Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1988-03-09 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk �j • . 412 z- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 9 , 1988 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on March 9 , 1988 at the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT . Chairmani; Henry Aron , Edward King , Edward Austen , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Planner Susan Beeners , and Town Attorney John C . Barney ALSO PRESENT . Peter Gergely , Che - Yu Li , Ann Kugler , Kinga Gergely , Susan Centini , I, James Gerard , P . E . Tubbs , Susan Fertik , Bob Horn , Joan Horn , ' Donnie Simpson , Ron Simpson , Aafke Steenhuis , Tammo Steenhuis , Mickey Herzing , Margie Rumsey , Jarlath Hammorck , WHCU . 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 : ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from February 10 , 1988 ) of Arthur G . and Mary A . Yaple , Appellants , from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a building permit for the construction of a two - car ' garage , with a master bedroom and , bath as a second story , proposed to be attached to the north side of an existing single family residence located at 151 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 35 , Residence District R- 15 . The proposed addition would create a north side yard of nine feet , fifteen feet being required . Permit is denied under Article IV , Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as lead Mrs . Mary Yaple presented to the Board a survey of her property which the Board had requested at the last meeting . Mrs . Yaple said that since the Board thought the addition was too extravagant they had decided to cut the breezeway off therefore making the addition 25feet instead of 29 feet , making the addition 12 feet from the boundary line , thus creating a • deficiency of 3 feet . 2 • Chairman Aron asked for the architect ' s plans presented at the last meeting . Mrs . Yaple said she had not brought them to this meeting assuming they were not necessary . The Board members referred to sketches of the proposed addition which were in their files but Edward King stated there were no dimensions on those sketches . Mrs . Yaple ' said the plans presented at the last meeting were not actually architectural renderings and also had no dimensions as they were only design plans . She continued that the addition would be approximately 25 feet on the north side , based on the scale . Chairman Aron asked what scale she was referring to as they had no scale to look at . Attorney Barney asked what the width of the addition they desired to build was minus the breezeway and she responded it would be 25 feet . Mr . King said that that would make the boundary line 12 feet instead of the required 15 feet in an R15 zone . Chairman Aron stated that if it was only a garage the requirement would be 10 feet but that Mrs . Yaple also would like to put on top of the garage a bedroom and for that purpose she would need 15 feet . Chairman Aron stated that Mrs . Yaple had said she needed the bedroom because her daughters were growing up . He continued that Mrs . Yaple ' s daughters were teenagers and inquired how many more years she thought her daughters would be living in the house . • Mrs . Yaple responded that her youngest daughter was eight years old so she assumed she would be in the house another ten years . Chairman Aron referred to the minutes of the last meeting wherein Mrs . Yaple had stated that the house contained 2200 square feet of living space not counting the basement . Chairman Aron asked if that amount of living space did not contain enough room comfortably for her family . Mrs . Yaple said at this point that she was going to take pictures of all the surrounding houses in her neighborhood to show the Board that her house was the smallest house there . She continued that one house had an addition that was maybe three feet to the lot line . She reminded the Board that there was a vacant lot to the north . Mrs . Yaple said that she went to the expense of having a survey done and felt that if her plans were still too extravagant she was at a loss to know what to do next . Chairman Aron said the Board must determine if the criteria of the variance was being adhered to , not whether she was extravagant , but in fact whether she qualified . Mr . King said he understood Mr . and Mrs . Baldwin owned the vacant lot to the north and it would encroach upon them to grant a variance to Mrs . Yaple for a smaller side yard . He inquired if Mrs . Yaple had spoken to the Baldwins about purchasing any part • of that vacant lot . Mrs . Yaple responded that they did not want to sell any part of it because they owned all the land in back of 3191" IN3 • them and they probably , 1, eventually would like a right of way road to the back so they did : not want the land landlocked in case they wanted to sell it or deelop it later on . Mr . King said that if they were willing to sell her an eight foot strip she would not need a variance and she could build the way she had originally proposed her addition . 11 Mrs . Yaple said that would create a hardship for them to buy an eight foot strip of land . Mr . King asked if the Baldwins ` 'i, also owned to the south and Mrs . Yaple responded the Baldwin house was to the south . Mr . King said that therefore the vacant lot on the north was actually the access of the Baldwins into their seven and one half acres bordering all the properties on the east . Mr . King inquired ;if there was anything in writing from the Baldwins beyond their signatures on a sketch which he felt told the Board nothing . Mrs . Yaple responded there was not but she thought that was taken care of at the last meeting . She continued she thought the purpose of this meeting was to get the survey completed and tolthe Board . Mr . King said he was not at the last meeting but had read the minutes and said hellthought there was an error on page 5 , in the next to the last paragraph , stating what the deficiency of the side yard would be . ', i0 He continued that the response referred • to it as 9 or 11 feet '! but actually it appeared it was only a matter of 6 feet . Mr . King stated that in reading the minutes he frankly did not see where the hardship was that the Board was required to find in order to grant an area variance . Further , he said , there was nothing from the Baldwins in writing , nor did they appear personally , to indicate that the use of their adjacent land would not be jeopardized because when that much more sideyard was used it would impinge on the Baldwin property . Mrs . Yaple said she had talked with the Baldwins but did not obtain anything further ;'' from them as she thought that issue was discussed and decided on at the last meeting . She said that she thought this meeting was only to present the survey requested . Mr . King said that from ' the minutes he understood the Board had asked her to have a surveyor lay out exactly what the dimensions of the proposed addition would be and where they would come on the lot . Mrs . Yaple said the purpose of the survey was to get the exact lot line . Chairman Aron interjected that the reason a survey was requested was that when the Board was considering an area variance they had to know exact dimensions before they could make a final decision , and that at the last meeting the footage was vague , 1*09 or 11 feet "' . Ifl Mrs . Yaple said that now she had it exactly and Mr . Aron responded that now that the Board knew how many feet she was requesting hardship had to be established in order to obtain an area!' variance . For instance , he continued , • had she made a serious attempt to contact Mr . Baldwin asking him to sell the footage on his land she required . Chairman Aron felt 31f AS 4 i • "I that had Mr . Baldwin refused Mrs . Yaple could have asked him to give her that decision in writing to present to the Board . Chairman Aron said that Mrs . Yaple had not shown that she had made any serious attempt . Mrs . Yaple said that they had talked to the Baldwins attempting to buy the property when they had first moved in and they had a verbal first option . But , she said , the Baldwins do not want to sell the property and she would not pester them again as she knows they just ' Pdo not want to sell it to them . She did not think this matter was even brought up at the last meeting and Chairman Aron said that was why they had adjourned the matter to explore it further . ; j Mrs . Yaple said all she was asking for was a simple three foot variance , she hada ' gone to the expense of having a survey done , and thought she had done everything required of her . She continued that as far as the hardship was concerned she thought that issue was settled ', at the last meeting . Chairman Aron said it was not settled at the last meeting as was borne out by the minutes . Chairman Aron referred to the section of the minutes where Mrs . Yaple had stated that they had no garage and that was a practical difficulty . , Chairman Aron repeated what he had said at the previous meeting , that there were hundreds of people S having homes with no garage thereby forcing them to leave their cars outside . He reiterated his position that this was not accepted by him as practical difficulty . Mr . King added that there was a garage originally and the Yaples had enclosed it and used it for other purposes . Mr . King felt the , l'� matter should bekept open to allow the Yaples time to bring iniiwritten consent from the Baldwins to see if that would make any difference to the members of the Board . Attorney Barney felt the Board should indicate to Mrs . Yaple whether it would make a difference because if the Baldwins had any objections they would have notified the Board or been present at the meetings . He added that at the last meeting there was quite a bit of discussion on the fact that the Baldwins had signed the sketch plans ; so they were shown exactly what was going to happen and how close '' it would be ' to their property . Attorney Barney continued that Mrs . Yaple had testified that there was no objection from the Baldwins . Attorney Barney said that if it wasjust a matter of getting something in writing in the record that was alright , but it was his understanding that the problem was with locating the north line and seeing how close to the line the addition would be . '' He added that Mrs . Yaple had fulfilled that requirement , and the Board now knew the deficiency would be approximately 4 feet . Attorney Barney agreed with the Chairman though that no determination had been made at the last meeting • with regard to practical' difficulties . 5 Edward Austen asked if the Yaples would be willing to go back to the Baldwins and again offer to buy some of their lot . Mr . Austen maintained that if the Baldwins were planning on using that lot as a road right of way they would not need 100 feet . On the other hand , he continued , if it was to be a building lot , then they would need the entire lot . Mrs . Yaple said that she could go back to the Baldwins but did not know whether they had any definitive plans for the property . Mr . King thought that the property had been offered for sale as a unit . Mr . King also stated that if they were to sell off some of the lot in question to the Yaples then they would have to come before the Board for a variance for a smaller lot if it was to be built upon . Mr . King felt that he would be in favor of a variance if he saw something in writing from the Baldwins to the effect that they would not sell off part of the lot to the Yaples but that they had no oppositionto the Yaples adding on an addition to their house . Chairman Aron felt this would give the Board something substantial to base their decision on . Chairman Aron made, a motion as follows : RESOLVED , that this Board adjourn this matter to April 13 , 1988 . • Edward King seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Austen , King , Aron Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . The second item on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL of Margaret M . Rumsey , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the extension of a ' legal non - conforming use from a more restrictive use to a less restrictive use , located at 116 East Buttermilk Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 38 - 1 - 3 , Residence ; District R- 30 . The proposed use is to be known as "National Cable Craft " , a television cable system service center . The existing building was most recently used for a karate instruction school . The request for authorization is made under Article XII , Sections 54 and 55 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the lead agency in this matter . ' • Mrs . Margaret Rumsey appeared before the Board . She stated 3118 g 6 • that the party who wished to lease her premises was a company that had , been working with the Community Cable Service in Ithaca since about 1983 . The cable service was removing all old cable in the area and installing new cable . The building on the premises would be used to check electrical capacity . Mrs . Rumsey added that the company had a two and one -half year contract to complete this so they would be renting from her for that length of time . Mr . King asked what type of work they would be doing inside the building and Mrs . Rumsey responded that they would bring in the cable on a spool and check the electrical capacity to make certain it was alright before they put it up . Mr . King asked if there would be any manufacturing , or any kind of noisy operation going on and Mrs . Rumsey responded there would not be . Mr . King asked what the building had been used for in the past and a list presented by Mrs . Rumsey with her application gave a short history of the premises . Such list is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . Mr . King thought that they would classify these operations as a , Business C type which includes anything from retail stores to plumbing and electrical shops . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Rumsey what the traffic situation would be and Mrs . Rumsey said she expected less traffic with this • tenant than with her last tenant . Mr . Austen inquired if six to eight trucks ( mentioned in Exhibit 1 ) going in and out of the premises each day were company trucks and she responded they were . Chairman Aron inquired if this company was a subcontractor to the cable company in Ithaca and Mrs . Rumsey responded this was correct . Mr . King asked if the dumpster was located behind the building on the west side and Mrs . Rumsey responded that it was to the north and presented pictures of the property showing where the dumpster was located . Chairman Aron inquired if the road in the picture was a Town road and it was determined that it was . The public hearing was then opened . No one appeared and the public hearing was closed . As to the environmental assessment , Ms . Beeners was asked to review her recommendation which she did . A copy of such recommendation entitled " Part II - Environmental Assessment - Rumsey Appeal " is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . Mr . Frost asked if there was a representative of " National Cable Craft " and Mrs . Rumsey responded there was not . Mr . Frost asked if the dumpster was for just trash or yards and yards of cable being stored• outside the building . Mrs . Rumsey responded it would be for the cable that would be taken down and when that dumpster was filled it would be removed and a new one placed 7 there again to be filled . Mr . King inquired if the old cable would be put on drums or dumped in pieces in the dumpster and Mrs . Rumsey responded she did not know . Chairman Aron inquired what would happen to the empty spools , whether they would be outside or inside the building and Mrs . Rumsey responded that she did not know the answer to that question ; Mr . Frost asked what other types of storage would be on the outside of the building . Mr . Austen inquired where the trucks would be stored at night and Mrs . Rumsey responded they would be stored inside the building . As to the environmental assessment form a motion was made by Edward Austen as follows : RESOLVED , that this Board finds a negative determination of environmental significance . The motion was seconded by Edward King . The voting was as ° follows : Aye - King , Austen , Aron • Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . Mr . Austen asked how long the building had been unrented and Mrs . Rumsey responded that it had been unrented since November of 1987 . Mr . Austen inquired if no one else had wanted to rent the building and Mrs . Rumsey responded that she had many persons interested but had lost them because they would not wait for the Board ' s approval . Chairman Aron said that this was the first time this matter had come before the Board . Mrs . Rumsey said that she had first applied when Naglee Moving and Storage wanted the building in January of 1988 but she could not get on the agenda in February of 1988 and therefore lost that tenant . Mr . King said that the Board , under Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance , had the authority to permit an extension of a non - conforming use which this was in part because it was changing from a school back to a more commercial use . Edward King made a motion was follows : RESOLVED , that this Board approve the proposed use of the building by "National Cable Craft " upon several conditions as follows : • 1 . There will be no outside storage of materials other than 8 • in the dumpster . 2 . That the dumpster will be located either northwesterly of the building or on the north side somewhere where it would be conveniently accessible but where it could be screened with plantings , fence , or other materials so that it did not present an unsightly view to the public which uses the park . 3 . That parking would be controlled by limiting parking on the east side to a reasonable number of vehicles . 4 . That the loading dock would be repaired from its present condition . 5 . That this Board authorize the Town Planner and the Zoning Enforcement officer to review the situation and make recommendations and decide whether the applicant was adequately meeting the requirements of the Board to protect the view and the amenities in the area . 6 . That a sketch plan be presented to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Town Planner . 7 . That the building , as rented , would be in compliance • with the requirements of the New York State Uniform Prevention and Building Code . Edward Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Austen , King , Aron Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . The last item on the agenda was as follows : lAPPEAL of Orlando and Ralph Iacovelli , Appellants , requesting area variance from the requirements of Article IV , Sections 14 ' and 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for certain lots proposed as part of the " Klondike Manor " subdivision on Coddington Road , northwest of Juniper Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 53 - 1 - 17 . 1 , - 17 . 2 , - 5 , and - 10 , Residence District R- 15 , granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , with certain conditions , on February 2 , 1988 . Said proposed lots , numbered 2 , 6 , 7 , and 81 are in excess of 15 , 000 square feet in area , however , have • dimensions proposed as follows : Lot 2 - westerly side lot depth of 100 + feet ; 9 • Lot 6 - easterly side lot depth of 100 + ; Lot 7 - easterly side lot depth of 110± feet , and , westerly side lot depth of 90 + feet ; Lot 8 - containing ° a pre - existing dwelling , with frontage at the street right of way on Coddington Road proposed at 63 + feet , however , with frontage at the proposed front yard setback on Coddington Road of 65 + feet and with a proposed frontage of 255 + feet on the right of way line of the proposed new street for said subdivision , and further , with said lot number 8 proposed to have a north side yard of 7 + feet from said pre - existing dwelling to the right of way line of said new street . I The Town Zoning Enforcement Officer requests a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals as to the need for variance on proposed lot number 3 with frontage at the street right of way proposed at 88 + feet , however , with frontage at the proposed front yard setback of 105 + feet ; on proposed lot number 4 with frontage at the street right of way proposed at 72 + feet , however , with frontage at the proposed front yard setback of 100 feet , and , on proposed lot number 9 with a southwesterly side of depth of 100 + feet . Chairman Aron stated that the Board had received that evening a full environmental assessment form for study but the • Board could not act upon this form because it would be unfair to make a decision upon something of this nature which had just been received . Mr . Lawrence Fabbroni , , surveyor and architect of this project , was invited to speak before the Board . Several sketches were placed on the bulletin board and Mr . Fabbroni spent some time outlining the whereabouts of the property and the history of how the appellants had arrived , with the Planning Board , to the plan now being contemplated . Mr . Fabbroni said that they had appeared before the Planning Board in October or November asking for a cluster subdivision on this land but after some discussion the Planning Board felt it was not the intent of the ordinance to have rental cluster housing in this area . He continued that the Planning Board chose to drop this plan as a consideration based on this premise and the appellants accepted this and went on to look at a subdivision of the land that was more traditional . Mr . Fabbroni stated that early on their preference for this land was a cul - de - sac with fan - shaped lots at the end but the more they got into discussion with the Planning Board and their interpretation of the ,, existing ordinance it became clear that fan - shaped lots at the end of the cul -de - sacs were a real problem in terms of meeting the minimum width and depth requirements . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he mentioned this because this was the very issue that was ' before the Zoning Board of Appeals that • night .. 10 • Mr . Fabbroni ran through the various options that were considered pointing to the sketches on the board . Mr . Fabbroni said that with the option in question one could achieve a consistent setback somewhere in the 25 to 50 foot range and achieve a 100 foot width that was required in the ordinance . He guessed that the confusion as to the way measurements were taken was why they were before the Board this evening . He stated that other than for Lot 8 the developers were confused as to why they were before the Board having to justify variances for these lots where they have 100 foot widths within the acceptable range of setback . He repeated that he was not sure why they were before the Board having to defend lots with 100 foot width whether they were the four listed in the notice or the three others that were brought into question subsequent to that . He realized that the Planning Board had brought it to the Zoning Board of Appeals to ask them to render a judgment but the appellant ' s reading of the ordinance was that if the setback was between 25 and 50 feet and ifconsistent setbacks were achieved as the ordinance requires within that range , and if when the width was measured at the setback line it was over 100 feet the width of the lot should not be in question . By the same token , he went on to say , if you achieve a depth of 150 feet in the lot you have a legal lot . Mr . Fabbroni went on to say he would like to show further why the lots in question are traditionally subdivided : ( a ) If you took a quick glance , not a microscopic view , of the three adjacent subdivisions on South Hill , ( Northview West , Northview , and Juniper Drive ) and assuming that the Planning Board had the jurisdiction to approve these legal lots at that time , and assuming the ordinance then in effect was basically the same as it is now , then at least 15 lots would not meet the ordinance if they had to meet the criteria that their subdivision had to meet now . ( b ) With regard , to the Juniper Drive subdivision , if you applied just the 150 '° foot depth requirement every lot to one extent or another that bordered on the development but in particular lots 53 - 1 - 15 . 10 , . 11 and . 12 do not meet the 150 foot depth requirement . 11 However , in the traditional process of subdividing , these lots were approved without variances . In that regard the developers did not understand why it was necessary to appear before the Board for their lots , other than for Lot 8 . ( c ) The plan now in question came to be because of concerns of the Planning Board as to where the road intersection would occur and the Planning Board was desirous of having the intersection immediately opposite Spruce Way . Because of that and because of the existing house on Lot 8 they were immediately into a substandard lot width and side yard on that existing • house . Lot 8 had an existing house there and it was hard to do anything to meet the criteria to intersect with Spruce Way and • not have that side yard variance . Mr . Fabbroni concluded that all of the lots in question were all in excess of the 15 , 000 square feet , lot 6 was approximately 17 , 200 square feet , lot 7 was approximately 18 , 500 , lot 8 was 16 , 500 . Mr . Fabbroni stated that at Mr . Frost ' s request they had prepared a map that showed that one could place a house as big as 60 x 28 ( which was an average size home by today ' s standards ) and still meet the required side yard setback requirements . He repeated that with the exception of lot 8 he did not see the need for variances on these lots . Chairman Aron responded to Mr . Fabbroni ' s assertion that the developers felt that only lot 8 should be in question by stating that the Planning Board in their resolution said that one of the conditions was " ( d ) The granting of a variance for Lots No . 2 , 6 , and 7 with respect to lot depth . " Chairman Aron stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals was not going to argue with the Planning Board and Mr . Fabbroni stated that they did not want to argue with the Planning Board either and while they " did not agree with their interpretation they had accepted it and included it in their appeal . Chairman • Aron said the Board had to deal with what was before them based on the recommendations of the Planning Board . Mr . King asked about the last sketch Mr . Frost had requested of the developers and if it dealt with Lots 2 , 6 , and 7 and Mr . Fabbroni said that was correct . Mr . King said that the entire subdivision showed 16 numbered lots out of four tax parcels . Mr . Fabbroni said ' that lot No . 16 was not approved as a building lot . He continued that part of the subdivision approval required a second access to Juniper Drive . Mr . King asked if Lot No . 16 was out of the picture and Mr . Fabbroni stated that nothing was determined , that there was some discussion about possibly consolidating it someday with another parcel adjacent to it . Mr . Fabbroni said that at present it had a very substandard dwelling on it and was separately owned . Mr . King asked if the developers were considering fourteen additional houses and Mr . Fabbroni responded that was correct . Mr . King asked if the site plan depicted the houses where they would be placed on the lot and Mr . Fabbroni said that approximately it did , that certainly more room would be taken up if there was a garage . Mr . King asked if , for instance , a house was put up on Lot 3 with a garage would they then need to come back for a variance . Mr . Fabbroni said it was possible but not • likely with 16 , 000 or more square feet . 12 • Chairman Aron inquired if the attorney for the developers was aware of the criteria for an area variance . Mr . Mazza said that he was , but he was not sure the appellants were asking for an area variance and that was part of the confusion . Chairman Aron said a variance was being requested and there were only two types of variances , a ! use variance and an area variance . He explained that with an area variance several requirements had to be met , one of which was practical difficulties . The test for practical difficulty , he said , had to be proven to the Board of Zoning Appeals , in that significant economic injury would be suffered , and that the variance , if granted , would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Chairman Aron stated that significant economic injury could be shown by showing that the market value of the property would be altered . Evidence could be shown , he continued , of the purchase price of the property and the projected market value to name a few of the criteria that could be considered . Chairman Aron pointed out that the Board did not have any such documents as evidence from the appellants . Chairman Aron stated that the zoning enforcement officer requested a determination on these lots because the zoning ordinance to which Mr . Fabbroni referred to was vague and it read as follows " "A lot size of residential district R15 shall meet the following depths and widths at the front yard set back . The minimum width of lot shall be 100 feet and the minimum depth • 150 feet . " Chairman Aron stated that as to the front yard the ordinance stated " Not less than the average depth of the front yards of buildings on lots immediately adjacent . However , the front yard depth shall . not be less than 25 feet or need it be greater than 50 feet except as otherwise specified . " Mr . Fabbroni said he was requesting the Board to look at the ordinance and then look at Lots 2 , 61 7 and any others that the zoning officer asked the Board to look at . He said that they would like the question answered as to whether these lots were deficient or not . Chairman Aron stated that they would determine that at another meeting as it was an administrative matter for the Board to review and determine . Chairman Aron stated that then a decision could be " made . Mr . Fabbroni felt it was pointless to make any further argument as to these lots if after the Board had reviewed the matter it decided they did not need a variance . Chairman Aron referred to a petition received by the Board which contained signatures of 72 neighbors . A copy of such petition is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . Chairman Aron did not read the petition as Mr . Mazza stated he had received a copy . The public hearing was then opened . • Chairman Aron recognized Attorney Edward Mazza appearing for 13 • the appellants and Attorney Robert Hines appearing for the neighbors . Mickey Herzing of 319 Coddington Road , Ithaca , New York addressed the Board . He stated his property bordered Lot 8 . Mr . Herzing said that Lot 81had the only structure on the subdivision and was recently in violation of occupancy and he did not know if the matter had been rectified . Mr . Herzing and his wife filed a letter with Mr . Frost . who checked into the situation . He continued that there were also parking violations . Mr . Herzing stated that the units Mr . Iacovelli wished to build on the subdivision had been presented as two -unit structures and not single family structures . Mr . Herzing maintained that Mr . Iacovelli was trying to obtain a variance for Lot 8 when it was already in violation . Kinga Gergely of 106 Juniper Drive , Ithaca , New York was concerned with Lot No . 7 . She showed the Board a map on which she tried to fit a scale house within the required setbacks with room for parking and felt that it would be hard to do this . Mrs . Gergely pointed out that her major concern was a creek not mentioned in the plan , said creek going under Coddington Road , Mrs . Gergely stated that two of the neighbors in that vicinity had channeled the creek so that it was in a bed and was not flooding . Mrs . Gergely presented pictures of the creek bed . She • stated that the creek was still running and still collected underground water . She said that the creek was about 2 and one - half feet wide in the spring and in the fall when it was really raining , and in the summer it was almost empty . Chairman Aron asked where the water came from and Mrs . Gergely explained by pointing to the sketches the route of the water . Edward King asked what the size of her scale house was and she stated it was 28 x 60 . Chairman Aron asked if she had made her presentation about the creeks to the Planning Board and Mrs . Gergely stated she had not but when she had discovered the creek beds she spoke with Susan Beeners about it . Ms . Gergely was concerned about the drainage problems . Mr . Che -Yu Li of 112 Juniper Drive , Ithaca , New York was next to speak . Mr . Li felt that with Mr . Iacovelli ' s past record , the houses to libe built would be intended for rental purposes . He felt that this type of subdivision would substantially alter the character of the neighborhood . Chairman Aron interjected at this point that what type of housing the appellant planned on constructing was not the matter at issue before the Board of Zoning Appeals but rather whether or not the Board should grant variances where needed . Chairman Aron felt these remarks should be reserved for the Planning Board , Mr . Li stated that the road would be behind his house . • Mr . King asked if Mr . Lis property was tax parcel 53 - 1 - 15 . 12 and Mr . Li said that was correct . Mr . King inquired if Mr . 14 • Li ' s property bordered the Electric & Gas right of way and Mr . Li responded that was correct . Attorney Barney stated that assuming Mr . Iacovelli could come up with a subdivision that met all of the requirements for an R15 zone , that is , the proper depth and width requirements , but in doing so they had to bring the road down so that it ran flush with the south line of Mr . Li ' s property , would Mr . Li prefer that . Mr . Li said he would choose that rather than change the nature of the neighborhood . Attorney Barney said that if the appellants ' subdivision was in total compliance with the ordinance the appellants would not have to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals at all . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Li again if he would prefer an arrangement where the road ran directly across the back of his property to the arrangement at present . Mr . Li said he was not prepared to answer yes or no to that question at this time . Peter Gergely of 106 Juniper Drive , Ithaca , New York addressed the Board . Mr . Gergely stated that none of the existing lots in the area vary as much as much as Lots 6 , 7 and 8 of the proposed subdivision . He continued that this subdivision would impact adversely upon the neighborhood . Lot sizes , he said , should be considered as far as the character of the neighborhood since the average size of the lots in the proposed • development was 16 or 17 , 000 square feet while the average square footage in the Juniper " area was 21 , 000 . Mr . Gergely felt that this area was a beautiful hillside and the view from East Hill , Route 13 and College Avenue would be destroyed by the density of this subdivision and likened it to Southside Chicago if it were allowed to proceed . Attorney Barney inquired if Mr . Gergely felt there should be no development on this land and Mr . Gergely responded that there should be a development which conforms with the character of the neighborhood . Attorney Barney stated that the zoning ordinance requires 15 , 000 square feet for a lot in an R15 zone and all the lots in the proposed subdivision exceed 15 , 000 square feet . Attorney Barney inquired if Mr . Gergely would like someone to come in with a grid pattern that was exactly 15 , 000 square feet and develop that property there . Mr . Gergely responded he would not like that . Attorney Barney said that the property was owned by Mr . Iacovelli and he had a right to develop it . Mr . Gergely said that he had made an offer to buy the property . Mr . Mazza said they knew nothing of an offer to buy . Attorney Barney said that if the property was going to be developed would it not make sense to have it developed in a relatively pleasing way as opposed to a grid pattern . Mr . Gergely said he would like it to be pleasing but what he foresaw • was duplex rental units with lots of cars , lots of roads and most of the ground covered by pavement . 15 /090 Attorney Barney repeated that Mr . Iacovelli presumably had a right to develop his property and that the design could be much worse and impact more adversely on the neighborhood . He continued that Mr . Iacovelli could put any kind of houses up as long as they met the zoning requirement in terms of being either two - story single or two - family houses . Mr . Gergely wondered what was meant by character of the neighborhood . Attorney Barney explained that character referred to the size of the lots and the variations of the lots , whether the depth of the lot was in character with the neighborhood , ( i . e . 110 feet as opposed to 150 feet was out of character with other lots in the general vicinity ) . Mr . Gergely said Mr . Iacovelli could easily make larger lots and build $.150 to $ 200 , 000 homes , and make it a nice residential area which would immediately force all of Coddington Road to improve . Susan Centini of 103 Juniper Drive addressed the Board . She referred to Section 77 , paragraph 7 ( b ) of the zoning ordinance in reference to filling a neighborhood or community need . Ms . Centini stated the neighbors did not feel there was a need for more houses in that area but one of their main concerns was they did not know what kind of houses they would be , whether they were going to be family homes or student rentals . She did not think there was a need for student housing if that was going to be the • case . Chairman Aron said the Board was considering variances and whether it was student housing or single family housing was a matter for the Planning Board when determining site plan approval . Ms . Centini asked what filling a community need meant and Attorney Barney responded that that dealt with special approvals and was not relevant to this matter . Bob Horn of 108 Juniper Drive was next to speak . Mr . Horn felt the developer was trying to cram as many houses as he possibly could into the subdivision and that would raise the density of the neighborhood . Mr . Horn wondered why Mr . Iacovelli could not take out several lots and put fewer houses in . He did not think there would be practical difficulty or hardship for Mr . Iacovelli to do this . Mr . Horn felt the only reason for Mr . Iacovelli to have more lots was to make more financial gain . Attorney Robert Hines then addressed the Board . He stated that the sentiment expressed tonight by the neighbors was unanimous and their views should be considered . Mr . Hines said that the neighbors had not been able to speak before the Planning Board . Mr . Hines said that the dollar value of the lots was unknown to the Board and Mr . Iacovelli created a subdivision which maximized the density . Mr . Hines continued that now Mr . Iacovelli was before the Board implying that he was experiencing practical difficulty or hardship when in fact there must be some • way to use this land economically and fruitfully for his benefit and still be consistent with the needs of the neighborhood . Mr . 16 • Hines felt it would belunlikelY even when and if further evidence was presented to the ' Board , that any hardship or practical difficulty existed for , Mr . Iacovelli in creating these particular lots . He concluded that the neighbors were very upset about this particular plan . Attorney Barney inquired if Mr . Hines had had occasion to look at some of the other designs and Mr . Hines said he had not . Discussion followed as ',I to what some of the other designs were . Attorney Barney said that some of the others would have been more in compliance with the ' ordinance and there was an effort by the Planning Board to move ' from the conventional grid pattern where the road would run flush against some existing lots on Juniper Drive to the present design . Mr . Hines stated that when Mr . Iacovelli bought the land he knew there was space for so many lots and should be satisfied with ten lots instead of trying to cram in as many as he could . Mr . Hines stated that " the Planning Board told Mr . Iacovelli he could only have ten lots there unless the zoning board approved three more . Attorney Barney stated that if this subdivision plan was turned down it would go' back to the Planning Board and force them to rethink and revert to another plan that would probably be , in • an aesthetic sense and from a use sense , considerably less desirable . He continued that with the present plan there were several lots that had some deviations but if this plan was turned down in order to meet the requirements on all lots , it was possible to wind ' up with ' a road that would look a little serpentine and come out in the wrong place . Attorney Barney stated that regardless , there will be a subdivision there and he wanted to make clear to everyone that an alternate plan might be less desirable particularly for the people on Juniper Drive . The Planning Board , Mr . Barney stated , made an effort to try and soften the impact of the plan with respect to the surrounding area . Mr . Hines thought '! Attorney Barney was being generous with the Planning Board and he did not know what they intended . However , he did know the neighbors . wanted a less dense project which was precisely the issue . He continued that the Planning Board indicatedwhere they wanted the road , indicated the lot lines drawn by Mr . Iacovelli , and said that certain lots did not comply , but it was up to the Zoning Board of Appeals to decide whether these lots were going to . go in the subdivision . In effect , Mr . Hines said , ; the Board had quite a lot of power over the density of this particular project . He repeated that the neighbors knew a subdivision was going to happen but were concerned about the density . Mr . Hines said that the lots • desired were put on paper by Mr . Iacovelli not by anyone else and he could have made less lots to lessen the density factor . 17 Attorney Barney said that there could be 16 lots either way . Mr . Hines said he did not think so and thought it was not proper for the Board to expect the neighbors to accept what the plan was now because they might get something worse . He expected that there would be a less dense project as a result of these deliberations . Mr . Hines did not see how one could create three more lots on the basis of practical difficulties or hardship . He said that the Planning Board did not say the Zoning Board of Appeals had to approve these lots , the Planning Board said the Zoning Board of Appeals should look at it and make a determination . 11 1 Attorney Barney stated that if the Planning Board wanted the road a certain way and recognized that this would create some odd- shaped lots , would that constitute practical difficulty and entitle Mr . Iacovelli to a variance . Mr . Hines said he did not know the answer to that but that they had been given no opportunity to address this question before the Planning Board and indeed had not been given any chance to talk . Attorney Barney said that thatllwas an adjourned public hearing where the public would not have been allowed to speak . Mr . Hines recognized this but said the facts had been changed . Mr . Fabbroni wanted to mention one fact that had not been • brought out , that is , the existing foliage in this area . Principally , he said , there was a 30 foot stand of existing vegetation . Mr . Fabbroni said that part of the Planning Board ' s deliberation was trying to keep that area intact . Mr . Fabbroni also stated that a video of the area had been prepared and if the Board would like to review such tape it was available to them . Mr . Mazza stated that there were no structures proposed to be added to the building that presently existed on Lot 8 . Further , he said , the connection that Mr . Li spoke of that would make his house bordered by three roads was not something proposed by the developers but rather was imposed upon them by the Planning Board . With regard to the drainage issue and the creek , Mr . Mazza felt this was not something for the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider but rather for the Planning Board to review . Chairman Aron inquired if the Planning Board knew about the creek and Mr . Mazza responded that they had preliminary approval and had to go back for final approval and get drainage plans to them . Mr . Mazza concluded by saying that no offers to purchase the property had been received previous to that evening . Mr . King mentioned two of the sketches , dated October 1987 , showing a more conventional layout with a roadway intersecting considerably north of Spruce Way and coming down to the back of lots on Juniper Drive and asked whether any of the 17 lots that • were laid out would need a variance . Mr . Fabbroni stated that again it would be up 'to the Zoning Board of Appeals , and yes , u` g 3/x/8 18 • possibly Lot 10 might need a variance with this design . Mr . Fabbroni said that if they measured the lots by their interpretation of the ,' ordinance none of ' the lots would need a variance . But , he stated , the way the measurements are taken needed to be clarified . ',; Mr . King asked if ' they had tried to map out the subdivision by having. all lots 100 foot wide by 150 foot deep fronting on the road , and if they did lido it this way , how many lots could they get , Mr . Fabbroni responded they could get 14 lots this way . Mr . King inquired ;lwhat the status of the NYSEG right of way was . Mr . Mazza responded that NYSEG owned it . Mr . King inquired if NYSEG was giving permission . Mr . Mazza responded that that was a condition in the' Planning Board preliminary approval that they get permission and he understood that that was acceptable . Mr . King asked if they ,had any indication from NYSEG whether they might want to use any ', part of their land for building purposes for residential use . Mr . Fabbroni said the indication they had was NYSEG might conceivably want to put a transmission line down that right of way although they had no plans for such at this time . Mr . Fabbroni stated that in actual contacts the Town officials had made with' NYSEG , it was understood that NYSEG would • entertain certain segments of that right of way being used for road purposes because 11 it would not interfere with what their possible use of the property would be , Mr . King said that one of the things they had to consider was the impact on the neighboring lots . In the present proposal , there were six lot owners on Juniper Drive abutting directly on the south of the project . He continued that the Board did not know where their houses were in relation to the project and did not know the sizes of 'd, their lots and could see nothing in the sketch plans presented!, to indicate the vegetation . Mr . King asked whether by using aerial maps and other means could one of the sketch plans be adapted to show the Board the approximate location of each house '*nd its distance from the appellants ' lot so that the Board would have a better idea of the potential impact on the adjoining owners , Mr . Iacovelli said he could do that for the Board . The public hearing was closed . Chairman Aron stated that the public hearing would be re - opened if there was new evidence on this matter . p Chairman Aron stated that it was obvious that there was certain information thelBoard would need , and that Mr . Mazza knew what that information !` was . He recommended an adjournment to • await this information 'j' and also to give the Board a chance to study the environmentalJimpact assessment form , 19 • Mr . King said that part of this appeal was a request from the zoning enforcement officer as to how and where one measures the frontage of a lot , whether at the street right of way or back further . Mr . King continued that a reading of the ordinance does not find the answer to this question clearly spelled out . He felt that to him implicitly the idea of the width of the lot in R15 being 100 feet is that the front yard at the outermost edge of the front yard toward the street should be 100 feet wide . Mr . King said that the setback for a house must be in an R15 zone at least 25 feet but not more than 50 feet . He said that it seemed to him that if you took the position where the house would be placed and run 25 feet toward the roadway that if you had 100 feet width of the lot at that point along such a line that you have met the requirement . Attorney Barney asked which line he was speaking of , and Mr . King responded at the front yard and the closest to the street . Ms . Beeners asked if he meant the minimum front yard ( 25 ) or the maximum front yard ( 50 ) . Mr . King responded it would bel at the required front yard . Mr . Frost inquired if Mr . King was speaking of the street right of way and Mr . King responded it would not necessarily be at the street right of way but it would be at that point where you must have front yard of at least 25 but not more than 50 feet . Mr . King stated that the point of having a relating frontage • to a roadway was for , the minimum safety requirement of having adequate access for fire vehicles , etc . to that property , and looking at it from that point of view Town Law 281 states that if you have a roadway leading back to a property and it is at least 15 feet wide it would be presumptively wide enough to provide emergency access . Chairman Aron suggested that as to the request of the zoning enforcement officer for interpretation , he would recommend that the Board meet on the administrative level on March 23 , 1988 and discuss the matter and come to an interpretation as to the vagueness of this part of the ordinance . Mr . King agreed and suggested that they get opinions from the Town Attorney as well as from the other counsel present if they so chose to give the Board some input . He said the Board would welcome any written submissions counsel would like to prepare . Chairman Aron inquired if Attorney Barney would be ready at that time with an interpretation and Attorney Barney responded he had rendered his interpretation some time ago , although not in writing . A motion was made by Chairman Aron as follows : This Board shall adjourn this matter to the March 23 , 1988 meeting for further consideration . is Edward Austen seconded the motion . 20 The voting was as follows : Aye - King , Aron , Austen Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . Attorney Barney inquired if the public hearing was being adjourned also . Chairman Aron stated that the public hearing had been closed and would be re - opened only if there was new evidence . Mr . King felt that everything that needed to be said had been said . Chairman Aron asked the public if anyone had anything further to add and would re - open the public hearing if so . The public hearing was re - opened . Ron Simpson of Pine View Terrace , Ithaca , New York , asked if the public hearing would automatically be opened if there was a change in the plans and Chairman Aron responded that that was up to the Chair . Attorney Barney interjected that if there were changes in the plans the appeal would be withdrawn from this Board because the present plan was preliminarily approved by the Planning Board , and if ' there was a change in plans it would go back to the Planning Board and if necessary then come back before • the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Li said that he had telephoned Mr . Iacovelli the meeting before the last Planning Board meeting to express his displeasure of the layout of the , roadway and Mr . Iacovelli said that he realized Mr . Li did not like the plan but if he did not then Mr . Li could accept his cluster plan . Mr . Li ' s interpretation of that statement was that Mr . Iacovelli made the roadway as undesirable as possible to force the neighbors into a cluster plan so that he could maximize his property . Mr . Horn asked where along the line had they missed the issue of the character of the neighborhood because one of the things that bothered the neighbors was that students might go in there . Mr . Horn wondered who had the right to look at that site to decide what is going to go in there and what the buildings should look like . Chairman Aron responded that the Town of Ithaca has an ordinance which said that in a private residence , one family and two unrelated people are allowed to live together in a one family dwelling . He continued that the ordinance must be adhered to . Attorney Barney said that it was no different for Mr . Iacovelli than it was for Mr . Horn in an R15 zone because Mr . Horn could choose to have a traditional blood - related family plus two other people in a, single family house or , in a two family house he could have two blood - related families , one family in • each unit . Attorney :' Barney continued that one might have one unit occupied by two unrelated persons with a traditional family 88 21 • in the other unit , or one could have up to three unrelated people in the building as a whole . Attorney Barney repeated that Mr . Horn could do that in his home right now and Mr . Iacovelli could do the same thing but the houses had to meet certain requirements under the zoning ordinance if they were going to be two - family houses . Ms . Centini asked then if occupancy was to be no more than three unrelated people per lot and Attorney Barney said that was correct . Mrs . Joan Horn of 108 Juniper Drive inquired what group enforces the rules and Chairman Aron responded that Mr . Frost , the zoning enforcement officer , was in charge of this and assured Mrs . Horn that he did his job well . Mr . Horn said that when he had made a complaint Mr . Frost had indeed checked it out . Chairman Aron said that there would be compliance and Attorney Barney said that the Town of Ithaca had been into court twice in the last two or three months on criminal violations where people have not complied . Mr . Li asked Attorney Barney why Attorney Barney did not represent the people of the Town of Ithaca since they paid his salary . Attorney Barney responded that he was paid by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca to represent the Town . • Chairman Aron assured the public that Mr . Frost wasoin to g g hire an assistant soon and the enforcement policies would be thus strengthened . Several of the neighbors thanked the Board for a well - run meeting and Chairman Aron thanked the neighbors for their cooperation also . The public hearing was closed . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Beatrice Lincoln Recording Secretary APPROVED .0 r i Henry Aron , Chairman • Exhibits 1 through 3 attached ,.7 ; (, 7Co7 O4itC� aZ�r M . 6?� " 5 �FY " QCAi � 07. 7 5 ' 3gl-f7 t ( 4 6 . �- � nya�eA N o r �g S a fx r is t LT ( CO ��fs �R E- 7S3t`S 10� C QoLA lZK COS K - QArt 61•sAL CA B,Z� AFT t )ATIC73AL. el B' LF, UL \ T glcftws S( c- - © �T GA c--t SAY A T2A � Tb� �- D &U v�24) Q F Q-A9 � fAeki Mc�tiji S5ET E122QEC. gC�A SCL QA gLC . !q (04 ; Nv:�wa*l t� S � 1976 % 5 ; ! NICNIo& Q$C3s ii �1�� t 6•� 56 I.A n ci*.� ?".Sa ' " M t Th Is Rowm� Q'mAGE, of PART ..EnvronmentalAssessment___Rumsey_ApP.pea A . Action is Unlisted. . B . Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins County Planning Dept . - N . Y . S . G . M . L 239 - m ) , C . Could action .result _ in any effects on , to or arising_from_thie dowing_ Cl . ..Existina air_quality �_ surface or_groundwater - quality-or_guantitv , _noise levels , existing_traffic patterns solid waste Production or dA �- salj..PotentiAl ft erosion ,.-.drainage or floodin _prob .lems ? The level of use proposed would not represent any significant adverse ° impact to traffic patterns or any significant conflict with Park traffic , provided that - traffic control signage is strictly obeyed . No significant adverse impacts are expected with respect to the other factors listed . above , provided that a site plan showing proposed site improvements ( regrading at south end of building , new parking areas , proposed dumpster location , proposed screening ) is submitted and approved . h ' i- oric. ether natural or cultural resouiz.Q _Qrs��3MtY�� ' neiahborho,od_ char- anter?. _ _ The visual and aesthetic impact of the building and site , with respect to the proximity of the site to Buttermilk Falls State Park , is the chief area of impact . The site is not similar either to the character of the park or to the character of the adjacent bed and breakfast . A suitable location for the dumpster that would be placed on sitsfor appro � i ,;,atciy d 1 / 42' years , for.- old cable , needs to be determined . The dumpster should be screened- with fencing and / or landscaping .'' Parking on the east side of the building should be ^ limited . It is preferred that parking and utility areas be located on the west side of the building as much as possible , and that buffer plantings should be installed , to minimize impact on the character of the park . C13___Y ? ge_t. atic; n _or_fauna , fish_silallfish oriwildlife specticant _h.�bitatsy_or_trreatened _or_endangered � ; No signiy' icant 2) 'D cies or habitats exist on the site t 'riat would be impacted . C_4____A_communt stin lari .� oroals as y - -- - -- s tin 9-p-=--------g------ � adci tr i �_OY _C ?1 Iige' _ 1T1 _i.4se• or intensit'r 04z use v ; n.d cr _ . .. . _r _natu .ral _ _r -- - rv — - — �. U The: build ;. ng .has- had va .ricus ustz and clearly not a . S 11 ablr for k - 3o permitted use .:, . US e• of the building by Lvatl. ona ?. a .F",' le Craft as proposed would be a less intensive use with respect to traffic than the previous Karate school . :'urs . ; an ; to Section 55 of the Zoning Ordinance , the .=authorization of the currently proposed use , wh .;. ch is light industrial , would mean that no business use would be allowed in the future . Because of the isolated , low - visibility location of t3he site , business use is riot effect- ive . No significant adverse impact with respect to community plans and goals , or to land ' use intensity is expected , provided that the Zoning Board of Appeals finds grounds for the appeal . _Growtny_subseggent _dev_elopmerit , gr_related activitlea_likelYty. be..jaduqed by the proposcd_act, ion ? Not expected provided that any future change in use of the building is made subject to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals . __L►s�ze.rm, aharttorm s..a amulative .� or othar effacta_not _identified in C1 - 05 ? Not expected . C7y--Qther imPaeta Uaalud.nachanges in use of_ei er guantity or_typa_of enaravZ? Not expected . ,. • . _ _ I? . __ Is there , or is thexdlah�y to be , cg troversy related tk?_P�2tantiai_adyerse 'env_ironmgntadjrUpa cte? No controversy is expected at this time . A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended , provided that 1 , a site plan by an architect or engineer is submitted for approval' by the Town Engineer and 'Down Planner showing proposed improvements to the south end of the building , proposed parking areas , with a minimum amount of parking on the east 'side of the building , the location of the dumpster , fencing around the dumpster , and buffer plantings to adequately screen the site from the park . 2 . the Zoning Board of Appeals finds sufficient grounds for appeal . Lead Agency : Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner Review Date : March 9 , 1988 • I .f March 1 , 1988 Board of Zoning Appeals Town Of Ithaca 1 haca , N . Y . , 14850 On behalf of the man irate neighbors who signed the attached y 9 9 petition to the PLanning Board , we are writing regarding the proposed ° development " called Klondike Manor. We vigorously object to the granting of any variances because : 1 ) The subdivision plan submitted by Mr. Orlando lacouelli does not meet the minimum requirements of Article 1 , Section 5, No . 1 . 2 ) If variances were to be granted , the total 16 lots , together with the intended construction of duplex dwellings on each lot , would • substantially and unnecessarily increase the population density compared with that of the rest of this 815 residential neighborhood comprised of single - family , owner- occupied homes . 3 ) It is illogical and wrong for him to claim that the relocation of the road from Rlternatiue 1 was an imposed hardship because that scheme was also improper and would have required several variances as well . 4) Mr. lacouelli has„ already been found in violation of the Zoning Ordinance for the only existing structure on the property in question . We see no practical difficulties faced by Mr. lacouelli . The potential problems with two tiers of lots of required depth and with a complicated access road must have been evident when he purchased the properties. His difficulties can in no way be considered a hardship . It is he who draws the arbitrary subdivision lines to increase the density to his benefit . The nearby residents have the right to assume that the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations of the Town 1 will be upheld . The deueloper does not haue the right to create and then claim hardship by an unrealistic desire to plan a subdivision which clearly deviates from regulations in so many respects . Seueral of our neighbors will speak at the hearing to elaborate upon these and other points in an organized and coordinated manner, Let us mention the following specific objections , 1 ) Lot No . 8 on Coddington Road is the one where the euisting structure mentioned preuiously is Iocated . ' Present violations include: a ) Use uiolation (Sec. 11 , No. 3) inuoluing excess number of rental occupants . b ) Parking uiolation and improper use of required front yard for parking ( Sec. 130 Town Law ) . Furthermore , and rather significantly, according to Mr. I acouelli 's proposal, an addition or rebuilding is planned for this inadequate lot . • Thus further aggrouation of the present problems would result . 2 ) Lot No . 7 . The location of the Creek passing through this lot is incorrectly shown on his subdiuision plan . The actual location further to the east will make the placement of a structure and parking on this lot even more difficult ,than presently portrayed . We should note that the Creek seasonally floods and has created problems repeatedly , Furthermore , placement of a 28 by 60 ft . structure on this narrow lot will create substantial hardship to the owners of lots 15 . 8 and 15. 9 on Juniper Driue . 3 ) Lot 6 has a highly irregular shape which will make it eutremely difficult to place a structure and parking area to satisfy the required setbacks . In addition , the bedrock is uery near the surface . That prevented Mr. lacouelli from placing the road in this area . How can he build a house with the required portion underground ? Undoubtedly he would soon ask for additional uariances to build aboue ground and thus with encessiue heights . • 2 loot(, 4) Lot 2. Even though the lot area is 169000 sq . ft . , the usable area is actually only 14, 000 s '. ft. which will not accomodate a du I eK structure and the required parking. In addition to the specific points made concerning these four lots, we wish to raise two additional issues . 1 ) The argument of precedence, made by Mr. lecouelli, relative to lot sizes and shapes in the neighborhood is invalid because . a) No lot in the Juniper Drive, Hickory Place, and Pine Uiew Terrace area vanes from the Zoning Ordinance requirements to the eHtent that lots No. 6 , 7 and would . b) Just as significantly , none of the existing lots posed a hardship 11 to any existing housing at the time of their approval many years ago . The variances requested do ! • c ) The fact is that the lots sizes are si nifican g tly larger in the Juniper/Hickory / Pine Uiew area than 15 , 000 sqe ft . , the smallest lot is 16 , 675 sq . ft . , the largest is 60 , 000 , and . the RUERRGE is about 21 , 000 sq . ft . 2 ) The site in question lends itself very poorly to the requested variances if the legitimate interests of ad joinig property owners are to be protected. for example : the Environmental Assessment , prepared by the developer, describes the site as 67 % poorly drained , with depth to bedrock 0 to 4 feet , and depth to water table only 0 to 2 ft. The paved road alone (without driveways and large parking areas ) would comprise almost one third of the land area . Much of the site , nearly 90 % of it , has a slope of about 10 % to 15 % . In svmmarg - the site has limitations , as all sites do . However, the developer should be required to work reasonably within those limitations and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance , 1 3 The proposed configuration of the lots , with their variances , enacerbate the limitations of the site and magnify the negative impacts on the eHisting neighborhood. It is bad policy to TIGNSFER ■enesu i P or difficulty to an already developed residential area. We are asking you to deny this package of variances so that the overall plan will be modified and improved . As presented , this is a plan for which other requirements have ALREADY been waived and which now needs all these variances in addition. We do not believe that the necessary requirements under the law have been met to justify such a wide divergence from the laws and regulations of the Town, upon which we , as longtime residents , rely for the protection of our PROPERTY URLUES , the CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD and our health and safety (Section 77 , No . 7 ) . Please note in our petition that Mr. lacovelli stated at a neighborhood meeting , where we tried to reason with him, thathe plans to build 32 rental units with bou-like structures similar to the student rentals at 315 Coddington Rd . . The density , the type of structure , the numbers of cars that would be sitting in huge parking areas and traveling up and down the steep • grade is a substantial deviation from the present peaceful community . The proposed development would be ° detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts to devaluate neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants ° ( Section 77 , No . 7d . ) The Town Planning Board has shifted the burden of subdivision approval from themselves to the Board of Zoning Rppeals by giving preliminary subdivision approval SUBJECT to the granting of numerous variances. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Rppeais has the final responsibilty regarding the proposed subdivision . ` 1 Sincere ) r ` y u s , EL j lc e Tom- % -z u c. x�" --�'`''� It'd gVyii �'.o 'r !)r. January 25, 1988 To Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board: 4 I First and foremost, we ask the Board to protect the character of our 4 ; k 1 aiw neighborhood, which is: residential , owner-occupied, peaceful , well - { maintained, and cohesive. The proposed subdivision on Coddington Road at Juniper Drive would destroy this character because it would: ( 1 ) concentrate lr as many as 128 adults, probably all college students with irregular hours, increased noise levels, and general disregard for neighborhood values, ( 2 ) a. place up to 128 cars using a closed and sloping street with the associated `5 A „ noise at all hours of the night. ..;; S To illustrate the strong feelings of our neighborhood, a few years ago xA two small houses were hastily erected on our dead- end street and filled with students. We had to endure unending parties, noise, drag- racing rt mowed- down mailboxes ), and the like. Under steady pressure from the nearby families, the problem was resolved as the houses became owner- occupied. Also, we tried to purchase the land just north of Juniper Drive from the two previous owners to have it as a buffer zone and a forever green > parcel . (We are still interested in purchasing that piece of land. ) " q r, Within the last year, two families moved into our area: one from above the Coddington restaurant , the other from Kendall Avenue when houses next : door from each were filled by student renters. They bought houses on Juniper Drive just after house prices jumped and are now faced again with the prospect of the same hardships and severe loss of property values. We sincerely thank the Board for the understanding and support shown j at our last meeting. We are united in urging the Board to do whatever is in your power to protect our neighborhood. s 7ui • r N h :� nom: Y /'a �1• • it ;f .Y To members of the Planning Board f; K ' We ask the Board to halt a further deterioration of the : residential character of Pennsylvania Ave . Five years ago we lived a relatively quiet street with slow moving cars Today It is a street where instead of the few cars we have now many ' student cars racing up and down the street with speeds up to 60 v , miles per hour . yr We respect the right of development of the owners of the land at k< Coddington Road and Pennsylvania Ave with family housing . e K. However , student housing with possibly an additional concentration of the 128 adults with as many cars , and noise at odd hours of the night , will mean the last straw for the many long time residents of the street . F , Additional student housing will certainly mean a loss ofr . property t � value . However , the anguish that will be felt by the long time resident ( some of whom have lived more than SO years in the same • street ) as a result of increased noise , .traffic and crime is even more disastrous than foss of property value . Student housing development has never been required and is still not required to build sidewalks for Pedestrians , This has led to several near misses of children walking to school with the fast ' moving cars . The addition of student housing will make the traffic density even greater . During some nights walking is impossible . For example , last year during Halloween , it was so dangerous that we had to go to a different neighborhood ( with sidewalks ) for trick or treating . We sincerely thank the Board for supportl .= shown at the last meeting in helping us stopping the rapid increase in student population , i� lY s , NAME ADDRESS ' irk, ekL to ho J *A. -ICL victJ Tud /14eL / 7-114e4 00 r - - op � - , NAME ADDRESS Cy cl t T 'Idl /'�. i OSI Oe 7 (,- dj .... . . . .... -v� V� , 10 oe coc e ye _ I NAME ADDRESS _ D9ILJE 6 nr (,C L Vt. . :. _ ti ' ; w�� . .. ter''. / (,•, - - CL • Or f _ 311 ADDRESS NAME - OO(70�� c \ \ _ _ Jam` I / Or Ott _ �.. I = 1 1. � (�/ ^/j •�L .� � J 1�� �� � " i -1 �'1 .tel' ` y WO ' - Lam_ CL 1 r 1 . 4�. JJ"" 5(//4 f 00000 L 1 - ,\ o' . 121, r - ) NO 1. ' 1 `� ` t ^ ` ` .L - . ` /L d �`f� � i . . Of f 1 ��►,v, ve ArrlDAV117 Of KMLJCATION w • TOWN OF IA ZONING O BOARD OF APPEALS � THE IJOURNAL AGENDA AND NOTICE OF PUB- LIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1988, 7:00 P. M. ' . By direction of the Chairmci .. Ftir atQy� of the Zoning Board of Ap- ' j —T C=113% I Selz peals NOTICE IS HEREBY ( - GIVEN that. Public Hearings, as 7 appropriate , will be held by , " ' • •-• g duh. sworn, deposes the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on and M , Wednesday, February 10;;% that be reesu des in Ithaca, County and state aforesaid and 1988, in Town Hall , , 126 East , � Seneca Street, (FIRST Fiooi, :. REAR Entrance, WEST Side ),' . &&the is , clerk Ithaca, N. Y. , COMMENCING ; - ....'_....»..._•'»'.»'_."».--•..-»_.-- ..»... ....._ ......_.._..,• AT 7 :00 P. M. , on the following. matters. of 171MITBAG JOL*lLKAL l bL1C xKW ADJOURNED APPEALS (From` per printed and publizhed =ebruary 10, 1988) of Arthur. . ! .i. and Mary A. Yaple, Appel'- - f In 1th:CCi � aDd ants, from the decision of the ; that a DOtice, of whicb the annexed is a true Building Inspector/Zoning En- `I forcement Officer denying al building permit for the con=' ) Copy, vas published in said papa »,»„ .,!_� ,... w•.. • struction of a two-car garage, ' -.-..... . with a master bedroom and both as a second story, pro- 1 posed to be attached to the ..r.-.....�...........»�..«.._ ....».._._........ ..................»..»..........»... north side of an existing single family residence located of l 151 Pine Tree Road, Town of »._.._.. .... ...... ..».�..-•----•. _..�._..-•-•--••. _ Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1 - •�- 35, Residence District R- 15. ' ' / The proposed addition would and that the first publication of said notice was on the create a north side yard of nine \J feet, fifteen feet being nrequired. Permit is denied uday . Of _�,,.,_•"-„ � der Article IV, Section 14, of . : • •-••• 19 the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or- dinance. • �-e� J APPEAL of Margaret M. Rum- .�_....... Sey, Appellant, requesting au-thorization from the Zoning Subscribed � Board of Appeals for the ex- and VOID tD b�{OTe me ��ii � tension of a legal non-con- ' this ” •-••• ••-•-- -• _ day forming use from a more re- l ofQ17 • strictive use to a less restrictive use, loacted at 116 East Butter- milk Falls Road, Town of Itho= ca Tax Parcel No. 6-38- 1 -3, Residence District R-30. The ,,,,__„•, proposed use is to be known . '•• -"""""" as "National Cable Craft”, a , ZAN FCRom) Notxy public, television cable system serv- ice center. The existing build- Notary . Nota Publicr �ti; t@ OF E r ' ." � York _ _ - _ ing was most recenny used tor' � street for said sub iv s on;.a ' a karate instruction school. NO. 405441C further; with said lot number 8 The request for authorization J ^ ' proposed to have a north side " is made under Article XII, Sec-' Qualified in Tom kir: : _ _ . y Yard of 7 plus or minus feet .` tions 54 and 55, of the Town of p from said re-existing dwell= ' I Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. L1MmI.S.Snn, expires �ti�t '=j .�� �'9' OJ� ing to the right of way line of ; ! APPEAL of Orlando and Ralph said new street. . ' locovelli , Appellants, request= The Town Zoning Enforcement: : ing area variance from the re= Officerrequests a , determin- quirements of Article IV, Sec- ation by the Zoning Board' of, tions 14 and 16, of the Town of Appeals as to the need foi. va- Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for t riance on proposed% lot num=l certain lots proposed as port bet 3 with frontage "6tthe ' of the "Klondike Manor" sub- ',;] street right.of way proposed at_, division on Coddington Road, 88 plus or minus feet,. hove'v- ' northwest of Juniper Drive, er, 'with frontage 'at, the pro=, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcets No. posed front .yard setback :of,,� 6-53- 1 - 17. 1 , - 17:2, -5, and -10, 105 plus or minus feet; on pro- - Residence District R- 15, grant: :; posed lot number 4 with front-' ! ed Preliminary Subdivision age at the street right of way ? Approval by the Town of ltho- ..= ,l proposed at 72 plus or minus ca Planning Board, with cer- •_ feet, however, with frontage tain conditions, on February 2, 1 at the proposed front 'yard sett ; 1988. Said proposed lots, ' back of 100 feet;-and, . on'pio- ,, numbered 2, 6, 7, and 8, ore posed lot number 9 with ':a in excess of 15, 000 square feet . southwesterly side lot depth of. in area, however, have di- 100 plus or' minu's feet:' :,;; ;s;;ir`.,, mensions proposed as fol- L . Said Zoning Board of Appeals ° lows: 4 will at said time, 7:00 p. m:; Lot 2 -- westerly side lot depth and said place, hear all per- of 110 plus or minus feet; It sons in support of such matters . Lot 6 -- easterly side lot depth T or objections thereto, as ap- ' of 100 plus or minus feet; S propriate. Persons may op- j Lot 7 -- easterly side lot depth - pear by agent or in person. , of 110 Plus or minus feet, and P Andrew S. Frost : westerly side !at depth of 90 It Building Inspector/Zoning En- ; plus or minus feet; n forcemeat Officer Lor 8 -- containing a pre-exist- Town of Ithaca ing dwelling , with frontage at t 273- 1747 the street right of way on Cod- March 4, 1988 1P. dington Road proposed at 63 plus or minus feet, however, — ;r^nt„ ., t .tie .,..,.,~. A 1