Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-04-14 • �I Of MALA TOWN OF ITHACA o ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSI WL APRIL 14 , 1993 The following matters were heard on April 14 , 1993 by the Board : APPEAL OF HOSPICARE OF TOMPKINS COUNTY , APPELLANTS , PETER NEWELL , R . A . , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A CONVALESCENT HOME WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) . SAID HOME IS LOCATED ON 172 EAST KING ROAD , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 44 . 1 - 1 - 1 , PARCELS 44 . 1 - 1 - 2 THROUGH - 6 , PORTIONS OF 44 . 1 - 1 - 7 THROUGH - 15 AND PARCELS 44 . 1 - 1 - 16 THROUGH - 20 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . GRANTED WITH CONDITION . APPEAL OF ORLANDO IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE NON-CONFORMING BUILDING / LOTS ( TWO INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS / LOTS TOTAL ) LOCATED AT 237 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO , 54 - 7 - 41 , AND 54 - 7 - 43 . SAID PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE REZONED TO A MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF CREATING TWO FOUR- UNIT MULTIPLE RESIDENCES FROM TWO EXISTING NON-CONFORMING TWO-FAMILY HOMES , IN ADDITION , AN EXISTING NON- CONFORMING PARKING LOT WILL BE ENLARGED FROM 22 PARKING SPACES TO 40 SPACES , GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF ORLANDO IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VI , SECTION 26 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE ALLOWED TO 2 MAINTAIN MULTIPLE RESIDENCE BUILDINGS WITH UP TO FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS IN A DWELLING UNIT , WHEREAS ONLY FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS PER UNIT IS ALLOWED . THE BUILDINGS , WHICH CONTAIN FOUR DWELLING UNITS EACH , WITH NO MORE THAN FOURTEEN RESIDENTS APIECE , ARE TO BE LOCATED AT 237 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 54 - 7 -41 AND 54 -7 - 43 , CURRENTLY LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE R- 9 , WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE REZONED TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . GRANTED WITH CONDITION . nin a NOVN OF mKAX TOWN OF ITHACA 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 14 , 1993 PRESENT : Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert Hines , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Peter Newell , R . W . Langhans , Jr . , Edward Mazza , Judy Malloy , Kinga Gergely . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearings were completed and are in order . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF HOSPICARE OF TOMPKINS COUNTY , APPELLANTS , PETER NEWELL , R . A . AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A CONVALESCENT HOME WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) . SAID HOME IS LOCATED ON 172 EAST KING ROAD , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 44 . 1 - 1 - 1 , PARCELS 44 . 1- 1- 2 THROUGH -6 , PORTIONS OF 44 . 1- 1 - 7 THROUGH - 15 AND PARCELS 44 . 1- 1 - 16 THROUGH -20 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 . Peter Newell appeared before the Board and presented various elevation drawings . He stated the early schematic drawings were very close to what they had now . He said they are presenting an L shaped scheme with a raised center gable , with beams off in either direction . He stated from the road it appears to be a 1 1 / 2 story structure and from the back it is a two story structure with the added gable . He said they have essentially the same plan . Mr . Newell said they could call the level facing the street , the lower or first level and the second story exposed in the back , the main level . He stated the extra height will be perceived from the rear of the building but not from the front of the building . He stated the dimension from grade up is 36 feet 8 inches and he has rounded it up to 37 feet . Mr . Newell stated they are asking for a 6 foot variance . Mr . Scala asked if the 36 feet is from the front level and Peter explained it was from the basement level . Mr . Scala asked what is the height in the front and Peter answered 26 feet 8 inches , from the front it would be conforming and from the rear it would be non- conforming . Mr . Newell wanted to mention that the Montessori School in the area is a slab on grade building , but it has a large crescent as well . He stated the building contains 5 , 500 square feet and they don ' t want the commercial look . He stated they don ' t want it to be a long , stretched out ranch style . He stated lowering the gable will lose some of the architectural character and presence of the building . Chairman Austen asked what the basement will be used for and Peter responded it would be used for storage , a future conference room , recreation room , a place of gathering and a one bedroom apartment for the caretaker of the facility . He showed the Board on his drawings where the storage , apartment , and future conference or gathering • space are going to be located , with it ' s own exits . He wanted to note that the layout of the building has not changed much since preliminary approval from the Planning Board .. Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 Ms . Judy Malloy , president of Hospicare ' s Board of Directors , stated that Peter had briefly mentioned that the reason for the tall gable is to make it look less of a long ranch . She explained one of their main goals in the very beginning in designing this building was that it not look like an institutional building . She said they had been very careful in regards to their patients to make sure that this looks very home like . She said they have met several times with the neighbors at Chase Pond , as well as the neighbors in the South Hill , and the neighbors have all indicated that this is their desire as well , to have this look very residential , very much like a home . She said when they originally designed the ranch building , because it ' s so long , first it looked like a school , next it looked like a nursing home . She said the only way they could get it to look like a residence , a final resting place , if you will , is to put a large gable on it , making it look almost like a chalet , a home like atmosphere . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . [ The Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . ] Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals makes a negative • determination of environmental significance with respect to the Hospicare of Tompkins County , to be permitted to construct a convalescent home with a building height of 37 feet , located on 172 East King Road , a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 . 1 -- 1 - 1 , Parcels 44 . 1 - 1 - 2 through - 6 , Portions of 44 . 1 - 1 - 7 through - 15 and parcels 44 . 1 - 1 - 16 through - 20 , as recommended by the Assistant Town Planner , George Frantz , on April 8 , 1993 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Austen , King , Scala , Ellsworth . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Mr . Frost stated that the Appellants will still have to meet the New York State Building Code and there could be some building code issues that would relate to the height . Mr . King asked where the 2 , 000 foot addition is proposed . Mr . Newell explained that it is not planned for 20 years but that it will be along the east side of the building . Mr . King asked if the addition was going to need a height variance . Mr . Newell responded that most likely , if he were to be a part of the addition , he would say that they would not need one . Andy Frost wondered if Mr . Newell had heard from the State yet regarding the occupancy classification of the building . Ms . Malloy stated that earlier in the afternoon she had spoken with Paula Wilson , Deputy Director of the State Department of Health , and she has taken a very personal approach to this whole affair . She said Hospicare was required to submit an application , we do that in January and we are in Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 • the final stages of that right now , which in one sense communicates their support because these things usually take a year or a year and a half before they get to this stage . She said Ms . Wilson indicated to her that she would like to meet face to face because it is Ms . Wilson ' s feeling , as well as ours , that some of these restrictions that are imposed on this sort of building are significantly outdated . Ms . Malloy said they were given the choice of becoming either an inpatient facility or a nursing home and they declined both , for obvious reasons . She said Ms . Wilson agreed with that and wants to sit down with us to go over a new category . Ms . Wilson was on her way to New York City when Ms . Malloy talked to her this afternoon and they had a very brief conversation . Ms . Wilson will call her on Friday to go over this more thoroughly . Mr . Frost stated the New York State Building Code measures the height of a building differently than our Zoning Ordinance , it ' s not absolutely clear to him at this point that if they are constructing a wood frame building and it exceeds two stories , the Building Code might limit it to 30 feet and two stories . Mr . Newell stated that Hospicare tried to initially approach this , calling it a residence , a glorified residence , a residence with modifications ; they are putting in a sprinkler system . He said the point is they wanted a residential character ; they wanted it to be operated as a residence . He said the function of this building is little or no different than hospicare patients that are home . He said right now hospicare operates out of a wing of the hospital that is all offices and even when this • project is completed , 980 of Hospicare staff work is done driving out and dealing with people in their home . He said this is just an additional home for people who don ' t have facilities to stay in . He said it is to give relief to their children or loved ones that have been caring for them in their last few months of life . He said this is to be a home for them , so the initial motion was to be called a residence , but there is no classification for a residence of this type , so they wanted to pigeon hole us into a nursing home or a convalescent home and that ' s where the whole thing started . Mr . Newell stated Jerry Nye , the director of the program , who is not here at the moment , has been in contact with Marty Luster and other state representatives , and the understanding he has is they are making this a test case , meaning that they are not putting it into any of the code classifications , as they are the first hospicare in New York State , so there are no precedents to be set . He said they are setting the precedent and are basically working with Albany to figure out exactly how . He said if this is a residence , there are no height restrictions , if it ' s a convalescent home , there are height restrictions . Mr . Frost stated that there is not actually a category that would closely fall into what this hospicare is . He said there are other hospicares in New York State , but they are facilities that are attached to hospitals or other similar kinds of structures and this particular hospicare is independent . He said the particular classification which he discussed with the Codes Bureau of the Department of State , as opposed to the Department of Health , would put this into a category that would limit the height to 30 feet if this is a two- story structure . He said nursing homes become an institutional classification . He said building code also looks at height differently than our Zoning Ordinance . He said it ' s not clear to him if we would end up by building code • definition exceeding the 30 foot height limitation of the code . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 Mr . Newell stated if they expose one third of the basement they could call it a basement , they could satisfy that area of the code but would prefer to have 2 / 3 of the foundation open to the sun or light , due to the cost of fill , for no other reason . He said if we leave 2 / 3 exposed , then we have to call it a lower level and we can no longer call it a basement or foundation level and that ' s when we would be in violation of the Code . Mr . Frost clarified that you can ' t have a basement that ' s deemed to be a story , so you can ' t have a basement as a story and then two floors above , as in a three story building . Mr . Scala asked why didn ' t they put a basement in under the front . Mr . Newell explained that the basement is there , it ' s just under the dirt . MOTION • By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to the Appellant , Hospicare , a variance for the construction of a building at 172 East King Road , as per their application , with a height of 37 feet maximum , which otherwise is not permitted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with the following findings and condition . 1 . That there is a practical difficulty in meeting the Town requirement . This • building is being constructed for really a unique use and that the architec - tural plans , and particularly the elevation in the rear which creates this height , is necessary to accommodate the peculiar needs of the residents and the other people interested in this facility . 2 . That from the south elevation , the one that faces the road , the height or elevation is within the permitted use . 3 . The building is situated on a large lot , with a rather large structure that does not appear to be an architectural eye sore occupying it . 4 . That we adopt the findings of the Assistant Town Planner , George Frantz , with respect to his recommendation with regard to Part III of the Environmental Impact Statement on April 8 , 1993 , 5 . It is specifically stated that this is a variance for the zoning requirements and does not in any way constitute a waiver of any other requirements regarding to height , such as the building code . 6 . The impact on the neighborhood is negligible and actually the structure is not entirely unlike one of the other structures in the neighborhood ( Montessori ) . 7 . It blends in nicely with the neighborhood and whatever detriments there may arise , are certainly far outweighed by the difficulties the Appellant would have in complying with those sage limits . • A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 The motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF ORLANDO IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE NON-CONFORMING BUILDING/LOTS ( TWO INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS /LOTS TOTAL ) LOCATED AT 237 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 54-7-41 , AND 54-7-43 . SAID PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE REZONED TO A MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF CREATING TWO FOUR-UNIT MULTIPLE RESIDENCES FROM TWO EXISTING NON- CONFORMING TWO-FAMILY HOMES . IN ADDITION , AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PARKING LOT WILL BE ENLARGED FROM 22 PARKING SPACES TO 40 SPACES . Edward Mazza , attorney for the appellant , stated that this has been a long process for the appellant in that he has gone to the Planning Board a couple of times , the Town Board , now this Board , and back to the Town Board because of the complicated nature of this proposal . He understands that the Zoning Board of Appeals has been given a packet that includes some of the resolutions that have been adopted by the other Boards , but he will try to briefly summarize what is going on and allow them to ask questions to fill in the gaps . Mr . Mazza stated the appellant has subdivision approval on a parcel of land near this one , called Klondike Manor . He said the proposal was to transfer some of the • development rights for residents from that parcel , to the parcel this Board is considering tonight . He said they have been to the Planning Board and received subdivision and site plan approvals . He said they ' ve been to the Town Board on the rezoning issue and though they have not acted on it formally , he believes that they are looking favorably upon the rezoning . Mr . Mazza said what they are asking for tonight is two things , one is for a special approval and the other is a variance . He said the parcel in question was R- 9 before and is being rezoned to multiple residence district . He said in doing that , there ' s some different side yard , rear yard , and front yard setbacks and they need to have a special approval for the existing building . He said the new building that will be built there will meet all the required setbacks but the existing two buildings will need to have a special approval because of the change from R- 9 to multiple residence district . He said the other thing that is being sought is the variance and that ' s because in the two buildings that exist , they would be allowed under the proposals that have been approved under the Planning Board , fourteen bedrooms and fourteen persons , but that this would exceed the occupancy limits for unrelated persons . Mr . Mazza said it ' s the most economical for the appellant to make a couple of five bedroom apartments , one in each building , rather than reconfigure and end up with the same number of residents , because five people in one apartment is not allowed under the multiple residence district . He said they are asking for a variance to allow the two existing four bedroom apartments to become five bedroom apartments because of the substantial cost in creating another configuration within the building . He said he believes all that they would have to do is to convert a study into a bedroom in order to accomplish this , so there would be a lot of financial hardship if Mr . Iacovelli has to comply with the terms of the Ordinance . Mr . Mazza repeated that this has been a long process , the appellant sought out various members of the Town staff , talked to them , talked to the neighbors , and while not everybody agrees on every single point , he believes that he can safely say that the neighbors and the Town staff do not object to what ' s happening here . He said he could Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 ilet George Frantz and Andy Frost speak a little bit about what the Town staff position is , but as an overview that ' s what he would say , so they request the approval and the variance . Chairman Austen wondered why they need the five units . Mr . Mazza responded that they are transferring some . He said at the subdivision the appellant could have a certain number of people residing according to the terms of the Zoning Ordinance and the approval that was granted . He said it seems like it is a better place to have these residents at the location the Board is considering tonight , rather than the location that was approved in the subdivision , so they are moving those people from one location to another . He said the numbers that came out reduced the number of people who could reside on these two parcels . He said the configuration within those buildings that is the issue here tonight is five residents instead of four . He said he didn ' t know if that answers the Chairman ' s question . Chairman Austen stated that it does in a way , but he remembers when the Board gave the original variance for those two buildings . He said they had talked about what was going to be there on those particular pieces of property by adding them together , and then putting up the two on the three parcels before . Mr . Mazza stated that the request to the Town Board is to rezone that to multiple residence and transfer some of the development rights from the other parcel to this one and in the process donate to the Town of Ithaca a 3 1 / 2 acre park , which is attached to the South Hill Recreation Way . Mr . King asked what happens to the rest of the Klondike undeveloped portions . Mr . • Mazza responded that there will be four lots there , lots one , two and four have no buildings built on them now , lot three has the existing building . He said they would be limited to single family dwellings under the Zoning Ordinance and lots one , two and four would be limited to owner occupancy . Mr . King asked if lot four would have access to Coddington Road between lots two and three . Mr . Mazza stated lot number three would be a rental unit , as long as the appellant or his family continued to own it . He said if Mr . Iacovelli sold it to someone outside the family , then that would also be restricted to owner occupancy . He said the idea is to make the house an owner occupied single family residence which is in keeping with the Juniper Drive subdivision and the immediate area . He said to transfer the rights for residence to the property across from the Ithaca College entrance , will create a more attractive development for the area and solves many land use planning considerations . Mr . King asked if the Klondike subdivision was in an R- 9 or R- 30 residential district . Attorney Barney responded that it was in an R- 30 zone . Mr . Hines stated the logic can ' t be understood unless both Klondike and this project are considered as one unit , because what you are doing is trading occupancy from one unit to another and they are not connected physically , in fact they are obviously different lots . He said the hardship arises as a result of diminution of the rights in this other lot . He said the hardship which is being imposed is being imposed as a result of the change in Klondike . He said there are some practical difficulties to renovating four units into five units , or however you do it , but the issue here is that the appellant is saying he won ' t do as much as he can with this one and he is creating a hardship to accommodate a situation which is extant , and therefore he transfers that hardship by the operation • of an agreement over to some other property . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 Mr . King asked how many building lots were proposed for Klondike . George Frantz responded that there were twelve . Mr . King asked if that included the 3 1 / 2 acre park and Mr . Mazza stated that yes , there were lots over there as well , the park was not going to be . George Frantz stated that the Klondike Subdivision consisted of a long cul de sac with five lots on this 3 1 / 2 acre portion of the site , instead of the lots uphill of the old railroad grid . Mr . Mazza stated that if this is zoned to multiple residence , they can have the number that they requested in these buildings . He said it ' s just the difficulty and the hardship comes from how they do that , because it would be a renovation , they wouldn ' t be building from scratch and it would cost a lot more to make it comply with the Zoning Ordinance , than it would to be allowed to do it this way . George Frantz explained that from the 1987 file , he had a floor plan of the four bedroom units as they were built and apparently what happened was the original proposal that is labeled as a study here , was to be a balcony and it was enclosed to become a study area for the residents of the apartment , with the four bedrooms being up here . He said Mr . Iacovelli ' s discussion with him was that it would make much more sense to simply do what needs to be done with this area to convert it to habitable space , rather than going through and gutting the entire building in order to remix the interiors to create the apartments that would conform with the zoning . Mr . King asked if the study area was in front of the building . Mr . Frantz replied no , that it was actually in the rear of the building . Chairman Austen asked what the residents are going to do for a study area if they do that , you ' re putting more people in and leaving less space for studying and such . Attorney Barney stated when he was in school , most students studied in their bedrooms . Mr . Frost stated that any agreement he may have with what is being proposed , is that in essence , as long as it complies with the building code , there ' s nothing that jumps out and strikes him as being in violation of the building code , but he wants to make it clear , that this case , as well , means a modification of the building and there could be building code considerations and until we look at building plans , the proposal may or may not work . Pete Scala stated in looking at the Planning Department memorandum of April 8 , 1993 , it says that the two existing buildings have a total I occupancy of sixteen persons in four apartments . He said as he understands it , they ' re going to add a fifth unit to each of those four units , which will add four more people . George Frantz replied Mr . Iacovelli plans to keep the existing two units in each building , converting them to five bedroom apartments . He said there is a one story section on the front of each of the buildings which will become a one bedroom apartment and then he will also have three bedroom units on the ground floor in the rear of the buildings , which is exposed . Mr . King asked if both buildings would have this addition on the back . George Frantz replied each building would have one one bedroom apartment , one three bedroom apartment , and two five bedroom apartments . Mr . Mazza stated the new building will have six three bedroom apartments , all of which would conform with the Ordinance . Further discussion ensued between the Board members regarding the occupancy of each building . Mr . King asked if each bedroom would have one occupant and Mr . Mazza agreed . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Ms . Kinga Gergely from 106 Juniper Drive approached the Board and said that she was representing Juniper Drive residents and she wouldn ' t say they ' re overly happy , but she doesn ' t think they ' ll see a better plan from Mr . Iacovelli , so if this is the best plan he ' ll come up with , they ' re happy . She said as far as what ' s happening on Coddington Road , they were going to step back and let the other residents say what they need to say . She said since she didn ' t see any overwhelming opposition , she would assume they ' re not overly unhappy either . She said as far as the density that you are talking about here , she would say that it ' s already existing , so you ' re just approving something that ' s already happening . Pete Scala asked if she means that it has already been changed . Mr . Frost replied that he had a complaint that the basements of each unit were being used as dwelling units , we investigated that complaint , found that they were , and then they were vacated . Harry Ellsworth stated they are increasing the legitimate density by this plan of that building . Attorney Barney stated it was the whole lot because there is a third building that ' s going in with another eighteen beds . Chairman Austen asked George Frantz to give the Zoning Board of Appeals an overview on why the Planning Board agreed to go along with this . George Frantz stated this phase of Klondike has been going on for about fifteen months . He said the Klondike subdivision itself that was approved in 1989 was a very controversial subdivision project . He said one of the concerns of the residents was the continued movement of student housing into the established family neighborhoods along Coddington • Road . He said about fifteen months ago he was involved with Mr . Iacovelli in negotiations surrounding the Town easement for the South Hill Recreation Way and they started discussing his ideas for the whole Klondike area . Mr . Frantz said one of the proposals Mr . Iacovelli made was giving up his Klondike subdivision if he could get additional student parking at the 237 Coddington Road site . He said there was a lot of informal discussion up until last December , whereby there were a number of proposals that were floated to the neighborhood , which is the neighbors along Juniper Drive , as well as people who live between Juniper Drive and 237 Coddington Road . He said there are still some families living in this area who are still very much concerned about the impact of student housing . He said the density on this site with the original proposal that went to the Planning Board was for a nine unit building , along with adding the additional two units to each of these buildings . He said the reaction at the December sketch plan Planning Board meeting , was the public thought that it was too much density at the site . He said Mr . Iacovelli came back with this proposal which was for the building with six three bedroom apartments , plus adding the additional units to these buildings . He said since Mr . Iacovelli made a formal application at the end of December to rezone this parcel at 237 Coddington Road from R- 9 to multiple residence , that was the vehicle by which we could have accomplished what was the transferring of the development rights from the Klondike parcel to this parcel at 237 Coddington Road . He said from the beginning , the 3 1 / 2 acre park has always been part of the package . Chairman Austen stated there are four lots there that are not going to be involved . Mr . Frantz replied that one has an existing single family home that Mr . Iacovelli owns and rents , the other three lots currently have no structures on them . Chairman Austen asked if that is the maximum for that piece of property . Mr . Frantz responded that it is the maximum number of lots allowed on the Klondike tract . Attorney Barney stated Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 • that it is in the same way that the two four units buildings were the maximum allowed . He said we will give restrictive covenants or grants but that doesn ' t mean that some future board at some future time can ' t come in and modify it , as is being asked here . Mr . Frantz wanted to clarify that Mr . Mazza mentioned these will be single family homes , actually the Planning Board is allowing two family homes on these three lots here , but they will be required to be owner occupied . He said these are going to be treated as single family detached house lots , except for the restriction under owner occupancy . He said the Planning Board held a public hearing in February on the proposed rezoning and the general site plan , made a favorable recommendation to the Town Board , the Town Board in a sort of informal straw vote in its March meeting , endorsed a proposal to rezone it with the forty six bedrooms in the configuration before the Board . He said the Planning Board on March 30 granted final site plan approval and final subdivision approval for the two sites contingent upon the Town Board approving the rezoning and this Board approving the Special Approval and variance . He said we are here tonight to have the action by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town Board will vote on the rezoning next Tuesday in a special meeting . Chairman Austen asked if this will end the Klondike Subdivision . Attorney Barney stated that Klondike does not become a multiple residence , it remains R- 15 . Mr . Scala asked what is the restriction on the buildings at 237 Coddington Road . Attorney Barney stated when these two units were put on , there was an agreed consolidation of five and a half or six lots from the Old Ithaca Land Company . He said the theory at the time was that Mr . Iacovelli could build five separate single or two family residences on them , so the trade off was that he agreed to consolidate those into one lot and limit the construction on that lot to these two buildings in 1987 . He said Mr . Iacovelli is changing his desires , because now he ' s coming in and , notwithstanding the giving of that restrictive grant that was agreed upon in 1987 , he ' s now saying he wants to add another couple of units to each of these buildings and another whole building in an area that was at that time , reserved solely as open space . Mr . Hines stated that Mr . Iacovelli is trading something . Attorney Barney stated Mr . Iacovelli is trading something today and I don ' t know what will happen in another six years if he comes in and says he wants to subdivide this into fourteen more units , it ' s up to the Board . Mr . Scala stated if the Board approves this they would be doing it contingent upon the intent to rezone to multiple residence , otherwise we don ' t have anything to stand on . He wanted to know why don ' t they wait until after it was rezoned . Attorney Barney explained there was a pragmatic reason in an effort to reduce the possibilities of a disaster occurring here . He said one of the conditions is that Mr . Iacovelli is deeding over to the Town a 3 1 / 2 acre chunk of this Klondike subdivision , plus the strip on the edge of the trail . He said Mr . Iacovelli is reluctant to do this until all the Boards have taken whatever actions are necessary for him to be able to produce his multiple residence zone . He said I , as attorney for the Town , am reluctant to recommend that the Town Board rezone the property until that deed is in my hand . He said the mechanism we felt that would be the most efficacious is to let him go ahead and apply for the zoning variance and if granted , that variance would be conditioned on the rezoning occurring and then the arrangement we have with Mr . Iacovelli is that we will complete our title review , have the deed to that 3 1 / 2 acre parcel in escrow in our hands before the Town Board votes . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 • Mr . Scala stated the property is pretty bald , there is no landscaping . He said they have a site plan here that shows lots of nice trees , what ' s the connection between the drawing and what they ' ve got . Mr . Frantz explained the site plan actually address a concern that the Planning Board raised . He said the Planning Board members felt that the existing landscaping was not adequate . He said a concern from the beginning with this project was the impact of the expanded parking lot on the Town of Ithaca South Hill Recreation Way . He said the Planning Board in the December sketch plan review asked that additional trees and foundation shrubs be put along the front of the Coddington Road side of the building , so they are shown on the plan , and also that shrubbery and / or trees be planted along the rear of the parking lot . He said this site plan has been approved by the Planning Board and as part of that approval Mr . Iacovelli has committed to planting what he shows on this site plan . Attorney Barney stated it was the express condition of the Planning Board that there be submission to the Town Planner . Mr . Scala asked if there is a guidance for landscaping and that ' s what this meets . Mr . Frantz stated that it would be adequate . Mr . King stated that the new building is considerably below the grade of Coddington Road . Mr . Frantz stated the ground level of that area is roughly 15 feet below Coddington Road . Mr . Frost stated the building will be somewhat level with the parking lot . Mr . Frantz stated the site plan shows the parking lot is roughly 790 feet above sea level , Coddington Road in that area is between 805 and 810 feet , so we ' re talking 15 possibly 20 feet in difference in elevation . Mr . King stated that it would still be quite visible from Coddington Road . Mr . Frantz stated that the new building will be screening the parking lot from Coddington Road . Mr . Frantz stated the parking lot in the rear of the building is • anywhere from 8 to 12 feet higher than the South Hill Recreation Way down here , so a mass planting of shrubbery , combined with the trees he ' s showing , will screen the parking lot from trail users . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals makes a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the two actions to be undertaken in connection with this application , one being Special Approval authorization for the conversion of existing units on a non- conforming lot , located at 237 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 54 - 7 - 41 , and 54- 7 - 43 , and the second one being for a variance for the reconstruction of existing dwellings to accommodate additional bedrooms as occupancy is provided for in the application , as recommended by the Town Planning Board on March 30 , 1993 , and as recommended by Assistant Town Planner , George Frantz , on January 28 , 1993 , and as the Town is contemplating rezoning the property to multiple residence . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Austen , King . Nays - Scala , Ellsworth . The motion carried . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 • Mr . Frantz stated there is going to be a slight impact on traffic , that has been recognized . He said for the Board ' s information , Tompkins County will be doing major shoulder work on Coddington Road beginning this summer . He said he and the Town Engineer , Dan Walker , had a meeting back in March with representatives of the County Department of Public Works and a representative of Ithaca College . He said this particular intersection here , the east entrance at Ithaca College and the entrance to Mr . Iacovelli ' s property , was discussed and the County will be looking at the feasibility of different traffic controls , possibly a four way stop . He stated they weighed the impacts of traffic of this particular proposal on the impacts of having 24 student apartments on the Klondike tract , which would have meant rather than having the students as they drive cut across Coddington Road , we would have the students coming down Coddington Road and making a left hand turn , so that was one of the factors that was weighed regarding this proposal . He said having more students crossing Coddington Road from this location is preferable from the traffic safety standpoint of having the students coming down the road and turning left at the Ithaca College entrance . Mr . Frost stated that enlarging the nonconforming building is one issue and the second part is the appeal of the variance . He stated through this zoning the current parking situation conforms , the building setbacks conform , when we rezone to MR district , there is a 30 foot buffer required for which the current parking will encroach , and the building setbacks on the side yard go from conforming to nonconform- ing . He said R- 9 requires 10 foot setbacks , MR requires a 30 foot buffer and the existing setbacks are 13 . 8 on the north side building and 12 . 6 on the side yard of the south side building . • MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the Appellant , Orlando Iacovelli , the requested permission to extend the non-conforming use at 237 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 54 - 7 - 41 , and 54 - 7 - 43 , to the extent of their intensifying the use of the two four-unit buildings situated on the westerly portion of that lot by increasing the number of bedrooms therein , and further permitting the extension of this non- conforming use by the addition of a new six unit building on the southerly portion of the lot , as indicated on the site plan dated March 12 , 1993 , drawn by Lawrence Fabbroni and approved by the Planning Board at its meeting of March 30 , 1993 and also permitting the enlargement of the parking area to extend that southerly to accommodate the new building , as well as to accommodate the additional occupants in the two existing buildings , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . That these grants were given based upon the recommendation coming from the Planning Department and its memorandum of April 8 , 1993 . 2 . That these grants were given based upon the actions previously taken by the Planning Board on March 30 , 1993 , 3 . That this Board adopt the same conditions as the Planning Board resolution dated March 30 , 1993 , with the exception of Paragraph 2 , Subparagraphs d . 4 . It being understood that the Appellant is surrendering substantial develop- ment rights to more intensely develop the Klondike Subdivision to the southeast of this property , and conveying from the former Klondike subdivi - sion , a 3 1 / 2 acre parcel to the east of the proposed recreation way , which will convey the property to the Town as park land which includes acquisition by the Town of the fee title to a portion of the recreation way . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 • 5 . That the Town Board rezone the subject parcel ( with the two units and the proposed new unit ) into a multiple residence district . 6 . Both the new construction and the modification proposed to accomplish the increased occupancy in the two existing units at 237 Coddington Road , must comply with the New York State Building Code . 7 . That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a - h of the Zoning Ordinance . ` A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , King , Austen . Nays - Scala , Ellsworth . The motion carried . Mr . Scala stated with all due respect to the overriding wisdom of the Planning Board and the Planning Department , what he sees here is an obvious development of a steep slope , but he doesn ' t see any plan whatsoever that reflects drainage except something marked wet holding land . He said he didn ' t see any indication that anybody has done anything about it . Mr . King stated that a drainage plan must be submitted and approved by the Town Engineer , which was one of the many Planning Board conditions . Mr . Scala stated he sees a 60% increase in population in what they are doing , in going from 16 to 28 people . He said he sees a 45s increase in parking being allowed , and whatever effect that has on drainage . Mr . King stated that it was off street parking . Mr . Scala stated they have no proof of hardship at all , he doesn ' t doubt the increased income is needed , but he sees no evidence with respect to hardship and nothing has been presented . He said we ' re essentially rubber stamping the Planning Board , particularly the Environmental Impact Study , we ' re establishing a policy of trading a park for a high density living area , but doing it without any long range plan that he sees at all , it ' s just being done . He doesn ' t see what bearing it has in the rest of the area in the Town ; it ' s not part of a plan , it ' s just an idea being perpetrated here . He said the land is available to give away and he has no idea if its parks or swamp or what . He said he also didn ' t see any kind of restrictions or limitations on this multiple dwelling . He said it isn ' t a multiple dwelling area . Mr . King stated that he and Ed Austen were the only two Board members present when the Klondike proposal got subdivision approval , which is southeasterly along Coddington Road , which is must closer to an R- 30 residential zone from Juniper Drive on . He said this is indeed a swap and a compromise to buffer that residential area by severely limiting the proposed development right next door , what ' s been called Klondike , and also creating the parkway there which will be to the benefit of everybody in the area , not only the people on Juniper Drive , but that can be used by the students . He said part of the problem is that the area immediately around the campus and this campus entrance has become a college town or is developing into one . He said personally he thinks he would like to see someone propose a 100 unit highrise building there or in this area . He thinks it ' s got to come to that to house the people attending the college . He said it ' s a compromise and it ' s giving up something for what he thinks is a gain for the community . He said the fact that none of the people up on Coddington Road appeared tonight , is indicative that it hasn ' t gone too badly for them . He said they did not like to see the occupancy increase in the buildings . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 • Mr . Ellsworth stated what bothers him is that they ' re rezoning and then it won ' t meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance . The last Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF ORLANDO IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRE- MENTS OF ARTICLE VI , SECTION 26 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE ALLOWED TO 2 MAINTAIN MULTIPLE RESIDENCE BUILDINGS WITH UP TO FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS IN A DWELLING UNIT , WHEREAS ONLY FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS PER UNIT IS ALLOWED . THE BUILDINGS , WHICH CONTAIN FOUR DWELLING UNITS EACH , WITH NO MORE THAN FOURTEEN RESIDENTS APIECE , ARE TO BE LOCATED AT 237 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 54- 7-41 AND 54- 7 -43 , CURRENTLY LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE R-9 , WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE REZONED TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . MOTION : By Mr . Robert Hines , Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the Appellant , Orlando Iacovelli , a variance from requirements of Article VI , Section 26 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the occupancy of multiple dwelling units by five rather than the permitted four unrelated persons per unit , located at 237 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 54 - 7 - 41 and 54 - 7 - 43 , with the following findings and condition : • 1 . Based upon the hardship that the Appellant is surrendering legal rights which he has in associated property as a result of a community development plan reducing construction in another area down the street . 2 . Compensation for that agreed upon hardship is appropriate and that he get some recompense for this associated property . 3 . The area in which the buildings are located is a highly active residential area serving students and student populations of Ithaca College and in fact this particular property is contiguous with one of the main exits from Ithaca College and hardly would be considered a desirable residential area for single family residences . 4 . The structures that are presently in existence at 237 Coddington Road and the proposed renovation or remodelling which was discussed earlier takes place on those existing units and this variance does not deal with the unit to be constructed . 5 . All the above are subject to rezoning by the Town Board to multiple residence . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Scala , Austen . Nays - Ellsworth . The motion carried . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals April 14 , 1993 ADJOURNMENT Upon motion , the meeting was adjourned . Dani L . Holford Recording Secretary APPROVED : 2,C Edward Austen , Chairman • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , APRIL 14 , 1993 7 . 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , April 14 , 1993 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : APPEAL OF HOSPICARE OF TOMPKINS COUNTY , APPELLANTS , PETER NEWELL , R . A . , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A CONVALESCENT HOME WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) . SAID HOME IS LOCATED ON 172 EAST KING ROAD , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 44 . 1 - 1 - 1 , PARCELS 44 . 1 - 1 - 2 THROUGH - 6 , PORTIONS OF 44 . 1 - 1 - 7 THROUGH - 15 AND PARCELS 44 . 1 - 1 - 16 THROUGH - 20 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . APPEAL ORLANDO IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE NON- CONFORMING BUILDING / LOTS ( TWO INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS / LOTS TOTAL ) LOCATED AT 237 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0 , 54 - 7 -41 , AND 54- 7 - 43 . SAID PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 9 WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE REZONED TO A MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF CREATING TWO FOUR-UNIT MULTIPLE RESIDENCES FROM TWO EXISTING NON- CONFORMING TWO-FAMILY HOMES . IN ADDITION , AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PARKING LOT WILL BE ENLARGED FROM 22 PARKING SPACES TO 40 SPACES , PEAL OF ORLANDO IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VI , SECTION 26 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE ALLOWED TO 2 MAINTAIN MULTIPLE RESIDENCE BUILDINGS WITH UP TO FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS IN A DWELLING UNIT , WHEREAS ONLY FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS PER UNIT IS ALLOWED , THE BUILDINGS , WHICH CONTAIN FOUR DWELLING UNITS EACH , WITH NO MORE THAN FOURTEEN RESIDENTS APIECE , ARE TO BE LOCATED AT 237 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 54 - 7 - 41 AND 54 - 7 - 43 , CURRENTLY LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE R- 9 , WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE REZONED TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273 - 1747 Dated : April 6 , 1993 Publish : April 9 , 1993