Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1986-10-15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 , 1986 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on October 15 , 1986 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Jack Hewett , Joan Reuning , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Attorney John C . Barney and Mr . Barney ' s Associate , Attorney Richard P . Ruswick , ALSO PRESENT : S . Douglas Fain , Patricia Fain , Mark Stevens , Mark Schultz , Ying Jonny Chen , Bonnie Majestic , Virginia S . Sirois , Shirley Raffensperger , Josephine Allen , Minnie. Orcutt , Mark Mecenas , Mary Yaple , Peter Hillman , Elliott Lauderdale , Peter Harris , Scotty Lin , Mario Giannella , Laing Kennedy , G . Wetzler , and Shirley Egan . The public meeting was opened at 7 : 00 p . m . Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . The first item on the agenda for consideration was as follows : ADJOURNED , APPEAL ( from September 10 , 1986 ) of Mark Stevens , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate of Compliance for a single family dwelling located at 118 Compton Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 , Residence District R301 said dwelling having been constructed with an east side yard of less than 40 feet . Certificate is denied under Article V , Section 21 , and Article XIV , Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Chairman Aron then invited Mr . Stevens to address the Board . Mr . Stevens presented a survey map made by Thomas G . Miller which he had been directed by the Board to obtain at the September 10 , 1986 meeting . This survey showed the location of his house at 118 Compton Road and the location of the house he had built at 122 Compton Road which now was owned by Josephine Allen . Said survey showed the lack of the required east sideyard • footage on Mr . Stevens ' s property at 118 Compton Road . Mr . Stevens felt that since he had complied with Chairman Aron ' s request to have a survey of the property in question done , he had sat .i. sfled the Zoning Board of Appeals directions and again asked for a Certificate of Compliance for his property at 118 Compton Road . Chairman Aron inquired as to whether Mr . Stevens had spoken to Josephine Allen. about the possibility of purchasing some of her land so as to increase his east sideyard . Mr . Stevens responded that he did not remember that Chairman Aron had asked him to do so . Chairman Aron referred to the minutes of the September 10 , 1986 meeting where it was stated that Mr . Stevens should approach Mrs . Allen about the possibility of her, selling some of her land to Mr . Stevens . Mr . Stevens then stated that he did not believe that it would have done any good in that'. he felt that Mrs . Allen would not have been willing to sell . Josephine Allen was present at the public hearing and Chairman Aron then inquired of her as to whether she would have entertained the possibility of selling some of her land to Mr . Stevens . Mrs . Allen responded that she had never been approached by Mr . Stevens but that if she had she might have been willing to negotiate a sale but she would not know until she conferred with Mr . Stevens about the matter . Chairman Aron then directed Mr . Stevens to meet with Mrs . Allen to talk about a sale of a portion of her land to him . Chairman Aron inquired if there was anyone from the public . who wished to speak on the matter . There was no one . The public hearing was then closed . A motion was then made by Edward Austen as follows ; It is moved that this matter be adjourned until the November meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow Mr . Stevens to confer with Mrs . Allen and try to negotiate a sale . The motion was seconded by Joan Reuning , The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning Nay - None, The motion was carried . The next matter on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL of Dr . Y . Chen , Appellant , from the decision of the Building ' Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to operate an office of a resident physician for the practice of pediatrics where such office is not a part of the residence building at 203 Pine Tree Road , Residence District R15 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 1 . Permission is denied under Article IV , Section 12 , paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . s • 3 Dr . Y . Chen addressed the Board . Dr . Chen presented a survey map of his property and explained that he would like to convert the detached garage in the back of his property at 203 Pine Tree Road into an office for the practice of pediatrics . He stated that he was planning to convert the building into a waiting room , reception area , and several examination rooms . The upstairs of the building would be used for storage area for stationery and office equipment , etc . Dr . Chen estimated that he would see between ten to twenty patients a day , by appointment only . His office hours would start at 9 : 00 a . m . and end at 5 : 00 P . M . Parking of cars would be in the front of said building and there was room for four cars . Dr . Chen stated that he would employ one nurse who would not be driving to work but taking a bus and therefore would not have to park on the premises . Dr . Chen ' s own personal car would be parked inside the barn in the back of the house . The public hearing was then opened by Chairman Aron who asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or against the matter . Mary Yaple of 151 Pine Tree Road , Ithaca , New York spoke . She expressed concern as a long time resident of the area who had • invested much money into her home . Mrs . Yaple felt that; much is happening in the neighborhood already , i . e . , the new development of townhouses on Honness Lane and the possibility of a polo barn . She stated that since this area is a shortcut to Cornell anyway and the traffic has always been the major problem on that street that Dr . Chen ' s proposed plan would bring more traffic into an already congested area . Mrs . Yaple ' s other concern was that this area is a nice residential area and she would like to see it remain so and she feared that once . a variance was granted to Dr . Chen it would open up the possibility of more businesses coming I nto the area . Shirley Raffensperger of 139 Pine Tree Road , Ithaca , New York was next to speak . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that :she is on the Town Board of Ithaca and because of that she had received many telephone calls that afternoon and just before the: meeting from people who had received a notice but assumed it was for the polo barns . She continued that the neighborhood is now aware that there is another proposal for Pine Tree Road . She went on to state that she believed Dr . Chen had visited some of the neighbors andasked for their assent to his plan . Mrs . Raffensperger further stated that some of these neighbors don ' t really understand what the proposal is and would appreciate it if the Zoning Board of Appeals would postpone the approval of Dr . Chen ' s appeal until the neighbors have had a chance to clarify • exactly what is proposed . Some of their concerns were whether an addition would be made to the building , did the Board of Health approve of a health facility in this area , can Mr . Chen practice at Tompkins Community Hospital and would their be signage ? Mrs . Raffensperger informed the Board that several adjacent neighbors could not be present at the meeting because of a conflict with their children ' s open house at school . She said that the neighbors would like a chance to talk to Dr . Chen about their concerns . Chairman Aron then read a letter from Dr . and Mrs . Frank C . Baldwin of 149 Pine Tree Road , Ithaca , New York , in opposition to Dr . Chen ' s plans , a copy of which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . Scotty Lin of 201 Snyder Hill Road , Ithaca , New York said it was her understanding that Dr . Chen ' s property is located in an R15 which allows a physician ' s office in the residence building . She stated that Pine Tree Road is already heavily traveled and did not feel that Dr . Chen ' s practice would create any more congestion than there already was . Ms . Lin went on to state that she had spoken to several persons who were very pleased that there would be a pediatrician in that area and felt that his services would be valuable to those families who had small children especially when they might be in need of :immediate attention . • Chairman Aron informed Ms . Lin that she was correct when she said that Dr . Chen may have an office in his residence and then read from Article IV , Section 12 , Paragraph 1 . " 1 . Office of a resident doctor , dentist , musician , engineer , teacher , lawyer , artist , architect or member of other recognized profession where such office is part of the residence building provided that not more than two ( 2 ) additional persons not residing on the premises may be employed . " Chairman Aron explained , however , that Dr . Chen wanted to open an office in another building which he does not reside in and that is why the zoning officer denied a permit for his operation . The public hearing was then closed . Joan Reuning was concerned about the lack of information of the Board on this matter . She expressed concern about the parking and also felt that the Board needed to see a better sketch plan showing what the building would look like . She added that it was her opinion that the Board could not with its present information make a decision . • Chairman Aron inquired of Dr . Chen if he would be willing to meet with the neighbors and if need be show them exactly what he was planning on doing . Chairman Aron told Dr . Chen that if he were going to be part of the community that it would behoove him to inform the neighbors of his plans . Chairman Aron stated that it would be his personal recommendation to consult with all of the neighbors within his surroundings and show good faith to them so that they would feel comfortable with what Dr . Chen wished to do . Chairman Aron said that Dr . Chen could then come back to the Board with the input from the neighbors and also present plans for the building so the Board could see exactly how it would look . Dr . Chen told the Board that it was important to him that the neighbors feel comfortable with what he wished to do but that he had not had time to visit every neighbor . He had made as many visits as he could and had obtained some signatures to support him . He went on to say that when he first visited with Dr . and Mrs . Baldwin in September they seemed in favor of his proposal but at that time he was not sure what he planned on doing as he had been offered space to rent near the hospital . He added that after further investigation he decided , and was encouraged , to stay in the area and serve the people there . At that time Dr . Chen went to Andrew Frost and made application . Dr . Chen stated that Mr . Frost informed him that it was just a formality and that Dr . Chen would probably be granted a variance . Dr . Chen explained that this was why he mentioned to the neighbors that • the application was just a formality and that he was assured of being granted a variance . Dr . Chen went on to say that the traffic has always been busy on Pine Tree Road and that there were two peaks , one in the early morning and one in the late afternoon but since his office hours would be between 9 and 5 the traffic would be much less then . He added that the office would be closed at 5 unless there were still patients to see . Dr . Chen stated that he would see patients at night by house call . Dr . Chen informed the Board that he was a fully qualified physician receiving his training in West Germany where he had been for seven years and had gotten board certified there . When he arrived in America he had to get additional training . at the State Medical Center in Brooklyn and is now at this point board eligible . Dr . Chen stated that he is licensed in New 'York , New Jersey and Maryland . Andrew Frost interjected at this point that he never really told Dr . Chen how the Board would make a ruling . Mr . Frost asked ifbefore he came in the Board had discussed the matter of the variance or approval that was given for a church that was going in at that same premises previously . Chairman Aron responded that this had nothing to do with the matter at hand . • Mary Yaple asked how the special approval 'or permit would work if granted to Dr . Chen , Chairman Aron responded that if Dr . • 6 Chen is given a special permit by the Board to operate his practice in the building in question , it is a special permit to Dr . Chen only and not to the house and not to the property . He added that if Dr . Chen moved out , the special permit is null and void . Ms . Lin stated that when Dr . Chen was about to move to Ithaca Mr . Lew Cartee had just passed away and that at that time Gary Wood was taking Mr . Cartee ' s place . Ms . Lin said that Mr . Wood wrote a note stating that in his interpretation of the zoning ordinance a detached building on the same lot could be used as a residential use and that a permit would not be required . The letter was then read by Chairman Aron : " July 1 , 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : My interpretation of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance with reference to land use in the R15 district permitting use of ' accessory building ' is taken from Article • I , Section 1 , line 20 , Article IV , Residence District R15 , Section 12 , line 1 . Copies of each are attached . S / Gary Wood , P . E . " Chairman Aron stated that the interpretation of any zoning law is done by the Zoning Board of Appeals and no one else . Chairman Aron repeated that according to the zoning ordinance as read earlier special approval must be applied for an accessory building such as a garage which is detached from the house . The public hearing was closed . A motion was made by Jack Hewett as follows : It is moved that this matter be adjourned until November 12 , 1986 to allow Dr . Chen to speak with his neighbors to explain the situation and then bring back to the Board information as to the feeling of the neighborhood , and also provide the Board with a sketch plan as to the layout of the building . The motion was seconded by Joan Reuning , The voting was as follows : • Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning Nay - None The motion was carried . 7 • The next matter on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL of A . J . and Angeline Lenzini , Appellants , Peter Harris , representing R . G . Gerber Real Estate , Agent , from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate of Occupancy for a three - family dwelling located in a Residence District RID at 201 West King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 -- 37 - 1 - 12 . Permission is denied under Article III , Section 4 , paragraphs 1 and 2 , and Article XIV , Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Mr . Peter Harris , representing R . G . Gerber Real Estate , informed the Board that Mr . Lenzini lived in Bloomsberg , Pennsylvania and was not feeling well and was not able to be at the meeting . Mr . Harris stated that Mr . Lenzini purchased 201 West King Road as a three unit house in October of 1980 . Mr . Harris had with him a copy of the purchase contract of the sale in 1980 which stated that the property was sold as a three family house . Mr . Harris went on to say that 201 West King Road was now under contract for sale and it is stipulated in the purchase agreement that it is a three unit house . He stated that there was ample off - street parking and everything in the house would be • up to code . Mr . Harris said that it would be a case of unnecessary hardship for Mr . Lenzini to have to sell this house as a two -unit home and lose a substantial amount of money . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost if he could shed some light on how the house went from a two unit house to a three unit house . Mr . Frost stated that he made a field visit to the property and it was indeed three units . Mr . Frost said that a couple of building permits prior to 1981 were for carports which exist on the property and that the permit from 1957 indicates an alteration to allow a porch . He added that those prior permits did not indicate whether this was a one , two or three family unit . Mr . Frost explained that he checked with the County Assessment Office and was told that the property was assessed as a two - family unit . Mr . Harris interjected that he had spoken with Ann Morgan of the Division of Assessment and she told him that the property had been assessed as a three unit dwelling and that Mr . Lenzini had paid taxes on it as a three -unit dwelling and she showed him the valuation report which he felt bore out that it was a three -unit dwelling . Mr . Frost asked if they were saying that the house was two units plus the main residence . Mr . Harris responded that this • was correct and that the property has been assessed as three units and was purchased by Mr . Lenzini as three units . 8 • Mr . Frost stated that the permit from 1957 indicates a porch but on site inspection performed by him last week that porch is now part of a kitchen and part of a residence . In inspecting the house he found that in the attic space of the house it is clear that there is a new roof extension because there are shingles underneath the substructure that is underneath the attic space . He thought this could have been part of the porch area but it is clear that sometime after 1957 the porch area was converted into a residence but there is no record of permits being issued for the alteration of a porch into a kitchen space and residence that is now in that area . Mr . Frost further stated that clarification was necessary from the Tompkins County Department of Assessment because he was told something different than what Mr . Harris had been told . Mr . Harris said that Ann Morgan of the Assessment Department told him that a code was used to signify three family , :Full time residences and that code is 230 and that is the code which the Assessment Department had given to this property . Mr . Harris further stated that parking was behind the house and from the road the dwelling appeared to be a single family • dwelling and in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood . He went on to say that the closing has been delayed for awhile because of the lack of a certificate of occupancy and asked the Board if it was possible to have a decision as soon as possible . He added that the buyer is in temporary residence until closing . Mr . Harris stated that it would be a hardship for Mr . Lenzini to take a lesser amount of money and it would also be a hardship for the buyer because she is counting on the income from the third apartment to help pay her mortgage . Chairman Aron asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak . Mrs . Patricia Fain of 133 West King Road , Ithaca , :New York , which is next door to the property in question , addressed the Board . Mrs . Fain said that when she went to the Assessment Department in the Spring of last year she was informed that the property was situated in a two family development area ,, R9 , and that they were only aware that it was a two - family dwelling . She stated that when Mr . Lenzini bought the property he completely renovated the apartments and before that it was in a run-down condition and not really a three -apartment dwelling even though itwas sold as such . She stated that most of the dwellings in the area are one - family homes with a few two - family homes . She expressed concern with so many apartments going in on Danby Road , Route 96B , and the value of her property being affected and also • expressed concern about the increase of traffic because of so many apartments . Mrs . Fain offered also that even though Mr . 9 • Harris maintained that parking would be behind the house that for the past year there were at least four to six cars parked in the front yard at all times . She presented a list of signatures of area neighbors opposed to Mr . Lenzini ' s request and such list is at hereto as Exhibit 2 . Mr . Peter Hillman of 370 Stone Quarry Road , Ithaca , New York spoke in opposition to Mr . Lenzini ' s request . Mr . Hillman said that he owned a one - family dwelling with an apartment in a separate garage which housed a young couple . Mr . Hillman stated that he had not received a notice on this hearing . He told the Board that he had had trouble in the past with multi - family dwelling neighbors . He felt that when a house becomes a multi - dwelling unit rather than a one - family or even a two - family unit it brings in students and it brings in lots of cars and other boarders . He added that in his case one of his neighboring tenants had a rock band which caused much grief to his family . He felt this sort of thing degrades the quality of a neighborhood and hoped that the zoning was upheld for this particular area since he would not have built in that area had he known that many variances would be granted to house multi - family dwellings . Mr . Elliot Lauderdale of 381 Stone Quarry Road , Ithaca , New York spoke next . He also had not received any notice of the • hearing and wondered why . He had also checked the paper for a notice and did not find one . Mr . Frost said that the notice was in the previous Friday ' s paper . Chairman Aron pointed out that only neighbors in the immediate surrounding are notified . He said that by law no one has to be notified but that the Town of Ithaca does it out of courtesy . Mr . Lauderdale asked what status a purchase offer prepared by a real estate agent has to impress anyone as to the authenticity of its information . He also wondered and wished clarification on how a two - family dwelling suddenly became a three - family dwelling and also wondered when the construction actually took place and how did the construction take place without a permit to turn the house from a two - family dwelling I nto a three - family dwelling . Mr . Harris interjected that he went to the office of Attorney Harry Hamilton who represented Mr . Kovach when he sold the property to Mr . Lenzini . Mr . Harris found that in the closing statement it showed adjustments for two rents and further that Mr . Kovach ' s residence address is listed as 201 West King Road so he felt that this showed that it was three units before it was sold to Mr . Lenzini . . Mrs . Patricia Fain asked if the Board could inform her as to when the property was allowed to go from a two - family dwelling to • a three - family dwelling . 10 Mr . Frost said that it was clear that whatever happened was after 1957 because the building permit issued in 1957 was for the addition of a porch which as it exists now is a kitchen . There is no building permit to change the porch into a kitchen and part of residence quarters . Mr . Douglas Fain of 133 West King Road addressed the Board . He questioned Mr . Lenzini ' s concern about the value: of his property when for the past three years the lawn was never mowed and indeed was never mowed until Gerber Real Estate took it under contract . He went on to say that the house itself when owned by Mr . Kovach was not pretty but it was always well kept and neat and the house now has fallen into disrepair . He felt that Mr . Lenzini should have given a little more attention to the condition of the yard if he was so concerned about the value of the property . The public hearing was closed . Attorney Barney stated that the Board should start from the premise that two - family dwellings are allowed in this district and unless there has been a variance granted or some legal action • by this Board or the Town Board expanding this dwelling to a three -unit , there is no legal right to have three unit : there . He went on to say that what it may have been assessed at or what the owner paid taxes on is really immaterial . The question of whether there is a hardship because someone has been paying taxes on a three family dwelling is something for the Board to consider if it wants to grant the variance but in terms of legality there is no question but that it is a two -unit house and has to be limited to a two -unit house unless the Board takes action to allow it to become a three - family unit . Mr . Harris stated that Mr . Lenzini would have to lower the price if he cannot sell it as a three -unit dwelling by $ 15 , 000 to $ 20 , 000 . He said that the proposed buyer planned many renovations to the outside of the property and would make it a much more appealing property . The property is being sold for $ 65 , 000 . as a three unit . If it is sold as a two -unit it will probably sell for $ 45 , 000 or $ 50 , 000 or less . Each unit is presently being rented for $ 370 . 00 per month . The proposed buyer is not living in the property now . A motion was made by Joan Reuning as follows : It is moved that this appeal be adjourned until further notice with the condition that the seller provide 'the Board with a financial statement as to the hardship presented by not allowing the appeal and also to clarify the status of the property in question as to the legality of the third • 11, unit without a building permit . The motion was seconded by Jack Hewett . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning Nay - None The motion was carried . The last matter on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , Eric F . Dicke , Agent , from the decision . of the Building Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of an Indoor Equitation Arena measuring 90 feet by 250 feet , having a height greater than 30 feet but not to exceed 37 feet , and requiring Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , proposed to be located on Pine Tree Road near its intersection with Ellis Hollow Road , Residence District R30 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 8 . 2 and 6 - 60 - 1 - 9E . -Permit is denied under Article V , Section 18 , paragraphs 4 and 16 , and Article XIV , Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning • Ordinance . Chairman Aron declared that this Board is the lead agency as to the environmental assessment form . Mr . Laing Kennedy , Director of Athletics at Cornell University , addressed the Board . He said that equitation is a strong part of Cornell ' s physical education program , and in the same facility they conduct their intercollegiate polo programs for women ' s and men ' s teams . He stated further that Cornell also supports the educational mission of cooperative extension in the same facility and would like to continue this program since they are committed to it . Mr . Kennedy further stated that they must relocate from their present site at the corner of Route 366 across from the heating plant for several reasons such as the safety of the students and also the horses . He added that the housing and the paddocks are inefficient and inadequate and the program operation would be vastly improved if placed in the new site . He continued by saying that the proposed site is accessible for programs , it is in a neighborhood where -there are other animal science programs such as the swine farm next door and the annex to the equine research park across the street . He felt that in general , the facility will preserve the future character of this particular area . He told the Board that it was going to be a very attractive facility and that the entire • program would be housed inside the riding hall and in the fenced paddock area . • 12 Mr . Eric Dicke , architectural project manager , then spoke to the Board . He presented plans showing the proposed facility . Mr . Dicke stated that there would be no outdoor component to this plan as opposed to the previously planned site at Hanshaw Road at which there was to be an outdoor equitation field . He went on to say that the facility proposed is an indoor arena 90 by 250 feet with two offices and several public toilets at the front , a covered walkway for the animals and a polo equitation barn that would house between 55 and 60 horses . Mr . Dicke further stated that outdoors there would be a cluster paddock to be fenced in thereby insuring safety . The building is a pitched roof building with a gable front . He added that the minimum height is the height that dictates the size of the building and the building has been reduced in size from the previous program as far as possible without curtailing the actual program . Mr . Dicke explained that physically a person on a horse with a mallet up in the air is what determines the height of the ceiling at the sidewall and that there is no way to get it any lower without somebody hitting a mallet against it . Mr . Dicke went on to state that looking at the facility from the road the low facility would be in the front and there would be ample room for spectator parking in front which can hold 47 • cars with an additional 120 or more on another portion of the area . He continued by saying that the paving would be rolled gravel surface which could be oiled for dust control . There would be an oil and stone paving so that as cars accelerate out on the highway they would not be accelerating on a gravel surface . Mr . Dicke repeated that the entire program is indoors and that the scale of the building is in keeping with other agricultural buildings such as the barns across at the annex , the silos in the swine barn and in general is in keeping with the character of that particular area . He added also that the facility would be 1000 feet from any residence . Chairman Aron then mentioned that there were two considerations , one was a special approval for the use of the facility , and the other a height variance . Chairman Aron inquired if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak . Mark Mecenas , representing his parents who reside at 105 Pine Tree Road , spoke . He mentioned that at an informative meeting held by the gentlemen from Cornell he brought up the question as to whether or not visiting polo teams would bring in additional horses and whether or not Cornell would board horses there belonging to students if it were economically advantageous • to do so . As a person who had an interest in the area Mr . Mecenas wanted a commitment that if the proposal was passed he would have some assurance that visiting teams would not bring in • 13 , many trailers and horses for each match but instead the visiting polo teams would be required to use CornelllIs horses , and also that Cornell would not get into the business of boarding horses for those people not connected with the polo program . Mr . Laing Kennedy said that Cornell would not be boarding other people ' s horses and visiting polo teams would use Cornell ' s horses . He added that the only time that horses are brought in is one time during the year when Cornell hosts the Eastern Intercollegiate Polo Championships and at that time Yale University and the University of Connecticut each bring six horses with them . Dr . Jack Lowe , the director of the Equine Research Park , addressed the Board . He stated that he was responsible for the annex across the street also , and when the extra horses come there is often sufficient room to stable them at the annex . Mr . Gary James from the Cornell Athletic Department stated that Cornell does host five or six horse shows during the year and for these shows horses are brought in . There would be about thirty - six entries and the show lasts one day . Edward Austen wondered how many horses would be stabled in • the facility and Mr . Kennedy responded there would be about forty-nine horses . Mario Giannella of 6 Dove Drive , Ithaca , New York , questioned the height requirement and Mr . Dicke responded that many things were tried but the roof configuration as is planned in this facility is one that gives both the allowable height at the side and the center that is needed and keeps the building as low as possible . He stated that the building was lowered three feet from when it was first discussed with the Planning Board . He felt that lowering it any more would have an impact on the program . Chairman Aron inquired about the drainage . Mr . Dicke stated that they had been in contact with EPA , the DEC , and the Soils Conservation Commission and that the recommended approach for dealing with drainage is to maintain percolation into the soil as much as possible because the lower soil is a clay that does not absorb . He went on to say that the best approach is to have an area downhill from the paddocks that is equal to the paddock size to drain and filter down into the soil , and also collect all runoff from the roofs and gutter it and downspout it into the existing drainage ditch so it does not run across the paddock area . He further stated that they would rotate the use of the paddocks so each has a chance to regenerate and there would never be more than seven horses in four paddocks at any one time . Mr . Dicke stated that these horses live indoors 14 • and they get their exercise by playing polo . They would, try and minimize the hard surface area where any percolation cannot occur and by doing so they would minimize the short term runoff effect . Mr . Dicke stated that all three before mentioned agencies thought this was a satisfactory and recommended way to proceed on this site with this soil condition and this program . Chairman Aron inquired as to shrubbery . Bonnie Majestic of Fred Thomas Associates , landscape architect for the project , addressed the Board . She stated that the plants around the service yards as well as the back end of the parking lot were selected to be evergreens so they would screen any activity from the service yard from people driving by . The shrubbery would be functional plants that would meld in with others already in the neighborhood . Chairman Aron inquired as to whether the shrubbery would reduce the noise reflection . Ms . Majestic stated that she imagined the evergreen species were going to be thick enough to keep any noise from areas in the service yard but the paddocks would be so far away from the yard that she did not think the plantings would be germane . • Mr . Kennedy addressed the question of noise further by repeating that the programs would be indoors . Joan Reuning inquired as to the fencing and Mr . Dicke responded that the fencing would be such that the animals would be in a contained yard at all times and that the fencing would be either a three or four rail wood fence with perhaps a link chain fence if needed in places . The fences would be between four and five feet in height . James Orcutt of 324 Dryden Road , Ithaca , New York expressed a concern as to the drainage because his mother lives at 71 Woodcrest Avenue . He stated that there was a drainage problem existing at her property now and that his mother had spent over $ 600 . 00 recently to try and correct the problem . Mr . Orcutt said that he was not opposed to the project but was concerned as to the increased surface water , and also felt that oil and stone have a tremendous runoff to it and heavy rainfalls would increase significantly the amount of runoff . Mr . Orcutt felt his mother would be victimized by this as the runoff would further erode her property . Mrs . Raffensperger questioned the possibility of opening another area of the premises to additional parking should there not be enough room in the allotted parking lot . • Mr . Dicke said that there was now room for 47 cars and there is additional space where some 120 cars could be placed . He knew • 15 that there was concern that if there were too many cars they might possibly wind up on Pine Tree Road but that road is already signed for no parking and he believed that should more parking spaces be required Cornell could adequately provide the same . Mr . Frost asked for clarification as to what was intended as to improving the driveway and roadway and read excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance regarding this matter and wondered whether the SEAR requirements would be met . Mr . Dicke felt that Cornell was meeting the concerns by using a dense rolled gravel which is larger gravel and not crushed stone that would be compatible with both the horses hooves and the drainage issue . He further stated that the scheme was the same as was proposed earlier and there had been no change at this point . He continued by saying it would be oiled for dust control . Mario Giannella inquired as to the parking in the front yard and read excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance regarding this . Mr . Frost answered that the ordinance meant no parking in the required front yard . • Attorney Barney wondered who would make the determination as to whether more parking was necessary and felt that if the Board opted to grant the special approval there should be a condition imposed on it that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca would determine when there is not ample parking . The public hearing was closed . Chairman Aron then read the Adopted Resolution , SEQR , Proposed Cornell University Equitation Center , Pine Tree Road , Planning Board , September 16 , 1986 , Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . Edward Austen moved as follows : It is moved that this Board find a negative declaration of environmental significance with respect to this project . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , Hewett Nay - None The motion was carried . • Chairman Aron then read an Adopted Resolution as recorded by Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner for the Proposed Cornell University Equitation Center , Pine Tree Road , September 16 , 1986 , • 16 , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . Chairman Aron then inquired as to what the lighting would be at night and how it would affect the surrounding neighborhood . Mr . Dicke responded that the lighting would be 15 foot lighting standards with a low cut - off lighting fixture such that the bulb itself will not be visible . The lights will be turned off when the facility is not in use . The lights will not be running all night long . It will be direct lighting down and there will be no exterior spotlights . Chairman Aron asked if there would be police control as to parking for the events and Mr . Dicke answered that it was already being patrolled by the Cornell Safety Division and they will include this on their route and will be providing event management . A motion was made by Edward Austen as follows . WHEREAS , the Board has made the following findings with regard to the equitation facility on Pine Tree Road ; ( a ) The health , safety , morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning • ordinance shall be promoted by the construction of the equitation facility at this location . ( b ) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use . ( c ) The proposed use and the location and design of the equitation facility structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located . ( d ) The proposed use is not detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants . ( e ) The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses appear to be safely designed . ( f ) The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole , including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage systems is not detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare of the community . THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that this Board grant: Special Approval for the proposed equitation facility and related • facilities including fencing and parking lots to be constructed as shown on the drawings and plans presented to • the Board , and 17 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS : 1 . All regulations as listed in the adopted resolution of the Planning Board dated September 16 , 1986 be complied with . 2 . A drainage plan be presented to the Town Engineer for his approval before a building permit is issued . 3 . In the event the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca reasonably determines that parking is inadequate Cornell University will provide additional parking . Jack Hewett seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , Hewett Nay - None The motion was carried . • The height variance was considered next . A motion was made by Edward Austen as follows : BE IT RESOLVED that this Board , upon finding that it is impractical to operate an equitation facility in the manner contemplated in this circumstance without the building height as requested in this project , grant a variance for an additional seven feet of height over the allowable 30 feet for the equitation arena , the total height not to exceed 37 feet . The motion was seconded by Joan Reuning , The voting was as follows . Aye - Aron , Reuning , Hewett , Austen Nay - None The motion was carried . The meeting was closed at 9 : 50 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Beatrice Lincoln �NoN Recording Secretary y Exhibits 1 through 4 Attached btee Z . 13 0// 5 Y& 6 IM 4� _ ll. / --, /f .odop000� ,o,,,L cllllz. 4,0 EXHIBIT 1 a , E � ki its .j .00 , . JL /J � 064j - ✓� IZ _ r� 2, e-s- Z �C .r- / O � -�-cJ�- / � tole y • .if .. Ii � � .fi . 1y . 004 _� � r, ,.. ; � � ; , ;�� n • � Z Gil -'' •opt, ,.v�'t�sL�C.Q. C� C�G ��.�l..c,.:c.•�, 41 ' Zoe 'fi - �k c% �.• Q� r--1 • 0 T� —9 �j —> ."� ` c` 71Zd, Ad- • CZ! oil bs Pill 'I CLL � .6v J 04 .Gc�i till 10 14 . '>ax..•k. - .. - - , . •-�ws�s .. ...r •-wa - . .. w+arw..s.mu. ,.......�c,�...4.yc...�,s.w .., • r y . .. �:- '•+aLapgwudwnxnn.TGyr..e... �ti..u.tr......:...:: . . � - -i.w..:•-et...r�%�'��w�.°Js 4, wu'r.. .._ •..d e.M%: .•, .�..-.� � ��� - ? GCS • �� � �� • . EXHIBIT 2 41 t 1 ° .� + � , ' ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR , Proposed Cornell University Equitation !4k , x . , ` Ce. ntt� r , Fine Tree Road Planning Board , September 16 , 1986 r } As "irecorded : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner WHEREAS ip 1 . This action is the site plan review and the consideration of a recommendation of . Special Approval and a height variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the proposed Cornell University Equitation Center , to be located on Pine Tree Road , 2 . This project has been reviewed by the Planning Board in sketch plan review on August 5 , 1986 , and at a Public Hearing on September 16 , 1986 . 3 .. This' project is a Type I action for which the Zoning Board of ' Appeals , in considering Special Approval and a height variance for such project , is the .Lead Agency for environmental review . 4 . . A negative declaration of environmental significance has been recommended by the Town Planner , providing the f .o3. low irig : . a . That a height variance be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals for construction of the proposed equitation arena , with the arena height not to exceed 37 feet . b . That a final drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer, THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning . Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative declaration of environmental significance be made for the above - referenced action , providing the following : a . , That a height variance be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals for construction of the proposed equitation arena , , . with - the arena height not to exceed . 37 feet . b . That a final . drainage plan be ' approved by the Town Engineer . • EXHIBIT 3 A it OPTED RESOLUTION : Proposed Cornell . University Equitation Center , Pine Tree Road " ` Planning Board , September 16 , 1986 fr i • ' ' , ` : .,i ;' As recorded : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner {. WHEREAS : Q 1 . ' This action is the site plan review and the consideration of a recommendation of Special Approval and a height variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the proposed Cornell University Equitation Center , to be located on Pine Tree Road . 2 , This project has been reviewed by the Planning Board in sketch plan review on August 5 , 1986 , and at a Public Hearing on September ' 16 , 1986 , 3 . ' This project is a Type I action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency , and for which the Planning Board has recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative declaration of environmental significance be made . 4 . The - following materials have been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public Hearing on September 16 , 1986 : a . SEAR Long Environmental Assessment form and • addendae . be Plans entitled " Cornell Equitation Facility - Proposed Site " , dated July 29 , 1986 ; " Cornell. Equitation Facility - Site Plan " , dated September 2 , 1986 ; and " Cornell Equitation Facility -- Planting List " , dated August 22 , 1986 , by Fred He Thomas , Associates , P . C . , Architects and Planners . 5 . The Planning . Board finds that there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location on the grounds that : a . The existing equitation facility is inadequate for the Cornell equitation program . be The proposed facility is in a location that is convenient for campus and other users , and is adequately served by transportation systems . ce The proposed facility is compatible with land uses in the vicinity . 6 . The Planning Board finds that the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected on the grounds that : a . The project and its program management as proposed • EXHIBIT 4 i' f .' will not represent a significant change in use from current { . . land use patterns . The project will assist in the maintenance - of an agricultural / open space buffer between the East Hill business area and East Hill residential areas . r: ' 74 The Planning Board finds that the proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town on 4 the ' grounds that : a . The project use and design is appropriate for the proposed location . be The project is consistent with zoning regulations , subject to the granting , by4the Zoning Board of Appeals , of. Special Approval for the proposed use and a height variance for one of the proposed buildings . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report its approval of the site plan for the proposed facility , providing that a final drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer , and providing that the required variances and approvals are received from the Zoning Board of Appeals . 2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the 'Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval • for the proposed use be granted , and that a height variance be granted for construction of the proposed equitation arena , with the arena height not to exceed 37 feet .