Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1984-07-16 • ,ti h% TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 26 , 1984 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Thursday , July 26 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward N . Austen , Joan G . Reuning , Jack D . Hewett , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : William Tucker Dean , Esq . , Lawrence P . Young , Jennifer Young , Stephen A . Pliscio , Betsy L . Garrison , William Garrison , Bonnie Hollenbeck , Allen S . Becker , David B . Gersh , Esq . , Jeremy Howe ( Q - 104 - FM News ) , Jim McKinley ( WTKO News ) , Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 09 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on July 18 , 1984 and July 21 , 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 Planning , and upon each of the appellants and / or agent , if • any , on July 19 , 1984 . APPEAL OF LAWRENCE P . YOUNG , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A NON -CONFORMING RESIDENCE WITH SIDE YARD DEFICIENCY AT 869 - TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 25 - 2 - 25 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75f OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above •- noted matter duly opened at 7 : 10 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr . and Mr :a . Young were present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Lawrence P . Young under date of July 17 , 1984- , as follows : " . . . Having been denied a building permit for an addition to a legal non - conforming structure at 869 Taughannock B1vd . . . . We started an addition of a 13 x 13 bedroom and renovation on the existing house . I was under the impression that Novarr -Mackessey , the contractor , had gotten the building permit . They thought I had gotten it . I have owned the property for 5 years and didn ' t realize the problem of it being two tax parcels in regards to adding on . I would like a variance for the addition since by tax parcels there isn ' t enough side yard . In order to get financing from the bank ( TCTC ) I need a building permit and Certificate of Compliance . Since I do own both parcels and have treated it as one I would like a • variance so we can get financing and continue . " Zoning Board of Appeals 2 July 26 , 1984 Chairman Aron noted that a Survey of the entire parcel , as one • parcel , was attached to the Appeal , copies of which had been received by the Board , such Survey having been prepared by Jon D . Haight , L . L . S . , and dated July 24 , 1979 . Chairman Aron read into the record the following letter , received July 24 , 1984 , from Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning : " July 20 , 1984 To : Lewis D . Cartee , Building Inspector Re : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Case : Area variance appeal of Lawrence P . Young at 869 Taughannock Blvd . ( state highway ) This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239 -m . The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity , county , or state interest . Therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice . " Chairman Aron asked Mr . Young if he had anything to add to his Appeal statement . Mr . Young noted that the Board had a copy of the Survey before them and proceeded to explain the existence of the two parcels , both of • which he owns , and how he thought he only had one big parcel . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Young Appeal . No one spoke . Mr . Austen asked Mr . Young if he had any drawings . Mr . Young stated that he did and proceeded to show the Board the plans for the construction of the 13 ' x 13 ' addition .. Mrs . Reuning commented that the building is pretty well along the way . Mr . Young stated that that was true , adding that his wife is expecting in one month and in the confusion each of them - - he and the contractor - - thought the other one had obtained the building permit . Mr . Austen wanted to make sure that there were two parcels involved in this case , and commented that the building to which Mr . Young wishes to add appears to be over the property line which seems to be dividing the properties . Mr . Young stated that there certainly seems to be two parcels , however , he purchased the land as one piece . Mr . Young stated that the " cottage " shown on the " other " parcel is rented to one person from September to June and in the summer months either his parents or his wife ' s parents come and stay in it . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and • hereby does grant an area variance for 'the 13 ' x 13 ' addition to the building on parcel designated as 6 - 25 - 2 - 25 , as proposed by Lawrence P . Young . Zoning Board_ of Appeals 3 July 26 , 1984 • The MOTION failed because of lack of second . Further discussion was held between the members of the Board and Mr . Young wherein his plans for internal renovation and improvement were discussed as well as the possibility of combining the two parcels . Mr . Cartee stated that there are two separate parcels involved here according to the Survey and according to the Tompkins County Assessment Department , and suggested that the Board might wish to consider a side yard variance . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning - Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance with respect to the southerly side yard of property presently owned by Lawrence P . Young , known as 869 Taughannock Blvd •. and designated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 25 - 2 - 25 , such that the existing structure located thereon may remain in place on said Parcel No . 6 - 25 - 2 - 25 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hewett . Nay - None . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , approve and hereby does approve an addition of approximately 13 ' x 13 ' to the southeasterly side of an existing non - conforming dwelling structure located at 869 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 25 - 2 - 25 , presently owned by Lawrence P . Young . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hewett . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Young Appeal duly closed at 7 : 28 p . m . APPEAL OF WILLIAM R . GARRISON , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE RENOVATION OF A NON- CONFORMING RESIDENCE WITH SIDE YARD DEFICIENCIES AT 979 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 21 - 2 - 31 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER � ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE Zoning Board of Appeals 4 July 26 , 1984 Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter • duly opened at 7 : 28 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr . and Mrs . Garrison were present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by William R . Garrrison under date of July 17 , 1984 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied a building permit to reconstruct the house at 979 Taughannock B1vd . . . . Because of a fire in the existing structure renovation is necessary to make it suitable for habitation . The intention is to tear down the burnt remains and reconstruct the home on the existing foundation . The foundation is adequate and was not harmed by fire . I respectfully submit for a variance from the above mentioned zoning ordinance because a portion of the north foundation wall is less than the allowable distance from the adjoining property . " Chairman Aron noted that the Board members each had received a copy of a " Survey for Robert H . & Frances H . Apgar " , Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins , State of New York , Tax # 21 - 2 - 31 , signed and sealed by George C . Schlecht , L . P . E . & L . S . , dated 6 / 84 , revised : 7 / 3 / 84 , showing the " 2 - story cottage " which burned , the foundation for which is 1 . 8 ' from the north side lot line of the non - conforming parcel having frontage of approximately 48 ' and a depth of approximately 3221 . Chairman Aron read into the record the following letter , received July 24 , 1984 , from Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning : • " July 20 , 1984 To : Lewis D . Cartee , Building Inspector . . . Re : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Case : Area variance appeal of William R . Garrison at 979 Taughannock Blvd . ( state highway ) This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239 -m . The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity , county , or state interest . Therefore , no :recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice . " Chairman Aron asked Mr . Garrison if he had anything to add . Mr . Garrison stated that he had several photographs to show the Board and proceeded to pass them around . Mr . Garrison stated that he wanted to remove the existing " cottage - grade structure " and rebuild , as a home . Mr . Garrison stated that there will be no expansion of the building . Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Garrison had expressed his intention to :rebuild on the existing foundation which was not harmed by the fire . Mr . Garrison stated that that was correct , adding that it was his intention to remove the forty - year - old frame down to the foundation . Mr . Garrison commented that the house was not a total loss , however , his feeling was that they can • update it and rebuild it . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Garrison if he had consulted with any builders . Mr . Garrison replied that he had consulted with two builders . Zoning Board of Appeals 5 July 26 , 1984 Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak i for or against the matter of the Garrison Appeal . No one spoke . Mrs . Reuning asked if Mr . Garrison owned this property . Mr . Garrison stated that he did . Mr . Austen asked Mr . Garrison if he had owned it when it burned , to which Mr . Garrison replied , no . Mr . Austen asked 6Mr . Garrison if he intended to rebuild as a two - story home as it had been . Mr . Garrison stated that he would , adding that the present one - story [ indicating on the photographs ] cinder block " kitchen " will be two - story like the rest of the house . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Garrison if he had any drawings to show the Board . Mr . Garrison stated that he did and proceeded to display same to the Board . Mr . Garrison , Chairman Aron and the Board members examined the drawings in great detail . Chairman Aron stated that Mr . Garrison is actually building a much nicer house than what burned . Mr . Garrison agreed , commenting that it will be very much nicer . Mrs . Garrison commented that she would not live there otherwise . Mrs . Reuning commented that she was familiar with the property and the existing structure was really just a cottage . Mr . Austen asked where the nearest structure is to the structure in question . The Board noted the house next door shown on the Survey map . Chairman Aron noted that Mr . and Mrs . Garrison do not presently live • in the cottage . Mr . Garrison stated that that was correct , adding that it is their intention to become permanent residents . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance of 13 . 2 feet from the side yard requirement of 15 feet set forth in Article IV , Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , such that the existing foundation located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 21 - 2 - 31 , known as 979 Taughannock Blvd . , presently owned by William R . Garrison , may remain as it has been sited for approximately 40 years , i . e . , 1 . 8 ' at its northeasterly corner from the north side lot line of said Parcel No . 6 - 21 - 2 - 31 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hewett . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , • approve and hereby does approve of the reconstruction of the non - conforming house upon its existing foundation , presently located at 979 Taughannock Blvd . , designated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . I , Zoning Board of Appeals 6 July 26 , 1984 • 6 - 21 - 2 - 31 , being a non - conforming lot , and presently owned by William R . Garrrison , as presented to and reviewed by said Board by said William R . Garrison this date , July 26 , 1984 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hewett . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Garrison Appeal duly closed at 7 : 40 p . m . APPEAL OF ALEXANDER E . AND RUTH HASWELL SIDOROWICZ , APPELLANTS , DAVID B . GERSH , ESQ . , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR PREMISES WITH SIDE YARD AND FRONT YARD DEFICIENCIES AT 102 SPRUCE WAY , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 42 - 1 - 2 . 1 . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 76 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted . matter duly opened at 7 : 41 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Attorney Gersh was present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Attorney David B . Gersh , as Agent for Sidorowicz , under date of July 13 , • 1984 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied a Certificate of Occupancy at 102 Spruce Way . . . The attached survey , made July 13 , 1981 , shows that the southwest corner of our house is very close to the Spruce Way right of way . As a consequence , this map indicates that we do not have the required 25 foot front yard and 15 foot side yard in accordance with the zoning ordinance . We seek a variance from these apparent difficiencies in order to permit the sale of our house to proceed . The house was built approximately 1965 by Russell Savey who we assumed obtained the necessary building permits and approvals at that time . Mr . Savey apparently planned to extend Spruce Way westerly for additional development and the attached survey indicates ' proposed 50 wide future road , Savey reputed owner ' . The Town began using the unimproved cul -de - sac as a temporary turn - around pending extension of Spruce Way , However , Mr . Savey ' s death ended his development plans and this ' temporary ' use by the Town has continued to the present . Several driveways open on to the cul - de - sac and a snow plow easily could pull into one driveway and back into another to facilitate turning . We also have been advised by Mr . Fabbroni , Mr . Lovi and Mr . Cartee that a 30 foot radius would be adequate for Town purposes in place of the 50 foot radius shown on the attached survey . In the 19 years that this situation has existed , we have not heard of any problems arising between the Town and our predecesors in title . The present situation presents practical difficulties and / or unnecessary hardship as it• is preventing us from selling our house . We have moved to Peoria , Illinois and had a closing scheduled for July 13 which now has been postponed pending the decision of this board . Zoning Board of Appeals 7 July 26 , 1984 • We respectfully believe that granting the requested variance will observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance , promote public welfare and do substantial justice . ( sgd . ) D . Be Gersh DAVID Be GERSH , ESQ . as Agent " Chairman Aron asked Mr . Gersh if he had anything to add to the statement already received by the Board . Mr . Gersh stated that he would merely emphasize that the hardship in this case is a very real one , adding that it was only at the very last moment that the problem was learned of . Mr . Gersh noted that the Sidorowicz family has left for Peoria and the July 13th closing has had to be postponed . Mr . Gersh stated that he would respectfuly refer the Board to the Memorandum prepared for the Board by the Town Engineer , Mr . Fabbroni , with respect to the Sidorowicz Appeal , Chairman Aron read aloud , as follows : " I have reviewed the Appeal before the Board from the standpoint of the Town Highways Department ' s continued ability to maintain Spruce Way . On the whole , I would recommend granting the variance if your main consideration is proximity to the Town right - of -way , with the following conditions : 1 ) The mapped 50 - foot radius will remain as is . 2 ) The Town will have the continued right to use the part of the driveway within the existing right- of - way for turning heavy trucks around . As a practical matter , if Ithaca College purchases lands to the west , the road will probably never be extended . If the land to the west is subdivided , the issue will be moot . Therefore , the existing situation , with the above safeguards , will suffice for Town needs . " Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the matter of the Sidorowicz Appeal . No one spoke . The Board members took note of the fact that Spruce Way was a part of a 1965 subdivision by Russell Savey , now deceased . The Board discussed the actual size of the paved area of Spruce Way and noted that Mr . Fabbroni had made reference to the " mapped " 50 - foot radius of the cul - de - sac . Mr . Hewett asked Mr . Gersh if he had any problems with the requirements set down by the Town Engineer . Mr . Gersh stated that he did not . MOTION by Mr . Jack Hewett , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant area variances for side and front yards of insufficient size at 102 Spruce Way , designated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 42 - 1 - 2 . 1 , due to the mapped 50 - foot radius of the right - of -way for Spruce Way , a Town of Ithaca road , as shown on " Survey Map " # 102 Spruce Way , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , dated July 13 , 1981 , prepared by T . G . Miller P . C . , Engineers & Surveyors , such grant of area • variances being conditioned upon the following : 1 . The mapped 50 - foot radius will remain as is . Zoning Board of Appeals 8 July 26 , 1984 • 2 . The Town of Ithaca will have the continued right to use the part of the driveway within the existing right - of - way for turning heavy trucks around . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hewett . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Sidorowicz Appeal duly closed at 7 : 49 p . m . APPEAL OF TOMPKINS COMMUNITY DAY CARE CENTER , INC . , APPELLANT , WILLIAM TUCKER DEAN , ESQ . , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION ' TO OPERATE A " FAMILY DAY CARE CENTER " AT 1285 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 1 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 50 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . William Tucker Dean , Attorney for Tompkins Community Day Care Center , Inc . , and Mrs . Bonnie Hollenbeck of the Tompkins Community Hospital were present . Chairman Aron read aloud • from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by William Tucker Dean , Attorney for the Incorporation under date of July 13 , 1984 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to operate a ' family day care center ' at 1285 Turmansburg Road ( easternmost residence on hospital grounds ) The Tompkins Community Day Care Center , Inc . is in the process of organizing as a not - for - profit corporation for the purpose of operating a state - licensed day care center for the children of employees of the Tompkins Community Hospital and other employees in the community . While the organizing and licensing is under way the incorporators wish to meet the urgent need for day care by operating a ' family day care center ' with no more than six children . The assistance of more than the resident of the premises , Mrs . Geraldine Fisher , will be required . This will require the variance sought , namely , permission to operate such a ' family day care center . '" Chairman Aron noted that each Board member had also received a copy of the six - page document entitled " Certificate of Incorporation of Tompkins Community Day Care Center , Inc . , Under Section 402 of the New York Not - for -Profit Corporation Law " , which he would not read . Chairman Aron asked Attorney Dean to speak to the matter before the Board . Attorney Dean stated that the origin of the request is the fact that the Tompkins Community Hospital has a number of persons working there who have young children , some of whom work less than a full shift from time to • time , and some of whom are called in at times when it is difficult for them to find a place for their children . Attorney Dean spoke of very recent legislation signed into law by the Governor with respect to such Zoning Board of Appeals 9 July 26 , 1984 • acute needs which expands somewhat on the restrictions with respect to the number , age , and category of children who may be cared for in day care centers of this kind . Attorney Dean stated that , in any case , the applicant would like to start this activity by what is known as a " family day care center " in facilities for no more than six children , even though he discovered just this morning that the Department of Social Services has a program which he believed to be called " Intended Care " and something else designated " Group Family Day Care Home " . Attorney Dean described the various numbers and categories of children which are now permitted under the law and stated that the applicant would like , if possible , to be considered for a variance for a group of children which involves 7 to 10 children including not more than two under two years of age , or 12 children if none are under two years of age . Attorney Dean stated that if that change in Appeal were not acceptable to the Board , the applicant could proceed under the present Appeal which is six children . By way of information , Attorney Dean commented that after the Incorporation has gone through , there is a third category under the State Social Service Department with State licensing that could permit 17 children , adding , however , that they are not ready for that . Attorney Dean stated that one of the incorporators is present at this hearing and introduced Mrs . Bonnie Hollenbeck . Attorney Dean described the location of the structure in which the Center is proposed to be established , stating that the structure was built at the time of the construction of the old hospital as a residence for a doctor and is the last building on the right as you enter the hospital grounds . Attorney Dean stated that it is presently divided into two units and a young woman by the name of Geraldine Fisher occupies • the first unit and lives there . Attorney Dean stated that Ms . Fisher needs an outside person to help her with this proposed day care facility , however , the ordinance under R30 does not permit employees . Chairman Aron asked the size of the unit in which the facility would be housed . Attorney Dean responded that the unit contains 594 sq . ft . for the six children , as asked for , but the applicant would like to have the 7 to 12 number under the second item he had described , adding that 35 sq . ft , per child is the State standard . Chairman Aron asked if there were sufficient bathroom facilities . Mrs . Hollenbeck responded that there was , stating that there is one bathroom . Chairman Aron asked if there were to be a playground outside , to which Attorney Dean responded in the affirmative , adding that a fence is to be erected and the children would be under observation at all times as required by law . Mr . Hewett pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance requires , under Section 18 , paragraph 4 , that matters of this nature be referred to the Planning Board for review and report to the Board of Appeals . MOTION by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , that the matter of the Appeal of the Tompkins Community Day Care Center , Inc . , be and hereby is adjourned to the August 22 , 1984 meeting of said Board of Appeals at 7 : 00 p . m . , and FURTHER RESOLVED , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinace , that said matter be and hereby is Zoning Board of Appeals 10 July 26 , 1984 • referred to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for review with a report to be rendered by said Planning Board to said Board of Appeals at its August 22 , 1984 meeting . By way of discussion , Attorney Dean requested permission to ask that the Planning Board deliberations include the applicant ' s request for seven to twelve children depending on the rather strict definitions of the mix of age , the absolute maximum being 14 . The Board members indicated that they thought the Planning Board would be willing to review the application as it is presented to them . Mr . Austen seconded Mr . Hewett ' s MOTION . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hewett . Nay - None . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Tompkins Community Day Care Center , Inc . , duly adjourned until August 22 , 1984 at 7 : 00 p . m . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM JUNE 27 , 1984 ) OF EDITH BECKER , APPELLANT , ALLEN S . BECKER , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO BREED AND RAISE FOX AT 661 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 31 - 2 - 22 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 51 PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . • Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 05 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Becker was present . Chairman Aron , noting that no one at all was present other than the Board , Mr . Becker , Mr . Cartee , and Mrs . Fuller , asked that the record show the receipt of the following letter from Frank Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning : " July 20 , 1984 To : Lewis D . Cartee , Building Inspector . . . Re : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Case : Use variance appeal of Edith Becker at 661 Five Mile Drive ( state highway ) This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239 -m . The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity , county , or state interest . Therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice . " Mr . Becker distributed among the Board members five colored ephotographs of the compound area where the fox are maintained . Zoning Board of Appeals 11 July 26 , 1984 Mr . Austen stated that he visited the site the other night and walked • all through it with Mr . Becker . Mr . Austen commented that , although this is a non -permitted action , after talking with Mr . Becker and viewing the situation , it is pretty clear that there is no place else to put these animals . Mr . Austen stated that the area is of good size and is far away from other people . Mr . Austen stated that he would be inclined to think that it is problably not too detrimental to the area as long as any odor is kept down which is being done and which , he thought , is something necessary to do . Mr . Austen stated that he would be inclined to give a special permit , personal to Edith and Allen Becker , with conditions . The Board indicated its agreement with Mr . Austen ' s statement . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a special permit , revocable , reviewable , and personal to Edith Becker and Allen S . Becker , to breed and raise fox at 661 Five Mile Drive , designated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 22 , upon the following conditions : 1 . That deordorizing of the premises occur , as a minimum , once per week . 2 . That every six months the Building Inspector be permitted to inspect and shall inspect the operation and render a report to this Board in January and July of each ensuing year from the date of this grant of special permit , July 26 , 1984 . 3 . That this grant of special permit shall be subject to Board review at any time upon receipt of neighbor complaint . 4 . That this grant of special permit shall be , subject to the permittee , Allen S . Becker , maintaining in good and proper order the special permit for such operation as now issued by the New York State , Department of Environmental Conservation . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , , Reuning , Hewett . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in and the matter of the Becker Appeal duly closed at 8 : 20 p . m . ADJOURNMENT Upon Mo on , Chairman Aron declared the July 26 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Itha a Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 8 : 22 p . m . Respectfully submitted , • Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Henry ArOn , Chairman