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