HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-10-14 >i I ii
FOM
TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN OF Date
ITHAC
8
AIF
Clerk
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 14 , 1987
A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on October 14 , 1987 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126
East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Jack Hewett ,
Edward Austen , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Planner
Susan Beeners , and Town Attorney John C . Barney ,
ALSO PRESENT : Mary Tobey , Rodney Tobey , Dale Brown , Marion
Earle , Tom Maskulinski , R . Earle , Peter Capalongo , Kathy Loehr-
Balada - Balada , Joe Sa!lino , Joe Salino , Jr . , Ed Mazza , Sharon
Guest - Tagliavento , Vicki Williams , and Linda Oliver .
r
The public meeting 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 .
��- Photographs of the subject properties were passed around for
the Board to review .
The first item on the agenda for consideration was as
follows :
AGENDA ITEM : APPEAL of Arthur A . Muka , Appellant , adjourned
from August 12 , 1987 , for Zoning Board of Appeals decision
with respect to Mr . Muka ' s Appeal from the decision of the
Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying
permission for the operation of a gardening equipment sales
and service business at 113 Kay Street and 410 Warren Road ,
Town of Ithaca T, ax Parcels No . 6 - 71 - 1 - 48 and 6 - 71 - 1 - 38 ,
respectively , Residence District R- 15 . Permission is denied
under Article IV , $1, Section 12 , Paragraph 5 , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby a customary home occupation
i11
s permitted upon!' condition that no goods or products are
publicly displayed or advertised for sale and that there be
no outside storagei . The subject business operation involves
both outside storage and advertising for the sale of
products .
Chairman Aron stated that the Board had voted at the August
12 , 1987 meeting upon a' !' conditional negative environmental impact
statement meaning thatUiino further action was taken at that time
by the Board . He continued that the Board ' advertised the
conditional negative environmental assessment for the benefit of
Y i
t�
2
the neighbors to give ',, , them thirty_ days to air their comments to
the Board regarding this matter .
The Board at thatll ,; time voted upon when Mr . Muka was to cease
and desist the sale and servicing of gardening equipment at his
residence . Chairman Airon reminded the Board that in the minutes
of the August 12 , 1987meeting on page 11 there was discussion as
to whether or not the business should be discontinued by March 15
or June 15 of 1988 . It was recommended that it be discontinued
by March 15 , 1988 since Mr . Muka admitted he had been in business
for over twenty years and since such business was in violation of
the zoning ordinance the Board felt that March 15 , 1988 was
ample time for Mr . Muka to wind down the business and bring his
parcel of land back into the residential neighborhood character
it should have been in? . Chairman Aron pointed out to the Board
that a home occupation was allowed in that area with only 200
square feet of area being used and Mr . Muka had used quite a bit
more than that as well as advertising the business . Chairman
Aron repeated that 'it was his recommendation to the Board that
Mr . Muka be required to cease and desist his business by March
15 , 1988 .
A motion was made ! by Chairman Aron as follows :
RESOLVED , that Arthur Muka cease and desist the operation of
• his business of selling and servicing gardening machinery at
his premises at 113 Kay Street and 410 Warren Road , Ithaca ,
New York by March 15 , 1988 , and it is further
RESOLVED , that soon after March 15 1988 the ' Building
Inspector is empowered to examine the properties to see
whether Mr . Muka has proceeded as the Board has recommended
and in the event ,;Ihe has not the Building Inspector is to
bring the matter !Iup for a court appearance and not to the
Zoning Board of Appeals .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as ° follows :
Aye - . Reuning , Austen , Hewett , Aron
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The second item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Cornell'„University , Appellant , William S . Downing ,
William Downing Associates , Architects , Agent , on behalf of
the Ithaca Childcare Center , requesting Special Approval ,
• under Article IV , Section 11 , paragraph 4 , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , of a nursery school use for the
a
1
3
• proposed construction of the Ithaca Childcare Center
proposed to be located on Warren Road southeast of its
intersection withUptown Road , on a 3 . 5± acre portion of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 73 - 1 - 1 . 2 , 14 . 34 acres total ,
Residence District R- 15 .
Chairman Aron started that the Zoning Board of Appeals was
the lead agency for the special approval of this matter .
Amy Shoch of William Downing Associates and Kathy Loehr-
Balada , Director of Ithaca Childcare Center , appeared before the
Board . Sketches of the property were viewed by the Board to
examine the area where ! the Center was to be located .
Ms . Shoch explained that they were planning on building a
new facility for dayca"re and would be moving from their present
location at the Cayuga Heights School building . She stated it
would be larger than the present facility , would be of wood frame
construction with cedar siding , would be approximately 16 , 800
square feet , all on one floor , and would be serving a maximum of
144 children with a staff of 33 , 24 of whom would be full -time .
She continued that they were allowing for 36 parking spaces . Ms .
Shoch said that there would also be a school bus in use .
Chairman Aron asked that Ms . Shoch show on the sketch where the
• ingress and egress would be and what the traffic patterns would
be which Ms . Shoch did ". She pointed out that plans had changed
in that the Town Planning Board desired a bus turn around and
then indicated where '' ; the drop off of the children would be
showing that there would be a covered walkway into the building .
Ms . Shoch' stated that I there would be a vertical wooden fence
around the property about four feet high .
When questioned about when the children would be arriving at
the school Mrs . Loehr - Balada stated that the dropoff would occur
between 7 : 30 a . m . and " „ 9 : 30 a . m . and would be staggered so that
there would only be about four or five cars at any one time , the
cars would be parkedIl ; temporarily , the parents would walk the
child into the . school and then leave . Pickups would occur , she
stated , between 3 : 30 p .'Im . and 5 : 30 p . m . in the same fashion .
Mr . Frost questioned Mrs . Loehr-Balada about open houses and
Mrs . Loehr- Balada stated that all open houses would occur at
night .
Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners to speak on her
determination as to the environmental assessment and she did so .
A copy of Ms . Beene' rs recommendation entitled " PART II -
Environmental Assessment - Proposed Ithaca Childcare Center ” is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 .
. Chairman Aron readilinto the record the adopted resolution by
the Planning Board entitled "ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Ithaca
4
4
Childcare Center , Warren Road , East Side South of Intersection of
Warren and Uptown Roads Recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals on Special Approval " , dated September 15 , 1987 , a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 .
The public hearing was then opened . No one appeared on this
matter . The public hearing was then closed .
As to the environmental assessment a motion was made by Joan
Reuning as follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board finds an unconditional negative
determination of environmental significance .
The motion was seconded by Jack Hewett .
The voting was as ' follows ,
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , Hewett
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
11
Mrs . Loehr- Balada was asked when they had to vacate the
present daycare facility and she answered that they had to remove
themselves by January 1 , 1988 .
Attorney Barney asked Mrs . Loehr- Balada what the daycare
center provided and whether it was educational and Mrs . Loehr-
Balada answered that they were licensed by the Department of
Social Services and not by the Department of Education so
according to New York State laws they could not provide education
but merely quality care for children whose parents are working or
studying . She added that it was run as a private , not - for -profit
business .
Joan Reuning inquired if the daycare center had any interim
housing arrangements and Mrs . Loehr- Balada responded they did
not .
Chairman Aron stated that he felt that there was definitely
a need for quality daycare in Tompkins County and an operation as
that of Mrs . Loehr- Balada ' s was necessary .
Mr . Austen inquired what area the majority of the children
came from and Mrs . Loehr- Balada responded that it was from all
over Tompkins County . She further stated that the ages of the
children was from eight weeks to almost 7 .
Edward Austen made a motion as follows :
• WHEREAS , this Board finds as follows :
t
5
( a ) The health , safety , morals and general welfare of the
community in harmony with the general purpose of this
ordinance shall be promoted by this project .
( b ) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed
use , and that such use , except as to public and educational
buildings , will fill a neighborhood or community need .
( c ) The proposed use and the location and design of any
structure shall be consistent with the character of the
district in which !' ' it is located .
( d ) The proposed use shall not be 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 shall 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 .
( g ) No one from the public appeared in opposition to this
project ,
THEREFORE , IT IS
RESOLVED , that this Board grants special approval to the
Ithaca Childcare Center located on Warren Road upon the
following conditions ,
( a ) Completion of any necessary traffic safety improvements
as to be determined by the Town Engineer and the Tompkins
County Department of Public Works , such as the possible
extension of the Warren Road school speed zone and signage
system , prior to the issuance of any certificates of
compliance for the proposed Center .
( b ) Approval of final site working drawings by the Town
Engineering , Planning and Zoning Department , to include
suitable vegetative or fence barriers between Warren Road
and outdoor play areas , and to include adequate provisions
for bus access .
( c ) Parking , delivery , and loading rules , and scheduling
. shall be implemented and enforced by the applicant .
6
( d ) The Special Approval shall be subject to all conditions
and regulations required by the New York State Department of
Social Services and the Tompkins County Health Department .
The motion was seconded by Joan Reuning .
The voting was aslfollows :
Aye - Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hewett
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The third - item on' ' the agenda was as follows .
III
APPEAL of John C . and Kim Klein , Appellants , Joseph Salino ,
Agent , requesting authorization by the Zoning Board of
Appeals for the extension of a legal non- conforming use ,
under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , located at 1103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel NO . 6 - 43 - 2 - 1 , Business District " C " . The existing
use is a gasoline station , with the proposed extension of
use being the addition of a convenience store and a
laundromat replacing the existing garage service bays , all
to� be located within the perimeter of the existing building .
• Chairman Aron declared the ZoningBoard of
Appeals as lead
agency in this matter .
Chairman Aron read a statement attached to the applicant ' s
appeal , a copy of which statement is attached hereto as Exhibit
3 . Mr . Salino appeared before the Board as did his attorney ,
Edward A . Mazza .
The most current maps of the subject premises were examined .
Mr . Mazza elaborated that this property had been a gas
station and service station for a long time and was in an area
with other commercial ' establishments . Ms . Beeners concurred that
itwas in a Business C zone and the property was about 4 acres
total . Mr . Mazza stated that the applicant was requesting that
he be allowed to use Ila portion of the premises as a laundromat
which is allowed in a Business B District and as a convenience
store which is allowed in a Business A District , Mr . Mazza
stated that the difficulty was that the property was on a small
site and nothing could be done about that . He continued that his
client intended to keep the gasoline sales on the premises as
well .
Mr . Mazza further stated that nothing could be done about
• the parking , that neighbors had been contacted to see if
something could be done but nothing came of it as the neighbors
1
• y 1
7
would not allow an easement to get around to the back . He
repeated that the parking area was not going to be decreased but
it could not be increased in any manner . Mr . Mazza pointed out
that many of the customers would actually be parking in an area
not labelled as parking and according to normal standards could
not be labelled as parking . He stated that many customers would
use the gas pumps , would park their car by the pump , would go in
to pay , and maybe pick up some convenience groceries at the same
time and then leave . Mr . Mazza stated that the only people that
might be there for more than five or ten minutes would be those
people using the laundromat . He continued that the situation
regarding the parking ; was a situation where cars may be parked
long -term all day by bringing in the car to be serviced , the car
would be parked off to the side , and then it would be worked on
when possible and then put back in the same spot . Mr . Mazza felt
that what was goingto happen there was that there might be more
cars that come to thelsite on a given day but the number of cars
that would be there all at once would probably not be that much
greater . He continued that the property had been used in the
past for selling grocery items and he did not think that the area
that was intended to " be used for grocery items would be any
larger than was used before .
Mr . Mazza continued that the plans drawn by Mr . Salino would
• include parking in the back and that employees would be parking
there long term . He stated that there was a gate that could be
removed to allow the , employees to park in the back . Chairman
Aron inquired how many employees Mr . Salino had and Mr . Mazza
responded that there liwere two . Mr . Mazza said the other nine
spaces would be for customers .
The public hearing was opened . No one appeared .
Ms . Beeners was asked for her recommendation as to the
environmental assessment and she read from " PART II -
Environmental Assessment - Klein/ Salino " , a copy of which
recommendation is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 .
The public hearing was closed .
Mr . Frost was concerned about the possibility of parking by
the gas pumps and felt this was a hazard .
With respect to the environmental assessment of the Salino
appeal , a motion was made by Joan Reuning as follows :
11
RESOLVED , that this Board declares a negative determination
of environmental significance conditional upon the
recommendations of the Town Planner as follows :
is
( a ) Obtaining of easements or other rights of way so as to
provide a minimum of 12 parking spaces ( with no more than 6
8
• spaces to be located on the north side of the building and
no more than 3 spaces to be located on the west side of the
building , and all spaces to be convenient for the intended
users of the facility ) .
( b ) Approval of any final site plan by the Planning Board .
( c ) The providing of information on the capacity of the
existing sewer lateral for the proposed laundromat use .
( d ) Submission of information establishing that the
existing sewer lateral has sufficient capacity for the
proposed laundromat use .
( e ) Any site plan to be in accordance with building code
requirements including the requirement of adequate
supervision of the gas pumps .
The motion was seconded by Jack Hewett .
I
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , Hewett
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
Chairman Aron stated that this matter had to be. adjourned
for 30 days and will be reheard as an agenda item on November 18 ,
1987 .
The fourth item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Peter Capalongo , Appellant , from the decision of
the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying
permission for a three - family dwelling at 357 East King
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 46 - 1 - 41 Residence
District R- 30 . Permission is denied under Article V ,
Section 18 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance whereby
one - family or two- family dwellings are permitted .
Mr . Peter Capalongo appeared before the Board as well as his
attorney , Ralph Nash .
11
Chairman Aron read from the Appeal of Mr . Capalongo , a copy
of which is attached to these minutes as Exhibit 5 .
Mr . Nash stated that the appeal indicated that they were
seeking a variance for a three - family unit and he wanted to make
it clear that it was only in the alternative that they were
• seeking a variance but would rather show that the premises was
basically being used as a two - family dwelling in conformance with
9
• the zoning law because the area in question was not a separate
dwelling unit . Mr . Nash said that only if it was not accepted
that the premises was' not a separate dwelling unit would they
then appeal for a variance but only to the extent to allow one
person to dwell in the questioned area since it did not have
complete living facilities and therefore could not be construed
as being a separate apartment unit .
Some discussion was held about the definition of "boarder ,
lodger , or roomer or other occupant " as defined in the ordinance
since Mr . Nash felt that the persons who had dwelled in the area
I
n question could be termed such . .
Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Nash what the relationship of the
person who was in the third unit was to the Capalongos and did
that person rent from the Capalongos . Mr . Nash responded that
she rented from the Capalongos . Ms . Beeners asked if that person
exchanged any services and Mr . Nash said that he was not sure
there was any specific agreement regarding services . Ms . Beeners
asked if there was any daycare or babysitting arrangement with
the tenant as was done with the previous tenant mentioned in Mr .
Fabbroni ' s letter of 11 October 29 , 1974 and Mr . Nash responded
there was not . Ms . Beeners inquired what the kitchen facilities
were in the third unit and Mr . Nash responded that it was the
• same as when Mr . Fabbroni wrote said letter . Attorney Barney
inquired if there was + a microwave present and Mr . Nash responded
that the tenant had brought one in . Ms . Beeners asked if there
was a bathroom with a shower and Mr . Nash responded that there
was . Attorney Barney inquired if there was one room or two and
Mr . Nash responded there was one large room .
Ms . Beeners gave ',' her recommendation as to the environmental
assessment . A copy 11of such recommendation entitled " PART II -
Environmental Assessment - Capalongo " is attached hereto as
Exhibit 6 . Ms . Beeners mentioned that when she did her review of
this property she assumed that there was a third dwelling unit in
the premises because there was not a babysitter living there but
a tenant paying rent to the Capalongos .
Chairman Aron then read from " Zoning Decisions " an excerpt
regarding hardships in use variances . A copy of such section is
attached hereto as Exhibit 7 .
Mr . Nash repeated that there were only two complete dwelling
units in the premises as the third unit did not have complete
living facilities .
Attorney Barney , inquired whether all three units were
independently accessed and Mr . Nash responded that they were and
had been continuously1i since 1974 . Attorney Barney then asked if
• this could not be construed as there being three separate
dwelling units and Mr . Nash responded again that the third unit
10
• did not have complete living facilities . Attorney Barney asked
if the tenant in the third unit used any of the facilities in the
other units , such as ° the shower , the toilet , etc . Mr . Nash
responded she did some cooking in the Capalongo residence at
times . Attorney Barney asked if she had a hotplate , a
refrigerator and a microwave oven and Mr . Nash responded that was
correct but that the tenant had brought in some of those items .
Attorney Barney said that did not make any difference who brought
them in and Mr . Nash 'lresponded that if you had a boarder who
brought in all his own things it did not necessarily mean he or
she would have their own separate apartment . Attorney Barney
said what he was questioning is what was missing from making it a
complete living facility and Mr . Nash responded the cooking
facilities were missing .
Chairman Aron suggested that the environmental assessment be
determined . At this point Ms . Beeners mentioned that she made a
negative determination of environmental impact conditional upon
the finding by the,, Board of practical difficulties and
unnecessary hardship . She stated that she did not think it was
her responsibility to : determine whether she thought there were
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship and she was
throwing it back to the Board to make those determinations .
Mr . Nash said he thought this sounded like a negative
• declaration and Mr . Barney clarified that what Ms . Beeners was
saying that she was recommending a negative declaration as to the
physical environment ; but no recommendation with respect to
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which must be
present in order for a variance to be granted .
Attorney Barney stated that the ultimate decision rested
with the Board as Ms . ,iBeeners had made her recommendation as she
saw fit . He continued that the first issue the Board must
determine was whether the Board was making a negative
declaration , a conditional negative determination , or positive
determination of environmental significance . Then , he added , the
Board could go on to lithe matter of the use variance . Attorney
Barney recommended that Mr . Nash present his evidence and then
the Board could move on the environmental impact .
The public hearing was then opened .
Ms . Sharon Guest '-Tagliavento of 445 76 Road , Brooktondale ,
New York addressed the Board . She told the Board that she lived
at the Capalongo residence at 357 East King Road , Ithaca , New
York for approximately nine years from June of 1974 until June of
1983 . She stated she ` was employed by Cornell University . When
questioned by Chairman Aron as to what her duties were in the
house she responded that she provided services such as
• babysitting , generally kept track of things when the Capalongos
were away , ran errands , and things of this sort . Chairman Aron
11
inquired if she felt asthough she were part of the household and
she responded that she ; did . She stated she had her meals with
the family sometimes but had her own hotplate and made some of
her own meals . Chairman Aron asked if she took the hotplate with
her when she left and she responded that she did . He asked what
else she had there and ! Ms . Guest =Tagliavento responded that she
had a toaster oven and ;; an electric frypan which belonged to her
and were now at her current address . Chairman . Aron inquired what
other services she performed and she said that her primary
employment was with Cornell and did only those things for the
Capalongos previously mentioned . Chairman Aron asked if she paid
rent and she responded that she paid $ 115 . 00 a month which
included utilities . When questioned by Mr . Nash as to whether
she thought the space was worth more than said $ 115 . 00 a month
Ms . Guest -Tagliavento stated she felt she would have been made to
pay much more than that had she not exchanged services forpart
of the rent . Chairman , Aron inquired if the rent was ever raised
while she was a tenant and she responded that it had been because
of the escalating rises in utilities at the time . Chairman Aron
inquired how much time she spent giving services to the
Capalongos and she responded that she thought it was about two
hours each day .
Mr . Nash asked Ms . Guest -Tagliavento if any structural
• changes had taken place while she occupied the premises and she
responded that none had taken place .
Vicki Williams of ' 202 Ridgedale Road , Ithaca , New York , was
next questioned by Mr . Nash and Chairman Aron . Ms . Williams had
resided at 357 East King Road in the same premises as those
occupied by Ms . Guest -Tagliavento from July 1985 to July 1986 ,
Mr . Nash asked what kitchen facilities were present when Ms .
Williams moved in and she responded that there was a small hot
plate and a refrigerator . Ms . Williams said that she brought a
small toaster oven with her . Chairman Aron inquired if she was
treated as part of the Capalongo family and Ms . Williams
responded she was although somewhat differently than the previous
occupant . When asked by Chairman Aron what she meant she
responded that she was a grad student at Cornell , primarily had
breakfast at the apartment and did not return until quite late in
the evening .
Chairman Aron asked how much rent Ms . Williams paid to the
Capalongos and she responded that she paid $ 235 . 00 per month
including utilities . Chairman Aron asked if she was invited for
meals at the Capalongos and Ms . Williams responded she did not go
down for meals but she' did go for coffee and snacks when she was
home .
Mr . Nash asked Ms . Williams if she prepared meals in her
• apartment and she responded that she only prepared breakfast and
made salads and such the rest of the time as she did not feel it
12
was adequate for preparation of meals . Mr . Nash asked what the
general living conditions and environment were at the time Ms .
Williams resided there and she responded that she felt very
comfortable . Mr . Nash asked if she was provided a place to park
her car and Ms . Williams responded that she was provided a garage
all the time she was there .
Mr . Nash inquired ; if Ms . Williams thought the rent was
comparable to other places and she responded she felt at that
time something similar' would have been about twice as much .
Chairman Aron expressedsurprise in that he felt a two -bedroom
apartment in the City of Ithaca could be rented for about $ 400 . 00
and would include complete kitchen facilities . Ms . Williams
admitted that maybe it would not have been twice as much but
somewhere in the neighborhood of $ 300 . to $ 350 .
Ms . Linda Oliver of 357 East King Road , Ithaca , New York
said that she now occupied the attic flat at that address . Ms .
Oliver stated she moved in in July of 1986 . Mr . Nash asked how
much Ms . Oliver paid for rent and she responded that she paid
$ 240 . 00 per V49 including utilities . Mr . Nash asked what
facilities were at the flat when she moved in and Ms . Oliver
responded that there was a refrigerator and a hot plate . Ms .
Oliver further stated she did not eat all of her meals there ,
only breakfast , had her lunch at work , and sometimes at night
made something simple . ' Ms . Oliver stated that she liked to bake
and could not do that at her apartment but Mrs . Capalongo had
invited her to use heroven at any time she wished but since she
felt this would be an imposition she went to the home of another
friend to do her baking .
Mr . Nash asked how Ms . Oliver found the general living
situation at 357 East King Road and she responded that she had
wanted a place of her own out in the country , something that
would be homey and after looking at about thirty different places
had decided on her present premises because it was an excellent
place . Mr . Nash inquired if she found it somewhat similar to a
family situation and Ms . Oliver responded that she did , that the
Capalongos were good to her and insisted that she report to them
whenever anything was not quite right . She said that she had
never lived in a place where anyone had cared that much and she
felt if she had an emergency she would not hesitate to go to the
Capalongos . Ms . Oliver stated that Mr . and Mrs . Capalongo made
available to her a garage and requested that her car be kept in
the garage so that it would not look cluttered :
Chairman Aron asked if Ms . Oliver performed any kind of
services for Mr . and Mrs . Capalongo and she responded that as far
as babysitting the Capalongos did not have any young children ,
but during one period in the winter when Mrs . Capalongo could not
• do snow shoveling she performed this service for them . Chairman
Aron inquired if there were any services that were required to be
13
• performed by Ms . Oliver) as a condition to renting the apartment
and she responded that there were not .
Chairman Aron inquired if Ms . Oliver considered herself as
part of the Capalongo family and she responded that in terms of
whether it was a home type atmosphere yes she did . She said she
had her own privacy but she also knew that she could go to the
Capalongos if she had a problem .
Chairman Aron inquired if Ms . Oliver had signed a lease and
she said she had not , that it was a verbal agreement , on a month
to month arrangement , with her giving the Capalongos 30 days
notice if she were going to leave , and they giving her the same
amount of time should she be requested to leave .
Ms . Beeners asked how much cooking Ms . Oliver did and she
responded that she did not do much and she had learned to make do
but she was limited in this apartment as to what she could do .
Ms . Oliver stated that no services were exchanged for rent .
Mr . Peter Capalongo , owner of 357 East King Road addressed
the Board . He stated that he wanted the neighborhood to remain
within the character that it was and if the Board deemed it
advisable not to allow the third unit to be rented he would abide
by their decision .
Mr . Nash presented pictures of the flat for viewing by the
Board .
Mr . Nash inquired when Mr . Capalongo had purchased the
property and he responded he had purchased it in 1962 .
Mr . Capalongo stated he had obtained a building permit for
construction of his first floor apartment in about 1971 or 1972
and had inquired of Mr . Cowan , Building Inspector at that time ,
about the possibility , of building a flat in the attic and Mr .
Cowan had advised him it was alright to build same .
Chairman Aron questioned Mr . Capalongo as to how much he had
spent on preparing the attic flat for rental and he said he and
his wife had done much of the work and the materials had cost
about $ 5 , 000 . 00 . He maintained that if he had had someone do the
work it would have cost then about $ 15 , 000 . 00 or 20 , 000 . 00 .
Today , he said , the same work would cost about $ 30 , 000 . or
$ 40 , 000 .
Mr . Nash inquired if the building inspector came back to
look at the flat before Mr . Capalongo rented it and Mr . Capalongo
responded that he did . Mr . Nash inquired if it had a separate
• entrance and Mr . Capalongo responded that it did . Mr . Nash
asked if there was anything different about the flat now than
14
• there was then structurally and Mr . Capalongo responded there was
not . 11
Mr . Nash inquired if Mr . Capalongo had had another visit
from another building inspector in 1974 , a part - time man , and Mr .
Capalongo responded that was correct . Mr . Capalongo stated
that after that visit a letter was received from Lawrence
Fabbroni , Building Inspector . A copy of said letter is attached
hereto as Exhibit 8 . Mr . Nash asked Mr . Capalongo if he had had
any complaints about the flat since the time the letter was
written by Mr . Fabbroni and he responded he had not . When asked
why he was before the 'Board , Mr . Capalongo replied that he was
seeking a building permit to add a deck to his house and upon
inspection Mr . Frost had discovered what he perceived as three
units in a presumably two -unit dwelling and therefore had denied
the building permit pending further investigation .
A suggestion was made that Mr . Capalongo add another half
acre to his land and perhaps have a cluster development at his
property and Mr . Capalongo stated he did not care for this idea
as that would not be in , character with the neighborhood .
A suggestion was also made that perhaps Mr . Capalongo could
connect the two apartments in his building and therefore rent it
• as one large unit . Mr . li Capalongo responded to this suggestion by
saying there would beIconsiderable expense of about $ 3 , 000 . or
$ 4 , 000 . He also stated that he did not want to rent one large
unit to students as that would not be in character with the
neighborhood either .
Mr . Frost
asked Mr . Capalongo if he had ever questioned
County Assessment as to why his house was listed as a three -unit
dwelling and Mr . Capalongo responded he had not .
Attorney Barney inquired how many people were in the entire
house and Mr . Capalongo responded that he and his wife occupied
one unit , there was a couple in the second unit who were
unmarried now but would be married soon , and Ms . Oliver who
occupied the attic flat .
Attorney Barney inquired whether Mr . Capalongo ever intended
for the attic flat to be occupied by more than one person and he
responded that he did not .
Mr . Nash reiterated that he and his client felt that the
attic flat was being used in compliance with the zoning code as
to a two - family dwelling . He stated that the tenants who had
resided there have incomplete cooking facilities , it is just one
large room , the rent ° is very low in consideration of these
conditions , and the reason they live there is the special
• atmosphere in relationship with the Capalongos . Mr . Nash
continued that if the Board felt a variance was necessary that it
• 15
should weigh the testimony of Mr . Capalongo that he relied upon
the consent of the building inspector at the time that what he
was doing was proper . Mr . Nash continued that Mr . Capalongo had
expended considerable sums of money in reliance upon the word of
the building inspector and would lose the income of the attic
flat now if he was not allowed to use the same as a living unit ,
that Mr . Capalongo did '' not desire to have a cluster development
but would rather keep his property in conformity with the
neighborhood character .
The public hearing , was closed .
Attorney Barney recommended that the Board consider an
absolute negative determination as to the environmental
assessment and that the Board also consider that the attic flat
was a third unit even though there were incomplete cooking
facilities . He continued that the Board should also consider
that over the years the Board had rather condoned the existence
of this third unit and Mr . Capalongo had acted in reliance upon
this , and this would constitute sufficient hardship in justifying
the granting a limited , variance which would be authorization for
Mr . Capalongo to continue only as in the past .
A poll of the Board members found that they were in
• agreement with Mr . Barney ' s recommendation .
A motion as to the environmental assessment was made by
Edward Austen as follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board finds a unconditional negative
declaration of environmental significance .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Hewett , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
As to the use variance a motion was made by Edward Austen as
follows :
WHEREAS , the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the unit in
question has cooking facilities , bathing facilities ,
sleeping facilities , and accordingly is a dwelling unit as
defined in the Town of Ithaca zoning ordinance , and
WHEREAS , the Board also finds that Mr . Capalongo in good
• faith approachedthe appropriate officials of the Town of
Ithaca when he was considering construction of the unit in
. 16
question and was given an indication that the construction
and proposed use would be in compliance with the ordinance
and he relied upon " that information ; and
WHEREAS , upon such reliance Mr . Capalongo spent substantial
sums of money to accomplish the construction and entered
into a course of action over the years that related to how
he occupied and constructed his house , and it would be a
substantial hardship at this point to require him to alter
that living arrangement , to remove the attic flat unit or to
incorporate it into the rest of the house , and
WHEREAS , no one appeared from the public to oppose this
matter and three people appeared to support it , it is
therefore
RESOLVED , that this Board grants a variance for the
continued use of the attic flat as a living unit subject to
the following cond°itions .
11
1 . That the unit be occupied solely by one person .
2 . That so long as this unit is occupied as a rental unit
that the property shall not be subdivided .
• 3 . That this unit may be occupied as a rental unit so long
as there is not more than one family in each of the other
two units and those be families that are related by blood ,
marriage , adoption or other recognized family relationship .
4 . That the total occupancy of the entire building shall
not exceed seven persons .
5 . That no additional cooking facilities or major kitchen
facilities be added to the unit in question , and that it be
continued to be occupied and used as it has being presently
used .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Reuning , Aron , Hewett , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
Attorney Barney cautioned Mr . Capalongo that technically he
was in violation of the zoning ordinance in that the couple
living in the second unit were not married and therefore he had
• three unrelated persons plus a family in his residence . Mr . Nash
mentioned the Oyster Bay decision and Attorney Barney said that
• i; 17
until someone told the Town of Ithaca that their zoning ordinance
was not any good it was going to live by the terms of that
ordinance . He reminded Mr . Capalongo that what the Board was
doing was largely for him personally as he had shown good faith
over the years , but unless the couple married soon he would have
to make other arrangements to put himself in comformance with the
zoning ordinance .
There being no further business to come before the Board the
meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
IIIIF
4��
ieatrice Lincoln
Recording Secretary
Approv :
• Hen y Aron , Chairman
Exhibits 1 through 8 attached
•
i t
� Y
PART II - Environmental Assessment - Proposed Ithaca Childcare
Center
A . Action is Unlisted, .
B . Action will receive coordinated review ( Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , Tompkins
County Planning Department ( N . Y . S . G . M . L . 239 - m ) , Tompkins County
Department of Public Works ) .
C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising
from the following :
Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or
quantity , noise levels , existing _ _ traffic patterns , solid waste
production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or
flooding problems ?
No significant adverse impact is expected in these areas ,
subject to final site plan approval by the Town Engineering ,
Planning and Zoning Department . The preliminary site plan
indicates feasibility of site development with only a localized
and. temporary , minor impact on site features . The 3 . 5 ± acre site
is mostly old - field lisecondary growth vegetation of no major
significance .
Area roads are capable of supporting the increase in traffic
proposed . The location of the proposed Center driveway is
• adequately separated from other roads and driveways in the
vicinity , however it is recommended that any necessary traffic
safety improvements as to be determined by the Town Engineer and
the Tompkins County Department of Public Works , such as the
possible extension of the Warren Road school speed zone and
signage system , be completed prior to the issuance of any
certificates of compliance for the proposed Center .
The seasonally -wet Ovid - Rhinebeck silt loams on the site
would require certain drainage improvements that are expected to
have no significant adverse impact , subject to the approval of a
final drainage plan ; by the Town Engineer , Tompkins County
Highway Department approval would be required for any work in the
Warren Road ri5ht of wa
/' Fi �► �I 5 �n�d �-u rS � 1 " 5 G� gY►0� -17�e
P�C2 Aes he L 1 `a ri of ,,,,, ��� �, .
— _ cultural , " a �cheolo ical , historic , or
other natural or cultural resources , or community or nei hborhood
character ?
The proposed use will fill a need in the community and will
complement other educational uses in the area . The buildings
would have no significant adverse impact on views from the
adjacent institutional and multiple -residential properties .
C3 . Vegetation " or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife
species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered
species ?
No significant species or habitats exist on the site that
• would be significantly impacted . Secondary growth on the site
that would be removed is well represented in other areas of the
neighborhood . It is currently proposed that existing vegetation
Exhibit 1
t
be retained adjacent to the Warren Road right of way . The final
landscape plan would be' subject to staff approval .
C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially
adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources ?
The proposal is consistent with zoning requirements . The
change of 3 . 5 ± acres from vacant land to a day care facility is
of no significant adverse impact , with the facility serving a
need in the community and being compatible with surrounding
existing and potential land uses .
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
No significant adverse impact is expected . The proposed
facility would not directly induce growth , and would be a benefit
to existing and potential development .
C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified
in C1 - C6 ?
Not expected .
C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ?
Not expected .
PART III
A negative determinatio of environmental significance is
recommended for the proposed actions , Proposal is consistent with
pertinent zoning regulations and community character . Site
conditions are adequate for the proposed use , subject to certain
requirements of project implementation .
LEAD AGENCY : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals �S CC-4A-A �
REVIEWER : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
REVIEW DATE : September 11 , 1987
•
. Ithaca Childcare Center , Warren Road , East Side 40003 -
' r South of Intersection of Warren and Uptown Roads
Subdivision Approval , and ; Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals
• Planning Board , September 15 , 1987
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Ithaca Childcare Center , Warren Road , East Side
South of Intersection of Warren and Uptown Roads
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on
Special Approval
Planning Board , September 15 , 1987
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Dr . William Lesser :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special
Approval of a Nursery School Use , pursuant to Article V . Section
18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the
proposed construction of the Ithaca Childcare Center on a 3 . 5 ±
acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 73 - 1 - 1 . 2 , 14 . 34
acres total , located on the east side of Warren Road , south of
the intersection of ' Warren and Uptown Roads .
2 . This is an Unlisted' Action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals
is acting as Lead Agency for the proposed Special Approval , and
the Planning Board is an involved agency in Coordinated Review .
• The Tompkins County Planning Department and the Tompkins County
Department of Public Works are also .= involved agencies which _are
being notified of this action .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on September 15 , 1987 ,
has reviewed the following material :
SEQR Short EAF , dated September 10 , 1987 , Revised September
15 , 1987 .
Project Data Sheet , dated September 10 , 1987 , prepared by
Downing Hascup Associates , Architects .
Drawings entitled - - " Ithaca Childcare Center "
" Area of Development "
dses " Site Plan "
ssss " Preliminary Plan " - -
by Downing Hascup Associates , Architects , dated
September 10 , 1987 .
A Portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Map No . 73 entitled , " Ithaca
Childcare Center Location . Map " , prepared by Susan C .
Beeners , dated September 9 , 1987 .
A Portion of Town of Ithaca Aerial Photo Map , Northeast
Section , '' entitled " Proposed School Site " , prepared by
Susan C . Beeners ,
4 . The Town Planner ilhas recommended a negative determination of
• environmental significance for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
Exhibit 2
Ithaca Childcare Center , Warren Road , East Side - 4 -
South of Intersection of Warren and Uptown Roads
Subdivision Approval , and Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeal's
• Planning Board , September 15 , 1987
1 . That the Planning Board , acting as an involved agency in the
review of this Unlisted Action , recommend and hereby does
recommend a negative determination of environmental significance
to the Zoning Board of Appeals .
2 . That the Planning Board , determining that there is a need for the
proposed use in the proposed location , that the existing and
probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is
to be located will not be adversely affected , and that the
proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of
development of the Town , recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval , as requested ,
be granted , with the following conditions :
a . Completion of any necessary traffic safety improvements as
to be determined by the Town Engineer and the Tompkins
County Department of Public Works , such as the possible
extension of the Warren Road school speed zone and signage
system , prior to the issuance of any certificates of
compliance for the proposed Center .
b . Approval of final site working drawings by the Town
Engineering , Planning and Zoning Department , to include
suitable vegetative or fence barriers between Warren Road
and outdoor play areas , and to . include adequate provisions
for bus access .
c . Parking , delivery , and loading rules , and scheduling shall
be implemented and enforced by the applicant .
d . The Special Approval shall be subject to all conditions and
regulations required by the New York State Department of
Social Services and the Tompkins County Health Department .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
Naricy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board ,
September 28 , 1987 .
•
The Applicant herein is requesting that a legal nonconforming
use be extended to include other uses . This request is being made
under Article XII Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
This extension is permitted only by authorization of the Board of
Appeals . Section 55 of the Zoning Ordinance talks about changes in
nonconforming uses . That Section indicates that a nonconforming use
may be changed to another nonconforming use of the same or more
restrictive classification . The Applicant herein is not asking that
there be a change in the classification however they are asking that
additional nonconforming uses be allowed which uses would be
permissible in a more restrictive classification than the
classification for the use that currently exists . In other words
the use that presently exists on the premises would be permissible
only in a Business District " D " . The Applicant is requesting that he
be allowed to use a portion of the premises as a Laundromat which is
allowed in a Business " B " District ( see Section 33 No . 6 ) and as a
convenience store which is allowed in a Business " A " District ( see
Section 32 No . 1 ) . These uses are uses that are allowed in a more
restrictive District and by using the premises for those uses that
are allowed in a more restrictive classification means that the
portion of the premises that are used as such could not be used as
the service station use to the same extent that it could be if these
other uses were not allowed . Thus , in a sense , by using some of
these premises for uses that would be allowed in a more restrictive
classification , we are reducing its use that would be currently
. allowed only in a less restrictive classification .
The existing building will not be expanded by the additional
uses . The service bays will be closed off and that is where the
laundromat and convenience store areas will be . Thus , there will no
longer be any repair work done on the premises .
The history of this parcel is that it has been a gas station and
service repair station for a substantial period of time and at one
point , some ten ( 10 ) years ago , the owners were selling a limited
amount of convenience groceries on the premises ,
The area is in an area where there are other commercial
establishments already existing .
w
With regards to parking , it appears as though there are
approximately nine ( 9 ) park '
ng spaces available on the premises which
I s the same amount .that is currently there with the existing
building . No parking spaces would be eliminated if Applicant ' s
request is granted ,
Wherefore , Applicant respectfully requests that the Board of
Zoning Appeals authorize the requested change in the nonconforming
use .
•
E xhibit 3
• PART II - Environmental Assessment - Klein / Salino
A . Action is Unlisted
Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins County
Planning Dept . - N . Y . S . G . M . L . 239 -m , Tompkins County Highway
Dept . )
C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising
from the following :
Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or
quantity , noise levels , existing traffic 2atterns , solid waste
production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or
flooding problems ?
A moderate impact to traffic patterns may be expected as a
result of higher traffic volumes generated by the proposed uses
than presently exist . Parking as proposed does not meet the
requirement of Section 38 , No . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance ( 1 space
per 200 sq . ft . of ground floor ) . With an estimated 2340 sq . ft .
of ground floor , 12 parking spaces would be required . Only 9
spaces are proposed , and those 3 spaces shown in front of the
building may present a hazard . All parking shown would not meet
the zoning requirement of no parking in front , side , or rear
yards .
Business District zoning also requires a 10 ' buffer between
the ,facility and existing or future residences . The property
would not comply with this requirement on the south side yard . A
variance was granted on Sept . 20 , 1984 for an eight - foot fence
along the rear property line .
The deficiency in parking and in buffering could be
mitigated through the acquisition of any easements or other
rights to use and improve an adjacent driveway on the south side
( or other land ) for access , parking , and buffering .
More information is required on the capacity of the existing
sewer lateral for the proposed laundromat use .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or
other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood
character ?
No significant adverse impacts are expected with respect to
these factors , except for moderate impacts as a result of the
proposed increased land use intensity , where certain buffering
and parking requirements cannot be met as currently proposed .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife
species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered
species .
No significant species or habitats would be adversely
affected .
C4 . A communit ' s existing plans or goals as officially
• adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources ?
Exhibit 4
• A moderate impact exists in the non - conformance of the
proposed use with certain zoning requirements described in C1 .
While the existing nonconforming service station use would be
reduced , there would be an increase in the intensity of use as a
result of the expansion of the convenience store function and the
introduction of a laundromat .
These impacts could be substantially mitigated as described
in Cl , through the acquisition of any easements or• other rights
to use and improve an adjacent driveway on the south side ( or
other land ) for access , parking , and buffering . An alternate or
additional mitigation measure would be a reduction in the
proposed intensity of use .
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
No significant adverse impacts with respect to these factors
is expected , although potential development of adjacent
business - zoned land may require evaluation as to the
compatibility of use and access with the proposed
laundromat / convenience store .
C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not
identified in Cl - 05 ?
Not expected .
® C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either
quantity or type of energy ) ?
Not expected .
D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts ?
Not expected at this time .
PART III
A negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended conditional upon the following :
a . Acquisition of any easements or other rights to
use and improve an adjacent driveway on the south side ( or
other land ) for access , parking , and buffering .
b . Approval of any final parking arrangement on the
north side of the building by the Tompkins County Highway
Department .
c . Approval of any final site plan by the Planning
Board .
d . The provision of information on the capacity of
the existing sewer lateral for the proposed laundromat use .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
Review Date : Oct . 9 , 1987
I UWIN Ur 1 1 rwkH l U . UU
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED :
Ithaca, New York 14850
CASH
( 607 ) 273 - 1747 CHECK
• ZONING :
A P P E A L L For Office Use Only
to the
Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer
and the
Zoning Board of Appeals
of the
Town of Ithaca, New York
Having been denied permission to continue occupancy of attic flat
at 357 East King Road Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 46 - 1 - 4 as shown on the accompanying
letter from Building Inspector
at�r1-i�ati-orr �rrdfor` -pens - or -oL�iTer- 5nppor trg- � � for the stated reason that the
4.57sueno c c Sn
ud r ftperrmt wou l d be in violation of :
® Article (s ) V Section ( s ) 12
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and , in support of the
Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as -fcrl -fowsm& and such occupancy is not
in violation of the Zoning Ordinance
CAdditional sheets may be attached as necessary . )
Applicant believes that the occupancy is in compliance with Article V -
Section 18 of the Town Zoning Law as per the Building Inspectors Letter of
October 29 , 1974 . No structural changes have been made to premises since
1974 nor has occupancy changed . Only the identity of the occupant has
changed . The attic flat in question has never been a " dwelling unit " as
defined by the Zoning Code because it does not provide complete living
facilities . The premises at 357 East King Road have been and continue to be
a two - family dwelling for zoning purposes .
In the alternative applicant applies for a variance for a continued
4Signature of tl' .�lL cont .
Appellant /Agent . / , Date :
Exhibit 5 =
� �� C �1c e
Town of Ithaca
• Appeal to Building Inspector
Page 2
occupancy of the attic flat as long as total occupancy continues
to conform to the rules of occupancy for two - family residences .
Applicant has continuously occupied the attic flat for income
purposes for 13 years upon the belief based upon the October 29 ,
1974 letter from the Building Inspector that said occupancy was
legal . Applicant would suffer financial hardship by loss of
I
ncome from said flat . Connecting the flat internally to the
lower part of half -house would be costly and render moth the
lower part of house and flat less attractive and private for
residency . Applicant believes that continued occupancy as
• has existed since 1974 will be consistent with all other
neighborhood uses and will have no negative effect on the
neighborhood . Applicant ' s property is reasonably adapted to
such continued use .
•
• PART II - Environmental Assessment - Capalongo
A . Action is Unlisted .
Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins County
Planning Dept . We N . Y . S . G . M . L . 239 -m )
C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising
from the following :
Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or
quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste
production or disposal , potential for erosion , draina e or
flooding problems ?
No significant adverse impact is expected with respect to
these factors . Parking and local area circulation are adequate
for the use . No site alterations are currently involved , with
the use apparently in existence for 13 ± years . No information is
present to indicate any potentially adverse impact with respect
to noise levels , or with respect to septic system capacity .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or
other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood
character ?
Because of the situation of the buildings on the lot , it is
recommended that there is adequate buffering on the site and that
• the character of the community / neighborhood is not adversely
impacted . Nor is any significant adverse impact expected with
respect to aesthetic or other resources , because of the
characteristics of the , site .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife
species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered
species .
No physical alterations are involved , and no significant
species or habitats would be adversely impacted .
C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially
adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources ? 11
A potential moderate impact is expected to community plans
and goals as officially adopted in the Zoning Ordinance , where
three dwelling units on one lot are not permitted . Findings by
the Zoning Board of Appeals of practical difficulties and
unnecessary hardship would substantially mitigate this potential
impact . An alternativeupossible mitigation measure might be the
acquisition of enough additional land to meet the 5 -acre minimum
requirement for clustered subdivisions , and to apply for approval
of a clustered subdivision .
Regardless of the Zoning Ordinance requirement of no more
than two dwelling units on one lot , the existing residential
density of the 4 . 57 ± acre property would be within the
requirements for residential density in R- 30 Districts , so that
no significant adverse impact is expected with respect to
increased land use intensity .
Exhibit 6
• C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
Not expected . Similar proposals would require specific
review .
C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not
identified in Cl - 05 ?
Not expected .
C7 . Other impacts ( including chan es in use of either
quantity or type of energy ) ?
Not expected .
D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts ?
The reviewer has no knowledge of controversy at this time .
PART III
A negative determination of environmental impact is
recommended , conditional upon the finding by the Zoning Board of
Appeals of practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship .
Lead Agency : Town of I"thaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : Susan C . Bee "ners , Town Planner
Review Date : October 9' , 1987
S00
ZONING DECISIONS
Ordinance - Consent of Fifty Percent of The petitioners own an improved Variance Properly Granted N . Y .
_ Owners within 500 Feet - Land Area parcel of land in a subdivision . When Newman v . Zoning Board of Appeals
Terms N . Y. purchased , the land had two building of Yorktown , 503 N . Y . S . 2d 601
Mead v . F a i r b r o t h e r et al . lots in conformity with the zoning ordi - Where the Zoning Board of Appeals
( Town Board of Vestal , New York ) , nance . Later the area was upzoned , showed that its current interpretation of
506 N . Y. S . 2d 514 making this lot unsuited for a subdivi - the relevant section of the zoning ordi -
Petitioner Millet has conditionally sion . A variance was denied . nance was consistent with its interpreta -
purchased property from petitioner DECISION : The petitioners offered no tion with respect to prior applications ,
Mead for the erection of an automobile evidence . In such a case the owner must the granting of the variance was proper.
quick lubrication station and car wash . produce evidence that denial of the vari - This interpretation was neither unrea-
A public hearing was required , and the ante would result in the infliction of sonable nor irrational .
ordinance provided that the applicant either significant economic hardship or Frishman v. Schmidt , 61 N . Y. 2d 523 ,
must present to the town board a state- practical difficulty . The petitioners 473 N . Y . S . 2d 957,
ment from fifty percent of the owners of failed to meet their burden of proof. The
real property within 500 feet of the sub- denial is affirmed . Notice Requirements of
ject property that they consent to the Cowan v . Kern , 41 N . Y . 2d 591 , 394 Qrdinance
application . N . Y . S . 2d 579 . Southampton Commons Condo -
The town attorney ruled that owners rniniums v . Zoning Board of Appeals
of contiguous land are to be given one of Southampton , . 506 N . Y . S . 2d 416
vote in determining the percentage of Variance Improperly Granted. - Petition to set aside a variance allow-
owners . Several owners who had con- Use N , Y, ing a restaurant and take-out food serv-
sented withdrew on petition of a com- Governdale v . Board of Appeals of ices in Southampton .
petitor . Additional signatures were Brookhaven, 503 N . Y . S . 2d 597 It is alleged that the applicant failed to
submitted and the town attorney in - The board granted a use variance and provide notice to . interested parties in
formed the petitioner that he would not the petitioner appeals therefrom . compliance with the local code . The
have to appear at a hearing June 9 as the code provides for notice by publishing
board would not consider the petition DECISION : Judgment reversed . Where in the official newspaper or by erection
that day. However , opposition ap- a use variance is sought , the applicant of a white-with-black-lettering sign ,
peared and addressed the petition , and must show practical difficulties and un- measuring two feet by one foot , to be
. the board rejected the petition . . necessary hardship . Unnecessary hard -
The petitioner claims that withdraw- ship means : l ) that the land cannot yield prominently displayed on the which premises
he
als are not allowed by ordinance . a reasonable return if used only for the facing each public T street on which no -
purpose allowed in that zone ; 2) that the Property abuts . The sign must give no -
DECISION : The ordinance. equates plight of the owner is due to unique-. tree that amapplication- fcr an appeal in
owners of parcels for voting purposes , circumstances- , and. not to the . general._ pending, and the date and time of the
regardless of the size of their parcels . If hearing. - .
conditions i the neighborhood , which
an owner has two .lots which are contig- may reflect the unreasonableness of the The sign shall be durable . and fur-
uous , he has one vote, whereas if the lots zoning ordinance itself; 3 ) that the use to nished by the building inspector, and it
are separate he has tv✓o votes . This in- siall be displayed for not less than lei;
be authorized by the variance will not
terpretation disfavors owners of large alter the essential character of the da.%Fs preceding the public hearing datr
lots as well as contiguous parcels , while or any adjournment date.
locality .
owners of small or noncontiguous par- Several witnesses testified that. they
cels are favored . A real estate appraiser testified for the drove by the premises many d iies
Zoning deals basically with land use applicant for the variance . He stated within the ten -day period and saw no
and not the person who owns or occu- that " the highest and best use of the sign posted on the property giving no-
pies the land . property " was not residential. and that if tine of a hearing date .
The focal point for measurement is offered only as residential it "would not DECISION : The ordinance required
land area. Such an interpretation pro- yield a return commensurate with the posting of the signs prior to any and all
tects surrounding properties , not indi- true value of the property. " The ap- meetings , wltethrr original hearings or
vidual enterprises. Fifty percent of the praiser's statement that the property postponed hearings . Sinr_e n.o pet.iflon -
ownerssatisfies the condition . The court might be worth substantially more if, it ers appeared at any hearir.: g , the hoard
does not have before it the percentage of were located in a nonresidential area did had no right to grant the variance . \far-
approval in land area terms, so the mat- not satisfy the requirement that the land - iance annulled . Remanded for a hea ring
ter is remanded to the Town Board for a owner establish factually by dollars and after proper posting of required notices .
determination whether approval of cents proof an inabiiin: to realize a red - - -
owners of fifty percent of the land area sonable return under existing permis- Vr -iance - Penthouse on Loft
were received before the public hearing. si,ble uses . Building N111176
• Dexter v . Town Board of Gates , 36 A use variance may not be granted 9 White Street Corp . v . Board of
N . Y . 2d 1027 365 N . Y . S . 2d 506. mer::ly to cast, the personal difficulties Appeals of New " orfs Ci ( y, 506
of the owner . The applicant failed to N . Y . S . 2d 53
demonstrate a unique hardship and Two parties . Llunt and Salle , are the
Variance - Burden of Owner - should not have been granted Ole sole shareholders in the 9 White ; trees
Denial N .Y . variance .
Corp . , and intend to use four of the five
Eynon v . Mangravite, 504 N . Y . S . 2d Village Board of Fayetteville v . floors for residence and working p,ur-
59 Jarrold , 53 N . Y . 2d 254 . poses . Shares to the other floorare to be
Exhibit 7
r
TOWN OF IT ACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK
14850
October 29 , 1974
Mr . and Mrs : P . Capalongo
357 King Road East
Ithaca , New York 14850
Dear Property Owners :
In visiting and inspecting your home with Mr .
Reynolds Metz , and Mrs . Capalongo , on Thursday ? October
124 , 1974 , -we found no -violation- o = -the existing Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca based on the following
facts and interpretations :
1 . The sections of the existing zoning most pertinent
to your home deal with permitted uses as follows :
a . Article V , Residence Districts R30 , Section 18 ,
paragraphs 2 and 2a .
" 2 . A two family dwelling , provided that the
second dwelling unit shall not exceed 50a of the floor
area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit
except where the second dwelling unit is constructed
entirely within the basement area , it may exceed 50 % .
2a . A two family dwelling shall be occupied by
not more than two families except that the following
occupancies may also be permitted : ( 1 ) 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 ;
( 2 ) If one of such two units is occupied solely by a family_
then the other unit may be occupied by not more than two
boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants ; ( 3 ) If
neither of such units is occupied by a family , then the
total number of such occupants in such two family dwelling
shall be no more than three . "
b . Article I , Section 1 , paragraph 5 defines a family
as " A family consists of one or more persons related by
blood , marriage , or adoption . "
Since the young woman presently occupying the attic
flat provides child care service to your family in partial
• compensation for rent and since her apartment is not fur -
nished witha built in kitchen , I consider her to be a
lodger and her flat to be part of your main family dwelling
unit . If the young woman should cease to provide child care
Exhibit 8
. e
• Mr . and Mrs . P . Canalongo - 2 - October 29 , 1974
in partial compensation for rent , if the flat is fur -
nished with a built - in kitchen , or if the flat is rented
to a third family there would be a clear violation of
the law .
Future changes in the zoning ordinance may make it
possible to exceed 50 % for the second dwelling unit in a
two family but renting two apartments in addition to your
home will never be permitted and without a variance is a
zoning violation .
My prime purpose in writing is to avoid any future
violation and to preserve your beautiful estate . I hope
this information is useful to you in the future management
of your property .
Sincerely yours
•
Lawrence P . Fabbroni
Building Inspector
LPF /nf
•