Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1984-02-15 J - TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 15 , 1984 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , February 15 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward W . King , Jack D . Hewett , Edward N . Austen , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Landscape Consultant ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Mark Davies , Clarence Cleveland , William C . Swerbenski , Gary Turton , Alfred DiGiacomo , Mary DiGiacomo , Robert DiGiacomo , Jeanne Tomlinson , James Iacovelli , Arthur Howser , Bion Carpenter , Heinz Biesdorf , Ellen Biesdorf , Walter J . Wiggins , Esq . , Evan N . Monkemeyer , M . J . Morusty Monkemeyer , Robert Jason ( WTKO News ) . Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 00 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 February 7 , 1984 and February 10 , 1984 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties in question , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Director of the Finger Lakes State Parks and Recreation Commission , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the Appellants as a party to the action , on February 9 , 1984 . Chairman Aron announced that , prior to opening the Public Hearings which the Board has scheduled for this meeting , he would like to introduce Peter Lovi , the Town Planner , whom he had asked to report to the Board on certain aspects of the zoning ordinance and certain proposed amendments thereto . Mr . Lovi addressed the Chair and noted that . work is proceeding on the more thorough revision of the existing Zoning Ordinance of which the Zoning Board is aware . Mr . Lovi stated that , however , at this time he would be speaking particularly of somewhat more immediate proposed amendments to that existing Ordinance , being : ( 1 ) With respect to an existing structure which is proposed as a tourist home - Mr . Lovi reported that a resolution has been introduced to the Codes and Ordinances Committee , as requested by Chairman Aron , which reads : " IT IS RESOLVED that Sections 11 and 18 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended and renumbered to include the Zoning Board of Appeals 2 February 15 , 1984 • following additional permitted use : Rooming houses , tourist houses , but only upon special approval of the Board of Appeals . " Mr . Lovi stated that this amendment would make Residence Districts R15 and Residences Districts R30 identical to the language in Residence Districts R9 , with respect to these particular uses . ( 2 ) With respect to a proposed new zoning district designation - Mr . Lovi reported that there is presently 'before the Codes and Ordinances Committee a proposed amendment to the existing Ordinance for a new district , a new article , proposed to be designated as Mixed Use Districts , Mr . Lovi stated that this proposed new district designation is similar to the existing Multiple Residence Districts , Article VI , but with additional uses incident to residence , and described the uses proposed to be permitted in this new district - - one - family dwelling units ; two - family dwelling units ; dwelling units for three or more families ; hotel , motel , or tourist home ; restaurants without drive - in service ; any use permitted in Business Districts " A " or " B " , provided that each such use shall not occupy more than 500 square feet , nor employ more than three ( 3 ) persons at any one time . Mr . Lovi described the accessory uses proposed to be permitted in this district - - automobile parking and garages ; • structures or use of open land for recreation , intended for residents of the Mixed Use District , Mr . Lovi commented that the type of development which would fit within the scope of this kind of district would be something like the Lake Shore West proposal by the ITD Group for use of the old hospital . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the various uses proposed are secondary to the primary use of the zoning district as a residence district . Mr . Lovi stated that proposed requirements as to area , yard , coverage and height requirements have been set down , as well as special requirements as to parking , access and sidewalks , recreation , and screening of waste and refuse . Mr . Lovi stated that the proposed minimum tract acreage requirement for the development of a Mixed Use District is ten acres and the tract must contain at least 2 , 500 sq . ft . of gross lot area for each dwelling unit to be constructed and 5 , 000 sq . ft . of gross lot area for each business use . Mr . Lovi stated that the proposed procedure is the same as in a multiple residence district , i . e . , Planning Board to Town Board back to Planning Board . ( 3 ) Mr . Lovi reported that the third item before the Town Board , as an amendment to the existing Ordinance , is , at the suggestion of this Board ( Board of Appeals ) that the definition of " family " be amended . i Zoning Board of Appeals 3 February 15 , 1984 Mr . Lovi stated that the case for amending the definition of a family was made very well before the Town Board by Mr . Austen . Mr . Lovi stated that he would speak now to the item about which he had been asked to speak by Chairman Aron , that being the matter of the development proposal of Mr . Walter Wiggins with respect to his property on the Danby Road where L ' Auberge du Cochon Rouge is located and which is on the Zoning Board ' s agenda this evening . Mr . Lovi referred to the Notice of Public Hearing as published . [ Appeal of Walter J . and Joyce Wiggins , Appellants , from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to construct a 21 - unit Country Inn ( Bed and Breakfast facility ) , a swimming pool , two ( 2 ) indoor tennis courts , and expand the kitchen and dining room of L ' Auberge du Cochon Rouge , at 1152 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 4 . 2 . Permission is denied under Article VI , Section 26 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . ] Mr . Lovi brought the Board up to date on what has occurred since it was necessary to submit the Notice to the Ithaca Journal in order for it to be published within the time limit prescribed by law , stating that the 21 units , i . e . , Phase 1 , referenced are , in fact , 24 , however , The Chateau is still to contain a total of 80 units . Mr . Lovi stated that the results of the Planning Board Public Hearing and the Town Board • meeting are that The Chateau development will be handled through the rezoning process which was passed by the Town Board on Monday , February 13th , Mr . Lovi noted that the Secretary had copies of that Resolution for distribution . Mr . Lovi stated that the swimming pool will be handled as part of the Site Plan Approval process of the Planning Board . Mr . Lovi stated that the indoor tennis courts , that is , the tennis court building has been withdrawn by the developer , Mr . Wiggins , however , there is to be an open two - court tennis court to be located on the site plan and which poses no problem for the Board and , therefore , will also be before the Planning Board as part of that Site Plan Approval process . Mr . Lovi stated that the matter remaining is the proposal for the expansion of the restaurant , L ' Auberge , that is , Mr . Wiggins ' request for approval of an expansion of the kitchen and dining facilities and which is a part of The Chateau development and yet separate therefrom since Mr . Wiggins has stated that the expansion of the existing restaurant is necessary in any case . Mr . Lovi stated that that particular matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals as an expansion of a non - conforming use , this Board having granted Special Approval to Mr . Wiggins in 1971 for the use of the farmhouse as a restaurant . Mr . Lovi asked if there were any questions which he would be pleased to answer . There were no questions from the members of • the Board . Chairman Aron thanked Mr . Lovi for his report . Mr . Lovi asked if he could be excused since he had to attend a Zoning Board of Appeals 4 February 15 , 1984 . meeting of the Six Mile Creek Study Committee . Mr . Lovi was granted permission to leave by the Chair . APPEAL OF WALTER J . AND JOYCE WIGGINS , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO [ CONSTRUCT A 21 - UNIT COUNTRY INN ( BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY ) , A SWIMMING POOL , TWO ( 2 ) INDOOR TENNIS COURTS , AND ] EXPAND THE KITCHEN AND DINING ROOM OF L ' AUBERGE DU COCHON ROUGE , AT 1152 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 36 - 1 - 4 . 2 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER [ ARTICLE VI , SECTION 261 ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 13 p . m . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as published and as noted above , noting the corrections as noted above . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Walter J . Wiggins under date of January 26 , 1984 , commenting that the form had been completed prior to the Planning Board and Town Board meetings . Said Appeal reads as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to build a 21 unit bed and breakfast Country Inn with 2 indoor tennis courts and swimming pool and to expand the kitchen and dining room at L ' Auberge at 1152 Danby Road . . . The land is no longer capable of being operated successfully for agricultural purposes and although residential development has been attempted . there has been no demand for such use . The area lends itself very well to country living , recreation , and living and dining pursuits . It offers the possibility of preserving a rural atmosphere and sharing . it with visitors to the Ithaca area in a way that is not available anywhere else in our community . " Chairman Aron read aloud from the Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of April 20 , 1971 , as follows : " . . . Present : Chairman David N . Powers , Roger B . Sovocool , Loran Marion , Mrs . Laurene Ripley , Jack Hewett , David W . Cowan ( Zoning Officer ) . . . . Loran Marion moved as follows : That the Zoning Board of Appeals grant Special Approval to Walter Wiggans [ sic . ] for the purpose of using the Farm House at 1152 Danby Road as an exclusive restaurant , subject to the following conditions : ( 1 ) A sign . . . ( 2 ) A parking area . . . ( 3 ) This Special Approval is granted on the basis of a recommendation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board that such approval be granted and also by reason of the fact that no persons have appeared at this duly advertised public hearing in opposition to the proposed use of the Farm House at 1152 Danby Road as an exclusive restaurant . Zoning Board of Appeals 5 February 15 , 19 .84 ( 4 ) The Special Approval hereby granted does not at this time contemplate any additions to the house or changes in that portion of the exterior of the house which faces the roadway , except that a canopy not to exceed 25 feet in length may be installed from the front door of the restaurant to the driveway . ( 5 ) The farm house and barn may be floodlighted with white light only . ( 6 ) Liquor may be served on the premises with the proviso that there shall be no ' stand -up ' bar , but rather a service bar . The motion was seconded by Roger B . Sovocool and was unanimously adopted by the Board . " Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the matter of the expansion of the L ' Auberge Restaurant . There were no responses from those present . Mr . Wiggins appeared before the Board and appended to the bulletin board the plan , dated February 1 , 1984 , which had been approved by the Planning Board and upon which the rezoning to multiple residence had been granted by the Town Board , and indicated thereon the location of the restaurant . Mr . Wiggins • stated that the kitchen is the original farm kitchen and in order to better serve the present customers of L ' Auberge and the anticipated new persons it will require expansion of the restaurant ' s dining area and kitchen area . Mr . Wiggins stated that he has no particular plan to present at this moment except to note that there is to be no attempt to change the concept of L ' Auberge . Mr . Wiggins indicating on the plan , described expansion to the north and , perhaps , an addition to the front in keeping with the overall plan , being somewhat of a French provincial country inn , also with some portion of that to the north behind it . Mr . Wiggins indicated on the plan the location of the wine cellar , described the service bar , indicated the location of the existing kitchen and pastry shop , and the location of the dining area . Mr . Wiggins stated that he hoped this idea is in keeping with what the Board would agree is a reasonable expansion of the facility . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Wiggins approximately how many square feet of expansion was to occur . Mr . Wiggins stated that he would guess the expansion to be about 50 % in size of the dining and kitchen area , commenting that the restaurant now has about 55 seats . Mr . Wiggins estimated that there would be an addition of about 20 ' x 401 , adding about 400 sq . ft . to the dining area and about 200 sq . ft . to the kitchen area . Mr . Wiggins thought the overall expansion would be , perhaps , 750 to 800 sq . ft . Mr . Wiggins commented that when The Chateau is built • with the 24 units full , with doubles , there could be 48 prospective diners , although they would not arrive all at one time , adding that an additional 35 seats would be a help . Mr . Zoning Board of Appeals 6 February 15 , 1984 Wiggins indicated on the drawing the northerly direction which the addition would take , noting that such addition would be visible from the highway coming south . Mr . Wiggins described how he hoped to have a fireplace serving both dining rooms , if possible , however , if that were not possible , the addition would be to the north . Mr . King asked if the Planning Board had reviewed the plans . Mr . Wiggins stated that the Planning Board has been aware from the commencement of discussions of his plans to expand L ' Auberge , although specific detail drawings of the expansion have not been submitted . Mr . Wiggins stated that the Planning Board had recommended the rezoning based on the plan . Commenting that it appeared that he was not terribly well prepared and offering his apology , Mr . Wiggins stated that if the Board needs plans for the proposed expansion , he can obtain them . Mr . Austen inquired if the construction would be the same as the existing restaurant . Mr . Wiggins stated that it would be in order to maintain the character of the farmhouse . Mr . King asked about the existing parking and Mr . Wiggins indicated the parking on the plan to the west , adding that there will be no substantial change in the existing parking by the restaurant . Mr . King wondered what would happen if The Chateau project fails , noting that Mr . Wiggins has been granted the rezoning . Mr . Wiggins • responded that if it fails he would use the northern area ( indicating on the plan ) . Mr . Wiggins stated that , in any case , he would respectfully request that the Board consider the expansion of the kitchen and dining area of the restaurant , adding that it is still a country kitchen and the facility really needs to be expanded in order to maintain the quality that is expected at L ' Auberge . Mr . King stated that what the Board would have to have is something very specific to what is being proposed and which should include the parking . Mr . Wiggins wanted to make sure that he understood and repeated that the Board would want to see the parking for the restaurant alone and how the parking would be placed if The Chateau is built and if it is not built . Mr . King asked if there had been any objections during the proceedings on the rezoning aspect . Mr . Wiggins stated that there had been no objections entered . Mr . King stated that , since any approval on the part of the Zoning Board of Appeals is done under a special permit , the Board should see some more detail in order for it to proceed . Chairman Aron noted that the next meeting of the Board is on March 14th . Mr . Wiggins stated that he could be prepared for that meeting in a preliminary way if he may respectfully request . Mr . Cartee commented that Mr . Wiggins had mentioned about a 50 % increase in size , adding , however , that with around 48 prospective diners the occupancy increase would be about 100 % . • MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : Zoning Board of Appeals 7 February 15 , 1984 RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca adjourn and hereby does adjourn the Public Hearing in the matter of the Wiggins Appeal with respect to the proposed expansion of L ' Auberge du Cochon Rouge until Wednesday , March 14 , 1984 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , King , Hewett , Austen . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Wiggins Appeal duly adjourned at 7 : 34 p . m . APPEAL OF THE COUNTRY CLUB OF ITHACA , APPELLANT , MARK DAVIES , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO ERECT A PLASTIC MESH FENCE GREATER THAN SIX ( 6 ) FEET IN HEIGHT , AT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE , AT 1011 HANSHAW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 71 - 7 - 1 . PERMISSION 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 : 35 p . m , and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as published and as noted above . Mr . Davies was present . Chairman Aron asked for a report from Mr . Cartee with respect to the status of the matter of the Country Club fence . Mr . Cartee stated that in December of 1981 the Board granted a two - year approval for the Country Club to maintain a plastic mesh fence on their north property line . Mr . Cartee recalled that the Board had been informed that the Country Club would be actively moving toward the purchase of some additional land in order to be able to relocate the driving range area . Mr . Cartee stated that in November of 1983 , with the expiration date of the special permit rapidly approaching , he wrote to the manager of the Country Club , Mr . Vignaux , who had represented the Club at the 1981 meeting . Mr . Cartee stated that he received no reply to his letter . Mr . Cartee stated that in December of 1983 he brought the matter informally before the Board of Appeals requesting direction as to how to proceed . Mr . Cartee stated that he wrote again to the Club on December 20th informing them of the expiration of the permit and requesting removal of the fence and posts , adding that again there was no reply . Mr . Cartee stated that he wrote again on January 9th , 1984 requesting a response to his notice to remove the fence and posts . Mr . Cartee stated that it was at this point that he learned that Mr . Davies is now the Manager of the Country Club , it being he who • submitted the appeal on January 19th for maintenance of the fence . Zoning Board of Appeals 8 February 15 , 1984 Chairman Aron read from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Mr . Mark Davies , as follows : " . . . The Country Club of Ithaca would like to reapply for a special permit to maintain a plastic mesh fence on the Country Club property . " Chairman Aron invited Mr . Davies to speak to the Board about the request . Mr . Davies stated that the previous manager was let go in October of 1983 and the letters of which Mr . Cartee spoke were not submitted to the Board of Directors of the Country Club and apparently nobody knew what was going on . Mr . Davies stated that he had never seen any of these letters . Mr . Davies stated that he arrived on the scene the first of the year and when he learned of the problem he submitted the application for renewal of the permit . Mr . Davies stated that he had been told by the Board of Directors of the Club that this was an " on - going " permit . Mr . Davies stated that tonight is the first time he had heard about the land acquisition aspect . Mr . Davies stated that the mesh fence is taken down at the end of the season , although the posts remained in place . Mr . Davies pointed out that the area being protected by the fence is actually a warm-up area rather than a driving range . Mr . Davies stated that the fence is maintained during the golf season for the safety of the local residents and their children . Mr . Davies stated that they would like to request that this fence be put up with a new permit for the seasons to come and , if at all possible , such that the Club does • not have to go through the appeal process year after year . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Country Club appeal . Mr . Clarence Cleveland spoke from the floor and stated that he was a member of the Country Club and a new member of the Board of Directors of the Club . Mr . Cleveland stated that the long - range plans of the Club have been , and are , to find a new warm- up range , however , the Club is experiencing a cash flow problem at the present time and cannot buy new land at this time . Mr . Cleveland stated that the Club would like to request that the Board grant a short - term variance on this matter until it finds where it is going with its long - range program , adding that he was speaking in terms of two or three years . Mr . Alfred DiGiacomo , 1025 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he was one of the people being protected by the Country Club . Mr . DiGiacomo asked if the Board had received his letter . Chairman Aron stated that the Board members had been given a copy of his letter which was dated February 14 , 1984 . For the record , the letter follows : " . . . Re : Building Permit # 2427 . . . On October 22 , 1981 the town of Ithaca issued a building permit • to the Country Club of Ithaca to erect a fence thirty ( 30 ) feet high and two hundred and fity ( 250 ) feet long at 1011 Hanshaw Road . At a rehearing held in December , despite objections , the Zoning Board of Appeals 9 February 15 , 1984 Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the permit with a provision that a review would be scheduled in 1983 . The fence was erected in the spring of 1982 in a location different than the one described to myself and my neighbor , Mr . Agard , by the manager of the country club , ( see enclosed sketches . ) I wish to report that the fence in its present location , as we had stated to the board , has been ineffective in curtailing the amount of practice golf balls that still land in my yard and Mr . Agard ' s . During the 1982 season I accumulated approximately nine hundred ( 900 ) red and white balls , as well as a mixture of orange and orange and black balls . In addition my granddaughter was nearly struck by a ball . Balls have struck the side and roof of my house , damaged a screen , and cracked a storm window . In 1982 part of the fence was never fastened to the cable at the east end of the line in spite of numerous calls to the manager , it remained that way for the rest of the season creating an additional eyesore . In addition the bottom of the fence pulled loose from it ' s [ sic . ] anchors . It is now weighted down with lengths of steel pipe in various finishes . Later the fence was almost torn apart by winter winds and was taken down . In the Spring of 1982 the fence went up again , this time it was fastened to the cable completely . In the interim the steel cable • supporting the fence had stretched and sagged . Consequently the top of the fence also sags , reducing its effectiveness . As soon as the snow melted in the spring , we had balls entering our property again , just missing me as I walked about in my yard . In May 1983 , while digging out a stump of a tree in my back yard I was struck in the back of the foot by [ a ] ball . A week later after I had removed the stump I was filling in the hole . I stepped away and turned to get more fill from a nearby borrow pit . In those few seconds two balls landed in the stump hole . Shortly after that two more landed behind me , I gave up the project and disgusted went in the house . In June I wrote to the Club asking them to shut down the Practice Range on Saturday and Sunday as we were celebrating my daughter ' s graduation from high school and would be having a party , with about thirty guests . Through some failure to communicate the manager did not notify the golf pro , the range was open on Saturday . No one was in the yard when the balls landed , they did close the range down Sunday until 2 : 00 PM . In the Summer of 1983 when the Club had a duffers outing we had a record number of balls land on our property . Some ( 53 ) Fifty Three Balls landed in our yard . My neighbor Mr . Agard who was sitting on his terrace was nearly hit by one ball , the others missed him , we stayed in the house . The Country Club purchased orange balls with the word " range " on them for the 1983 season . Over ( 300 ) Three Hundred of these balls have landed in my yard . In addition to those we also • collected approximately ( 200 ) Two Hundred white and red striped balls , as well as orange painted balls . Zoning Board of Appeals 10 February 15 , 1984 • It is obvious that the fence , in its present location , has not been effective and in addition is an eyesore . It has failed to provide the protection guaranteed to the Zoning Board by the Country Club . The fence may have been effective if it had been placed at a location next to the tee for the practice range . But the Country Club chose to place it behind the property line of the two neighbors that objected to its installation . The protection we need is not from the fairway but from the practice range . The Country Club of Ithaca has failed to live up to the commitments and assurances given at the last hearing to the Board of Appeals . First , it erected the fence in a location other than stated , second it failed to maintain the fence in proper order , third the fence has been completely ineffective , fourth the Country Club has not proceeded with the relocation of the practice range within its allotted time period . We request that the Town of Ithaca deny permission for the Country Club of Ithaca to install the fence and direct them to close down the practice range as a hazard to life and personal property . ' ( sgd . ) Alfred DiGiacomo " Mr . DiGiacomo referred to the three drawings he had submitted as Drawing # 1 , # 2 , and # 3 , noting that they depicted the situation as it was to be , as it is , and the location of the • practice range in relationship to the neighbors . Mr . DiGiacomo stated that Mr . Klaus Beyenbach , 1024 Hanshaw Road , across the street , also told him that he has had balls in his yard . Mr . William Swerbenski , 1021 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that his is the first house by the fence , adding that he is a member of the Country Club , and also that he resides next to Mr . Agard , Mr . Swerbenski stated that he is protected by the fence , commenting that he does have a few balls enter his yard and adding that most of them are stopped by the fence . Mr . Swerbenski stated that he was surprised that Mr . DiGiacomo gets so many. balls in his yard , adding that he ' knew that some balls were entering the Agard property . Mr . Swerbenski stated that from his perspective the fence is not an eyesore , adding that it is so thin you can see through it . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Swerbenski if he felt that he was a good golfer . Mr . Swerbenski replied that he thought he was fairly good , adding that he has a 9 handicap . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Swerbenski if he felt that he had to use the range . Mr . Swerbenski stated that he did , adding that the fence is more positive than negative , aside from closing down the range . Mr . DiGiacomo stated that the 500 balls this year is down from the 1 , 200 balls in their yard from the year before . Mr . • DiGiacomo stated that the fence does stop some of the balls , but as far as its appearance , the first year the fence was allowed to sag at their end and now the entire fence is sagging . Mr . DiGiacomo quoted an article which appeared in the Ithaca Journal Zoning Board of Appeals 11 February 15 , 1984 on December 18 , 1981 , in which the reporter had interviewed Mr . Vignaux who had said that the Club was going to plant 30 ' high trees to act as a shield for the neighbors . Mr . DiGiacomo stated that he kept getting assurances from the manager that they were negotiating with the State all along and now he has gone and the new Board has no knowledge of these assurances . Mr . Swerbenski stated that he was on the Board when they approved the fence and the proposal was that they were looking at alternatives to the placement of the range and , among other things , possibly re - routing the course , possibly eliminating the 9th hole . Mr . Swerbenski stated that he thought they talked with Cornell but he recalled those discussions involved the revamping of several holes on the front 9 . Mrs . Mary DiGiacomo , 1025 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that the 9th hole is a dog leg and presents a problem for the Country Club itself . Mrs . DiGiacomo stated that sometimes the balls that are on the practice range go down onto that dog leg aiming at the people on the 9th hole . Mrs . DiGiacomo stated that she objected to the fence , adding that as a taxpayer , paying taxes on her entire property , she feels that she cannot use her yard . Mr . Gary Turton , 1027 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he resides in the fourth house down and is also a • member of the Country Club . Mr . Turton stated that he has, three young children , nine years old and younger . Mr . Turton stated that the fence does a better service than no service . Mr . Turton stated that he gets several balls in his yard also , but the fence does provide safety and he would like to speak for it . Mr . Swerbenski stated that , as a golfer , he really thought the balls were coming in under the fence rather than over the top . Mr . Swerbenski stated that the bottom of the fence has not been secure and is kept somewhat in place by certain lengths of pipe , adding that if they fixed that it could very well solve the problem . Mr . Swerbenski suggested that the Town Inspector could also come up from time to time as a condition and make sure things are okay . Mr . Swerbenski pointed out that they have a new manager now and matters are much improved . Mr . King wondered what Mr . Swerbenski might think about extending the fence to the west where Mr . DiGiacomo said it was planned to be . Mr . Swerbenski stated that it was his opinion that it would not help . , Mr . DiGiacomo stated that if Mr . Swerbenski sat on his porch he could hear the balls hitting the trees . Mr . DiGiacomo stated that it is the high - flyers that enter his yard , not the low - flyers . Mr . DiGiacomo stated that it is true that -the fence • was not anchored down but held down by pieces of pipe , however , the fence is 8 to 10 feet from his property line , adding that there are bushes there too , so it is definitely high - flyers that I 1 , Zoning Board of Appeals 12 February 15 , 1984 are entering his yard . Mr . DiGiacomo described at some length what occurred during the duffer tournament . Chairman Aron inquired as to the meaning of duffer tournament . Mr . Swerbenski described the golfing term " duffer " . Mr . Robert DiGiacomo , 1025 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he had with him a big box containing merely a sample of the number of balls retrieved from his yard . Mr . DiGiacomo gave each of the Board members one of the orange balls marked Range and also gave one to Mr . Davies , Mr . DiGiacomo described the danger , the . nuisance , and an incident with his lawnmower striking a ball . Mr . DiGiacomd stated that he would suggest that the fence be removed and the practice range relocated with the existing one closed down . Mr . Swerbenski stated that a question of closing the range is another whole topic . Mr . Swerbenski stated that the matter before the Board is the fence . Mrs . DiGiacomo stated that the Country Club has never answered about the matter of the property search . Mr . King pointed . out that the Club had indicated that they cannot afford to buy another piece of property at this time . Mr . Cleveland stated that the Club has many projects that they would like to do • and this is one of their top priorities . Mr . Cleveland stated that the Club is being reorganized and there are many changes underway and contemplated . Mr . Cleveland stated that he could not assure the Board that this will be moved this year or even next year . Mr . Cleveland stated that they do want to do these things and he would recommend that the fence remain there until the Club can change over . Mr . Hewett commented that it was his understanding that the Board is concerned with the matter of the fence at this hearing . The Board members concurred . Mr . Austen stated that it is a real problem , adding that he realized that a practice range is necessary at golf clubs , but , he also thought it is just as necessary for people to use their backyards and not get hit by a golf ball . Mr . King stated that he had not seen this fence or how it is set up and did not , therefore , have a complete picture . Mr . King stated that he would like to look at it . Both Messrs . Hewett and Austen stated that they would like to look at the site also . Mr . Cartee stated that he could take the Board members around the property , commenting that the poles are up , the fence is not . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca adjourn and hereby does adjourn the Public Hearing in the matter of the Country Club of Ithaca Appeal until Wednesday , March 14 , 1984 . Zoning Board of Appeals 13 February 15 , 1984 • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , King , Hewett , Austen . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Country Club Appeal duly adjourned at 8 : 14 p . m . APPEAL OF JEANNE TOMLINSON , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO OPERATE A BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY AT 224 BOSTWICK ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 31 - 6 - 1 . 2 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 15 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as published and as noted above . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Jeanne Tomlinson under date of February 6 , 1984 , as follows : " . . . I have a large home located on a hundred acres that I wish to use for a bed & breakfast business . My income is not enough to support utilities and taxes on this property , and I wish to supplement it • with paying guests . My education has been in hotel management and I am presently employed as a front office supervisor at Statler Inn at Cornell . I would like to apply my knowledge and experience on my own behalf . There is a serious shortage of rooms in the area at peak times and travelers are forced to seek accommodations as far away as Binghamton & Syracuse . Therefore , the revenue that could be generated does not stay in Tompkins County ! Sign is 24 " x 26 " incl . trim . Post is 6Z ' high ( with arm ) . " Chairman Aron referred to page 27 of the Zoning Ordinance , i . e . , Section 77 , paragraph 6 , reading as follows : " Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of this ordinance , the Board of Appeals shall have the power , in passing upon appeals , to vary or modify the application of any of the regulations or provisions of this ordinance so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done . " Mrs . Tomlinson was present and Chairman Aron invited her to speak to the Board about her request . Chairman Aron stated to Mrs . Tomlinson that he went by her place and would comment that it is very well kept . Chairman Aron noted that Mrs . Tomlinson ' s property is almost opposite Seven Mile Drive and is by a large area of vacant land . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that she owns that land . Chairman Aron noted that in the back of her . property is the County Garage . Mrs . Tomlinson stated • that that was correct , adding that the County purchased that land from her family . Chairman Aron also noted that the School Bus Garage is also a neighbor . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that that was Zoning Board of Appeals 14 February 15 , 1984 • correct and added that the School District bought their land from her family also . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of Mrs . Tomlinson ' s Appeal . No one spoke . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that besides working at the Statler , she had child support income , however , she did not receive that any more because the children are too grown . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that she had a $ 3 , 000 electric bill alone plus the fuel bill . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that she must meet very high utility bills . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that . she did not want to give up the home and the land which was her family ' s farm for a very long time . She commented that the house is on 100 acres . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Tomlinson if she would continue to work if she should be granted permission to operate this bed and breakfast accommodation . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that she would , unless the operation is very successful . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Tomlinson how many guests she was thinking about having . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that she had six bedrooms , adding that she is in one and that leaves five , and her two boys are home so that leaves three . Mrs . Tomlinson pointed out that in any event , no matter how large a house is , under the State bed and breakfast regulations one cannot have more than nine people . Chairman Aron • commented that there is plenty of yard . Mr . Austen asked if there were any plans for modifications to the exterior of the house . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that there were none as far as she knew , adding that she would have to comply with whatever is required under the fire code regulations . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that the water test was okay , adding that she had submitted the water test report which was dated September 29 , 1983 and a receipt for $ 25 . 00 , dated February 2 , 1984 for a sewage permit . Chairman Aron noted that the Board had received copies of those documents attached to the Appeal Form . Mr . Cartee commented that the percolation test was satisfactory and the $ 25 . 00 receipt for permit is in case the system fails , adding that the Health Department will not inspect a system , however , in case the system fails , the permit is in place to install a new one . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that Mancini installed the system . Mr . Austen noted that the property in question is above the County facilities as one goes out . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that , primarily , this is their home and will always be their home . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that if it is very successful , she might use the carriage house , but that is a long , long , way off . Mr . King inquired if there were adequate kitchen facilities . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that there were , adding that no change in the kitchen was necessary . Chairman Aron asked how many bathrooms there are in the house . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that the house contained four bathrooms . Mr . King asked if Mrs . Tomlinson had • had an electrical inspection of the house wiring or did she have an Underwriters ' Certificate . Mrs . Tomlinson stated that she did not have an electrical inspection certificate . . ,, • Zoning Board of Appeals 15 February 15 , 1984 MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca grant and hereby does grant a special permit to Mrs . Jeanne Tomlinson for special use of her property located at 224 Bostwick Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 6 - 1 . 2 , as a Bed and Breakfast accommodation subject to the following limitations and / or conditions : 1 . That there cannot be more than nine ( 9 ) people served at one time . 2 . That the special permit hereby granted is contingent upon there being an inspection of the subject property by the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector with his approval of same as complying with fire codes . 3 . That there be received a certificate of electrical inspection by the New York Board of Fire Underwriters Bureau indicating that the system affords no hazard . 4 . That the matter of the required documentation is reviewable by the Inspector with a report of same being made to this Board . 5 . That said special permit is personal to Mrs . Jeanne Tomlinson . 6 . That the operation is subject to periodic inspections by the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , King , Hewett , Austen . Nay - None . , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Tomlinson Appeal duly closed at 8 : 30 p . m . APPEAL OF JAMES IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND OPERATE A FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND AT 1474 SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 41 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 31 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as published and as noted above . Mr . Iacovelli was present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by James Iacovelli under date of January 18 , 1984 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to operate a fruit and vegetable stand at 1474 Slaterville Rd . . . Precedence • exists for a fruit and vegetable stand in the East Hill area . Vor many years the stand operated by the Marion family contributed to the quality of living in the area by making fresh A1 � Zoning Board of Appeals 16 February 15 , 1984 produce conveniently accessible to residents in a setting inviting friendly social conversation and neighborhood spirit . 9lSince the unexpected closing of the Marion stand , many area residents have felt a sense of loss . The purpose of this proposal is to fill the void and to build and improve on past experience . q[ In addition to the advantages already mentioned , approval of this petition would help to preserve those rural features which are a prime attraction of the neighborhood , by making restoration of the barn financially feasible . Special care would be taken in the design of the barn restoration , parking and landscaping to respect the investment of adjacent property owners . QI ' m confident that what is being proposed will be both a social asset to the area and a contributor to improved real estate values . " Chairman Aron noted the Short EAF ( Environmental Assessment Form ) attached to the Appeal Form wherein all questions had been answered " no " , and the recommendations of the reviewer , Mr . Lovi , as follows : "411 - The potential exists for additional traffic problems at the Pine Tree Road , Rte . 79 intersection . I believe the applicant should present some evidence or study that the proposed use will not have a traffic impact on. this corner . # 12 - By virtue of its location in a residential neighborhood , this project could be reasonably expected to cause noise , traffic , or disturbance levels which would be out of character with the • neighborhood . # 15 - I expect substantial controversy from the Pine Tree Road community . " Chairman Aron invited Mr . Iacovelli to speak to the Board about his proposal . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he had tried to indicate his plans in his Appeal Form with its attached site plan showing the proposed produce market and aside from that one of his main intentions was to restore the barn . Mr . Iacovelli stated that the barn is in a delapidated state and could be a nice landmark . Mr . Iacovelli stated that , as his plan shows , all traffic will be coming in from Slaterville Road which is Route 79 . Mr . Iacovelli commented that he is trying to improve the property which has been in a bad state . Mr . King noted that it is a long way to the barn from the entry way . MrA. Iacovelli stated that there would be the need for parking and there is about 150 ' to work with . Mr . King asked if Mr . Iacovelli would be selling the produce from the barn itself . Mr . Iacovelli stated that that was correct , adding that there would be additional stands or bins outside . Mr . Iacovelli stated that there could possibly be a patio outside using a concrete slab , but not now . Mr . King wondered if people would enter the barn . Mr . Iacovelli stated that they would , adding that it would be from the Slaterville Road side and noting that the grade runs down . Mr . King asked if there would be any access from Pine Tree Road . Mr . Iacovelli stated that there would not be access from Pine Tree Road , adding that he is going to fence that in and bring all the people in from Slaterville Road . Mr . King wondered Zoning Board of Appeals 17 February 15 , 1984 about the size of the entry way . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it would be at least 25 feet . Chairman Aron noted that Slaterville Road in that area is a 45 m . p . h . zone and stated that he saw difficulty getting in and out . Chairman Aron asked if this were a business . Mr . Iacovelli responded that it was , adding that it is to be a fruit stand , open eight months of the year with hours from 10 : 00 to 6 : 00 . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Iacovelli Appeal , Mr . Arthur Howser , 1469 Slaterville Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he was against this proposal , for several reasons - - ( 1 ) traffic hazard ; ( 2 ) the particular spot for the driveway is low ; ( 3 ) keeping the area residential . Mr . Bion Carpenter , 1467 Slaterville Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he believed the driveway should be closed to Pine Tree Road and also there should not be a full -time business . Mr . Carpenter stated that the traffic would be going into this business when the traffic is heavy . Mr . Carpenter stated that Mr . Iacovelli had said that he wanted . to serve the community . • Chairman Aron read aloud the following letter dated February 10 , 1984 , from Michael J . Pichel , Esq . , the owner of a neighboring piece of property , as follows : " . . . Re : Appeal of James Iacovelli to renovate an existing structure and operate a fruit and vegetable stand at 1474 Slaterville Road . . . I received the notice of public hearing scheduled for Wednesday , February 15 , 1984 , at 7 : 00 p . m . , in the above . ffI am an owner of nearby premises , and do not object to the application of Mr . Iacovelli . TI urge that the permit be issued . " Mr . Heinz Biesdorf , 702 Hudson Street , spoke from the floor and stated that his wife sold this property to Mr . Iacovelli . Mr . Biesdorf stated that he had never met Mr . Iacovelli . Mr . Biesdorf asked where the parking would go , adding that he still owns property next door to Mr . Iacovelli ' s land . Mr . Iacovelli showed Mr . Biesdorf , using his site plan , where the parking would be . Mr . Iacovelli stated that the entry way could come in off the Pine Tree Road area if a Slaterville Road entrance was deemed to be a hazard by the Board . Mr . Cartee stated that he thought there would be more of a problem on Pine Tree Road , Mr . Howser asked Mr . Iacovelli how many cars he expected in and out . Mr . Iacovelli stated that that was difficult to pinpoint at this time . Mr . Howser stated that the heaviest flow of traffic on Slaterville Road is at 6 : 00 p . m . S ; �, � ~ • Zoning Board of Appeals 18 February 15 , 1984 The Secretary noted for the record the following telephone calls received in connection with the Iacovelli Appeal . ( 1 ) Mr . Paul Zwerman , 1462 Slaterville Road , February 15 , 1984 - - opposed ; ( 2 ) Mrs . Kay Marion , 1463 Slaterville Road , February 15 , 1984 - - opposed , ( 3 ) Mrs . Margaret Marion , 1471 Slaterville Road , February 15 , 1984 - - opposed . Mr . King commented that he remembered this particular property in connection with another appeal where an applicant wanted to renovate the barn as a house , adding that he also remembered that this barn was not much , in his opinion , in terms of condition . Mr . King stated that the general character of the neighborhood is definitely residential and is zoned R15 . Mr . King stated that there are some very nice homes on Pine Tree Road by this barn . Mr . King commented that Mr . Pichel ' s house has not been upgraded too much , adding that it is an old house , but it is still a . residence . Mr . King stated that this proposal is different from the Marion property in that where they had a fruit stand there was a wide parking area -and customers could go in and out comfortably . Mr . King stated that this is quite different also in that this proposal is not in conjunction with a farming enterprise . Mr . King stated that he viewed this proposal as really an application to make a fairly intensive commercial use out of a property that need not be commercial , adding that he was going to oppose it for those reasons . • Mr . Austen wished to verify that Mr . Iacovelli was going to raise none of the produce on the land . Mr . Iacovelli stated that that was correct . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca deny and hereby does deny the Appeal of James Iacovelli to renovate an existing barn and operate a fruit and vegetable stand at 1474 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 41 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , King , Hewett , Austen . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Iacovelli Appeal duly closed . . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the February 15 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 00 p . m . . 4 Zoning Board of Appeals 19 February 15 , 1984 Respectfully submitted , Nancy Me Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . W Henry Aron , Chairman