HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1988-06-15 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date
TOWN OF ITHACA
• Clerk
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
June 15 , 1988
A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on June 15 , 1988 at the Ithaca Town Hall , 126
East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York .
PRESENT . Vice - Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Joan
Reuning , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , and Town Attorney John
C . Barney .
ALSO PRESENT : Orlando Iacovelli , Karl J . Mount , Sandra J .
Ginsberg , William S . Tyler , John Whitcomb , Howard G . Andrus , Bob
Hines , Christina C . Wu , Vida U . Caslick , Pat Casler , Virginia
Lance , Dick Lance , Kinga M . . Gergely , Robert Cotts , Barbara Cotts ,
Rocco Lucente , Robert P Rhinehart , John Vicks , Robert G . Hickes ,
Jon Shaff , K . C . Bennett , Gordon P . Fisher , M . Ann Fisher , Barb
Bidell , Randy Brown , Larry Fabbroni , Jerry Stedinger , George
Casler , Peter Francese , ,' Celia Bowers , John Bowers , Ted Bosworth , .
Paul Bennett , Charles Guttman .
The public meeting opened at 7 : 00 p . m .
Vice - Chairman Austen announced that the Iacovelli appeal
would not be heard that" night and would be adjourned to refer the
matter to the Planning Board .
Vice - Chairman Austen 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 :
APPEAL of Tompkins Community Management Services , Appellant ,
Bonnie H . Howell , President , Karl Mount , Agent , requesting
Special Approval under Article V , Section 18 , Paragraphs 10
and 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the
proposed construction of additional space to be used for
radiation therapy services at the existing Medical Office
Building located ° at 201 Dates Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 41 , Residence District R- 30 .
Karl Mount , Agent for Tompkins Community Management Services
addressed the Board . ' He explained that their proposal concerned
a radiation therapy department , a service that they had
anticipated when the medical office building was built . He
2
• continued that Therapy Associates proposed to provide radiation
services in Ithaca by building an addition for this purpose onto
the medical office building of about 933 square feet . The
addition , he said , would be a vault area surrounded by concrete
approximately 2 feet thick to prevent any leakage in the
treatment area . Mr . Mount stated that by having this service
locally it would save patients time and also ambulance costs of
$ 250 . 00 to $ 500 . 00 for an hour ' s ride to an out of town location ,
and would also compliment the hospital and its oncology staff .
The number of patients affected , he stated , initially , would be a
minimum of 520 yearly . Mr . Mount stated the addition would be
just north of the present medical office building . At this point
Mr . Mount presented a sketch to the Board which detailed where
the addition would be and mentioned that it would be exactly 93
feet from the property line shared with the County and another 50
feet to the County buildings . Mr . Mount said that according to
the present leasing they have approximately 50 parking spaces per
office and if they were filled up in their leasing there would be
available approximately 10 spaces for patients . Mr . Mount stated
that the sketch showedelevations and continued that the outside
of the building would be " dryvit " , a concrete material which had .
insulation value and ' would match the present building ; the
roofing would be the same type as the present building ; and the
roof would be below the second level windows so it would not
block any views . Mr . Mount stated that one important aspect of
• the building construction of the vault would be the preventage of
leakage and meeting the standards of the Health Department below
and above the building .
Vice - Chairman Austen inquired if parking spaces were being
added to the present ones and Mr . Mount responded that they were
not , that there were already 123 parking spaces in front of the
building for patients ' and 120 spaces behind the building for
staff , and the total beyond that at the hospital was some 500
spaces for visitors and patients .
Joan Reuning inquired how many employees would be working
for this project and Mr . Mount responded that it would be a small
number , a doctor , a professional staff and some support staff
totaling 4 or 5 employees .
Edward King asked Mr . Mount to show him on the sketch
exactly where the addition would be and it was determined that
the building at its ' closest point would be 93 feet to the
property line and in addition to that another 50 feet to the
County office buildings . Mr . King pointed out to the Board that
Section 18 , subdivision 10 states that no building used as a
hospital shall be within 100 feet from any street or within 150
feet of the lot line of any adjoining owner and this would appear
to be a problem if indeed this adjoined the old hospital building
• which was not used as a part of the hospital or medical facility .
In this event , Mr . King stated , this addition would be about 57
3
• feet short of the required distance from the property line .
Mr . Frost interjected that paragraph 10 referred to a
hospital use and this was not a hospital use .
Mr . King inquired if this was not considered a hospital use
and Mr . Mount responded that it was not , that the Tompkins
Community Management Services provided the management and the
lease of the medical office building and what they were actually
doing here was leasing offices to Therapy Associates who would be
building the vault which would not be a part of the hospital .
Mr . King inquired if there would be patients staying in this
facility and Mr . Mount responded there would not be , that it '
would be strictly out -patient treatment with an occasional in-
patient treatment that they would move through the hallways and
back but they would not stay there .
Mr . King wondered if Mr . Frank Ligouri had been notified of
this proposal and it was determined that a notice had been sent
to him .
Mr . King inquired what the time frame of construction was
and Mr . Mount responded they would like to have it completed in
three to four months .
• The public hearing was opened . No one appeared and the
public hearing was closed .
Vice - Chairman Austen declared the Zoning Board of Appeals
the lead agency for the environmental review in this matter .
The Board reviewed the environmental assessment form
submitted by Assistant Town Planner George R . Frantz , entitled
" PART III - Environmental Assessment - Proposed Radiation Therapy
Suite , Tompkins Community Hospital " dated June 10 , 1988 , a 'copy
of which document is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1 .
A motion was made by Edward King as follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board finds a negative determination of
environmental impact .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows
Aye - Reuning , Austen , King
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
• Mr . Frost asked if this operation was permitted by the State
4
• Health Department and Mr . Mount responded that it was permitted
by the State Health Department as an independent private
contractor . Mr . Frost asked if they were actually issuing an
operating permit and Mr . Mount conferred with Mr . Rhinehart of
Therapy Associates who confirmed that the State Health Department
would inspect the facilities to make sure that they were
appropriate according to State Health Department standards but
they would not do a certificate of need which was a process that
the hospital went through for certain health services . Mr . Frost
asked again if they were actually issuing the permit to operate
and Mr . Mount responded',' they were not issuing a permit but would
inspect to make sure the facilities met the appropriate
standards . Mr . Rhinehart said that there were a number of
licenses that had to be obtained from the State Health Department
in order to begin treatment of patients . Mr . Frost asked if the
realm of their licenses dealt with the safety issues of the
radiation and Mr . Rhinehart responded that it did .
Vice - Chairman Austen inquired if this would be a one - story
building and Mr . Mount 'responded it would be a one - story building
with no usable basement .
A motion was made by Edward King as follows :
WHEREAS , there is a need in the community for the radiation
• therapy facility and services that are being proposed by
Therapy Associates , and
WHEREAS , the proposal as presented would be beneficial to
the community and, would not be detrimental to the general
amenity of the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be
located nor would it have any adverse impact on traffic but
indeed might evenbenefit traffic in that patients at the
hospital would not need to be transported long distances for
treatment at such ' a facility ; and
WHEREAS , no one appeared in opposition to the proposal ; it
is therefore
RESOLVED , that this Board grants special approval under the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Section 18 , Subdivision 11
for the construction of this facility , such special approval
being conditioned upon the following :
( a ) the applicants obtaining all necessary permits and
approvals for the construction of this facility in
accordance with state health department requirements as to
the design of the facility ; and
( b ) the applicants obtaining all necessary licenses for
• operation of the facility ,
5
• Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows .
Aye - Reuning , Austen , King
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
The second item on ° the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Tompkins Community Hospital , Appellant , Bonnie H .
Howell , Administrator , Karl Mount , Agent , requesting Special
Approval under Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 10 , of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed
construction of a concrete pad to provide a site for a
portable Magnetic Resonance Imaging Unit adjacent to the
existing Hospital located at 101 Dates Drive , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 .
Mr . Karl Mount , agent for Tompkins Community Hospital ,
addressed the Board . The MRI ( Magnetic Resonance Imaging Unit ) ,
he said , was the latest technology that allowed better images of
soft tissue without shadows . Mr . Mount continued that this would
benefit patients by complimenting catscans and other radiologic
• diagnostic procedures . He continued that the MRI was very
expensive technology and what they were proposing was to . bring in
a mobile unit provided by VHA Diagnostics , in association with
the hospital as a not - for-profit , once a week . He estimated that
there would be approximately 500 patients using this service per
year . Again , he said , there would be a savings in cost to the
patient for traveling to another town as well as being a
convenience for them , and would also benefit the hospital who had
to pay out of the limited reimbursement . Mr . Mount said that
there would not be additional physicians locally added because
the physicians would be out of Syracuse who travel with the unit .
He explained that they would be sharing the service with other
hospitals like Cortland and Geneva as no town as yet has the
volume to require the RMI on a permanent basis . In order to have
this unit , Mr . Mount stated , a concrete pad would be required to
support the vehicle as well as a movable door which would allow
access from the radiology department right into the van and not
make it seem like the patients were leaving the hospital but just
going into another room . Mr . Mount stated that electrical
service and phone hookups would have to be provided . Mr . Mount
explained that there were two locations being considered , one in
the patio off of radiology to enable the same staff to be used
and also make it convenient to the radiology area . The
alternative position was outside of the same porch on the
northwest corner and outside of rehabilitation , the wellness
• area . Mr . Mount said that the reason they were being so frugal
was that this was going to be a break even situation for the
6
hospital just so the services could be provided .
Photographs taken by Mr . Frost were reviewed to indicate the
locations in question . Mr . Mount explained that there were pros
and cons to each location and after further consideration they
would decide on which location was the most advantageous .
Mr . Mount stated that the back part of the pad would be 8
feet 6 inches by 10 feet , and the front part would be 2 feet by
10 feet with two concrete runners for the wheels to run down the
pad .
Mr . Frost asked what the distance would be from the concrete
pad to the northwesterly line going to the old County hospital
and Mr . Mount responded ° that it would be approximately 400 feet .
Attorney Barney inquried who owned the medical office
building and Mr . Mount responded that it was owned by a group of
investors , some of whom were doctors and some of whom were not .
Attorney Barney inquired if the land it sat on was owned by the
County and Mr . Mount answered that the land the medical office
building sat on was leased by the hospital to the corporation by
a 99 year lease and the County did not own any of this land .
Vice - Chairman Austen asked if this unit would be part of the
hospital and not like the radiation unit and Mr . Mount responded
that was correct , that they had to go through a certificate of
need for approval for planning and health services locally in the
southern region and central New York and they had all been
approved at this point and the other hospitals had to go ' through
this procedure as well . He said that they were awaiting approval
from the State Health Department before commencing in August .
Joan Reuning asked when the vehicle was not there what would it
look like and Mr . Mount said he envisioned it like an airplane
loading door that would pull back when the unit was not there .
Joan Reuning asked how people got from the hospital to the
mobile unit and Mr . Mount responded there would be a covered
hallway that would lead to it in either location .
The meeting was opened to the public .
Mr . Peter Francese of 501 Warren Road , Ithaca , New York ,
felt the machine was a ° fabulous advance in medical technology and
would benefit the community greatly and fully approved of the
proposal .
The public hearing was closed .
Vice - Chairman Austen declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as
• the lead agency as to the environmental review in this matter .
7
The Board reviewed the recommendation of Assistant Town
Planner George R . Frantz , entitled " PART III - Environmental
Assessment - Proposed Magnetic Resonance Imaging Unit , Tompkins
County Hospital " , dated June 10 , 1988 . A copy of such document
is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 .
A motion was made by Edward King as follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board finds a negative declaration of
environmental significance .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Reuning , Austen , King
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
Attorney Barney stated that in reviewing the ordinance and
in view of the 99 year lease he wondered if it would not be
appropriate to include in any motion a variance for the
requirement that the facility be located more than 150 feet from
the lot line of an adjoining owner . He was not sure whether a 99
• year lease was tantamount to a conveyance but he thought it was
pretty close and a variance might remove any questions raised in
the future . He continued that he was not sure both sites would
be a problem but the one site clearly would be because it was not
too far from the professional building . Attorney Barney
continued that the property had been leased for 99 years and in
some jurisdictions that was close to an outright conveyance and
certainly was not typical of a two or three year lease where the
ownership remains .
Mr . Frost said that they were separate tax parcels between
the professional building and the hospital . Mr . King said there
was no separation between the hospital building and the
professional office building . Attorney Barney said they were
separately financed and clearly the building was an investment
independent of the hospital itself . Attorney Barney stated that
Of it were the Board ' s decision to grant the special approval
that it might be wise to include a variance from the requirement
that the hospital facility be located more than 150 feet from the
lot line of an adjoining owner because he thought someone could
logically argue that a 99 year lease had created an adjoining
owner that was different from the hospital group .
It was moved by Edward King as follows :
• WHEREAS , this Board finds that the proposed construction of
the pad for the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Unit adjacent to
8
• the existing hospital building in one of the two sites
proposed would promote the health and safety of the
community ; and
WHEREAS , this proposal would provide a necessary service to
the community ; and
WHEREAS , this proposal would not adversely impact upon any
structure other than possibly the medical office building
which is also adjacent to the hospital , the proposed
facility appearing to be possibly located within 150 feet of
the medical office building and even though it is not
separately owned is on a long-term lease by the hospital to
the medical officebuilding corporation ; and
WHEREAS , the physicians in both the hospital and the medical
office building will likely find the proposed MRI a valuable
diagnostic tool for them and their patients , and
WHEREAS , over sixty local physicians were in favor of the
project and indeed some of the physicians were present at
the meeting ; and
WHEREAS , no one appeared in opposition to this proposal , it
is therefore
• RESOLVED , this Board grants special approval under Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Section 18 , Subdivision 10 , for the
construction of a pad for an MRI unit , and further grants a
variance from the requirement that the hospital facility be
located more than 150 feet from the lot line of an adjoining
owner .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - King , Austen , Reuning
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
The third item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Rocco P . Lucente , Appellant , requesting variance
of Article IV , Section 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , and Section 280 - a of New York State Town Law ,
with respect to the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 71 - 1 - 34 , known as 506 Warren Road ,
Residence District R- 15 , into three lots , two of which will
• not have road frontage on a public roadway .
9
• Mr . Lawrence Fabbroni appeared before the Board on behalf of
Rocco P . Lucente . He posted several sketches of the proposed
subdivision for the Board to review . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
they had applied for a variance to have two lots on a private
lane in an area to the ; rear of 506 Warren Road . Mr . Fabbroni
said they had been to the Planning Board and gave a brief history
of the property as follows :
( a ) The lots along Warren Road were subdivided in the late
1950s with a 53 foot lane that at the time was envisioned to
possibly be the future access to the land to the west .
( b ) Subsequently , Christopher Circle was built in access to
the land to the west .
( c ) At the time Christopher Circle was subdivided the lands
to the rear of Lot 9 of that subdivision were reserved for future
use by using that 53 foot lane . There was nothing formally
approved at that time . This information was given by way of
history .
Mr . Fabbroni said that what they would like to do at this
point was subdivide the land in question substantially into three
parcels , one with the present house that fronts on Warren Road
and two ( Lots 2 and 3 ) to the rear fronting on the private lane .
• He said that the reason they would like to have these lots on a
private lane was that to subdivide into a traditional subdivision
would mean building a 250 foot cul -de - sac . Mr . Fabbroni
continued that rather than have a traditional subdivision they
would like a variance that would allow a combined access strip to
the three properties . Mr . Fabbroni offered pictures to the Board
to review of the subject premises . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out
there were substantial hedgerows 10 to 15 feet high . He stated
that the closest house to all of these lots existed on the parcel
that fronted on Christopher Lane . Mr . Fabbroni stated that to
build a full - fledged road , 20 feet wide with four feet shoulders
with ditches , essentially would necessitate removal of most of
the vegetation on both , sides of the driveway . Mr . Fabbroni stated
that the Longo house to the north would have the most exposure .
He further pointed out that directly across from 506 Warren Road
on the other side of the road there exists a similar lane
condition which lane is 25 feet wide going back to two homes that
do not front on Warren , Road .
Mr . Fabbroni told the Board they proposed to subdivide the
lots into a minimum of 18 , 000 square foot lots and that they
substantially would be close to where there was a sewer . He said
that in comparison to the other lots in the area these proposed
lots would be about 3 , 000 square feet larger than the minimum
size required in the neighborhood and would fit in to the profile
• of the area .
10
• Mr . Fabbroni stated that the factors to consider here were :
( a ) The mature landscaping for the existing driveway would
have to be removed for a standard subdivision ;
( b ) A driveway already exists around to the back of the
house so it really involves only an addition of 30 or 40 feet ,
( c ) There are mature hedgerows around the entire property
with a little break in the hedgerow where the sewer comes
through , this lot line is open but it has roughly 8 or 9 , 40 to
50 foot trees lining that property line . They are approximately
5 feet in from the property line .
( d ) The sewer was put in subsequent to all this subdivision
so that was the reason why these lots were as large as they were
initially because they were built without sewer in the first
place .
( e ) There is a similar situation directly across the street
from the subject property .
Mr . King inquired what the width of the driveway was and Mr .
Fabbroni responded the driveway was presently 12 - 1/ 2 feet wide
and up to a point it could be widened without getting into that
• landscaping to 16 feet or so . Mr . King inquired if it was a
macadam drive and Mr . Fabbroni responded it was blacktopped .
Mr . Austen wondered if this would be handled by an easement
and Mr . Fabbroni responded they had a common access easement .
The public hearing was opened .
Mr . Gordon Fisher of 418 Warren Road , Ithaca , New York , the
owner of property abutting the Lucente property on the south
addressed the Board . Mr . Fisher read from a letter to the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca from residents of
properties adjacent to and neighboring 506 Warren Road . A copy
of such document is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 .
Mr . Fisher said their original effort was to try and block
the subdivision and being unsuccessful in that it was now their
attempt to try and minimize the impact of the subdivision as much
as possible so that it would not be injurious to the character of
the neighborhood . With respect to drainage of storm water he
stated the creek between the Lucente property and other
properties flows full ' during rainstorms and spring runoff spills
over the banks and sometimes floods his backyard . He continued
that any inattention to drainage problems that would dump more
water into that creek would be intolerable . He also stated that
• in regard to the mature hedgerows Mr . Fabbroni spoke of
screening , he invited the Board to go up and take a look at them .
11
• Mr . Fisher said that these hedgerows were a combination of
brambles , some old honeysuckle vines , and some overage trees , all
of which are being undercut by the heavy flow in this little
creek and falling into the stream . He continued that Mr . Lucente
had cleaned up most of that on his side but the rest of the
neighbors maintain what is there to give themselves some
screening but it was rather unsuccessful . Mr . Fisher felt these
were more than mature hedgerows and certainly don ' t provide the
kind of screening that Mr . Fabbroni indicated .
Mrs . Gordon Fisher of the same address addressed the Board .
She stated it - was her understanding that the height of the
buildings , according to the zoning regulations , can be as high as
30 feet and all the houses on her side of the road which was
adjacent to Mr . Lucente ' s , were basically one - story houses with
an attic . She hoped that the 30 feet would be from the present
ground level and not on an artificial hill and wondered if there
was anything the Board could do about restrictions in this
regard .
The public hearing was closed .
Vice - Chairman Austen asked Mr . Fabbroni for some input as to
the creek . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the creek was the property
line and the deeds read to the center of the creek . He stated
• that drainage on lot 2 would be controlled by swale . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that the two empty lots have been vegetated and
the grass mowed .
Mr . King inquired if they knew where the houses would be
sited on the lots and Mr . Fabbroni asked Mr . Lucente to respond
to this . Mr . Lucente stated that there would be a two - story
house on each lot and would be approximately 25 or 26 feet in
height . Mr . King said there had been a general indication that
the houses in the area were mostly one - story houses . Mr . Lucente
said that there were also some two - story houses across the
street . Mr . Lucente continued that to build today ' s size homes
all on one floor would necessitate cutting down more trees .
Mr . King said that what the Board was being asked to approve
was a private lane to access to these two lots ( 2 and 3 now Lot 1
having an existing house on it and fronting Warren Road ) that
would not front on a public street , and it seemed to him it might
be important to know where the houses would be sitting in
reference to that lane because that would provide the only access
for fire control services to those houses . Mr . King said it
appeared Mr . Lucente was proposing an extension of the roadway
some 48 feet directly behind Lot 3 . He also stated it appeared
there were many possibilities but they would have to comply with
the yard requirements for the R15 zone to have the set back from
• the adjacent lot lines . Mr . King asked if he was correct in
assuming that no specific plans had been formulated at this time
12
• but that the houses would be accessible by private driveway
leading from the proposed common right of way . Mr . Lucente
responded that was correct .
Joan Reuning asked what the distance was between the house
on Lot 1 and the driveway as it was presently and how much closer
was that going to bring the lot line in if the driveway from the
house were expanded . Mr . Fabbroni answered that the driveway was
approximately 40 feet from the side of the house and if it was
enlarged from 12 - 1/ 2 feet to 16 feet it would be a couple of
feet closer . Pictures of the area were reviewed again .
Mr . Austen stated that he was sure everyone was aware of the
restrictions in an R15 zone which allow single family residences
or two family residences with the second unit being no more than
50 % of the main dwelling unit .
Attorney Barney inquired if there was any objection to the
houses on Lots 2 and 3 being single family dwellings and Mr .
Fabbroni responded there was not . Attorney Barney inquired if
Mr . Lucente would be willing to have some sort of deed
declaration recorded to effect that . Attorney Barney asked if
there was an apartment in the existing house and Mr . Lucente said
it was built so there could easily have been one in it . Mr .
Fabbroni said that the house was roughly 3400 square feet in
size .
The public meeting was reopened .
Pat Casler of 107' Christopher Circle , Ithaca , New York ,
asked how long before a Planning Board meeting did residents have
to be notified . Attorney Barney said the notice was to be
mailed 5 days in advance . Ms . Casler stated she was a real
estate agent and felt that the property values in the
neighborhood would go downhill as a result of this proposal .
Mr . Peter Francese of 501 Warren Road , felt that property
values would go down more if the street went through there as a
public road and a cul -de- sac which was permitted . A minimum
impact , he said , was a private driveway to the two lots with one -
family dwellings . Mr . Francese was concerned that if the Board
denied the variance totally then the appellant could put in a
regular subdivision with a cul -de - sac and the impact would be
much greater .
In going back to Ms . Casler ' s query Attorney Barney
explained that the law does not require notice to adjoining
landowners but was donee by the Town of Ithaca as a courtesy .
Publication of the notice is required , he stated , and must occur
five days prior to the hearing .
•
13
•
Mrs . Fisher asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals could
reinforce what the Planning Board said about limiting these homes
to single family houses . Mr . Barney answered that reasonable
conditions could be imposed .
Howard Andrus of 113 Christopher Circle , Ithaca , New York
was concerned about whether a two - story house meant a basement
plus two stories plus attic space and wondered how big a factor
this was for consideration .
The public hearing was closed .
Mr . King stated that there was nothing in the ordinance that
a house must be limited to one story , but only that it be limited
to 30 feet and he felt that 30 feet would be ample for a
basement , two full floors and an attic .
Vice - Chairman Austen declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as
lead agency in this matter as to the environmental assessment .
The environment assessment review of Susan Beeners was
reviewed . A copy of this document entitled " PART II -
Environmental Assessment - Proposed Lucente Subdivision , Warren
Road " dated May 31 , 1988 and revised June 7 , 1988 , is attached
• hereto as Exhibit 4 .
Vice - Chairman Austen read from a document entitled "Rocco P .
Lucente Three -Lot Subdivision , 506 Warren Road , Planning Board ,
June 7 , 1988 " . A copy of such document is attached hereto as
Exhibit 5 .
Edward King made a motion as to the environmental assessment
as follows :
RESOLVED , that based upon the recommendation of the Town
Planner and based upon the applicant ' s willingness to limit
the occupancy of the new buildings to a single family
structure and to incorporate such limitation into the
subdivision deeds creating the two new lots ( 2 and 3 ) , this
Board finds a negative determination of environmental
significance .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Reuning , King ,` Austen
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
14
• Mr . King said one concern was the width of the pavement ,
that Section280=a states that the Board can approve a variance for
a residential lot not fronting on a public highway but it would
be presumed that there would be adequate access to the highway
and that a minimum of 15 feet was presumptively adequate for that
purpose . He continued that the existing driveway is only 12 - 1/ 2
feet wide toward the westerly end though it might be wider at
Warren Road . Mr . King said that the Town Attorney suggested that
the Board might condition approval , if it were to be approved , on
obtaining a statement from the Chief of the local fire department
expressing his opinion as to the adequacy of that existing
driveway of whatever footage was proposed . Mr . King thought that
approval might be conditional upon the fact that if the fire
chief thought a wider driveway should be put in that it would be
required of the applicant to do so . Mr . Austen asked if it would
be the Village of Cayuga Heights fire department and Mr . Frost
responded it would be .
Mr . King had a concern also about signage as to the private
road and wondered if it were necessary . Attorney Barney said
that physically it could be done but he was not sure whether the
Board had the authority to demand this on a private road .
Mr . King made a motion as follows :
• WHEREAS , this Board concurs with the findings as set forth
in the environmental review report by the Town Planner dated
May 31 , 1988 and revised June 7 , 1988 , and in the resolution
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board dated June 7 , 1988
approving this particular subdivision , and
WHEREAS , based upon the fact the neighborhood association
has now indicated its approval of the requested variance
subject to the conditions imposed by the Planning Board ; it
is therefore
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance to permit the
proposed subdivision along the lines of Map 3 as submitted
which has been called the VARIANCE PREFERRED SUBDIVISION ON
A COMMONLY SHARED RIGHT OF WAY , the right of way being 53
feet wide on the north side of Lots 1 and 3 and extending
westerly 276 feet more or less from the center line of
Warren Road . ( EXH I B I T 6 . )
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS .
( a ) That the developer will prepare subdivision deeds in
which a restriction of the use of Lots 2 and 3 will be
restricted to single family dwelling use only ,
• ( b ) That the deeds be submitted to the Town Attorney for
his approval along with recording fees before a building
15
• permit is issued .
( c ) That the driveway which will provide access will be
acceptable in its present width and condition , that width
being not less than 12 - 1/ 2 feet providing that the applicant
can obtain and submit to the Town Building Inspector a
statement from the Cayuga Heights Fire Department indicating
that such condition and width is adequate , and if the fire
department requires a wider road or different construction
that the applicant agree to comply with that before a
building permit is issued .
( d ) That the subdivided lots will not be improved with
anything but single family residences .
( e ) That the siting of the houses on the lots comply with
all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of
Ithaca .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - King , Austen , Reuning
Nay - None
• The motion was unanimously carried .
The fourth item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Marie L . Brown , Appellant , Randolph F . Brown ,
Agent , requesting a Special Permit , under Article XII ,
Section 56 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and
pursuant to Resolution of the Zoning Board of Appeals of May
13 , 19871p application for such special permit having been
made withinthe time limit established by said Board of
Appeals under said resolution , for the reconstruction of a
barn destroyed by fire , at 1408 Trumansburg Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 1 - 25 . 21 , Residence District R- 15 ,
Charles Guttman , attorney for the applicant , addressed the
Board . He made the following points :
1 . This is an application for a permit to reconstruct a barn
which was destroyed by fire . It was their position that under
Section 56 of the Zoning Ordinance that Mr . Brown was entitled to
such a permit .
2 . They would also request that the Board consider as an
alternative an extension of this non- conforming use . A sketch
• presented to the Board showed the old barn site located very near
to the property line separating the subject parcel from property
16
owned by Mr . and Mrs . Bowers . The old barn was almost a square
shape , approximately 60 feet by 62 feet , a three story structure
of which two stories were used for storage space and
approximately 25 % of the third story was also used for storage
space . It was also a peak area so that the height of the barn
was quite significant .
3 . There were over 8 , 000 square feet of usable storage
space in the barn which was destroyed by fire . The applicant has
considered the location and the size and shape of the barn and
believes that it would be in the interest of both the applicants
and of the surrounding neighbors and the community if the non-
conforming use was extended to alter the shape of the barn and
also the location of the barn . In particular it would be
applicant ' s position that it would be in everyone ' s best
interests , rather than reconstructing a barn which looked exactly
like the old barn that a rectangular barn be built approximately
40 feet by 96 feet and instead of being three stories plus only
being two stories high . That would reduce the usable square
footage from 8 , 370 square feet to 7 , 680 square feet . In terms of
usable square feet they were actually reducing the size of the
barn . They were also significantly reducing the height of the
barn and felt that both of these actions made the new structure a
less impactive and obtrusive structure in the community .
• 4 . Mr . Brown was requesting that he be permitted to rebuild
the barn in an area behind the greenhouse rather than in the old
location . He believed this had quite a lot of beneficial impact
for the applicant , to the neighbors and to the community as a
whole . The test for this would be the matters set forth in
Section 77 ( 7 ) of the Zoning Ordinance . By this section , the
applicant had to show that the health , safety , morals and general
welfare of the community would be enhanced . They believed this
was very much the case and addressed each item in that section as
follows :
( a ) Applicant would have a barn which was smaller in terms
of square footage and more importantly less obtrusive . It
would be significantly lower in height which would make it
less visible and less obtrusive . With the shape and the
curve of Route 96 the barn would be much more visible in the
old location than the new location . The new location was
also located behind the present stand so instead of seeing
two structures in different locations , the stand would
somewhat shield the barn . As far as the neighbors were
concerned the old barn was almost on top of the boundary
line and the new barn would be far away from the boundary
line . Mr . Brown had agreed to put up hedgerows or some type
of shrubbery along that boundary line where the old barn
used to be so that the neighborsview of the new barn and
• the traffic would be shielded by that vegetation and
hedgerow .
17
•
( b ) Mr . Guttman believed the premises would be reasonably
adapted to the proposed use . The premises are agricultural ,
had been Indian Creek Fruit Farm for decades , and was
adjacent to an agricultural district . There would be no
significant change in the proposed use from what it was . It
also fills a neighborhood and community need . Indian Creek
Fruit Farm has been supplying that neighborhood with fresh
produce for decades and would continue to do so .
( c ) The proposed use is consistent with the character of
the district . There has been no change of use proposed .
This area has been used as an orchard and would continue to
be used as an orchard and the barn would continue to be used
for the same purposes .
( d ) The proposed use is not detrimental to the general
neighborhood character . There will be no change from what
had previously been done . This area is not a densely
populated area and this is consistent with the use of the
property .
( e ) and ( f ) There is going to be no change in access with
one point . If the location of the barn is moved from the
old site to the new site they believed this would make
• internal traffic flow much better . There has been a
Department of Transportation study which was submitted to
the Board last year in connection with the greenhouse . The
Department of Transportation looked into the question of
traffic flow under the new proposed location and they
thought this was an excellent traffic flow situation . In
the old location there would be two separate buildings which
would necessitate transportation across to the two buildings
and would make traffic flow a little more complicated . By
having the barn behind the greenhouse that extra traffic
would be eliminated and therefore internal traffic flow and
parking would be eased .
5 . Based on all of these points they believed that it would
be in everyone ' s interest , the applicant , the neighbors and the
community as a whole , to have an extension of the non- conforming
use and have the barn situated in the new proposed site rather
than the old site and also decrease the height of the barn and
change it from square to rectangular so that it fits in with the
other structures that are there .
Mr . Austen inquired if any drawings were available of the
proposed new building , and Mr . Guttman responded they did not at
the present time because they were originally just coming in to
ask for a permit for the structure as it was but considering all
• the factors involved rather than have the Board grant a permit
now for the old structure and then come back in later they felt
18
• it would be a waste of the Board ' s time . Mr . Guttman said they
were perfectly willing to submit to the Board detailed drawings
of exactly what the new structure would look like and would have
no objection to any approval granted by the Board being
conditional upon the Board ' s review of those drawings .
Mr . Guttman felt one other point should be made and that was
that in terms of timing the intention would not be to start
construction until early next Spring so they had no objection to
having conditional approval based upon the Board ' s review of
those drawings .
Mr . King asked why construction would not start until Spring
and Mr . Guttman responded that Mr . Brown was operating this area
as an orchard and was approaching the time when much care needs
to be given to the apples , picking time will be approaching soon ,
and then after that , winter will set in when construction will
not be able to take place . It was Mr . Guttman ' s understanding
that if a permit were granted they would have a year to have
substantial completion .
The public meeting was opened .
Paul Bennett , attorney for John and Celia Bowers , who live
in the property immediately adjacent to that of Mr . Brown ,
addressed the Board . He stated that Mr . and Mrs . Bowers wanted
him to express a number of concerns , based in part on the history
of the development of this parcel , as follows :
1 . It was his understanding that the proposal before
the Board was simply to replace the old barn . There was some
discussion about an alternate proposal to extend a non-
conforming use although he had not seen any notice to that effect
and would not be prepared to talk about that except to say it
would be inappropriate to address that kind of proposal at this
time without giving the public notice of that proposal .
2 . Mr . and Mrs . Bowers had a fear that the replacement
would be an expansion of the non- conforming use that existed
prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance . The old barn was
used for storage and also to press some cider and perhaps for
cooling some cider . The proposal here was to attach this barn to
greenhouses used for sales which would be a different use and an
expansion of any use that existed at the time of the zoning
ordinance , and there was a real concern that this new barn will
also be used to expand sales and to expand the types of services
that Mr . Brown was offering . This concern stems from the history
of the applications made to this Board . A year ago Mr . Brown
proposed to expand a non - conforming use by adding a greenhouse
that was currently there . Litigation overturned the decision of
• this Board granting a variance to allow that greenhouse to be
there . There was some discussion over the procedures that were
19
• undertaken and there was some concern in the opinion of the Court
that there were no sufficient standards articulated by this Board
to justify such a change in use . The addition of the greenhouse
was something that wasn ' t there back when Mr . Brown bought the
property and when the zoning ordinance was enacted . The use
associated with that greenhouse was different from what was
originally there at the time of the enactment of the ordinance .
When Mr . Brown applied for that variance he specifically stated
that he wanted to increase the amount of his sales area , build
cold storage and develop this into a more commercial type venture
than what existed now . l It appears that the plan is not merely to
replace the barn but to replace it with different uses .
3 . The Board should consider whether granting this request
would change what was being offered as services to anyone at that
location , that is , changing this from a pre - existing agricultural
use in which there was a fruit stand and some cider and some
storage to something very different . Mr . Brown has expressed his
plans to be different than what they were .
4 . When this Board ruled on the greenhouse it made a
finding of fact that , the greenhouse was a replacement for the
barn . If the greenhouse was the replacement for the barn , then
the new building could' not be a replacement for the barn as this
• would add something new .
5 . The concern ; is that this venture would turn into a
commercial development " by simply replacing what existed prior to
the time the barn was;' burned down to something very different .
If Mr . Brown seeks to use this barn as proposed , as a replacement
for the old barn , some, specific restrictions should be placed on
the use of that barn , the first being whatever uses are
associated with this new structure be the same uses that were
non - conforming at the time of the enactment of the zoning
ordinance . Explicitly that would be storage , cider pressing , and
some cold storage of cider . There would not be a sales area , a
growing area , or anything other than what Mr . Brown had the right
to do because the zoning ordinance allowed a pre - existing use to
continue .
6 . Any other kind of determination would leave the door
open for commercial development without having the proper review
for commercial development . As to the greenhouse , it would not
be beyond the power of this Board to condition any building that
took place now on the removal of the greenhouse as an unwarranted
expansion of a non - conforming use .
7 . If the Board allowed this barn to be built that it
replace what used to be there and not be something different ..
The only way to do that would be to be very explicit in the
• granting of the special permit , and cite the uses for which it
should be used .
1
20
•
Be Mr . Guttman tried to put forth the position to this
Board that simply by , expanding a non - conforming use the Board
could use whatever criteria it wished and he made a request in
that area . This would be an inappropriate way to address that
question , that expanding a non - conforming use meant that this
Board would be doing something different from what the Town Board
planned . Instead of , adopting the usual philosophy of removing
non- conforming uses slowly as they dissipated and changed , to be
more restrictive in the spirit of the ordinance , the Board would
be allowing expansion without the same rules and regulations and
criteria which are required for a variance and for a zoning
change . That would undermine the notion of the zoning ordinance .
11
9 . Mr . and 1, Mrs . Bowers would ask that ( 1 ) the
representation by Mr . Brown that he will offer a buffer of
shrubbery between the two properties be made a part of whatever
permit to be granted ; ( 2 ) that there be a very express
limitation on the uses of the new facility to correspond to the
uses that existed ; and ( 3 ) that this , Board consider any new
application for any expansion in the future , perhaps a moving of
the fruitstand up into the greenhouse as a sales area , be done
under circumstances that would require either a variance or a
zoning change so that '' the criteria inherent in the ordinance be
met . Mr . Brown should not be allowed , by virtue of having an old
• use , to change what he does without being subject to the same
kind of controls as anyone else . With these three conditions in
mind the Bowers would not object to the granting of this petition
to rebuild the barn . With respect to the location of the barn it
clearly made sense to move the barn somewhere else from where it
was , and they had no ' objection to that . They would like this
Board to review whatever plans were submitted as to the style of
the barn and how it was going to be built and how it was going to
look especially since their property was being considered for
historic designation . The old barn was certainly an historic
kind of barn and they ;would like the new barn to be consistent in
character .
Doria Higgins of ' 2 Hillcrest Drive , Ithaca , New York said
she supported what theBowers were requesting , the shrubbery as a
screen , which Mr . Brown had already offered , and also supported
the recommendation of Mr . and Mrs . Bowers that the aesthetic
design of the barn be ,taken into consideration . Ms . Higgins also
expressed her concern ,; and the concern of others on West Hill and
throughout the town that there were an increasing number of
instances on the part !' of the Town Board , the Planning Board and
the Zoning Board of Appeals of bending their own rules and
regulations , of breaking the continuity of zoning , without
seeming regard for the public good and did not think that zoning
ordinances should be , broken or variances granted unless such
• actions were clearly and unmistakenly for the public good .
21
• Celia Bowers of 1406 Trumansburg Road , Ithaca , New York
asked the Board to insure that the buffer zone between the new
barn and her house would be agreed upon before approval of the
new barn . She stated she would like the buffer zone to be in the
pear shaped area of the old barn up to the pipe directly behind
it . She felt it was important to have this large size buffer
zone because Mr . Brown was asking for a large barn and his
current greenhouse was very visible from the ground floor of her
home and her house was ' the oldest house on the Trumansburg Road
being built in 1800 and remodeled in 1928 . Mrs . Bowers said her
home was an historical structure and ought to be preserved for
future generations and she wanted to make sure more modern
structures would not impinge visually upon it . Mrs . Bowers
showed the Board on the sketch the area she wished created as a
buffer zone . Mrs . Bowers stated if Mr . Brown would create this
buffer zone , without spraying the trees , she would in exchange be
prepared to landscape also in a way that was mutually acceptable .
Mr . King asked Mr . Brown what the condition of the old barn
site now was and Mr . Brown responded that the west wall was a
stone foundation wall about 10 feet high and showed on the sketch
the area in question . Mr . Brown said he would agree to the
buffer zone that Mrs . Bowers was requesting even though in spirit
he did not think it was necessary .
• Mr . King said the request was for planting of evergreens and
Mr . Brown said this was not a problem .
Mr . Guttman , in response to Mr . Bennett , stated that they
were not asking for any change in use , that all they were asking
for was a permit to rebuild . Mr . Guttman said that Mr . Bennett
attempted to list the uses to which the old barn was utilized
but did not think he was inclusive . He continued that the old
barn had been used sometimes for sales and if the permit to
reconstruct the barn was granted they would not ask for any
change in use at this time . He stated that they understood that
that would require them to come back before the Board but at this
time all they were asking for was a permit to rebuild . For the
record , Mr . Guttman wanted to make it clear that what Mr . Bennett
indicated was the prior use of the barn was not a fact because
neither Mr . Bennett nor himself were qualified to testify about
that .
Another point Mr . Guttman wanted to make was that Mr .
Bennett said that in order for the Board to grant approval it
would be a variance and he did not think this was correct because
Section 1 - 29 of the Zoning Ordinance specifically referred to
alterations and changes in the size or dimensions of a building
or changes in location , and in Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance
this was clearly referred to as an extension of a non- conforming
• use as contrasted with a variance . Mr . Guttman said all they
were asking for was to rebuild the barn , either on the old site
22
• or as an extension of the non - conforming use , to change the
dimensions of the barn to make it less obtrusive and to put it in
a less obtrusive area .
Mr . Bennett said that their fear with what Mr . Guttman had
said was that Mr . Brown would say that back in 1970 the barn had
been used for sales . Mr . Bennett suggested that Mr . Brown simply
state what uses the barn was put to in the year before it was
burned down . These uses , he continued , would be the uses the
barn would be limited to in this particular aspect rather than
speculate what used to go on ten or fifteen years ago .
Mr . Bennett assumed that any uses that he did not use in the year
preceding the burning 'of the barn had been abandoned uses . He
did not think the variance standard for this particular matter
would be appropriate if what was being talked about was the
replacement of what was destroyed , and he wanted to make it clear
that was not what they were asking for .
Athena Grover of 1486 Trumansburg Road stated that if Mr .
Brown received permission to rebuild his barn she hoped it would
be built out of a non - inflammable material because at the last
burning of his barn there was a terrible stench of gasoline and
insecticide . Mrs . Grover stated that Mr . Brown should have a
fire wall inside the barn to separate the farm machinery from the
insecticides because his property was left unattended six months
out of a year and from approximately 5 p . m . until the next day
they had often seen people hanging around the shack in front and
the barn around 11 : 30 or 12 : 00 at night .
Rosalind Grippi of 423 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York
also had property on ; West Hill . She was concerned about the
historic preservation of the Bowers home . She continued that
this home was the home of one of the early founding families on
West Hill and because of the surge of development on West Hill
the character of these historic homes on West Hill were really at
risk . In fact , Mrs . Grippi stated , the Bowers home and several
others , are in the book of historic properties on West Hill
published by the DeWitt Historic Society in 1956 . Mrs . Grippi
felt that when the barn was built she hoped it would be somewhat
removed from the Bowers home and that there would be a buffer
zone and tall plantings included in the drawings so that the
character of the Bowers home would not be ruined by the- modern
buildings behind it .
The public hearing was closed .
Mr . King asked if the applicant owned some 45 acres of
contiguous property and Mr . Brown responded that was correct ,
that a little less than half was R30 and . the balance R15 , split
north and south across the property , with the Trumansburg Road
• part being the R15 . Mr . King asked if the westerly 15 or 20
acres was in an ag district , R30 , and Mr . Brown responded that
. n
r
23
• was correct , only it was 17 to 20 acres . Mr . King asked if the
easterly 25 acres on Trumansburg Road was in an R15 zone and Mr .
Brown responded that was correct . Mr . King inquired what
buildings Mr . Brown had on these two parcels and Mr . Brown
responded the only buildings he had right now were the stand and
the greenhouse , that most of the land was young orchards ,
vegetable fields , and some woodland . Mr . King inquired if the
entire 45 acres was the Indian Creek Fruit Farm . Historically ,
Mr . Brown responded , the entire Indian Creek Fruit Farm was all
the West Hill Cemetery Association land , the 7 . 26 acres across
the street and all of the Bowers lot . Mr . King said this would
have been another 35 acres or so and Mr . Brown said that was
correct , that it was his understanding that the West Hill
Cemetery Association land can never be developed , that it is deed
restricted to always be just what it is , a cemetery .
Mr . King wondered whether there was anything in the record
as to what the prior uses of the barn were . He thought it would
be helpful if the applicant would submit a statement under oath
to the Board as to the prior uses made of that barn for as far
back as he was aware .
Mr . Guttman said he could have Mr . Brown state now what
those uses were and submit it as an affidavit later .
• Mr . Brown stated that the uses that he put the barn to in
the time in which he owned it , were the same uses as before he
owned it , for example , storage of fruits and vegetables , storage
of farm and orchard management equipment , building materials ,
pesticides , fertilizer , and all the items that a working farm
would have to store . There were , he continued , substantial walk
in coolers within the barn for storage of fruits and vegetables ,
an area for cider making , and one -half of the ground floor was a
sales room which used to be the primary sales area . Mr . Brown
said that they also used it as a sales area when the weather was
bad , their primary sales area being the outdoor stand . Mr . Brown
said that this fact could be established quite well from many
people , that the barn was used as a sales area , though not on a
constant basis , but on a regular basis . Mr . King inquired what
was sold and Mr . Brown responded the sales were of produce
produced on this acreage and also other people ' s produce locally .
Mr . King asked if this were true historically . Mr . Brown
responded he did not know as he had never met Ray Freer
personally . Mr . Brown said that Mr . Perry leased the land in
between the death of Mr . and Mrs . Freer and occupancy by the
Browns and Mr . Perry also utilized the barn and the stand
alternatingly . Mr . King inquired how long the Browns had owned
the property and Mr . Brown responded they had purchased it in
1980 or 1981 . Mr . King inquired if the property was operated as
a farm since the• purchase by the Browns and Mr . Brown responded that was correct . Mr '. King asked if the property was a farm
immediately prior thereto and Mr . Brown responded that Mr . Perry
24
• was actively growing the apple orchard and selling apples each
year and was not a vegetable farmer but utilized the rest of the
open land to grow field crops while he utilized it to grow
vegetable crops . Mr . King inquired if the fruit stand had been
used as a sales area and Mr . Brown responded it had been open for
apple season each year . Mr . Brown stated that Mr . Perry also had
substantial vineyards on the property . Since then , he said , the
vineyard land has been 'subdivided away from what they owned . Mr .
Brown continued that Mr . Perry used the barn to store plastic
grape bins for the juice company . Mr . Frost inquired if the
grape area had been across the street in the DuBois Road - Route
96 area . Mr . Brown responded that was one of the locations , the
other being the West Hill Cemetery Association plot - all the
vineyards had been pushed out now and was crop farmed . Mr . King
inquired what the new barn would be used for and Mr . Brown
responded his primary concern would be for walk- in cooler space .
Other than this , Mr . Brown stated he did not have any plans at
this point but did not want to limit himself in any way other
than what Board deemed, necessary , Mr . Brown said that the cold
storage was what he was suffering from the most right now . Mr .
Barney inquired if there had been cold storage on the property
when he bought it and Mr . Brown responded there was , that the
lower half of barn was all coolers .
• Mr . King inquired if the greenhouse was to be a permanent
building , Mr . Brown responded he would like it to be , that this
question came up at the meeting where he had previously applied
for permission to put up the greenhouse , Mr . Brown stated that
the greenhouse bolts together so it was not exactly permanent .
Mr . Brown said he wanted to keep the greenhouse if he could , that
he had always made it clear that that was his intention . He
said that he had applied for a building permit because they
needed immediate temporary storage and also made it clear they
were going to use it as a greenhouse .'
Mr . King inquired how big the greenhouse was and Mr . Brown
responded that it was exactly 15 by 96 feet . Mr . King said that
the dimensions of the proposed new barn were 96 feet by 40 feet ,
or a footprint of 3840 square feet and this was a little larger
than the old barn which was 60 x 62 feet . Mr . Brown said this
was true and the difference in usable space was achieved by
virtue of there being no third floor while there was 25 % of
usable space in the third floor in the old structure ,
Mr . King inquired about the elevation of the new barn and
Mr . Brown responded the new barn would be at an elevation of at
least 10 to 12 feet different than the old barn . Mr . Brown
stated that it should be noted that the greenhouse was dug into
the bank ; they had to dig down to the parking lot area
substantially so as to carry that straight back into the hillside
• which slowly slopes up away from the greenhouse . Mr . Brown
continued that much of the first floor of the new barn will be
25
• below grade and the visual height will be going back into the
hill .
Mr . Frost inquired if the old barn was also used for a
vegetable preparation area before the fire and Mr . Brown
responded that was correct .
Mr . Brown worried that in trying to state all of the uses of
the barn previously he might forget some detail in what he had
used the barn for previously and he felt he was being put on the
spot . He continued that they used it to grade vegetables and
store sorting machinery for fruits and vegetables which were now
housed in the greenhouse . Mr . Brown stated that there was a lot
of detail with a farming operation and there are many things that
a barn of this nature could be used for .
Joan Reuning said he could make a written list if he felt
more comfortable with that . Mr . Guttman interjected that the
barn was for all uses in connection with the operation of a fruit
and vegetable farm , the growing the harvesting of the fruits and
vegetables , the storing of the equipment necessary to get the
fruits and vegetables , ready , getting them ready for sale , and
selling them .
• Attorney Barney said he was concerned because from what Mr .
Brown said the farm was basically an apple farm and grape
vineyard , and he was not sure that now you could convert that use
to process vegetables . Mr . Brown said they did not process
vegetables . Attorney Barney said that an apple farm and a grape
vineyard was fairly seasonal , one or two months out of the year ,
but a full - service vegetable stand would turn into a much longer
operation , selling for instance , tomatoes in May or June to
selling pumpkins in October . Mr . Barney stated that the question
was what was the non - conforming use . Certainly , he said , one
could not limit the kind of apples one could sell , but to start
expanding to other crops , was it the same non - conforming use that
was there in 1980 when Mr . Brown bought the property .
Mr . Brown stated there was a whole chapter of this in a book
on West Hill which discussed the Indian Creek Fruit Farm and its
origins . Historically , he said , they had grown quite a lot of
crops , and as with most farms , the crops shifted with the demand
of the market . Mr . Brown stated that the farm started out as a
grain farm , ( there were grain bins throughout the barn when he
bought it ) and when Ray Freer took over he started establishing
orchards and vineyards . Mr . Brown said he could not believe Mr .
Freer never planted vegetables in his life .
Mr . Frost called the Board ' s attention to Section 55 of the
zoning ordinance which stated that a non-conforming use may be
• changed to another non - conforming use of the same or more
restrictive classification , and felt that perhaps the deviation
• 26
from apples to tomatoes would be permitted anyway .
Mr . King stated that there were 45 acres of land here and if
they were growing grapes and the grape market was not good you
could not hold them to grow grapes . Mr . King said that it would
be helpful for the Board to have a written statement as to the
uses and time frames and a little historical information .
Mr . Guttman stated Mr . Brown would submit an affidavit .
Attorney Barney stated that the issue of Mr . Brown ' s
greenhouse was in presently in litigation . He continued that
possibly there might be a decision that the greenhouse should not
be there . Attorney Barney said that if the court rules in that
direction it may affect the location of the barn and may affect
plans . Mr . Guttman said that that was one of the reasons why
construction would not be started . Mr . Guttman continued that
they hoped to have a decision this fall , and if the decision is
that the greenhouse must leave , then obviously plans would change
and they must come back to the Board . Attorney Barney said that
if the greenhouse was allowed the barn would be placed behind the
greenhouse and one of the- arguments made by Mr . Brown for the
greenhouse was that it was a substitution for the barn . Mr . King
said that erecting the greenhouse was to take care of an
• emergency situation because Mr . Brown needed cold storage .
Mr . King said that it would be unwise for the Board to come
to any decision until it knew the status of the litigation .
Mr . Brown said he , had no objections to any delays that would
not prejudice his position in enabling him to rebuild his barn .
He continued that the reason he was here this evening was because
of time restrictions placed upon him by this Board .
Mr . Guttman concurred in that Mr . Brown had a period of time
within which to make application and he had made that
application . Mr . Guttman stated that Mr . Brown wanted the' Board
to be aware of the change of location of the proposed barn but
until litigation was resolved Mr . Brown was not in a position to
do anything .
Mr . Barney inquired when the time was on the application .
Mr . Frost responded that there was a one year extension to make
the application to „ rebuild , and Mr . Brown had made the
application one day before the expiration of that one year
period .
It was decided it would be in everyone ' s interest that the
court litigation decision should be awaited . Mr . Guttman stated
that all briefs had been submitted with regard to the litigation
• and expected that it would be calendered in August or September
and the latest a decision would be forthcoming would be October
27
• or November of this year ,
Mr . King made a motion as follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board adjourn this matter for further
consideration and public notice be given for continuation of
the hearing , after a decision is reached by the Appellate
Division on pending litigation , but in the meantime the
applicant should submit to the Board the requested statement
of prior uses and „time frames .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows ,
Aye - Reuning , Austen , King
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
There meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
4� a 4010
r
• Beatrice Lincoln
Recording Secretary
Exhibits 1 through 6 attached
AP D :
Edward Austen
Vice - Chairman
ACCEPTED :
a
Henry Aron
Chairman
•
•
PARD_ II ___Env_ironmental_Asaessment =_Proposed _Rad_iation TherapY
Suite Tompkins Community_Hospital
A . Action is an Unlisted Action consisting of the construction
of an addition of 988 square feet to the Tompkins Medical Office
Building , and completion of approximately 2 , 000 square feet of
shelled area within the existing building accommodate a radiation
therapy facility .
B . Action will receive coordinated review
C . Could action result in any adverse effects_o.n1 to_ or ar , sing
from tbgL.Iollowing :
Cl . _h isting air quality1 surface_or groundwater_guality_or
quantity, noise levels ex'sting traffic patterns , solid waste
Production or disposal _ potential for erosion , drainer e or
f oadingnrauem?s _
No adverse effects anticipated .
C2 . Aestetic �agricu t al . archeQlo ical , historic • _ car
other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood
• Qha�Qte.�
No adverse impacts anticipated .
. Vegetation or fauna , f hhellf' _Q l life
_species1significant habitats . or threatened or endangered
speLLI.ez '?
No significant habitats or threatened or endangered wildlife
species or fauna will be adversely impacted by proposed action .
C4 . A_community ' s _existing-plans _or_goals _as _officially
adopted�_gr_a_change_in uae_orinttensity_of use _of_land or other
natural_resourcea?
No adverse impacts anticipated .
L5 . Growth subsequent development , or related_ activities
like.Iv toh e_in_dce d'y_the_P r_opo s 2 1d atm
None anticipated .
C6 ___Long_term�_short _term . cumulativ_e.�or ther_effects _not
identified in C1 - 05
• None anticipated .
C7 `_Other _im'pa6ts Lincluding_changes _ in_ se _of either
quantity or=type _of _energvl ?
None anticipated .
EAi 6 #T
r
i
I2�—Ia_thara�._�is�.liars_likel�t.Q���c.QntrQYe.rs.�sl�tas�Q
Ps2 �Tl �s � Pacts ?
No cotroversy related to potential adverse environmental
impacts of proposed project are anticipated .
A negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended , for reasons stated above .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner
Review Date : June 10 , 1988
PART _II _ Env_ironmental _Assessment _=_Proposed Magnetic _R.esonance
Imaging_Unit , _Tompkins Communitv_Hospital
A . Action is an Unlisted Action consisting of the construction
of a facility to accommodate a mobile magnetic resonance imaging
unit .
B . Action will receive coordinated review
.Q.fould action_ resui±,.in ny_adverseeffects ons to. or arising
fr.Qm_tb.Q s.QI Dwi g ,
C1 . EXi tt iag_a_i r smality . aurfaae or_groundwater_guali t or
quantity, noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste
production or disgosal �notentiai_for erosion drainage or
floodingnroblems ?
No adverse effects anticipated .
CO , Aesthetic , _ agricultural , archeological histo C . or
c�.Qx_nat_ural cs _c.Qmmariity or neighborhoQ�d
character ?
No adverse impacts anticipated .
C3 . Vcget�tion_ or_fauna , f is e.lf ish or wli..11fc
species . sigLiificant habitats , or threatened or endangered
sPcfss
No significant habitats or threatened or endangered wildlife
species or fauna will ° be adversely impacted by proposed action .
C4 . _A_cammunity ' s existing_plans or_goals _as _officially
adopted ur_a change _in use _or_intensity_of nae of_ land or other
natural_resources?
No adverse impacts anticipated .
C5__ Growth , subse-gijert development . _Qr_ related activities
iii lYt4_ efn�IS tYth� Propos.adaction ?
None anticipated .
C5.__hongterm . short _term� cumulative_ _or other effects__not
identified_in _Cl _C5 ? .
None anticipated .
C7 ___Ot. her _ impacts _iincluding_change _s _ in _use_of either
• guantity_or _type _of energyi ?
None anticipated .
D_ Is _there . or is _there _ likelyy__to _be__controv_ersy_related _to
potent al
im Racts ?
� h6w, ri
•
No cotroversy related to potential adverse environmental
impacts of proposed project are anticipated .
PART III
- - A negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended , for reasons stated above .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner
Review Date : June 10 , 1988
0
•
Ithaca, New York
• 12 June 1988
T o : The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca
From : Residents of properties adjacent to and neighboring 506 Warren Road
Re : The Appeal of Rocco P. Lucente for variance with respect to the proposed
subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-71-1-34, known as 506 Warren
Road,
References :
1 . Resolutions concerning the Lucente subdivision adopted by the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board on 7 June 1988 ,
2 . A petition , copy attached, presented to the Town of Ithaca through the Planning Board
on 7 June 1988 , along with a list of the thirty (30) signers .
In view of the preliminary approval of the subdivision by the Planning Board ,
we request that the Zoning Board grant the requested variance and that the
related resolutions of the Planning Board of 7 June 1988 be followed to the
letter, especially with reference to the restriction to single-family dwellings.
We also request, following the resolutions of the Planning Board, that access
to Warren Road be limited to shared use of a common driveway and, in
particular, that there be no construction nor maintenance of a public road to
be paid for out of tax revenues.
• Our particular concerns are :
• that the impact of the subdivision on the character of the neighborhood be
minimized. Most, if not all, of the adjacent properties are single-family, owner=
occupied dwellings on generous-sized lots. The Lucente property itself has been so
for over 30 years. Thus the neighborhood has been stable, relatively unchanging,
msthetically and environmentally pleasant to live in.
• that any buildings erected on the 'two new lots shall be single-familydwellings ,
owner-occupied and noncommercial . By "owner-occupied " we mean that the
dwellings shall not be intended principally as rental units and by "noncommercial"
that dwellings shall not contain home-based occupations , such as shops , stores and
other commercial enterprises .
• that special attention shall be given to preventing deleterious changes in surface
drainage of storm waters that will affect adjacent properties and particularly the
stream forming the south boundary of the Lucente parcel.
• that special attention shall be given to preventing visual intrusion of chimneys ,
lightning rods , radio and television antennae , solar collectors , utility poles and
wires and any other visually offensive structures and appendages.
In sum, we wish to minimize the impact of the proposed development of the
• Lucente property on the character of the neighborhood .
E. .
i
,chi 61r 3
Ithaca , New York
4 June 1988
To the Town of Ithaca and its constituent Boards and Committees
having jurisdiction in the' following matter —
We , the undersigned , express our strong opposition to the proposed
subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 -71 - 1 - 34 , comprising
1 . 75 acres total and located at 506 Warren Road , owned by Rocco Lucente
of the same address.
Our opposition is based primarily on the fact that any subdivision of said
property is inconsistent with the character of the immediate
neighborhood where dwellings are single -family and owner- occupied ,
most if not all of which are situate on lots of generous size exceeding the
minimum size requirement of 100 by 150 feet for an R - 15 zone . The
Lucente property itself has been single -family and owner- occupied for
over 30 years . Neighboring properties have conformed with and
• maintained that same character , with the result that the neighborhood has
been stable , relatively unchanging , and esthetically and ecologically
pleasant to live in . Residents of this area have bought and are buying
homes in this area in the faith that the neighborhood character would be
maintained and that the zoning laws would protect them from undesirable
encroachments .
Our secondary concern , in the event the Town disregards our opposition
and chooses to permit the subdivision , is two -fold , namely that
• it should be required that any buildings erected on the subdivided
portions of subject property be single -family , owner- occupied dwellings
and noncommercial , and
• access to , any new buildings , which itself must be regarded as a
major concern , shall be only by shared access on a common driveway and
there shall be no construction and no maintenance of a public road for
such purpose to be paid for out of tax revenues .
In sum , we feel that subdivision of the Lucente property will set an
unfavorable and irrevocable precedent leading to deterioration of
neighborhood character and diminishing of the value of the present ,
carefully maintained properties of this area .
• We therefore request the Town of Ithaca
to Disapprove the proposed subdivision .
. LIST OF PETITIONERS SEEKING DISAPPROVAL
OF THE LUCENTE SUBDIVISION OF WARREN ROAD PROPERTY
Petition dated 4 June 1988
delivered to Town of Ithaca Planning Board 7 June 1988
Name Address Telephone
Andrus , Howard G . 113 Christopher Circle 257- 1360
Bennett, K . C . 510 Warren Road 257-2108
Casler, George L . 107 Christopher Circle 257 -3094
Casler, Patricia A .
Caslick , Richard 108 Christopher Circle 257 - 1860
Caslick , Vida U .
Chan , Chih -Yi 115 Christopher Circle 257 - 1681
Estes , Anita 110 Christopher Circle 257 - 0029
Estes , James K .
Fisher, Gordon P . 418 Warren Road 257-2597
Fisher , M . Ann
Francese , Paula A . 501 Warren Road 257-3231
• Lance , Richard H . 505 Warren Road 257- 3737
Lance , Virginia L .
Long , Franklin 429 Warren Road 257 - 0604
Long , Marion
Longo , Carmella 508 Warren Road 257 - 0582
Longo , John
Mapes , Barth E . 120 Kay Street 257 - 0568
McMurry , Elsie F . 514 Warren Road 257 - 1938
Muraca , Carol 109 Christopher Circle 257 - 0813
Muraca, Joseph
Muraca, Virginia
Reed , Elizabeth 503 Warren Road 257 - 3159 t
Shaff, Jon E . 510 Warren Road 257 - 2108
Stedinger, Jery R . 204 Tudor Road 272 - 9460
Stedinger, Robin L . ( 120 Kay St . after 7/88 )
Welch , Catherine G . 427 Warren Road 257 - 0586
Wu , Christina C . 111 Christopher Circle 257 - 1766
Wu , Ray J .
�Y.
� l
: v._i.rotr_im ._ y . .....
A . Action is Unlisted .
Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Town of Ithaca
Planning Board , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals ,
Tompkins County Planning Department ) ,
5c1 �__ �i]d tg_alr_9 u i �_s� f s�� _Qr_gr4�lldW gt�
pati, ors1 _ solid _wst �_ produoi�o _ar_dl��� � 1 L��ts�ltldl _ �
gas o � _drdin �gs�r_ �o �aigPr oblongs
No significant adverse impact is expected to these
factors . Additional traffic generated from two new
residential lots would be between 2 and 4 trips at peak
hour , within the capacity of the local road system in either
the scheme showing a new public road , or within the capacity
of a shared private drive provided that it were of adequate
width . In spite of an offset. of approximatelyX feet
between the proposed new drive . and the intersection of Manor '
Drive with Warren Road , no significant safety problems are
expected because of the low number of lots proposed . No
significant adverse impact to drainage patterns is expected .
Q2.,.Aesthet c . aari cul turfy . archgoloBical , hist4ri c
Dx o1ber al or cultural resources or community �
nUahborhood ch J="7,
No natural or cultural resources are known on the site
that would be adversely impacted . The proposed lots would
not be significantly different--from others in the
neighborhood . Existing landscaping will assist in
mitigating localized impacts from the development of two new
lots .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna fish , shellfish or wildlife
s_ ne_ cigae aianifinant habitats _ or threatened or endangered
M sDecies ? -
No significant species cr habitats are known on the
site -that would be adversely impacted .
C4 . A commun i ty ' s exist { n e Plans or goals as
officia > > v adODted . Or it change in nae or intenaity of use
of land or other natural resources
The plat showing " Possible Subdivision with Public
Highway " could essentially meet all zoning and subdivision
• requirements . The alternative " Variance Preferred
Subdivision on Commonly Shared Right of Way " , would require
variance from the' frontage requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance and from the requirements of NYS Town Law Section
280 - a . Both schemes would result in the addition of two new
residential lots , for which the scale of impact would be
r' , 0 , : L `r N
Ob •
J
localized , Neither alternative scheme would present
significant adverse impact , if the required variances are
granted for the scheme with a common private drive .
� ^} Sid •• ��Qwthf.' sub}��.,91{d�'ri, #��Y}�14Pym��II�e.����#rg�
Not expected . ! Any subsequent development proposals
would be subject to further review .
Not expected ,
Not expected . ':
-too—controve-rsy-.i• s-- �ewxi--o-r--ex�►eeted--at tn�;-•�i�e:� is
PBBTS_.j� �vh fi o�n �Q �� d �- "P (G v► » � K (��. 4 ( � 8 �
Because of the small scale of . the proposal , no ,
significant adverse impacts are expected from either the
conventional scheme or the alternative scheme preferred by
the applicant . '
Lead Agency : . For Subdivision ; Planning Board
For Variance : Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : Susan Ce Beeners , Town Planner
Review Date : May 31 , 1988 t
:
i
Rocco P . Lucente Three - Lot Subdivision - 1 -
506 Warren Road
Planning Board , June 7 , 1988
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR
Rocco P . Lucente Three -Lot Subdivision
506 Warren Road
Planning Board , June 7 , 1988
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by . -Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . This Action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of --Town of Ithaca :Tax Parcel No . 6 - 71 - 1 - 34 ,
1 . 75 acres total , located at 506 - Warren Road , into three lots .
29 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review of the proposed, ,, subdivision . The Zoning
Board of Appeals would act as Lead. Agency for environmental
review of any variance request .
. 3 • The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
• environmental significance for this Action .
. THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Town of ' Ithaca Planning Board , . acting as Lead Agency for
review of the proposed subdivision , make and hereby does make a
negative determination of environmental significance .
Aye - May , Grigorov , . Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - Miller .
CARRIED .
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Rocco P . Lucente Three -Lot Subdivision
506 Warren Road
Planning Board , June 7 , 1988
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded . by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . This Action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
• proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 71 - 1 - 34 ,
1 . 75 acres total , located at 506 ' War ren Road , into three lots .
rRocco P . Lucente Three - Lot Subdivision - 2 -
506 Warren Road
Planning Board , June 7 , 1988
•
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the
proposed subdivision , has made , on June 7 , 1988 , a negative
determination of ,environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on June 7 , 1988 , has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and other
application submissions for this Action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
. 1 . That the . Town of Ithaca Planning Board waive and hereby does
waive certain requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval ,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purposes
of subdivision control nor the policies - enunciated or implied by
the Town Board ,
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval to the plat entitled " Variance Preferred
Subdivision on Commonly Shared Right of Way " , as submitted to and
reviewed by the Planning Board at said Public Hearing , June 7 ,
• 1988 , with the following conditions :
a . Granting of a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for
construction on a private road under Section 280 -a of the
Town Law , and variance for the frontage requirement .
b . Approval by the Town Attorney of any necessary easements
with respect to common access and maintenance of the
proposed road , as a condition of any final subdivision
approval .
c . That construction on either of the new lots , because of the
desire to minimize traffic on a private road and becaus.e of
the irregular and somewhat small lots , be limited to one
single family home on each lot .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - Miller , Langhans ,
CARRIED .
Nan y M . u ler , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
June 9 , 1988 .
A
av
P
MIA
CA
� A
I
r i1.d 7n I �e C-v . (S)
t
� , W s � •®
.� o
w � t qe
two
�' r t; L s � • Vii° fr «
®i ,.S
} r
fAp •-u P J i = Y r Pjll'f Y4 �v �K �
k � y, 1 l,.r
�`e , .{ ✓ + + ••fit r �' 'r fes', r
�/J r ( 1 � Fi. : ( �P p 1 ;r.4 J. r
® ,y •ref
t \ fq41,
UV
d trri tl i. '! r eall--
Ix r, It
It
x
!o-{ .
44 } $
It
_ `Y (w Ksf" zr � r r W
n +
f ' ! jt r '
r '
It It
• �. ' Yr r ]St -•'fir
IE r•
G +
f r c b.� dlrt • r S k�Lfry �:
a
3 rt3� '1F f fi�a w r t � : s � h ti• f,,.
i ffj� v i f�Ser
;. . ✓ $rr:
it
kkkkk
j •
Cu
fXN/Q / T 6
I H � : 1T�-3 A Ch's JOURNAL I V
BOARD_,OF APPEALS, -NOTICE
OF ~;` PSDAY,-U EAR NGS ,
• WEDNESDAY;- JUIVE_15, 1988,
7:00 P.M. a - t. :. _
B diiection4f- the• Chairman
of the Zoning Board of Ap- ,
peals ; . NOTICE IS - HEREBY .
' GIVEN that:; Public', .: Hearings !
will•-be held 6 jthe.. Zoning
Board 'of'App-ea' ts of the Town
_ ` ,� ��' •_-- - -• of Ithaca dWednesday June
�
� - • - • ' ' 3.nF l� ul )' !K'0Ti) dCppiGS 15, :1988, n:`Town ,•Hall, 126
East ,.Seneca- : Stiee`t,!: (FIRST . •
Abu � . tt Talda 11�
Floor, - REAR_.Entrance, - WEST
Ci, Cimmt)• am Bite &fDTCija tnd Side),'. Ithaca'-- N. Y.;::. COM-
MENCING -AT 7:00 . P.M., on
the following matters: =
t►L t Le bt 1 F T APPEALof PTompkins Commu-
nity Management .-:. Services,
Appellant, Bonnie, H. Howell,
Pei Z)U TTBATJI OIT, '.N IL i obbC, acK Pres ident, ,Karl Mount, Agent,
3 F spsper prLntted and publiLw requesting Spec ial . ,Appr I
under 'Article '. V, ;'Section 18,
i Paragraphs 10 and 11 , of the
i.�'J4l�3-lli, SMd Itb.it a WtirY � pS �-bj � 1 , �G Town of ,lthaca . Zoning Ordi-
ndnce, for theproposed con " " " — -
structioh: of additiohgl space
�) r �Pt1 p-�blisbedPap= _�- ' Q ' to be. used foi iadiation thera-
••—.....�. ppyy services at the • existing
t Medical ice , building to
cared 01 '201 Dates Dr. , Town
--- -- . �.._ .•_�.._.._.�•» of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-
3-2.41 „`:Residence District R-
IP
30. . : : : - :.: a I.
t.
�- .»...•-_-».»_� ,-__ -- APPEAL of. Tompkins Commu-
�'� •--- nity Haspital, .Appellont, Bon-
nie H. Howell, •Administrator,
tLD3 � t tbt £ tst pl3bZiC� t7DD ' Of i3] d DD`.iCt` +>`'�s pL tbf .-�Q,, ,,__.�_ • ' Karl. ount, Agent;'reg6 sting '
Sppecial Approval under Arti-
cle V, Section 18, Paragraph nonce Imaging unit adjacent
10, of the Town of Ithaca Zon- to the existing Hospital to- ,
G � �� ••'--- -•- ----••---•--» DLar�i,,�.�._„__•-•_,-.. 1C Ing :Ordinance, - for - the pro- cared at 101 Dates Drive, Town
"•' posed . construction of a con- of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-
trete pod to provide a site for 3-2. 1 , Residence District R-30.
a portable Magnetic Reso- APPEAL of Rocco P. Lucente,
�» �•• • ' - ” ` Appellant, requesting vari-
ance of Article IV Section 16,
Subtt= of the Town of ItAcica Zoning
d /1�'OYL• tD b OTC ale , thL _ y. Ordinance, and Section 28aa
of New. York State Town Law, :
with respect to the proposed .
subdivision of Town of Ithaca
'-� 1Q "^'-»• Tax Parcel No. 6-71 . 1 -34,
known as 506 Warren Road,
Residence District R-15, into
three tots. two of w vill
not have road front
O� f'
Y Talice• Public roadway. a
�t
JEAN FORD APPEAL of Marie L. Brown, Ap.
pellant, Randolph F. Brown,_
Notary Public State of New York Agent, requesting a Special ,-
Permit, under Article XII, Sec
No. 4654410 tion 56, of the Town of Ithaca '
Zoning Ordinance, and pur-'
Qualified in Tompkins COUflty suant to Resolution of the fon
ing Board of Appeals of May
Commission expires May 3119 13, 1987, application for such
r • • • , special permit hoving been• ',
made within the time limit es
tablished by said Board of AR_
Feats under said resolution,:•-
for the reconstruction of -o ,
barn destroyed by fire, at 1408.
Trumansburg Road, Town Qf•
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24. 1 . _
- 25. 21 , Residence District R- IS- 'r•
ADJOURNED APPEAL (from .,
March 9, 1988, from the Board
of Appeals meeting of Marsh
' 23, 1988, and from April 13; :.
1988) of Orlando andRal��� : '
Iacovel li;' APPeI lonfs,'re•-quesi
ing variance of the require-
ments of Article IV, Sections
14 and 16, of the Town of Itha`
ca Zoning Ordinance, for cer-
tain lots proposed as port of .`
the "Klondike Manor” subdi
vision 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. (The
Public Hearing in thismatter ,
t : has been closed. ) -
Said ZoningBoard, of Appeats
will at said time, 7:00 p. m,
and said place, hear all per-
sons in support of such m
or objections thereto. P
may appear by agent_
person .
Andrew S. Frost _
• Building Inspector/ "
Zoning Enforcement Officer ' .
Town of Ithaca
273- 1747
June 10, 1988 .