HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1985-08-21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 21 , 1985
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session
on Wednesday , August 21 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan G . Reuning , Edward W . King , Lewis
D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Charlotte T . Shaw , Virginia C . Langhans , Carol
Battisti , Scotty Lin , George M . Dentes , Esq . , Ellen
Biesdorf , Heinz Be Biesdorf , John M . Caston , Anne M .
Caston , Stanley W . [ surname illegible ] , Marie Cario ,
Barbara J . Bredbenner , E . E . Bredbenner Jr . , Pamela
Rosenberg , Lawrence Rosenberg , Shirley Raffensperger ,
Ivar R . Jonson , Douglas Armstrong , Lucia Armstrong ,
Marcia Dalkert , David Badner , Harry Taggart , Marion
Taggart , Ebba Mars , Chris Stratakos , Florence Tavelli ,
Rudolph Tavelli , Nancy L . Krook , Edward A . Mazza , Esq . ,
James Iacovelli .
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 August 13 , 1985 and August 16 , 1985 , 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 each of the Appellants and / or Agent , as appropriate ,
and / or Attorney , as appropriate , and upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning , on August 15 , 1985 .
Chairman Aron welcomed those present and asked those who wished
to speak to please stated their name and address , to address the Chair
at all times , and to be factual .
APPEAL OF RANDOLPH S . LITTLE AND JOANN Me � LITTLE , APPELLANTS , GEORGE
M . DENTES , ESQ . , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH
ATTACHED CARPORT , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , WITH AN EASTERLY SIDE
YARD DEFICIENCY OF 1 . 3 ± FEET , AT 111 CREST LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 66 - 3 - 25 . 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 : 11 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman
Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by George
M . Dentes , Esq . , as Attorney and Agent for Randolph S . Little and
JoAnn M . Little , under date of August 12 , 1985 , as follows :
" . . . Having been denied permission to Randolph S . Little and JoAnn M .
a
Zoning Board of Appeals 2 August 21 , 1985
Little for a certificate of occupancy at 111 Crest Lane . . . We have
recently purchased the premises at 111 Crest Lane . A survey ( a copy
of the map is attached hereto ) has revealed that the carport attached
to the house is 9 . 3 feet from the property line at its north end and
8 . 7 feet from the property line at its south end , instead of 10 . 0 feet
required by the zoning ordinance . This carport has been in place in
its present configuration for many years . Strict observance of the
zoning ordinance would require us to incur the expense and hardship of
removing and reconstructing the foundation and superstructure . We
therefore seek a variance that will permit the carport to remain as it
is . " Chairman Aron noted the Survey Map attached to the Appeal Form ,
such Survey being entitled " Survey Map - - No . 111 Crest Lane - - Town
of Ithaca , Tomp . Co . , N . Y . " , dated July 24 , 1985 , prepared by T . G .
Miller Associates P . C . , and signed and sealed by Richard A . Slade ,
L . L . S . George M . Dentes , Esq . , was present .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone to speak for or against
the matter of the Little Appeal ,
Attorney Dentes spoke from the floor and stated that he was the
Attorney for the Littles and would be speaking to the matter because
they are in New Jersey . Attorney Dentes stated that this problem with
the side yard came up when the Littles purchased the property from
Randy Little ' s mother . Attorney Dentes stated that , for the entire
thirty years of occupancy , the carport has been in its present
configuration , that is , . 7 feet too close at the north end and 1 . 3
feet too close at the other end , to the east side property line .
Attorney Dentes noted again that the carport has been in place for
approximately thirty years , adding that there is no one , as far as he
was aware , who has complained or is complaining about this carport ,
and further adding that the lot to the east is vacant . Attorney
Dentes stated that Mr . Randolph Little had spoken to his neighbor and
he is not in opposition to the variance request . Attorney Dentes
stated that they do not want to extend the carport , they just want it
to remain as it is .
Mrs . Charlotte Shaw , 105 Halcyon Hill , spoke from the floor and
stated that she is one of the owners of that vacant lot . Mrs . Shaw
stated that she has no objection whatsoever to the request for
variance .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else present who wished
to speak . No one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at
7 : 15 p . m .
Mr . King stated that he saw no problem himself with this request
for a variance from the 10 - foot requirement for a garage which is less
than one foot short on the north and a little over a foot on the
south . Mr . King stated that the carport does not bother anyone and it
has been there for a long time .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 August 21 , 1985
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant
and hereby does grant a variance for the carport , presently in place
less than 10 feet west of the east side lot line of premises currently
owned by Randolph S . and JoAnn M . Little , to remain in its present
location at 111 Crest Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 3 - 25 ,
and further
RESOLVED , that a Certificate of Occupancy be and hereby is
directed to be issued .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Little Appeal duly
closed at 7 : 16 p . m .
Attorney Dentes thanked the Board for its time and consideration .
APPEAL OF ANNE M . CASTON , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO-FAMILY
DWELLING , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , BY MORE THAN THREE UNRELATED
PERSONS , AT 141 KENDALL AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 .
• 6 - 54 - 4 - 32 ( OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY PARCELS N0 , 191 , 192 , AND 193 ) ,
SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION
4 , PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH
21 SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 17 p . m . . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman
Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Anne
M . Caston under date of August 12 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . Having been
denied permission to occupy a two family dwelling with more than three
unrelated persons at 141 Kendall Ave . , Ithaca , N . Y . , . . . Dear Sirs : Due
to ill health , my husband and I are finding it harder to keep up with
the maintenance on our two family home . We currently have the home
for sale on the market because we plan on moving to a modular home at
Nates Floral Estates where there will be less upkeep and worry . If it
happens that we cannot sell it , we would like to rent out the main
apartment too . What we are asking for , to be able to rent to over
three unrelated people to cover our costs so that we can pay someone
to keep up the maintenance on the house and manage the property , so we
don ' t have to worry about it any more . " Both Mr . and Mrs . Caston were
present .
Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Caston if she had anything to add to her
Appeal statement . Mrs . Caston stated that she had nothing to add .
Zoning Board of Appeals 4 August 21 , 1985
Mr . King stated that somewhere in the documents he received he
had noted that the request was to rent to three unrelated persons in
each of the two units .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
Petition of Anne M . Caston be and hereby is deemed to be amended such
that the request is for no more than three unrelated persons in each
of the apartments .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
The Secretary presented to the Board three copies of a Petition
and five pictures , which Mrs . Caston had submitted . Chairman Aron
read aloud from the Petition presented , as follows :
" August 19 , 1985
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca
Ithaca , New York 14850
• Dear Sirs :
It has been brought to our attention that Mrs . Anne Caston residing at
141 Kendall Avenue , Ithaca , N . Y , has applied for a variance allowing
the above premises to occupy [ sic . ] more than three un - related
persons .
As far as we , the undersigned , are concerned , this will not present
any problems since the premises consist of three lots .
Sincerely yours ,
( sgd . ) John Elmo , Jr . , 136 Kendall Avenue
( sgd . ) Lawrence Iacovelli , Jr . , 178 Kendall Avenue
( sgd . ) Lawrence Iacovelli , 165 Kendall Avenue
( sgd . ) Donald L . Hart , 152 Kendall Avenue
( sgd . ) Alfred B . Grunwell , 137 Kendall Avenue
( sgd . ) J . Iacovelli , 148 Kendall Avenue "
[ For the record , the five photographs submitted show the Caston
house from three different angles , including parking area , and two
views of the vacant portion of the Caston property . ]
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak for or against the Caston Appeal .
Zoning Board of Appeals 5 August 21 , 1985
Mrs . Pamela Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor and
stated that she was not acquainted with this particular property ,
however , she was strongly opposed to the granting of occupancies over
that which is allowed under the zoning ordinance . Mrs . Rosenberg
stated that there are many problems which result from over - occupancy
and described the zoning ordinance requirement of three unrelated
persons in a residential structure .
Chairman-- Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to
speak . No one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 25
p . m .
Chairman Aron asked the Board to turn to the matter of the Short
Environmental Assessment Form as completed and signed by Anne M .
Caston under date of August 15 , 1985 [ Part I ] . For the record , the
Short EAF sets forth that the applicant ' s request is " for Special
Permit for increased occupancy in R9 District pursuant to Z . O . , i . e . ,
3 unrelated persons in each unit . "
Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Lovi ' s review [ Parts II and III ] of
the EAF was quite lengthy and so he would not read it aloud , however ,
he would read aloud the reviewer ' s recommendation . Chairman Aron read
aloud , as follows :
" REVIEWER ' S RECOMMENDATION :
• This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law # 3 , 1980 .
Given the expected impacts which this project appears to have on the
environment , I recommend that a negative declaration of environmental
significance be made .
I am explicitly making no recommendation on the merits of the Special
Permit itself . I have not been given enough information upon which to
comment at this time . On the basis of what I know , this application
appears similar to approvals granted to James Iacovelli on March 20 ,
1985 for a pair of two - family houses at 145 and 147 - 149 Kendall Avenue
which may be occupied by seven unrelated persons [ each ] . Given that
the house in question is sited on three legal lots , which could be
otherwise developed with a total of 12 unrelated persons , the present
request for a total of six unrelated persons appears reasonable .
The Zoning Board of Appeals will have to determine whether the facts
of this case as presented at the Public Hearing support the granting
of a Special Permit . In any case , I believe that the Zoning Ordinance
does permit the landowner to rent her house at this time to four
unrelated persons without the need for a Special Permit . I also
believe that the rental of two - family homes throughout all R9 , R15 ,
and R30 districts to four unrelated persons is permitted at this time .
Signed - - Peter M . Lovi - - August 15 , 1985 "
Chairman Aron declared the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Lead Agency in the matter of environmental review of the Caston
Appeal .
• Zoning Board of Appeals 6 August 21 , 1985
For the record , Mr . Lovi ' s five -page review [ Part II ] is set
forth below :
" TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART II : Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes
RE : Anne Caston , Kendall Avenue , Special Permit application
Impacts on Land
1 . There will be no adverse environmental impact as a result of
physical changes to the project site . This conclusion is based
upon the fact that the house is sited on a 1501x200 ' [ sic . ]
[ 1501 ] lot , which is comprised of 3 lots ( # 191 , # 192 , # 193 ) from
the Ithaca Land Company tract . On each of these three lots could
be constructed a two family home with 2 , 250 square feet of lot
coverage . This permitted alternative would be considerably more
disruptive of the environment than what is proposed .
2 . There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be
adversely affected by this project . This conclusion is based
upon an examination of a Townwide map of unique physiographic
formations prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department
and referred to as part of our Town Comprehensive Plan .
Impact on Water
3 . There are no protected water bodies which would be affected by
this project . This conclusion is based upon an examination of a
Townwide map of watersheds and surface drainage prepared by the
Tompkins County Planning Department .
4 . There are no non - protected water bodies which would be affected
as a result of this project . This conclusion is also based upon
an examination of the watersheds and surface drainage map cited
above .
5 . This project will have no effect on groundwater quality . This
conclusion is based upon the fact that both [ sic . ] buildings will
be connected to the Town ' s sanitary sewer system .
6 . This project will have no impact on drainage flow and surface
water runoff . This conclusion is based upon an examination of
the frequency of flooding map prepared by the Tompkins County
Planning Department .
Impact on Air Quality
7 . This project will not have an adverse environmental impact on air
• quality . This conclusion is based upon the following facts :
Zoning Board of Appeals 7 August 21 , 1985
a ) The project will not induce more than 1 , 000 vehicle trips in
any given hour .
b ) The project will not result in the incineration of any
refuse .
c ) The project will not result in the emission of 5 lbs . / hour
of all contaminants .
d ) The project will not result in the emission of more than 10
million BTU ' s per hour .
Impact on Plants and Animals
8 . There are no known threatened or endangered species of plant or
animal which will be adversely affected by this project . This
conclusion is based on an examination of maps prepared by the
Tompkins County Planning Department describing Game Habitats ,
Unique Wildlife Habitats , and Forest Land and Unique Floral
Regions .
9 . There will be no adverse environmental impact on non - endangered
or non - threatened species of plants and animals . This conclusion
is also based on an examination of maps prepared by the Tompkins
County Planning Department describing Game Habitats , Unique
Wildlife Habitats , and Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions .
Impact on Visual Resources
10 . The project will have no adverse impact on views , vistas , or
other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual character .
This conclusion is based upon the fact that in this area , the
present R9 zoning designation and the approved Ithaca Land
Company subdivision would permit a one or two - family home with as
much as 2 , 250 square feet of lot coverage to be built on each of
the three affected lots . A development of this sort could be
considered more disruptive of the neighborhood character and
aesthetics than the proposed use .
Impact on Historical Resources
11 . This project will not impact upon anysite or structure of
historic , pre - historic or paleontological importance . This
conclusion in based on the following facts :
a ) A Townwide map of Historical and Cultural resources prepared
by the Tompkins County Planning Department does not indicate
that any structures of historical or cultural significance
are present in the area .
b ) It is unlikely that the land itself contains any artifacts
of pre - historic or paleontological importance . This
judgment is based upon the evidence that a considerable
Zoning Board of Appeals 8 August 21 , 1985
amount of building and development in this area has not
• produced evidence of any artifacts at this time .
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
12 . This project will have no negative impact on the quality or
quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational
opportunities in the community . Neither the Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan nor the Ithaca Land
Company plat provide for any dedicated recreation area on this
site . To the extent that the proposed development reduces that
mass of buildings which would otherwise be permitted , it will .
have a positive effect on the preservation of open space in the
neighborhood .
Impact on Transportation
13 . This project will have no impact on the existing transportation
system . This conclusion is based upon the following facts :
a ) Based upon traffic counts for similar residential
neighborhoods in the Town , it is estimated that traffic flow
on Kendall Avenue is less than 500 cars per day .
b ) Based upon the experience of other builders in this
neighborhood , it is reasonable to expect that sufficient
off - street parking should be provided for :
1 ) 3 cars if four unrelated persons are permitted ;
2 ) 4 cars if five unrelated persons are permitted ,
3 ) 5 cars if six unrelated persons are permitted ;
c ) Based upon an assumption of 5 cars each making 4 trips per
day , these two [ sic . ] buildings may [ add ] as many as 20
trips per day to Kendall Avenue . This would represent an
increase of approximately 4 - 5 percent to the estimated daily
traffic flow . This increase is not considered significant
and is well within standards for residential neighborhoods
elsewhere in the Town .
Impact on Energy
14 . This project will have no significant effect on the community ' s
sources of fuel and energy . This conclusion is based upon the
fact that the house will not cause an increase greater than 5
percent in any form of energy used in the Town .
Impact on Noise
15 . There will be no significant odors , glare , vibration or
electrical disturbances as a result of this project . This
. conclusion is based upon the fact that glare , vibration and
electrical disturbances are not associated with residential
construction of this type . The increase in traffic flow along
Zoning Board of Appeals 9 August 21 , 1985
Kendall Avenue has been described and considered above . However ,
• since the resulting traffic flow is considered to be well within
neighborhood standards and the increase in traffic will be
private cars and not trucks , the increase in noise is not
considered to be significant .
Impact on Health and Hazards
16 . This project will have no significant impact on public health and
safety . This conclusion is based upon the fact that the
occupancy of two - family homes by more than four unrelated persons
in an R9 district has been determined by the Town Board to be a
use to be allowed by Special Permit .
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17 . This project will have no adverse impact on the growth and
character of the existing community . This conclusion is based
upon the following observations :
a ) The Town Zoning Ordinance defines a ' family ' as consisting
of , ' one or more persons related by blood , marriage , or
adoption . ' By this definition , any single person is a
family for purposes of determining permitted residential
occupancies .
' b ) Section 4 , ( 2a ) ( 1 ) states that ' If each of the two dwelling
units in a two - family house is occupied by a family , then
each such unit may also be occupied by not more than one
boarder , roomer , lodger or other occupant . ' Therefore ,
whenever two persons , each defined above as a ' family ' , are
living in separate units of a two - family house , then each of
these two persons are presently permitted to have a second
boarder , roomer , lodger , or other occupant residing with
them . By this reasoning , four unrelated persons are
presently permitted in all R9 . R15 , and R30 residence
districts .
C ) Section 4 , ( 2b ) states that , ' One or two family dwellings
may be occupied by more than the occupants permitted by
Section 2a by Special Permit of the Board of Appeals upon
application to such Board . ' This section only pertains to
Residence District R9 . It is inferred from this language
and the context of the Zoning Ordinance that the Town Board
authorized the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit more than
four unrelated persons to occupy a two - family home in an R9
District , pursuant to the Special Permit process of Section
77 , ( 7 ) e
d ) In this authorization referred to above , the Town Board
imposed no upper limit on the number of unrelated person
which the Zoning Board of Appeals might allow , except that
such allowance must be consistent with the requirements of
the Special Permit process .
Zoning Board of Appeals 10 August 21 , 1985
• 18 . There is no public controversy concerning the project at this
time . This conclusion is based upon comments received by the
Town of Ithaca Planning Department as of August 15 , 1985s It is
possible that negative comments may be received prior to , or at
the time of , the Public Hearing on August 21 , 1985 . "
Mr . King stated that he would like to make the comment that ,
while he did not ° subscribe to the proposition that increased occupancy
has no environmental impact , quite the contrary , however , he would
agree with the reviewer in this case , where we have three contiguous
lots being used for one dwelling in this area and , judging from this
particular case , that there would be no adverse environmental impact
in this case of six , whether the occupancy permitted by the ordinance
be three or four unrelated persons .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , in the
matter of the Caston Appeal , make and hereby does make a negative
declaration of environmental significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron asked for Board discussion of the Caston matter , or
if there were any questions from the Board .
Mrs . Reuning wondered about the other lots that are included with
this house and asked what Mrs . Caston ' s plans were for this house .
Mrs . Caston stated that one lot is used for parking and the other has
trees . Mr . King asked if Mrs . Caston has any plans to build on the
other land . Mrs . Caston stated that she did not . Mr . King asked if
Mrs . Caston would object to giving a covenant to the Town that the
parcel would remain as it is , without further building . Mrs . Caston
responded , oh , yes , adding that it would ruin the property . Chairman
Aron asked if Mrs . Caston would give such a covenant in writing , to
which Mrs . Caston responded , yes . Mr . King noted that the Board , in
the past has required that sort of covenant .
Mr . King stated that since this is a Special Permit situation and
the Statute does provide that increased occupancy in an R9 District ,
such as this , may be granted on Special Permit by the Board of Appeals
and , in view of the unusual circumstances of this area and this
particular area , he would MOVE that :
SUBJECT to the owner ' s giving the Town of Ithaca a Restrictive
Covenant against any other buildings or dwelling units being
built on these lots , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant a Special Permit as requested by the
Appellant , Anne M . Caston , so that she can have each dwelling
Zoning Board of Appeals 11 August 21 , 1985
unit , at 141 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 54 - 4 - 32 , occupied by . as many as three unrelated persons .
Mr . King noted that this house sits in the middle of these three
lots with room on each side . Mrs . Reuning asked Mrs . Caston how many
rooms there are in the house , to which Mrs . Caston replied , twelve ,
plus a basement . Mrs . Caston stated that there are five bedrooms .
Mrs . Reuning asked Mrs . Caston how long she had owned this house , to
which Mrs . Caston replied , since 1949 . Chairman Aron asked Mrs .
Caston if she were the only one in the house , to which Mrs . Caston
responded , no , adding that they rent the upstairs to three other
people .
Mrs . Joan Reuning SECONDED Mr . King ' s MOTION .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Caston Appeal duly
closed at 7 : 35 p . m .
• APPEAL OF IVAR R . JONSON , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
TWO FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , WITH THE SECOND
DWELLING UNIT EQUAL IN SIZE TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT ( SIDE -BY - SIDE
DUPLEX ) , AT 129 HONNESS LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 ,
6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 13 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 ,
PARAGRAPH 21 AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman
Aron read from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Ivar R .
Jonson under date of August 12 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . Having been
denied permission to build a side by side duplex home where the
apartment is more than 500 of the main house at 129 Honness Lane . . . The
side by side duplex home provides more efficient parking and privacy . "
Mr . Jonson was present .
In addition to the Appeal Form as noted by the Chair , the Board
members each had before him / her the following documents .
1 . A copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form [ Part I ] as
signed and completed by Ivar R . Jonson , under date of August 17 ,
1985 , describing the project as a duplex on Honness Lane on a
100 ' x 200 ' lot .
•
Zoning Board of Appeals 12 August 21 , 1985
2 . A copy of Parts II and II of the Short EAF as prepared by the
Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of August 14 , 1985 , as
follows :
" TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART II : Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes
RE : Ivar Jonson , Honness Lane , Duplex Variance
Impacts on Land
1 . There may be an adverse environmental impact as a result of
physical changes to the project site . This conclusion is based
upon the fact that the building to be constructed will be built
on the site of a former farm pond . This pond was drained within
the past year , but to my knowledge , the fill used to regrade the
site was taken from the lot and the site was not surcharged . If
there is a natural spring on the lot , additional drainage pipe
and piers may be required to prevent floating or settling of the
foundation slab .
MITIGATION : This impact may be mitigated by careful
• monitoring of the foundation construction by the Town
Building Inspector and the builder ' s engineer . If a natural
spring on the site is suspected , additional drainage work
should be installed to prevent shifting of the foundation .
For this reason , this environmental impact is considered
small and able to be mitigated .
2 . There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be
adversely affected by this project . This conclusion is based
upon an examination of a Townwide map of unique physiographic
formations prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department
and referred to as part of our Town Comprehensive Plan .
Impact on Water
3 . There are no protected water bodies which would be affected by
this project . This conclusion is based upon an examination of a
Townwide map of watersheds and surface drainage prepared by the
Tompkins County Planning Department . The natural drainage on the
site should be maintained and enhanced so that the possibility of
the foundation slab floating is minimized . Surface drainage on
the front of the lot will flow naturally to roadside ditches
along Honness Lane . In the rear of the lot surface drainage will
flow to the open field behind the property and be carried along
natural drainageways where it will be intercepted by the roadside
ditch along Slaterville Road and carried off in the regular
• drainage system to the Six Mile Creek .
Zoning Board of Appeals 13 August 21 , 1985
4 . There are no non - protected water bodies which would be affected
• as a result of this project . This conclusion is also based upon
an examination of the watersheds and surface drainage map cited
above .
5 . This project will have no effect on groundwater quality . This
conclusion is based upon the fact that the building will be
connected to the public water and sanitary sewer system .
6 . This project will have no significant impact on drainage flow and
surface water runoff . This conclusion is based upon the fact
that total impervious surface area of the lot will be 3 , 300
square feet . Of this total , 2 , 300 square feet is roof with a
runoff coefficient of 100 percent and 1 , 000 square feet is paved
driveway with a runoff coefficient 90 percent . This amount of
impervious surface is approximately 16 . 5 percent of the gross lot
area . The time of concentration is assumed to be 15 minutes .
Assuming a five - year storm of 1 . 5 inches of rainfall per hour ,
the aggregate flow from the site is estimated to be on the order
of . 03 ft3 / second . This amount can be accommodated by the
existing drainage system .
Impact on Air
7 . This project will not have an adverse environmental impact on air
quality . This conclusion is based upon the fact that these new
• houses [ sic . ] will be built to State Code insulation requirements
and , because of modern improvement in home construction , should
be more thermally efficient than the average home in the Town of
Ithaca . This increase in thermal efficiency will reduce demand
for energy use for home heating , with some marginal but
cumulative effect on air quality .
Impact on Plants and Animals
8 . There are no known threatened or endangered species of plant or
animal which will be adversely affected by this project . This
conclusion is based on an examination of maps prepared by the
Tompkins County Planning Department describing Game Habitats ,
Unique Wildlife Habitats , and Forest Land and Unique Floral
Regions ,
9 . There will be no adverse environmental impact on non - endangered
or non - threatened species of plants and animals . This conclusion
is also based on an examination of maps prepared by the Tompkins
County Planning Department describing Game Habitats , Unique
Wildlife Habitats , and Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions .
Impact on Visual Resources
10 . The project will have no adverse impact on views , vistas , or
' other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual character .
This conclusion is based upon the fact that in this area , the
present R15 zoning designation would permit a one or two- family
F Zoning Board of Appeals 14 August 21 , 1985
home and accessory structures with as much as 4 , 000 square feet
of total lot coverage to be built on this 20 , 000 square foot lot .
The structure proposed to be built is less than 60 percent of the
permitted lot coverage .
Impact on Historical Resources
11 . This project will not impact upon any site or structure of
historic , pre - historic or paleontological importance . This
conclusion in based on the fact that the parcel to be built upon
is presently open land and it is unlikely that the land itself
contains any artifacts of pre - historic or paleontological
importance . This judgment is based upon the evidence that a
considerable amount of building and development along Honness
Lane to this time has not produced evidence of any
paleontologically significant artifacts .
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
12 . This project will have no negative impact on the quality or
quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational
opportunities in the community . This conclusion is based upon
the fact that the 8 - lot subdivision of which this lot was a part
provided for the eventual provision of ± 3 acres ( roughly 10 % of
the gross subdivided acreage ) as dedicated open space . The exact
location of this open space will be determined at the time the
remaining land receives final subdivision approval . This space
may be developed in the future as a Town Park or it may be left
as open land .
Impact on Transportation
13 . This project will not have an impact on the existing
transportation system . This conclusion is based upon the fact
that a two - family dwelling is a permitted use in an R15 district .
The increase in residential traffic associated with the
construction of individual buildings of this type has been
determined by the Town Board not to be significant .
Impact on Energy
14 . This project will have no significant effect on the community ' s
sources of fuel and energy . This conclusion is based upon the
fact that this house is typical [ of ] two - family homes which , even
if built to the most energy - efficient insulation standards , could
have only a marginal , though cumulative , effect on the
community ' s overall energy use as described above .
Impact on Noise
15 . There will be no significant odors , glare , noise , vibration or
• electrical disturbances as a result of this project . This
conclusion is based upon the fact that glare , vibration , noise
and electrical disturbances are not associated with residential
Zoning Board of Appeals 15 August 21 , 1985
• construction of this type . This building should be similar in
character and quality to existing R15 residential construction
throughout the Town .
Impact on Health and Hazards
16 . This project will have no significant impact on public health and
safety . This conclusion is based upon the fact that the
construction of one and two family houses has been determined by
the Town Board to be a permitted use which will not adversely
affect the public health , safety and welfare . The two [ sic . )
buildings will be constructed in conformance with the New York
State Life Safety Code and will be inspected by our Building
Inspector before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued .
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17 . This project will have no adverse impact on the growth and
character of the existing community . This conclusion is based
upon the fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals has regularly and
routinely approved variances for the construction of residential
duplexes ( See Appendix A attached ) . The building proposed to be
constructed on Honness Lane is substantially identical to the
buildings permitted in the past .
• 18 . There is no public controversy concerning the project at this
time . This conclusion is based upon comments received by the
Town of Ithaca .Planning Department as of August 14 , 1985 . It is
possible that negative comments may be received prior to , or at
the time of , the Public Hearing on August 21 , 1985 .
REVIEWER ' S RECOMMENDATION :
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law # 3 , 1980 .
Given the expected impacts which this project appears to have on the
environment , I recommend that a negative declaration of environmental
significance be made .
APPENDIX A
DUPLEX VARIANCES CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
June 30 , 1977 Richard Krizek , 134 Poole Road , # 26 - 1 - 34 . 4 ,
( 1 ) duplex approved .
February 27 , 1979 Evan Monkemeyer , 1060 Danby Road ( 118 W . King
Road ) , # 39 - 1 - 15 , ( 1 ) duplex approved .
April 11 , 1979 Elizabeth O ' Connor , 305 Blackstone Avenue ,
# 71 - 1 - 11 , ( 1 ) duplex approved .
• October 10 , 1979 Yuan - Tsung Chen and Y . Tannebaum , 1420
Hanshaw Rd . , # 70 - 10 - 12 , ( 1 ) duplex approved .
Zoning Board of Appeals 16 August 21 , 1985
• May 7 , 1980 Orlando Iacovelli , 362 West King Road ,
# 35 - 2 - 6 . 1 & 6 . 3 , ( 1 ) duplex approved .
April 6 , 1983 Evan Monkemeyer , 1047 - 53 Danby Road ,
# 43 - 1 - 3 . 1 , ( 4 ) duplexes approved .
May 16 , 1984 Kirk Sapa , 621 Elm St . Extension , # 29 - 8 - 5 . 1 ,
( 1 ) duplex considered and adjourned .
March 20 , 1985 Howard Fuller and Ken Ash , 246 - 250
Pennsylvania Avenue , # 54 - 7 - 19 & 20 , ( 1 ) duplex
approved . "
Mr . Jonson appeared before the Board and presented a drawing
entitled " Plot Plan " which set forth a proposed two - family dwelling of
7216 " x 40 ' on a 100 ' x 200 ' lot fronting on Honness Lane , also
showing a 60 - foot " Future Road " perpendicular to Honness Lane , and a
proposed driveway off Honness Lane and one off the " future road " , and
which also set forth that " This building covers 2 , 301 sq . ft . including
both living and garage spaces on the ground level . This building
covers 11 % of this 20 , 000 sq . ft . lot . " Mr . Jonson also presented a
7 -page set of drawings as follows :
( 1 ) Cape Cod Style Duplex Home - - Front Elevation - - ( 7 / 85 )
( 2 ) First Floor Plan
( 3 ) Second Floor Plan
( 4 ) Rear Elevation , Front Elevation
( 5 ) Side Elevations
( 6 ) Footing and Foundation Plan
( 7 ) Cross Section - AA ( Slab -On - Grade Construction ) ; Basement
Construction
Mr . Jonson stated that the market on this house [ indicating ] is
$ 150 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Jonson stated that the house will not decrease the
value of homes in the areas it will enhance it . Mr . Jonson stated
that an apartment is permitted , but this is a side -by - side where the
apartment is more than 500 of the main house . Mr . Jonson stated that
this sort of plan is better and not so cluttered with driveways and
cars as with the other plans . Mr . Jonson noted that this way you can
have two garages and one is hidden .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak for or against the Jonson Appeal ,
Mr . Douglas Armstrong , 121 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
stated that there are 21 homeowners , private residences , on Honness
Lane and he would like to introduce a Petiton from 17 of those
homeowners requesting denial of this Appeal . Mr . Armstrong stated
that of the four not on the list , one is in the Hospital dying of
cancer , one is here tonight , and two have had special interest waivers
from the Board , however , 17 are requesting denial . Mr . Armstrong
stated that they feel that the request for a waiver for this
particular case is only the tip of the iceberg . Mr . Armstrong stated
that Mr . Jonson is asking for a waiver for a side -by - side duplex on
Zoning Board of Appeals 17 August 21 , 1985
• Honness Lane - - for this one lot on Honness Lane , Mr . Armstrong
stated that if a waiver is given for this then a waiver would be
needed for the development that Mr . Jonson is currently surveying in
the same area behind the present lot . Mr . Armstrong stated that they
feel that duplex construction leads to all kinds of problems with two
and three unrelated persons - - probably they would be students - - and
detracts from the residential nature of the neighborhood . Mr .
Armstrong stated that this particular waiver would be used for other
waivers for side -by - side duplexes in the neighborhood .
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Petition presented by Mr .
Armstrong , as follows :
" We , the undersigned homeowners and residents of Honness Lane , request
that the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals deny a building permit
for the construction of a two - family dwelling in Residence District
R- 15 with the second dwelling unit equal in size to the primary
dwelling unit ( side by side duplex ) , at 129 Honness Lane , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 13 . Permit should be denied under
Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 2 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinances . "
Chairman Aron read aloud all of the names on the Petition , as
follows *
• Mr . & Mrs . George Nickles , 137 Honness La .
Edgar E . Bredbenner Jr . , 141 Honness Lane
Barbara J . Bredbenner , 141 Honness Lane
Leona C . Northrop , 141 Honness Lane
Marie Cario , 143 Honness Lane
Curtis Ufford , 147 Honness Lane
Amanda Ufford , 145 Honness Lane
Paul E . Jones , 150 Honness Lane
Mary G . Jones , 150 Honness Lane
Harry Ellsworth , 152 Honness Lane
Mary Ellsworth , 152 Honness Lane
George Lambrou , 154 Honness Lane
Gus Lambrou , 156 Honness Lane
Arete Brim , 146 Honness Lane
Scott W . Brim , 146 Honness Lane
Herbert Deinert ( & Waltraut ) , 130 Honness Lane
Nelson & Lucella Stillwell , 128 Honness Lane
Nell Mondy , 126 Honness Lane
Marcia & Chuck Dalkert , 105 Honness Lane
Suzanne Spitz , 1402 Slaterville Road ( corner Honness )
Eleanor P . May , 1360 Slaterville Road
Richard S . Archibald , 114 Honness Lane
Douglas & Lucia Armstrong , 121 Honness Lane
Barbara Fischer , 118 Honness Lane
Charles E . Fischer , 118 Honness Lane "
Chairman Aron stated that he would like to say , for the record ,
where Mr . Armstrong had said that probably anybody who has gotten
something from this Board for building and wants to repeat it again ,
Zoning Board of Appeals 18 August 21 , 1985
• that there is no automatic - - that person would have to come back to
this Board just as before . Chairman Aron stated that he would also
like to say that when Mr . Armstrong mentioned students , that bothered
him . Chairman Aron stated that students are people and added that he
can assure you that if the students were not here most of us would not
be here either . Chairman Aron stated that he felt very strongly about
this when we refer to people who are here for higher education .
Mr . Armstrong stated that they have two non - conforming houses in
the neighborhood rented to students so they have experience in this
type of situation .
Mrs . Chris Stratakos , 124 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
stated that she just returned from having been away and she would like
to add her name to the list of petitioners just read .
Mr . Jonson stated that he did build four houses up on Pine Tree
Road and all those houses do have an apartment in them . Mr . Jonson
stated that this plan is more attractive and asked if everyone would ,
please , look at it . Mr . Jonson pointed out that it is permitted to
build a house with an apartment , adding that he could reorganize this
plan [ indicating ] and build it , however , he wanted it to be more
attractive . Mr . Jonson commented that he is talking about a house in
the $ 150 , 000 . 00 to $ 160 , 000 . 00 range . Mr . Jonson reiterated that he
could redesign his plans and build a house with two units , one with
three bedrooms and one with two bedrooms , and it would be perfectly
okay . Mr . Jonson stated that he was not here to take away from the
neighborhood . Indicating on the plot plan , Mr . Jonson pointed out the
one garage and the other one hidden so there is not so much clutter of
cars . Mr . Jonson pointed out the 60 - foot right of way to the back
land and commented that this proposal is not cluster housing .
Mr . King asked Mr . Jonson if he had a site plan for the entire
proposed development . Mr . Jonson stated that this is a separate lot
and is not a part of " this " subdivision [ indicating the Blatchley land
to the south ] .
Mr . Armstrong brought up the previously proposed Blatchley plan
for the Board members to see . The tax map was reviewed . There
followed a discussion between Mr . Armstrong and Mr . Jonson .
Discussion also ensued with respect to Mr . Jonson ' s plan and the
primary unit - - the one with the two - car garage - - and the other unit
- - the one with the one - car garage . Mr . Jonson spoke about the homes
he built on Pine Tree Road with only one driveway but with an
apartment and pointed out how this plan has two drives and two
garages .
Mr . King asked if there were a house on the next door property .
Mr . Jonson responded that there was , adding that that is Mrs .
Blatchley ' s property . Mr . King wondered if that were Mrs . Blatchley ' s
farmhouse , to which Mr . Jonson responded , yes . Mr . Jonson spoke of
• the proposed road [ indicating ] into the Blatchley land behind .
v
` Zoning Board of Appeals 19 August 21 , 1985
• Chairman Aron asked Mr . Jonson what is wrong with building the
house like the ones on Pine Tree Road , Mr . Jonson stated that there
was nothing wrong with it , but , this is nicer . Mr . Jonson stated that
this proposal before the ZBA has nothing to do with the back property ;
it has to do with this particular lot . Mr . Jonson stated that with
this particular lot he was asking to build a side - by - side instead of
an up - and - down , adding that people should be able to get out of the
basement . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Jonson if he were going to own this
house or sell it . Mr . Jonson stated that , to be honest with the
Chairman , he would like to live in this house himself , but if that
does not work out , he will sell it .
Referring to the house plans , Mr . King asked how far it might be
from the chimney to the next house . Mr . Jonson stated that it would
be about 100 feet to the house itself .
Mrs . Shirley Raffensperger , 139 Pine Tree Road , asked how many
square feet would be in the structure itself . Mr . Jonson responded ,
3 , 000 square feet , adding that the house is 7216 " x 40 ' deep , but that
is covering everything projecting - - the garage , the chimney - - and
that sort of thing .
Mrs . Nancy L . Krook , 113 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that she lives across from Mr . Jonson ' s new house . Mrs . Krook
stated that she would like to point out that Mr . Jonson also told them
. that he was going to move into the house across from them . Mrs . Krook
stated that she would like the Board to know , also , that all the units
that Mr . Jonson has built before this house , all have wood heat , and
other heating besides . Mrs . Krook stated that when all these families
are burning their wood , the chimneys are so low that the wood
pollution comes into her house and is circulated through her heating
system . Mrs . Krook stated that it is so bad that they go into their
basement to see if their house is on fire . Mrs . Krook stated that
this is a family neighborhood and they have all worked hard with the
School District and to maintain the church - family - atmosphere . Mrs .
Krook stated that they have Commonland ; they have Eastern Heights ;
they have Eastwood Commons ; they have apartments . Mrs . Krook stated
that the neighborhood is going to multiple family , reiterating that
they are going over to transient , multiple , housing . Mrs . Krook
stated that they have about an hour and a half of silence between 3 : 00
o ' clock and 5 : 00 o ' clock in the morning , and that is it . Mrs . Krook
stated that they have motorcycles and constant traffic . Mrs . Krook
stated that they moved there because they have zoning but it is never
enforced .
Chairman Aron stated to Mrs . Krook that he did not agree that the
zoning ordinance is not enforced . Mrs . Krook responded that the Town
is not maintaining the zoning rules when we have , always , more and
more given .
Mr . Jonson stated that , to begin with , the houses on Pine Tree
• Road are heatedwith electric heat , not wood heat , and further , the
homes do not belong to him so he has no control over how they are
used .
t
Zoning Board of Appeals 20 August 21 , 1985
Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she would like to speak to the
• specific request and noted that practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship had not been described by the appellant . Mrs . Raffensperger
stated that she would also like to speak to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as to the so -called " 50 % rule " which has been characterized
as " silly " . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she did not think it is
" silly " . Mrs . Raffensperger pointed out that two - family houses are
permitted in all residential areas of the Town and , in order to
control that , the Zoning Ordinance was written such that a second
dwelling unit must be 50 % of the primary dwelling unit in order that
the one - family appearance was maintained and , although there could be
practical difficulties , not many apartment units would be built like
the main unit and it would remain an accessory use . Mrs .
Raffensperger commented that perhaps " 50 % " is not the best way , but
the Town must do this in some way to keep up with the pressure from
other areas where they are tightening their zoning ordinances . Mrs .
Raffensperger stated that the Town Board has been asked to change this
rule and it has not done so .
Mr . Edgar Bredbenner Jr . , 141 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor
and , commenting that he also signed the Petition , stated that they are
very much concerned about density , about an increase in the number of
homes , and people , and cars . Mr . Bredbenner stated that they built
there with the idea that they would have some controls , adding that
they like the area .
• Mr . Lawrence Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor and
stated that he thought the issue is not whether the house is
attractive or not , but whether it is in keeping with the neighborhood .
Mr . Rosenberg stated that we should stick to the zoning ordinance and
make sure that in this area , or neighborhood , we maintain the single
family dwelling with a basement apartment , adding that this builder
has no problem with that . Mr . Rosenberg stated that he thought there
are other areas where this type of dwelling could be built . Mr .
Rosenberg stated that this area is zoned R15 and we should maintain
that important ordinance .
Mrs . Marcia Dalkert , 105 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
stated that her concern is the access road , adding that the area is
noisy and she has been eight years there and with the road there will
be increased density . Mrs . Dalkert stated that she was concerned with
multiple housing , with increased density , and with noise .
Mr . Curtis Ufford , 147 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
stated that he would like to comment that he did build a second house
on Honness Lane at 145 Honness Lane and it would have been nice to
have a duplex and he did consider it , and he brought the matter to Mr .
Fabbroni who informed him that this was against the zoning ordinance
and so he changed his plans .
Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 05 p . m . and asked
Mr . Jonson what the hardship is by not building a side -by - side duplex .
Mr . Jonson stated that there is no hardship to him , adding that he can
build a five -bedroom house with a two -bedroom apartment , or , he can
Zoning Board of Appeals 21 August 21 , 1985
• build a four -bedroom house . Mr . Jonson , commenting that he can build
a building there within the zoning law , stated that he can make it
more attractive , or , less attractive with another plan . Chairman Aron
wondered why it would not be as attractive . Mr . Jonson stated that
when he looks at a piece of land he can see what will look best . Mr .
Jonson stated that he thought . he had a very attractive plan which will
enhance the neighborhood , adding that he is interested in
neighborhoods also . Chairman Aron commented to Mr . Jonson that
everyone knows he builds very nice homes . Mr . Jonson thanked the
Chairman and stated that he thought he did too , commenting that he had
listened to a lot of opposition about how he was going to decrease the
value of the neighborhood .
Mr . Edward King stated that , in view of the fact that no
practical difficulties or unnecessary harship had been shown , the
Board of Appeals must DENY the application for this variance , and , he
would SO MOVE ,
Mrs . Joan Reuning stated that she would SECOND but , perhaps , the
MOTION should state that all the neighbors were opposed . Mr . King
agreed and stated that he accepted the MOTION as re - stated .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Ivar Jonson Appeal duly
closed at 8 : 10 p . m .
RECESS
Chairman Aron announced a ten -minute recess .
APPEAL OF JAMES IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
TWO - FAMILY DWELLING , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , WITH SIDE YARD AND
REAR YARD DEFICIENCIES , AT 1474 SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 41 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION
14 , 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 8 : 20 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Iacovelli and Attorney Edward A . Mazza were present . Chairman Aron
read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by James
Iacovelli under date of August 12 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . Having been
denied permission to build a two - family dwelling at 1474 Slaterville
Road . . . l . The location of the existing foundation is on the best part
of the lot , with respect to views and grading . 2 . Since the grade
drops off , a lot of fill would be required to establish grade
Zoning Board of Appeals 22 August 21 , 1985
• elsewhere on the site . This would be very costly . 3 . Other locations
would require a longer driveway and longer runs for utilities . "
Chairman Aron noted that the Board members had each received a
copy of a Survey Map of the property in question , attached to the
Appeal Form . For the record , also attached . was a copy of the Short
Environmental Assessment Form as completed .and signed by James
Iacovelli [ Part I ] , under date of August 12 , 1985 , and as reviewed and
recommended upon by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , [ Part II ] , under
date of August 13 , 1985 , as follows : " According to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act [ 6 NYCRR Part 617 . 13 ( d ) ( 2 ) ] the
granting of individual setback and lot line variances is a Type II
action . This class of action was not changed by the Town Board
according to Local Law # 3 , 1980 . As a result , this is an action which
has been determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment and no action needs to be taken by the Zoning Board of
Appeals . "
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak for or against the Iacovelli Appeal .
Attorney Edward A . Mazza appeared before the Board and stated
that he was representing Mr . Iacovelli who would like to explain what
he is planning , however , he would speak to the matter before he does .
Attorney Mazza appended a drawing to the bulletin board and showed the
• locations of both Slaterville Road and Pine Tree Road between which
Mr . Iacovelli ' s property lies , commenting that the lot has a funny
shape , and adding that it is almost L- shaped . Attorney Mazza noted
that one can identify this property by the old barn that is located on
the Pine Tree Road side of the property . Attorney Mazza , indicating
on the drawing , stated that the barn sits " here " now . Continuing , and
indicating on the drawing , Attorney Mazza showed the sewer line that
runs also in an L - shape right through the property , and stated that
the lot is encumbered by the location of that sewer 'line running
through there , and the sewer system , such that you cannot build within
so many feet of that sewer line . Again indicating on -the drawing ,
Attorney Mazza pointed out that you cannot build a house " here " or
" here " over the sewer line , or , too close to it . Attorney Mazza
pointed to the drawing and stated that " down here " the topography is
such that a lot of cut and fill would be required , and , if a house
were built " here " , it is not so attractive as in the proposed location
as to having beautiful views . Attorney Mazza commented that a lot of
people enjoy the views up in here . Attorney Mazza stated that ,
actually , siting a house right over the sewer line would be a nice
place to build , but you cannot build there . Attorney Mazza stated
that if Mr . Iacovelli were permitted to build where he proposes , there
would be a need for two variances - - ( 1 ) a side yard variance over
" here " [ indicating ] ; the side yard requirement under the zoning
ordinance is 15 feet whereas , in this case , the house would have a
12 - foot setback from the line - - ( 2 ) the front yard requirement under
the ordinance is 25 feet but in this case there would be 9 feet .
Attorney Mazza noted that in each of these cases , the deficiency that
presently exists is a greater deficiency than what is requested , and
so , there would be an improvement in the situation with the barn as it
Zoning Board of Appeals 23 August 21 , 1985
• exists . Attorney Mazza reiterated that the proposal would present a
situation less deficient than what is there now . Attorney Mazza ,
commenting that the side yard deficiency of 3 feet is not too
significant , noted that the front yard would become about 8 feet
farther back than it is now and so there would be greater visibility ,
along this road [ indicating Pine Tree Road ] , Attorney Mazza pointed
out on the drawing that the driveway would be " here " and commented
that it would have a nice grade , adding that it would not be difficult
to get out . Attorney Mazza stated that , with the topography and other
constraints , this is the logical place to put the proposed house .
Attorney Mazza , referring to the Ivar Jonson Appeal just heard ,
stated that this proposal is a situation that the neighbors all argued
for - - a " normal " house with a little efficiency apartment in the
basement , that is , a single family house with a very small efficiency
in the basememt .
Mr . King asked for clarification of Attorney Mazza ' s statement
with respect to the use of the barn , and stated that it appeared that
Mr . Iacovelli was not building in the barn area . Chairman Aron also
stated that it appeared that Mr . Iacovelli was not using the barn
foundation . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he was partially using the barn
foundation - - the portion farther back from the Pine Tree Road side
and from the other side lot line .
• Mr . Heinz Biesdorf , 702 Hudson Street , spoke from the floor and
stated that he had sold Mr . Iacovelli this property . Mr . Biesdorf
stated that he would like the Board to know that has no interest in
this lot whatsoever , but he would like to speak to clarification only .
Mr . Biesdorf stated that Mr . Iacovelli wants to put a house on top of
the existing foundation of the barn which has been existing for many
years . Mr . Biesdorf stated that the barn has a deficiency on one side
between Mr . Iacovelli ' s property and the next property , and , between
Pine Tree Road , which deficiency has been there for many years . Mr .
Biesdorf stated that this is no new deficiency . Mr . Biesdorf
commented that Mr . Iacovelli wants to build within the zoning
ordinance , using an existing foundation , for a house with a small
apartment .
Mrs . Nancy Krook , 113 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that she had a question as to the legality of the hearing .
Mrs . Krook stated that the Notice says that a two - family dwelling at
1474 Slaterville Road is to be built . Mrs . Krook stated that there
are families that are not here that live across the street . Mrs .
Krook stated that Dr . Mecenas and the people who bought Mr . Jonson ' s
new house are not here . Mrs . Krook stated that this proposal is for a
house 12 ' from David Badner ' s property . Chairman Aron asked the
' Secretary to read the names of persons notified by mail of the
Iacovelli Appeal , The Secretary read - - James Iacovelli , Heinz
Biesdorf , David & Beth Badner , Robert & Virginia Powers , Janice Womble
& Melvin Marion , James Burke , Robert & Kay Marion , Karen Herzog , Ebba
• Mars , Michael J . Pichel , Paul & Sara Zwerman , Robert & Kathleen Brown ,
Margaret H . Marion , Chris & Anne Woodard , Bion & Edith Carpenter ,
Hermogenes & Joy Mecenas , Harry & Marion Taggart , Lennart & Nancy
Zoning Board of Appeals 24 August 21 , 1985
• Krook . Mrs . Krook stated that the Notice is not right and asked how
could people be here . Mrs . Krook stated that from reading this Notice
they would not know that the barn on Pine Tree Road was being built .
Mr . King stated that he thought the lady was correct in that the
Appellant is also using the Pine Tree Road as the rule for determining
the front and side yards - - he is not using the Slaterville Road . Mr .
King stated that he thought the point was well taken .
Mrs . Marion Taggart , 109 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that it is close to the road .
Attorney Mazza , commenting that the proposal is , in effect , to
move the " barn away from the lot line , stated that this property
fronts on two roads and 1474 Slaterville Road happens to be the legal
address for this property .
Mr . Harry Taggart , 109 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and
expressed his concern about occupancy levels , adding that his house is
next door to a two -unit dwelling . Attorney Mazza stated that the
proposal is for one building - - a single family house with a little
efficiency . Attorney Mazza asked Mr . Iacovelli just how big the
efficiency apartment would be , to which Mr . Iacovelli responded , 12 ' x
201 . Attorney Mazza stated that one variance being asked for is for a
front yard deficiency from " this " road [ indicating Pine Tree Road ]
where 25 feet is required . Attorney Mazza stated that the setback
would be 9 feet there , a 16 - foot deficiency as opposed to the present
24 - foot deficiency . Attorney Mazza stated that the other variance
being asked for is for a side yard deficiency where 15 feet is
required . Attorney Mazza stated that the setback there would be 12
feet , a 3 - foot deficiency .
Mr . Archie Mackenzie , Penny Lane , spoke from the floor and stated
that he lives in Commonland Community , Mr . Mackenzie stated that he
goes by that barn every day and it is a nice barn and it is
deteriorating . Mr . Mackenzie stated that he has seen the plans for
the house and he thought it would enhance the neighborhood . Mr .
Mackenzie stated that it is at the scale of the existing barn and it
would contribute to the memory of the barn with sliding doors like a
barn . Mr . Mackenzie stated that if you cannot have the barn , this is
a nice idea .
Mrs . Ebba Mars , 111 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that she lives across from the barn and it is a shame to take
it down .
Mr . Lawrence Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor and
stated that he had a question about the proposed location , which was ,
what is the hardship involved in moving the structure to be 25 feet
back . Attorney Mazza asked Mr . Rosenberg if he knew the topography of
the land , to which Mr . Rosenberg responded , somewhat . Attorney Mazza ,
• pointing to the drawing , stated that it is higher " here " and there is
a pretty shart drop to " here " and shallow " here " . Attorney Mazza
stated that to build in " here " [ indicating ] , a lot of fill would have
Zoning Board of Appeals 25 August 21 , 1985
to be brought in to do that , and also a longer driveway would be
required to get to it . Attorney Mazza stated that the ideal place is
probably " here " [ indicating ] . but the sewer line is there , noting ,
again , that you cannot build over a sewer line or too close to it .
Mr . Rosenberg asked if there were no possibility of moving the sewer
line . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he was told , no . Mr . Rosenberg
wondered what the cost would be . Mr . Iacovelli replied that there
would be extra costs for fill , longer driveways , utilities , and so on ,
but , really , the most cost would be the view .
Mrs . Krook wondered what Mr . Iacovelli will have done to the
neighbor , David Badner , and his view from the balcony . Mr . Iacovelli
stated that he will not interfere with his balcony in any way .
Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 40 p . m .
Mr . Cartee recalled that about 12 or 15 months ago , the Board had
a similar request for this barn which was denied . Mr . King pointed
out that that request was to actually use the barn and rehabilitate it
as a dwelling . Mr . King asked what the present height of the barn is .
Mr . Iacovelli stated that the barn is going down , but , to the peak it
is about 22 feet . Mr . King asked how high the proposed house is to
be , to which Mr . Iacovelli responded , almost the same , adding that it
will be two - storied with a basement .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she felt that , since there has been some
• confusion as to this address and where it is , and also , she felt that
she would like to walk the property and see precisely what is being
talked about , she would suggest adjourning the matter . Mr . King
stated that he was inclined to agree with Mrs . Reuning , adding that ,
also , he would like to have an opportunity to have more members of the
Board present . Mr . King stated that he would also suggest that the
Appeal be re - advertised to show the Pine Tree Road location in
addition .
Attorney Mazza allowed as how he was somewhat confused , and asked
Mr . King if he ,[ Mazza ] understood correctly that the matter is to be
re - advertised to have more public here after the Public Hearing has
been closed . Mr . King stated that that was correct . Attorney Mazza
inquired of the Chair if he were going to re - open the hearing , with
Chairman Aron responding , yes .
MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
Public Hearing in the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal be and
hereby is adjourned to the next meeting of said Board , September 18 ,
1985 , commencing" at 7 : 00 p . m .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
Zoning Board of Appeals 26 August 21 , 1985
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
• Attorney Mazza asked if he might suggest that both addresses
9 g9 be
listed so that the Slaterville Road people do not appear saying the
same thing . Mr . King suggested that the Secretary prepare the Notice
in terms of a clarified notice . Mr . King asked Mr . Iacovelli if there
were plans for the house he wished to construct . Mr . Iacovelli stated
that there were and presented a plan to Mr . King ,
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of
the James Iacovelli Appeal duly adjourned at 8 : 45 p . m .
APPEAL OF JAMES IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
TWO , TWO - FAMILY DWELLINGS , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R91 EACH WITH
DWELLING UNITS OF EQUAL SIZE ( UP -AND -DOWN DUPLEXES , FOUR BEDROOMS IN
EACH UNIT OF EACH STRUCTURE ) , AND , DENYING SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW
FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS TO OCCUPY EACH SUCH UNIT ( A TOTAL OF EIGHT
UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH STRUCTURE ) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMITS BEING
APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION 41 PARAGRAPH 2 ,
SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AT 239 - 241
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0 . 6 - 54 - 5 - 40 ( OLD
ITHACA LAND COMPANY PARCELS N0 , 126 AND 127 ) AND A PORTION OF
6 - 54 - 5 - 38 ( OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY PARCEL N0 , 129 , KNOWN ALSO AS 103
MARYLAND AVENUE ) , AND , AT 146 KENDALL AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCELS NO . 6 - 54 - 5 - 10 ( OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY PARCELS NO . 160 AND
161 ) AND A PORTION OF 6 - 54 - 5 - 12 ( OLD ITHACA LAND PARCEL N0 , 159 , BEING
A PORTION OF A PARCEL PRESENTLY KNOWN AS 148 KENDALL AVENUE ) . PERMITS
ARE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 ; ARTICLE III ,
SECTION 41 PARAGRAPH 21 SUB -PARAGRAPH 2b , 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 8 : 46 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Messrs .
Iacovelli and Mazza were present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the
Appeal Form as signed and submitted by James Iacovelli under date of
August 12 , 1985 , as follows : if been denied permission to
construct two , two family dwellings at 241 Pennsylvania Avenue and 146
Kendall Avenue . . . l . It ' s impractical to build 6 small houses . 2 .
Building larger houses allows for better quality construction . 3 .
There are precedents in the neighborhood . 4 . Density of occupancy is
no greater though less buildings are used . 5 . This provides for more
committed open space . 6 . Six 50 ' lots are dedicated to these two
structures . "
For the record , in addition to the Appeal Form , the Board members
each had before him / her copies of the following documents .
1 . A completed Short Environmental Assessment Form , as completed ,
signed , and submitted by James Iacovelli under date of August 12 ,
1985 [ Part I ] , indicating the project name as Pennsylvania Avenue
and Kendall Ave . , and describing the project as 2 - two family
ti Zoning Board of Appeals 27 August 21 , 1985
• houses , and , as reviewed by the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , under
date of August 13 , 1985 [ Parts II and III ] , as follows :
" TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART II : Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes
RE : James Iacovelli , Pennsylvania Avenue , two - family houses
Impacts on Land
1 . There will be no adverse environmental impact as a result of
physical changes to the project site . This conclusion is
based upon the fact that the two houses to be constructed
will be built on six adjacent lots with a total area in
excess of 53 , 400 square feet . Each of the two buildings is
68 ' long ( including an attached deck ) and 30 ' wide , for a
total lot coverage of 2 , 040 square feet . The total coverage
for both houses is 4 , 080 square feet , or less than 8 % of the
gross lot area . As a maximum lot coverage of 25 % is per -
mitted in an R9 district , I believe that the physical
changes to the site as a result of construction will be
minimal .
2 . There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be
adversely affected by this project . This conclusion is
based upon an examination of a Townwide map of unique
physiographic formations prepared by the Tompkins County
Planning Department and referred to as part of our Town
Comprehensive Plan .
Impact on Water
3 . There are no protected water bodies which would be affected
by this project . This conclusion is based upon an exami -
nation of a Townwide map of watersheds and surface drainage
prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department . There
are no streams on the site and excess surface drainage will
be intercepted by the roadside ditch along Kendall Avenue
and carried off in the regular drainage system .
4 . There are no non -protected water bodies which would be
affected as a result of this project . This conclusion is
also based upon an examination of the watersheds and surface
drainage map cited above .
5 . This project will have no effect on groundwater quality .
This conclusion is based upon the fact that both buildings
will be connected to the Town ' s sanitary sewer system .
6 . This project has a small potential impact on drainage flow
and surface water runoff . The construction of the common
4
Zoning Board of Appeals 28 August 21 , 1985
• parking lot between the two buildings will concentrate
surface runoff . The total surface area of this parking area
will be ( 44 ' x 561 ) 2 , 464 square feet , exclusive of the
driveway from Pennsylvania Avenue and the turnaround at the
north end of the lot ( estimated additional area based on
128 ' length and 12 ' width of pavement : 1 , 536 square feet ) .
The driveway and the parking area will be paved ( . 9 runoff
coefficient ) . Adding the roof coverage of 4 , 080 square feet
gives a total impervious surface of 8 , 080 square feet with
an average runoff coefficient of 95 percent . This amount of
impervious surface is approximately 15 % of the gross lot
area . The time of concentration is assumed to be 15
minutes . In order to accommodate a five - year storm of 1 . 5
inches of rainfall per hour , the site should be graded so
that the drainageway to Kendall Avenue can handle a minimum
flow of . 12 ft3 / second .
Impact on Air
7 . This project will not have an adverse environmental impact
on air quality . This conclusion is based upon the fact that
these new houses will be built to State Code insulation
requirements and should be more thermally efficient than the
average home in the Town of Ithaca . Air pollutants from the
home furnaces should be below average when computed on a per
capita basis .
• Impact on Plants and Animals
is
8 . There are no known threatened or endangered species of plant
or animal which will be adversely affected by this project .
This conclusion is based on an examination of maps prepared
by the Tompkins County Planning Department describing Game
Habitats , Unique Wildlife Habitats , and Forest Land and
Unique Floral Regions ,
9 . There will be no adverse environmental impact on
non -endangered or non - threatened species of plants and
animals . This conclusion is also based on an examination of
maps prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department
describing Game Habitats , Unique Wildlife Habitats , and
Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions .
Impact on Visual Resources
10 . The project will have no adverse impact on views , vistas , or
other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual
character . This conclusion is based upon the fact that in
this area , the present R9 zoning designation and the
approved Ithaca Land Company subdivision would permit a one
or two - family home with as much as 2 , 250 square feet of lot
coverage to be built on each of the six affected lots . In
addition , a public street known as Maryland .Avenue would
have to be constructed to serve that portion of tax parcel
` n
Zoning Board of Appeals 29 August 21 , 1985
number 54 - 5 - 38 which is designated as # 129 on the Ithaca
Land Company plat . A development of this sort would be
considerably more disruptive of the neighborhood character
and aesthetics than the proposed buildings . In addition ,
the old , unattractive house presently located on tax parcel
- number 54 - 5 - 40 ( # 241 Pennsylvania Avenue ) will be torn down
as part of this action .
Impact on Historical Resources
11 . This project will not impact upon any site or structure of
historic , pre - historic or paleontological importance . This
conclusion in based on the fact that five of the six parcels
included as part of this action are presently open land and
that the sixth parcel contains a house of no historic value .
It is unlikely that the land itself contains any artifacts
of pre - historic or paleontological importance . This judg -
ment is based upon the evidence that a considerable amount
of building and development in this area has not produced
evidence of any artifacts at this time .
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
12 . This project will have no negative impact on the quality or
quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational
opportunities in the community . Neither the Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan nor the Ithaca Land
Company plat provide for any dedicated recreation area on
this site . To the extent that the proposed development
reduces that mass of buildings which would otherwise be
permitted , it will have a positive effect on the preser -
vation of open space in the neighborhood .
Impact on Transportation
13 . This project will have an impact on the existing
transportation system . Based upon traffic counts for
similar residential neighborhoods in the Town , it is esti -
mated that traffic flow on Pennsylvania Avenue is less than
500 cars per day . The parking area for the two buildings
provides space for 14 cars . Based upon an assumption of 14
cars each making 4 trips per day , these two buildings may
add more than 55 + trips per day to Pennsylvania Avenue .
This would represent an increase of approximately 10 percent
to the estimated daily traffic flow . This increase may be
considered significant but is well within standards for
residential neighborhoods elsewhere in the Town .
Impact on Energy
14 . This project will have no significant effect on the
community ' s sources of fuel and energy . This conclusion is
based upon the fact that these houses are typical two- family
/ homes which , even if built to the most energy - efficient
1 Zoning Board of Appeals 30 August 21 , 1985
insulation standards , could have only a marginal effect on
the community ' s overall energy use .
Impact on Noise
15 . There will be no significant odors , glare , vibration or
electrical disturbances as a result of this project . This
conclusion is based upon the fact that glare , vibration and
electrical disturbances are not associated with residential
construction of this type . The increase in traffic flow
along Pennsylvania Avenue has been described and considered
above . However , since the resulting traffic flow is consi -
dered to be well within neighborhood standards and the
increase in traffic will be private cars and not trucks , the
increase in noise is not considered to be significant .
Impact on Health and Hazards
16 . This project will have no significant impact on public
health and safety . This conclusion is based upon the fact
that the construction of one and two family houses has been
determined by the Town Board to be a permitted use which
will not adversely affect the public health , safety and
welfare . The two buildings will be constructed in confor -
mance with the New York State Life Safety Code and will be
I
nspected by our Building Inspector before a Certificate of
Occupancy may be issued .
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17 . This project will have no adverse impact on the growth and
character of the existing community . This conclusion is
based upon the fact that on March 20 , 1985 the Zoning Board
of Appeals approved a variance for the construction of a
pair of two - family homes at 145 and 147 Kendall Avenue .
These homes are substantially identical to the buildings
proposed to be constructed in the present action and were
permitted to be occupied by no more than seven unrelated
persons in each building . Two parcels of land , # 130 and
# 131 of the Ithaca Land Company plat , were dedicated as open
space to accompany this variance .
The present action is extremely similar to the variance
already approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals . Six
parcels rather than five are proposed to be dedicated , and
these parcels to be dedicated are contiguous to the two
parcels previously reserved as open space . The construction
of these buildings and others by Mr . Iacovelli and others in
the past five years is establishing a standard of construc -
tion quality and lot coverage which is more characteristic
of R15 residential neighborhoods elsewhere in the Town . The
standards of residential occupancy are somewhat lower than
would be permitted according to the R9 standards of the
Zoning Ordinance .
t
Zoning Board of Appeals 31 August 21 , 1985
18 . There is no public controversy concerning the project at
this time . This conclusion is based upon comments received
by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department as of August 13 ,
1985 . It is possible that negative comments may be received
prior to , or at the time of , the Public Hearing on August
21 , 1985 .
REVIEWER ' S RECOMMENDATION :
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law # 3 ,
1980 . Given the expected impacts which this project appears to
have on the environment , I recommend that a negative declaration
of environmental significance be made . "
2 . A portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Map No . 54 showing -the six lots
involved in the Iacovelli Appeal .
3 . Site Plan of proposal for two dwelling structures and parking
with 14 spaces on property with frontage on Pennsylvania Avenue
and Kendall Avenue ,
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Iacovelli if there were anything he
wished to add to his statement on the Appeal Form , Attorney Mazza ,
noting that he was representing Mr . Iacovelli in this matter also ,
stated that this is a situation similar to others he [ Mazza ] has had
before the Board with Mr . Iacovelli and others . Attorney Mazza stated
. that the proposal involves " old " Ithaca Land Company lots , 50 feet in
width , which are legal non - conforming lots . Attorney Mazza stated
that , in this case , Mr . Iacovelli actually owns six of them . Attorney
Mazza appended the Site Plan to the bulletin board and , indicating
thereon , stated that there currently is a structure there and Mr .
Iacovelli currently owns that structure . Attorney Mazza stated that
the other five lots are vacant . Attorney Mazza pointed out on his
copy of Tax Map # 54 the location of " Maryland Avenue " , which he termed
a " paper street " , and which he noted is a street shown on a tax map ,
or subdivision map , but which does not exist because it has actually
not been constructed . Attorney Mazza commented that , probably , the
Town would like for it never to be built . Attorney Mazza stated that ,
by doing this project in this way , and because one of these old lots
fronts on this " Maryland Avenue " [ # 129 ] , it is one more reason not to
build it . Attorney Mazza pointed out that there are other lots to be
dedicated also . Attorney Mazza stated that the zoning ordinance
allows for Mr . Iacovelli to build six single family residences on each
of these six lots , in each of which are permitted three unrelated
persons , pointing out that , therefore , there could be 18 unrelated
persons which would be perfectly legal . Attorney Mazza , indicating on
the tax map , stated that there could be a house and a driveway , a
house and driveway , etc . , on all of these lots . Attorney Mazza stated
that if the Board were to look at the Preamble of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance , it would see that its purpose includes the lessening
of congestion in the streets , the provision of adequate light and air ,
• the prevention of the overcrowding of land , and so . Attorney Mazza
stated that this project will not increase density ; it will not
increase traffic . Attorney Mazza stated that Mr . Iacovelli proposes
16 unrelated persons on all of these lots , less than what is
f
Zoning Board of Appeals 32 August 21 , 1985
permitted , so traffic is not increased , water use is not increased ,
sewer use is not increased . Attorney Mazza stated that there is more
open space , more yard space , more light and ventilation , with what Mr .
Iacovelli is proposing to do .
Attorney Mazza , referring to the site plan , described it .
Attorney Mazza pointed out the parking area , stating that the parking
is hidden . Attorney Mazza described the bank that is on this property
and noted that the one house will be almost invisible . Attorney Mazza
stated that , if'' the Board has looked at Mr . Iacovelli ' s homes on
Kendall Avenue , it knows that they look fantastic - - far better than
some other structures in the area . Attorney Mazza reiterated that
" all of this " [ indicating ] will be dedicated to these two structures
through the grant of Restrictive Covenant , as they have done before .
Attorney Mazza noted again that the parking is off the road and
pointed out the nice yard space . Attorney Mazza stated that this will
be a well done project , especially since this is in his [ Iacovelli ' s ]
back yard . Attorney Mazza pointed out that Mr . Iacovelli lives right
next door at 148 Kendall Avenue .
Attorney Mazza spoke to the logistics of the project , stating
that this project would be built during the occupancy of the existing
house , shown on the site plan by dotted lines , however , there will be
no overlapping occupancy and , so , the density would not be greater .
Attorney Mazza stated that this building , 241 Pennsylvania Avenue ,
would be removed by the time of occupancy of the two new structures .
• Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone y present who wished to
speak to the matter of this Iacovelli Appeal .
Mr . Lawrence Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor and
stated that his concern here is , again , with duplexes in nature . Mr .
Rosenberg stated that we have a zoning ordinance which restricts that ,
even in R9 as well as R15 . Mr . Rosenberg stated that he thought
having two structures like this and allowing four unrelated persons in
each unit , which would make 16 people , is too dense . Mr . Rosenberg
stated that he did not know either if the parking would be adequate .
Mr . Iacovelli stated that there are 16 spaces . Mr . Rosenberg wondered
about people having two cars , or guests . Mr . Rosenberg stated that he
realized that these are somewhat different lots with different footage
involved , and , although he did have difficulty with really following
the occupancy rules and regulations in this area , there are other
problems involved with over -occupancy . Chairman Aron wondered what
Mr . Rosenberg ' s other problems were . Mr . Rosenberg stated that one is
on - street parking . Attorney Mazza wondered how this project would
create an on - street parking problem , noting the parking area shown .
Mrs . Pamela Rosenberg pointed out that the proposal involves 16 units
based on 50 - foot lots , adding that if the lots were full - sized , there
could be 9 unrelated persons under the intended character of R9 . Mrs .
Rosenberg stated that , with this proposal , there could be 32 people ,
if they were couples . Mrs . Rosenberg expressed her concern about both
cars being on the street in this area all over the place and absentee
ownership . Attorney Mazza stated that if you had a couple in one of
the units , that would be a family , so you could not have a situation
Zoning Board of Appeals 33 August 21 , 1985
as Mrs . Rosenberg suggested . Mrs . Rosenberg offered , however , that it
could happen . Attorney Mazza pointed out that anything could happen .
Mrs . Rosenberg stated that in a two - family residence in R9 you could
have a family in each unit , adding that there could be more such that
these four units could have 12 people , 4 less than the 16 requested .
Mr . Rosenberg asked Mr . Iacovelli if he would be owning these units or
will they be for sale . Mr . Iacovelli responded that he does not sell
his houses . Attorney Mazza stated that he would point out that at
some point in time properties get sold . Mr . Rosenberg pointed out
that Mr . Iacovelli lives there in the area . Attorney Mazza noted that
Mr . Iacovelli has six daughters whose futures he is thinking about .
Attorney Mazza stated that they do this in various parts of the Town
and , someday , his daughters can live upstairs and rent the downstairs .
Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 05 p . m .
Chairman Aron stated that he went out to the property in question
and looked at it , and walked it , and he has seen Mr . Iacovelli ' s house
which is on Kendall Avenue and behind his own real property . Chairman
Aron stated that he would suggest for the Board , before making any
decisions , to go down and look over the property and see what is
behind it , in front of it , and so on . Chairman Aron stated that
across the road from this project are two buildings that Mr . Iacovelli
has built which are quality type buildings . Attorney Mazza asked if
Chairman Aron were referring to the two duplexes that were built in
accordance with a previous request that was granted in March with 14
• unrelated persons , with Chairman Aron responding , yes . Mr . King
stated that he would agree with the Chairman ' s suggestion . Attorney
Mazza asked Mr . Iacovelli when he wanted to start building . Mr .
Iacovelli responded that we are getting into a time of difficult
weather conditions and winter will be here before we know it .
Attorney Mazza asked when the Board might take up the matter again
after visiting the site . Chairman Aron stated that the Board meets
next on September 18th . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it is getting late ,
that is the only thing , and with two houses and winter construction ,
time is a problem . Mr . King stated that , personally , he wanted to see
it , commenting that he had trouble envisioning it without being on the
site . Attorney Mazza stated that he was not suggesting that Mr . King
or the Board not go ; he was suggesting an adjournment to a date not a
month away . Attorney Mazza stated that Mr . Iacovelli would like to
get the project going , and suggested that the Board might consider a
Special Meeting , commenting that that has been done at the Planning
Board , Chairman Aron stated that he had no problem with a special
meeting . The Board members indicating no problem either , Chairman
Aron stated that the Board members , excluding him since he had already
been there , together with the Secretary , would meet at 9 : 00 a . m . ,
Saturday morning , [ August 24 , 19851 , at 241 Pennsylvania Avenue , to
look over the situation . Chairman Aron asked the Secretary to notify
Mr . Austen and Mr . Hewett of this meeting to visit the site .
MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
• RESOLVED , that the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal with
respect to property on Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues be and hereby
1 Zoning Board of Appeals 34 August 21 , 1985
is adjourned until Wednesday , August 28 , 1985 , at 12 : 00 o ' clock , Noon ,
Town Hall Meeting Room .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Iacovelli Appeal duly
adjourned at 9 : 15 p . m .
Mr . King submitted into the record , the Restrictive Covenant ,
which had been recorded in the County Clerk ' s Office , with respect to
Mr . Iacovelli ' s Appeal on his property at 145 - 149 Kendall Avenue
[ March 20 , 1985 ] .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the August 21 , 1985 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 20
p . m .
• Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
Henry Aron , Chairman
•