Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1992-05-27 TOWN OF ITHACA FUM F1 NAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ITHACA MAY 27y 1992 Date • �oa THE FOLLOWING APPEALS WERE HEARD BY THE BOARD ON MAY 27 , 1992 : Clerk II- n'% �D 1rR ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MAY 13 , 1992 , WITH NOTICE CLARIFICATION ) OF GEOFFREY SACCO , OWNER /APPELLANT , YVONNE FOGARTY , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE XI , SECTION 51 , AND ARTICLE V . SECTIONS 21 AND 23 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR A RECENTLY SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY , AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON APRIL 21 , 1992 , EACH WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE , TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 12 FEET ( + OR - ) AT THE WEST SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK ( 40 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AND A LOT WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 115 FEET ( 150 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AT 236 BUNDY ROAD , AND TO PERMIT AN EAST SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 25 FEET ( + OR - ) ( 40 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AT 238 BUNDY ROAD . THE PROPERTIES ARE A PART OF FORMER TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24- 5 - 11 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) , GRANTED . APPEAL OF JESSIE CHUPP LOOMIS , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTIONS 14 AND 16 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AND SECTION 280-A OF NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW , TO ALLOW FOR THE CREATION OF A BUILDING LOT WITHOUT FRONTAGE ON A TOWN , COUNTY OR STATE HIGHWAY . THE PROPOSED BUILDING LOT WILL HAVE A 33--FOOT+ RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS NEAR 526 ELM STREET EXTENSION , SAID LOT IS LOCATED ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 29- 6 - 13 . 2 , RESI - DENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF PAUL AND HELENE EBERTS , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE A NON_CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONVERT A GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE AT 230 RENWICK DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 17 - 3- 13 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , SAID ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE TO BE CONSTRUCTED NEAR AND WITHIN THE GARAGE , LOCATED 12 . 4 FEET+ FROM THE STREET LINE ( 25 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) . FURTHER , SAID PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 11 , 000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE ( 15 , 000 SQUARE FEET BEING REQUIRED ) , GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF JONATHAN P . ALBANESE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING /LOT LOCATED AT 1040 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6- 19 - 2 - 10 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , SAID ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF A 5 FOOT + X 20 FOOT + LIVING SPACE ADDITION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND EXTENSION OF THE SECOND FLOOR IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ( BUT NOT BEYOND THE EXISTING EAST SIDE FOOTPRINT ) , GRANTED , APPEAL OF ERIC FRIEDLAND , OWNER /APPELLANT , NEAL HOWARD , AGENT , REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2B , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE OCCUPANCY OF AN EXISTING TWO-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 235 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 54- 7 -44 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 , BY A TOTAL OF 6 UNRELATED PERSONS ( 3 IN A DWELLING UNIT ) . TWO UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH DWELLING UNIT IS GENERALLY PERMITTED UNLESS A SPECIAL PERMIT IS GRANTED . DENIED . APPEAL OF ERIC FRIEDLAND , OWNER /APPELLANT , NEAL HOWARD , AGENT , REQUESTING THE MODIFICATION OF A SPECIAL PERMIT /APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS ON JULY 7 , 1977 TO PERMIT THE OCCUPANCY OF A THREE -FAMILY RESIDENCE , LOCATED AT 229 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 54 - 7 -45 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 , BY A TOTAL OF FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS . THE MODIFICATION REQUESTED IS FOR AN INCREASE IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS PERMITTED TO RESIDE IN SAID RESIDENCE FROM FIVE TO EIGHT . DENIED . FILED 1 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Datesla TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Clerd)''^° u� l �crl MAY 27 , 1992 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost . ABSENT : Robert Hines , Joan Reuning . OTHERS : Jessie Chupp Loomis , Vic Loomis , Yvonne Fogarty , Geoffrey Sacco , Helene Moran Eberts , Paul R . Eberts , Jon Albanese , Margaret Mills , Thomas B . Mills , Barbara Cotts , Kinga M . Gergely , George Kugler , Edward A . Mazza , Eric Fried- land , Neal Howard , Thomas Steenhuis . Chairman Austen opened the meeting at 7 : 05 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been posted and that the same are in order . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MAY 13 , 1992 , WITH NOTICE CLARIFICATION ) OF GEOFFREY SACCO , OWNER/APPELLANT , YVONNE FOGARTY , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE XI , SECTION 51 , AND ARTICLE V . SECTIONS 21 AND 23 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR A RECENTLY SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY , AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON APRIL 21 , 1992 , EACH WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE , TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 12 FEET ( + OR - ) AT THE WEST SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK ( 40 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AND A IAT WIDTH AT THE ® MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 115 FEET ( 150 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AT 236 BUNDY ROAD , AND TO PERMIT AN EAST SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 25 FEET ( + OR - ) ( 40 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AT 238 BUNDY ROAD . THE PROPERTIES ARE A PART OF FORMER TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6- 24- 5- 11 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . Chairman Austen said the board had asked for a new map with the stakes put in the right place and it looks like one was done on May 18 . He said the distances from the side lines were to be on it and they are . He said 236 Bundy Road shows 18 feet 6 inches and 238 Bundy Road shows 31 . 7 feet . Chairman Austen asked for comments from the appellants . Mr . Sacco said he went back to the surveyor after the original problem , which caused the adjournment of the last meeting . He tried to get another surveyor , but couldn ' t in the amount of time , so he went back to Mr . Schlieder and impressed upon him the urgency that this matter be attended to . Mr . Sacco said Mr . Schlieder agreed he would do it in the amount of time and put the stakes in . Mr . Sacco went out to Bundy Road himself to verify the stakes are there . He said the mistakes Attorney Barney found on the old map have been omitted . He said hopefully things are in order this time . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Mr . King reaffirmed some items that were incorrect during the last meeting , but are now correct on the Schlieder survey map . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . ' eTeaS agad ' aW Aq papuooas ' buzz paeMps • aH As NOIZOYI • uaxTi • y paeg0TH ' 33egs butuueTd agq Aq pagaTdmoo sem goTgm II gaed ' MJ03 quamssasse TequamuoaTAua wogs eqi peen uagsnV umurego JimssNssv 'NifiSWNouitm • buTaeaq oTTgnd agg pasoTo uagsny uemaTego ' paeog aqq ssaappe og paaeadde auo ou aouTS • buTaeaq oTTgnd aqq do pauado uagsnV ueu4zTe4D ' Z66T ' 6T AeW pagep uoTgnTosaa pagdope uoTsTATpgns TeuT3 pue AaeuTmTTaad s , p.zeo9 buiuueTd agq peace uagsn*y uemaTegs ' ST -H 13IH,LSIa aONNOIS3H ' Z ' ET -9-6Z-9 ' ON 'ISM XVmt VDVHLI 30 NMoL 3o NOIZHod v N0 cguv3m sI mn civs ' NOISNNM IaMS HM 9ZS Hsi MUM MV ' SSHHONI Hoa AVH-30-I.HOIH TlWa-EE V HAHH TIM IM ONIQ'I M ClaSOcIORd RU ' A VMHOI H 3. VIS HO AJMOD ' N14M V NO a5VINOH3 WOHSIM J O'I ONI(1'II119 v 30 NOILLvm SELL 2103 MOTIH os ' MH'I NMoij mvis xuoA M3N 30 v-osz NomoNs my ' amwiciuo ONINoz vovHii 30 NMoi au 3o 191 mv ;DT SNOISoNS ' AI 9'LuIiHH 3o siN H --N2 n&M HU HOH3 SRONFi'MA ONISSNHOrM J &KVTIHddV ' SIHOOq ddl1HO NISSW 3o r ddK : buTMoTTo; aqq SUM paeos aqq Aq paeag aq og Teadde puooas aqy 4p9Taae0 SUM uoTIOW aqy auoN - SAVN • buTx ' uagsny ' eTeoS - SUV ssmOTTa3 se pagTnsaa voTgom aqq uo agoA V • saTgaadoad papTnTpgns aqg uaaMgaq auTT Aaepunoq ATaagsea Mau aqq 30 gsaM gaa3 LOTS pa -gengts sT buTMeap aqg goigM uo saaae g utemaa gsaM aqg og peoH Apung 9CZ gegy ( T 65uTpuT3 buTMoTTo3 agg ggTM ' 0E -H ue UT ATTemaou paaTnbei gaa3 of ' paeA apTs gsea aqq ge 49a3 L • TE 3o eouegstp agg gTmaad oq ' TT - S - VZ - 9 * ON Taoaed xes eoeggI 3o uMol ' peog Apung gSZ qe aoveTaeA a gueab paeog aqq gegq Q3A`IoSN21 HN]-IS2I113 ZI N9 GNV ' aoueuTpap buTuoZ guesazd aqg og aouaaagpe gaTzgs e buTaTnbaa uT gueoTTdde aqq oq dT gspjeq Aaessaoauun ue spuT4 paeog agy • Z • uoTsTATpgns agg 3o 4oe3 aqq buTaq amTq sTgg ge Noeq ggbnozq buTaq ST IT uoseaa ATuo ags • aaveuTpzo buTuoZ aqq 3o uoTgdope aqq 3o amiq agq ge paISTxa gegg uotgengTs P ggTM buTTeap ST pxeog agq Begg pue pagsTxa buoT aAeq sbuTTTaMp oMg asags • T * sbutpuT3 buTMoTT03 aqq ggTM ' pazTnbei ATTemaou buTaq gaa3 0b ' gaa3 9 ' 81 3o p.aeA apTs ATJ9gsem e gTmzad paeog aqg Begg pue ' paaTnbea ATTebaT 1999 OST agq 3o aaeTd UT ' Z66T ' ST APH pagep dem AaAans agq se uMogs se 41993 QS ' SiT aQ oq auTT gaazgs aqg ge qoT Begg 3o ggpTM aqg ipuad oq aoueT.zeA e queab paeog sTgq ' uoTsTATpgns pasodoad aqq 3o goT aaae 3Teg- auo pue auo ATaagsea aqq oq se ' TT -S -VZ-9 ' oN Taazed xey eoeggl 3o uMol ' peog Apung 9EZ ge Aw adoad aqq 3o J9umO ' ooDeS A9133oao • ayy Aq Teadde sTgq 3o aaggem aqq uT gegq ' CIIA'IOSHH Z66T ' LZ APH sTeaddV 3o paeog buTuaZ Z eaeggT 3o U1401 i Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 RESOLVED , that this Board adopt the recommendations of the planning staff , Richard Eiken , that the proposed subdivision into a building lot on a 33 foot right-of-way at Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 29 - 6 - 13 . 2 , thus presented with direct access to a town road , that the Board finds that the proposal would not have any significant adverse environmental impact . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion was carried . Chairman Austen asked the reason for the subdivision , to which Mr . Loomis an- swered that his daughter would like to have that lot to build a house on when she retires from her New Jersey job and returns to this area . Mr . King asked if Mr . Loomis ' house was on the remaining acreage , to which he replied , " Yes . " Mr . King asked if it was fairly close to Elm Street 'Extension , Mr . Loomis stated that his house is located right on Elm Street Extension . Chairman Austen said he didn ' t see the location of Mr . Loomis ' home on that lot . Mr . Loomis said there is nothing there now , it ' s just a bare lot . Mr . Loomis said he is located right on Elm Street Extension . Attorney Barney asked if it is Mr . Loomis ' intention , if this approval is given , to convey this lot immediately to his daughter or will he hold onto it until she comes to this Board for the variance . Mr . Loomis said that once he has taken care of the paperwork , he would convey the lot to her immediately . Mr . King reviewed the conditions the Planning Board placed on the subdivision , one of which was that an agreement was to be obtained by the owners of the Townsend , Loomis and Burnett parcels , assuring maintenance of the access road sufficient to permit emergency vehicles . Mr . Loomis said he has not gotten such an agreement . Mr . Frost stated that Mr . Loomis had referred to a joint maintenance in the plowing of that drive . It was noted that this was done without any formal agreement . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that this Board grant the variances to Jessie Chupp Loomis at Elm Street Extension , Portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 29 - 6 - 13 . 3 , from Section 280- a of the Town Law for not having frontage on a Town , County , or State highway and from Article Iv , Sections 14 and 16 , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . That in view of the fact that the Planning Board has examined this proposed subdivision and found it acceptable , it being subject to four conditions as stated in the Planning Board ' s Resolution of May 19 , 1992 , 2 . The only matter before the Zoning Board of Appeals being the fact that the proposed subdivided lot of 0 . 86 acres will not have frontage on a Town , County or State highway , so that under Section 280-a , a variance is needed to permit that subdivision , 3 . Upon the Board ' s finding that there is an adequate 33 foot wide existing right-of-way . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 ® 4 . The condition of the approval of the subdivision incorporates the conditions of the Town Planning Board , particularly the agreement assuring the access sufficient to permit access by emergency vehicles , with such agreement to be in form and substance satisfactory to the Town Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Town Attorney . 5 . The 6 acre lot is at least 103 feet westerly of the easterly line of the lot and 70 feet west of the westerly line of the excess right- of-way . 6 . Submission of 4 copies of the survey map , as finally drafted , showing the items noted on the final subdivision checklist which was before the Planning Board , and approval by the Town Engineer to make sure adequate provision has been made for the safe access for emergency vehicles for this proposal and the owners of all the other lots adjoining it . 7 . The final subdivision be reprepared and the note corrected to indicate that the frontage is 70 feet , rather than 670 feet . 8 . The parenthetical be put in that was in the Planning Board minutes stating the acreage of the remaining lot be shown as 4 . 51 acres . 9 . To resolve the conflict between Mr . Schlieder ' s map of the lot alone which shows the frontage along the lot of 203 feet , the subdivision map shows 202 feet . As a result it shows a different dimension from the center line of Elm Street Extension , one showing 326 and the other 327 feet . The map should be redated and revised . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried . The third Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF PAUL AND HELENE EBERTS , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONVERT A GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE AT 230 RENWICK DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6- 17-3- 13 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , SAID ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE TO BE CONSTRUCTED NEAR AND WITHIN THE GARAGE , LOCATED 12 . 4 FEET+ FROM THE STREET LINE ( 25 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) . FURTHER , SAID PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 11 , 000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE ( 15 , 000 SQUARE FEET BEING REQUIRED ) . Mr . Eberts said he would like to enlarge in order to add a family room . At present the house has no family room . The house was built in 1932 on an odd sized lot , as the Board can see from the map . The lot has an additional problem in that it ' s on a hillside , so that even the garage is down a hill and not usable in the winter time except with constant shovelling of snow . Since they don ' t use the garage for the automobiles in the winter time anyway , they would like to use the garage for a family room Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 Mr . Eberts said the garage has a high ceiling and that ' s what makes the family room attractive . He said most houses now have family rooms and his house does not . The living room is a good size , the dining room is a decent size , the bedrooms are relatively small except for the master bedroom . Almost every house in the neighbor- hood has upgraded in the last ten or fifteen years . The house on the corner did have a zoning variance recently to put an additional room on it . Chairman Austen asked what they did for parking since they don ' t have a garage . Mr . Eberts said they have been parking in front of the house , which is where most of the cars in the neighborhood are parking . Mr . King said many cars are parked on the street up there . He asked if they had any intention of providing parking elsewhere . Mr . Eberts said they are going to have to park in front of the garage , rather than park on the street . Mr . King asked if that will be at grade and Mr . Eberts said that will be at the grade of the road . Chairman Austen said they will fill in that area and Mr . Eberts said yes . Mr . King asked if the new floor of the garage will be at the same level as the present floor of the garage . Mr . Eberts said it will be slightly raised because they want to put heating in the garage and they will have to put it underneath the floor . Mr . King said it seems to him that the breezeway is at a much lower level . Mr . Eberts said 3 . 5 feet according to the drawing . He said one of the drawings shows the hallway that he wants to put on with the dimensions of approximately 6 feet x 16 feet . He said they have to have stairs into the garage , even at present level because there is a 3 . 5 foot difference . He said they will enclose the breezeway in order to do that . Chairman Austen asked if they would be adding onto the backside of the garage . Mr . Eberts said yes . Mr . King said the proposed addition would apparently extend it a little bit into the 20 foot easementq Mr . Eberts said a foot and a half . He said it should be noted that there is a hedge line there now between his property line and the right- of-way . He said the sewer line goes down the right-of -way . The right-of- way is between the two houses and his hedge is clearly inside his property line . That is a visually protected area . He said he discussed it with Mr . Frost and he understands the biggest problem there is if the sewer line had to be dug up . Chairman Austen asked if it was the sewer line that cuts across the addition on the corner . Mr . Eberts said it could be but he wasn ' t sure what it was . Mr . Frost said it is the easement line for the sewer . Mr . King said the neighbor to the north is the Unsworths . Mr . Eberts said he discussed it with them and they liked the proposal . Chairman Austen read the letter from Bryon and Margaret Unsworth dated May 18 , 1992 . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no comments from the public , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Mr . Scala asked if the path that ' s shown on the map alongside the property is actively used . Mr . Eberts said it is primarily used by high school students . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen read part III of the environmental assessment form prepared by planning staff , Richard Eiken on May 20 , 1992 . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • Mr . King wanted to reiterate the reviewer is using a figure of 102 square feet of additional space , whereas the actual plans appear to involve 216 square feet . Mr . Eberts said the 216 feet includes the garage . The addition will be 6 ' x 16 ' across . Mr . Frost said the 216 square feet is the area of the existing garage which is being converted to living space . A 6 ' x 16 ' additional area is being added which is 96 square feet , so we have a sum total of 312 total square feet involved . Mr . King said there is no significant difference between what the reviewer evaluated than what the Board is looking at . Mr . Scala said with the addition , that corner will be 7 or 8 feet from the property line . Mr . Eberts said that was correct . Mr . Scala said there was going to be a 4 foot footing for the new structure and Mr . Eberts said yes . He wondered if that was viewed as a problem as far as the sewer is concerned . Mr . Frost said that is something for the Town Attorney to respond to and that we do have part of the 10 foot easement . Attorney Barney said if the Board chooses to grant the variance that it be subject to an agreement between Mr . Eberts and the Town whereby 1 ) he indemnifies to hold the town harmless for any damage that may occur to the town sewer line in the course of construction and 2 ) wages any claim he may have against the town . If the town has to go in there and dig up the sewer and in the process knocks off the corner of the building to do it , the town won ' t be liable . He said he is willing to look at something Mr . Ebert ' s lawyer writes up . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . • RESOLVED , that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the recommendation of the plan reviewer , Richard Eiken , that the Board finds a negative determination of environmental significance in the proposed additions to this property at 230 Renwick Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 17 - 3- 13 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Scala , King . NAYS - None . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with the request by Mr . Eberts to construct and add a bathroom , breezeway and a family room to the present garage which will require a foundation to be dug that extends out over the right-of-way for the sewer line , that the extension is deemed to be satisfac- tory in order to allow them to improve their property and add to the living quarters , nevertheless there has to be an agreement by the proper authorities with respect to the risk of problems involved in digging down 4 feet or more for a foundation since they are electing to be within 4 or 5 feet of the sewer line itself so that the agreement cover the following : a ) the Eberts and their successors indemnify all the town harmless from any claims or losses the Eberts may suffer by reason of the construction with the sewer easement area . b ) the Eberts wave any claim that they may have against the town for any damage to the building constructed or a portion of the building constructed within that ease - ment area . c ) any construction be done in coordination with the town engineer Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • particularly as to location of digging for the foundation and depth , etc to make sure the construction does not interfere with the actual sewer line within that sewer unit . d ) the agreement needs to be approved by the Town Board after being viewed by the Town Attorney , AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , the Board approve the proposed enlargement of the non- conforming use , in so approving the Board is giving a variance for the north side yard , permitting the applicant to reduce that side yard setback even more than now exists , with the following findings : 1 ) That the house was built in 1932 prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordi - nance . 2 ) The visual impact will not be negative because the house and garage both sit below the level of the roadway . 3 ) The greatest impact of this proposed addition would be on the neighbors to the north , the Unsworths , and they have indicated in a letter to the Board that they are much in favor of the proposal . 4 ) The parking space that is removed by the conversion of the garage , be provided elsewhere on the property off of the highway right- of-way line . 5 ) The proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- f of the Ordinance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Scala , King . NAYS - None . The motion was carried . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Eberts about parking . Mr . Eberts said he would use part of the existing driveway for the parking . Attorney Barney said the Eberts are showing 12 feet to the edge of the garage to the road and unless they are driving very small cars , if they pull straight in , they will be projecting into the road . Mr . Eberts said they have not worked it out yet and they may have to keep the existing situation . Attorney Barney asked if it was possible to move part of the driveway over in order to get a little more parking towards where the breezeway is marked . Mr . Eberts said it would be difficult because the drop- off is very steep right there . Attorney Barney asked if there was room as you are facing the garage , to the right of the garage . Attorney Barney and Mr . Scala felt strongly about there being a provision for getting cars completing off of the pavement . Mr . Eberts said they certainly could put one car there without any trouble at all . A second car would be difficult . Mr . Scala said it really should appear on the plans . Attorney Barney said the parking could be done over the sewer easement area . He said they are allowed to use the surface area . Mr . Eberts said no one else has had this restriction put on when they have had ® building permits . Attorney Barney said he wasn ' t sure building permits would regulate parking . He said part of the problem is created here because they are taking away one area where a car could be deposited off of the road . Mr . Scala asked if they were using the garage . Mr . Eberts said not recently . He said the parking is off the paved road . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • Mr . Eberts said these lots were built a long time ago . This is an original military lot . They were reasonably small and located on a hillside . It represents a real problem for building . Mr . Frost said by this zoning approval the board is involved with eliminating what otherwise is parking space , whether it is used or not . The fourth Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF JONATHAN P . ALBANESE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING/LOT LOCATED AT 1040 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 19-2- 10 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF A 5 FOOT ± X 20 FOOT ± LIVING SPACE ADDITION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND EXTENSION OF THE SECOND FLOOR IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ( BUT NOT BEYOND THE EXISTING EAST SIDE FOOTPRINT ) . Mr . Albanese said the existing structure was substantially damaged by a fire that occurred on March 13 . As a result of that fire , the whole eastern portion of the house had to be rebuilt . The house prior to the fire was a two bedroom house . The family consists of himself , a wife and one small child , all the bedrooms in the house are full . They have outgrown the house as it existed . As a result of the fire , they thought they would take this opportunity to attempt to expand so they would create the additional living space they need and not have to build elsewhere . The addition would allow them to put an extra room , as well as expand the kitchen downstairs , . allow for an additional bathroom downstairs and allow the mechanical room ( furnace and hot water heater which caused the fire ) to be placed in a location in the house that he believes is much safer than the present location . The main reason is to create additional living space so that they can expand the family if they should decide to do so and have space for guests until such time as they do expand the family . Mr . Scala asked how many square feet is being added . Mr . Albanese said about 180 square feet total . Mr . King asked if this is where the concrete block wall is . Mr . Albanese said where the bulk of the concrete block wall is to the east that was existing prior to the fire , it ' s just to the south portion . Mr . King said they are extending only to the south and Mr . Albanese said yes . Mr . Scala said they have the new wall in there but they are building on the old wall right now . Mr . Albanese said yes . Mr . Scala said that becomes an inside wall . Mr . King asked if Mr . Albanese owns the house directly to the east and Mr . Albanese said yes . Mr . Albanese said he should point out that he was before the board six years ago for an addition on the west side of the house . This addition is not quite as extensive as that addition . The new addition does not extend beyond the footprint of the addition that was built in 1986 . Mr . King asked if the addition extended the house toward the lake . Mr . Albanese said it was both westerly and southerly , a single story addition . Mr . Scala asked if there was any consideration of going into the dormers on the third floor . Mr . Albanese said no , the maximum height in the attic is only 5 feet and he couldn ' t stand up in there . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no comments from the public , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 Chairman Austen read part III of the environmental assessment form prepared by Richard Eiken on May 19 , 1992 . NOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that this Board adopt the recommendation of Richard Eiken and find a negative determination of environmental significance in the proposed addition at 1040 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 19 - 2 - 10 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Scala . NAYS - None . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that this Board grant the request for the extension of the non- conform- ing building at 1040 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 19 - 2 - 10 , as proposed by the applicant with the following findings : 1 ) The enlargement which will increase the footprint of the building by 100 square feet , more or less , ( the two story addition will probably include the roof of the house ) is necessary due to the considerable damage done by the fire . 2 ) The proposed addition will not significantly adversely affect the health , safety , and morals of the populous on East Shore Drive . 3 ) That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- f of the Ordinance . 4 ) It would not be detrimental to the general neighborhood or affect the charac- ter of the neighborhood in the amount sufficient to devalue neighboring property . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion was carried . The fifth and last appeals to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF ERIC FRIEDLAND , OWNER/APPE•i .ANT , NEAT, HOWARD , AGENT , REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2B , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE OCCUPANCY OF AN EXISTING TWO-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 235 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6- 54-7-44 , RESI- DENCE DISTRICT R-9 , BY A TOTAL OF 6 UNRELATED PERSONS ( 3 IN A DWELLING UNIT ) . TWO UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH DWELLING UNIT IS GENERALLY PERMITTED UNLESS A SPECIAL PERMIT IS GRAN'T'ED . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • APPEAL OF ERIC FRIEDLAND , OWNER/APPELLANT , NEAL HOWARD , AGENT , REQUESTING THE MODIFICATION OF A SPECIAL PERMIT/APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS ON JULY 7 , 1977 TO PERMIT THE OCCUPANCY OF A THREE-FAMILY RESIDENCE , LOCATED AT 229 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6- 54-7-45 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 , BY A TOTAL OF FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS . THE MODIFICATION REQUESTED IS FOR AN INCREASE IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS PERMITTED TO RESIDE IN SAID RESIDENCE FROM FIVE TO EIGHT . Chairman Austen said both appeals would be handled together . Attorney Edward Mazza said it would make more sense for him to discuss both appeals at the same time . He said there are generalities that apply to both of them , then they can talk specifically about each property . Attorney Mazza said Mr . Friedland owns both of the properties , 235 Coddington Road he has owned for a couple of years and the 229 Coddington Road property for six or seven months . He said a couple of years ago they were substantially run down . Mr . Friedland bought 235 and immediately started improvements on the property to make it better for the neighborhood . He wanted to be a responsible property owner . The same thing happened with 229 because immediately after he purchased it , he started on the improvements . Attorney Mazza said they have some photographs showing what the property looked like before the renovations to show the tremendous improvements to the properties . In doing these improvements , they ran into some difficulties , 1 ) they ' ve thrown more money into them than they had originally hoped to and there comes a time when you have to stop throwing money into a property if the income doesn ' t justify the expense . 2 ) Because of the terrain and the driveway being the way it is , the tenants , although constantly instructed not to , have continued to park along the road . Mr . Friedland has attempted to correct the problem by putting up some railroad ties and some posted signs but it doesn ' t take too long before the tenants remove those and continue parking where they are not supposed to park . Attorney Mazza explained Mr . Friedland is proposing to have increased occupancy at the premises . The occupancy that he is requesting would have contained in the building already enough bedrooms so that each person would have a bedroom , so that he wouldn ' t be doubling up the bedrooms or creating new bedrooms . Attorney Mazza said 229 Coddington Road is currently a three family dwelling , having had a special permit in 1977 and 235 Coddington Road is a two family . What Mr . Friedland is proposing now is to increase the occupancy , as the notice suggested . Part of the reason would be to relieve a parking situation which would greatly improve the entire neighborhood . Attorney Mazza referred to the off street parking map prepared by Larry Fabbroni and dated May 12 , 1992 . The parking plan would accommodate 14 cars which would be one car per occupant . He said in order to accomplish this there is going to have to be some cut and fill and some retaining walls removed . In addition , there is an eyesore of a barn or garage which will be removed as part of this proposal . Attorney Mazza said he didn ' t believe any of this parking proposal and the continued improvements can continue without the income to justify it and you can ' t have the income to justify it without the increased occupancy . He said he didn ' t believe it was that out of character with the neighboring properties . He mentioned • Orlando Iacovelli ' s property which has a substantial number of occupants and a driveway between the buildings , with parking behind the back . He said Mr . Fried- land ' s proposal would be somewhat similar except the driveways would be separated by a small brook that runs down the property line . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • Neal Howard , agent for Mr . Friedland , showed the Board pictures of the proper- ties . Mr . King asked what has been done on 235 Coddington Road . Mr . Mazza said on the interior Mr . Friedland has done quite a bit , on the exterior there still needs to be some work . Mr . King said it looks the same as in the pictures from years ago . Mr . Friedland said they rebuilt the front porch , put on a new roof , replaced a lot of windows , kitchen and bathroom work , updated the wiring . Mr . Friedland said they are at the point where they would like to finish the outside , including the parking . There is a decline going down there and in order to put the parking in properly , the whole grade has to be brought up . He said it would cost thousands of dollars for the railroad ties and all the fill . In order to get these tenants to park off the road , he has had them ticketed and towed . We ' ve upgraded the property substantially but to go the last yard to get them where they should be so that they aren ' t an eyesore and it ' s not an aggravation to the neighbors and to himself , we need to have more occupants . With that increased occupancy , he will be able to finally complete these properties to the point where they should be with proper parking . Attorney Mazza said Mr . Friedland was trying to decide what to do at this point when he ran into these financial constraints . They talked about possibly doing a subdivision and putting in a third lot . They thought that was a viable alternative . Another alternative is just to throw in the towel and sell them to maybe a less or more responsible landlord . He said the last landlord who had them , milked them and let them run down and got them in the condition they are in . Mr . Friedland has done a lot of improvements there without asking for anything from the town and just can ' t continue to improve the property without the increase . Attorney Mazza referred to Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- f of the ordinance . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Steenhuis of 266 Pennsylvania Avenue said this is the old story they have heard before about being so poor they cannot pay for it . He said the buildings have not been improved any , it is even worse than it was before . He said it looks bad . Chairman Austen asked which house Mr . Steenhuis was referring to and he said both . Mr . Steenhuis said certainly the gray one . Before it had some character , it was old , but it had some character and now it has some gray siding that looks very poor . He referenced Attorney Mazza ' s comment that it was in character with the existing neighborhood . He agreed that it is in character with Mr . Iacovelli ' s building because it is ugly and out of character in the neighborhood . He argued that morals would not be improved due to the increase in students , drinking , speeding , and noise . He said he has walked to the buildings and asked the students to be quiet . Mr . King asked if the buildings were directly behind Mr . Steenhuis ' house and he said no , they are on top of the hill about a 1 / 2 mile away . Barbara Cotts of 115 Northview Road said she is affiliated with the northview civic association . She said many members of the association have spoken to the concerns of traffic on Coddington Road . They have not had a formal meeting , so she is speaking to the Board as an individual . She said she has lived on Northview Road since 1960 when Mr . Friedland ' s houses were single family homes and therefore she drives past 229 and 235 to go into Ithaca often . The change in the use of the road and its traffic since 1960 is dramatic , especially since the back entrance into Ithaca College ( IC ) was put in , traffic has increased . Many of the drivers appear to • be IC students , often in a rush for a class . Not only has the traffic increased a lot , but other uses of the road have increased too . Runners and joggers use the road all the time . IC team members in uniform run two or three abreast on both sides of the road . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • She said she was very pleased to see the no parking signs appear on Coddington Road sometime ago between the college and the city . In some stretches there is no parking , but neither signs , tickets , nor the landlord ' s no parking signs have made any difference at 235 . She said she was at a board meeting several years ago when another owner of 235 was granted a variance increasing the number of tenants he could have . He said he could not afford the house if he couldn ' t rent to more students than the present zoning allowed . The question was asked if zoning must be changed to enable you to buy the house , shouldn ' t you determine then that you couldn ' t afford to buy the house , but the variance was granted anyway . The owner at that time promised to provide off street parking , indeed he put in a drive on the hillside and graveled the side yard . It is not adequate . Two young ladies who came out of the house and got into their car late this winter and had been parked on the road , told her when she stopped and asked , they couldn ' t park there in the snow . The sky was blue , the sun was up , the only snow visible was under a few trees melting away . Furthermore , we are aware that the same cars are parked in front of 235 all the time . One of them is a resident of Mr . Iacovelli ' s apartments . When they and the cars parked on the side yard are added up , the total amounts to five or six and sometimes more . Why does it matter if the cars are there ? When joggers or walkers , chatting with each other , approach cars parked on the road , they simply veer out into the road to go around them , they pay no attention to traffic , cars must slow down and drive around them . If traffic is heavy in both directions , with cars parked on both sides , a chance of a serious accident occurs . Once in the recent past she had to go home via the college entrance because the road was blocked by such an accident . Police were extracting a driver from the car between 235 Coddington Road and the apartment house immediately next door . The road was blocked for some time . Because every student tenant has a car , allowing more tenants on any house on Coddington Road by variance is unwise , indeed irresponsible . She asked how much the increase would be if this were allowed . Chairman Austen said a total of 14 . Mr . Frost said by current zoning they can have six unrelated people at 229 . At 235 they could have a total of ten people and they are asking for 14 . Mrs . Cotts said they are adding four cars to that stretch there . She wanted to point out that in the many times she has called Mr . Frost about the problems there , he has been very responsive and has done what he can . She said many times they ' ve called the sheriff and they come and ticket the cars which doesn ' t make any difference at all . She said they ask beyond the decision that the Board makes tonight about these two houses , that the Town of Ithaca address illegal parking as much as they can . Mr . King asked Mrs . Cotts what she thought of the proposed parking plan . She said it is not in character with the neighborhood at all . She agrees that the two Iacovelli apartment buildings are still not in character with the neighborhood . Maybe she sees the neighborhood with nostalgic eyes like it was when she moved here in 1960 but she didn ' t think so . Mr . King said at least this proposal would take the cars off the street . Mrs . Cotts said , the intentions are marvelous , they were last time also and the space for the cars is there , but it was never used . Attorney Barney reaffirmed Mrs . Cotts had been there since 1960 and she said yes . He asked if she was familiar with these two houses in 1960 . She answered she • certainly had knowledge of 235 because she knew the family well . Attorney Barney stated 235 was a single family then . Mrs . Cotts said yes , it wasn ' t changed until about three years later when the college entrance went in . She said she wasn ' t familiar with 229 at all . She said they all appeared to be single family houses with children and older people . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • Kinga Gergely from 106 Juniper Drive asked what the Town ' s policy was in notify- ing adjacent properties of meetings like this . She said the Juniper Drive Associa- tion representative is out of town . She is a former representative , she ' s been out of town and she just got notice and she received a call from two families on Coddington Road . The Ken Ritter family of 249 Coddington Road is a young family who just bought a former rental property . They have four kids . This is their first house . Unfortunately tonight they are moving and they couldn ' t be here . She said they are very upset about the prospect of more students . Ms . Gergely said there is a trend in this stretch of affordable housing going to young families who are very upset . Ms . Gergely read a letter from Esther Brooks as follows : " I am writing to express my serious concern over the upcoming decisions regarding the quality of life and level of public safety along the section of Coddington Road near the entrance of Ithaca College . Any action that would result in increased automobile and foot traffic in this already very congested area may have negative consequences . It is my firm belief that this area , including the area near the proposed Klondike site , is already unsafe for pedestrians , motorists , and most importantly for the tax paying and voting residents and their children . " Ms . Gergely said she would like to point out that these two houses are almost directly across from Ithaca College ' s back entrance which complicates matters even further because there is traffic coming down from the back entrance trying to make turns . There are cars parked on the side of the road . Pedestrians going around these cars and people trying to come through , one of these days there is going to be a very serious accident . Adding more cars to this very congested area is completely unsafe . Chairman Austen asked if she had looked at the proposed plan . She said she did and she thinks at 229 it is an improvement because cars are perpendicularly parked , backing out into the street . However , as Mrs . Cotts pointed out , the driveway and the parking is already existing and has never been used . Thomas Mills of 108 Pine View Terrace said he was sorry that he didn ' t have a little more time to prepare himself , but he and his wife just stopped by one of those orange signs the day they got wondering what they were there for and found out that this indeed , was the night for the hearing . He said although this driveway situation looks very nice , the u shape and so forth , according to his calculations there is a drop between the road right-of-way and the rear part of the parking area something akin to 14 feet . Now even if a lot of fill and railroad ties were brought in , he didn ' t think it was going to be brought up 14 feet . It just wouldn ' t be practical . It ' s been their experience watching so many of the students in both of these areas , plus the Iacovelli ' s property , as was mentioned by Kinga , that many times they just pull in and don ' t bother to go down to the back where they are supposed to be parking , but just park alongside the building right in the driveway . As a volunteer fireman , he has thought many times , if there were a fire when these cars were parked there , the size of their equipment is just too big and would not be able to get in that driveway with all those cars parked there . It was mentioned that both of the properties put together have something like 14 bedrooms . Mr . Mills said he is sure when these homes were built , they were built as a family type of home , rather than students and everyone having a car . There certainly weren ' t that many cars when these were individual family homes . He said he goes along with the comments made by other people . We have to drive through this area Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • several times a day and it ' s a constant battle . He is sure the landlords have done what they can and so on , but students being students they just don ' t follow the rules as far as parking , where they park , how they park and so forth . To add more people and cars to the situation , he just can ' t see it . George Kugler of 101 Pine View Terrace said he wanted to point out on 229 that the front and rear porch rooms were closed in at one time by a previous owner and made into bedrooms . That was a single family home with two porches . Those porches were made into rooms without permit and so on , so that house has grown like topsy . As far as the parking enforcement , he has stood there , with the sheriff and led them by the hand , over to the windshield to get them to put a ticket on those cars . They are very reluctant . The new Town Ordinance reads " no parking on the shoulder of Coddington Road or the ditches all the way to Rich Road " . The County said they don ' t have the money to sign it all the way . They have to sign it every 200 feet . Some of the illegal cars are parked right against the double headed arrow sign . One of the neighbors last fall tagged one of the students with her car mirror . She didn ' t knock the student down , she just hit her with the mirror . That ' s how crowded the shoulders are . The previous town planner tried to work out a pedestrian pass from the college entrance to the city line . It ' s almost an impossible job on either side without an extensive culvert on the west side or taking trees down on the side where these houses are . Mr . Kugler said it is out of character with the neighborhood . He feels to make it a rooming house neighborhood like Aurora Street in the city where you have 8 , 10 , ® or 12 people living in a house is unreasonable . When you get up to 8 people in a structure , it certainly bears no resemblance to an R- 15 zone . He also seconded all of Mrs . Cotts comments about the situation . Mr . Steenhuis said there are many other houses in the neighborhood where also a zoning variance for one or other reasons could be asked for more occupancy . Most houses are bigger than where four people can live . Mr . Friedland said in this proposal there is absolutely a parking problem at 229 Coddington Road . He said they are attempting to limit that problem by moving all the parking to the rear of the house . He thinks that would clear a lot of problems along there . They have every intention to bring that grade up . If you look at Mr . Iacovelli ' s grade next door , the grades will match , it will be brought up that far . In order to do so we are talking tens of thousands of dollars to bring this parking up properly . It would move all the cars off of Coddington Road , it would prevent anybody from backing onto Coddington Road . It is a problem , he ' s been there himself many times , but they need the increased occupancy to do that and complete the houses . In his opinion it would greatly improve the immediate area for traffic patterns and aesthetics of what these two houses look like currently . Attorney Mazza said if there is some question about whether the parking will be done if this is granted , it was in his proposal that the approval would be condi - tioned upon that parking plan being implemented . Mr . Steenhuis said Mr . Friedland has talked about costing tens of thousands of • dollars and he needs more people . He has not seen an economic analysis . He said they have fourteen people living in two houses , the amount of people paying rent , he ' s not sure it is necessary , $ 10 , 000 is not that much money with that much income . If someone claims economic hardship , he thinks they should show economic hardship . Chairman Austen asked if there were any quotes on the parking prices . Attorney Mazza said he didn ' t believe they had to show an economic hardship tonight , but he could Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 say Mr . Friedland has indicated that he is not going to be able to do this if he doesn ' t receive that increased occupancy and increased income . Mr . Friedland is an experienced businessman and that ' s his business decision that this parking plan would not make economic sense to him . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen said the Board will need to know more what the costs and things are involved in this to be able to make any decision . Mr . King said Mr . Mazza proposes to justify the need for additional tenants out of the cost of the project , then they need some real figures on the cost of the project . He said according to the February 8 , 1989 resolution , increasing the occupancy of 235 was conditioned on your providing parking by running a driveway on the north side of the house and around to the rear , which is substantially what you are proposing here as part of this proposal . Mr . Friedland said that would be one section of the u shaped driveway , the entrance and an exit . He said the major cost is to bring the ground up and to put railroad ties all the way around . Mr . King asked if there is parking down there now . Mr . Friedland said there is , but the problem with . the parking is the grade going down , the tenants have a problem getting in and out in the winter . He said he has been up there on a nice day in the . winter and he ' s gone in screaming what are you doing parking in the front and they say , " well , it ' s supposed to snow later and we ' re afraid to go down " . He said he ' s had actual occasions where they ' ve had to had them pulled out , they ' ve been stuck . In order to do this properly , it is a very sizable expense . Mr . King said that narrows the condition for permitting four unrelated people to occupy 235 . The condition was the permit be reviewed at this time . He said it sounds coincidental that you come in to ask to increase the occupancy , rather than to show you ' re in compliance with the previous requirement . Attorney Mazza said it wasn ' t Mr . Friedland , that was a prior owner . Mr . Frost said for 235 it was . He said it should be clear that the special permit expired in February or March of this year for the four unrelated people at 235 Coddington Road . Under current zoning , he could maintain four unrelated people and not need a special permit . Attorney Mazza said the gravel that was put in the current driveway was at a cost of just under $ 4 , 000 . He said they ' ve gotten quotes to have that paved which would help the problem , but in paving it we still don ' t eliminate the problem of parking at 229 because they ' re right on the road there . We ' d like to move all the parking to the back and put it in properly , as shown in the pictures and the way Mr . Iacovelli put his parking in . It seems to work by bringing the grade up considerably . Mr . Scala said the board is saying the parking requirement is not met . Mr . Frost said at 235 Coddington Road the requirement was that they provide a parking lot to the north side of the building , which they did . The design of the parking lot is not ideal in terms of utilizing it in inclement weather but more so has been the problem of the tenants of the property not utilizing the driveway . Mr . Friedland said the previous winter they had no problem that he was aware of , not to the extent of this winter with the tenants parking below . He said he doesn ' t know what it is with the group that lives there this year , if they just can ' t navigate that driveway or what . We never had a problem and we are looking to get it • paved . It is going to alleviate part of the problem at one house , but certainly not going to solve the whole problem , not even close . Mr . Scala asked if parking requirements were met for 235 . Mr . Frost said the installation of a driveway to the north side of 235 Coddington Road was met . Mr . Scala asked about 229 . Mr . Frost said 229 goes back a long time ago . He said this Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • does provide him an opportune time for the record to say he will not permit parking in the red garage to the south side of 229 . He has found it to be structurally unsound . He said there was a fire underneath that building and the supports for that garage are nearly nonexistent . He said the garage will not be used for parking and he thought it was being torn down . Mr . Friedland said as part of this proposal that would be removed . Mr . Frost said regardless of what happens there won ' t be access to the first floor of that garage and Mr . Friedland said no . Mr . Scala said they have enough places to park for the present number of 10 occu- pants . Mr . Friedland asked if he meant 229 Coddington Road and Mr . Scala said no , a combination of the two . Mr . Frost said without the improvements to the driveway , 229 Coddington Road is adequate for maybe for four vehicles . The current driveway at 235 would hold more vehicles . Mr . Scala asked if they could presently park 10 vehicles . Attorney Barney said what Mr . Frost is saying is they could probably park 8 for 235 and for 229 . Mr . Scala said the requirements have not been met to supply enough parking . Attorney Barney said a condition of the granting of the special approval back in 1989 for 235 was that a parking area be provided on the north side of the building . What Mr . Frost is saying is that condition was met , maybe not as well as we would have liked , but it was met . When the special approval was given to allow 5 occupants in 229 , there were no conditions imposed . So there is no condition to be violated by the lack of parking . At this point he ' s not sure anyone could point at the owner of the property and say you ' re in violation of a condition by not having enough parking to take care of the 10 people . He said he isn ' t as convinced as Mr . Frost that there is a valid 3 unit building there and if there is an invalid 3 unit building , there may not be the right to have 6 people there . Assuming that it ' s a valid use , there could be 2 people per unit at 229 , which would be six and two families at 235 . Mr . Scala said it ' s obvious the students are using the streets and it ' s not being enforced . For lack of enforcement the cars are out there and he ' s sure if you took enough of them away , they ' d find a place to park . He doesn ' t know that the owner is responsible for that enforcement . Chairman Austen said one of the conditions in February 1989 was that the front area would be blocked so that people couldn ' t park in it . Mr . Friedland said they put in railroad ties , coming up as close to the road as he could . Attorney Barney said the change to no parking on Coddington Road is relatively recent . Mr . Frost said there was no parking on the west side of Cudding- ton Road from the rear entrance to IC and approximately 200 or 300 feet in a northerly direction on the west side of the road . More recently the town did authorize no parking signs from the city line on Coddington Road east side to approximately Northview Road . Mr . Scala said the point he was trying to make is he doesn ' t see that the owner is at fault for students parking in the street . The students could probably find their way in there and manage if they were towed away . Mr . Friedland said he has called several times to have them towed after he has had no response . Mr . Scala said it ' s an area where its congested to begin with between joggers and traffic . What you ' re getting here is a combination of a concentrated group of 8 or 10 cars superimposed on heavy traffic and the owner ' s catching the blame and then it spills over onto aesthetics . Mr . Frost said some of the cars that have parked in that area are vehicles that , rather than get parking permits on campus , just walk in . He said • he ' s not convinced if the newer parking area was created with a separate ingress and egress off the road , we wouldn ' t have cars parking in that area . One of the things they attempted in 1989 was to get a pretty serious blockade into the shoulder of the road . The problem was , as a county highway , he ended up having to settle for railroad ties . Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • Mr . Scala commented that he didn ' t hear much about other nuisances such as noise or rowdiness . Mr . Frost said 235 has been a persistent parking problem , 229 was persistent with regard to junk vehicles and garbage . It was more so with the previous owner . Ms . Cotts said the cars that are in front of 235 are the same cars week after week , month after month . Mr . King asked if they belong to a tenant . Ms . Cotts said some of them do , one belongs to the Iacovelli ' s apartments that has , as what ' s described as adequate parking . Mr . Friedland said their lease is ending the 31 of May and he would like to try to do something not to go through this for another year . He said they are looking for some kind of solution . Attorney Barney said the question is , is the proper solution to increase the number of people . Chairman Austen asked how long Mr . Friedland has owned 229 . He said 6 or 7 months . He said he has invested $ 35 , 000 in improvements . When he took it over , there were tenants that were very undesirable , junk cars , and vermin in the apartments . It ' s come a long way and he would like to have them in shape . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen referred to the environmental assessment form prepared by planning staff , Richard Eiken on May 26 , 1992 . Mr . Scala asked if they had a record of a variance having been granted allowing three units in 229 . Mr . Frost said there appears to be a finding in 1977 by the Zoning Board that acknowledged that the building had been a three family for some 20 odd years . Mr . King said the Board didn ' t actually grant a variance . Mr . Frost said the approval for the five was a finding that it was a three family for at least 20 years and that a special permit was granted to allow for either three families or a total of 5 unrelated people . Attorney Barney said they are in the process right now of litigating another matter for the Town . The issue of whether a statement that is a finding in an earlier case is determinative to the issue that is stated . Mr . Frost said there was a previous owner who had a fourth unit which they ultimately resulted in court with and which involved the porches that were converted I nto bedrooms . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Chairman Austen . RESOLVED , that the Board make a negative determination of environmental signifi - cance with regard to the appeal of Eric Friedland at 229 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 45 . 1 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - None . NAYS - Scala , Austen , King . • Attorney Barney said what this does is tell the applicant they have to provide the Board with an environmental impact statement for this proposal . He said their motion is to make a negative determination of environmental significance and they defeated that motion . The next motion should be , if they are going to pursue this , Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • for a positive determination of environmental significance . If they were to pass this motion , that would mean the applicant and the town together would have to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposal . Mr . Scala said the owner has told us that he is willing to put in a very substan- tial investment in order to improve the accommodations . He said he is not so sure he would vote positive and enforce an environmental impact statement , isn ' t there an in- between road . Attorney Barney said the Board could adjourn it . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , as to 229 Coddington Road and the application to permit that house to be occupied by a total of 8 unrelated people , move that this Board , based on all the testimony heard , deny the requested increase , with the following findings : 1 ) It would increase the traffic and parking problem that is already severe . 2 ) The proposal to relieve the parking does not give assurance it will have a positive affect on relieving the parking . 3 ) The testimonies heard tonight shows it is a very difficult area with joggers , walkers , adding additional people , and in the Board ' s view would enlarge the existing problem . 4 ) It would also push a trend towards more multiple type family houses and increase the single family residential character of the neighborhood . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Scala . NAYS - None . LOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , as to the request for increased occupancy of the dwelling at 235 Coddington Road for special approval under Article III , Section 4 , Paragraph 2B of the Zoning Ordinance , the requested increase being to permit 2 additional people to occupy these premises , move that the Board deny the application , with the following findings : 1 ) It would increase the traffic and parking problem that is already severe . 2 ) The proposal to relieve the parking does not give assurance it will have a positive affect on relieving the parking . 3 ) The testimonies heard tonight shows it is a very difficult area with joggers , • walkers , adding additional people , and in the Board ' s view would enlarge the existing problem . 4 ) It would also push a trend towards more multiple type family houses and increase the single family residential character of the neighborhood . Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals May 27 , 1992 • A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion was carried . Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 10 : 32 p . m . O � Dani L . Holford , Building / oning Department Secretary 0 ) /to (2 A Edward Austen , Chairman •