Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1989-02-27 FILED / TOWN OF ITHACA Date Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 27 , 1989 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in Regular Session on February 27 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT . Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Edward N . Austen , Eva Hoffmann , Edward W . King , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Andrew Frost ( Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer ) . ALSO PRESENT : Patricia McClary , Esq . , Albert Wright , Jan A . Sokolnicki , Mark Smith , Brian Wilbur , M . Whitcomb , Rick Holt , Dave Auble , David Debo , C . M . Jankey , Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 15 p . m . Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication and service by mail of the Public Hearings had been completed and • that proper affidavits of same were in order . The first matter on the agenda was as follows . Chairman Aron read the following two appeals together because they are related . APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , Timothy Martin and Patricia McClary , Agents , from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Office denying building permits for the construction of graduate student housing without the submission of plans for the installation of automatic fire suppression sprinkler systems , as required by Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 7 - 1988 , as amended , " Requiring Sprinkler Systems To Be Installed In Buildings In The Town of Ithaca " , at the former Cornell Quarters site located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 63 - 2 - 2 , 6 - 63 - 2 - 301 6 - 63 - 2 - 14 , and 6 - 63 - 2 - 10 . 2 , Residence District R- 9 . Appellant is further requesting a variance , under Section 9 of said Local Law , to eliminate the installation of said sprinkler systems from said buildings . APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , Timothy Martin and Patricia McClary , Agents , requesting modification of the Special Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board • of Appeals on August 10 , 1988 , for the graduate student housing project located at the former Cornell Quarters site between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 63 - 2 - 21 6 - 63 - 2 - 31 6 - 63 - 2 - 14 , and 6 - 63 - 2 - 10 . 2 , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of . Appeals February 27 , 1989 • 2 Residence District R- 9 , with said modification being the elimination of the installation of automatic fire suppression sprinkler systems from said buildings . Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Frost introduced Brian Wilbur , Deputy Fire Chief of the City of Ithaca . Patricia McClary , Attorney for Cornell University , stated that they are before the Board of Zoning Appeals this evening to get permission to build their graduate housing project without sprinklers . She stated that they originally submitted their appeal of the denial of the application for a building permit in December , and that that application was denied based on the absence of sprinkler plans . Ms . McClary said that the two alternative routes to reaching the same desired end is either granting Cornell a variance from the Local Law No . 7 or possibly a modification of the special approval , which they were granted back in August . Atty . McClary stated that their project consists of factory manufactured housing and that brings into play a State statute • which is Executive Law , Section 379 . What that law does is takes away from the general grant of power to Towns to enact laws more restrictive than the State Codes , the field of factory manufactured housing . This was done for various reasons , primarily in recognition of the fact that factory manufactured housing as a cost effective alternative to stick build housing is based on the fact that you can have economies of scale in building , based on uniform plans in factories . She said that the State has taken over responsibility or approving all these factory manufactured plans and in reviewing those plans , the design was done and the State approval was all based on the absence of any sprinkler plans in those units . The State has determined that this design was adequate and there are several reasons why these plans are , Cornell feels , adequate in terms of fire protection . For one thing , they have fire walls between each unit , everything is one story so there is really not a problem of getting out of a two story or higher structure and there is also a very small distance to exits from anyplace within these units . She stated that it is Cornell ' s feeling that there is sufficient safety in these structures without the addition of fire suppression . Chairman Aron referred to pages 19 and 20 of the minutes of the December 19 , 1988 Board meeting ( attached as Exhibit 1 ) , and he asked Atty . McClary if Mr . Wright was aware then that 379 • - 1 of the Executive Law for the State of New York , exempting sprinkler systems was in existence , and if so , why did he not bring it up to the Board of Zoning Appeals at that time . He stated that it was his understanding , if he read the law Town of Ithaca. Zoning Board of Appeals February 27 , 1989 • 3 correctly , the law was based upon the universal building code of the State of New York including the Prevention Fire Code of the State of New York . He also said that it is his understanding that when the sprinkler law was formulated in July of 1988 , it was not based upon the Uniform Building Code of the State of New York , neither on the Fire Prevention Code of the State of New York , so it was a separate law by the Town without any reference to the State Codes . Atty . McClary responded that the effect of the law would be to have a direct impact on exactly what that Executive law was designed to avoid . Chairman Aron again referred to the minutes of the meeting of December 1988 , page 20 , ( as attached , Exhibit 1 ) . Chairman Aron stated that what surprises him is that after all this has been gone through , and special approval has been granted by this Board , based upon the request of whether or not sprinklers would be involved , that the impression given to the Board was ' yes ' that sprinklers would be applied , and now Cornell is coming back to this Board and saying ' no ' we don ' t need sprinklers because Executive Law 379 - . 1 says the Town cannot have a stronger law than the State Law so requires . • Atty . McClary stated that she really has to disagree with Chairman Aron ' s interpretation of what the conclusions were of the previous time that they were before this Board . She stated that as far as Mr . Wright ' s comments to the Board , she thinks he probably was aware of Section 379 at that time , but Cornell ' s understanding of this law has evolved over time . Basically , it has been in the processing of being clarified for many months and it was certainly never Cornell ' s understanding that we had agreed to install fire suppression as a condition . She stated that she does not believe that that is a complete quote in the transcript of the minutes . She believes that what Mr . Wright said was that Cornell would abide by all applicable laws and the issue in everyone ' s mind at Cornell at that point was , " is this law applicable to us because of the existence of Section 379 . " Mr . King said that when Mr . Frost mentioned that page to him , ( he is the one who moved that motion ) , he was convinced that the Board had conditioned the grant upon the installation of sprinklers , but in re - reading the minutes and the arguments there , he sees that his resolution did say " if sprinklers are installed . " ( Exhibit 1 ) . Town Attorney Barney stated that his understanding of what was being said in those minutes was that the question was how • were the sprinklers going to be installed . Mr . Frost said that he thinks some of that discussion basically arose , if you go back earlier in the minutes , over the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board. of Appeals February 27 , 1989 4 issue of the 100 foot access requirement . The issue was that there was several buildings on the site plan that the Building Code , Uniform Code , says has to be within 100 feet on dwelling access of roadways , private driveways , fire lanes , whatever the case may be . The bikeway was the closest conceivable access plan to some of these buildings , hence then , as you go through the minutes , the sprinkler becomes part of the issue . Mr . King stated that it might be helpful to review the conditions that were ordered to obtain when we granted that special permit . He asked if the Cornell proposals are now the same for these units and the site plan , or have they changed in any respect . Atty . McClary replied that Cornell ' s plans are principally the same , the only difference being the installation of 2 -hour fire walls . She believes it was Mr . Frost ' s suggestion to deal with the problem of the 100 foot access , so they have independently solved the 100 foot access problem by installing these separate masonry walls . Mr . Frost stated that there is a letter in the record in • regard to this issue . Chairman Aron stated that he would like to go back to Ms . McClary ' s remarks that Cornell is seeking a variance of the sprinkler law . He referred to Local Law # 7 and read the following conditions for variances so that we have it on the record . " A . Where practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships may result from enforcement of the strict letter of any provision of this Local Law applications for variances consistent with the spirit of this Local Law , may be made to and acted upon by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca and the Board is empowered to grant a variance when the Board has found this . . . . " Chairman Aron stated that Cornell would have to prove the application of the strict letter of this Local Law would create a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship of the applicant . He also read the following : " The omission of an approved sprinkler system from all or part of a building will not significantly jeopardize human life " which the applicant also has to prove . ® Atty . McClary said that she thinks they are prepared to discuss why they don ' t feel sprinklers are necessary to protect human life in these structures . In terms of the hardship , there Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals February 27 , 1989 5 is obviously a financial hardship ; there is going to be great difficulty in keeping this project on schedule . Chairman Aron said that she has to substantiate it . Although Ms . McClary is an officer of the law , that still does not mean that unsubstantiated evidence can be accepted by this Board . She will have to substantiate it in letter form or in signature or by a specialist or whatever . He stated that the Board would like to take her word but for the record , we would like to have substantiation of whatever . Chairman Aron read the following under B of Local Law : " B . In the granting of any variances , the Zoning Board of Appeals may impose such conditions as such Board may reasonably determine necessary to mitigate the consequences of the omission of an approved sprinkler system from all or any part of the building including the requirement that alternative forms of fire extinguishing equipment be provided or a requirement of additional alarms or other devices to : , . . . . the effects of having those sprinkler systems . " Atty . McClary wished to clarify one thing and that is that it is not their primary purpose here tonight to apply for a variance , but rather to appeal the denial of their building permit application , because they don ' t feel that a variance is necessarily required here where there is a State statute which basically preempts the local authorities right to enforce this . Town Attorney Barney stated that this is not a determination that this Board can make . Ms . McClary said that certainly a justification for enforcing the local law in their case could be the fact that the State precludes the Town ' s ability to do that . Chairman Aron asked Ms . McClary if they have been granted a building permit . Ms . McClary answered that Cornell was granted a building permit after they submitted , under protest , sprinkler plans . And that was done because they wanted to keep the project scheduled while they are working out these other issues , as there is a great need for student housing and they did not see any other way of doing it . She wished to point out , also , that there is a certain element of unfairness in the terms of the hardship aspect of this in that they began this review process before this ordinance had even been passed . Their- first meeting for the sketch plan review was back in June and then even before the Planning Board , this sprinkler issue really wasn ' t brought up , even though that was after the passage of the law . She stated that these plans have been basically shared with the Town for Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals February 27 , 1989 6 well over a year and a long time before the sprinkler ordinance even came into being . Town Attorney Barney said , however , that Cornell was made aware of the fact that there was going to be a sprinkler ordinance put on the table . Cornell was advised of the existence of a public hearing about the sprinkler ordinance and chose not to appear and make any comment in reference to it , and Cornell was also expressly advised that it would apply to Cornell Quarters so that if they had some concern about it , they ought to express it . He stated that the . . . . . . . . was mentioned at the Planning Board meeting and there were specific questions addressed to Mr . Wright about sprinklers . Atty . McClary said that she certainly was not aware of the ordinance . She stated that she thinks there definitely has been a misunderstanding here and it would be nice to clear it up because certainly Mr . Wright did not think that he had agreed to install sprinklers , in fact , he is not authorized to make that sort of decision . Chairman Aron asked who is then . Mr . Wright represented Cornell when he appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals asking for special approval . Atty . McClary replied that Mr . Wright does not have budgetary authority to commit the university to those extra funds . That would have to go back to their Vice - Presidential level . Atty . McClary stated that the point is that Cornell did not know that the Town thought that they had agreed to put in sprinklers so they were glibly going along without realizing that the Town thought that this was a condition of their approval . She further said that in reading the record of the meeting , it certainly does not seem to her that it was a condition of the granting of this approval ; there are conditions A through H , none of which say that Cornell is going to install sprinklers . It seems to be a hypothetical situation basically tied into the bikeway as an emergency access route . Chairman Aron replied that he does not think that this Board is working on hypothetical things because when we talked about sprinklers and the remarks were made during the conversations which have been clearly stated here in the minutes , the intent of the resolution was because of this conversation , those were the conditions put upon it so he did not think it was absolutely necessary to use the words " you can have it but you have to have a sprinkler system " because it was a foregone conclusion . Atty . McClary said that she thought that was the purpose of listing conditions , that they would be made exclusive . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals February 27 , 1989 • 7 Chairman Aron asked how does the university handle the safety of the graduate students , their wives and their children in regard to fire . Atty . McClary responded that there are smoke detectors and numerous exit routes from these apartments , they are all one story . Atty . McClary stated that there are arguments on the other side also , that smoldering fires don ' t set off sprinklers either and people die of smoke inhalation and things . She stated that the issue is being debated out there and she does not think there is any clear consensus that sprinklers saves lives . Chairman Aron asked Deputy Fire Chief Wilbur to respond to that . Deputy Wilbur stated that from a life safety perspective there are clearly mountains of statistical evidence to say that sprinklers save lives . Sprinklers , when properly maintained , are roughly 99 percent effective in doing what they are supposed to do and that is to extinguish fires . The enacting of this ordinance by the Town set a historical precedent that said that the Town is interested in improving the life safety record of the buildings in its jurisdiction and to recognize that the proper way to do that is by requiring fire sprinklers in residential units . These fire sprinklers take advantage of new technology which means that sprinkler systems can now be installed for the purpose of life safety as opposed to property safety and life safety combined at a lower cost making them are more economically feasible that they were before . He stated that the fire death that we had last June , unfortunately , was in an apartment that was protected by smoke detectors , and the young man still died . Deputy Wilbur further stated that it is interesting to note that in 1967 , Cornell University and the community suffered a major loss of life fire in a residence club in which nine students died . At that point and time Cornell University adopted a policy sprinklering their buildings and adding sophisticated fire protection systems and now it appears that we are taking departure from that policy and he has concerns about that . Atty . McClary stated that policy didn ' t apply in this case because of the structure being one story . Deputy Wilbur said that Cornell Quarters has the dubious distinction of being in a location where we have also had a loss of life fire . The fact that we have people sleeping there poses a risk , and while smoke detectors certainly help reduce that ® risk , sprinklers almost erase that risk . Mr . Jan Sokolnicki , representing Cardinal Industries , stated that his primary responsibility is to act as liaison Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 8 between the State agencies and local governmental agencies . He said that he cringed when Atty . McClary said that there is not a record that sprinklers save lives and he wishes he had not said it , because that is probably an overstatement , and in the same way he has to suggest to Deputy Chief Wilbur that it is an overstatement to say that sprinklers eliminate possibility of life loss . He stated that sprinklers do work to save lives , adequate smoke detection and other fire protection type elements in all kinds of buildings work to provide safer environments for all of us in housing . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that he has been participating in the code change process and the three major model codes that have been going through a series of changes that have increased or changed the thresholds , the thresholds being under what conditions do we apply sprinklers and make sprinklers required . In the case of the Town of Ithaca , it has been a departure problem , the norm or the model code or New York State code to mandate suppression or mandate water sprinklers for certain kinds of occupancies but he thinks it is important to note that the things that have been taking place nationally , given all the expertise and statistics , and the folks who have been working on all this stuff for the past 8 - 10 - 15 years has some value . He felt that he was qualified to say that Deputy Chief Wilbur ' s statement was an overstatement as was Attorney McClary ' s , because based on the statistics that he has seen , it appears that there is evidence that what we ought to be looking for is level protection that we find adequate . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that he wanted to feel that Cornell was commended in coming to .them , although it is to their advantage to have anyone use their product , they thought they should have been given credit for choosing a single floor structure because of the obvious life safety qualities of a single story building but perhaps other people are not aware of the value of that . Most people who die as a result of fires , die from smoke inhalation on their way to getting out of the building . He said that the Cardinal buildings are single story buildings , and most of their buildings have exits direct to the outside . He stated that their fire history is exemplary , that there is very little to compare them to with the rest of the industry and it may very well be that 4 layers of gypsum that they put each dwelling unit helps ; it may that the fire stopping that they do inside the factory helps ; it might be that their fire history is based on the fact that people don ' t have travel distances further than 30 feet to the outside , it might be that they , have emergency exits out of every bedroom . He stated that what he needs the Board to understand is that nationally , both in the Life Safety Code , the Uniform Code from out west , the Standard Building Code and the BOCA Code have acknowledged the Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 9 fact that under certain kinds of conditions , when you can provide exit direct to the outside , when you have minimal stories that are part of the component , and when you have certain kinds of protection between those dwelling units and you have certain kinds of protection for early warning , you may have a safer condition and you may even have a condition that parallels suppression or sprinklers , you may have one that is even of greater protection than that one of sprinklers . He further stated that he knows that the National Fire Association does not validate sprinkler systems that do not have smoke detectors in them . An A13D or 13R type system is not valid unless you have a smoke detector system in it . There is a hole in the system if you do not have those detectors installed . Chairman Aron referred to a letter to the Counsel to the Governor , Dated July 31 , 1986 ( attached as Exhibit 2 ) , urging , on behalf of Cardinal Industries , Inc . , to have the Governor sign into law the Bill on Factory Manufactured Housing . He said that Mr . Sokolnicki is speaking of one unit and what the Board is now considering is 170 units with 491 people living in it . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that in the 30 years that his company has been in business , they have never had a fire communicate from one unit to another . He stated that they use 2 layers of an FSG , which is a type X , 1/ 2 inch , with a retardation time of one hour . He explained the procedure that his company uses for construction and the fire protection that they offer . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Mr . Albert Wright , asked to respond to the Board regarding the questions that were asked concerning him . He stated that he is employed by Cornell University . He said that he was generally aware of Executive Law 379 but he did not know for certain if it would apply or not , and that is why , when he spoke to Chairman Aron on the phone a couple of weeks ago , he said that he had continued to respond to the question that is in the minutes , that Cornell would abide by all of the applicable laws , and that is not reflected in the minutes . He said that Mr . Aron , on the phone , did say that he did recall Mr . Wright saying that . He asked that the record show that the intent was that they will abide by the applicable laws . He said that it turns out that 379 would indicate that the local law is not applicable to this project . He further said that Mr . Barney ' s contention that sprinklering had been mentioned in the Planning Board meeting is absolutely wrong in his recollection . The minutes of that ® meeting do not reflect any questions whatsoever about sprinklering . Mr . Wright stated that perhaps Mr . Barney has confused it with the time when he appeared here and the Planning Board on another matter for the university that had to do with a Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 10 warehouse building going up in the orchard and Mr . Barney asked that question and Mr . Wright had said ' yes ' that they would sprinkle that building because , unlike the housing project , the local law applies to that . Town Attorney Barney stated that ehe disagrees with Mr . Wright ; that he had asked him about sprinkler systems at two separate meetings on this project . Mr . Wright stated that the first time they knew anything about a sprinkler system ordinance was June 1988 , and this project was started in October 1987 . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Mrs . Hoffmann stated that although she was not at the meeting in August of this Board , when she read the minutes , she understood Mr . Wright ' s statement on page 19 ( as attached , Exhibit 1 ) , to mean the local law . She said to Mr . Wright that if he had any doubt about it at that time , that would have been a good time to bring that up . Mr . Wright responded that the question was whether the local law would apply or not , and not being an attorney , he did not know whether it did or not . He further stated that he intended to infer by his comment of " we would abide by the applicable laws . If this law , the local law , held up to scrutiny and it was applicable to this project , then they would abide by it " . He knows he had several conversations along that line with Andy Frost , but if the law did not hold up to scrutiny then we felt we would not install sprinklers ; that is exactly the issue . He referred to the conditions that were listed in the minutes and said that the conditions make it clear that they did not promise to install sprinklers . Ms . McClary remarked that Cornell certainly never agreed to install sprinklers regardless of whether the local law applied or did not apply . She thinks this whole issue only arose because of the existence of the local law . It is now clear that that local law does not apply to them by virtue of the State law , so may be if we could just start with a clean slate it would help . She stated that the law does not require that they have sprinklers . There seems to be a debate here as to what kind of agreements were made at the August 10th meeting but it is clearly Cornell ' s position that they did not agree to install sprinklers , the minutes don ' t clearly indicate that they did agree to install sprinklers , and the issue never would have come up if they weren ' t operating under the misimpression that the local law somehow applied to their project . Mrs . Hoffmann said that perhaps it is just her impression that there was an awareness of the people that represented Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 11 Cornell . Ms . McClary said that that seems to imply that they were deliberately trying to mislead the Board and she certainly does not think that was the case . Mr . Wright replied that if that were the case , that would be counter-productive because the assumption is that sprinklers would be installed and that is not what they had ever said and the plans did not show it . Chairman Aron said that Cornell never showed the Board what the housing looked like anyway . They never gave the Board any drawings , elevation drawings , interior drawings or anything . Mr . Austen asked Mr . Wright , for clarification , if he was aware of Section 379I when he spoke to the Board before . Mr . Wright responded that he was , in general , but not in detail . He said that he does not know what the significance of that might be . He would seem to him that in writing a local law , it should be known whether the Town has this authority or not and he does not know why it would behoove them to bring it to the Town ' s attention . Chairman Aron responded that the significance could have been that the Planning Board would have given you a different site plan review if they would have known no sprinklers would have gone in . Mr . King remarked to Atty . McClary that as far as his raising the question about the sprinklers , it was a concern for the fire safety provisions that were being made or were not being made , and it had nothing to do with the local law as he recalls . Mr . King asked Mr . Wright why did Cornell decide not to install the sprinklers , that he had said at that meeting that they were discussing it with the manufacturer . Mr . Wright replied that they were looking at it in the eventuality that the law did in fact require it , as a position to keep the project moving forward . He said that it can be done but it is very expensive . They feel that because they meet every requirement of the New York State Uniform Building and Fire Prevention Code and the Town Zoning Ordinance that sprinkerling is not really needed for life or fire safety by nature of the ® design of the units , the density of the units on the site , and having resolved the issue to Mr . Frost ' s satisfaction of the four units and the question about the fire access and by virtue of installing fire walls , that was the only issue that needed to be Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 12 resolved in order to meet virtually every requirement of all the laws and ordinances , save the Town ' s local law which upon further research and analysis and opinions from the State of New York , was determined that the local law could not be made to apply to factory manufactured housing . Mr . King asked Mr . Wright if , then , his only reason for discussing it with the manufacturer was that he was concerned whether the local law might require it . Mr . Wright responded that that is right . That if in fact it was determined that the local law held up and they had to provide the sprinklering or not occupy their buildings , then we needed to see whether they would be able to , in fact , install sprinklers . He further stated that at that meeting they did not know ; it had never been done by Cardinal . In fact , he doesn ' t think it has been done yet in the factory . They have done it one or two times , but they have always been field installed , a modification that is done in the field . Mr . King asked if they had a cost per unit for sprinklering the project . Mr . Wright replied that they have a total cost estimate of what it take to put in sprinkerling , but not a cost per unit . They have a total cost estimate of what it will take to put in sprinklering . That figure is something in excess of $ 280 , 000 for the entire 170 units . He said that maybe it would be helpful to point out that there are two other buildings on the site that will be sprinklered . These are the two buildings in the middle of the site that are stick-built and sprinklers for them has never been disputed and they will be sprinklered but for the manufactured housing , they would like to get the Board ' s ruling that they will not need to be sprinklered . Mr . King addressed Mr . Sokolnicki and asked if his company manufactures these units . Mr . Sokolnicki responded that primarily they manufacture and also develop properties , and in this particular case they are acting as general contractor and manufacturing the units . Mr . King asked Mr . Sokolnicki if he is familiar with the State rules on definition and licensing or approval of factory manufactured homes . Mr . Sokolnicki responded that he thinks , as Mr . Aron pointed out , that his company was partly responsible for latest ® version of that law . Mr . King replied that his question is , is Cardinal Industries knowledgeable on what it takes to have your building Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 13 classified as approvalable . Mr . Sokolnicki responded that he is the one who is usually in the Bureau ' s office working with them to secure the approval . Mr . King asked if that designation of approval by the State requires anything in connection with fire prevention or detection . Mr . Sokolnicki responded ' yes ' , that the smoke detectors are hard wired smoke detectors , which means they are wired into the electrical system , and that is part of the requirements and they have to be included in the units . The company tests them and installs them prior to leaving the plant , and also after finishing up the project , after the electrical system is all hooked up , the smoke detectors are tested again . Then if the Building Official or Fire Official deems it necessary they will do either a smoke or . . . . . . . testing . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Sokolnicki at what degree of heat does their fire or smoke alarm go off . Mr . Sokolnicki responded that they are smoke detectors , not heat detectors . Chairman Aron stated that , then , they are not heat sensors . Mr . Sokolnicki responded that that is correct . Mr . Austen asked if these are single station detectors or Of are they system detectors . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that right now , as far as he understands , without looking at the specifications of the approval , they are specifying single station detectors in each one of the dwelling units . There may be two detectors adjacent to the living area right outside the bedrooms but they are not system detectors . Mrs . Reuning asked if Mr . Sokolnicki ' s company has ever put sprinkling systems in any of their projects . Mr . Sokolnicki responded not in residential portions of the units but in the storage type areas , workshop areas and some of their other types of products they have but that is field installed . He further stated that usually when a manufacturer or builder/ developer does something , they do so for an incentive . In their particular case , they have gone to their insurance carrier , ( he said they could see the writing on the wall so that it ' s not an illusion here , they thought and the . . . . . the ® previous building thought that he was going to do Cardinal a great favor by telling them " sprinklers are coming , sprinklers are coming like Marriott did , lets get in on the marketing bandwagon and do a great thing and it will make my job very easy Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 14 for me and I won ' t have to argue with building officials anymore " ) . Except that for their case , because their fire history was as good as it was , the insurance carriers would not give them a better rate so the company turned back to him and said " Sorry , but the numbers don ' t work , you don ' t have the life loss , you don ' t have the fire loss , you are taking those units out as the result of a fire that might occur , you are taking out a 12 x 24 section one day and replacing it with another one , the construction costs are not even there to justify it " , so that portion of it is kind of different for them . It may not work like that for all other builders but it sure does for them . Mr . King asked what the fire wall is that has been talked about here , that this is something new to this Board . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that in addition to the dwelling and separation walls , the fire resistent walls that have those 4 layers of gym , Andy and Al and Mark sat down and specified locations of masonry fire walls that are designed in accordance to New York State Building Code and Fire Code . They specified one hour because that is what is required . However , they would be masonry and he hasn ' t yet been able to determine what they identify the units to be ( the masonry units ) , it could very well be that they got two hour walls and the accumulation of those two assemblies next to it would accumulate somewhere between two and three hours . Town Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Sokolnicki is going to manufacture these masonry walls . Mr . Sokolnicki replied , ' no ' , that they will be field . Chairman Aron said that if they are field constructed , aren ' t they changing the modular system . Mr . Sokolnicki replied , ' no ' , that they are not changing the modular system at all because in order for a fire wall to be a legal fire wall , it would have to stand independent of the structural members or the structural members would have to be framed into them in a certain way . Chairman Aron asked Building Inspector Frost to enlighten the Board . Mr . Frost stated that the walls . . . . . . between your tenantries are not fire walls or fire separations . There are three types of walls that provide some type of fire integrity ; ® one is a fire separation , whether that be a use of gypsum board to provide 3 / 4 hour fire separation or a couple of extra layers or of a thicker gypsum board which gives you what is called a fire separation , that is the least fire integrity type wall Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 15 available in building . The next step up is what is called a fire wall . A fire wall could be made of a special gypsum board type system that is capable of standing independent , if one side of the wall comes down , the other side still stands up , it has certain accessories to it that make it somewhat unique and it is a specific type of system that is accepted by New York State as a fire wall . Otherwise fire walls have always been concrete block . Fire walls can be penetrated with electrical conduits , pipes , whatever the case may be as long as they are smoke tight . The next step up after that is what is called a party wall . Party walls are similar to a fire wall except that in generally all cases it is going to be concrete block and it would be found in situations just as when you may have a condominium or a townhouse type building where you may have a property line running between the building . There is no penetration whatsoever in a party wall , it has to be just a solid concrete wall . Actually there is a specially U . S . type gypsum system that still is also approved for a party wall system except again , as well , there are no penetrations in that wall as can be with a fire wall . Mr . Frost stated that the Building Code is divided into three sections when it gives the requirements for how something may be constructed . It is divided into sections of one and two family dwellings , multiple dwellings and general building construction . The Code requirements for the construction , including fire safety of the building will differ , whether it be one and two family dwelling , multiple dwelling or general construction . He read from the Building Code , Section 701 , under the section for multiple dwellings as follows : " A building containing not more that two dwelling units within walls conforming to the requirements of Section 738 . 8 ( d ) and ( c ) of this Code shall be regulated as one and two family dwellings " . He stated that Section 738 deals specifically with party walls . He said that the Code further states " that all buildings other than one and two family dwellings shall be a hundred feet or less from a street , road or driveway so as to be accessible to fire department and emergency service apparatus . " The buildings in the site plan for Cornell Quarters that were greater than a one hundred foot access , would have either had to provide the emergency access ( it was after that Zoning Board meeting we had that there was some discussion and Section 701 . 3 ( e ) was brought up ) , that if you put in a party wall between those units , you would not be required to fall into that 100 foot access requirement . Hence , they came out with a plan for concrete block party walls for those buildings that are not within one hundred feet of their driveways or roadways . Hence , the 100 foot accessibility requirement did not any longer apply under the Building Code . ® Town Attorney Barney stated that that did not alter a condition that this Board made , that you can ' t unilaterally change a condition that was imposed by this Board without coming back to the Board . Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 16 Mr . King asked how many buildings in the plan do have party walls now . Mr . Frost stated that he would like to add that he is trying to be very impartial here , that the party wall installation in this modular housing he would not view as a modification to the State approved modular plan because it is independent of this . . . . . . . . Mr . Wright , in response to Mr . King ' s question , presented to the Board an Illustrative Site Plan drawing for Cornell Quarters and pointed out which units will have party walls . There are four units , split it in half and there would be two two - family units . Mrs . Hoffmann asked for clarification that those buildings that have four units in them would have one wall that would be a concrete block wall and they would be the only buildings in the whole project that would have concrete walls separating units . Mr . Wright responded that that is correct . Mrs . Hoffmann stated that then all the other units would have this build up of four gypsum walls between each unit . Mr . Wright replied that that is right because that is part of the factory manufactured modular . Mr . Frost remarked that he would suggest that if Cardinal Industries is using 4 layers and they have a one hour rating , they are probably not fire code sheetrock , but two layers on each side of a stud of non - fire code sheetrock would give you the one hour rating . He stated that he thinks that 2 layers of X - rated or fire rated sheetrock would actually give them about a two hour rating on each side of the stud . Mr . Sokolnicki said that when they did their test , they loaded each one of those walls independently and that ' s why they had to have those buildings that way because they wanted to have each loaded independently . Mr . Frost said that he is curious in that in a simple type of unit that they have , where an occupant of a dwelling unit connects directly to the outside , has less of a risk in the event of a fire than say someone who has to travel through stairways or hallways . He said he is not convinced that there is something so unique about their homes that make it that much more fire safe , and he would be interested in what the incidence of fires are in Cardinal Industry homes compared to other homes . Mr . Sokolnicki responded that the occurrence of fires are ® similar to those of other aged type residential , apartments , motels or whatever . You cannot compare to older structures , of course , but when they compare their statistics they are comparing with other structures of the same age . Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 17 Mr . Frost said that what Mr . Sokolnicki has argued is that there is something unique about Cardinal Industry homes , but he has not convinced him of that in so much as the death rate in a simple home is going to a lot less than a home where you have corridors and stairways and all that kind of stuff to go through . Mr . Sokolnicki said that they do have a fire history that is better than others and he thinks that it does have something to do with the travel distance to an exit . Chairman Aron stated that even after all the discussion he is still concerned about housing 491 persons on that plat of 170 units , even with the retardation on the wall boards on the sides which would hold fire for an hour . He said he is concerned about saving human beings in case of a fire . Atty . McClary responded that unfortunately she does not think they can ever make these units absolutely safe and in their particular case , it is the State that has set the standard of what is adequate safety because these are regulated by the State . She wished to point out that repeatedly the Town ' s justification for Local Law # 7 has been saving money and pointing out how the ® cost of fire protection is going up . She said that the Town has to recognize that money is an issue here because that certainly is the justification that has been repeatedly stated to her as to why this law was passed . Chairman Aron said that he did not understand what Atty . McClary was saying . Atty . McClary said that what she is saying is that the reason , at least the reason that she has been told that the local law was passed is to save money , not purely to save lives and certainly the amendment that has been made to the ordinance would seem to save less lives if that is what he is concerned with . She said that there are other factors . Obviously everyone wants to save lives and Cornell feels that their structures are adequately safe and the State agrees that their structures are adequately safe . Mr . Wright stated that he wished to respond to Mr . Aron ' s concern about 491 people on the site . He said that in the 90 units that make up the family housing there are no more than eight units or sixteen persons , plus or minus some infants , that would ever be in one building - maximum . He again referred to the site plan map that he presented earlier . He also stated that the thing that he thinks is unique with the Cardinal product that ® helps explain the fire record is that in their unit you have that one hour rating between the living room and the bedroom of a unit , as well as between the bedroom of one unit and the bedroom of the next unit . No other one bedroom apartment or two bedroom Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 18 apartment that he has ever seen constructed has that feature . He further stated that these units have that and that is something over and above what the New York State Code requires . The NYS Code requires one hour fire rating between every eight units only . These units will have it between every unit . Chairman Aron asked about fire hydrants on the site and if the project will be hooked directly into the Fire Department . Mr . Wright responded that they are not . There are three resident advisors that live there , and there are pull stations and blue light stations on the site to send an alarm to the city . Deputy Chief Wilbur stated that in listening to the discussions here , it seems clear that there is two different opinions as to what the issue is here . He stated that in his mind there is only one issue . He said that Cardinal is justified in taking pride in their product , that they build a quality building that is easy to take pride in and it probably meets or exceeds most of the Codes that you could find . On the other hand , the Town of Ithaca has decided to address a particular problem by requiring a more stringent code dealing with sprinklers . Whatever the intent or reason behind this law , it doesn ' t make any difference because the result is requiring the installation of sprinklers in residential buildings so that lives can be saved and that is the net effect - that lives will be saved . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that he acknowledges the fact that sprinklers can reduce the loss of lives . Sophisticated alarm systems can reduce the loss of lives and having single story buildings with egress direct to the outside can reduce the loss of lives but none of those elements in and of themselves , are going to eliminate loss of life due to fire . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Sokolnicki if there have been circumstances where lives have been lost in Cardinal residential projects . Mr . Sokolnicki replied " yes . " Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Wright what the total cost of the entire construction is . Mr . Wright replied that it is something over eight and one - half million dollars . He explained some of the costs that are involved in the project . ® Town Attorney Barney asked how the $ 280 , 000 figure was reached as the cost of installing sprinklers . Mr . Mark Smith of Cardinal Industries responded to the Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 19 question . He said that part of that $ 280 , 000 would be the manufacturing monies required to install the sprinkler system within the modular in the factory itself , another part of it would be the on - site construction , sprinkler plumbing , etc . , to hook the manufacturer portion within the modular to the building plumbing and alternately to the existing water line within the project . There was extensive discussion between Town Attorney Barney and Mr . Smith on the breakdown of the cost of the sprinklers . Chairman Aron stated that he has a price sheet on interior fittings and piping and so on and the price that he came up with for a three bedroom apartment is $ 750 . 00 for materials only . On top of that there would be the labor involved , so all together it would be about $ 1500 . 00 or $ 2000 . 00 to sprinkle a three bedroom unit . Mr . Smith responded to those figures . There was discussion between Mr . King , Mrs . Hoffmann , and Mr . Sokolnicki about the smoke detectors , the location and how many there will be in a unit , etc . Mr . King stated that the Board has not seen the floor plans of these units . He asked how many separate rooms there would be in a one bedroom unit . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that the footage is 576 square feet consisting of one larger bedroom , a smaller study type area , a small bathroom and a living/ kitchen area . Chairman Aron stated that this Board has to decide whether or not Cornell University is exempt from the local law . He said that it is his opinion that since that law has been legislated by the Town Board by the Town ' s legislators , and the Zoning Board of Appeals only has the matter of a variance and does not question the law , his question to the Board is whether or not Cornell will have to abide by the Local Law as it has been written and deny the appeal , or whether or not the matter to be taken into consideration should be sent back to the Planning Board for further study since there is a matter here which says to modify the special approval . Mr . Austen asked Town Attorney Barney how Section 3792 of the State Executive Law affects the Town of Ithaca . Town Attorney Barney cited from the section and stated that ® his opinion is that the sprinkler law in the Town of Ithaca is in effect and he does not think it is the Zoning Board of Appeals province to overturn or legislate or make a determination that a law is either valid or invalid , that is the providence of the Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 20 court , and Cornell obviously has recourse to the courts if they don ' t like the law as it applies to them . Atty . McClary stated that the court has gone on record as saying that the local law is not applicable to factory manufactured housing . It has not ruled yet on the reasonableness of the overall statute but they have sent a letter to that effect . She referred to a letter from the Housing and Building Codes Bureau , dated January 13 , 1989 ( attached as Exhibit 3 ) . Mrs . Whitcomb spoke to the Board from the floor . She referred to Section 379 - 1 , and asked if that is just a broad generic term or was it meant and conceived and is it individual single - family homes . . . . . . or does it cover multiple homes . Town Attorney Barney replied that you can use the less powerful term of saying legislative decision or you can say it was the result of fairly intensive lobbying . The law specifically refers to manufactured homes , one and two family homes or multiple family homes of two stories or less . He stated that there is a little side issue here and that is if we go to court he is sure we will have an enjoyable discussion before a judge at some point on whether we are really . . . . . . on a multiple residence or not . Cornell , of course , has taken the position that this is a school use as a dormitory for reasons that are really necessary if they are going to go through the process they have gone through here which is basically a special approval . If this was to be considered a multiple residence as such , it would require re - zoning to a multiple residence zone and that , of course , has not been done . In the interim , our considered advice is that you have to accept the local law as being in effect . That does not mean you cannot grant a variance from the law and you can ' t amend special approval . He stated that he is not suggesting what the Board ought to do , but he doesn ' t think it would be appropriate for the Board to overturn , by the Board of Zoning Appeals action , basically declare this statute . . . . . . . Ms . Reuning stated that she is uncomfortable in setting a precedent and she feels it should go back to the Planning Board for further study as to whether exception would be a good idea . Atty . McClary remarked that going back to the Planning Board just simply would not work for them in terms of their schedule . She doesn ' t think that this is in the jurisdiction of the Planning Board because they are talking about something that is interior to a building and that is really not what they consider . ® A motion was made by Mr . King as follows : RESOLVED , that this Zoning Board of Appeals finds on the Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 21 question of whether the building permit was validly denied for failure to comply with the Town of Ithaca Sprinkler Ordinance , Local Law # 7 of 1988 , as amended by Local Law # 10 of 1988 , that this Board hold that this law does apply to the Cornell Quarters development . Mrs . Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Ayes - Austen , King , Reuning , Hoffmann , Aron Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . Mr . King made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the applicant , Cornell University , has failed to establish such practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship as would be required for this Board to grant a variance from the application of the Local Law on sprinkler systems according to its terms , citing particular review of Subdivision 9 of that law . • Mr . Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Ayes - Reuning , Austen , Hoffmann , King , Aron Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . Mr . King made the following motion : RESOLVED , That this Zoning Board of Appeals hold that the request for reconsideration of the special approval has become moot in view of their two prior motions . Mr . Sokolnicki interjected that this isn ' t moot . He stated that conditions have changed as a result of the actions between Cornell and Mr . Frost and the Board shouldn ' t leave the special conditions in the way they are now . He stated that all he is doing is suggesting that the Board reconsider what they are doing here , that the modification relates to the access road , and otherwise the Board is going to have to come back and re - clean that up , otherwise that language is going to be in there for a ® long time . Mr . King and Chairman Aron agreed that the point was well taken . Town of Ithaca ZBA February 27 , 1989 • 22 Atty . McClary stated that Mr . Sokolnicki is referring to conditions E - H of the special approval as they refer to the bikeway issue of fire access . Mr . Sokolnicki said that by Cornell altering their plans and installing the party walls , the access for the use of the bikeway for access is no longer necessary . Mr . Frost stated for clarification , that all matters in terms of the 100 foot access requirement to certain buildings and the potential use of the emergency access of the existing bikeway have been resolved through the installation , as allowed by law , of party walls . Town Attorney Barney stated that it has been resolved , as he understands it , in so far as the Code says , that multiple dwellings , all residences have to be within one hundred feet of access and the Code goes on to say that they can install a party wall and turn a multiple residence into a one or two family residence . In effect , by installing the party wall , these four unit buildings are now two two - family buildings and further the code says that the 100 foot requirement only applies to multiple dwellings so by installing the wall we have converted a multiple dwelling into two two - family dwellings . Therefore , the 100 foot requirement is no longer applicable under the Code . He said that that is not to say that as a condition of approval of the special approval whether the Board still feels these requirements are appropriate anyway . However , in his opinion , he thinks that Mr . Frost is correct , that the access problem that he expressed at the last meeting has been met by this condition . Mr . King referred to Item G of the conditions in the special approval of the minutes of August 10 , 1988 ( attached as Exhibit 1 , page 23 ) . He asked if Cornell has obtained such a permit from the City Fire Department , as was referred to in that item . Atty . McClary responded that that issue was avoided by the party walls . They were told they did not have to do that anymore . Building Inspector Frost stated that the inadequacy of the bikeway was brought up with Deputy Chief Wilbur and the bikeway would have been inadequate without certain improvements had it been necessary to utilize it as an emergency access . The need for emergency access utilizing the bikeway is no longer necessary because of the Code permitting them to install party walls in ® certain buildings . Mr . King asked if this Board wants to continue that condition , regardless of the provision of the party walls , • 23 whether we want the condition that the bikeway be approved as an emergency fire access route . Mr . Austen said that if we do not need it as per the law , perhaps we should eliminate that from the conditions . Mr . Austen made the following motion . RESOLVED , that this Board of Zoning Appeals remove conditions E , F , G , and H of the special approval agreement . Town Attorney Barney explained that there is an agreement in place with Cornell relating to the bikeway and he stated that he was concerned that the Town was going to use that bikeway as a mechanism to get fire trucks and emergency vehicles to those buildings . He said that there is an independent agreement relating to the bikeway in place with the fire department . Mr . Austen withdrew his motion . Mr . Sokolnicki said that that was not part of the discussion here at all . This is all based on Mr . Frosts ' conversation with Mr . Smith and Mr . Wright and that the only ® reason he brought it up was because it is just complicated now because they are no longer putting the bikeway in and in all that language and all those considerations , you have already ruled on sprinklers , and the appropriateness of the New York State Code . From his perspective , this is not part of this discussion either . If this isn ' t cleaned up now , Cornell is going to have to come back for another modification , it no longer applies because the bikeway isn ' t being used for emergency access . Mr . King made the following motion . RESOLVED , that upon the condition and understanding that the several units along the southerly portion of the project which would require party wall separations in order to qualify them as within the accessible distance required by the Fire Code , and upon the condition that those party walls are constructed , the Zoning Board of Appeals remove conditions E , F , G , and H from the special permit which was granted on August 10 , 1988 . Mr . Austen seconded the motion . Chairman Aron asked if there was any further discusssion . Eva Hoffmann stated that , even if those paragrapghs that mention the sprinkler system are removed , it is still understood that sprinkler systems are required because that is the law . Chairman Aron answered , yes , right . • 24 Chairman Aron asked for a vote . The voting was as follows . Ayes - Aron , King , Austen , Reuning , Hoffmann Nay - None The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Aron adjourned the Appeal of Deer Run Investors , L . P . , until 12 : 00 Noon on February 28 , 1989 . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectfully Submitted , & �- J44 Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary ® APPROVED : Henry Aron , Chairman Exhibits 1 - 3 attached . 15 variance . Edward Austen seconded the motion . Chairman Aron said that listening to the whole subject , including the public input , as to the necessity of the tower , and having considered the applicant ' s presentation before the Board , it had been proven to him that there was a necessity for the tower , not because of aesthetic reasons , but because of necessity for mechanical uses . The voting was as follows : 0 Aye - Aron , King , Austen Nay as None The motion was unanimously . carried . The second item on the . agenda for consideration was as follows : APPEAL of Cornell University ; owrner , Albert L . Wright , Cornell University Architectural Services , agent , requesting Special Approval under Article IIT , Section IV , Paragraph 4 of the Zoning Ordinance for . the' , construction of student ® housing at the Cornell Quarters . - site , . between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street , on "17 - acres on . Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels # 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 2 , - 1 , Andl ' - 14 and - 10 . 2 , Residential District R- 9 . Mr . Albert Wright addressed the Board . He explained that the University proposed to construct 170 dwelling units for graduate students on the current Cornell Quarters site . Added to that site , he said , would be the contiguous storage yards that are currently owned and used by the University and two houses on Maple Street as well as the Campus Store warehouse facility on Maple Street . Those additions , he said , of approximately 40 $ , would bring the total site area to 17acres for this 170 units of housing development . He continued that it would provide 241 parking spaces for the inhabitants of that community . He said that those units were broken down as follows : there would be 90 two -bedroom units that would be family units for married graduate students , and So single- student units which primarily 77 of them would be four-bedroom units for four graduate students , and three efficiency units for resident advisor graduate students . Chairman Aron asked when the old units would be removed and the new units constructed and Mr . Wright responded that next week the asbestos would be removed from the existing units and the existing units would be demolished in late September or early ® October , and grading and excavation of the site would then begin . He said that the majority of the work for, constructing the & kh14b16 16 • foundations for the new units would not be done until next Spring . He continued that this fall they anticipated they would relocate an electric line , and they would do grading work and putting in underground utility services and things of that sort . He further stated that some of the foundation work might begin but the majority of the real construction would not begin until next spring . Chairman Aron asked if the sidewalks would be . put in next spring and Mr . Wright said that the sidewalks would be near the end of the project , and the project would be ready for occupancy in August of 1989 . L Mr . Austen said that he drove through . the area and had a hard time determining - where there were 17 acres there . Mr . Wright showed . on the map the area in .question and where the 17 acres was . Mr . Frost asked if the University owned the dilapidated house in the corner and. whether this would be part of the project and Mr . Wright responded it would be . Mr . King asked what would happen to the two quonset� huts in the picture , and Mr . Wright - said that one . quonset . . hut . would be demolishedand the other would remain and be remodelled into a . community activities center . Mr . Wright said that neither the program nor the budget was fully identified at this point . . Mr . King asked Mr . Wright to indicate on the map the bikeway which Mr . Wright did . Mr . King asked if .the old buildings would be demolished and Mr . Wright said they would be . Mr . 'King inquired if the presence of asbestos in the existing. buildings was an impetus for this project and Mr . Wright responded that it was not , that the buildings hadfar outlived their usefulness being over 40 years old , and all of the systems were in need of upgrading or replacement . He added that the . units were also too small by today ' s standards to serve the University . Chairman Aron asked how large the community would be after its completion and Mr . Wright said it would be 170 units and the population would be 491 including spouses . Mr . Austen asked if there would be parking by the units themselves ' and Mr . Wright responded there would be parking in a central lot , and showed on the sketch where the street parking would be on a private street . Mr . Wright said there would be two remote parking . lots also . Mr . William Paleen , director of Residents Life of Cornell University , addressed the Board . Mr . Paleen said that this proposed development would func` ion as part of the University ' s housing system in response to critical . needs for addit __ onal housing for families and for single graduate students . He said that the site had been defined as particularly appropriate for ® this kind of development by virtue of its proximity to the campus 17 • and also in terms of its effective relationship with the surrounding community and the school being in walking distance . Mr . Paleen said that the critical need for additional student housing was the primary impetus for this development . Mr . Don Vitters from Sasaki Associates , the landscape architects and architects for this project , addressed the Board . He presented site plans for the proposed development explaining that all of the units would • be made of pre-manufactured modules , either 24 x 24 feet or 24 by 36 feet . Mr . Vitters said their role in this project was to come up with a plan of placing these units on the site and creating a pleasant environment . Mr . . Vitters said the community would be made up of clusters and courtyards with open space for the. community . He said there was concern about traffic both- on the site . and off the site . Mr . Vitters continued that there was a center access road which would run through the property and they had developed devices which would discourage any kind of through traffic . Mr . Vitters said there would be two laundry buildings which would be located near the center of the site . These buildings , he said , would look like large houses and have a little more architectural character than the actual housing units . - ;The paving material in front of these buildings , he said , would change to another type : There would be two remote parking areas ., one off of Maple Avenue and the other off of Mitchell Street . Mr . Vitters stated they had O t 1 . done as much as possible to preserve the existing vegetation of trees . He continued that -- there would , be a building used for maintenance and administrative purposes . Mr . Vitters said there . would be play areas for the children in the community . Along the east side of the site , he said, they had created an informal walk path with very easy access in both directions . Mr . Frost asked if this site plan reflected the discussions before or after discussions with the Fire Department on access and Mr . Vitters said that it reflected all of the discussions with the Fire Department prior to the actual development . rr Mr . John Hollywood had attended a meeting with the Fire Department officials that day and reported that they were satisfied with the accessability to the units . . In addition , he said , they had discussed and agreed upon fire hydrant locations . Mr . Frost inquired what the distance was from the access road to the furthest most building . Mr . Hollywood said that it was less than 200 feet . Mr . Vitters presented sketches showing the layout of the community proposed and the design of the various buildings . He showed what the family units would look like as well as the single family units , and the elevations and designs of both . Mr . ® Vitters said they were working on color schemes now . He continued that they had visited several projects that were 18 • constructed by Cardinal Company . Mr . Vitters also said they had looked at traffic considerations and their in - house traffic engineers had determined that there would be no significant impact in terms of additional traffic on the existing intersection and streets . He said they had also looked at drainage considerations and were not aware of any major impact issues as a result of this project . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners if the Planning Board had looked at this project as far as - drainage * was concerned and Ms . Beeners responded that they had looked at it but the Zoning Board of Appeals was the lead agency . Chairman Aron said he knew this but wondered if there was any discussion as to the drainage at the Planning Board . Ms . Beeners saia , there was discussion on a number of issues but the Planning - Board was- . reasonably satisfied in their review of the project . Mr . Frost had a problem in terms of fire department access_. He said that the Building Code states that buildings other than one and two family dwellings shall be . 100 feet or less from a street , road or driveway . so as to be accessible to . the Fire Department for emergency service apparatus . Mr . John Hollywood , a civil engineer with the firm of Sasaki Associates , said that prior . to their meeting they had anticipated the availability of the bikeway .to serve as an emergency vehicle corridor to access these units : from both.. sides . .. Mr . Frost asked if there would be . designation of the bikeway , if necessary , as being an emergency - fire lane . Mr . Hollywood said he was not sure what kind of designation it would be , whether it would be signed or not , but certainly the emergency services people would be aware of it . Chairman Aron asked what type of housing this would be and Mr . Wright responded this particular product was designed for University student housing as opposed to single -family residences or an apartment development . . Mr ... Wright said the units would be manufactured within a building under a controlled environment as opposed to being built on the -site under the elements and this is what was meant by manufactured housing . He said this type of housing came under certain requirements of the State of New York . The public hearing was opened . No one appeared , and the public hearing was closed . A document entitled PART II -A & III - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW- PROPOSED GRADUATE STUDENT HOUSING AT THE CORNELL QUARTERS SITEr reviewed by Susan Co Beeners and George Frant : , dated July 15 , 1938 was presented to the Board . A copy of such document is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . • Ms . Beeners reviewed her recommendation . 0 19 • A further document entitled " Subject : Cornell Quarters Environmental Review Update " dated August 10 , 1088 is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 . Chairman Aron commended Mr . Wright and his associates for a very fine presentation as to this project . Ms . Beeners said they should also be commended for spending time with the community associations in the development of this project . Ms . Beeners said that before application was made to the Town there was a great effort to get community - input as to this project . Mr . Austen wondered whether the walkway would be adequate for so many people . Mr . Wright said that it would be , that they were convinced that it would not- be a safety • hazard . Chairman Aron said he would like the record to show that the Zoning Board of Appeals was appreciative of the community spirit of -Mr . Wright and his associates and hoped that seeking community input would continue in all future endeavors . Once again , he commended Cornell for its presentation . rMr . King asked if there would be sprinkler systems in these bldings and Mr . Wright said the law required this . Attorney Barney asked if sprinkler systems would be provided the manufacture of these homes and . Mr . Wright said this was ll actually being assessed . but at . the moment it seemed that manufacturer would be able totdo this . Attorney Barney said he and Mr . Frost still had a problem with the emergency access because the Code was explicit in requiring there be accessability from 100 feet or less . He asked if the bicycle path would be the method of access . Mr . Frost wondered if the walkway that went from the parking lot could also be used as an emergency access . However , he said , the walkway was 6 feet in width and firetrucks were eight feet in width and his concern was that regardless of the fire department saying they were comfortable with 190 feet from the road the Code was clear on 100 foot . He felt that perhaps Cornell should designate the walking path as an emergency access as well should any building be over the 100 foot distance . Mr . Wright said that all of the buildings were well within the 100 feet . Mr . Wright stated that it was not a requirement that the building itself be within 100 feet , just the front of the building . He stated ' he would have difficulty in designating the walkway as a fire access because it would require 24 feet . for access . Mr . Frost wondered if the bikeway were designated as an emergency access would that include snow plowing sooner than any other walkway on campus and if so who would be doing the clearing of the bikeway . Mr . Wright said that their understanding was ® that the Town . was responsible for maintaining the bikeway . • 20 Attorney Barney interjected that the Town would not do this as an emergency access . Mr . Wright said the University could certainly do it on the weekend but did not know why there would be any need to do it during the week . He added , if the Town did it , why would the University need to . Attorney Barney said his point was that the Town had responsibilities on its highways and 'the like and the bikeway was not top priority as to snowfall . Attorney Barney said that because the bikeway was now being transposed from an incidental , casual and quasi -recreational use to something that might be essential for fire protection for a number of buildings , there should be some discussion between Cornell and the Town as to who should assume responsibility for maintenance under those circumstances. . N,-Attorney Barney said a license agreement that . gave .it to the . 1own specifically required the Town to carry that responsibility . Mr . King asked if there were codes governing bikeways as emergency accesses . Mr . Frost read from the Code "Access roads and fire lanes shall be adequately maintained - and kept free and clear of obstructions at all times . "' Chairman Aron said . the question was who owned the bikeway . Attorney Barney said that Cornell owned - the bikeway and granted a license to the . Town , and ' under that license the Town would • actually install the gravel or whatever substance the bikeway would consist of , and the Townhad undertaken to maintain it . Chairman Aron asked if this would be both in the summer and winter and Attorney Barney said this was correct . Mr . King said this did not mean the Town would have to clear it on a high priority basis . Attorney Barney said this was correct , that the Town had limited capabilities and the Town would be out clearing ,higher priority streets before worrying about a bikeway behind Cornell Quarters , Attorney Barney said he could not speak for the Town on this but he had some concern that if Cornell were going to rely on this bikeway as a means of access for fire protection , then it should be clear as to whose responsibility it was to make sure the bikeway was clear at all times , or at least that portion of the bikeway that was needed for access . Attorney Barney said if the Board were to grant approval a condition should be imposed as to . a mutual resolution of the determination as to who was to maintain that access so it could be available at all times for emergency vehicles . I Mr . King said that if the buildings were sprinklered , would that not change the picture . Mr . Frost said no , not as far as the Code was concerned . Ms . :eeners notes, that, some of the buildings in this project were within the City and she had asked Mr . Frost to check with ® the Building Department of the City , which had been receiving plans , to see if there were any problems . Chairman Aron asked 21 how many buildings were within the City limits and Ms . Beeners responded she thought there were four and portions of about four . Mr . Frost said that the City Building Commissioner informed him he believed the area was in a multiple residence zone for the City and tgiven that Cornell had do nothing further except go through the building permit process . Mr . Wright pointed out on the . map those buildings that would be within the City of Ithaca limits and thought there would be about eight or nine buildings affected . As to the environmental assessment , a motion was made by Edward King as follows : RESOLVED , that -based upon the environmental review received from the Town Planning Department ; this Board finds a negative determination ' of environmental significance as to this project as proposed . Mr . Austen asked where the maintenance of the bikeway entered into the environmental impact. Attorney Barney said he would view it not so much as an environmental consideration as a special approval condition . Edward Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , King , Austen Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . Mr . Austen wondered about security in the parking lots so remote from the buildings . Mr . Bill Wendt , director of transportation at Cornell , addressed this question . Mr . Wendt said that these lots were designated by permits for residents and were . regularly enforced by Cornell ' s . public safety department , either through patrol cars or walking patrols . He said the area in question would be patrolled by cars . Mr . Austen asked if there would be safety phones and Mr . Wendt said there was a blue light system for the campus .but he was not sure there were any phones on this site . Mr . Austen was quite concerned about one area that was heavy with trees and quite remote from the dwelling units . Mr . Wendt said there would be site lighting and he was sure that there would be lighting included in the parking lots . Mr . Wright said that the blue light system had not been extended to the site and did not anticipate it being extended to the new community . He added there would be extensive lighting for the • parking lots . 22 Chairman Aron asked if the patrols would be within a 24 hour period , and Mr . Wendt responded there would be regular patrols established . As to the special approval , a motion was made by Edward King as follows . WHEREAS , ' this Board finds that this proposal would be in an area that has been devoted to college student housing , and that it would exist between existing multiple dwelling facilities on the east and the west , it is therefore RESOLVED , that this Board grants the applicant the requested special approval under Section IV . of . the Zoning Ordinance for the proposed dormitory residential construction , conditional upon the following : ( a ) Approval of the final drainage report and final drainage design by the Town Engineer and the City of Ithaca Engineer . ( b ) Approval of final working drawings by the Town Engineer . • ( c ) Approval of . the final landscape plan by the Town Planner . ( d ) The execution of an agreement between Cornell . University and the Town of Ithaca implementing Cornell ' s offer to contribute $ 10 , 000 toward the cost of constructing asidewalk from the Town/ City line to the west side of the Cornell Quarters project , and from the east side of the Cornell Quarters project eastward to the East Hill Shopping Plaza ( in addition to . the sidewalk adjacent to the Cornell Quarters project ) , and providing for' the deposit of such sum with the Town prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Cornell Quarters project , . such sum to be returned to Cornell if the Town ' s portion of thesidewalk is not constructed by December 31 , 1994 for reasons beyond the control of Cornell University , such agreement to be in form and substance as approved by the Town Board and the Town Attorney . The designation of the bikeway as an emergency access road and maintained as such . The execution of a mutually acceptable agreement between the Town of Ithaca and Cornell University regarding the allocation of responsibility for the maintenance of the bikeway as determined by the Town Building Code Enforcement Officer , with a view to the priority of keeping this bikeway ®. clear for access by emergency vehicles , said agreement also . • 23 to contain provisions as to indemnification responsibilities for accidents or injuries on the bikeway , said indemnification responsibilities to be specifically agreed upon by the Town of Ithaca and Cornell University . Cornell University obtaining from the City of Ithaca Fire Department a statement as to the adequacy of the bikeway as an emergency access for fire protection of the proposed buildings , such statement taking into account the effect of installing sprinklers in the building and the possibility that the bikeway might not be as essential an emergency provision if the buildings are indeed sprinklered . That even if sprinklers are installed , . that would not satisfy the condition - that an agreement between the Town and the University as to the maintenance of the bikeway be arrived at as a condition of approval . Edward Austen seconded the motion . Mr . Austen thought . the University should be responsible for the maintenance of the bikeway . Attorney Barney felt the Town Board would ultimately make the decision on this matter . Mr . Frost said it was not clear- to him whether the bikeway • would be called an emergency access road . He stated the Code would prohibit the parking of vehiclles on emergency access roads but he did not think it would prohibit bicycling on the access roads . Mr . Frost said he would like to see the bikeway formally called an emergency access road . The voting was as follows : Aye - Austen , King , Aron Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . There being no further business to come before the Board , the meeting was adjourned at 10 . 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Beatrice Lincoln Recording Secretary Exhibits 1 through 5 attached �X7 , �' a J. vLwou SILT eTwh uP MAROLc J HINMAN iLERf A M6NNIN0 }OSEPw SUOCMEVE R HINMAN , STRAUB , PIGORS & MANNING , P. C . • 47MN J. LYNCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW WERHEA N PIGORS I9LROLD C. MANSON IOW-IPT( WEPMEN M. CLEARY 121 STATE STREET BARTLEY J. `OSTELLO. III ALBANY NEW YORK 12207-1622 ARTHUR E MCCODMICK PETER L. RUPERT COUNSEL PHILIP T. DUNNE• WILLIAM I. SHEEHAN TEL . 518 -436 . 0751 PAUL M. COLLINS DAVID J. OAKLEY MATTHEW S. OALVE2 SMUCE N. OVORY STEVEN C. FINLEY EILEEN M. KELLEY SVSAN F. OVLLOTI , AMI i. LONOSTREET RICHARD P. LUSEPT •ADHT(D IM M Y. A Imo. July 31 , 1986 Hon . Evan Davis • Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber State Capitol Albany , NY 12224 Re : Assembly Bill 10592 / Senate Bill 5952 - B Factory Manufactured Housing Dear Mr . Davis : On behalf- of Cardinal Industries , - Inc . , we urge the Governor to sign the above noted bill into law . The bill excepts certain factory manufactured housing from the provisions of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code which allow local governments to alter the uniform code . This bill is vital to the development of factory manufacturing housing in New York State , which is a rapidly expanding method of providing quality , yet relatively inexpensive , sources of housing . The problem with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code is that it isnot in fact uniform at all . Section 379 ( 1 ) of the Executive Law permits local governments to adopt local laws imposing higher or more restrictive standards than are found in the code . The local standards go into effect . when adopted and , even if eventually found invalid by the state council , remain valid until formally struck down . by the council . The lack of uniformity presents major obstacles to the manufactured housing industry . Manufactured housing is assembled on an assemblyline under factory conditions according to strict quality control standards , and offers substantial cost savings' compared to on site construction . Completed manufactured housing units or components are trucked to the final site and , when installation is EX �� b � t2 f iNMAN , STRAUB , PIGORS b MANNING . P . C , DATE July 31 , 1986 PAGE 2 complete , are undistinguishable to the casual observer from traditional on site construction . Manufactured housing does not include mobile homes . The assemblyline method of constructing manufactured housing is not adaptable to modifying construction standards from one municipality to another . Those individual variations , even for only two or three items in the construction process , destroys the utility of the assemblyline process and renders manufactured housing too expensive for the marketplace . The uniform code provides for the review and approval of manufactured housing so that a formal stamp of approval is issued to the unit , which then serves as assurance to local inspectors that the unit does comply with the uniform code . ( Refer to Parts 1210 , 1211 and 1212 of the Uniform Code ) . Prior to 1981 there were separate articles in the Executive Law concerning the State Building Code ( Article 18 - A ) and factory manufactured homes ( Article 18 - B ) and the law - contained a specific provision noting that local governments ' powers to adopt provisions more stringent than the State Building Code did not apply to manufactured housing , except land use and zoning requirements ( see former Section 400 - d ( d ) and 400 • a ( e ) ) on . pages 760 -- 761 of the Executive Law ) . When the building code laws were substantially revised in 198ra all provisions concerning the uniform code and factory , manufactured homes were consolidated into a single article ( see new Article 18 on page 672 of the Executive Law ) . The provision noting that municipalities can not modify the uniform code in the case of factory manufactured homes was , apparently inadvertently , not carried over into the new law . Factory manufactured housing offers the promise of meeting New York ' s housing needs in a cost effective manner by taking advantage of large scale production techniques in a controlled factory environment . However , the benefits available from factory manufactured housing are precluded by building code standards that vary from community to community . The New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code provides a stringent set of construction requirements which the factory manufactured housing industry is able and willing to comply with . Permitting municipalities to alter that code in individual instances does not provide significant benefits , but does effectively preclude the use of factory manufactured housing in New York State . 1714 � i HINMAN , STRAUB , PIGORS 6 MANNING , P . C . DATE July 31 , 1986 PAGF 3 For these reasons , we urge that the Governor sign this legislation into law . Very truly yours , Hinman , Straub , Pigors &` Manning , P . C . Legislative Counsel for Cardinal Industries , Inc . tjt e STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL � f y/y � „7 ONE FORDHAM PLAZA �t BRONX, NEW YORK 10458 MARIO M. CUOMO RICHARD L. HIGGINS GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER January 13 , 1989 David J . Oakley , Esq . Hinman , Straub , Pigors & Manning , P . C . Attorneys at Law 121 State Street Albany , N . Y . 12207 - 1622 Dear Mr . Oakley : We acknowledge your letter asking. for a Commissioner ' s Interpretation relating to a municipality imposing more stringent regulations upon a Factory Manufactured Home . Because the interpretation . being . requested relates primarily to an interpretation of Chapter 772 of the Laws of 1986 , we are responding in advisory format . d With regard to your request , we concur that as per Chapter 772 , Section 379 ( 1 ) of the Executive Law prohibits . .a municipality from imposing more stringent regulations upon a Factory Manufactured Home intended for use as one - or two - family dwelling units or multiple dwellings of not more than two stories in height . I trust that this advisory opinion is of assistance . a. Sincerely , J FLK/ bjd Fred L . Kessner , P . E . Director Housing and Building Codes Bureau • `7 r' -j I J. vAHD[w1 LLT IT^AyP TYOMAI P JTIM AL/e,T A. MANNINO HINMAN , STRAUB , PIGORS & MANNING P. C. T (y1AH r Py � LOTTI•• JOS OC HPOOGM NCA .MI I. Lo ..o/TwteT J. LYNCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW yDMW J AMY I O'CONNOwN1^11110160N1^11110160AO C, MYsoN N1^11110160M. NSON _ 121 STATE STREET CM^ISTOPM [w C. BOOT" /T[wY[N PEAN Y . OOOLAN PARTLAY J. COITLLLO, Ill ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207-1622 ^[T[^ T. OyMa[h •LT[R L. wVRLwT WILLIAM IN GOLD[\MAN PHILIP T. OUNNe• �j MKN WILLIAM r. aM[[YAN TEL . 518 -436 - 0751 PAUL^ rI Z GATT ►AV V rlTz IATTI/T[••• PAUL M. COLLINS FAX : 518 -436 -4751 OAVIO J. OA^LAY ■RUC[ N . OYORY •ADMIRED w Y r i ru • E 'ADMITTD IF AAT[HT ^ LVAM C. AOAL A T"Ao[Y..w Or.IDE January 11 , 1989 Mr . Fred L . Kessner , P . E . . , Director New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal Building Codes Bureau • Room 6028 2 World Trade Center New York , NY 10047 Dear Mr . Kessner : Please find enclosed an Application for a Commissioner ' s Interpretation requested on behalf . of Cardinal Industries , a producer of factory manufactured homes . Cardinal has recently agreed with Cornell University to build a new dormitory at Cornell . . . The project is in compliance with State requirements and the plans for the dormitory have been certified by the Division-. of Housing and Community Renewal , The Town of Ithaca refuses to issue a building permit because the project does not comply with the Town ' s local ordinance requiring the installation of a automatic sprinkler system ( a copy of the Town ' s refusal to issue the building permit is attached ) . We are requesting an interpretation from you as to whether the project needs to comply with the local sprinkler system ordinance . ) It is our opinion that it does not . Executive Law § 379 ( as amended by Chapter 772 of the Laws of 1986 - attached is the legislative history ( intent ) behind the enactment of Chapter 772 ) expressly exempts " factory manufactured homes , intended for use as a one or two family dwelling units or multiple dwellings of not more than two stories in height " from local ordinances imposing more restrictive standards for construction than the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention Building Code . HPNMAN , STRAUS , PIGORS G MANNING , P . C . DATE January 11 , 1989 PAGE 2 The dormitory is one which has fulfilled the requirements of , and has been certified pursuant to , Part " B " of the Code , its components are " wholly or in substantial part manufactured " at Cardinal ( in compliance with the Executive Law ' s definition of a factory manufactured home ) , and it falls within the code definition of a multiple dwelling ( and is thus a factory manufactured home as defined in both the Executive Law and the Code ) . The project should therefore be exempt from the Ithaca ordinance . An interpretation is being requested from the Division as to whether the local sprinkler ordinance must be complied with in this situation . The units for the dormitory will be produced in early February and thus time is of the essence with regard to this matter ( we have been told that not even a foundation permit will be issued without the sprinkler system plans ) . If there is any way this interpretation can be expedited , we would greatly appreciate it . If you have any questions , feel free to give myself ' or Sean - M . Doolan from my office a call . Very truly yours , David J5.` 0ak [ey DJO : drw Enclosure 20241 (For DHCR Cozies Bureau Use ) STATE OF NEW YORK If DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL ADP IIca tlorl r TWO WORLD TRADE CENTER No . : _ NEW YORK , N . Y . 10047 YVONNE SCRUGGS- LEFTWICH COMMISSION [ R APPLICATION FOR COMMISSIONER 'S INTERPRETATION NOTE TO APPLICANT : Please read " Rules of Procedure " before completing . this application . Then complete and transmit as instructed on reverse of this form . 1 . Name of Applicant David J . Oakley on behalf of Cardinal Industries, 2. Mailing Address 121 State Street , Albany , NY 12207 ' 31 Telephone Number ( 518 } 436 - 0751 4 . Subject Building Location Cornell University , Ithaca , NY . 5a . Address of Building Department Having Jurisdiction and Name' of Contact Person 5b. Telephone Number Andrew S . Frost , Buildin Inspector , Town of Ithaca . 126 . East Seneca Street , thaca , NY 14850 { 607 1273 - 1747 6. Parts of the Uniform Code Covering This Building _ Occupancy Classification : Part 701 x Type of Construction : Part 704 x Bldg. Height : Part . 705 x Bldg. Fire Area : Pert 705...j. Fire Limits Classification Part 706 x 7. Interpretation Requested for Following Code Section Number: 1211 . 1 (One Item Only) 8. Provide Details of Requested Interpretation : ( See attached letter for an indepth exp anation Cardinal Industries has contracted with Cornell University to build a new dormitory at Cornell . The dormitory is a factory manufactured home , pursuant to the Executive Law and the Code definitions . The Town of Ithaca refuses to issue a building permit without compliance with a local sprinkler ordinance . The Executive Law exempts factory manufact - uteu homes irom ordinances more these sections and decide whether the dormitory must comply with the local ordinances . C( ''Io becompleted byBuilding Permit Applicant)e : I ( dn Signature : Gtir� c� P n.4 W. ( For Use By Code Enforcement Official Only ) Date : Signature : 13C•56 (7 -84 ) L? (Ser reloer..le fr) r )nsrnrcrions ) 4567To - c Off' r C 3, 1*6 'A" SWICA SnW • �►� t�qw 11 ,D r0,1 �" JAN IM ww"Wo"Wolt4ft NJ Fbt . •camber 29 , 1988 Mr . Albert Wright Corn ell Univ •rsit �gr �'ttZ � i Department of Are 12.6 hitectural Rumphreys Service Building Itha " , NY 14853 - 3701 Res Cornell Quarters - Dear �sr . �Pright : i 'his _. office has permits and several eetsnto ! received . Graduate plana for PPlicationa for building student Housinq pro the Cornell for the propose dwellin j sect . ( Cornell University ' and P cifications g Unita do Quart ®ra ) . sprinkler for not , however The plans systems the inetanotep h of ' include plans required by the . To the automatic I oannot wn of Ithaca . 1 , at thio i revisW , nor cont tuAe , perfo,�-n� until I receive • Plate the is8urf or . a cosrtpl ® te prof ect complete sprinklerancd Of any buildin plan Will Once s Plane plans for the project . permits , be sprinkler are received , 'a `. aatisfactor rforIDed by this Complete Y , the Jag uance office and , should pro ? ect review of building permits the review be Should can be considerede call me at 273 - 1747 . • anY mea tions , please do not hestitate to Sincerely , Andrew 3 . Prost Building Inspector / ASF/ nf toning EnforCefient Officer • cc Noel Desch , Town S John► Co B upa:'via or Mark alai th rn ALr Town Attorney - Patricia McClnrdinnl Indurtries Y , Associate university Counsel STATE OF NEW FORK 5951 - -B . .�• . ; 1985 - 1986 Regular Sessions IN SENATE •W May 8 , 1985 l lntr'oduced by Sen . DALY - - read twice and ordered printed , and when printed to be committed to the Committee on 'Finance - - recommitted to the Committee on Finance in accordance with Senate Rule 6 , sec . 8 - committee discharged , bill amended , ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee - - committee discharged , bill amended , ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee AN ACT 20 amend the executive law , in relation to factory manufactured homes . . _ n . Olt Thea People of the State of New York represented in Senate and Assem - bly , do enact as follows : 1 Section 1 . Purpose . The ' legislature hereby finds and declares that , in 2 an effort to matt the housing needs within the state of New York , the 3 private housing and construction industry has developed mass production 4 • techniques - which can substantially reduce housing construction costs , 5 and that the mass production of - housing presents unique problems with .6 respect to the establishment of uniform health and safety standards and 7 inspection procedures . The legislature further finds and declares that , 8 by adopting uniform standards for. factory manufactured homes , it is 9 demonstrating Sts intention to encourage new and improved technology , 10 techniques , - methods and materials to increase the available supply of 11 housing , to reduce housing construction costs and to make home ownership 12 more feasible for all residents of the state . 13 5 2 . Paragraph a of subdivision two of section three hundred seventy - 14 seven of the executive law , as added by chapter seven hundred seven of 15 the laws of nineteen hundred eighty -one , is amended to read as follows : 16 a . provide reasonably uniform [ standard ] standards and requirements 17 for construction and construction materials -for public and private bu - 18 ildings , �ncludinx factory manufactured homes , consonant With accepted 19 standards of engineering and fire prevention practices ; EXPLANATION - -Matter in italics (underscored ) is new ; matter in brackets { ) is oid law to be omitted . LBD10599 - 054 v-� r , 1 S . 5951 - - B 2 _ � y 1 § 3 : ' Subdivision one of section three hundred seventy - nine of such 2 law , as added by chapter seven hundrad seven of the laws of nineteen 3 hundred eighty - one , is amended to read as follows : J 4 1 . ( The ] . Except in the case of factoriianufictured homes intonded a9�o 5 4or use as sae ar two --fauiiy-4wellin& anoMmwinultiple dwellin s of not 6 Sore . than two stories in bei ht the legislative body of any local gov64 - 7 ernment may duly enact or adopt local laws or ordinances imposing higher 8 or more restrictive standards for construction within the jurisdiction 9 of such local government than are applicable generally to such local _ 10 government in the uniform code . Within thirty days of such enactment or 11 adoption , the chief executive officer , or if there be none: , the chairman + 12 of the legislative body of such local government , shall . so notify the 13 council , and shall petition the council for a determination of whether 14 such local laws or ordinances are more stringent than the standards for 15 construction applicable generally to such local government in the uni - 16 form code . During the period in which the council is considering such 17 petition , such local laws or ordinances shall remain in full force and 18 ' effect . 19 § 4 . Paragraph a of subdivision one of section three hundred eighty - 20 three of such law , as added by chapter seven hundred seven of the laws 21 of nineteen hundred eighty -one , is amended to read as follows : 22 c . That1 in cities with a population of over one million , the existing f 23 building and fire prevention codes shall continue in full force and ef - 24 feet • beyond January one , nineteen hundred nighty - four unless the coup - `= 25 cil , after analysis and consultation with the building and fire offi - 26 cials of such cities , shall determine. that said local code provisions 27 are less stringent than the uniform code '. Existing local statutory , reg - 28 . ulatory and administrative laws 'and provisions of such cities shall con - P 29tinue in full force and effect unless . the foregoing is determined by the / �� tx =' 30 council . Notwithstanding this paragraph , '�hen such -fnetory manufactured 31 homes are intended for use .as one or two fami ly . dwe1ling units Cor mul - 32 .: Ziple dwellings 4A not more than two stories in hoij!ht , ro ded such (V 33 33 wsultiple dwellings aro not . intended for use -as hotels or wootels ,7 the 34 provisions of this article and of the uniform fire prevention and uild - ey 35' ing codeertainin to factor manufactured homes shall supersede an . $� . z 36 other provision f general , special or local law , ordinance , administra - 37 tive code , rule or regulation inconsistent or in conflict therewith . 38 § 5 . This act shall take effect immediately . J . i 'in If •' : � vr,i � l . L ) UI; 1N SU ! ' I ' Uh; J U1 ! � � JLhl � VN Pill Vurber : Senate Assembly 0 Me1no on original draft of b 0 Memo on amended bill • Title of Bill : AN ACT to amend the executive law in relation to factory manufactured homes Purpose of Bill : To clarify that factory manufactured homes and components are governed by 'the Uniform Fire % Prevention and Bui- Alding Code in all cases . I Summary of , Provi si ons of Bi l 1 : • k7ends Executive Law § - 377 ( 2 ) tc . provide- � ha � the Uni .form Fire Preve :) tion . and . - Buil ding ' Code shall include '•• factory manufacturedred ho �• e'- • : mends Executive Law § § . 379 ( 1 ) and . 30 ( 2 ( . c ) to provides ! tha : : he standard =_ for c•onstructr ip , "of factory r' r:anufactured homes s `; all be governed by the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code in all jurisdictions in the state . Exi stint La %� : • Le . 1981 ; ch . 707 consolidated ' various state building codes , including the Factory Manufacture6 ' Homes Act , former Article 18 - B o : the Executive Lew , in the Uniform Fire Prevention and Build = rg Code , The current law contains a definition of " fact ry manufactured homne '' ( Executive Law § 372 ( 10 ) ) and provides that the Secretary of State shall promulcate rules and regulations on procedures for inspection of factory rr, anufactured homes ( Executive Law § The U' nifo'rm Fire Prevention and Building Code itself contains a Factory Manufactured Homes article ( Chapter D , Article 2 , Parts 1210 - 1212 ) which requires that every factory manufactured home or cormponent must bear the Insignia of Approval of the State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council , Statement in Support of Bill * ForSteer Article 1P - B clearly provided . that the insignia of an _: rovaI Cf the former State Building CO � e CO 'JnCll w2S � a ne : eSSar )' c ;ld SL' f : icient require ) -ent for all factory manufactured hO;-leS and components everywhere in the state . The statute assured both the safety and the availability of such construction in all jurisdictioni , : ,he incorporation of Factory Manufactured Homes rec 'ulation • in the new Uniform, Fire Prevention and Building Code attempts to carry . forward the , intent • of former Article 18 - B . Nevertheless , -because of certain ft inaovertences in the adoption of the new uniform statute , ambiguities . have arisen . Nothing in new Article 18 expressly authorizes the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code Council to regulate Factory Manufactured Homes and nothing expressly preempts inconsistent local regulation of such housing , . r r .. rassage of this bill will help to assure the safety and uniform regulation of factory manufactured homes and components , The bill removes obstacles to the production of affordable housing and • guarantees manufacturers that their products may be marketed everywhere in New York once the Council ' s insignia of approval is obtained . The bill clarifies the law by specifying that the Code Council shall reoulate Factory N, anufactureo Horses and that such regulations may not be preempted by local jurisdictions . Fiscal Implications : None for state or local governments or agencies . Effective Date . • 1 THE LEGISLATURE Ch. 7S5 Lbat Can the City is supplying a substantial portion of the Company ' s water . the diltereot � 1 Company ' s system is not capable of distributing high Quality water to Cost of Tipso0 all of its customers . T s } I ` . coevential : 1 The City has been negotiating for several years with the Company for •y ,p,ild prov : purchase of its Queens facilities , however , tbere 1s no assurance tLat � ingl : i an agreement will be forthcoming . The owners have insisted that the ►coo � ! purchase price be based on the replacement value of the Company . The JJJ City believes that since the Company ' s return is limited by law to a reasonable rate of return as determined by the Public Service Commission , a capitalization of income approach is more appropriate . Under now repealed provisions of the Condemnation Law , ( Laws of 1952 , LIC chapters 508 and 515 ) , the Legislature provided ' for , the income capitalization method in condemnation proceedings relating to operatimq ± public utilities . This bill would ensure that the capitalization method s ; be used by the court to that the award would be based on the damage to the property owner , rather than the replacement cost of the system . It this way , the regulated nature of the private owner ' s of, will be S:,T ARY OF reflected in the award and the company ' s owners will not _ receive a PAOY: S :ONS windfall from the effect of past inflation on the replacement cost of its property . Should the condemnation court or any appellate court i ! determine that the income capitalization method is not appropriate , tba for liters pany ' s assets will not transfer and cations . bill provides that title to the cam f .. ' ; the condemnation proceeding will be withdrawn . While the City has serious reservations about . the propriety of this bill 0o=mlssior in light of the home rule provisions of the State Constitution , the result reached in this bill is one which the City . has attempted to REASONS FC achieve . Therefore , we can support this legislation . SLppORT Accordingly , it is urged that . this bill be approveds toxicity which hav have been theloslal friabie a UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE ACT— is the fa FACTORY MANUFACTURED HOMES carriers critical Text of Law, see Ch. 772 by unrep, Memorandum of Legislative Representative of City of New York or no ex ; demonstr SUMMARY OF This bill will provide that the State uniform Fire with ast PROVISIONS Prevention and Building Code would be used as a received single statewide standard . for factory manufactured program , homes , intended for use as a one or two family dwelling and multiple to reno dwellings of not more than two stories in height , which in the City and reg: of New York are not used as a hotel or motele encou-aF �T REASONS FOR The City of New York strongly supports this legiSla- q ; . , SUPPORT tion , The Mayor ' s Panel on Affordable Bousing has endorsed this concept as one method to increase the production of lower cost housing units . The housing shortage and the - i high cost of building new units require that innovative construction sf • techniques and processes be encouraged whenever possible . The bill would accomplish this purposeby providing a uniform stat" wide standard for the construction of factory manufactured homes . Currently , differing local laws and regulat•,ions increase the diffi - culty for manufactured housing companies to provide their product to New York State markets . A uniform building and fire code standard . eliminates the need to make design or manufacturing modifications , 2998 •� M1 �4 ' t a. t a a lip If it r 1 • " -Coot: N I •)1411`;1•� • • ;ki:. IF °. - � • .ItY. t ; %' . I ,. It It t . IN It At fr ' t• _ 7\N 1 I 1 >�y; nt �� j�'t: ,f ., • n 5 CIN N A/ 1` ` ' 1. - . f � . - et y 1 �n �� 1 - 1 •sr n1iS � . It Id } t "� .. • 314 �' pt I .t � A i t 1 f. 3 . t .. \ i t j ,r� rt ° t � .,, f t ' 11. z +' ;�a , 1v . 1� \ - n . t , '::t 1 i 4 r JTG��X. i "�"�. ,►-.th — _ - _ ' t ^ r s•' , �-�F- :_��..Ja:�� x a . •p 5. rq .. � Y c �. .rte 7•� t :.••+ r r .: � _ lwl a' ft .. 1llWCAT16h' permits for the construction 0 ratetusi the, submission HE ITHAC URNA plans for the installation automatic fire suppressil sprinkler systems, has requin by Town of Ithaca Local .Lc No. 7- 1988, as amended, "R 1 L quiring Sprinkler Systems C2 �'' aT ;r. �?ss • 1K Be Installed In Buildings In -TI +CTo f form Cornell Quarters la c et uLn : Dt1Le Ca� � 3'K Dmbetween Avenue i Mitchell Street, Town of Itho Tax Parcels No. 6-63-2-2,•674 2-3, 6-63-2=14, and - 6`63: be: J >•Sl �- II�.ACis CALlilt�' tJ .J+ itatG if ? rs� ia Lnd10. 2, Residence,, District R. 'Appellant further equesth last: t ..mss-rkr - _ _ -. . _. ._ .. ., . .. . . . . .�...::_.�:. - . .--- . . _ . said toeel mina �.:.._. �..« F -•--:: : -•� - ' r " the installation of said s ii kler systems from said buil a� Ta, pvbUe flee• ed aDd � ` in s' --- - � a- � pvint' _ . __ . . _ � . ... _ ... ._. _ '- A EAL •of Cornell Universii ` z AppelloriTimothy Sant -- - and Patricia McC e `'T, __ _. _ titaatr ` Cf a'biCh the anna� f is ._ _ . y _ _. trtld�,• - "' requesting modification of tl special Approval granted.', I t _ . .. _ the ' Town of .Ithaca Zonil aC3ri ivi2. r_. Board of Appeals on Augl 0 1 8 fgraduate 1 98 or the t s dent housinat the former Cornell lt a Quarte « site between Maple Agent and Mitchell Streer; Town Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-63- .. .- — - _ - - -.... . . . . __ . ._ . . _ ...... .. . . . . - - 2. 6-63-2-3, . 6.63-2-.14, ..and ence istri _% J i ,. r t _ , . - � 8391-2- 10.h Redd modifDatic a � �' R� Or S � zQ ^ �! ilz C � being the eliminotion of 0 installation of automatic fii supr CLL . t .. . . . . _. _ .I �. .. _ _.y sisprinkle r -systen Y: from said buildings. Said Zoning ' oar, of ppea will- of :ioid , time, 7: P.m .... .. .. . . . . --- - - and soid place, heari .all pe _ • ' •• ' •' " " - ' -'-' -' - " ' -- . _. ._. , TOWN OF TH CA ZONING sons in support of such matte S or jections NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEALRINGS maybappear by thereto. or ', `! OTC OF U ^mow• fit, tits ___ _., MON. , FEB. 27, 1989, 7P. M. person . _ . - - - _- _ .._ . . _ . __. . . . cuV. . B direction of the Chairman Andrew S. Fro of the Zoning Board of Ap- Building Inspector/Zonir - - - • _ . . _ . 1 : �� peals NOTICE " IS HEREBY Enforcement Off ic, t GIVEN that Public Hearings Town of Ithac will be held by the Zoning 7. `� 'Boaid of Appeals of the Tovon . , Februory •22; 190 of Ithaco' - bn,4 •Monday,= • re6-S " " " " �` ' • •i ^^_ ruary 270 1989, in Town Hall , • � ►�^'L r �.r' : k : 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side ), Ithaca, NY. COMMENC- JEAN FORD ING AT 7 :00 P. M. , on the fol - lowing matters. Notary public State ADJOURNED APPEAL. (from r OIt New YOfk February 8,' 1989) of Deer Run No, 4654410 ' Investors L. P. ,l Appellants, Ed- 1 , win A. . Hallberg, 'Agent, e- QUat1 {I ! in TomI • g questin avariance, under . p ins Cc'i Ity - Section 9 of Town of Ithaca Lo= CO ;- r1 ex cal Law No . 7- 1988, as Aires tilay 31 19 . • • amended, "Requiring Sprin- kler Systems To Be Installed In Buildin s In The Town of Itha. _.: ca" such that Buildings No. 31 through 36 and Buildings No . . 38 and 39, a total of 33 dwell - ing units located in Phase II of the Deer Run Subdivision, may be exempted from the re- - - quirement for the installation . . of sprinklers therein . APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Timothy Martin and Patricia McClory, Agents, - from the decision of the Build- ing Inspector/Zoning Enforce- .- - - - anent Offir= rinnvinn hrnilrlinn r