HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1988-07-13 FILED
t TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA Date 0 �
Clerk
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 13 , 1988
A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on July 13 , 1988 at the Ithaca Town Hall , 126
East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Edward King ,
Eva Hoffmann , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , and Town Attorney
John C . Barney .
ALSO PRESENT : Celia Bowers , John Bowers , Ernest Pittman ,
Beulah Pittman , Rochelle Alexander , Roger L . Perkins , Eugene H .
Ball , Leslie Carrere .
The public meeting opened at 7 : 001hp . 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 s as
follows :
APPEAL of Celia Bowers , Appellant , requesting variance of
Section 4 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law whereby the
maximum sign permitted is four square feet , in order to
maintain an existing 23 . 80 plusior minus square foot sign
. reading " Indian Creek Antiques , " located at 1406 Trumansburg
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel lNo . 6 - 24 - 1 - 25 . 3 , Residence
District R- 15 . Appellant has appeared before the Town of
Ithaca Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) on June 21 , 1988 .
Chairman Aron stated that Paul Bennett , attorney for Mr . and
Mrs . Bowers had represented the Bowers at the Planning Board
meeting on June 21 , 1988 , and Chairman Aron had the minutes of
the Planning Board meeting before him at which Planning Board
meeting there had been a lengthy discussion of this matter .
Chairman Aron said that on June 9 , 1980 the Town Board , by
resolution No . 93 , granted a sign to the Bowers , by motion made
by Councilwoman Raffensperger and seconded by Councilman McPeak
as follows :
" RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby
grants a variance contingent upon'' the removal in five years ,
1406
for the non - conforming sign of Celia Bowers of
2
Trumansburg Road , as recommended by the Planning Board .
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED , that the sign shall not exceed
twenty - four square feet .
( Desch , Kugler , Raffensperger , Valentino , and McPeak voting
Aye . Nays - none ) . "
Chairman Aron said that he supposed Mrs . Bowers had received
this resolution as the record showed that she was present at that
meeting and therefore both she and Mr . Bowers were aware that
they only had five years for that sign . He continued that he did
not know what the intent of the Town Board was in granting the
variance for only five years and to determine that would require
further research . Further , Chairman Aron stated , Mrs . Bowers had
been granted a home occupation as to the antique shop by the
Zoning Board of Appeals prior to 1978 when Mr . Francese was
Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals . He added that Mr . King
and Mr . Austen were also members of that Board at that time .
Apparently , he stated , Mrs . Bowers needed that sign at that time
to announce she was opening her business there as her house was
sitting back from the road on a hill . However , Chairman Aron
said , the five years had elapsed and Mrs . Bowers had been three
years in violation . He said that perhaps it slipped her mind .
• Chairman Aron asked if Mrs . Bowers had ever been notified
that she was in violation within those three years and she
responded that Mr . Frost had notified her in May of 1988 that she
should take the sign down and appeal to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for renewal of a sign .
Chairman Aron inquired if Mrs . Bowers had taken the sign
down and Mrs . Bowers responded she had not torn it down for
several reasons .
( a ) When she was granted the five year sign she was told by
Mr . Cartee that the sign was alright if no one complained .
( b ) She had forgotten about the five year condition and had
assumed the appropriate Town Board bodies had also forgotten for
three years that she was in violation :
( c ) She wanted to consult an attorney about this situation
because she did not want to tear down a sign that cost , back
then , $ 800 . 00 , and was designed in conjunction with the Planning
Board , and in conjunction with the desires of Lewis Cartee , who
wanted it placed where it was for safety factors . Today the sign
would cost much more to erect .
Chairman Aron interjected at this point that Mr . Cartee was
• no longer here so this was a matter of hearsay and he would
appreciate it if what Mr . Cartee had said could be disregarded
3
since he was not there to back these facts up . Chairman Aron
said that being a quasi - judiciary board they must go on facts and
figures as represented to the Board .
Chairman Aron told Mrs . Bowers that he understood that she
carried very fine merchandise in her business and people come to
the business and enjoyed what she hadlto offer . He said he knew
she did not refinish anything there , and when Mr . Frost had
inspected the premises he found its condition very satisfactory .
Chairman Aron asked if Mrs . Bowers had ever considered asking the
State of New York to put some blue signs up for her . Mrs . Bowers
said she had considered it and had called Syracuse only to be
told she was not eligible for them because she was actually a
Trumansburg Road address , and you could not have those blue signs
if you were not off the main highway . ', Chairman Aron said she was
off the main highway 'land Mrs . Bowers said she was not , according
to the State rules , because her address was Trumansburg Road .
She said that as fa'r as distance was concerned she met that
requirement but she did not meet the address requirement .
Chairman Aron said he noticed that Mrs . Bowers mailbox was
painted red with white printing , and ' stated " Indian Creek" and
then in larger letters "Antiques " with an arrow pointing towards
the driveway . Chairman Aron said this) was visible from the north
as well as from the south and actually' this could be considered a
sign . Mrs . Bowers said if the Board wanted her to take this down
she would be happy to do so , that the only reason she had done
this was because she was having al lot of trouble with her
neighbor ' s mailbox . Chairman Aron said they were not talking
about her taking it Ildown yet . Nevertheless , he continued , it
could be considered alisign that alerted people who drove from the
south to the north that there was an antique business there , and
people coming from the north to the south saw the same thing as
it was very visible . ! Chairman Aron further stated that this sign
was within the realm �iof the four square feet ( and even smaller )
allowed . Chairman Aron said that the area in question was an
R15 zone and not zoned for business and Mrs . Bowers had gotten a
variance to operate her business under the extension of a home
occupation .
Mrs . Bowers saidlshe thought she was given a variance simply
to use the barn and ' Chairman Aron said she was allowed 1692
square feet in her barn for her home occupation .
Chairman Aron asked where the necessity was today , after
Mrs . • Bowers was well known , to have that big sign on top of the
hill'' , which sign was 'inot easily visible because of shrubbery on
the bank coming down towards Route 96 . ''
Mrs . Bowers said ' the shrubbery was cut by the State once a
• year towards the end of July or beginning of August .
v
4
• Chairman Aron repeated his question as to the need to vary
that sign because with an area variance certain criteria had to
be met . He stated that he could visualize Mrs . Bowers having a 4
by 4 foot sign at the �ientrance of her 'driveway on the south .
Mrs . Bowers interrupted that she could not have a sign there as
she did not own the entrance to the driveway on the south side ,
but , merely had a right of way over that . She stated she also did
not own the bottom of the driveway ion the north side . Mrs .
Bowers stated that the Cemetery Association owned the bottom 35
feet of the south driveway . Chairman Aron inquired if Mrs .
Bowers had ever contacted them to see if they could give her just
a piece of that driveway . Mrs . iBowers responded she had
contacted them but the answer was no . Chairman Aron inquired if
that had been verbally or in writing '', and Mrs . Bowers responded
that eight years ago 11Ithey did buy a right of way over that side
which actually was paid for by the Dewitt Historical Society and
that was in writing , ibut that was strictly for the purposes of
ingress and egress . She was not sure if at the time they said it
could be used for nothing else but they specifically said that
they only were granting , for a sum of, money , the right to enter
and ' exit the property . In fact , Mrs . '; Bowers continued , it would
be very difficult to place a sign there and almost impossible on
the other side as well .
Chairman Aron stated that he lived in that neighborhood , as
• did Mr . Austen of the Board , and drove by Mrs . Bowers ' property
many times , and thought there might be " a possibility of putting a
legal sign on the south side as well as on the north side . Mrs .
Bowers said she could Inot put a sign up on the north side on Mr .
Brown ' s land . Chairman Aron inquired ° if she had asked Mr . Brown
and Mrs . Bowers responded that she ill would not ask Mr . Brown
because he was a convicted drug dealer and she wanted nothing to
do with him . Chairman Aron said that being a convicted drug
dealer had nothing tolido with what was before the Board , and Mrs .
Bowers replied that „it had something to do with whether she
talked with him or not and she did not want to ask favors of a
"major drug dealer " . PShe thought she could call him that because
that ' was what the Court said he was . IlMrs . Bowers further stated
this was a moral issuewith her .
Chairman Aron returned to the matter of the other side4of
the house where the vineyard was , and Mrs . Bowers said that when
she , bought the housel', their plan was to change the driveway
entrance . At the present time , she said , you could only enter
from that south driveway from the Ithaca direction because of the
way it was located geographically . She further stated that at
the time they bought the house they were told they owned about 65
more feet of frontagell, than they actually ended up owning , and
their plan was to put a driveway in perpendicular to the road
which would have been a safe driveway with access from both
• sides , and they planned on putting a sign up there which would
have been on flat level ground . Mrs . Bowers said they really had
8
. u5
tried and the DeWittli Historical Society also tried to get that
if
piece of land and to I get any rights over it , and they were told
personally by the Freer Cemetery Association that they were so
angry with the DeWitt Historical Society over the Freer property
that they hoped the whole issue wouldgo to court and they would
go bankrupt . Mrs . Bowers stated they were caught in the middle
and they ended up actually getting a right of way over the bottom
of the driveway but they did refuse to let them change it in any
way . Further , she stated , she did not see where a sign would go
in that area as she did not mow down there because she did not
own that land , and in fact , was actually stopped two years ago
from cutting the shrubs back . So , she stated , if she had a
setback ordinance for ;,' a sign in the Town of Ithaca it would just
be in the trees and shrubs because she had been asked not to cut
that shrubbery back . !! She said that she did do a little bit of
trimming to keep the idriveway open but that was it .
'j
Chairman Aron said that as of the last three months they
had ! been asked by three different organizations to keep Town of
Ithaca land within the zoning districts as it was zoned years and
years back . Chairman Aron said this Board was also aware of
those things and could not wildly give variances , but would like
to do its best to keep things within the framework of the living
conditions as they should be . Chairman Aron continued that that
was why he was trying 'Ito get as much information from Mrs . Bowers
as possible . Chairman Aron then requested Paul Bennett , attorney
for Mr . and Mrs . Bowers , to address the Board .
Paul Bennett of 11413 Hook Place , Ithaca , New York , stated the
following :
1 . Mr . and Mrs . ',', Bowers were asking for a variance from the
provisions of the sign ordinance which would allow , in a
residential district , ' only two - foot square signs . Originally , he
said , this present sign was put up at the recommendation of the
zoning officer for the Town of Ithaca , , Mr . Cartee , back in 1980 .
2 . The sign ' s ' location and size was recommended by Mr .
Cartee who had some ;, very serious concerns about highway and
traffic safety . His understanding was; that the sign ordinance in
effect at that time stated that highway safety was a very serious
concern of the Town .
3 . Pictures presented to the Board should bear out why the
sign was placed where , it was . If one comes from either the north
or south one can see that the building; was up on a hill , the hill
rises rather steeply from the side of the road and is on a curve .
Mr . Cartee and the Town were rightfully concerned that anyone
coming from either the north or the south and seeing a very small
sign would make very ii quick stops and quick turns and that would
be a potential for car accidents . The safety concern was
paramount and the location was also consistent with that safety
6
concern . Mr . Cartee ' wanted the sign to be up high so that it
could be seen from both directions and also be seen at a distance
so that people would not have to make quick stops and quick
turns .
4 . The parcel is a very unique parcel of land , both
driveways are unique , and the setting is unique for land on a
highway with a business sign . The Town at that time recognized
that a two foot square sign , which was not very big , was not
something one could see from a distance to the top of the hill
and would be a useless sign . Therefore they agreed at that time ,
with conditions , that the sign be erected but that the sign be
consistent with the other signs in the area and that it have the
same historical quality as the building itself .
5 . Why the Town put a five year limitation on the sign he
did not know and he guessed it was impossible to speculate . It
might have been that they wanted to see whether the highway
conditions were the same then .
6 . The safety concern that existed then existed now . It
was the same topography , the same Route 96 , the same kind of
highway , and the same kind of driveways . The land was not
conducive to putting a sign right at the side of the road because
• ( a ) the part that was owned by the Bowers was on a cliff - like
presence , and ( b ) the driveways were simply not owned by Mr . and
Mrs . Bowers .
7 . There was also a sign on the north side driveway and he
showed the Board a picture of the Indian Creek Fruit Farm sign
which was relatively„ new . If a sign to the antique business
( especially if it was smaller ) was put by that side of the
driveway it would be dwarfed by the Indian Creek Fruit Farm sign
which was 37 square feet .
8 . Going northy coming from the City towards Trumansburg ,
that driveway was onein which you would not want anyone going by
it and then trying to make a swing -wide turn coming back in it
because they would have to do this in the middle of Route 96 .
9 . The concerns of the Town back then that determined where
the sign was placed still existed : They were asking for a
variance from the sign ordinance to address those concerns again .
These concerns were safety and practicality . The Planning Board
discussed this matter and understood the nature of the safety
problem .
Chairman Aron asked if it was all the Planning Board and Mr .
Bennett replied that he could not say the Planning Board was
unanimous but in a crowd of ten it ' was hard to get unanimity
• about anything .
s
7 ,
10 . This Board had the power to vary the sign ordinance in
situations that did , not meet the normal criteria of a flat
straight and regular isetback and square blocks and this matter
was one of them . That was why this Board was here .
11 . The Board should consider the public safety
determination and consider the practicality of trying to put up
two foot square signs in this particular location . The Board
should be cognizant of the letters from the surrounding neighbors
and cognizant of the neighborhood itself . The Indian Creek Fruit
Farm sign was already there which and larger than that of Mrs .
Bowers . This was not a tightly packed residential neighborhood
and there had never been a complaint to the Town about the signs ,
there had never been „ a complaint to the Bowers about the signs ,
and the neighbors who lived in the area had indicated , at least
in writing , their support of this particular application .
The public hearing was opened .
Mr . Eugene Ball of 1317 Trumansburg Road , addressed the
Board . He said he lived just south of the driveway in question
on the other side of " the road . Mr . Ball asked the Board if they
knew the speed limit " on that highway was 55 miles an hour , and
also did they know how fast the troopers and cars came down over
• that hill . Mr . Ball , said he heard them and saw them and it was
very dangerous if anyone took that south driveway into the
entrance because of quick stops . He asked the Board if they
wanted to be responsible for deaths if a sign was put there . Mr .
Ball felt that if the sign were changed and put in the south
driveway the Board „ would be responsible for anything that
happened there as there were many accidents in that area . Mr .
Ball reiterated that someone had looked this situation over
earlier and for safety reasons they had put the sign where it
was . Mr . Ball stated there were bigger signs than that of Mrs .
Bowers south of her property , and in particular the huge sign
going into the professional building . He did not know why the
Board had allowed that sign when they were criticizing the sign
of Mrs . Bowers , Mr Ball said the doctors were not on public
property and were working for profit , and even though the Board
might have felt that they should have professional courtesy then
Mrs . Bowers should also . Mr . Ball said his primary concern was
for safety .
Mr . King asked Mr . Ball to identify his property on the tax
map and Mr . Ball did , so as tax parcel No . 6 . Mr . King asked how
many feet south of the sign he was located and it was determined
that his property appeared to be about 600 feet south of where
the sign was situated .
No one else from the public appeared and the public hearing
• was closed .
{
8
• Mr . Frost stated that as a point of information to Mr . Ball ,
the professional building was in a business district and in fact
the zoning ordinances based on the frontage of the buildings
there , would permit a sign even larger than what was up there
now .
Mr . King said that he had read'' the entire record of the
Planning Board and the history of the matter as presented in
1980 . Mr . King stated it was clear the Town Board authorized the
sign for five years but it had been there for eight years . Why
they allowed it for five years he was not sure except that the
Town might have wanted to see how the area was going to develop .
Attorney Barney speculated that there was a provision in the
prior sign ordinance " for a sunset requirement with respect to
non - conforming signs ,, and he suspected it was for five years .
Attorney Barney further stated the Town had gone through
extensive litigation with regard to billboards to have them taken
down because they were no longer conforming signs . He continued
that he thought since the Bowers sign would be non- conforming the
Town did not want to see it established permanently when they
were in the throes of removing a number of other signs at the end
of the amortizationperiod .
• Attorney Barney 'Iwanted the record to reflect , ( and Mr . and
Mrs . Bowers could correct him if he was wrong ) that Mr . and Mrs .
Bowers were involved,, in litigation with the Town and Mr . Brown
where the Bowers had asserted that in order to continue a non -
conforming use you had to establish hardship and practical
difficulty and that Mr . Brown failed to do so . Attorney Barney
stated that the Bowers had been successful in that litigation so
far but that the matter was going to the Appellate Division .
Attorney Barney said , the point of his comments was that Mr . and
Mrs . Bowers should be aware of the requirements in obtaining a
continuance of a non = conforming use or a variance .
Mr . King said it was obvious that the Town Board felt there
should be a review of the Bowers sign and he had the feeling from
all he had read and from viewing the sign from both directions on
the Trumansburg Roadl that the majority of the Planning Board and
the Town Board members apparently felt that this particular
location for one sign was as ideal as it could be from a safety
standpoint . Mr . King concurred with this . He felt that two
smaller signs at the driveway entrances would pose a safety
hazard and it was obvious from the ' way the house was situated
that no one would know there was a business there without the
sign being located where it was . Mr,, . King continued that on the
other hand the property was in an R15 zone , the most restrictive
residential zoning that there was , and across the street from it
on the east side ofil the highway was R30 zoning , which was the
• next most restrictive zoning . Mr . King stated further that there
were very few houses' in this neighborhood and it was pretty open
Z
9
• territory and he thought that was probably why the variance was
granted to operate an antique business there and probably
justification for the sign since the area was of rural character .
Mr . King continued that at some point that rural character of
this immediate neighborhood would begin to change into a more
highly developed residential area . Mr . King was also concerned
about the accidents in this area and that gave him pause . He
wondered if any Town officer reviewed periodically accident
reports in the Town ° so one could be aware of the cause of
accidents in the vicinity of this property .
Chairman Aron said there was one ,, very serious accident last
year whereby a young woman ( in Mr . Ball ' s neighborhood ) lost
control of her car , ' hit a pole and was killed . Chairman Aron
continued that most of the accidents which had happened there
were mostly fender benders and prior to the hospital having had a
traffic light installed . Chairman Aron said Mr . Ball was
correct in that the ; speed limit was 55 miles an hour but that
most people went faster than that , especially coming over the
hill and going downhill . He repeated that he and Mr . Austen did
travel that road very frequently and it could be very hairy at
times . Chairman Aron felt Mr . Ball was correct in saying this
area was accident prone .
Mr . King felt it was important for this Board to determine
• whether any accidents within 1 , 000 feet of either side of these
properties were in any way related to the fact that a fruit farm
andan antique business were located ,, there and the people might
be trying to get to them or distracted by signs or have their
view blocked by signs .
Chairman Aron said that the accident that happened last year
that he mentioned previously had nothing to do with either the
fruit farm nor the antique shop because that person lost control
of her car . Mr . King said maybe she lost control because she was
reading an antique sign . Chairman Aron said that she lost
control because she had one or two children in the car and the
children distracted her . Chairman Aron said there was another
accident close to Woolf Lane , about a mile away from the subject
premises , which was quite serious .
Mr . Austen said that most of the accidents he had seen in
the area were from cars pulling out of DuBois Road into traffic
or caused by wild animals crossing the road . As far as the sign
went , Mr . Austen said , he recalled the main purpose of a large
sign was that it was a new business and that Mrs . Bowers wanted
exposure for this new business and this was one of the reasons
why the Board granted the size sign that it had . He continued
that the location was considered a reasonable location for the
sign . Mr . Austen said he did not know why a 1 by 4 or 1 by 5
• foot sign , which would be a conforming sign , would not be
adequate today .
t
10
•
Mrs . Hoffmann said she was interested in antiques and
because of this she noticed an advertisement in the Ithaca
Journal relating to Mrs . Bowers ' business . She said that the
notice read " Celia Bowers Antiques , formerly Indian Creek" and
this prompted her to ask if Mrs . Bowers had changed the name of
the business .
Mrs . Bowers explained as follows .
i . When she bought the house the property had been Indian
Creek for almost 200 years . She had spoken to the Town Board
before she bought the property which had been on the market for
some time , being a 19 room house not suitable as a single family
residence . She received informal permission from the Town Board
members to have a business in the house as well as a home .
2 . She was going to have , for her business , the name " Celia
Bowers Antiques " which was preferable . However , the fruit
farmer , whose mother bought him the farm next door to them had
partners and those partners were in business in Newfield under
the name " Little Tree " . Mr . Brown told her he was going to get
rid of the name " Indian Creek" because his partners wanted to
keep the name " Littl"e Tree " . Therefore , she changed her name
• because she wanted to see something that had been part of the
area for 200 years remain .
3 . Three years after she bought the property the Little
Tree orchards and Mr . Brown had a falling- out and they had no
further business connections and Mr . Brown took the name " Indian
Creek Fruit Farm . " ',' At that point , she spoke with her lawyer ,
since they were not too happy with Mr . Brown for many reasons and
did not want to be associated with him . They felt the
association would be present in people ' s minds . Their lawyer
pointed out that he was a neighbor and Mrs . Bowers would not want
hard feelings so they let him take the name .
4 . Over a year ago , Mr . Brown was convicted of major drug
charges and she had been extremely embarrassed by this , her
business has suffered , she did not " get house calls for three
months , and people assumed she was Mr . Brown ' s ex -wife . After
awhile she decided the only thing she could do was to change the
name back to " Celia Bowers Antiques " and she was going to ask the
Board if they would „give her permission to keep the sign if she
would just paint out the Indian Creek part .
5 . She was legally " Indian Creek Antiques " since it would
take awhile to get ' rid . of the name and she was still " Indian
Creek Antiques " in the phonebook since she could not change that
until next November . She was also legally now " Celia Bowers
• Antiques " and it was her aim to let the name " Indian Creek"
lapse . She was sorry about that historically but socially it was
11
inevitable .
6 . She would like to keep the same size sign because it
cost her $ 800 . 00 but she would like to paint out the " Indian
Creek" . She did not ' need the " Celia Bowers " on the sign either .
She would like to " keep the same sign with the arrow and
"Antiques " on it .
Mrs . Hoffmann asked whether she could cut down the size of
the sign by cutting off the part that indicated " Indian Creek"
and thus bringing the sign into something approaching conformity .
She asked what the size of the sign was and Mrs . Bowers said it
was approximately 4 by 6 . Mrs . Bowers further stated it was Mr .
Cartee ' s idea to place " Indian Creek" on the sign , that her
original drawings to , the Planning Board just had "Antiques " on
the , sign . She stated that Mr . Cartee wanted the sign the same
general shape as the houses in the area which aesthetically was a
good idea . Mrs . Bowers said the reason she wanted to keep this
sign was that it was well built , had cost her $ 800 . 00 , and she
did not want to pay was,
$ 800 . 00 or more to get a new one .
Mrs . Hoffmann said she did not have any problem with . the
aesthetics of the sign but she did not think the Board should
worry too much about aesthetics and that their main concern was
• size . Mrs . Bowers stated that her immediate neighbors who were
the only ones that could see the sign had no objection and indeed
would be at the meeting but were in Europe . Attorney Barney
inquired if Mr . Brown was present at the meeting and Mrs . Bowers
replied that Mr . Brown was not a resident of the area and he was
not at the meeting . Mrs . Bowers further stated they had not
opposed his new 37 square foot sign which was three and a half
years old . Mrs . Bowers said she did not oppose his sign because
if Mr . Brown was going to have a fruit farm there , the same
safety factors prevailed .
Mrs . Hoffmann felt that because of the safety factors the
sign should be kept in the same location but since the Board was
obligated to make sure that the regulations were adhered to and
the Bowers sign was almost six times as large as what was allowed
under the zoning ordinance , she was trying to think of a way to
reduce the size of the sign , keep it in the same location and
still have it say "Antiques " . It occurred to Mrs . Hoffmann that
since " Indian Creek'; was soon obsolete , then Mrs . Bowers could
have the top of the sign cut off . Mrs . Bowers said that sounded
simple but the post„s were dug in concrete which was built up
above ground level so they could not take the posts out . Mrs .
Bowers continued that the posts were actually dovetailed together
and the sign was really very nicely built . She further stated
that they wanted her to use big pine posts with caps on them and
they wanted the main body of the sign edged on all sides with
• molding . Mrs . Bowers said she did not actually mind making her
sign a bit smaller but she did not think she could make it fit
i
4 -
12
the zoning requirements and have it safe when it rotted out .
Mrs . Bowers stated that what the Board was saying to her was to
go and spend another $ 1500 . 00 . She felt this was what it would
cost if it was to be a good looking sign .
lMrs . Hoffmann said she was not , saying Mrs . Bowers should
replace this sign entirely but to try to adjust it . Mrs . Bowers
replied that she could not take the " posts off the sign and she
could not cut the sign down without cutting the posts off . She
said she could cut the whole thing across and have a sign that
had posts coming out with no caps and no molding but then it
would look like half a sign . Mrs . ' Hoffmann asked if the caps
could be put back on again and discussion was had on this matter .
Mrs . Bowers thought it would be a problem and would look terrible
as well .
Chairman Aron thought Mrs . Hoffmann had brought up a very
good point , that since Mrs . Bowers was going to eradicate the
" Indian Creek" and the lettering for "Antiques " was actually low ,
Mrs . Bowers could raise the "Antiques " and cut the bottom off
rather than the top . Mrs . Bowers still thought this would be a
problem and said that her sign was much smaller than Mr . Brown ' s
sign .
• Mrs . Hoffmann wondered whether Mr . Brown got a new variance
for the new sign and Chairman Aron ' responded that was not the
matter before the Board now and was something for Mr . Frost to
look into .
Mrs . Hoffmann wondered in the future what would happen if
Mrs . Bowers came to the Board and wanted to put up another sign .
She asked if Mrs . Bowers would automatically be allowed to get a
sign the same size as she has now , or would she have to go back
to the Planning Board . Chairman Aron said this Board could vary
Ito Mrs . Hoffmann asked again whether Mr . Brown who had a sign
that was too big had„ come in to get permission for a new sign and
was it varied again or was he allowed to build a sign this big
again because he had originally gotten the first variance .
Attorney Barney stated that the Board was hearing about this
for the first time tonight and neither Mr . Frost or himself knew
anything about the matter and he thought the position the Board
would take was that ° if it was a different and new sign it would
have to go through ,the same process that anyone else would have
to go through . He continued that it would be similar to the
application before the Board that night with respect to Mrs .
Bowers ,
Mr . King said that with this particular sign he did not see
what would be gained by reducing the size of the sign . He
continued that the sign was up on the hill , out of the way , was
not particularly aesthetic from his point of view , but it was not
V
• 13
obtrusive either . Mr . King further stated that it was in a
location that had no neighbors and that the closest neighbor ' s
house was about 400 feet away on DuBois Road . He felt that what
the Board should do was to grant a permit for a limited , stated
period and review the matter periodically so that it was clearly
understood that this ° sign would exist in the future only by leave
of the Town because if the situation changed , if there were more
houses developed there , if the Indian Creek Fruit Farm became a
subdivision , then the matter would have to be looked at
differently .
Mr . King said that the ordinance allowed a sign no larger
than four square feet and one could imagine such a sign on a
street that was highly developed with many houses close together
in a clearly residential neighborhood . He continued that this
area was not that well developed at this point and he did not see
that the sign did any harm where it was and did not think the
gain would be enough to justify the expense of alteration of that
sign at this point . ; He thought painting out the name " Indian
Creek " could be done very simply with a bucket of paint and a
brush and that might, even improve the looks of the sign and the
safety of the sign because it would be that much less to read .
Mr . King felt , however , that the Board should reserve the right
in " the future to review this matter , ' that the matter should come
• back to the Board perhaps automatically every _ two years , and
there should be a further understanding that if the character of
the neighborhood changed for any reason and the Town felt that
the sign was no longer appropriate , ;then the Town could issue a
notice for a hearing and at that point discuss a change in the
sign either by reduction or removal .
Chairman Aron pointed out that DuBois Road , at the mouth
coming into Route 96 , was going to be enlarged considerably so
there was going to . be a tremendous change at that corner . Mr .
King interjected that even a change , or intensity in the traffic
patterns would justify reconsideration of the sign . ' Chairman
Aron said that Mr . King ' s point had been very well taken and he
concurred with his sentiments .
Mr . Bennett said he had concerns in the questions raised by
Attorney Barney and also with Mrs . Hoffmann ' s comments and that
was the standards by , which the Board granted variances for signs .
He said that Attorney Barney had ; alluded to some litigation
involving the construction of a new building on Mr . Brown ' s
property and Mrs . Bowers took the position , rightfully so , that
in a use variance such as that it requires an economic
demonstration of hardship . Mr ." Bennett said that his
understanding was that this sign ordinance was not a use variance
ordinance and was not part of the zoning ordinance . He continued
that the standards were set forth in the ordinance itself and he
• would simply ask the Board to look at those standards and in so
doing perhaps they would understand that it was perfectly within
14
• their powers to look , at signs in a situational setting .
Chairman Aron assured Mr . Bennett that the Board was very
well aware of those things as most of the members had been
sitting on the Board for many , many years , and because of this
they were aware of what a use variance was , what a variance for
a sign was , and what : an area variance was .
Mr . Austen concurred with what Mr . King had said about this
being subject to review by the Board as to changes in traffic
patterns and development .
Attorney Barney was concerned about the legislative
authority in imposing a review period. Mr . King said he believed
a variance could be granted for a limited duration as long as it
was not personal to an owner and he believed this was the Court
of Appeals ruling . Attorney Barney said that if the motion were
phrased in the form of a variance granted for a limited period of
time , unrelated to the business , " he thought it would be
sustained . Mr . King said that if the Board granted a variance
for a limited period of time that would mean that at the end of
that period Mrs . Bowers would have to apply again for a variance
so that would mean an automatic review .
Mr . King moved as follows :
• RESOLVED that this
Board grants a variance for the
continuation of the present sign , with minor changing in the
lettering if the applicant wishes to paint out the name
" Indian Creek" ; land it is further
RESOLVED , that the variance be granted for a period of two
years , at which time the variance will end unless the
applicant makes further application for continuation .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
Eva Hoffmann thought that two years was not enough time to
determine whether development would take place in that area .
Chairman Aron mentioned that there were numerous requests ,
not because of Kyong ' s property but because of others , for
development of residential homes in that area and those requests
had not been handled by the Town or the Planning Board and
nothing had been done at this point but it was within the future
and nobody could say when it would happen or whether it would
happen because no one knew . He continued that when Mr . King made
the motion for two years he thought two years was a matter of
review . Mr . King said that according to counsel they must make
it for a two year term with no review and then Mrs . Bowers could
• reapply for a further variance , which would bring it back for
review , unless Mrs . Bowers did not want to keep the sign . He
• 15
continued that if Mrs . Bowers did not want to keep the sign at
that time she could simply take it down .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Austen , King , Hoffmann , Aron
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
Mr . King wanted ,, to correct himself in that Mrs . Bowers did
have another alternative and that was to reduce the sign to the
legal size which she +' could do on her own anytime .
Mr . Ball had one last question and asked Mr . Frost if he had
said there was no size limit on commercial signs . Mr . Frost said
that in fact what he had said was that the sign at the
professional building could be larger based on frontage . Mr .
Ball further stated the Board was concerned about development in
the area but that they did not have water and sewer in that area .
Chairman Aron said that to the best of his knowledge there would
belanother contract worked out within the next two or three years
for water and sewer . "
• The second item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Leslie and Frederic Carrere , Appellants ,
requesting authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals
under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , for '' the extension 'of an existing legal non -
conforming residence on a legal non - conforming lot at 1067
Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 21 - 2 - 11 ,
Residence District R- 15 . The ' proposed extension is for
additional living space on the '« east and north sides of the
existing building which currently has a south side yard
setback of 6 feet , a north side yard setback of 24 feet , and
an east rear yard setback of 30 feet . The proposed
extension would result in a south side yard setback of 6
feet , a north side yard setback of 18 feet , and an east rear
yard setback of " 23 feet .
Mrs . Leslie Carrere addressed the Board . She explained that
they had a very small house and wished to enclose the existing
porch to make their living room area .a bit larger . She continued
that they were a family of three , and soon to be four , and they
were definitely in need of larger living space since she also had
a small office ( she ,;was a graphic designer ) in the home as well .
She further stated that the house sat on a very steep slope down
to the lake and they would like to build an additional deck
wrapping it around the side of the house not approaching the
• property line to the' south but going " across the lake side of the
house and coming around to the left . She felt this would allow
16
• themsome kind of outside space for their children with the
conforming railing height that was now three feet or so . On the
far side of the house , she said , there runs a ravine . She was
asking permission to " build a deck of 7 feet which would have a
railing around it in ' front of the house .
Chairman Aron asked what the square footage of the living
area was now . Mrs . ' Carrere replied that it 20 by 25 , with two
floors so there was , 470 feet of total living space minus the
office . By enclosing the existing porch , they would gain an
additional 140 square feet which would extend their living room
and dining room area . If they did . this , she said , they would
lose their outside porch and living on the side of the ravine and
next to the lake with children , it was very important to them to
have an enclosed porch with a railing „ around their house to allow
them some outside space .
Chairman Aron asked who lived next to the Carreres and Mrs .
Carrere responded that Libby Leonardlived on one side and there
were three retired schoolteachers from Cornell on the other side .
None of the neighbor's , she said , had any disagreement with their
proposal .
The public hearing was opened . No one appeared . The public
• hearing was closed .
Mrs . Carrere was asked to show on the sketches what their
proposal would entail which she did .
Mr . King asked , Mrs . Carrere how far the proposed extension
to the north would go as it looked like it would not bring her
any closer than 15 feet to the northerly property line . Mrs .
Carrere said it would be 18 feet or so .
Mr . Frost said that when he was taking pictures of this
property he had difficulty finding a spot to get back away from
the house because of " the ravine and he could also appreciate that
the additional new outside deck would provide some play area for
the children outside '' of the house .
The public hearing was opened . No one appeared and the
public hearing was closed .
Mr . Austen said„ it appeared that porch addition to the north
would not change the actual lot line as there already was a 7
foir
ot porch up there at the entryway , and there was a 15 foot side
yard . Mr . King said, Mr . and Mrs . Carrere said they would have an
18 foot side yard . , Mrs . Carrere said it would probably actually
be around 20 feet .
• A motion was made by Eva Hoffmann as follows :
i
17
WHEREAS , this Board finds that the building in this matter
is too small for the size of this family , and
WHEREAS , the deck would make for a safer play area for the
children than what currently exists because the land is very
steep and is bordered by a ravine , and
WHEREAS , the impact on the neighbors would be minimal and
the proposal would not be detrimental to the neighborhood ;
and
WHEREAS , the side yard to the north would be at least 18
feet wide , and the addition would still leave a distance of
21 feet , from the end of the property to the lake ; and
WHEREAS , no one ° appeared in opposition to this appeal , it is
therefore
RESOLVED , thati this Board grants the request for an
extension of an ' existing legal non- conforming residence on a
legal non - conforming lot in accordance with the plans
submitted to the Board , the extension entailing enclosing an
existing porch "and adding a new porch on the east side and
the north side of the building .
11
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows : ~
Aye - King , Austen , Hoffmann , Aron
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
The last item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Ernest and Beulah Pittman , Appellants , Rochelle
Alexander , Agent , requesting variance of Article III ,
Sections 7 and191 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
and , Section 28 °0 - a of the New York State Town or State or
State highway , ' for the construction of a residence on Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 40 - 1 - 1 , located on Pittman Lane ,
a private road off Stone Quarry Road .
Ms . Rochelle Alexander addressed the Board . She explained
that the lot in question ( identified as Lot No . 1 on the map
presented ) was established about 32 ' years ago and the Pittmans
have continually paid taxes on the building lot . At the present
time , she stated , this lot fronts on ' a private road and the means
•
to access this road '1was a right of way . Ms . Alexander said that the Pittmans do not ' own the right of ' way and they don ' t have the
means of doing anything to create a public road by dedicating it
� 18
to the Town or something of that sort . She stated that the
Pittmans sought a variance so that they would be able to obtain a
building permit for a perspective purchaser for the lot .
Currently , she said , there has been a septic test performed on
the property and it showed there were no problems as far as
putting a septic system on that land . '
The public hearing was opened .
Roger Perkins of 230 Stone Quarry Road stated his property
was on the east side ' of the subject property and he indicated on
the map exactly where his property was located . ( Mr . Perkins '
property was identified as Parcel 71 adjacent south of the
subject property . ) His lot , he said , was directly in the path of
any perspective water line that would go to Town water located on
Stone Quarry Road , and at some time he imagined he would be asked
to grant an easement for this water line . He would prefer not to
do this because he had a driveway that was in the way , and it
would be necessary to traverse his property to get to the water
line . From this standpoint , he said , he objected to the appeal .
Chairman Aron asked him to clarify what he was objecting to , and
Mr : Perkins explained that as everyone knew there was no water on
Stone Quarry and the;' only way to get water was to go to the Town
water line on Stone Quarry Road and they would have to go through
• his property to get there .
Mr . King said " that Mr . Perkins must have at least one
utility line running through his property and Mr . Perkins
indicated on the map where the current easements were .
Attorney Barney inquired which way the topography ran and
Mr . Perkins responded everything was downhill from Stone Quarry
to Pittman , sloping to the north . Attorney Barney asked how far
the public water line went and Mr . Perkins responded it went
clear down to just below Pittman Lane where there was a fire
hydrant on the north' side of Stone Quarry .
Attorney Barney inquired if there were other houses on
Pittman Lane and Mr . Perkins replied there were two houses on
Pittman Lane , one was Lot 2 ( 220 Stone Quarry Road ) , and the
McCord property at 2122 Stone Quarry Road .
Mr . Frost said" that he had tried to research where these
houses had come from since they were off Stone Quarry Road and he
could not find any record of a building permit being issued for
these houses . Mr . Perkins replied that was possible because it
was in 1975 and he did not build his house .
Mr . King askedwhy Mr . Perkins would object to a water line
easement across his property and Mr . Perkins replied it was
• because it would have to go right through his driveway .
a
19
• Ms . Alexander said there was another alternative and that
was to go up Pittman Lane , the water line to be put in by the
person buying the lot .
Mr . Jay Mendelson of 220 Stone Quarry Road said that he
resided in the log cabin , that his girlfriend , Lauren Stefanelli ,
owned the cabin but had authorized him by letter to speak on her
behalf . A copy of said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 .
Mr . , Mendelson said he opposed the variance because for one thing
the water line they had would be unequal for anyone to use
because it was only, a one inch diameter line and there was
insufficient pressure , and all it could supply was the log cabin
itself .
Chairman Aron asked what he meant by insufficient pressure
and Mr . Mendelson replied that if one started tacking a bunch of
houses on it , or even one , it would not be able to handle the
demand . Chairman Aron inquired how much pressure Mr . Mendelson
had and he replied he had never measured it . Mr . Frost asked if
it ,was Town water and Mr . Mendelson replied that it was .
Mr . Mendelson said he was not sure the alternate route would
work as it was all ' rock there and the type of equipment that
would be needed and the type of construction occurring would make
• a major mess with dust and noise . He continued that Pittman Lane
on the map appeared to be 25 foot wide and not sufficient to
handle this type of equipment and aesthetically the whole area
would be hurt . In addition , he said , there would have to be a
culvert where the water could collect right next to the house .
Mr . Mendelson said the main things he objected to were the noise
and the effect on the environment . Chairman Aron asked what
noise he was talking about and Mr . Mendelson replied that he was
objecting to the noise of the equipment needed for construction .
Chairman Aron pointed out this would be only temporary and Mr .
Mendelson said it would be for a long period of time , maybe two
or three years . Attorney Barney said this was a long time to put
a water line in . Mr . Mendelson said it was a major job to go
through the rock . He repeated it would be a detriment to the
environment . Chairman Aron said that " environment " was a very
loose term used by everyone and he needed more facts .
Mr . Mendelson was asked to indicate on the map where his
property was situated and he did so , explaining where the
equipment would have to come through and pointing out that the
cars would be virtually passing right underneath his front porch
which would be a permanent thing .
Ms . Alexander ,, said that area was not impassable and
equipment had come I in to do a septic test that was performed
under the auspices of the Health Department . She said there was
• not bedrock as otherwise they would , not have been able to get a
satisfactory perc test . She continued that there was
20
satisfactory land in which to build a house . She presented to the
Board a copy of a " Sewage Treatment System Construction Permit " ,
attached hereto as Exhibit 2 .
Mr . King asked if a sand filter would be required and Ms .
Alexander said she believed it would be .
Mr . King asked if the Pittmans owned the entire piece of
land and Mr . Pittman responded his father had owned all the land
at one time , and Mr . Pittman had owned the McCord place and Ms .
Alexander indicated on the map where the McCord property was .
Attorney Barney asked when the McCord property was
transferred and Mr . Pittman responded it was about in 1963 or
1964s` Attorney Barney asked when the rest of the land was
transferred and Mr . Pittman responded it was about 1975 .
Attorney Barney asked ,, if it was all transferred except the land
he was talking about now . Mr . Pittman responded that he had kept
the one lot and owned ; it since 1956 . Attorney Barney inquired if
there had been any kind of subdivision map done and Mr . Pittman
responded there had not been one done . Attorney Barney asked if
the land was conveyed in all one piece or conveyed in several
pieces . Mr . Pittman responded he sold ' one lot to McCord and kept
the lot in question . He continued that after his father died ,
• the rest of the land was sold in the estate .
Mr . Mendelson said that in trying" to use the basis that they •
got a permit for a sand filter it did not necessarily indicate
that it would be an easy construction task going through the rock
to put in a water line or even constructing a house .
Attorney Barney asked who built the log cabin and Mr .
Pittman responded that a Mrs . Daniels had it built by Gaggle
Company , Attorney Barney asked if it was built around 1975 and
Mr . Pittman responded ' it was before then , in the middle 1960s .
The public hearing was closed .
Ms . Alexander said that if they were not allowed to have a
permit to build on the property it would create undue hardship to
the Pittmans because they had owned the property for 32 years and
had paid taxes on it and should have the reasonable expectation
of either building on the lot or selling it as a building lot .
With the community the way it was , she said , with the other
houses on that lane , the Pittmans should be allowed to have a
permit to build on that property .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Pittman how wide the lane was and
Mr . Pittman responded there was not , any definite footage given
when it was deeded to him . Chairman ' Aron inquired if Mr . Frost
• knew how wide the lane was and Mr . Frost replied that measured
from the narrowest point at the entryway from the flat point to i
• 21
the ground , which was dust beyond the dirt area where there was a
steep drop , to a flat area just before you get to the steep rise ,
it was approximately 12 feet . He said if they needed to widen it
they would have to dig out along the bank on the uphill side to
gain any width . In his mind , it would be very difficult to fill .
Chairman Aron asked if it was satisfactory for emergency vehicles
to get in there and Mr . Frost responded that in terms of access ,
as you get further down the road there are parking areas off to
the side and perhaps a fire truck could turn around there . He
said he had not made it that far down . But , needless to say , he
continued , there was only 12 feet at the narrowest point .
Chairman Aron said that in order to qualify for emergency access
the lane had to be a minimum of 15 feet width . Attorney Barney
said this was not correct , that the statute read the other way ,
that if it was 15 feet it was presumptively enough . With 12
feet , he said , you did not get the benefit of the presumption but
conceivably that could be enough too .
11
Mr . Frost said it was quite a rough drive down the road .
Chairman Aron asked who owned that road and Mr . Pittman said that
the people who live ' on the road owned it . Chairman Aron asked
who fixed the potholes and Mr . Pittman responded that the people
who live there took care of the road . Ms . Alexander said the
people living there cooperatively took care of the road .
• Chairman Aron askedif this was in writing and Ms . Alexander said
she did not believe '.it was .
Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Pittman had lived in the McCord
house and Mr . Pittman responded that was correct .
Mr . King said also that the road was one of the roughest he
had ever seen and one of the scariest as well . He continued that
when Mr . Frost said ' the road was 12 feet at the narrowest point ,
he was including the grass areas on both sides of the road , and
that the dirt road itself was probably no more than seven to ten
feet wide . Mr . Frost said that lie thought it was more like
eleven feet . Mr . King said that essentially it was a driveway
going two -tenths of ,a mile back from Stone Quarry Road . Attorney
Barney asked how much of a drop there was off to the side and
Chairman Aron responded it was at least 30 degrees and Mr . King
said it was quite a steep drop off " and he thought a firetruck
would wind up in the gulley . Mr . Pittman said he had dump trucks
and dozers and gas tanks in there without any trouble .
Mr . King asked if the quarry was actually mined before and
Mr . Pittman responded it was . Mr . King asked if Pittman Lane was
used in conjunction with the quarry and Mr . Pittman responded it
was . Mr . King asked when Mr . Pittman ' s father had bought the
land and Mr . Pittman responded he bought it in 1942 after it
ceased being a quarry .
Ms . Alexander said they had contracted to sell the property
22
• to a Mr . Carpenter , the person that went for the septic test and •
this contract was conditional upon his obtaining a building
permit .
Chairman Aron inquired what zoning this area was and Mr .
Frost responded it was R9 .
Mr . Frost wondered whether a fire truck could get down this
lane and Chairman Aron inquired if he had contacted Chief
Olmstead about this and Mr . Frost responded he had not . Chairman
Aron thought this should be done as the Board was responsible for
the safety and welfare of the population . Mr . King said he would
have nightmares approving a residential property on this lane .
Chairman Aron strongly recommended that Mr . Frost contact
the fire and ambulance services and obtain a written report
before the Board did anything further on this matter .
Ms . Alexander said she would like to compare this property
to some of the lake properties with similar circumstances and
perhaps worse . She reiterated that it would be a hardship on the
Pittmans if they could not sell this lot . Chairman Aron said the
board understood this but that Mr . and Mrs . Pittman had known the
lot was on a private road and the Board must consider the welfare
• of the people who live on that road . If it was safe , he said ,
that was one thing , but if it was not safe , then that was another •
matter . In order to make a judgment , he stated , the Board did
not really have enough information to determine whether the road
would carry what it should carry .
Chairman Aron therefore asked to adjourn the matter until
the Board had a report from the safety people who would be
responsible for getting in and out of that lane . Mr . King said
that he thought there should also be some kind of proposal for
the improvement of that road . Ms . Alexander said that the
Pittmans did not own the road so they did not have the means to
improve it . She said they had a right of way but they did not
have a right to build a road nor could they bear the expense of
improving that road. She continued, that the cost of improving
the road would be more than the cost of the lot .
Mr . King thought it was not a good place for a lot except to
build a lean-to to be used on hiking trips . To put a family in
residence there was a different story , he said , because he felt
it was dangerous .
Mr . Frost thought it would be possible to widen the road .
Ms . Alexander wondered if the appropriate safety authorities
found the road not adequate would they then offer some idea of
how entry could be made more adequate . Chairman Aron said that
• he thought the Pittmans would have to do this themselves .
•
• 23
Chairman Aron said that first of all the Board wanted to •
know the feasibility and if there was no feasibility , the
Pittmans should offer a proposal as to how the road would be
improved .
Attorney Barney felt it would make more sense for the
applicant to talk to the fire chief and get a letter indicating
whether or not the road was acceptable and if not what would have
to be done to make it acceptable for emergency vehicle access to
this lot . 11
Chairman Aron recommended to the Board that they adjourn
until a time when the applicant was ready with all the
information necessary to give to Mr . Frost who in turn would
contact the Chair to set a date for an adjourned hearing .
The Board concurred in this request .
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 30 p . m .
11
Respectfully submitted ,
Beatrice Lincoln
• Recording Secretary
Exhibits1 and attached •
APPROVED :
o
Henry Aron , Chairman
C
• • p.
To Whom It' 'May ' CoricEe-r.*n : �
I hereby authorize Jay D . Mendelson to speak on my behalf
with respect to the zoning variance requested for Ithaca Tax � .
Parcel # 6 - 40 - 1 - 1 . My interest stems from my ownership of Tax
Parcels bordering the lot . in question on 2 sides .
is
Signed ,
f
Lauren M,c Ste ll�i
220 Stone Quar Z
Ithaca , NY 1 Dated : 7 / 13 / 88
272 - 6610 "
E.
r
f
t
f.
i
fL.
4
t
"
z.
4
• t
f
Xh � k
f
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYS'T'EM CONS'T'RUCTION 11TOMIT
• • TOMPHINS COUN'T'Y HEALTH DEPARTMENT
401 HARRIS B. DATES DRIVE, ITHACA, NY 14850-1383
(607) 2734275
00 J .. .// . r . . . Pel . . •. ........ . Ile
... .. .. . 01 .04 .. •• . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .(/3. . . . . . .. .. ..
- ..l./. ..�. . ./. ..................
. .0
0.LOCATION: ' -:. . . .. . . . TAX MAPr . . . . .. .
Permit valid for sewage flows not in ex sof000 ..0 6. . ... . . . gallons per day ( . . . . . . .. .. .: .T. .. .. .... bedroom house or equivalent). Valid for
inclusion of garbage grinder wastes YES . ... .. ... . . .. . .. .. .. ... NO
In accordance with the provisions of the County Sanitary Code, you are hereby granted permission to construct a private sewage
treatment system at the above location with the sketch and details shown herein or previously provided.
This permit is not transferable to another person or property.
This permit is valid for one (1 ) year from date of issuance. If construction is not completed within this period, your permit must be
updated by the Health Department,
DATE . .. .. . . . `'. 1. c7. . ...'. INSPECTOR. .. .. ... .. . tL 1.r4L�' 44?l. ..d � 0411 " . 111 .. , 11 . 11 11 1. 11, 61 ,11111 , 11111 . 1160 .0 @ , *, ego 04 66989
1 7
{
DESIGN FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSITM
The sketch below indicates the approved design of your proposed sewage treatment system . See attached specifications for construc-
tion and information on approved materials . No variation in location , construction , sepcifications and details or approved material
types can be made without prior approval by the Tompkins County Health Department. All household liquid wastes including
bathroom, kitchen and laundry wastes must be disposed of through this installation. Roof le,>.,Jers, cellar or footing drains must be
entirely separate from the sewage system and must be located at least 20 feet from any part of th'rA sewage system . The system must
be inspected by"the Health Department before covering. A minimum of five gallons of water must be available at the distribution box
at the time of the final inspection,
fnimum lot size required for this sewage system is 000,0 .. .Cl �C:S.R.� .. . . . , usable area which can contain a . .. .. .�4' 0000 .
ameter circle Lot size may no be reduced below this minimum without Health Department approval . •
Bb1 . e tva,
D P� 7frzv5ic13 +
11,1M,
• • • • • • • • • 14 • ■ • • • • ■ • • • q 11 ■
C' s Vvje�
'WrP VVV4- 8 lexisq-9 I
z . G " fitSam • ' ;;�oc � S. 'T- .
oLE.elit It - g, dome gone .
gge- rpm �
VJr � t
role
� C
j
jq
mect J08
>• (Ot' r t iO� rL( . nes '1� 12v� cue US • Page 4a
iUiT 1
CONST1tUC'r10N and r AZTRIALS SPLCLFICA'1'1UNS • „ .
(Additional Spec. Sheets may be attached) As
Building Sewer , 4
�4 inch cast iron, or SCH. 40 plastic National Sanitation Foundation (N .S .F.) approved pipe with leaded joints, rubber gaskets
ed joints — water tight; minimum grade 1/4 inch per foot, supported to prevent settling. Minimum distance to well 50 feet. (4
same material used through the wall of the building should extend over disturbed ground. Otherwise, lighter weight rigid pipe may
be used .) go
Septic Tank
Water-tight concrete, unless otherwise specified by the Health Department. Capacity: .. 100, 1., .. .. . .. gallons minimum.
Minimum distance from house: feet; from water supply: 50 feet. Support on undisturbed ground free of large stones.
A washed gravel base is best. Minimum 24 inch diameter manhole to just below ground surface, or locked above ground surface, is
- required. A suitable manhole cover. i:§- required,
Sewer from Tank to Disposal Area
4 inch cast iron, cement asbestos or. SCH. 40 plastic N.S.F. approved pipe with leaded joints, rubber gaskets or bonded joints
(water-tight) is required from outlet of the septic tank over disturbed earth to solid earth . Must be well supported to prevent settling.
Minimum grade 1/8 inch per foot. '
Distribution Box
Number of outlets: .. .. . . .. . .. .. ... .. outlets must all be at the same level and 1 inch minimum above the box floor, and the inlet
must beat least 2 inches above outlets , frtlet and outlet pipes must be sealed watertight. A sanitary, "T" or equivalent maybe required
for the inlet. A suitable cover is required. Non -perforated water-tight pipe to each lateral or seepage pit.
Fill
Width t t ): ... .. ..... .. ..... ..... .. . feet; length (at top): .. ... .. .. . .. . . .. .. . .. .. . feet; depth : . . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . feet. Maximum bank slope 1 on 4.
Laterals mus kept a minimum of 10 feet from the top edge of bank. Use permeable fill . Do not use clay or clay-loam soils. Do not
strip top so' in 11° area or within 50 feet of fill area. Do not compact fill . Fill must be inspected and allowed to settle 90 days before
trenching. See fill specification sheet;for details; and additional written specification requirements below.
Tile Field
4Xh2
.
approved perforated pipe ; total footage number of laterals :. .. ... .. . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . : length per lateral
. • • • •• • •. .. ; grade: not more than 1/16 inch per foot; trench width .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. . .. ... .. .. inches; depth . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . inches.
Minimcebetween center oftrenches . . . .. . . . .. ... .. .. . .. . . .. . feet; minimum distance from ANY water supply 100 feet. Seethe sketch
below placement of perforated pipe in the trenches. All lateral ends must be capped or mortared shut (water tight). Use 6
nco11/2inchwashedgravelorNo. 2stone (asdefinedbyAmericanSocietyofTestingandMaterials — ASTMStandard�Ger .inches above pipe . Lay straw or untreated building paper over the top of the washed gravel before replacing eartPlasticper may NOT be used in place of straw or untreated buil ding paper. Do not strip topsoil in the tile field area, nor work
when wet. Keep laterals a. minimum of 20 feet from banks (except for fill systems), streams, footer drains, water and gas lines, and
paved surfaces . ('Keep construction equipment,off the tile field area after the laterals are in place and covered. )
:.' TRENCH DERAIL
Pipe StrawLa ��cr, MOgackfiEarth
— "
CORRECT min .
Holes 12 " max .
PLACEMENT - to,
OF PERFORATED 0,0.� .PIPEmin .
Washed Gravel �' Gravcl or Stone
Seepage Pit Surrounding Pipe Sts" wide
Minimu distance from ANY water supply 150 feet. Pit dimensions — outside : length .. ., . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . feet; width or diameter
... .. .. e ; depth below inlet .. .. ... .. .. .. . .. .. ... .. .. feet. Walls of cinder block or equivalen.6with openings facing out. Use a
minimum of4 in es of No. 2 or larger stone around walls. Precast concrete dry wells may be used. Cequal square footage of earth wall
is provided, a ex ss area is filled with No. 2 or larger stone. Precast drywell size must be a least equal to the system's septic tank
capacity. Us a cone ete cover over the top. Place untreated building paper or straw ( ONLY ) over the top layer of washed gravel prior
to replacing earth. ;
Sand Filter
Width . . . feet ; length . . . . . . . feet; depth of sand . . . . �. . . . . . . . . . . feet; source of
. . . . . . . • - . . . . . . . ::: . .
sand . +�1.. .:. . . . (z 1C!
L`� �jS� �. .. ` i . . . .3"1 .. �:4�. . rforated pipe to be placed as shown above:, Distribution lateral ends must be
caA A o md3 tai"e'cY�h�` t (Zvlltl�' •-tight). INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED BEFORE PLACING ;SAND AND AFTER PLACING DIS-
TRIBUTIONLINES. Place untreated buil ding paper orstraw (ONLY) overthetoplayerofwashe.d"gravel . See sand filter specification
sheet for details.
WchinXeld
Bed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widfeet; length feet; depth from ground surface,, , distribution b•
p ,, .
to the thpt the spacebetween the " " number of i e "distributors" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . .�`. . . The bed is constructed similarly
headersystem , , , , . , . . " , " " *
trenches is eliminated, pipes are laid level , and th&p' ipe ends are connected.
SPDES Permit
ADepartment ofEnvironmental Conservation SPDES permit is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is not . . . . . = . .C/ . . . . . . . . . . required. Ifrequired,
the permit must be issued to owner or applicant prior to construction. Page 3a
n �
c 7 _
4a\ Y
�- L,
to R • u 1j o o
OV) u n , •
A IS 0 _ `V 71 h J (11
J e ° V p U: p Q. 1
0
11 r=4 If)rmi
at I
fQ I a• Q A 7 LL
frla° e • 0. 4, V I
91 RJ r%% •' 6 • W a m — I411111110
4J 1J U N •a Q Vol 2. Q t
r" Edit roi'+ °• W N OJ Cr 1
CL
to
ammiL
1 ,Cool r
� ..�_ In W � Ik V h �E o. 'c1 u
01 11011041101104 �1
X ' ` car 0 D� N n I "•' `
° J
R• 9 a ao IL OP � I
e
61
it
O C � ° a 2 ZU K 1� Q. I C
E-4
• , h y t� • ° . Z a u v IL
ll 2ro °•
.• O. � \ 1- Q d � I
Q • ° 2 e/ � JI Q C L
60 #do
10
zoo
Clod vw E (t
Qif Q
L+` W) d • • 0. G 2 as j I Q C ° ,►
V ��
y . :r: ; o • ' ' - ? may LuLU
old
�r
r, Q . . . �. . . • • d � T� V1 V
? � . e . • ' ° ' ` UJ ISS Y eL
w •? " a'' • ori ' . (bN 3Udo , ItL
t
OOT ry
i i : .:' ' ' ' a ' °° IU ' C
Ids 0
• " ►- � pp 1�
ti
Ildl
Ted;:did ' °
%41 ,� .
10elk a •• Q • . K a • ' . [ O qCP a -Z - s a VCJZ "!
: '. . . : . • • �° r ,� . o°�'s o� h 7 cc T i 111 'lot
JEkq1>r `
2 o v a i•e £ o • 111 { !'
V/ M � ' � • ' T .• ; rz
a e { I
° • WLL k
+ • ;� . • ' u , � 0 -3 w � ° 1- W ate {
tt. Lj moo. v _ ~ 4.
kn
doedoodooddoOT
Cr
h r x I ( ♦ • • •. • . • 1`y, IIEa •O• I� 9� a ° X YI
—74 It ct tt
Vy I I ti � � D .';: a i!1 �' tC:.
O ? I di,
N13 _
°
Q W ^ ►. G •a S ° • U
do
� 8 All
. .
a► o g e •' LL LL Z
d, 116
qn
ca ds do,y
o � . • � � CL OPP
z
v UI 1C road. lo•
dd�mod 4) All 3
`` � •
• N , • • v
1 .
d,, Ow
Z
3 w u�, � T � � . •
cU �+ ;V J
lL =
• . 3
7WS:�
4J
ro >1
. . 0 v m I �a) O Q) U .-+4J 41 r d 4J 4J 0 v A
i�o C Ln O (f1 O U) rO A d v 4-1 4J .{J 4-1
N O r� N N M , m C m O (u C C N a)
Si ri V) •ri ro �I^. m r1 •-i -4
Q) N rO ro a r. 4-JA sa ra
° r' ) IHrc) rQ f0 1CI ro r4 .- ° 444 p
U) 41 C rU L r ' I U E m
c C • -I P Q) v - U ro a1 m rO C
0 v �4 Q) A - s-! m r .r s4 v r v
Ei -P m y 4J v U) r4 p (U U)
ra ?ti 1 P. 4J (L) s-+ 4J `O 0 F_ C
Q) rz3
4J Q) N N F(Ck
44 rn � c W ami U v •-I v O -ri
ro (� •K N M Lf) ro 1 �4 $4 O a) ( ) rQ m 4J
r0 A s-I �.�J
i U � p•r � (6 rO
.. )
ri s4 r-1 I I a) P. a) C pl •ri 44 C 4J In - J o m
x v C rU ro � ro o 4J s.i m O rO r I r0 v
O p fn N v Cn 0 U)
s 1 r-i r I N v '" 4.•) v U) r(1 E; L" <
a • r1 C ro to Q) %%'o 0 M •r+ >1 r 4 3 0 U
Qq Ga Q) r4 ` _c: C rO' JJ r-I 0 p C C
< r-I 44 U) r(7 U •l.) ro U) v C P m y 44 v U
C v v •r1 U) ro a CQ c rt Q) C p C
O ro m y p . .ro O - '1 3 0 N p O (1) m l4
ri •rl - - - - 34 C S4 r4 O U C tT >•I 4J 4J
U) 3 0 0 o 0 rn I a U w to a H U ((U 0)
rO C r 4•)
N U ( v SJ 0 0 -C v p 4-)
a U l0 O 4J 4J C > Q) C s-, -P C • -r•I v r-(
U) C x O Q) v 1 4-' a C 4J v rO v u I-I
•ri vO p p - 4J 0 r-I 4-4 C Q1
Q �4 (L) 41 C �44J Q) rC r s•i L C A v •ri E
E-+ rO - - - Orel r-4 U :j >. O *r4 A O
H o O o 0 4J C 04 o r+ rO U) Ln rO C
C 3 0 00 O N C O O O ri 4J U Q) C (n 4J v U)
ro Q) Ori C a.,) C ( ) ru •r-I O U) 4J , 4J
!I rO . ro U) O 0 P ro m a ::1 U) V
s4 U 4W s-, E~ E ro a Ori
+� 4J v 4-) 44
v-I
O rC a-i U) (U 3 pS •r-f Q) � O v
�4 U) rO -P ro Ori ro U) U a ' O �j Q) Cn U S-1
04 C C (1) d r-I OD d 41 ri � r1 a O I I 4-1 r 4 U A O Q) sa 4J ri
• p, C° � '� M Ln 0 00 4°J v Q+ ro U) r-I U 4J C fro ro m
N v w ° � U) � U v >4
W " ro •r.i ^ • • .0 r•i r—I ro m U) ro < (U .
U -HEnQ) U) cn M d' 4J r 4. -C >r • r•I f 4
4-14J U) m cn 0 -rJ rU 4-1 4J
rel u�. O O O O ra X U f4S, fa C .0 Ul s4 U) • I
4J r-+ Ln o 0 o E Q) ra
a X ro r` o o L H ro
4J • m « f m y rO Oa (o a
v _C C7 r 1 r-i �J . . r; 0 3 C v O 4J rO m
U) ro ren
Fv y)' v U v Q) C r° P U a 41 0 \
I 4-1
E-i Owro> ffd
. . a v WI J Q) p 41 Ori Or4J
4rQ) O - w.
° N v •r{ O 'O ru GI� rO 44 Qi JJ U) rO C U
OU) 41 ro O V roZr- 1 O 0
N ) rJU
v -f N v
ro�v{nA U
E
A 4J co (n � ' .0 Q) :� 4J cn rU O -P E v ri ^f
ro :5 �' U id U) (;i m rO 4J r•••r -ri ro tr) ro U) fi
< r a si ro C ri C C C a rO r-i ro v P IT (n a1
rn rU v O 0 rC Q) Q) C ro N ro (0 4J
U) v C -rCi s4 t3' •r•I U Q) AU v .0Q) 4-) C to r-(
'Zi N 4..) Q) C ro 4J v 4J rO U U) rO V1 U • 4J •rl
p r1 Ga rO U o ri s4 ro Q) ro rO m G r I U) C f�
H U] I • rel - - - - C \ C U I l 3 ! C O Q) U) JJ -r 1 C Q1
Ei 3 N M M d v O '4 0 ri ty) 4J 4-1 rJ) T) C rO ' O C to
< s4 S - N M d In > 4 (N Ori •r.1 U 44 O 0 O 4J P ro v r-I
U Q) 4J N 4J 44 4.) 4J IH .i-' v P C O ro O 4J v ra 4-4 Q
H 4-) iT ri >1 a O -ri O U = A ro A S•i 41 = (1) 4a
H -i a C A Q) 'Zi ro 'Zi v =" v U rel 4J U) Q) U)
U 0 in rjv C I S-I I C () r-I 41 S 4 Q) U) >1 m
W O
cn C a m .0 •r 1 C 1-f - A 44 C
W 4J U) N O v , ( 0 ro ro Q) E O Orel
(� 44 O O O O }4 Ori rl 4J lr1 r _C U r4 4J (o .0
[!) ro l0 dl N In
Q) U) 4J C U) U I. sJ U) x U N C v 4J N
N In l0 a . •rv &H{ f4 !~. C • 4J 0 • P t
� 3
� M ro fn si U v Q) :^ -- v C m s4 4J C ra 0
cn ri v ra I i� . c P u E 44 P U) Q) ra
rO 4J 44 Ql ri E-+ dJ 4J C •r4 04J ro r-I
r>a
• 0-I 3 A 4-I orf U ro m fn >~ I r 4 s 0 v �vI r-4 4-)
C
E f"
Ori O . O O O O. 0 44 Q) g v 0 Q) O � f 4J 44 .0 4J O v m v U
U) r� p, o fn O ren rO � U � + r1 ; 1; 4J 44 Q) 4J C 40
Av G4 M d' [� C Q) U) ' u U) I t; Q) f 4 Q) Q) is 4J v 4-) U)
- rel .0 Q) C _C C O 4-) • r1 $4 0 Q)
4°J 1N1 ,, ((0 M` 1 �r>^l Cn^ C) E-4 a ri 4J F, in u) Er E� f0 A
r (� � M M V VJ (n FYI%
0 r" -1 N (7 if 1 rU U Q) -;..q l
roro Q) c
< HA Q) A rz: ) N M �,
k U r I N qr
A FI DAVIT OF nIaLlCAMN
THE ITHACA JOURNAL TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING)
BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE i
OF PUBLIC. HEARING, WEDNES'
DAY, JULY 13, 1988, 7 :00 P. M.
By direction of the Chairman
q� ` of the Zoning Board of Ap=
t ;tfD 11OT� rt maTkIIIs �� peals, NOTICE IS HEREBY
��� • � GIVEN that Public Hearings
J S will be held by the Zoning
�✓ • • 1' 11'l�. • • • being duh sworn d Board of Appeals of the Town
... .. . ... . . ... ._ . ... . . } of Ithaca on Wednesday, July
PpOSeS 13, 1988, in Town Hall , 126
East Seneca Street, (FIRST
and says , that be raider in Ithaca, County and state aforesaid and floor, REAR entrance, WEST
side ), Ithaca, N. Y. COM-
MENCING AT 7 :00 P. M. , orf
the following matters.
thAt be is . . .. r '�L. .6...�(//... . . .... . . . ... _ . . ... . . . . . ... ... . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . ._. .... .. .. APPEAL of Celia Bowers, Ap-
pellant, request variance . of
Section 4. 01 - 1 of the Town of
of THe ITHAr—A Jot7, ,NA. . a public newspaper printed and published Ithaca Sign Law whereby the
maximum sized ' sign ' ' per=
mitted is four square -feet - in
in Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice, of which the annexed is a true order to maintain on existing
23. 80 plus/minus square foot
sign reading "Indian Creek
CC)py, was publisbed in said paper . 2S� Antiques', located at 1406
• •-• •-•• • -•-• Trumansburg Road, Town :of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. -6-24- 1 -
25. 3, Residence District R- 15.
... _..... .. . . . .. . . .. . ... .. . . .... . . .. . ... .... . . . . . .—.... ... . .... . . .. ... . . . .. . . .. . . Appellant has appeared be-
fore the Town of Ithaca Sign
Review Board ( Planning
... . .... . .. . . .. . . .. . ... .. . .. . . . . .. . . Board ) on June 21 , 1988. '
APPEAL bf Leslie and Frederick
Carrere, Appellants,-
and thaf the first publication of said notce was OII the . . .., . . . . : in authorization b the Zori'
ing Board of Appeals under_
Article XII , Section 54, of the
dfi }' Of
• .. _ • ... . . ...._ • • -• • I9 town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi-
• • • • • - • -•• • • •• • •• • • ` - • • Hance, for the extension of an
existing legal non-conforming
(v ( L residence on a legal non-con-
.. •. ..I. .. . .. . . . .. . . .. �.i.� , 1 TQ C ... . . . .. ... forming lot at 1067 Toughan-
nock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax.
Parcel No. 6-21 -2- 11 , Resi-
$u bed and sworn to before me, this da}, dente District • R- 15 . The
. ... . . . • • "'•_"'.. proosed extension is for addi-
tional living space on the east
_ Ig and north sides of the existing
.. .. . . .....
' "" building which currently has a
south side yard setback of 6
feet, a north side yard setback
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . of 24 feet, and an east rear
yard setback of 30 feet. The
Notary Public , proposed extension would re-
JEANsult in a south side yard set-
FORD back of 6 feet, a north side
NotaryP k $tate yOr yard setback of 18 feet, and
U� � IC Of New 1_ an east rear yard setback of 23
No. 4654 K fear.
41 � APPEAL of Ernest and Beulah
Qualifiedin Tompkins OL ,lf Pittman, Appellants, Rochelle
y Alexander, Agent, requesting
commission eX variance of Article III , Sections
ptres May 31, 19 ,� 7 and 9, of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance, and, Sec-
tion 280-a of the New York
State Town Law with respect to,
a parcel of land not fronting
on a Town , County or State
highway, for the construction
of a residence on Town of
Ithaca Parcel No. 6-40- 1 - 1 , lo-
cated on Pittman Lane, a pri-
vate road off Stone Quarry
Road.
Said Zoning Board of Appeals
will at said time, 7 :00 p. m . ,
and said place, hear all per=
sons in support of such matters
or objections thereto. Persons
may appear by agent or in
person .
Andrew S. Front
Building Inspector/-
Zoning Enforcement Officer •
Town of Ithaca
273- 17471
July 8, 1988