HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1989-02-28 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
DP
Date . ?
Clerk*
-. TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FEBRUARY 28 , 1989
An adjourned meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on February 28 , 1989 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126
East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 12 : 00 noon .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Joan Reuning , Eva
Hoffmann , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Andrew Frost
( Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement officer ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Edwin Hallberg , David C . Auble , Daniel Forbes .
Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 12 : 20 p . m .
The only item on the agenda was as follows :
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM FEBRUARY 8 AND FEBRUARY 27 , 1989 ) OF DEER RUN
INVESTORS L . P . , APPELLANTS , EDWIN A . HALLBERG , AGENT , REQUESTING A
VARIANCE , UNDER SECTION 9 OF TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO . 7 - 1988 , AS
AMENDED , " REQUIRING SPRINKLER SYSTEMS TO BE INSTALLED IN BUILDINGS IN
THE TOWN OF ITHACA " SUCH THAT BUILDINGS NO . 31 THROUGH 36 AND
BUILDINGS NO . 38 AND 39 , A TOTAL OF 34 DWELLING UNITS LOCATED IN PHASE
II OF THE DEER RUN SUBDIVISION , MAY BE EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLERS THEREIN .
Mr . Hallberg addressed the Board and commented on the Sprinkler
Law that was passed , adding , there was quite an effort from the
Builders ' Association in the community and the law was rescinded for
single - family and two - family detached homes . Mr . Hallberg commented
that single - family attached homes were not exempted . [ Copy of Appeal
attached to these Minutes as Exhibit 11 .
Mr . Hallberg stated that Deer Run townhouses are sold in fee
simple , single - family homes , commenting that each home has its own tax
map , individual survey , and there is a three hour separation wall
system between all units . Mr . Hallberg noted that the units are not
apartments . [ Copy of rental restrictions attached hereto as Exhibit
2 ) .
Mr . Hallberg stated that the fire wall system used at Deer Run is
made by the U . S . Gypsum Company , adding , it is considered the best
non -parapet system available . Mr . Hallberg offered that the system is
an independent system that starts at the floor of the basement , to the
peak of the roof of every house , and flares off into two directions
that overlaps by 18 " . Mr . Hallberg said that the fire wall stands
independently on a steel frame , noting , if one unit burns to the
ground in the middle of a Deer Run building and collapses , the wall
will stand on both sides of that house independently , and protect the
buildings on each side . Mr . Hallberg stated that the cost of the
system is very high , costing around $ 3 , 000 . 00 per unit .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - February 28 , 1989
Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer noted
that the system- is put in because it is required by Code .
Mr . Hallberg offered that the reason for installing the above was
not only because of Code , those fire walls are only required in
single - family homes , they are not required in multi - unit dwellings
between each unit . Mr . Hallberg stated that a lot of the facilities
are in place , such as water lines that were approved two years ago by
the Town Engineer that called for 3 / 4 " water taps , adding , if a
sprinkler system is required everything in the ground would have to be
replaced with 1 " water lines , commenting , even then , there is a
question about whether the pressure would be adequate to drive more
than one system at a time . Mr . Hallberg said that the 3 / 4 " water taps
were put in around July 1 , 1988 . Mr . Hallberg noted that in the
revised figures he was not going to show that as economic hardship ,
because that was his problem , the law may have been in place when they
were put in .
Mr . Hallberg noted that , in terms of approval for Deer Run , a
clustered subdivision was constructed , and the Town , by their own
Subdivision Regulations quoted that they are looking for cluster
subdivisions , as the Town sees the value of them in terms of using
less roads , and less public facilities to be maintained by the Town .
Mr . Hallberg offered that he tried to build affordable housing , and it
has proved itself to be , the house prices are still under $ 100 , 000 . 00 .
• [ Revised budget for the cost of including the systems attached hereto
as Exhibit 3 ] .
At this point , Mr . Hallberg referred to a letter addressed to him
form Kenneth V . Gardner II of North East Appraisals , dated February 8 ,
1989 , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . Mr . Hallberg
stated that he had a long conversation with Mr . Gardner as to what the
system was worth , and how much would the public be willing to pay for
them . Mr . Hallberg remarked that Mr . Gardner said that he would not
make any adjustment , other than perhaps $ 100 . 00 for added value per
sprinkler system , because the customers do not want them , they are
scared of them , the insurance companies will give you $ 20 . 00 to $ 50 . 00
a year break on them . Mr . Hallberg stated that the banks he borrows
money from operate on certain parameters for which they expect a
return , noting , when it gets to down to 7 - 8 % it is not worth the risk
for them .
Mr . Hallberg noted that one of the things in the Sprinkler Law
was the ability to show option . Mr . Hallberg stated that he was
willing to install hand -held fire extinguishers in every bedroom ,
kitchen , garage , basement , and go through a fire education escape
route system . Chairman Aron asked about heat sensors . Mr . Hallberg
responded that he was only required to have two smoke alarms , adding ,
there will be hard -wired smoke alarms in every room of the house . Mr .
Hallberg also said that he would offer sprinkler systems , at cost , as
an option , and bill them to the customer . Mr . Hallberg offered that
® he is the only builder in Upstate New York that has fee simple , for
sale , rent restricted housing that is required to build the sprinkler
systems , commenting , he is competing against people who do not have
to .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - February 28 , 1989
• Chairman Aron , commenting on Mr . Hallberg ' s remark about options ,
noted that the Law was not made for the matter that one can option ,
for sale , a sprinkler system or not a sprinkler system . Chairman Aron
stated that the Law was made for a purpose - the purpose being to save
lives . Chairman Aron wondered when Mr . Hallberg started construction ,
and whether or not he knew there was a Sprinkler Law on the books .
Mr . Hallberg responded that he has been building since April 1987 , and
was aware , at that time , there was not a sprinkler law in existence .
Chairman Aron commented , as to the expenditures of installing
sprinkler systems , there is no way that you or anyone else can put a
price on a human life . Mr . Hallberg replied that he was not
attempting to . Chairman Aron remarked that a smoke alarm is not the
same as a sprinkler system . Chairman Aron noted that once a
single - family home is sold , it is viewed by the Board as a
single - standing home , however , the homes in question are attached
under one roof . Mr . Hallberg stated that , at the present time , there
are 13 buildings occupied at Deer Run without sprinkler systems ,
adding , he was approved for Phase II of the development , which is the
subject 34 houses , in March 1988 . Mr . Hallberg said that he was
committed to build those homes via the Homeowners ' Association ,
adding , the Sprinkler Law became effective July 11 , 1988 .
Mr . Hallberg stated that he has to build the units , if he can
afford to , adding , he is selling at fair market value right now , and
he has to. give up half the profit on the project for the 34 units in
• order to meet the criteria that was brought into effect after he was
put in a position he could not back out of . Mr . Hallberg noted that
according to engineers , the cheapest system that could be installed
would be four 250 gallon oil tanks filled with water , per unit , with
an emergency generator attached to the pump . Mr . Hallberg stated that
he would cease building townhouses after the 34 units are completed .
Mr . Hallberg remarked that , at the present time , he has Buildings # 38 ,
# 39 , # 36 and # 34 in the ground , adding , Buildings # 36 and # 39 are
ready for sheetrock .
The Public Hearing was then opened at 12 : 45 p . m .
David Auble of Auble Homes , Inc . approached the Board and stated
that he owns property adjacent to Deer Run , Mr . Auble commented that
he had an approved site plan with attached units , but has revised the
design partially because of the Sprinkler Law . Mr . Auble stated that
he felt , if the law is on the books , then it should , basically , be
complied with , or the law should be taken off the books .
Daniel Forbes of 5 Moss Run , White Plains , NY , appeared before
the Board and stated that he was affiliated with Auble Homes , Inc .
Mr . Forbes said that he lives in Westchester County and they have a
Sprinkler Law , adding , the law is designed to protect the person
living next to you in an attached building .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak
® to this issue . No one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing
at 12 : 49 p . m .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - February 28 , 1989
• Mr . Hallberg stated that he did not disagree that 50 builders
could claim economic hardship , but noted , the point is , now , he is the
only one left .
Board member Joan Reuning interjected that she thought Mr .
Hal2berg ' s point was that part of his hardship was that he is
surrounded by other people who are able to build .
At this point , Chairman Aron re - opened the Public Hearing at
12 : 50 p . m .
Mr . David Auble of Auble Homes , Inc . spoke from the floor and
stated that he still has a plan for attached houses , and if he should
come before the Board , he would want the same considerations ,
basically , as other builders with attached houses . Mr . Auble offered
that he can build attached housing more economically , as opposed to
detached .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak , Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 12 : 51 p . m . and
brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Eva Hoffmann , directing her question to Mr . Hallberg , wondered
how far he was committed to the 34 buildings when the Law was passed .
Mr . Hallberg responded that , as soon as he sold the first house in
Phase II of the development , which closed in July 1988 , but it was
sold in April or May of 1988 . Mr . Hallberg commented that , once that
first house was sold , the common areas around the building were
dedicated to the Homeowners ' Association , adding , to go in and change
anything on that final plat plan to affect those would probably take
close to a year ' s worth of work . Mr . Hallberg said that , as of the
March 1988 approvals from the Planning Board , he was in place , noting ,
the project is a phased project and the next phase , which is at the
end of the 34 units , is , theoretically , 104 units , noting that he
would not build anymore attached units . Mrs . Hoffmann remarked that
Mr . Hallberg was committed in the layout of the 34 houses , but
wondered if there were a commitment as far as buying materials , and
also the mortgage issue . Mr . Hallberg responded that , out of those 34
houses , seven are sold , adding , 21 houses have been sold in Phase II
since March 1988 , and probably nine of the 21 had been spoken for
before the Sprinkler Law became effective . Mr . Hallberg offered that
six of the nine were sold between July and September 1988 . Chairman
Aron inquired as to how Mr . Hallberg could substantiate the above .
Mr . Hallberg stated he could submit dates of purchase offers .
Edward Austen wondered how many of the water services were in
before July 1988 . Mr . Hallberg answered , on the affected units ,
probably only four of the laterals ; the watermains with 3 / 4 " taps on
them had been in since late June 1988 through August 1988 , commenting
that he was not asking for exemption from that , as he took his risks
and put them in . Chairman Aron wondered why Mr . Hallberg decided to
® put in 3 / 4 " mains , with Mr . Hallberg responding that he was running
out of summer weather , and also they could not be exchanged for a
larger diameter . Chairman Aron wondered if Mr . Hallberg ' s original
Zoning Board of Appeals - 5 - February 28 , 1989
• intent was to put in sprinkler systems . Mr . Hallberg responded that
his original intent was to keep building the road , and the question
was , should construction be stopped right now , and 1 " water lines put
in just in case the sprinkler system had to be installed . Mr .
Hallberg remarked that the Town Engineer calculated that 3 / 4 " lines
would be adequate .
Andrew Frost commented that one head would have been sufficient
for the 3 / 4 " pipe , and the pressure within that pipe . Mr . Frost said
that since the rooms were larger he needed two heads , therefore , the
pressure would not be sufficient to service two heads . Chairman Aron
wondered if Mr . Hallberg was correctly advised by the Town Engineer
and Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer . Mr . Frost
commented that he could not speak about the discussion between Mr .
Hallberg and the Town Engineer back in July 1988 . Mr . Frost noted
that there had been some discussion with Bolton Point regarding the
certain size of service lines required . Mr . Frost stated that the
statement he made was based on engineering plans submitted from Mr .
Hallberg ' s private engineer for sprinkler plans submitted with the
building permit applications issued for the Phase II project . Mr .
Hallberg remarked that there was no question that the larger room
would have to have two sprinkler heads , the requirement was that ,
could 26 gallons a minute be delivered at 40 pounds pressure , adding ,
according to the theoretical Ridgecrest tank there would be enough
pressure to run for 26 gallons a minute , and would be sufficient for
two sprinkler heads . Mr . Hallberg offered that the problem was when
the pipes were in the ground , commenting , no one misled him , it was
just a miscalculation .
Edward Austen wondered how many of the townhouses were sold , with
Mr . Hallberg answering , as of this date , 54 are sold , and seven out of
the 34 units are contracted for , and adding that half of the units are
one - story units . Mr . Hallberg offered that the units in question are
seven out of the 34 units .
At this time , Chairman Aron asked the Board members whether or
not they were satisfied that Mr . Hallberg has proven practical
difficulties and unnecessary hardship , as this is all the Board can
really consider .
Joan Reuning stated that she felt , if the fact , before the Law
was put into existence , could be substantiated and , in fact , all of
the negotiation had been undergone , she felt that represents quite a
hardship . Mr . Hallberg stated , for the record , that in Phase II there
are 50 units , 16 units were completed , and building permits were drawn
or applied for around July 1 , 1988 on 34 units . Mr . Austen stated
that he certainly could see practical difficulty and hardship in this
particular situation .
Eva Hoffmann stated that she was a little concerned about the
overall concept of the whole development . Mrs . Hoffmann commented
that , perhaps , Phases I and II would be the only parts of the
development that would be built in this way , and the rest will be
single - family homes . Mrs . Hoffmann wondered if that meant that some
Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - February 28 , 1989
• of the open land would be built on , with Mr . Hallberg answering , no .
Mr . Hallberg again stated that he would not build anymore townhouses ,
but would probably build 52 single - family homes .
Mrs . Hoffmann , directing her comment to Mr . Hallberg , asked him
to repeat the hardship of the case . Mr . Hallberg responded that ,
basically , the soft cost and the hard cost of the sprinklers for the
next 34 units comes up to just shy of $ 200 , 000 . 00 , noting , the market
will not pay for that ; they will make no adjustment in the appraisal
for the inclusion of a sprinkler system . Mr . Hallberg said that if
the market will not pay for it the developer has to pay for it , and on
an anticipated profit of $ 375 , 000 . 00 , the developer has to bear
$ 200 , 000 . 00 that cannot be recovered , because the banks will not
increase the value of the house because of the sprinkler system . Mr .
Hallberg said that the 52 % of profits going to sprinklers puts him
below any acceptable bank margins that they will allow him to operate
in . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hallberg if he had a statement from the
bank regarding the above comment . Mr . Hallberg answered that he would
submit a statement .
Edward Austen wondered what the price range of the houses were at
the present time . Mr . Hallberg responded two -bedroom houses sell for
$ 97 , 900 . 00 and three - bedroom houses sell for $ 99 , 900 . 00 .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Aron asked
• if anyone were prepared to make a Motion .
MOTION by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Deer Run Investors
L . P . , Appellants , Edwin A . Hallberg , Agent , requesting a variance ,
under Section 9 of Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 7 - 1988 , as amended ,
" Requiring Sprinkler Systems To Be Installed In Buildings In The Town
of Ithaca " , such that Buildings No . 31 through 36 and Buildings No . 38
and 39 , a total of 34 dwelling units located in Phase II of the Deer
Run Subdivision , may be exempted from the requirement for the
installation of sprinklers therein , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals find and hereby does find as follows :
( a ) that the process for the construction of these units was
commenced a number of months before the Town Sprinkler Law became
effective , and
( b ) that the water lines that would be required for the sprinkler
system , while originally thought to be adequate from engineering
studies , are apparently inadequate in terms of pressure and would
require removal and replacement , and
( c ) that the overall cost of the installation of the sprinkler system
in this particular instance would not be recoverable by the
developer by altering the price structure of the units , and
• FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant a variance for the subject 34 units in
Zoning Board of Appeals - 7 - February 28 , 1989
• Phase II of the Deer Run Subdivision from the Sprinkler Law
requirements , subject to the following conditions .
0
1 . Receipt of a statement signed by the developer ' s lending
institution indicating that the loss of profit that would be
entailed by absorbing the costs of the sprinkler systems would
preclude the lender from continuing to finance the project .
2 . Receipt of a list of persons who have contracted to purchase any
units indicating the date the contracts for each such unit was
executed .
3 . Installation of hard -wired smoke detectors for every room
including the basement in each of the units .
4 . Smoke detector in the basement to be wired to the smoke detectors
on the first floor and on the second floor , such that alarms will
sound simultaenously .
5 . The provision of hand -held fire extinguishers of the appropriate
size and type , as approved by the Town ' s Code Enforcement
Officer , in kitchens , garages , basements , and every bedroom .
6 . The information requested is to be supplied to the Board no later
than March 7 , 1989 .
• 7 . The variance herein granted does not become effective until the
Board has reviewed such information , and is satisfied with it .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , Hoffmann , Reuning .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the February 28 , 1989 ,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned
at 1 : 44 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary S Bryant , Wcording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
• Henry Aron , Chairman .
...' i TOWN OF I THACA FEE * $ 40 . 00 '
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : - 2(�-�� .'
Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH ( )
• ( 607 ) 273 - 1747 CHECK - Cp .
ZONING : . 15
APPEAL - For Office Use . Only
to the
Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer
and the
Zoning Board of Appeals
of the
Town of Ithaca , New York
11
Having been denied permission to
I
at �`-��n— �- � ►•1 f�w ►., r{�S cS Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . -1 i " Y . 3 as shown on the accompanying
j application and/or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the
issuance of such permit would be in violation of : 19 8$
I (.._acs �.� 7 ,
i ( seaNL"J� �
Articles ) Sections ) ,
i
i
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
i
the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submlts this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the
j. Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would Impose PRACTICAL
i
DIFFICULTIES and/ or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows :
4
(Additional shieets may be attached as necessary . )
f
EXHIBIT 1
i
Signature of-Owner/Appellant : 4
ate : A F/ 8
f
'� Signature of Appellant / Agent . Date .
�! _•
APPEAL TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
y ' FOR VARIANCE FROM LOCAL LAW 71 1988
;. REQUIRING SPRINKLER SYSTEMS TO BE INSTALLED IN BUILDINGS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA
BY DEER RUN TOWNHOUSES
Deer Run Townhouses are attached single family houses. They are for sale on a fee simple basis.
They are designed , sold , and controlled by a Homeowners Association to be owner occupied single
family homes.
By the Towns standards of Zoning , Taxation , Building Permit application , and occupancy .
regulations , the homes at Deer Run are considered nothing but single family homes.
By the State of New York Uniform Building Code the homes are considered single family,
By the mortgage banks , appraisers , State Attorney General ' s Office , realtors , and tax assessors ,
the homes are considered nothing but single family homes.
The Town Board has agreed that Deer Run Townhouses are single family homes. They have
'. presently rescinded the sprinkler ordinance for all single family and two family homes which
are detached and left the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine the fate of attached units. We are
? asking for variance from this ruling on the grounds of economic hardship due to four factors ,
redundancy in fire protection built into the construction , burden of installation cost of
sprinkler systems , facilities presently in place which would have to be replaced , and economic
impact of nonrecoverable expense to the buyer and developer . We would also like to address the
Board on the philosophy of this development and the Town Boards response to it. ,
1 . REDUNDANCY IN FIRE PROTECTION
Deer Run uses a three hour seperation wall system between all units. It is a system designed and
manufactured by the U . S. Gypsum Company and is in use throughout the world. It is considered
the best non - parapet system available. The system uses 2 " of fire rated gypsum board erect
within a steel frame which extends from the floor of the basement to the peak of the roof, At any
point which one unit adjoins another , the fire wall wraps around into both units by 18 on each
side. This contains any fire within the unit of origin and forces fire to "jump " over three feet of
noncombustible surface in order to spread. The fire wall itself does not become any part of any
` bear.ing ' wall and no violations through it are allowed. If one unit were to burn down and
collapse , the wall % is designed to stand independently on its steel frame and continue to protect.
adjoining units.
The system is an expensive one to construct , costing around $ 3 , 000 per home. In all if we build
all of the units planned at Deer Run we would have spent approximately half a million dollars on
` fire protection which sprinkler systems would make redundant.
2 . COST OF INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
' The estimates we have received from installers to put in adequate sprinkler systems in the units .
at Deer Run range from a low of $ 3 , 000 per unit to around $ 5 , 500 per unit. This is for the
system within the structure once adequate water is brought to the house. These prices have all
been contingent upon redesign of the homes to eliminate cathedral ceilings or the installers
would not guarantee the pipes against freezing.
EXHIBIT 1
,
p
In a typical building/developing environment of which Deer Run has proved itself to be . typical , ,
every dollar of hard cost construction adds approximately $ 1 . 38 to the end cost of a house. This
factoring shows what a buildier must add to his estimates to account for interest , real estate .
commissions , engineering , closing costs , legal fees , extra management to oversee additional
trades , contribution to overhead , and'subcontractors profit, these all have to be taken into .
account before the builder can add anything else for his profit. The resulting minimum cost
therefore becomes between $ 4 , 140 to $ 7 ; 590 per unit.
At present Deer Run is preliminarily approved for another 104 townhouse units, Assuming for
arguments sake that costs dosnot increase for the next two years , the gross cost increase of the
ordinance to Deer Run just for, sprinkler installation is between $ 430 ,560 and $ 789 , 360.
If the ordinance stands as is with its effect on Deer Run , we will be ford to stop production of
townhouses as soon as possible, For all practical purposes this will be at the end of Phase 11 of
the development , leaving us with a total of 82 units to be built. The effected number of units
which are waiting for building permits is 34 units. The cost of installing systems in those 3.4
units will be between $ 140 , 760 and $ 258 , 060 ( cost inside the unit, only ) .
3 . FACILITIES IN PLACE WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED
Deer Run had all of its engineering specifications for Phase II approved by th Town of Ithaca
engineer , Bolton Point , and the Tompkins County Health Department in March of 1988. included
In those specifications were the installation of 3 /4 " water laterals to the houses. Water laterals
• were installed to all of the units in Phase II before the sprinkler ordinance was passed and also
before we were aware of its oncoming presence, The fact we are faced with at present is that we
have installed ( prior to July , 1988 ) approximately $ 50 , 000 worth of buried 3/ 4" water.
i lines which have now been rendered useless by this ordinance. The cost of re- excavating those
lines and replacing them ( including the taps on the mains ) is approximately $ 100 ,000 . Having
relied on the Towns engineer to tell us what we needed as far as water service , the expenditure
of this money alone creates a significant hardship on the project.
Also in place for almost two years is the investment we have made in architecture and
engineering, Given the hesitancy of the plumbing trade to guarantee a product given its present
architecture , the only logical course .would be to redesign the units. The cost in dollars for this
would be considerable, The more damaging effect for us would be timing. By the time we
` redesigned our houses , recieved all of the necessary approvals , and began construction amain , we
would certainly lose the spring and summer real estate and construction seasons. The time spent ,
without work for our employees would mean the loss of their jobs.
4. COST OF NONRECOVERABLE EXPENSE TO THE BUYER AND THE DEVELOPER ,
' . The real economic impact of the sprinkler ordinance . must be seen from the b rs . ers ective.
A system which will add in the neighborhood of $ 9 , 824 to the cost of a home ( see chart below ).
If a typical buyer takes a 90 % mortgage on his purchase , at a 10 % mortgage rate ,the increase
in cost to them will be$ 1 , 035 per year . Given the qualifying ratios which banks use today
( 28 % of gross income for housing ) , the average buyer must now earn an additional $ 3 ,695 per
. year to afford a house which has a sprinkler system . This represents approximately an . 8 %
increase in salary for the average buyer at Deer Run .
j EXHIBIT 1
i•
j -
i
;. According President of Northeast Appraisals the added value which a
Accordln to Kenneth Gardner ,
sprinkler system brings to a new home is zero. Mr . Gardner tells me would not be able to make
any adjustment in their appraisals to reflect this addition. If assuming that the houses are
? selling at fair market value right now , the cost of these sprinklers cannot be passed on to the
consumer , leaving the developer to simply absorb the cost.
In todays financial climate , the commercial banks which lend money for construction require ,
that the developer show they have at least"a 25 % margin in their sales prices over and above all
costs , hard and soft. Construction costs have a way of not living up to prediction and the national
E . average for new construction margins settles in at around 15 % . Deer Run is typical of those
figures and we enjoy $ 1 1 - 12 ,000 per unit in profit. That is acceptable to most banks but
bordering on marginal . If: wtried to absorb the. full cost of sprinklers in these units , we would
be well below any acceptable margins required by the banks and it would not be our choice to
shut down the project , but theirs.
A summary of the costs associated with the 34 units .which we are seeking variance for are:
E Hard Costs ( average $ 6 , 000 34 Units ) 204 , 000 s
New Architecture ( specific to sprinklers ) 252000
New Engineering ( specific to sprinklers ) 52000
Replacement of 3 / 4 " water lines 1002000
i
Total Cost for 34 Units 334 ,000
Per Unit Cost $ 9 , 624
Since the market will not bear the cost of sprinklers because the banks , via their appraisal
services , see the systems as non - value adding items , the burden must fall on the developer . The ..
economic hardship which this ordinance will place on this development in particular cannot be
borne by the developer , via its lending banks operating parameters. There is simply no way to
recoup the loss. The costs become astronomical if carried out beyond the 34 units in question
and would only . more certainly emphasize the seriousness of the problem . Therefore we ask this
Board to grant variance for at least the next 34 units at Deer Run , if not the entire project.
a
SUMMARY
j Deer Run was developed with the intention of filling in a gap in the affordable housing market in
{ Tompkins County. The Town Planning Board recognized that need and encouraged the project. One
of the attractive features for the project was that it is a true "cluster " subdivision , which the
Town stated in its own subdivision regulations that it was seeking to attract. For long range
planning purposes it makes sense , clustered projects use fewer public services and take up less
land , while at the same time paying the same tax rates as scattered single family homes. . They
allow for consistency in architecture , they keep themselves attractive and well maintained
through mandatory homeowners associations , they tend to be very low crime areas , and they
i offer affordability especially for retirees and first time homebuyers.
Deer Run has been singled out as the only for sale fee simple , owner roccupied rental restricted
housing in the county which will have to bear the cost of sprinklers. The best reason which the
Town Supervisor could offer for inclusion of Deer Run under the ordinance was . that the
I .
EXHIBIT 1
i
e
= . possibility existed for a rental situation to develop and the control over "housekeeping" would no
longer be charged to an interestd party ( the homeowner ) . This is a valid argument in that under
the letter of the law in the State Building Code a builder could build attached single family homes
for rental purposes and escape from some of the more restrictive multi - family construction
specifications.
At Deer Run , there are rental restrictions which are part of the property deed restrictions and
j covenants as well as the Homeowners Association bylaws ( a copy is attached ) . These rules and
regulations are imposed at the will of the developer and are far more restrictive than a detached
single family home owner would have imposed on them . In the case of two family homes or
t duplexes , which are generally designed and intended for nothing but rental purposes , without
j benefit of mandatory ownel',, occupancy for any period of time and with no seperation wall
f required , no sprinkler system is required.
We agree with the necessity for sprinkler systems in public , professional , amd multiple family
l buildings. The people in those buildings cannot depend on their neighbors to have as vested , or
i any , sincere interest in the protection of that property. Deer Run does not suffer from that lack
of interest and should not be categorized with them .
? We offer as a compromise to install hand held fire extingishers in every bedroom closet , the
kitchen , basement , and the garage of every unit we build. These will be drychemical
extinquishers with mountings attached permanently to the structure. We will institute a
program of escape route instruction and fire extinquisher use with all new homeowners ,
® hopefully with the cooperation of the Ithaca Fire Department.
The costs of this ordinance would most certainly cripple a project which has livbd up to its
promises to the Town and its homeowners and would certainly be the last of its kind to be built
i
in the area if the ordinance stands. I encourage members of the Board to visit Deer Run to see the
quality of the development , inspect our fire seperation systems and meet with our personnel to
have any questions answered. I will be glad to meet with anyone who is interested and you can
call me , Ed Hallberg , at 272 - 8119 ,
i
i •
i
i
•
EXHIBIT 1
r
t
_
a
tv
1 Ii. i x ti :
t z .
l , 1ZOO
t
_�
Ol
1 ARTICLE XIII
t ..: 4.,
. staS i e
• + ve rt Or'i : K '0
L
PROPERTY RIGHTS : RIGHTS OF ENJOYMENT t Gtr ' r
T.
dd
P . The ,
CoYnmon Areca subject to the provisions o
` Article III of the Declaration shall be liited to the use
F ' �( Members and their - guests . . In the event that a Member sha
' ( ll ` lease
rsa or permit another to Occupyhis home however ' the lease
, , lesseek" , �, a; ,
occupant shall at the option of the Member , be ' . = fit`}
permitted - to enjoy= : , {
the use of the Common Areas in lieu of and subject to " " the �' samerr {
1 { restrictions and . itations as said Member . '� pr
or occupant entitled ! to the use of the AssociationMfacilitiesBmay y
V
extend such g '
priv316 es to members of his family residing #' in ` his
fflip
�1ltt I , t S . 1r.•R
t household by notifying the Secretary in writing of the names," of ,'
any such persons and of the relationship of such Member , 2 ® t •
+p , or occupant to such persons , r
i
44
r t
t .
j
Occup &ncy of the homes shall be restricted t
Family Occupancy " which shall be defined as residentio ' .
al ' ocoupancy. : ,
by no more than four adults all related to one another as :' either
brother , sister , stepbrother , stepsister , mother father
,.
husband , wife , daughter , son , stepdaughter , stepson , . together ` ,
1 with nor more than four of their children , all of whom • are A' `'
related to each other as brother or sister . The foregoing ` shal.l . ;
{. _. . _ _
include adopted or foster children .
tal of the home ' to �
Person shall be in accordance with such none Family ` Occdpancyn ,? .
f ` a .:„
i . . t :•
111
`
i ' • r
d
t
f!- ;
i
t
EXHI31T 2
i
' . . 3,. 1 ,
1�3 5
Notwithstanding anything herein to . the '
contrary , common charges shall not be
increased more than 10 % ' per year , or ' the
percentageincrease in the Consumer Price
Index for * the "preceding - twelve months , !'
whichever is higher , without the affirmative
vote of a majority ' of the Class ' 'A Members .
, The Sponsor - shall not vote in any such ' vote .
QR,,_ it
4 . Add ' tW� *Article VII anew Section 18 following
Section 17 - Easements, ., and renumber the second . Section 17 � .
relating ' to amendment to Section 19410 . The4new Section " 18 is as i -
follows :
Section 18 . Rentmalsilo
( a ) It is the intent of the developer
. that the persons purchasing units in the .!
development join in an effort to create and :
sustain a participatory community or
neighbors . To further this goal , it is 1 .
understood that long - term renting and tip .
subletting are . to be ' discouraced and the
` . following provisions are meant to enforce
that understanding :
( i ) All owners of units , with the
exception of the declarant ; must have
one of their residences , if they have
more than one residence , at the premises
known as Deer Run Development and . t '
described oh Schedule A .
( ii ) Renting and / or subletting is
4 restricted to a cumulative period of
twelve months kithin any continuous It
i
ldlrLv - six month perioc . Permission to.
rent and / or sublet for a longer period
of time must be obtained in writing from p
-the board of Directors of the
Association , and must specify the ;
specific Lime period for which an
extension is being grat: ted . I : no case , -
, may the owner rent and / or sublet a ur_ it' ; E
for mo . e h -wenty — fou = months
cumulativeiv in anyrf _ ve- year period .
EXHIBIT 22 _ '�
I , r
,
dd
fill
Notwithstanding" the , above , the
developer ; shall , be . allowed ., to rent one
. .or .. more . 'units for akperiod not to exceed
: two ,_ years; in eeach , . case from the ; date of
It he issuance :of ., the original Certificate
of: Occupancy . for . the : unit . being ' rented , ;
proT, Iy
ided that at . no _ time ; may the , , .
doVeloper .. ha've . more than sixteen units
rented under , this : provision at , any , one
Wo
12
( b ) Leases between the owners and
tenant .
s must be written and signed , andmust , , f
i state among other items that :
Any failure on the part of the
Lessee to fully . comply with the ., ,
obligations . set .' forth in this
� i . ., Declaration of Covenants and ,
} Restrictions and the By -Lawsio ` the .:. .
Association constitutes , a , def atilt ., on: the
y,ease ., ' and . . a ,
( ii ) X11 financial obligatzons ao
the Association remain the . sole
s; responsibi. lity . of , the Owne _ -Lessor .
3AI I
5 . Add to Article VIII , Section p l . ( d ) at ;the end of
the first sentence . of such section , . ; the 49ollowing ' words : , ;
to an owner . ,,
� .
6 . Add ' to Article. VIII , Section 4 , . a new heading. as
follows : ,
f . '
111 y{ Amendmen .
Add to Article ?X , Section 3 , the following
,ttI L .
IngI j
L I
changes .•
fn ' the : first line , . after th6i words " The : ,,
Association " . - add the - words , " the Town of , Ithaca . Ip
EXHIBIT 2
: f - -� ` !
DEER RUN INVESTORS , L . P .
2 / 21 / 89
Dear Board Member ,
Since writing the appeal you received several weeks ago , we have been able to pinpoint costs of
sprnkler systems more accurately. Attached is the best bid we have received for the installation
of the systems , the breakout of the added cost of running larger water laterals to the houses , and
a letter from Ken Gardner of Northeast Appraisals expressing his opinion of the market value of
the systems.
The plumber giving us the attached bid has said that he will be able to install the systems in the
units we have designed with no change in architecture , and has given us a better than expected
price on replacing the laterals that are already in the ground. Below please find a revised budget
for the cost of including the systems in the next 34 units at Deer Run ,
I -lard Costs
34 Systems @ $ 3 , 229 / unit 109 , 786
34 1 " Water Laterals @ $ 750 / Unit 25 . 500
Subtotal 135 , 286
Real Cosi.
Using 1 . 40 Multiplier of Hard Cost 189 , 400
® Additional Engineering 5 . 000
TOTAL COST 194 , 400
Assuming an $ 1 1 , 000 Profit per unit , Anticipated profit for 34 Units = 374 , 000
T of Profits going to Sprinklers = 194 , 400 / 374 , 000 = 52 %
If the Costs were able to be passed on then :
Cost Per Unit 51718 '
Mortgage Effect Fixed Rate of 11 , 375 % = 56 . 08 / mo.
672 . 96 /yr .
Additional Income Required to Qualify = 2 , 403 . 43
Although these figures are better than we had budgeted in the original appeal , they do not change
our feeling towards the burden that these systems place on this project and still constitute an
economic hardship which we cannot afford to bear .
Thank you .
Sincerely ,
Erwin A. Hallberg EXHIBIT 3
. N FEB 08 ' 89 1153 MCI; BUILDING Page No. of P . 1 Pages
Proposal
CAWFUL Industries , Inc .
P . O . Box 153
SYRACUSE , NEW YORK 13208
( 313) 474-2488
PROP094L SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATE
M . C . K . Building Associates November 22 , 1988
STREET JOB NAME
221 W . Division St . Deere Run
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE J08 LOCATION
Syracuse , NY 13204 Ithaca , New York
ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANSJOB PHONE
ATTENTION : Bob Medi a
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
NO I1 ... ..... .... .. . ... . . .. . 0000. . . .. ..... .... , . ... ...... ... ...... ...... ..............
... ... . .... .. . . .. ..I. I.. . . .I ... .... . .
The following proposal includes all necessary labor , material and
IN IN ............
excavation to � excawate and replace 3 / 4 " watet � service with 111 water
service , to- existing.. building - or building. partially ....constructed .. .
. . . .... . . .: . . ... ... .. . . .... ..... . .. .. 1. 0000. . . .. . .. . ......
IN TOTALPROPOSAL- - - - - - - - $ 75.0 PER.- UNIT
.. .. ... .. ..... 00 00 I IN 0. . . .. I I I IN I NO I. .. ... ... ...... . . ... .. I ...... 0 000 .. .. . . I ...... .. . .
. 000 . 0.. . . . I IN I .... . .... 0 0 0.0 I...... .. . .. I 00 00 IN ... 0... 1. 11 ...... ..... 0000. .. ...... . . ....
. t 4 1 1. . NO I IN I. IN I ON I .... ... I I NO .... . .. .4 1111. 1 1 .... III0 0 0 . .. .. ... ..... 1... 41.1.. .. . ...
7 1 IN I I I
IN I I IN
. .. ..... ..
. . 0000. . . . . _ 0000
Mr VrupOlRe hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications , for the sum of .
Payment to be made as follows :
dollars
All materiel Is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed In a workmanlike •
manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or devlatlon from above specloca . Authoriz n aober
tions Involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an SlgnatUre _
extra charge over and above the eetImste. All agieements contingent upon strikes, accidents
or delays beyond our control, Owner to terry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Note: This proposal may
Our workers aro tu+ly covered by workmen's Compensation Insurance, withdrawn by us If not accepted within days.
Paw
�1trPtttriCP I1frn�iaa�! The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted . You are authorized Signature --- -- _ _.
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above ,
Date of Acceptance: Signature
EXH �4
: . �
Y= Fi B 08 ' 89 1149 ; 1°1CK BUI IPiG Page No , of pages •
r voa
MW GARDINER INC@
1415 Lodi Street
SYRACUSE , NEW . YORK 13208
r (315) 4224$02
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATE
P
JQB NAME
ET
DERY
221--KR,qfP DIVISION
CITY, $TATE AND VP CODE JOe LOCATION
JOB PHONG
ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANS
Wa hereby submit $pacification$ and estimates for:
I If
A COMPLETE SPRINKLER S'YSTEEM ACCORDINGLY TO
. . . . ... .... .. . . . ..
.1 .111 ..
, • NE' PA 13 D FOR ONE 1111._
TOWN . HOUSE .. AT, . .ABOV E. . . PROJE , .. . _ ._
. ......... .
.. . ._ 1111
1 . RISER . WITH
1111 . . . PRICE " INCLUDES -1 . . ' .. AND . . ... .. ..
. . CONTROL . VALVE , ' FI, SWICTHr .
_
TEST VALVE .
1111...
1111 ... �,
If
. , . . . 20� CHROME .. . PENDANT� OR � SIDEWALIIRESIDENTIAL MODEL E .�. .. ,... t.
AKE . ,CENTRAL. ) .. . . . . . .
1111 .. . .. . ... . . .
ALL
... 1111 . . �.
D TO BE UL FM APPROVERflIf .....
ALL pRTNT3AA1',PRaVED BY ' ' LOCAL AUTHOkITYAVIJ
J.URISTICTION .. ,.. .._. ... ... .. . ..141. 1 .. . ... . L.
: ..
Y
.. .,. . . . . ,1111, .� .., q7...
1111. 1111 . 1111. „ ... .. .
. ... . ... , 1111 � ;.f ..
. , ,... ... _. .. .. u... .In.. - 1111 _ .. . �.._., ,1111 1111 ,1111 .I. .n
.. ..... ...... �.. 1111 , _, 1111.._ ..., . .. � +[p�
n. .
, 1111 1111. . �..�..., . _.. k
.. 1111.. I I P, , .. .. .... ... ... .. I . .. .
o-
EXCLUDED.._ FROM .. PRICEs . NO ELECTRIC ., . OR . PAINT . . _.. .. ... ... .. ............... ...I.I.... ...._.. ..... ...... ... ,
hereby to furnish material and I ibor — complete in a coil ante wi h above specifications , for the sura of:
' �C �GIA '. '' T /� dC`✓ ft..t� dollars ($ 32 • 00 ._.._._..._ ) .
Payment to to made $s follows : /
All material M guaranteed to be as speelHed. All work to be completed in a workmanilke Authorised
manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifics, Signature tions Involvin/ extra costs will be axeeuted only upon written orders, and will beooma an g •
W1L
extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements Contingent upon strikes, eeoldente Neta: This propveal may a
a 61 boeybnd our cpntrvl. Owner to carry Oiler tornado and other necessary insvrsnce.
Our worker# an hilly covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance4 withdrawn by us if not accepted within days ,
EXHIBIT 4
: rrepUnCt of VCOV016541 — The above prices, Specifications
and conditions are Satisfactory and are hereby accepted . You are authorized Signature
to do the +rant as opeci09d. Payment will be made as outlined above,
Signature
Date of Acceptance:
FORW 114 .6 COPYRIGHT sego - Fmitacla 4M L776FITInc , a+axon mass. 01460
north East
appraisals
& MANAGEMENT CQ INC,
February 8 , 1989
Mr . Edwin A . Hallberg
President
Deer Run Development
whitetail Drive
Ithaca , NY 14850
Dear Mr . Hallberg :
I am writing in response to your recent inquiry pertaining to the
value impact that sprinkler systems have on residential dwellings .
It is my opinion that , while a sprinkler system would add to the cost
of construction , a dollar for dollar increase in the value of the
property would not be realized . More likely , the market would not pay
substantially for this item since competitive properties without
sprinkler systems would be available .
A possible reduction in insurance premiums would be a positive at -
tribute of the sprinkler system requirement . Safety is certainly an
important consideration , but there is no evidence to suggest that
homeowners in Tompkins County would be willing to pay for this extra
cost . On the contrary , there may be greater concern for problems
frequently associated with sprinkler systems such as accidental set -
off .
Very truly yours ,
NOR'T'H EAST APPRAISALS AND MANAGEMENT CO . , INC .
f,
Kenneth V . Gardner II
President
KVG/ cad
EXHIBIT 4
515 West Seneca Street , Ithaca , NY 14850 [607 ] 273 - 7300