 - 5 - 1 , 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 : 40 p . m .
Mr . Wexler appeared before the Board and noted that the Board members
had each received a copy of his appeal with attachments , as follows :
" . . . Having been denied permission to erect a garage at west side yard of
property with side yard of . less than 15 feet in width at 209 Road Street . . .
. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : I was issued
a building permit on August 14 , 1981 , to erect the garage as per plot plan
( attached ) . The building inspector issued the permit by mistake because of
not taking into account the road right of way . After the foundation was
started , I was notified by the inspector to submit this appeal to obtain
permission for the garage ..
Dated : September 16 , 1981
( Sgd . ) David S . Wexler "
Mr . Cartee stated that a building permit for the construction of this
20 ' x 24 ' garage by Mr . Wexler was issued erroneously by his office since
the structure is located 13. ' from the edge of the blacktop . Mr . Cartee
noted that Blackstone Avenue , the road alongside the garage , is a dead- end
street to the south . Mr . Cartee stated that there are two neighbors , one
. Zoning Board of Appeals - 15 - October 21 , 1981
directly behind and one across the street from - that house . He stated that
the Country Club of Ithaca property is to the south ; it is wooded . He
® stated that the paved portion of the road is 19 ' but it is a 50 - foot right
of way . Mr . Cartee stated that the garage is closer to the street right of
way than it should be through no fault of Mr . Wexler . Mr . Cartee stated that
he discussed this situation with Mr . King who offered a recommendation which
he discussed with Mr . Fabbroni , that the Board grant a variance with one
stipulation that , if the road ( Blackstone ) is ever. widened (. through the
Country Club at some date , somewhere along the line ) , in that process the
garage would have to be removed . Mr . Cartee stated . that everyone he has
spoken with has recommended the variance be granted . Mr . Cartee stated
. that he spoke with Mr . Everett Markwardt , 203 Blackstone , who had telephoned
him (_ Cartee ) to inquire about the building and who had no opinion pro . or con ,
but . was just inquisitive .
Vice - Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to this matter .
Mr . Roland Bentley , 301 Roat Street , who was present with his wife ,
Prudence , stated that they live directly across from the Wexlers and that
the building is an asset . Mr . Bentley stated that in no way does it inter -
fere with their ingress or egress . Mr . Bentley- stated that he would speak
in support of the variance for the garage .
Mr . Wexler stated that the house is 50 years old. .
Mr . . Aron stated that due to the evidence heard and the recommendation
made by Mr . Bentley from the public , he would MOVE that it be - -
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and
hereby . does grant a variance from the requirements of Section 14 of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , as amended , to permit the issuance of a building
permit for a garage to be constructed on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 -
71 - 5 - 1 , 209 Roat Street , Ithaca , N . Y , having a side yard deficient in size ,
i . e . , thirteen feet ( 131 ) from the paved port. ion of Blackstone Avenue to the
west , contingent on the fact that if and when Blackstone Avenue should ever
be extended and widened the garage should then be moved .
Mr . Wexler stated that he objected to this motion very strongly even
though the possibility- of widening the road or extending it is 99 to 1 . Mr .
Wexler stated that he came to the Town office in good faith as far as putting
up the garage_ . He stated that he got the Building Permit as issued by the
Town Building Inspector regardless if it was right or wrong . He stated that
he did not know it was wrong . He stated . that two neighbors objected to the
Building Inspector but they did not even show up for this meeting . He stated
that by adding this contingency it puts the wrongdoing on him and it was
really not his wrongdoing .
Mr . . Aron noted that Mr . Wexler had indicated that he did not know the
building permit was issued wrongfully and then he was notified after just
the foundation was in . Mr . Aron stated that he did not think it too much
of a hardship to take those cinder blocks down .
Mr . Wexler stated that the Mr . Aron was wrong , and stated that there
® were fifteen yards of concrete footers poured 10 " deep by 2 ' - - the
footers were poured , not the floor , and over 500 blocks were laid . Mr .
Wexler stated that that area is approximately 16 " below the road , and the
blocks had to be brought up from 3 ' down .
Mr . Wexler stated that he did have permission to build the garage . He
Zuhing Board of Appeals - 16 - October 21 , 1981
• stated that he talked to his lawyer and as far as the permit goes , it is
permission from the Town to build .
Mr . Aron commented that Blackstone Avenue will probably not be changed ,
however , he , personally , would not feel comfortable burdening future Zoning
Boards of Appeal -in - this regard .
It was noted that there are two houses at the end of this dead - end street .
Mr . Wexler stated that he just wanted it to be known that he has a
clear conscience in this matter , He stated that he would want his family
to be comfortable also - -. . that his grandchildren would not have to tear the
garage down .
Mr . Cartee noted that the Town has admitted its mistake and that should
help Mr . Wexler ' s feelings .
Mr . Aron stated that he would withdraw his motion ,
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 a variance from the requirements of Section 14 of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , . as amended , to permit the continued construction
of a garage of 24 ' x 20 ' with a west side yard deficient in size , i . e . ,
thirteen feet ( 13 ' ) from the paved portion of Blackstone Avenue , on Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 71 - 5 - 1 , 209 Roat Street , David S .. Wexler , Owner / Appel -
lant , with the contingency that should- the Town of Ithaca widen Blackstone .
Avenue in a direction toward said garage such that said garage interferes
with such widening , then and only then said garage shall be moved .
There being no further discussion , the Vice - Chairman called for a vote ,
Aye - Austen , Reuning , . Aron .
Nay - None ,
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice - Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Appeal of David Wexler
duly closed at 9 : 00 p . m .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Vice - Chairman Austen declared the October 21 , 1981 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 00 p . m .
Nancy M . Fuller ,
Secretary ,
Zoning Board of Appeals ,
Town of Ithaca .
} Edward N . Austen , Vice - Chairman
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals