Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1983-09-14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 14 , 1983 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , September 14 , 1983 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Jack D . Hewett , Edward N . Austen , Joan G . Reuning , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Albert Hoefer Jr . , Aubrey Brickhouse , Avinash Thukral , Paul Warren , Barbara A . Schultz , Anthony A . Schultz , H . L . Babcock , Carol Babcock , Barbara A . Joseph , Roger T . Joseph , William E . Murray , Bernie Charton , Lyman Baker , Jean Baker , Ted Marchell , Betty M . Hartsock , Michael W . Duttweiler , Dalva Hedlund , Richard Essen , Harry R . Keller , Harold R . Weisbaum , Esq . , Katherine Anderson , Bill Anderson . Chairman Aron having previously informed the Board that he might be a little late because of out -of - Town business , Vice . Chairman Hewett declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 07 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 September 6 , 1983 and September 9 , 1983 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon all the various neighbors of each of the properties in question , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Clerks of the Town of Ulysses and the Village of Cayuga Heights , and upon each of the Appellants ( and Agents , if any ) , as parties to the actions , on September 8 , 1983 . It was noted that each Board member had received with his / her Agenda copies of all documents received with respect to each Appeal . Vice -Chairman Hewett announced that the Cowell Appeal with respect to property at 1496 Trumansburg Road will not be heard due to the inability of the parties to be present . He stated that the matter will be rescheduled and republished . APPEAL OF ANTHONY A . AND BARBARA SCHULTZ , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT DWELLING STRUCTURE AT 270 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Vice -Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 08 p . m . and read aloud the r Notice as published and as noted above . Mr . Schultz was present Zoning Board of Appeals 2 September 14 , 1983 • and was asked to appear before the Board . Mr . Schultz referenced his Appeal Form , dated September 2 , 1983 and attachments as follows : 1 . Site Plan : Proposed Apartment for A . A . Schultz , Pennsylvania Ave . , Lots # 30 , # 31 , # 32 , # 33 , # 34 , Drawing S - 1 , prepared by Tallman & Tallman , ' Registered Architects . 2 . Completed Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) , dated 8 / 26 / 83 . 3 . Statement of Appeal ( set forth below ) . - - " This property is located in an R- 9 District , and is 250 ' x 1201 , consisting of five lots , each 50 ' x 120 ' . By using three lots of this property , we would have sufficient square footage to build two two - family dwellings . At maximum capacity , these dwellings could be rented to , for example , a six -member family , plus two other persons , for a total of sixteen persons on the three lot parcel . Our proposal is to construct one building containing four apartments . These apartments would be rented to two unrelated persons each . This would depend on the market at the time of completion , however , this is our plan . The possibility of rental to large families would be minimized by our desires and the size of each apartment unit . The structure would impact us as direct neighbors as much as any other property owner in the neighborhood . To the south there is , . and would remain , a heavy shrub - tree border between the properties , and our structure would not block any view . We are neighbors to the east . To the north , the house is totally rented ( there has always been an apartment in it ) . To the west , the nearest dwelling is about 350 ' away . Further , and of equal importance , our proximity will allow us to closely supervise the property . This one multiple residence would actually be more in conformance with the character of the neighborhood than two closely - spaced two - family residences would be . The houses at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue are , at present , large and well spaced . This structure would be 24 ' x 60 ' in area , which is not much larger than a moderately sized home with attached garage . It would also be on a large lot . At present , the house across the street ( north ) is completely rental property , and the house to the northeast has a basement apartment . At least five other houses on Pennsylvania are now rented , and there is a long established multiple dwelling on the street . Regarding traffic and parking : If granted the variance to build one multiple dwelling , we would be able to site the parking area at the rear of the building ( south side ) , thereby minimizing the temptation for roadside parking and also minimizing visual impact on the neighbors . Were we to build two two - family dwellings , we would not be able to provide this protection , and we would also have to create two separate entrances rather than one . The increase in traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue would most likely be . the same in either construction case . As to the practical difficulties involved in building two two - family dwellings instead of a multiple dwelling , we must Zoning Board of Appeals 3 September 14 , 1983 • include : a . Cost factors - in terms of actual construction costs , the two separate units would increase costs approximately 30 - 35 % ; b . Two separate units would require a greater maintenance time and cost . It must be noted here that we have held this property for ten years , and it is at this point that we are able to invest in improving it . We would like to do that to our maximum advantage . We feel that a variance to construct this multiple dwelling at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue should be granted as it does not materially change the character of the neighborhood , there is precedent for this variance on nearby Kendall Avenue , there is already a multiple residence at 225 Pennsylvania Avenue , the parcel is served by both public water and sewer , five of the nine closest neighbors will not be impacted at all by any increase in traffic due to this construction . It is our full intention to require very strict leases , including provision for no pets , and in every way to attempt to maintain the quiet and almost rural atmosphere which presently exists as we are , and will continue to be , residents of Pennsylvania Avenue . One final consideration is the fact that a portion of one lot is used as a right - of -way to houses located south of our property . The placing of a multiple dwelling within the confines of the total 2501 x 120 ' parcel , along with the existing house , would require no changes in this right - of -way situation . " Mr . Schultz verbally stated the reasons for his Appeal as • described in his written statement noting that he and Mrs . Schultz felt that it would be within the legal aspects of the property involved to build two separate houses but that , in itself , they felt , was a little bit non - conforming with the neighborhood because houses in the neighborhood are well spaced . He noted that they could build two very similar structures to be side by side on each of two of the lots shown . Mr . Schultz stated that by constructing what they propose , they would have something more in conformation with the neighborhood because the proposed structure still looks like a house and would not impact the neighborhood quite so much as two structures . Mr . Schultz stated that the structure as placed on the parcel allows for provision of off - street parking which is a concern of those living on the street itself . Mr . Schultz commented that there are similar type buildings in the area so there has been a precedent for utilizing more than one lot in this manner . Mr . Schultz stated that the zoning in the area is R- 9 and in his reading of the zoning it would be within the legalities to build on these lots the two two - family houses as mentioned but they would prefer , rather than that , to have one building . Mr . Schultz described a minimal impact on the neighborhood by having the proposed structure facing north which would be the view of the Lake and noting that what would be seen would be another household comparable in design . Mr . Schultz stated that that house is a full rental unit . He stated that , to the west , the nearest house is 350 ' away . Mr . Schultz noted the driveway on the site plan which the Board had before them and stated the site plan does not show the shrubbery , however , he would state that , Zoning Board of Appeals 4 September 14 , 1983 • to alleviate the sight impact of the driveway , Northern Spruce would be planted . Mr . Schultz pointed out that the neighbors to the south would have no view of the house at all and described the heavy trees and shrubbery existing . Mr . Schultz described the right - of - way located on his lot # 32 which provides access to houses located south of his property . Mr . Schultz noted that they would be their own neighbors to the east , pointing out that his house is due east . He stated that the impact on the neighbors that would be , in essence , to the northeast , would be minimal . Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Schultz to specifically point out his house , which he did . Continuing , Mr . Schultz spoke to the matter of hardship as to substantial costs in terms of placing two separate entities on the property available . Mr . Schultz stated that the density would not increase in terms of occupancy and with one house there would be more open space , two houses would be close to each other . Mr . Schultz stated that there is also precedence for this type of building and described another similar one on Kendall Avenue , one block away . Mr . Schultz stated that as a resident he would prefer one structure as opposed to two structures . Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who • wished to speak to the matter of the Schultz Appeal , Mr . Lyman Baker , 257 Pennsylvania Avenue , spoke from the floor and stated that he was the second adjacent neighbor . Mr . Baker stated that between his house and Mr . Schultz ' s house the road curves and heads in a southerly direction and is not really a part of Pennsylvania Avenue , adding that he would like to know what is going to happen to that road . Mr . Baker stated that his second question was just where does the driveway go into the dwelling . Mr . Schultz stated that Mr . Baker ' s property is due north of his property and the proposed driveway , in essence , is directly across from the Baker driveway . Mr . Baker stated that that answers his second question , and asked again what will happen to the non - road , which Mr . Schultz names as being his property , when this building is built . Mrs . Reuning commented that as she drove on this road she noticed that the houses beyond have numbers . Mr . Schultz stated that the Town does not own any of the " road " . Mrs . Reuning asked what the peoples ' mailing addresses are . The assumption appeared to be that the addresses are Pennsylvania Avenue , Mr . Schultz stated that he pays Town taxes on that driveway , it is a driveway . Mr . Aron arrived and took over the Chair . • Mr . Austen asked Mr . Schultz who uses this private road . Mr . Schultz stated that the residents of the four houses above him use it and mentioned Owens , Baker , and two others whom he did Zoning Board of Appeals 5 September 14 , 1983 not name . Mr . Austen asked if this were a permanent easement type of thing . Mr . Schultz stated that it is , adding that it is a private right of way to four people from Schultz as owner of lot # 32 . Mr .. Schultz stated that his proposal is not to touch the easement at all . Mr . Aron , indicating lot # 32 on the site plan before him , asked Mr . Schultz again if he owns that lot . Mr . Schultz stated that he did . Mr . Aron asked him if he pays taxes on it , to which Mr . Schultz replied , yes . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else present who wished to speak for or against the Schultz Appeal . No one spoke . Chairman Aron asked if the Board wished to turn to the matter of the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) relative to the Schultz proposal . Chairman Aron stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency with respect to review under SEQRA in this matter . Chairman Aron noted that all questions on the form submitted had been answered " no " ; the form had been signed by Anthony A . Schultz on 8 / 26 / 83 ; and the matter had been reviewed by Mr . Fabbroni , the Town Engineer , on September 6 , 1983 , with the following recommendation mades " Negative Declaration recommended with some consideration for landscaping area west of driveway ( for future neighbors ) and area north of building to break mass and scale of building . " MOTION by Mr . Jack Hewett , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reunin g • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed construction of a four unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) as completed by Anthony A . Schultz , Appellant , and as reviewed by Lawrence P . Fabbroni , the Town Engineers 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 - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning . • Nay - None , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Zoning Board of Appeals 6 September 14 , 1983 • Mr . Austen commented that the proposal seems to involve two lots and not three . Mr . Schultz stated that it is really three lots , in essence , that are involved with the proposal . Mr . Schultz added that he might , but not necessarily will , change the driveway location . MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Article III , Section 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a four -unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , said parcel being comprised of five lots numbered 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34 on map of The Ithaca Land Company Tract recorded in 1895 , said four -unit dwelling to be constructed upon old lots numbered 30 and 31 thereof and which are a part of said Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , as shown on Plan S - 1 , titled " Site Plan - Proposed Apartm ' t . for A . A . Schultz " , Tallman & Tallman , Registered Architects , Ithaca , N . Y . , Scale 1 " = 30 " , proposed and presented to said Board of Appeals on September 14 , 1983 by Anthony A . Schultz , Appellant , with the understanding that said proposal encompasses all five of the old lots hereinabove cited , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that said grant is conditioned upon there being , for the benefit of future neighbors , both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area west of the proposed driveway shown on said Site Plan and there being both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area north of the proposed structure such that , visually , its mass and scale is broken up , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that a building permit shall be applied for by the Appellant and all requirements of the New York State Building Construction , Energy Conservation , and Fire Prevention Codes applicable to Multiple Dwellings and any requirements of the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector and / or the Town Engineer , shall be met . There being no further discussion , ' the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Schultz Appeal duly closed at 7 : 32 p . m . ANNOUNCEMENT • Chairman Aron announced that the Appeal of John T . and Mary Cowell , Lloyd and Suzanne Fitzsimmons , as Agents , will not be Zoning Board of Appeals 7 September 14 , 1983 • heard due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties . He stated that the matter will be rescheduled with Notice given , probably for the October 12 , 1983 meeting . APPEAL OF DR . MICHAEL A . GOODFRIEND , APPELLANT , TED MARCHELL , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING SIGN PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF A SIX SQUARE FOOT SIGN AT 1212 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 26 - 3 - 8 . 2 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER SECTION 4 . 01 - 1 ( a ) OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW , Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 33 p . m . and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Marchell , Agent , to read from the Appeal Form he signed and submitted under date of 8 / 2 / 83 . Mr . Marchell read as follows : " ( 1 ) At this location high speed and high traffic volume make it difficult for drivers to locate facility . ( 2 ) Visual barriers on premises ( hedge & trees ) at roadside prevent high visibility of smaller sign . ( 3 ) Most of patients are elderly first time patients with possible visual or other handicaps . ( 4 ) All these factors add up to a possible hazardous situation when patients are unable to quickly locate facility . " • Chairman Aron asked Mr . Marchell if he had anything to add . Mr . Marchell stated that he would like to add that the Doctor ' s office has been open now about two months and he has found that his patients have had trouble locating the facility insofar as just using the number 1212 on the house . He stated that house numbers in the vicinity are difficult to find anyway and so it is difficult to find 1212 . He stated that he also wished to point out another thing that the Doctor did was restoring the house ; he has maintained the house just the way it was . Mr . Marchell noted that that was a part of the requirements for approval of the office . He stated that the Doctor has to rely on a sign and so , as the sign ' s designer , he thought that 32 " letters showing both his name and 1212 Trumansburg Road would meet his needs and , thus , the six square foot sign . He stated that the four - square - foot requirement simply would not meet the Doctor ' s needs under the circumstances . Mr . Marchell noted that the set backs are all proper . He noted again that a lot of Dr . Goodfriend ' s patients are first time patients and his office looks like just another house on the road . Mr . Marchell stated that Lakeside Nursing Home , the Church , and the Paleontological Institute all have large signs and so when he had arrived at a suitable square footage for the sign and it was merely six square feet it never occurred to him that it was 2 square feet too large . He stated that he should have known that , however . • Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the matter of the Goodfriend Appeal . Zoning Board of Appeals 8 September 14 , 1983 • Betty M . Hartsock ( Mrs . Fred R . Hartsock ) , 1205 Trumansburg Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she has lived in her home since 1935 . She stated that the sign , to her , is an asset because from her front door she can see the difficulties people have because of Bundy Road being so close it is confusing and the sign gives people time to turn off . Mrs . Hartsock stated that what the Doctor has done with the building is an asset to the neighborhood also , as well as the nice sign . Mr . Cartee pointed out that any sign proposed to be greater than what is permitted must be presented to the Planning Board for review under the Sign Law , Mr . Cartee stated that the Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) met on Tuesday , September 6 , 1983 , with six members present , and unanimously recommended that the Board of Appeals grant the requested two square foot variance based on need , attractiveness , and character . MOTION by Mr . Jack Hewett , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance of two square .feet from the requirements of Section 4 . 01 - 1 ( a ) of the Town . of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the issuance of a Sign Permit to Michael A . Goodfriend , M . D . for a six square foot sign reading " M . A . Goodfriend M . D . 1212 Trumansburg Road " , to be located at 1212 • Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 26 - 3 - 8 . 2 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Goodfriend Appeal duly closed at 7 : 40 p . m . .APPEAL OF JOHN T . AND MARY COWELL , APPELLANTS , LLOYD AND SUZANNE FITZSIMMONS , AS AGENTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO OPERATE A SMALL WHOLESALE BUSINESS IN AN EXISTING BARN OF APPROXIMATELY 3 , 500 SQUARE FEET , AT 1496 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 24 - 1 - 7 . 4 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XI , SECTION 51 (ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , BEING THE OPERATIVE REGULATION ) OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron noted that the above - referenced Appeal has been postponed . APPEAL OF HAROLD L . BABCOCK , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE • BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE , WITH WORK SHOP AREA , IN A FRONT YARD WITH SETBACK LESS THAN 30 FEET , AT 262 BUNDY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL Zoning Board of Appeals 9 September 14 , 1983 NO . 6 - 24 - 5 - 18 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 21 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 41 p . m . and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above . Chairman Aron read from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Harold L . Babcock on August 30 , 1983 , as follows : " The main reason for my wish to build a new garage is that our house does not have a basement and we now have to convert the existing garage into a furnace area . In the past when the furnace would break down in the winter , we would have trouble getting anyone to service the furnace because of having to crawl on hands and knees to the furnace under the house . Physically I am no longer able to crawl down under the house . TWe do have a reasonably sized piece of property but as you can see by the attached drawing , much of it is not feasibly usable . Because of an existing creek which must be keep [ sic . ] open as stated in our deed , the location of the septic tank and drainage fields and the fact that the house is located so close to the West side of the lot , the East side lawn is the only place for the construction of the garage . This lot was once a marshy area and still has very soft areas . The area where I wish to build was built up years ago with many loads of fill . As I have on several occasions approached our neighbor on the West , Michael Leach , to purchase enough room for this garage and he has • refused , I wish to apply for a variance so that I may build in the location as shown in the drawing . %We would appreciate your careful consideration of this request and hope that we receive a positive response . " Chairman Aron asked Mr . Babcock if he had anything to add to his written statement . Mr . Babcock asked for clarification as to the wording in the Notice of Public Hearing , which was given . Mr . Babcock stated that he had tried to purchase additional land as he mentioned in his statement . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Babcock Appeal , Mr . William Anderson , 258 Bundy Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he was in favor of granting the appeal . He stated that he could see no reason not to put the garage where Mr . Babcock requests . Mr . Anderson stated that he lives right next door across the creek . Mrs . Katherine Anderson , 258 Bundy Road , spoke from the floor and stated that what Mr . Babcock said about the deed is true . She stated that it is in both their deeds that this has to be left open . She stated that moving it anywhere else would be terrible . • Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else present who wished to speak . No one spoke . Zoning Board of Appeals 10 September 14 , 1983 • Mr . Austen asked what the actual setback from the right of way is . Mr . Babcock stated that it is 40 feet from the edge of the road pavement . Mrs . Reuning stated that , in essence , a five - foot variance is being requested since there should be approximately 45 feet from garage to the edge of the pavement . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance of five feet from the requirements of Section 21 , Article V , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , as requested , thus permitting the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a garage less than 30 feet from the right of way , i . e . , 25 feet therefrom , at 262 Bundy Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 5 - 18 , as shown on drawing submitted by Harold L . Babcock dated August 30 , 1983 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . • Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Babcock Appeal duly closed at 7 : 49 p . m . APPEAL OF HARRY R . KELLER , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF A FENCE GREATER THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT , AT 213 TEXAS LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 71 - 1 - 6 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 65 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 55 p . m . The Secretary read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Harry R . Keller under date of August 15 , 1983 , as follows : " Lisa Lane roadway has been elevated up to 22 feet along my eastern boundary . New home bordering on my property to the south was constructed after numerous loads of fill were placed on site . The driveway was raised 6 - 7 feet behind barrier of railroad ties . Mr . Desch has seen this and is aware of my need for privacy . The Town of Ithaca approved the elevated roadway and my neighbor ' s construction . The tall fence that I wish to keep will provide minimal privacy to the rear of my house and back room . " Mr . Keller appeared before the Board and stated that he really had no idea about building a fence even when the construction of his neighbor ' s home was occurring . He stated • that he did have concerns about his loss of privacy and expressed them in a letter to Noel Desch , Town Supervisor , in August of 1980 . Mr . Keller read the following portion of that letter : Zoning Board of Appeals 11 September 14 , 1983 • " The driveway on the home under construction is now about four feet higher than my back yard . The elevated roadways / driveways in the development are substantially higher than the surrounding terrain . I fail to see the purpose of this and would like you to provide me with some assurance that property owners will not be liable for automobiles falling from elevated roadways / driveways onto their property . Will the Town construct guard rails along these elevated roadways / driveways ? " Mr . Keller distributed four colored photographs of his property showing the fence , the height of the roadway ( Lisa Lane ) , and the height of his neighbor ' s home and parking area in relation to his backyard . Mr . Keller pointed out that he is in a " fish bowl " with respect to his yard area . Mr . Keller stated that he had previously had no idea about constructing a fence as opposed to installing a fence , but when he looked at ready -built fencing which is six feet in height , it was clear that it would not do the job . He stated that he and his contractor agreed that the 8 - foot fence was the only way to achieve some sort of privacy . Mr . Keller stated that he thought he had known the ordinance pretty well but he was obviously not too well versed in the section on fences and he certainly did not intend to violate the ordinance . Mr . Keller noted that the Town did approve Lisa Lane ' s construction this way . Mr . Keller stated that -the fence was custom-made and it would cost approximately $ 350 . 00 to take • off two feet of it . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the matter of the Keller Appeal . No one spoke . Chairman Aron stated to Mr . Keller that he had attended many meetings of the Town of Ithaca Boards and had also stated that he was aware of the Town Zoning Ordinance . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Keller if he had applied for a building permit prior to constructing the fence . Mr . Keller stated that he was aware of the Town ' s records in the Lisa Lane matter and at that time he did not go that deeply into the ordinance with respect to fences . Mr . Keller stated that his contractor has done business in the Town for years so he assumed the details were taken care of . Mr . Keller stated that he was surprised when Mr . Cartee called him . Mr . Keller stated that he called Mr . Desch and he said that he understood the situation of his being in a fish bowl . Chairman Aron pointed out that Mr . Desch is not a member of the Board of Appeals . Mr . Keller stated that he was speaking of dialogue , not accommodation . Chairman Aron stated that he had been by Mr . Keller ' s house and looked at the fence , adding that it is very nice and it is high , Chairman Aron commented that he looked at other properties on Lisa Lane and there are no fences with the exception of Mr . Keller ' s . Mr . Keller noted that he is at the bottom of the hill and the other properties are higher than his . • Mr . Keller described how persons are still able to see him and his family in their patio area , noting that he is over six feet tall himself , Mr . Keller commented that perhaps the other Zoning Board of Appeals 12 September 14 , 1983 • residents do not feel any need for any privacy . Chairman Aron referred to the changes in the neighborhood with respect to the development of Lisa Lane as mentioned by Mr . Keller . Mr . Keller stated that he had no objection to Lisa Lane , he just wants privacy . Mr . Austen asked Mr . Keller how long this fence is . Mr . Keller stated that it is approximately 25 ' to 28 ' east / west bordering south on his property and north / south maybe 18 ' . Mr . Austen noted that it does not go along the lot lines . Mr . Keller said that it definitely does not , adding that his lot is approximately 175 ' x 1201 . Mr . Austen asked how far it is from the house to the fence . Mr . Keller stated that going north / south probably about 17 ' and going east / west possibly about 22 ' . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Keller if he were satisfied that he really has privacy now . Mr . Keller responded that if anyone is visiting who is taller than he or as tall their shoulders and head can still be seen . He stated that he does not have total privacy . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Keller if he thought he had enough privacy now . Mr . Keller stated that he did not plan any more fencing and if he does he will apply for a building permit . Chairman Aron pointed out that the owner is responsible for the building permit , not the contractor . • Chairman Aron asked if there were any more questions . There were none . 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 variance from the requirements of Section 65 of Article XIII to allow an eight - foot fence to remain in place as constructed at 213 Texas Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 71 - 1 - 6 , upon condition that Harry R . Keller , Appellant , make application for building permit . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Keller Appeal duly closed at 8 : 05 p . m . APPEAL OF DALVA HEDLUND , APPELLANT , HAROLD WEISBAUM , ESQ . , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR PREMISES WITH REAR YARD LESS THAN • 30 FEET IN DEPTH AND FRONT YARD LESS THAN 25 FEET IN DEPTH , AT 400 CODDINGTON ROAD , NOW KNOWN AS 201 NORTHVIEW ROAD WEST , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 42 - 1 - 9 . 12 . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED Zoning Board of Appeals 13 September 14 , 1983 • UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 76 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 06 p . m . and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Harold Weisbaum , Esq . , on behalf of Dalva Hedlund , under date of August 5 , 1983 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to obtain a certificate of occupancy because more than three ( 3 ) unrelated persons occupy a two ( 2 ) family residence and because of the location of the dwelling on the premises . . . The present owner bought the property subject to two leases which expire May 31 , 1984 and April 30 , 1984 and there are six ( 6 ) unrelated tenants in the dwelling under said leases , all of whom are college students . Upon the expiration of the lease which expires on April 30 , 1984 the owner and his family will occupy the upstairs apartment themselves . The owner cannot break the leases without suffering economic loss and risk of involving himself in a law suit or suits . Further , the house was in its present location when it was purchased and cannot be moved without great expense and hardship to the owner . There is in fact probably no way to place the dwelling on this lot in a manner which would comply with the present zoning regulations . The present owner , Dalva Hedlund , therefore requests that a variance be granted allowing 3 • unrelated persons to live in each of the two apartments in the above described premises , that a variance be granted allowing the house to remain where it is presently located and that a certificate of occupancy be issued for said premises . " Chairman Aron noted that since the Hedlund Appeal involves two points the hearing has been separated into those two points and the Board will consider the matter of the location of the house on the property first . Mr . Weisbaum appeared before the Board and stated that the thing that makes this situation confusing is the question of where the front , side , and back yards are . Mr . Weisbaum pointed out , utilizing the Survey of the property , a copy of which each member had received with his / her Agenda , that at the time the house was constructed it was 400 Coddington Road and the front and back yards were fine but there appeared to be a problem with one side yard . Mr . Weisbaum noted that in the meantime the address was changed to 201 Northview Road West so the problem became the front and back and the sides were fine . Mr . Weisbaum pointed out that the front door now faces toward the curve of Northview Road West and there is another " front " door facing Coddington Road , Mr . Weisbaum called attention to two photographs of the house , photocopies of which the Board had also received , which illustrate this point . Mr . . Weisbaum stated that , in his opinion , first of all we have to determine the location of the front yard which , it would seem to him , to be best where the front door is . He noted that if that Zoning Board of Appeals 14 September 14 , 1983 were determined to be the case the front yard and rear yard would be in compliance and leave the problem of the one side yard since the attached garage would be in a side yard 10 . 5 feet from the lot line . He stated that that one side yard problem would be such that the house is situated 11 . 7 ' from the side lot line rather than 15 ' as required . Chairman Aron asked where it is that the owner determines the front and back yard to be . Mr . Hedlund spoke from the floor and stated that he would assume that the front is where the front door is . Mr . Hedlund stated that the house is a duplex with one apartment upstairs and one apartment downstairs . Mr . Weisbaum stated that an error would seem to have been made when the house was constructed in late 1971 because the building permit application shows the house located 15 ' from the side lot line . Mr . Weisbaum stated that he did not think there was any way to move the house . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Hedlund Appeal in re house location . Mr . Albert Hoefer Jr . , 212 Northview Road West , spoke from the floor and stated that he would speak against the Appeal because he did not know what Mr . Weisbaum was talking about . Mr . • Hoefer stated that the house was built by Willis Hilker and he ( Hilker ) lived in the house and rented the apartment . Mr . Hoefer stated that there are two front doors , adding that he did not know what the Board might call " front " and " back " or why , however , he did know that Mr . Hilker called the way the door faces their front and back yard . Mr . Weisbaum noted that in either case , front or back , it is in compliance . Mr . Aubrey Brickhouse , 207 Northview Road West , spoke from the floor and asked how this error was just discovered at this point . Mr . Weisbaum stated that the answer was that the house was just sold and the survey came back showing the side yard of 11 . 7 ' . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hedlund how long he has had the house , to which Mr . Hedlund replied , since July - 1983 . Mr . Paul Warren , 209 Northview Road West , spoke from the floor and stated that Mr . Hedlund is the third owner of the property . Mr . Warren asked Mr . Hedlund if he were aware of the problem when he purchased the house , wondering why there had been no survey prepared prior to that time . Mr . Hedlund stated that he did not know about this problem until the survey , dated July 14 , 1983 , was made for the closing . He stated by that time he had the mortgage in place and he wanted the title cleared . Mr . Weisbaum stated that he did not work on either closing so he did . not know why there was no survey until the 1983 survey . Zoning Board of Appeals 15 September 14 , 1983 • Chairman Aron stated that , personally , he felt it would be a hardship to move the house , foundation and all . Mr . Cartee requested that the Board make a determination as to where the front and back of this house is . After discussion , Chairman Aron stated that the Board determines that the front of the house in question , although designated by mailing address as 201 Northview Road West , is on Coddington Road , Chairman Aron stated that , in view of such determination , the variance being considered is 3 . 3 feet , southwest side yard . Chairman Aron asked if anyone wished to speak any further on the matter . No one spoke . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing closed at 8 : 28 p . m . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance of 3 . 3 feet from the 15 - foot requirement of Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance with respect to the 11 . 7 - foot southwest side yard of premises previously designated 400 Coddington Road , now known as 201 Northview Road West , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . • 6 - 42 - 1 - 9 . 12 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Hedlund Appeal with respect to house location duly closed . APPEAL OF DALVA HEDLUND , APPELLANT , HAROLD WEISBAUM , ESQ . , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR MORE THAN THREE UNRELATED PERSONS TO OCCUPY A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING AT 400 CODDINGTON ROAD , NOW KNOWN AS 201 NORTHVIEW ROAD WEST , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 42 - 1 - 9 . 12 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2a , SUB - SECTION 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AS AMENDED MAY ll , 1970 . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 ; 35 p . m . and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above . • Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hedlund how many people reside in the house in question besides the number of three which is allowed . Mr . Hedlund stated that there are three additional Zoning Board of Appeals 16 September 14 , 1983 • persons , with that number apparently having been there since a year ago June of ' 81 . Mr . Hedlund stated that he did not own the house at the time . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hedlund if he had been aware of the two leases which were to commence on May 1 and June 1 of 1983 and were to expire on April 30 and May 31 of 1984 . Mr . Hedlund stated that when he purchased the property in July of 1983 he was aware of the leases . Mr . Weisbaum stated that when Mr . Hedlund began the process of purchasing this property it was everyone ' s understanding that the tenants would be removed by the time of closing . Mr . Weisbaum stated that Stanley Jar , the owner at the time , was in California and someone was acting on his behalf . He stated that there were three persons in each apartment even though the two leases were to only two people . He noted that there were both these leases involved and also sub - leases involved . Mr . Weisbaum stated that it became apparent that he could not get the tenants out . Mr . Weisbaum pointed out , in light of the fact that Mr . Hedlund is planning on living in the top apartment as soon as the one lease expires on April 30 , 1984 , that will take care of three of the tenants . Mr . Weisbaum also noted that under the circumstances the leases are contracts regardless of the illegality . Mr . Weisbaum stated that he would respectfully request that this matter be postponed until May 1984 , and then there will be two persons in the other apartment and Mr . Hedlund • and his family in the other . Chairman Aron pointed out that the leases are signed by Stanley Jar , Mr . Weisbaum offered to the Board a copy of an executed document , dated July 19 , 1983 , entitled " Assignment of Leases " whereby the rights under the two leases were transfered and assigned to Dalva Hedlund . Mr . Weisbaum stated that during the period of the leases Mr . Hedlund is now collecting the rents ; Mr . Hedlund stands in Mr . Jar ' s position as it were . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against this matter . Mr . Aubrey Brickhouse , 207 Northview Road West , spoke from the floor and stated that he wanted to compliment Mr . Hedlund for improving the property since he became the owner . He stated that the property has been much improved , adding that since he ( Brickhouse ) has been there he had seen the property constantly run down . Mr . Brickhouse stated that the problem today , as he sees it , is a parking problem . He stated that there are six and seven automobiles on the street ; the parking is not adequate . He stated that there are two cars in the driveway and none in the garage ; some are on the grass , but most generally on the highway . He stated that this is an eyesore and causes real problems with the snow plow . He stated that this is caused by six people with six and seven automobiles in this facility . Mr . Brickhouse • stated that he is not a lawyer , but he wondered how there can be an enforceable contract when an infraction of the law is Zoning Board of Appeals 17 September 14 , 1983 • involved . He stated that that would seem to be reason enough to change it . Mr . Michael W . Duttweiler , 345 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and asked for a clarification of what is being requested by Mr . Hedlund . Chairman Aron explained that there are more than three unrelated persons living in the house . Mr . Duttweiler stated that he understood that but he thought he heard a postponement until the leases expire being proposed . Mr . Duttweiler stated that he also would like to compliment Mr . Hedlund on his upgrading of the property , adding that he has lived there for six years . Mr . Duttweiler suggested that the Board check with the Tompkins County Sheriff and they will find eight complaints registered with respect to problems with the tenants of this house from four neighbors . Mr . Duttweiler stated that the previous owner was clearly in violation of the ordinance for some period of time . Mr . Duttweiler stated that if this were to be a standing variance he would be adamantly opposed . Mr . Duttweiler stated again how much the property had been improved since Mr . Hedlund bought it in July . Chairman Aron asked if since July of this year Mr . Duttweiler felt there was anything which took place to be annoying . Mr . Duttweiler indicated that things were not as bad right now . Mr . Roger Joseph , 206 Northview Road West , spoke from the floor and stated that he too wished to compliment the new owner on how much the property has been improved . Mr . Joseph stated that his point is to make certain that nothing in any way near permanent takes place either side of Northview . He stated that there have been nothing but problems with this particular house . He stated that he has complained several times about the noise . Mr . Joseph stated that the only protection we have as residents is this zoning ordinance . He stated that he wants the zoning ordinance in place and enforced . Mr . Joseph stated that he is not really opposed to the present owner , adding that he liked the way he fixed it up but he wanted to be protected . Mr . Joseph stated that he wanted the parking problem cleared up , adding that he cannot see anything but cars and it is difficult to enter Coddington Road because of all the cars . Mr . Richard Essen , 153 Northview Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he would like to echo everything that has been said about the improving of the property . Mr . Essen stated , however , there have been problems this summer with noise . Mr . Essen stated that he wanted the law enforced and that he was not in favor of extending it . Mr . Paul Warren , 209 Northview Road West , spoke from the floor and stated that he shared the view of the improved condition of the house of late , but the automobile situation is extremely bad not only with this house but because there is a • rental house across the street with several cars also . He stated that there is only room for one car to drive on Northview Road West and in the wintertime there is real danger of skidding into Zoning Board of Appeals 18 September 14 , 1983 houses . Mr . Warren stated that the previous owner was cited by the Town for violation - several times . Mr . Warren stated that he personally complained to Larry Fabbroni and Noel Desch . Mr . Warren stated that Mr . Hedlund was aware of the violation before signing the agreements . Mr . Avinash Thukral , 210 Northview Road West , spoke from the floor and stated that there really are quite a few cars on this property . He stated that he agreed with the neighbors ; there are four to six cars parking there ; there is much noise . Mr . Thukral asked how many people are staying there , to which Mr . Weisbaum replied , six people . Mr . Thukral stated that it appears that there are much more than six . Mr . Thukral commented that when he moved into his home , he was aware of the zoning regulations . Mr . Warren asked if Mr . Hedlund were the sole owner . Mr . Hedlund stated that he is . Mr . Brickhouse asked if this variance were not granted , is the contract enforceable . Mr . Weisbaum explained that the purpose of the contract does not break the law , the contract does . He stated that damages could be sued for . Mr . Weisbaum stated that he is very sympathetic to all the neighbors ' complaints . He stated that Mr . Hedlund would be moving in in approximately six months , May of 1984 and then he will rent to • two unrelated persons . Mr . Weisbaum stated that this is a difficult situation for all and with a little patience it will be resolved for the better . Mr . Weisbaum requested that the matter be adjourned until May of 1984 . Mr . Joseph stated that when Mr . Hedlund closed on the property he was aware of the problem . Mr . Weisbaum stated that he was aware at the point of closing , however , when he originally signed the contract agreement it was with the understanding that these people would be removed . Mr . Weisbaum stated that at the point of closing Mr . Hedlund did have the choice to back out of the `contract , however , the mortgage and bank fees , etc . , would not be returned . Mr . Warren asked if the current tenants were evicted , would Mr . Hedlund be liable . Mr . Weisbaum stated that he believed so . Mr . Warren asked if he could counter - sue the previous owner . Mr . Weisbaum stated that that aspect is not so clear . Mr . Weisbaum explained some aspects of Contract Law , Mr . Brickhouse stated that he did not believe that matter is the matter at issue . He stated that the matter at issue is whether to grant this variance - or whatever it is . Chairman Aron stated that Mr . Brickhouse ' s point was well taken , adding that the Board of Appeals considers hardship , facts , etc . . Mr . Essen stated that there are other hardships to consider , being , among others , his children , other children , other people , Zoning Board of Appeals 19 September 14 , 1983 and , very importantly , safety , Mr . Essen stated that there are eleven children in contiguous households . Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions or comments . There were none . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 55 p . m . Chairman Aron stated that he would recommend to the Board that the members go to the property and look at the whole situation themselves , personally . He stated that he would suggest that they look at the property at a time not advertised . MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the Hedlund Appeal with respect to occupancy until the October 1983 meeting of said Board . Mrs . Reuning requested a short recess which was granted by the Chair . Chairman Aron thanked those present , stating that he appreciated their giving the Board five minutes and adding that he knew they had taken into consideration both their anxiety and • Mr . Hedlund ' s anxiety . Chairman Aron corrected Mr . Weisbaum ' s statement that Mr . Hedlund will move into the property in six months and noted that it will be about nine months . Mr . Weisbaum stated that he had not added correctly and meant nine months . Mr . Hedlund stated that , yes , it was his intention to move in on June 1st , Mr . Weisbaum pointed out that the leases expire at two different times - May 31st and April 30th - and at that point the property will be in compliance with respect to occupancy . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning ,* RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals retract and hereby does retract the Motion for Adjournment on the floor . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca ZoningBoard of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the Hedlund Appeal Zoning Board of Appeals 20 September 14 , 1983 • with respect to occupancy of premises at 201 Northview Road West , previously known as 400 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 42 - 1 - 9 . 12 , until May 31 , 1984 , at which time the property shall be in compliance with the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , paragraph 2a , sub - section 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , as amended May 11 , 1970 , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that said adjournment date be and hereby is contingent upon the following : 1 . The parking situation with respect to the subject property shall be alleviated to the point where any automobiles present with respect to the occupancy of the premises shall be located such that two are housed in the garage , possibly two in the existing driveway , and that there shall be no on - street parking allowed at all at any time . 2 . The noise level shall be kept to a minimum . 3 . Garbage and refuse shall be contained in proper receptacles and collected regularly in such manner as to not remain standing by the street ' s edge . 4 . It shall be the right of the neighbors of the subject property to notify either this Board or the Town of Ithaca • Building Inspector at any time of any violation of these conditions and it shall be the right of this Board to reconvene , on notice , at any time prior to the adjournment date hereinabove stated with respect to any such violation . Mr . Edward Austen stated that he would SECOND the MOTION with the understanding that the neighbors have the right to complain . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION to ADJOURN , with conditions , was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Hedlund Appeal duly adjourned . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , the Chair declared the September 14 , 1983 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 10 p . m . .1 Zoning Board of Appeals 21 September 14 , 1983 Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Henry Aron , Chairman •