HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-12-08 FILED
FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date aCIN
WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 8 , 1993 O
Clerk
The following appeals were heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 8 ,
1993 .
APPEAL of Tompkins County EOC Headstart , Appellant , Eileen Zimmer , Agent , requesting
a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV , Section
11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to operate a day care center at the
Church of the Latter Day Saints , located on 114 Burleigh Drive , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 72 - 1 - 1 . 170 , Residence District R- 15 .
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS .
APPEAL of John Lango , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of
Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to
be permitted to extend a non- conforming building / lot at 926 East Shore Drive ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18- 2 - 4 , Residence District R- 15 . The proposed
extension involves the construction of a 6 ' x 26 ' unenclosed porch on the south
side of an existing single - family residence . Said building is located 4+ / - feet
from the north side property line ( 15 ' sideyard building setback required ) and a
front yard building setback from the road right- of-way line of 0+ / - feet ( 25 '
setback required ) . The lot depth is 60+ / - feet , whereas 150 ' depth is required .
GRANTED .
APPEAL of Fred Carrere , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of
• Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to
be permitted to extend a non- conforming building / lot at 1065 Taughannock Blvd . ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2 - 12 , Residence District R- 15 . The extension
involved the addition of a second floor to an existing single story building
without enlargement of the existing building footprint . Said lot is non-conform-
ing with a 50+ / - foot lot width ( 100 ' lot width required ) and the building is
located at the south side property line , whereas a 50 foot sideyard building
setback is required .
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE .
APPEAL of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant , Monty Berman , Agent , requesting a variance
from the requirements of Article V . Section 18 , 19 , and 20 , of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 70- foot tall wind testing
instrument at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , located on West Haven and
Mecklenburg Roads , 163+ / - acres , Residence District R- 30 . Said tower is not
expressly permitted as a use in the zone and any primary structures are limited
to a height of 30 feet , with accessory structures limited to a height of 15 feet .
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS .
APPEAL of John Lamb , Appellant , Richard Jump , Agent , requesting a variance from the
requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
to be permitted to construct a single - family residence with a building height of
51+ / - feet ( 30 feet maximum height allowed ) at 901 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of
® Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 41 , Residence District R- 15 .
ADJOURNED FOR A DECISION TO DECEMBER 15 , 1993 .
1
FILED
T0WN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date �I
DECEMBER 8 . 1993 0.
• Clerk iht d A443
PRESENT : Edward Austen , Harry Ellsworth , Edward King , Pete Scala , Town Attorney
John C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew
Frost , Assistant Town Planner George R . Frantz .
ABSENT : Robert J . Hines .
OTHERS : Eileen Zimmer , John R . Lamb , M . D . , Jeremy Snyder , Richard Jump , Susan
MiLing , Joan Bokaer , John and Ann Lango , Leslie Reizes , Esq . , Frederic
Carrere , Sara Pines , Peter Novelli , PE , Kathy Jack , Peter Trowbridge ,
Nancy Brown , David Warden .
The meeting was called to order at 7 : 10 P . M . by Chairman Austen who 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 Tompkins County EOC Headstart , Appellant , Eileen Zimmer , Agent ,
requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article
IV, Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to operate a day care
center at the Church of the Latter Day Saints , located on 114 Burleigh Drive ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 72- 1- 1 . 170 , Residence District R- 15 .
Chairman Austen asked Eileen Zimmer to speak into the microphone for the sole
• purpose of recording for the secretary . Chairman Austen asked Ms . Zimmer to correct
him if he was wrong , but he thought that the community has an existing EOC Headstart
Program in the Town or in the County . Ms . Zimmer answered that there is such a
program and this appeal deals with an expansion classroom , an additional classroom
that EOC is adding due to an expansion grant EOC received this year .
Chairman Austen asked Ms . Zimmer to give the Board a rundown of what EOC needs .
Ms . Zimmer stated that EOC is asking for special permission for a temporary site for
the Headstart classroom . EOC would like to have children in the building mid-January
to , probably , mid-June . EOC has verbal permission to use the Northeast School as a
permanent site , beginning September , 1994 . The church has given EOC just permission
for this temporary time , and EOC is requesting permission for only the temporary time
from , basically , January through June , 1994 ,
Chairman Austen reviewed the information , identifying there are three part- time
staff . Ms . Zimmer said two full - time and three part- time staff is what is anticipat-
ed being used . She continued there would be two classroom teachers who would be
there five days a week . She said the other staff is the support staff . Ms . Zimmer
continued that children would be there from Monday through Thursday from approximate -
ly 9 : 00 A . M . to 3' : 00 P . M . She said the children would not be there for more than six
hours a day . Ms . Zimmer said that the plans are to bus the children in and to bus
the children out so that the additional traffic would be the one bus and staff
vehicles .
Chairman Austen asked Ms . Zimmer as to how many children are expecting to be
involved , and Ms . Zimmer said that 17 children would be the maximum , anticipating
beginning with less than that , approximately 12 . Chairman Austen asked where are the
other EOC classrooms . Ms . Zimmer stated that there is one classroom in Trumansburg ,
one in Lansing , two in Groton , one in Dryden , and one in McLean . She added that
there are two classrooms operated under the Ithaca City School District in a delegate
relationship . Ms . Zimmer said this classroom would be operated directly by EOC ( the
grantee which is EOC ) in the northeast area of Ithaca .
Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• Chairman Austen opened up the public hearing .
Mr . Ellsworth asked Ms . Zimmer if this required any modifications to the build-
ing , and Ms . Zimmer said some modifications would be necessary such as putting in
some smoke detectors , a heat detector , and some emergency lighting which is needed
for the Department of Social Services ' licensing purposes . Ms . Zimmer also said that
Mr . Frost may have some other things that he may decide are necessary for the
building . However , Ms . Zimmer added , there would be no changes structurally .
Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
Environmental Assessment
Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental
Assessment Form .
MOTION
By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Edward King .
RESOLVED , that a negative determination be made of environmental significance based
on the Environmental Assessment as presented by Planner I . Louise Raimando on
November 29 , 1993 for the appeal of Tompkins County EOC Headstart , Eileen Zimmer ,
agent , at 114 Burleigh Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 72 - 1 - 1 . 170 .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Scala , King , Ellsworth , Austen .
NAYS - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen read into the record letters from James Hanson , Commissioner of
the Tompkins County Department of Planning and from the Regional Board of the Church
of Latter Day Saints .
Mr . King asked Ms . Zimmer if the classroom would be in use a maximum of five days
a week , and she replied that the staff would be there five days a week , while the
children will be there for four days a week , Monday through Thursday , with the staff
there on Fridays to do planning . Mr . King said Ms . Zimmer indicated that smoke and
heat detectors would be installed . Ms . Zimmer told Mr . King he was correct because
it is required for licensing , as mandated by the New York State Department of Social
Services . She added that New York State Department of Social Services has already
done a preliminary inspection . Ms . Zimmer said she is working with the individuals
who are responsible for the maintenance of the church regarding the installation of
that . Mr . Frost said that his office should inspect the site . His office does as a
routine , an annual inspection of the church since its an area of public assembly . He
said he should look at this in regards to the compliance of day care use and any
additional items that may need to be added to comply with the State Building
® Construction Code ( which is separate from New York State Department of Social
Service ' s fire safety regulations ) .
Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• Mr . King inquired if Ms . Zimmer had presented this application to the Town
Planning Board , and Ms . Zimmer said she had done so last night . Mr . King asked what
the Planning Board ' s decision was , and Ms . Zimmer said the Planning Board approved it
for the short term , as specified . Attorney Barney stated the Planning Board approved
the site plan and recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the special
approval be granted , however , that special approval be terminated June 30 , 1994 , and ,
that if it were to extend beyond that date , EOC make a reapplication . Ms . Zimmer
stated that these dates are what the church agreed to and what she applied for .
Attorney Barney said that there was a little concern of the Planning Board that if
this was a longer term arrangement that there might be some site plan alterations
regarding traffic and some other things .
Chairman Austen said that the bus will load in the parking lot so that traffic on
Burleigh Drive will not be tied up . Ms . Zimmer said that was correct , and she said
that she would not think it would be safe to load and unload children on the road .
Ms . Zimmer commented that it is a very large parking lot so there is plenty of space
for the bus to turn around and to load and unload directly in front of the door .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant special approval under Article IV ,
Section 11 , Subdivision 3 of the Zoning Ordinance , to the Tompkins County EOC for the
operation of the Headstart Day Care Program at the Church of the Latter Day Saints on
114 Burleigh Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 72 - 1 - 1 . 170 , as applied for with the
• following conditions :
1 ) That the use will be temporary , from December 15 , 1993 through no later than June
30 , 1994 .
2 ) That the hours that the children will be in attendance will be approximately 9 : 00
A . M . through 3 : 00 P . M . , possibly daily , but generally Monday through Thursday .
3 ) That there will be a maximum of 17 children .
4 ) That the Town Building Commissioner inspect the property and make recommendations
and requirements for any additional safety measures that seem to be necessary for
this temporary use , including compliance with the State Building Code and other
statutes .
5 ) That the applicants comply with the requirements of the Department of Social
Services regarding the installation of smoke alarms , heat detectors and the like .
6 ) That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- f .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala , Austen .
NAYS - None .
® The motion carried unanimously .
The second Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following :
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• APPEAL of John Lango , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning
Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non-conforming building/ lot at 926 East
Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-2-4 , Residence District R- 15 .
The proposed extension involves the construction of a 6 ' x 26 ' unenclosed
porch on the south side of an existing single- family residence . Said building
is located 4+/ - feet from the north side property line ( 15 ' sideyard building
setback required ) and a front yard building setback from the road right-of-way
line of 0+ / - feet ( 25 ' setback required ) . The lot depth is 60+/ - feet ,
whereas 150 ' depth is required .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Lango if the house is being lived in at the present
time , and Mr . Lango said that it was not . Mr . Lango said that the objective is that
he bought the house a number of years ago , and he is in the process of renovating it
for his retirement which is a few more years down the road . Mr . Lango reviewed the
survey map which was given to the Board members . He explained that there were items
annotated . Mr . Lango said that , first , one of the two structures which was a small
storage shed which was right on the property line to the adjacent property had been
removed . He continued that , secondly , on the east side of the building there is a
small extension which goes out and infringes on the highway right- of-way . He
explained that this is what constitutes the zero footage in the description Chairman
Austen read . Mr . Lango said that extension has also been removed , thus making
approximately a distance of four feet from the State right- of-way . Mr . Lango said it
is an incredibly tiny lot , with an even smaller building of 20 feet by 22 feet . He
said that it is small even though it is two stories . He said that , in the process of
® renovating , the height of the roof line was never changed . Mr . Lango said the porch
which has been added on is on the south side of the building , where , basically the
property exists . He stated that there is nothing to the north , nothing to the east ,
and nothing to the west . Mr . Lango said that to the south there is the other land .
He said he was in contact with the Department of Transportation ( " DOT " ) several years
ago because one of the problems with the property is that there is no parking . He
said one of the proposals he made to DOT is that DOT will allow him access to open up
the guard rail which is adjacent to the highway , thus being able to park by filling
in some of that area adjacent to the highway for parking . Mr . Lango said that he has
in mind an inclined plane , or ramp , that will lead down to the porch which is
proposed before the Board . Mr . Lango said that will be , in essence , close to the
front of the house which is not facing the highway or the lake .
Mr . Frost added that the porch was built and that this project goes back to 1988 .
He continued that the plan originally depicted a future deck there , or porch . Mr .
Frost said the elevation sketches that were part of the permit show the elevation and
profile of the porch . Mr . Frost said that , based on his memory , it was not clear to
him whether the porch was to be there or whether that was something that was to be
done in the future , as the plan suggests . Mr . Frost continued that it does appear ,
however , some years later that when one of his assistants performed an inspection , he
did note the porch . Mr . Frost said that when the permit was reviewed for renewal , it
became evident to him that , upon seeing the porch , he should clear this up , thus
bringing it before the Board . Mr . Frost added that the porch , itself , does not
encroach on the side yard or rear yards , other than it does extend the proximity of
the set back from the road right- of-way which Mr . Lango said is now about 4 feet .
® Chairman Austen inquired if it was always intended to be a covered porch , and Mr .
Lango indicated that it was because it ties into the other roof lines . Mr . Frost
said that on the building plans from 1988 , the porch was depicted as a future deck ,
thus one would view that as being something unroofed . However , he said , that once
one gets to the elevations , it is clear from the elevations that there is a roof on
there .
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
Chairman Austen read into the record a letter from James Hanson , Commissioner of
the Tompkins County Department of Planning .
Chairman Austen opened up the public hearing ; with no one coming forward to speak
on this Appeal , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
Mr . King asked Mr . Lango the size of the porch , and Mr . Lango said it was 6 feet
by 26 feet .
Environmental Assessment
Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental
Assessment Form ,
MOTION
By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the appeal of John Lango for the property at 926 East Shore Drive ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18- 2 - 4 , for the proposed extension of a constructed 6
foot x 26 foot enclosed porch , recommend that we accept the planning staff recommen-
dation for a negative determination of environmental significance .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Scala , Ellsworth , King , Austen .
NAYS - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen commented that the house is spaced about as far apart from any of
the houses in the area , and Mr . Lango said that he is on the northern edge of the
property and then the house north of him is on the northern edge of his property ,
thus presenting considerable space between them to the north . Mr . Lango said that to
the south there is a similar situation with the house probably being situated in the
middle of its lot . Chairman Austen said he looked for the survey stake by the steps
but could not find it , and Mr . Lango said the pins are there but that the stake was
driven down to facilitate mowing the lawn . Mr . King said that in the Environmental
Assessment it is indicated that it is approximately 60 feet from the south edge of
the porch to the south edge of the property line .
MOTION
By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Board grant Special Approval to John Lango for the construction of
an approximated 6 foot x 26 foot ( + 1 foot in both dimensions ) unenclosed porch on
the south side of the existing single family residence at 926 East Shore Drive , Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18 - 2 - 4 , that has the problem of 0 feet instead of a 25 foot
setback , with the following finding :
® 1 ) That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- f .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Town of Ithaca 6
. Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
AYES - Scala , Ellsworth , King , Austen .
NAYS - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
The third Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following :
APPEAL of Fred Carrere , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning
Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non-conforming building/ lot at 1065
Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21-2- 12 , Residence District
R- 15 . The extension involved the addition of a second floor to an existing
single story building without enlargement of the existing building footprint .
Said lot is non-conforming with a 50+ / - foot lot width ( 100 ' lot width
required ) and the building is located at the south side property line , whereas
a 50 foot sideyard building setback is required .
Chairman Austen stated that this property was the former Libby Leonard property
which has been before the Board before , and Mr . Carrere ascertained that it is and
that he is in the process of purchasing the property and the closing is on December
15 , 1993 . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Carrere to explain to the Board and the audience
what the Appeal is about .
Mr . Carrere said there is an existing house .of 30 feet x 19- 20 feet , rectangle
which is one story high . He said that he wants to put a second story with two
bedrooms upstairs . He said that he plans on gutting the inside , basically rebuilding
the inside of the whole house which is presently in very bad shape . Mr . Carrere said
that the south side of the house is right against the property line . He told
Chairman Austen there are two surveys , the 1978 survey which is the one he included
in the package to the Board . Mr . Carrere said this survey shows the property line to
be 3 feet to the south side of the house . Mr . Carrere said that there may be some
discussion with the new survey , but he continued that he does not have this survey as
yet . Using the 1978 survey , Chairman Austen said the survey shows that the southeast
corner is about 3 feet from the pins and that the house comes back so that it is not
much more than a foot at the rear of the house . Mr . Carrere said there is a little
porch which is encroaching but he plans on destroying the porch altogether . He said
the few steps and overhang roof would also go and the footprint would then be
identical to the original .
Mr . King asked Mr . Carrere if he would be building right on the shore line , and
Mr . Carrere indicated that is correct . Mr . King said that the photographs indicate
that the land slopes up . Mr . Carrere said that right behind the house is a very
steep slope . He said the access to the house is not very good . He explained that
one overlooks the lake , there is then a very steep drop with old , rotten stairs on
the north side . Mr . Carrere said he lives next door on the north side at 1057
Taughannock Boulevard . He said the Leonard house sits right on the beach . Mr . King
asked what would be the elevation of the proposed house , and Mr . Carrere said the
peak would be about 9 feet taller than the original , old peak . Mr . King said that
the change to scale is about 25 feet . Mr . Carrere agreed with Mr . King , stating that
the existing house is about 14 feet tall to the peak or standard gable . Mr . Carrere
stated that the peak of the new house would be 11 feet higher than the peak of the
® old house .
Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
Chairman Austen asked when the lake was up this spring , did this house have a
water problem , and Mr . Carrere said that the house , itself , did not have a problem
but there was water coming under the floor and the wave action tore down the front
steps . He said substantial damage was done to the lake wall which was totally
destroyed . He continued that a new seawall would obviously be rebuilt from the
footprint of the old one . Chairman Austen asked if the seawall would be back to
where the original wall was , and Mr . Carrere said it would .
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing , and Leslie Reizes said he would like
to speak before the Board .
Leslie Reizes identified himself as the immediate neighbor to the south of the
Leonard property at 1061 Taughannock Boulevard . Chairman Austen asked if this was
the former Mintz property , and Mr . Reizes said it was one of the former Mintz
properties . Mr . Reizes passed around a survey to those present . Mr . Reizes stated
that Libby Leonard lived at that property for many , many years until she died on
December 6 , 1991 . He said the survey he passed around showed that the Leonard house
encroached approximately 6 feet onto the property he owns at 1061 Taughannock
Boulevard . He said that the Carreres have entered into a purchase and sale agreement
with her Estate and Mr . Tom Neiderkorn who had a deed from Libby Leonard which was
subject to litigation . However , he continued , there was a pending action in Supreme
Court of Tompkins County against the Leonard Estate which he contends that the house
on the property is a nuisance and has asked that it be torn down . Mr . Reizes said
that , in connection with the sale of the house to the Carreres , the Estate ordered a
survey of the property , and the Carreres also asked that their property be surveyed .
Mr . Reizes said the Miller firm conducted the survey , set pins , and the survey has
been completed . Mr . Reizes said the survey map he passed around shows how the
Leonard house encroaches . Mr . Reizes said that Mr . Carrere seemed fit to omit the
fact that he has asked for a survey , that the survey has been completed , and that the
survey shows the Carrere house north of the Leonard property encroaches on the
Leonard lot . Mr . Reizes said Mr . Carrere said he was not aware of another survey but
that Mr . Carrere had ordered one , and Mr . Reizes continued , that if any of the Board
had been to the property , they could see that pins had been set .
Mr . Reizes said that , originally , after Ms . Leonard died and there was litigation
concerning the Estate , Mrs . Carrere approached the neighbors and told several of them
that she intended to try to buy the lot from the Estate , tear down the Leonard house
and use the property for a driveway for access to her house which lies immediately to
the north . He said Mrs . Carrere asked several neighbors not to bid or to buy the
lot . Mr . Reizes said Mrs . Carrere successfully negotiated a purchase of the lot , and
the neighbors were then informed that Mrs . Carrere would like to use the building for
a studio . He said that sounded like a fair enough use , but later on Mr . Carrere
informed Mr . Reizes that he would like to add a couple of bedrooms and that Mr .
Carrere might be able to better rent it out . Mr . Reizes said that he became more
concerned when he thought the size of the house may increase and interfere with the
privacy at the beach .
Mr . Reizes said that not only is the lot nonconforming relative to the sideyard ,
but it also is nonconforming with respect to the rear lot or the front lot , depending
on what you call the fronts he said it is nonconforming on the lake side . Mr . Reizes
said he spoke with Mr . Galbraith who represents the Carreres , stating that Mr . Reizes
had a concern about the fact that this is an encroaching house and it would just be a
continuation of the encroachment and non- conformance . According to Mr . Reizes , Mr .
Galbraith said the Carreres would build it back on the other side of the line . Mr .
Reizes said he gave Mr . Galbraith a copy of his Miller survey map , and Mr . Galbraith
Town of Ithaca 8
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• said that it would be no problem . Mr . Reizes said that now the plan shows that the
house would be built , back , exactly where it is under the 1978 Dougherty survey which
is , in his opinion and in the opinion of the Miller firm , erroneous due to the
encroachment of 6 feet .
Mr . Reizes said that , additionally , he would like to point out that the plan
calls for refilling the area that had been washed out on the land side of the seawall
which he believes would have some environmental impact in that he and other neighbors
draw water from that area . He said that Libby used a lot of things for the fill , and
therefore depending on the type of fill used , it would definitely have an impact on
the water quality . Mr . Reizes said , additionally , having a two- story building where
there used to be a one- story building right on the beach is , in his view , a negative
as far as the visual impact . Mr . Reizes also wanted to point out that the noncon-
forming use as a residence ceased at Ms . Leonard ' s death on December 6 , 1991 , which
was more than two years ago . Mr . Reizes said it has not been used as a residence
since , and , in fact its use as a residence has been abandoned , and under the code ,
unless the use is continued within a certain amount of time , it cannot be reestab-
lished .
Attorney Barney asked Mr . Reizes if he was suggesting the use as a residence was
nonconforming , and Mr . Reizes said the use of the residence is nonconforming because
of its location . Attorney Barney said the non- conformance was not the use as a
residence but that of a nonconforming lot , and Mr . Reizes agreed . Attorney Barney
said that the building had not been moved anywhere . Mr . Reizes said that was true
but that the Carreres have not shown hardship . Attorney Barney said that when Mr .
Reizes says the building had been abandoned , Attorney Barney said that he would
assume , under these circumstances , that if the building were moved and now moved
back , the use had been abandoned . Mr . Reizes said the residence has not been used .
Attorney Barney said the building has been sitting there - - that the location has never
changed . Mr . Reizes agreed that , substantially , the house is where it has always
been .
Mr . Reizes said that the Carreres are seeking to expand the use on a nonconform-
ing lot and have not shown any hardship . He stated , in fact , that the Carreres have
not even bought the property yet . Mr . Reizes said Mr . Carrere is buying a noncon-
forming use and is attempting to get a variance for the permission to expand a
nonconforming use before they have even purchased it . Mr . Reizes said no way can
they show a hardship by buying a hardship . Mr . Reizes suggested that if the Carreres
do buy the property that the proper thing to do would be to tear it down and build a
residence that conforms with the setback requirements and not impose upon the
neighbors in this way .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Reizes if his property was roughly 50 feet back , and
Mr . Reizes said it was . Referring to the survey on Mr . Reizes ' s lot ( which is the
northerly Mintz lot ) , Mr . King said there is an indication of a building that is at
the same location laterally as the subject property . Mr . Reizes said that was
correct , but on the new survey , it would show there is no building there . Mr . Reizes
said his home is up near Taughannock Boulevard . Mr . King wanted to know if that
building was a residential building , and Mr . Reizes said it was his home . Mr . King
asked if there were any other buildings on the lot , and Mr . Reizes indicated that
there was one other building , a garage . Mr . King asked the garage ' s location , and
Mr . Reizes said that it was towards Taughannock Boulevard , from the residence .
Chairman Austen stated that Mr . Reizes ' s house was up on the bluff , not far from the
lake . Mr . Reizes said it was closer to Taughannock Boulevard than to the lake . Mr .
Reizes indicated his house on the survey . Mr . Reizes said the next property to the
south is the Friedlander residence , commenting that the lots are only 50 foot lots .
Town of Ithaca 9
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• Mr . King inquired as to the nature of the action in the Supreme Court , and Mr .
Reizes said it was in the nature of nuisance . He continued that the action was
started while Libby Leonard was still alive . He said she maintained ducks , geese and
other animals on the property , and there were other problems . After she died , the
Administrator CTA was substituted as a defendant and the action was continued because
he let the property fall into a complete state of disrepair . Mr . Reizes referred to
the photographs , stating that the place is a wreck and that he thinks that it should
be removed and that it is a health hazard . Mr . Reizes said there are raccoons in the
house and that it is a mess .
Mr . King asked the status of the action . Mr . Reizes said there is a pending
motion for summary judgment brought by the plaintiffs . Mr . Reizes said the action is
in front of Judge Masserate . Attorney Barney asked if the motion has been argued
yet , and Mr . Reizes said it has been adjourned to December 17 , Chairman Austen asked
if there is a dispute on the property line , and Mr . Reizes said there is quite a
dispute . Chairman Austen asked if that is part of the action , and Mr . Reizes said
that it was not . He said that in that action the defendants have admitted the
property lines , as set forth on his survey . Mr . Reizes said that Mr . Carrere has now
gone back to the old Dougherty property lines which are substantially different . Mr .
Carrere said that he does not dispute the new survey . Mr . Carrere said he asked T .
J . Miller that when they were going to do the survey of 1065 , to do his at the same
time , but he said he still does not have any papers back from them . Mr . Carrere said
that by talking extensively with them that he suspects that the new survey is what
zoning would go by . He said that he would not discredit it . Mr . Carrere said that
when he made this application a month and one -half ago , it was based on the old
• survey .
Chairman Austen asked Attorney Barney about the dispute in the survey , and
Attorney Barney said that the Board could take action . He said that he would assume
if the Board ' s decision is to permit the enlargement of the nonconforming use , the
Board could put in as an appropriate condition that to demonstrate to the code
enforcement officer that the enlargement is going to occur only within the boundaries
of the property . Attorney Barney said that this differs with the two surveys , and
Attorney Barney said that the Appellant indicated that the Miller survey would be the
one that governs , and that the enlargement that would occur , would be in accordance
with the Miller survey . Mr . Carrere said that if the Appeal was granted , he would be
willing to rebuild an identical house moved within the new boundary lines .
Mr . King said that he was inclined to await the outcome of the Supreme Court
action . Mr . Ellsworth asked if there is a pending action to tear the structure doom ,
does the Board want to go ahead and grant approval to expand and then have to go
through and tear it down ? Attorney Barney said that the Board would be the one to
make the decision , but it is a question as to which comes first . Attorney Barney
said that if this Board were to choose to grant the request , he believes that Mr .
Carrere ' s attorney would quickly take that back to the Supreme Court stating that the
building may be crummy now , but by putting a second story on it , it would not then be
such a nuisance . Attorney Barney said that if the Board were to turn the request
down , Mr . Reizes would be quick to take it back to the Supreme Court stating that the
property cannot be improved and therefore it should be destroyed . Attorney Barney
said that the Board could , quite legitimately , take the position that until the
Supreme Court action is resolved , the Board could wait or deny the application
without prejudice to renewal once the Supreme Court action is resolved .
With no one else wanting to speak on this matter , Chairman Austen closed the
public hearing .
Town of Ithaca 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
RESOLVED , that in view of the fact that there is current litigation on the matter of
this building , which is the subject of this application for an extension of a
nonconforming use at 1065 Taughannock Boulevard , that this Board deny the application
to expand that nonconforming building but the denial being without prejudice to
another application being brought after the determination of the Supreme Court
action , with the following findings :
1 ) That this motion is based upon the presently pending action of the Supreme Court ,
one of the issues of which is whether this property should remain or be de-
stroyed .
2 ) That it makes no sense for this Board to take action in approving something that
may be removed .
3 ) That another survey has been requested by the Estate of Libby Leonard and is not
yet before the Board .
4 ) That , based upon the Miller survey upon which everyone appears to agree , the
house encroaches up to 5 . 8 feet on the property to the south .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
• AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala , Austen .
NAYS - None .
The motion was denied without prejudice .
Chairman Austen told Mr . Carrere that when he gets the new survey and the Supreme
Court makes its decision , this application can be looked at again .
The fourth Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following :
APPEAL of EcoVillage at Ithaca, Appellant , Monty Berman , Agent , requesting a
variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 , 19 , and 20 , of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 70- foot tall
wind testing instrument at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1- 26 . 2 , located on
West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , 163+ / - acres , Residence District R-30 . Said
tower is not expressly permitted as a use in the zone and any primary struc-
tures are limited to a height of 30 feet , with accessory structures limited to
a height of 15 feet .
Jeremy Snyder introduced himself as being in charge of the project as technical
advisor and that he was asked to represent EcoVillage . He stated that Monty Berman
is the Chairperson of the Board of Directors at EcoVillage in Ithaca .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Snyder if the tower instrument which is to be erected
is for a limited period of 13 months and if Mr . Snyder proposed that he could get all
the information needed in that period of time , to which Mr . Snyder replied that was
correct . Mr . Snyder said that one year is generally the period that wind character-
istics are measured on any one site . Chairman Austen asked what is the material of
the tower , and Mr . Snyder said it is more of a pole with guy wires on it . Mr . Snyder
Town of Ithaca 11
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
said the metal pole is 3- 1 / 2 inches in diameter which is a mass-produced pole
produced by Energy systems of Vermont and that Energy will donate the pole and the
wind anemometer system to EcoVillage for the year . According to Mr . Snyder , when the
pole is erected , the wind anemometer is placed on the top and it spins in the wind
and produces an electrical signal , which goes down the pole to the recording
instrument mounted to the bottom of the pole . The information is then sent to Energy
Systems in Vermont for interpretation and Energy sends a report based on the data
gathered back to EcoVillage .
Mr . King inquired as to the amount of information gathered from a one -year test ,
and Mr . Snyder stated that wind generally varies in a decade . However , he continued ,
a period of ten years is too long a period of time to do anything . What people do
generally is measure the wind for one year , look at that wind information from the
National Weather Service , correlate the data gathered for the year with the profes-
sional weather service ' s wind data for the year , and then , the data can be correlated
for the other ten years , resulting in accurate data .
Mr . Snyder told Mr . Ellsworth that the pole is 70 feet in height and it is not on
the highest point on the property . Mr . Frost asked if there are no more than 4
support cables as shown on the sketch . Mr . Snyder said the sketch is a cross -
section . Mr . Frost asked what the distance is from the center of the pole to the
outermost support cable , and Mr . Snyder said the radius is about 35 feet . Therefore ,
Mr . Frost concluded that the diameter would be 70 feet across . Mr . Snyder said that
he believes the way the guy wires are set up is that the 4 guy wires extend in four
different directions and that the guy wires in each direction go down to one anchor .
- Attorney Barney asked Mr . Snyder if they have to deal with the FAA , and Mr .
Snyder said they have talked with a Federal Aviation Agent who decided that the pole
was too low to worry about and that it was not a problem . Mr . King said that being a
3- inch diameter pole , he imagined that most planes could survive hitting it .
Chairman Austen said there are quite a lot of woods in that area , and Mr . Snyder said
that he believes the trees in that area are in the range of , or taller than , the 70
feet , but he tried to get the pole as far from the trees as possible . Attorney
Barney asked about the location of the nearby airport , and he was told that it was
about 2 - 1 / 2 miles west of the site . Attorney Barney told the Board that one of the
training things pilots do is to take student- pilots up in an airplane and kill the
engine , throttle it back , and tell the students to fly an emergency landing . A
discussion followed as to the size of the field . Mr . Frost said it is more open to
the north side of Route 79 . Mr . Frost said he has a picture in his office which
gives a view of the pole with the cables . Mr . Ellsworth inquired if there was a
double set of cables ( a high set and a low set ) and Mr . Snyder said that he believed
there was and that the cables attach to the tower at three different . points ,
Chairman Austen asked if this particular piece of property was now being farmed .
Mr . Snyder answered that although it was farm land , it was not being farmed now . Mr .
Scala commented that it probably was anticipated to have a wind farm there . Mr .
Snyder said he would not like to speculate . on what could be done at the site . He
continued that he is just trying to evaluate what resources it has at this site . For
example , they are looking at how much solar radiation hits the land . Mr . Snyder said
that all they are doing is trying to figure out what the wind characteristics are at
the land . He said that , until that is done , there is no way to speculate on what
might be done .
Mr . King asked if any consideration is being given to locating the tower from
there over nearer the fields where trees are indicated , and Mr . Snyder answered that
the prevailing winds are from the northwest and southeast and that this site is very
open to the southeast , He said the other sites were closer to the trees and not as
open to the wind .
Town of Ithaca 12
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• Mr . Scala restated that the intention would be to have it in operation for 13
months and then take it down . Mr . Snyder said they have use of the tower from
January 1 , 1994 to January 1 , 1995 .
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing , asking if anyone would like to speak
on this matter .
Peter Trowbridge of 1345 Mecklenburg Road asked for additional clarification
regarding the pole ' s location and the topographic elevation . He said that , as an
abutter , he was interested in understanding where the base of the tower sits
topographically , how that might be seen , and the relative visibility of the tower to
the abutters . Mr . Trowbridge said he was trying to make some determination as to
whether the abutters would have visibility of the tower and if there was a location
where they knew it was going to sit at a topographic elevation like 1117 so they
could begin to speculate as to the visibility of the tower from residential proper-
ties along Mecklenburg Road , Mr . Trowbridge said that it might be worthwhile having
some sort of a visual assessment of what the impact would be . He said he understood
that it is relatively small , but it would be helpful from the abutters ' perspective ,
to understand what the significance of 70 feet is in that location . Chairman Austen
pointed out the anemometer is what would be on the top . Mr . Snyder said there would
also be a wind direction indicator , approximately the same size as the anemometer .
Mr . Trowbridge said it is just the matter of understanding how the tower would reside
topographically . Mr . Trowbridge said that the only other issue would be the Board ' s
ability to determine its dismantling . He wondered , realizing it is a definitive
period of time , what the Board ' s ability is to determine a finite date of installa-
tion . Mr . Trowbridge said he was trying to understand what the Town ' s prerogative is
relative to the request for a span of 13 months . He said that often times one asks
for the ability to install something , but it is unusual that the Town would also have
some limitation where that would need to be taken down . He wanted to know what the
recourse would be if the pole was not taken down and that it was decided that more
electronic information was needed- - thus adding more equipment to the pole . Mr .
Trowbridge wanted to know if there was a guarantee that this is all that would be
seen and what guarantee would there be that it would be dismantled , other than it has
been donated for 12 months and assuming that the owner of the equipment would want it
back in January of 1995 . Attorney Barney said that he would assume what is being
asked for is the term use , and , if the tower remains beyond the term , the Town could
go to court getting an injunction directing its removal . Attorney Barney said that ,
in addition to that , it would be a misdemeanor for failing to comply with the zoning
ordinance each week and is subject to a weekly fine of $ 500 . 00 . Mr . Trowbridge asked
what sense Mr . Snyder has about adding any additional equipment , would there be other
apparatus added to the pole . Mr . Trowbridge said that since it is only a height
limitation and if it is defined with some limitation , can equipment be added to the
pole . Attorney Barney told Mr . Trowbridge that this could not happen without getting
this Board ' s approval again . Attorney Barney informed Mr . Trowbridge that the appeal
is for a use variance , coupled with a height variance . Attorney Barney said that if
the Board chose to grant the variance , it is for a use variance for a finite period
of time , ending on the specific date of December 31 , 1995 .
Joan Bokaer , of EcoVillage and co - director of the project , said that she apolo-
gized because she had not spoken to Mr . Trowbridge ahead of time . She said they
purposely picked a field that was not near any neighbors . She said she had not done
anything like this before because they were not developers . Ms . Bokaer said they
were concerned about the neighbors on West Haven Road because they may be the only
ones with a little view of the very top of the pole , and that the pole is quite a bit
lower than Mr . Trowbridge ' s land and at the opposite end of the field . She said she
Town of Ithaca 13
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
did not come to Mr . Trowbridge because she did not think he could see it and it would
not affect him . Relative to Mr . Trowbridge ' s question about additional equipment ,
Mr . Snyder stated that any other measurements such as temperature and humidity are
not important . Mr . Snyder said the only thing of importance is wind speed over a
period of time . Mr . Snyder continued that because they have the instruments , they
are going to measure the wind direction . Regarding the dismantling of the pole , Mr .
Snyder explained the equipment sells for over $ 2 , 900 . 00 , indicating the company wants
it back . Ms . Bokaer also said a contract has been signed with the company , and ,
regarding dismantling , plans are made to take it down the same way it went up . Mr .
Snyder said they went around the neighborhood , and he stated that the only house that
would be able to see the tower would be Dr . Flacco at 150 West Haven Road , Mr .
Snyder showed that Dr . Flacco ' s name appeared on the petition as being in support of
the project . Mr . Snyder again stated that there are trees on the property that are
higher than the tower will be . Attorney Barney asked if Cornell University has this
kind of information available . Mr . Snyder said Cornell measures the winds at Game
Farm Road , about a meter above the ground . Mr . Snyder said the buzz word in wind
power is " microclimates " . Mr . Snyder said that , while in solar radiation you can
take one measurement and can basically know what it is , the wind measurement will be
different than that on Game Farm Road , due to the location on top of a hill , the
effects of the lake , and the height of the pole , as opposed to one meter off the
ground . Attorney Barney asked if measurements were taken on top of Bradfield Hall ,
Mr . Ellsworth said it was weather radar , and Attorney Barney asked if there was no
wind direction or wind speed measured . Mr . Ellsworth said NYSEG did a very intensive
wind study for the Milliken area about 20 years ago .
Mr . Frantz produced the USG map and told the Board and audience that the base of
the pole would be between 1080- 1090 feet and the top of the pole would be 1150- 1160
feet . Mr . Frantz told Mr . Trowbridge that his elevation is about 1110 feet .
David Warden of 1343 Mecklenburg Road said he was a neighbor of Mr . Trowbridge .
Robin Trowbridge is his wife , and they are on the adjoining parcel next to Mr .
Trowbridge . Mr . Warden discussed the 20 foot drop in elevation and said that he was
not concerned about the visibility . He said he was in support of testing such things
as wind generators , and he told the Board that his name could be added to the
petition in support of the project .
Ms . Bokaer addressed the power line which bisects their line , explained she did
not know how tall the poles ( of 10- inch in diameter ) are . She compared the 10- inch
poles to the 8- inch tower .
With no one else wanting to speak , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
Environmental Assessment
Chairman Austen stated that this was reviewed on December 2 , 1993 by Mr . Frantz
who is present and therefore if there are any questions , they may be directed to him .
Chairman Austen said this is an unlisted action and there are no agencies involved as
far as a coordinated review is concerned . Chairman Austen read Part II , Sections
C . 1 , C . 2 . and C . 4 . and Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form .
NOTION
By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
Town of Ithaca 14
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
RESOLVED , that the Board accept the negative determination of environmental signifi -
cance for the EcoVillage at Ithaca property located at West Haven and Mecklenburg
Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 26 . 2 , as reviewed by George Frantz ,
Assistant Town Planner of the Town of Ithaca , on December 2 , 1993 .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Ellsworth , Scala , King , Austen .
NAYS - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a limited variance to the Appellant ,
EcoVillage at Ithaca for the erection and maintenance of a 70- foot tall tower or pole
at West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , for a
period of 13 months for the sole purpose of gathering wind data information at the
property for a period of up to 12 months as explained in the application , with the
following findings and conditions :
1 ) That there would be a hardship for the Appellant not to erect the pole , even
though it exceeds the height limitation by some 40 feet , but being a temporary
structure for limited testing purposes , it is the only feasible way for the
appellant to obtain the necessary data for 12 consecutive months .
2 ) That the neighboring property owners generally are not going to be effected by
the pole on the location , as indicated , with a number of the neighbors having
signed a petition in favor of the application .
3 ) That the variance would be limited to a period from January 1 , 1994 through.
January 31 , 1995 with the understanding that the Appellant will see to the
removal of the pole by the 31st of January , 1995 .
4 ) That the information that will be produced by this devise is not readily avail-
able by any other sources .
5 ) That no equipment other than the anemometer , the weather vane , and the data
gathering / recording devise at the base of the pole ( as depicted in the drawings
submitted ) , can be added to the pole without special approval of this Board .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala , Austen .
NAYS - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
The fifth Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following :
APPEAL of John Lamb , Appellant , Richard Jump , Agent , requesting a variance
from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single- family residence with a
building height of 51+/- feet ( 30 feet maximum height allowed ) at gel Taughan-
nock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25- 2-41 , Residence District R- 15 .
Town of Ithaca 15
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
Dr . Lamb said that he would start the presentation by showing the Board the model
of the home on the land , stating that the Board can see that the problem arises out
of the slope of the land . He stated that Engineer Peter Novelli , as well as the
contractor Richard Jump , are present to discuss the hardship . Dr . Lamb said that
apparently the problem is that the measurement is taken from the lowest point of the
house to the highest . Mr . Frost said Dr . Lamb has a building permit for the house
exclusive of the garage , boat house and gazebo which are part of the plans . The
permit was conditioned that either a variance was obtained or there was compliance
with the 30 feet height . Chairman Austen asked if the 51 feet comes to the top of
the garage . Mr . Frost said he would ask Mr . Novelli to clarify that because when one
actually scales the building plans , it measures 42 or 43 feet . Mr . Frost said that
Mr . Novelli might explain that when you get down to the lower lakeside where the
grade starts to drop , that may compensate . Mr . Frost said he advertised 51 feet to
make sure all of the bases would be covered .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Novelli to clarify the height , and Mr . Novelli ,
consulting engineer for Dr . Lamb , said he designed the foundation and structure for
the house . He continued that he sent a memo to the Town , calculating the height from
the grade to the highest point on the roof on the uphill side which , he believes he
called the west side . He said he calculated the finished grade elevation on the
downhill side to the highest point of the roof . Mr . Ellsworth inquired what Mr .
Novelli ' s dimensions are , and Mr . Frost said that they were 45 - 51 feet . Mr . Frost
said that when he scaled the building plans , he got 45 feet . He said the model
helps , and Mr . Novelli said that it may depend from what contour he took the
measurements . Mr . Novelli said the existing grade ranges from 952 feet to 956 feet ,
the final grade was proposed to range from 952 feet to 958 feet . Mr . Novelli said
the roof height is 1003 feet , thus subtracting 952 - 958 feet from 1003 feet , he
believes he comes up a range of 45 - 51 feet , depending on where one is on the downhill
side . He said he believes the average height is closer to 45 feet . Attorney Barney
said that the Board ' s measurement is not an average but measured , in the worst case ,
of the lowest to the highest point . Mr . Frost said that when the building plan is
looked at , it may be the supporting post on the lowest grade that is carrying the
house , is where the 51 feet is measured . Mr . Novelli said he scaled from the
topographic plan . Mr . Frost said it was important that when the Board is considering
the height , that there is a significant difference between the 51 feet and the 45
feet . To be conservative , Mr . Novelli said he used the lowest contour of 952 which
occurs under the deck , and he continued that one might ask if he has to go to the
lowest point below the deck to the highest point of the roof . He said that if that
was true , he would come up with 51 feet . Mr . Novelli said the lowest point on the
ground is below the deck . Mr . Frost said that it is safe to say that the lowest
floor of the building to the roof ridge is 45 feet . He said if you measure to the
lowest point of the finished grade around the most eastern post , that would be 51
feet . Mr . Novelli said that from the base of the foundation to the top , it is 45
feet .
Mr . Frost said there has been some grading done as shown by the pictures being
passed around . He said the Town staff , including the engineering department , have
had some concern regarding the soil that is now basically dumped over . He said that
what was to some degree a bank , is now graded off . Mr . Frost said that the eleva-
tions would then change . Mr . Novelli said the plan is to bring the final grade to
the design elevation as shown on the site plan . Mr . Frost said the Town Engineering
Department had voiced some serious concerns about soil erosion of that bank . Mr .
Frost said that he understands they have DEC permits . Dr . Lamb said the soil dumped
over the bank is going to be moved about by Mark Leather . He said that Mr . Leather
is going to start this week to put rip rap stone , according to the DEC permit that he
Town of Ithaca 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• has , around the bank and that dirt is then going to be used to level off the area .
Mr . Frost asked if that stone was coming in by barge tomorrow , and Dr . Lamb answered
that it was and that he has permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and from the
DEC . Mr . Novelli said there is some soil being moved around which is excess material
cut from the foundations which is being used for fill under the permit filed with the
DEC . With the lake now being low , Mr . Frost said that the soil has seemed to find
its way now to the high water mark of the lake which is now the stone portion of the
shoreline . He asked what will happen to the dirt in the lake , which is now dry , and
Dr . Lamb said it will be moved after the rip rap is placed this week . Mr . Novelli
said that he believes it is good to address the soil and the erosion , but he wants to
have the Board keep it clear that Dr . Lamb is present for the site plan height
variance and the DEC has jurisdiction over the permit dealing with the lake work . He
continued that he would not like to see that impact the Board ' s decision . Mr .
Novelli stated that they had provisions for erosion control in the specifications .
He said that although they have a detailed plan for dealing with the erosion , while
under construction and grading they are moving dirt on almost a daily basis . Mr .
Novelli said that- it is obviously in Dr . Lamb ' s best interest to stabilize the slope
and he plans to do that . Mr . Novelli said that he believes it is premature to talk
about erosion when the grading and work is not yet finished because the final erosion
control cannot be done until the final grading work is done .
Mr . Frost said that he would let the Board respond in terms of the relevance of
that plan or the permits as regard to the approval . He asked if it was possible to
get the permits of both the Army Corps and the DEC . Mr . Novelli said yes . Chairman
Austen made the statement that this Board has quite often said that there must be
® some sort of barrier . He said the dirt cannot just be pushed down into the lake .
Dr . Lamb said there are bales of hay that were placed along the water to prevent
slippage of dirt into the water . Mr . Jump said that perhaps he should address this
issue , introducing himself as Richard Jump , the builder . He continued that , in
regards to that issue , there are 3 rows of bales of hay as a barrier in front of that
whole area . He added that he did not know if the Town had any pictures showing that ,
but what ' s there are 3 bales of hay that will prevent , if in any case there is
erosion , will prevent any erosion to enter the lake .
Mr . Frost stated that part of the concerns he voices , as well as those concerns
of the Town ' s engineering staff that visited the site , is the sentiment that perhaps
at a higher level , some sort of a silt fence may be appropriate . He continued that
he realized , however , that the equipment does have to get around to get the founda-
tions in . Mr . Frost said that should the Board grant this variance , some additional
holes have to be dug to support the columns that are on the downhill side . He said
the Engineering Department suggested that a silt fence at the top of the bank would
be appropriate , as well as , what has already been done . Mr . Jump said that he agreed
that under other circumstances that might be necessary but probably the Engineering
Department was not aware of the fact that rip rap was being brought in and that
actually that dirt is wanted to end up down on the lower level once that rip rap is
brought in . Attorney Barney asked where the rip rap was going to be located , and Mr .
Jump said it would be along the shore line . Mr . Jump pointed out where he believed
it would be , and Attorney Barney said that the dirt is now beyond where it was
proposed to be , to which Mr . Jump disagreed . Dr . Lamb pointed out where the dirt was
located and where the rip rap would be located . Mr . Frost stated that the Army Corp
and the DEC were different agencies , and he asked what kind of permits Dr . Lamb
received from each . Dr . Lamb said the permit is for the boat house , docks , and a
lake wall . Mr . Frost said that it was not yet approved and that the DEC permit was
for the rip rap . Dr . Lamb said that was what he meant by the lake wall . Dr . Lamb
said that the Army Corp and the DEC were two different agencies but that they
Town of Ithaca 17
. Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• basically concurred on this . Dr . Lamb said he first got an application from the DEC
and the DEC gave them a permit for the rip rap and the dirt there . Then , he
continued , he got a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers . He said that after that
was done , they concurred the use of the rip rap and also concurred for the use of the
dock . Mr . Frost said the Engineering Department called the DEC to voice some
concerns it had today but that the DEC had not called back .
Mr . Frost said that he wanted to again make it clear that the Town has not issued
any permits other than for the house ; the boat house and the gazebo have not yet been
permitted . Chairman Austen asked if the building permit is based on the height of
the house without any connections , and Mr . Frost said that the permit is conditioned
that either Dr . Lamb obtains a variance for having the height as the plans proposed
or the building will meet the 30 foot height .
Mr . Frantz asked how Dr . Lamb plans to stabilize the fill on the lake side of the
house once it was completed . He added that it looks like it is a 1 : 1 slope , practi -
cally in an area where the soils are classified by the USDA in soil surveys as being
highly erodible . Mr . Novelli said that during the design , he looked at the soil
survey , and because of his experience , felt that the surveys were general . Therefore
he dug test pits 8- 10 feet deep before the foundation was designed , doing a soil
identification . He said what he found was some soils that were a good deal firmer
and denser than the soil survey would indicate . He indicated that if this were not
so , the house would probably not be in the building process right now . Mr . Novelli
said with the foundations , they came very close to bedrock . Mr . Novelli said the
slope from the house down to the lake is going to be restored to what it was
originally and that their plan is to use synthetic stabilization fabric and ground
cover to restore the slope . Regarding the stabilization fabric , something like the
trade name of Inca ( a woven , polypropylene fabric that would not biodegrade such as
jute or straw ) would be used . Mr . Novelli indicated that sort of material has been
effective for such a slope .
Mr . Frantz said that the soil survey shows that it is being covered by the
Hudson-Dunkirk series which are highly erodible soils where they exist . Mr . Frantz
questioned that Mr . Novelli found that this was not the case because the detailed
site studies found soils other than this . Mr . Novelli said that they were in a funny
little area between 2 ravines , and he suspected that the actual soils might be
different and that bedrock might be a lot closer . Mr . Novelli said they found
remnants of bedrock at the 7 - 8 foot level . He said that above that was a dense
glacial fill with a lot of cobbles and boulders . Mr . Novelli made the comment that
the backhoe operator should be asked because he had to dig it . Mr . Frost added that ,
as seen from the pictures , some of the boulders are actually now down on the
lakeshore . Mr . Novelli said that could be , but that it is perfectly acceptable under
the permit , for the owner to do some fill- in and install that rip rap .
Mr . Frost commented that he believes that this is open to discussion because , as
the Board deliberates on the design of the house , does this impact on the land and ,
given the slope , does it impact the erosion and sediment . Mr . Novelli said that he
believes that they addressed all of those things and that it was unfortunate that he
did not even get a phone call with these questions from the Town Engineering
Department . Mr . Frost said he personally tried to reach him today , and Mr . Novelli
said that he went out this morning but called in at 1 : 30 P . M . Mr . Frost said , in
® fairness to the situation , that when he went out to the site this morning , there was
no evidence of any channeling or water paths coming down from the bank from the area
just below the foundation to the lake itself . Mr . Frost said that although h he did g
not know when the excavation was done that even with the fair amount of rain we got ,
Town of Ithaca 18
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
the soil actually seemed somewhat stable . He said it was a little muddy but there
• was no real evidence of severe running of channeling of water through the fill
material . Chairman Austen stated that when he was there , the dozer had apparently
been through and it was difficult to tell if there was any erosion . Mr . Novelli said
that with a ravine on either side of property and the road , the drainage area is
negligible and there is not much run- off .
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one wishing to speak on the
matter , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
Environmental Assessment
Chairman Austen said the Environmental Assessment is quite a long presentation
and asked if Mr . Novelli had seen the report to which he said he did not . A copy was
given out .
Mr . Frantz stated that , given what Mr . Novelli has said about their site specific
soil tests , he believes the second paragraph under C . 1 . could be struck .
Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendations as reviewed on December 3 ,
1993 by George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , Chairman Austen stated that Mr .
Frantz was present at this meeting and that C . 1 . , paragraph 2 ( regarding the
potential for erosion ) would be struck .
Mr . Frantz stated that , in a separate mailing , the Board received an article from
the October , 1991 Planning Magazine which discussed some of the problems other
communities have had with large - scale houses of this type being built on sub- standard
( although not in this case because this is not a sub- standard lot ) or on small lots
and the impact the large- scale houses had on the character of the existing neighbor-
hood .
Mr . King stated that the Board does not have any information on what exists north
and south of this property , but that the topographic map presented with the Board ' s
plans does indicate there is a house to the south . Dr . Lamb said that on the south
side of his property , there are 3 houses on one lot , one on top of another . Mr . King
said there is only one on the topographic map . Dr . Lamb said there are three : one
at the road , one in the middle , and one down at the lake . Mr . Frantz interjected
that there were no houses of Dr . Lamb ' s height in that area and that he looked at it
from both sides of the lake . Dr . Lamb said that , from the roadside , 881 Taughannock
Boulevard is , at least from the roadside , in character with this house in sizesand
it was built this past year . Mr . Frantz started to say that it was not nearly as
high , and Dr . Lamb said that from the road , in fact , it was higher . Mr . Frantz then
said that from the road , Dr . Lamb ' s house is within the 30 feet , but looking down
from the lake , 881 is not as high as Dr . Lamb ' s house . Dr . Lamb did not believe this
to be totally true because he said it looks like it is , only because the house has
poles , not a foundation . Mr . Jump said Mr . Frantz was not entirely correct because
he said that 3 years ago he built a house across the lake which is in exact character
as this house and designed by the same designer . Mr . Frantz stated that he said he
was talking about the west side of the lake , and Mr . Jump said he thought Mr . Frantz
said across the lake .
• Mr . Frantz explained that he did not say that and that he had said he had looked
at the west side of the lake from the east shore . He further indicated that Mr . Jump
was correct in that there are probably 15 , and possibly more , homes in the Town of
Lansing on this scale along the ' lake or in very close proximity . He also said that
Town of Ithaca 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
there were building lots which range in size from 200 feet up to 600 feet . Mr .
• ' Frantz said there is a Lake Road area where the lots down at the bottom are in the
range of 155 feet wide and houses are being built on these size lots but the average
width on the east side of the lake in the Town of Lansing is 250 feet . Mr . Frantz
said he went to the assessment office , looked at the maps there , and determined that
` there was a total of approximately 35 lots along the lake in that area . Mr . Frost
said the frontage of Dr . Lamb ' s parcel is 165 feet and the depth is 500+ feet . Mr .
Frantz said the width of the lot at the lake is 113 feet , and Dr . Lamb said it was
165 feet .
Mr . Frantz said that his concern was not so much this lot but the other lots
along Taughannock Boulevard . He said that this is what the article relates to - - - this
tear- down phenomenon in which ( the Carrere house being an example ) the older cottages
are being replaced by newer , larger homes , and he could see that by granting a
variance of this scale , would open up the issue . When asked the amount of living
space , Mr . Frost said there is 1700 square feet on the first floor , 1900 square feet
on the second floor and 854 square feet in the basement . When Dr . Lamb objected to
calling the basement living space , Mr . Frost said that he was just giving the
dimensions . The consensus was that there was a total of 3600 square feet of living
space .
Mr . King asked what would this building look like if it adhered to the 30 foot
height requirement , and Dr . Lamb said that it would be impossible because the main
living space is on the uppermost floors , with the kitchen , living room and dining
room being there . He repeated that it would be impossible to redo this house . He
said the foundation was already begun on the advise that it probably will not be a
• problem with this variance . He said he has already spent an extensive amount of
money at this point in the . planning of it . He said he asked the neighbors on both
sides ( 2 houses on each side ) , showed them the plans , asked if they have any
concerns , they always said they were pleased with it , always had no concerns and that
it would be a great addition . In fact , he said , they were very excited about it .
Dr . Lamb said he has spent a large amount of money on this for something that cannot
be modified .
Mr . Frost said that he thought it was clear when Dr . Lamb and he discussed
issuance of any kind of permit that there were no guarantees . Dr . Lamb and Mr . Frost
disagreed as to what was said , inasmuch as Dr . Lamb said that Mr . Frost said that he
was a very conservative person and that if he were doing it , he ' d go ahead because he
has had no problem , at which point Mr . Frost said he thoroughly disagreed with that .
Mr . Frost told Dr . Lamb that is perhaps what he heard but he stated that there are no
guarantees that he would get the variance and there are risks involved . Mr . Frost
said there were discussions with Dr . Lamb ' s attorney , who was involved in getting
this before the Zoning Board . Mr . Frost said that it is clear that there are risks
involved in what Dr . Lamb did and Dr . Lamb ' s permit specifically says that he had to
get the variance or comply with the height .
Mr . Geiger said this house was designed by an architect in Colorado who is used
to dealing with steep cliffs / steep slopes , and his design was set up to minimize
environmental impact so that when this house is finished , the grade of the land will
be similar to what it was before .
• Mr . Geiger stated that looking at the house next door that it was built on a time
belt and what happened was that they went in , shirred down , pulled across , and built
a basement so that it is basically a traditional looking house and so that the
basement is under ground . He stated that with Dr . Lamb ' s house , in order to maintain
Town of Ithaca 20
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
the integrity of the land , and to be able to keep it natural and aesthetic , it was
• built so that the finished grade didn ' t cover the foundation . Unfortunately , trying
to keep the environmental impact low , you end up with the foundation of a house
counting . On a normal flat slope where , for example , on the house next door , where
they graded it flat , instead of a house being measured because it ' s this tall , which
is what they did next door , you have to include the foundation . Unfortunately , with
regard to the environmental impact , Dr . Lamb had to make a choice- - going for the
environmental impact or for having the house itself be , unfortunately , taller . Mr .
Geiger said that , as you can see the height from the road , you are not really
obstructing anything , as indicated in the article . He said the article talks about
locating on the top of a bluff , whereas Dr . Lamb ' s house is actually set in from the
road . Mr . Frantz said the house is located on top of a bluff from the lake side .
Mr . Geiger said that as far as being visual from the road , it is lower with taller
things across the street . Mr . Frost offered that what is being suggested is that
fill could be brought in on the downhill side which would ultimately affect the
measurements of the height and yet would result in some impact . Mr . Geiger said the
house could be made to be shorter by varying the foundation but then the entire
environmental area has been ruined by creating steeper cliffs . Chairman Austen asked
for Mr . Geiger to identify himself , and Mr . David Geiger said that he does a lot of
landscaping and stuff and will actually be involved in planting the types of soil
retaining ground covers .
Mr . Frantz said that , as a designer , he had to ask when Dr . Lamb ' s architect
consulted the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance or if he ever did consult the ordi -
nance , to which Dr . Lamb answered that it was his understanding that this house does
comply with New York State ordinances and with the City of Ithaca . He said he did
• not think they were aware of the difference between the City , the State and the Town .
Mr . Novelli asked if he could make a couple more points . He said he believed Dr .
Lamb demonstrated physical hardship with the lot . He said the lot was presumably ,
subdivided such that Dr . Lamb could buy it , was this addressed when it was subdivid-
ed , and Mr . Frantz said it conforms to the zoning . Mr . Frost said , however , the
reason they are here is because a building permit was obtained and the house , as
designed , does not meet the height regulations . If it were not for this , he
continued , this Board would not be discussing it . Mr . Novelli said that he demon-
strated a physical hardship in the memo he wrote to the Town . He said they tried to
describe how this house was designed to fit the contours of the land , rather than to
do massive earth work to meet an ordinance that a variance has been given many times
by the Town because of the way the ordinance has been written . He said there are
numerous precedents , and Mr . Frantz said they were not on this scale , at which point
Mr . Novelli said that they were getting into a subjective area . Mr . Frantz said that
in his career in the Town of Ithaca he had never seen a request for a variance for a
residence for 21 feet when Mr . Novelli said that he thought the height was determined
to be 45 feet , and , thus Mr . Frantz agreed to the 15 foot variance .
Mr . Novelli , continuing with his comments , said he wanted the Board to look at
the house in the full context , say the view from the road where it is not very
pronounced , 21 or 18 feet or whatever the difference is , makes a difference on the
context surrounding it or the view from the lake with much higher elevations in the
background . Mr . Novelli wanted to comment about the changing character of the
neighborhood . He said that the points are well taken but Dr . Lamb approached the
• neighbors on both sides and the neighbors are in favor of the project . Mr . King said
the Board had not heard from the neighbors and have nothing in writing from them .
Mr . Novelli said they had been put on notice of the hearing and they have not
objected . Mr . Frost said they were put on notice in the usual manner . Mr . Frantz
Town of Ithaca 21
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
said to Mr . Novelli that he is looking at this as the designer , landscape architect
and planner who has to look at the long term . He said that perhaps Mr . Novelli is
right , but the Town has a R- 15 District with 15 foot sideyard setbacks which means
that if the Zoning Board were to grant this variance , then next year the Board could
have another applicant a few hundred feet up or down the lake getting the same type
of variance , and in five to ten years , the Town could literally have a Chinese wall
of these mega-houses on substandard lots on the west side of Cayuga Lake , Mr . Frantz
said that this would totally alter , and in his opinion , destroy the unique scenic
value of that area in the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Frost said this lot was not a
substandard lot . Mr . Frantz said he was not saying that , and Attorney Barney said
that Mr . Frantz was making a jump from saying people who get a variance for height on
a more than standard lot that this Board is going to be somehow compelled to give the
same height variances for construction of a building on a sub- sized lot . Mr . Novelli
asked if there are a lot of lots 165 feet wide , to which Mr . Frantz answered that
there were not . Mr . Frost said that another point is that when there have been
height variances coming before the Board it is because there has been construction
occurring on a slope and sometimes being lower with the finished grade because of the
downhill slope . Mr . Frantz said those height variances have been within the range
of 5 - 10 feet . Attorney Barney and Mr . Frost said there have been height variances of
11 - 12 feet . Mr . Frantz said of the ones he reviewed , the highest portion of the
buildings , were not nearly as visible as this structure is going to be .
Mr . Frantz referred to the physical hardship claimed , and he said that he is not
convinced that another home could not be designed on the lot which would be much more
amenable to the environment of the site than is this home . He continued that , in his
opinion , there are a thousand ways to design a house that would fit the site much ,
much better than this home . Mr . Frost stated that the soil could be built up to the
level of the floor on the downhill side and , probably still construct this house ,
effectively reducing the height by as much as 8 feet more . When Mr . Frantz said he
did not believe this could be done , Mr . Frost said it could , by just bringing soil
around the columns on the downhill side . Mr . Novelli said that he brought up that
possibility in his memo , and that is one way to fit in with an ordinance like this .
Mr . Novelli said you are adding mass to try to meet a fictitious number and it
becomes less attractive . Referring to the model , Mr . Novelli said that the structure
is now uncluttered with the existing contours , but if you add fill , you get something
less attractive . Mr . Frantz asked Mr . Novelli how one could add fill without a
massive retaining wall . Mr . Novelli said that he was addressing that suggestion , and
Mr . Frantz said he was asking him how do you fill in that side of the house without a
massive retaining wall . Mr . Novelli said it was not a good idea but you could do it .
When asked again , Mr . Novelli said that he has not done the calculations , but he
imagined that another 4 feet or so could be filled and then you would have to have a
retaining wall , agreeing that it was not a good idea to do that . Mr . Frantz read an
excerpt from Mr . Novelli ' s memo that said " it would be possible by placing fairly
massive fills against the downhill side east side of the house to reduce the measured
height to about 32 feet . " Mr . Novelli said that what he was trying to say was that
it would be ridiculous .
Jeannine Lamb , Dr . Lamb ' s mother , said that she has been the one who has been
taking pictures on a daily or every- other- day basis so that Dr . Lamb could keep
abreast of what is going on so that Dr . Lamb could make sure that nothing was being
done that he was unaware of or that is against the rules as he understood them . She
explained that houses on the property to the south , particularly describing the house
at the top of the hill , as well as , the others . Mrs . Lamb said the house near the
road had four apartments , the one in the middle had two apartments , and the owner of
the property lives in the one by the lake in the summer . Mrs . Lamb said she has
Town of Ithaca 22
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
talked with a neighbor , Ms . Feiter on several occasions , and Ms . Feiter thought Dr .
Lamb ' s structure was wonderful . Chairman Austen said that the Board was not saying
that Dr . ,Lamb ' s structure was not a beautiful house . Attorney Barney asked if anyone
knew who owns that property , to which no one answered . Mr . Frost said that he was
not aware that there were four apartments on the property . Mrs . Lamb described the
layout of the four rentals . She said that , if you want to talk about the neighbor-
hood , one could not get much worse than this property . Mr . Frantz said that he was
talking about the neighborhood in terms of scale of the houses , and Mrs . Lamb said
that she was saying that the scale of three houses , built right down the mountain all
the way to the water , as well as , two or three on the property next to that . Mrs .
Lamb said that she is talking about putting something on the property which is so
much nicer that the property to the south , and she continued that the lady on the
other side is so thrilled with the whole idea . Mrs . Lamb said that when Mr . Frantz
talks about the neighborhood , she wishes he would go look at the neighborhood . Mr .
Frantz said he has lived here 25 years and he has seen the neighborhood . Mr . Frantz
said that perhaps there is a house stepping dorm the hill and maybe it is four
stories , but a house stepping down the hill like that does not have nearly the visual
impact of three and one -half stories rising sheer out of the bluff .
Mr . Frost said there are actually several houses up and down the lake that are
two stories with basements . Mr . Novelli said Dr . Lamb ' s house is a two- story house ,
taking notice that a lot of houses have walk- out basements . He stated that if this
is being called a three and one -half story , where is the other half coming from? Mr .
Frantz said it is the equivalent - - a 43 foot house from the base of the pillar to
the peak of the roof . Mr . Geiger said that if this house was built on normal land ,
and Mr . Frantz interjected that Dr . Lamb was comparing this house with the sheer 43
foot face , to a house that steps up the hill . Mr . Frantz said that was like
comparing apples and oranges .
Mr . Frost said he did not want to debate the merits of the house or the variance
for the height because , clearly , it is a little bit higher than most of the variances
that have been granted . However , he noted that he has walked on and has been on
every single property along the lake from the City line to the Town of Ulysses line .
He said there are numbers of houses that are two stories with walkout basements . Mr .
Frost said , therefore , that he is not convinced that the general design of the house
is out of character with many houses along the lake , including the architectural
design with a height that is over 40 feet . He added that although this Board has
entertained several variances for homes being built on the west side of the lake that
exceed the 30 foot height , none were to the extent of the height being asked for
tonight . He said it is not an unusual request .
Attorney Barney said that his partner , Attorney Peter Grossman , has been repre -
senting Dr . Lamb and Attorney Barney ' s firm has had some connection with Dr . Lamb .
Attorney Barney said he is not appearing on Dr . Lamb ' s behalf nor is anyone from the
office representing him at this hearing before the Town . Therefore , Attorney Barney
said he could speak to this problem . Attorney Barney said that the legislation for
the test that the Board wants to look at for the variance grant changed a couple of
years ago . Attorney Barney said the tests are not as severe as they once have been
interpreted as being for either an area or a height variance . Attorney Barney said
he wanted to refresh the Board ' s memory as to what the Zoning Board of Appeals is
supposed to do . Attorney Barney said that Section 267 ( b ) states that in making such
• a determination , the Board shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant
as the variance is granted , as weighed against the detriment to the health , safety
and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant . Attorney Barney said
that if you go on to a sub- category or sub- questions , the questions are whether an
Town of Ithaca 23
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• undesirable would be changed or produced in the character of the neighborhood or
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of an area variance .
Attorney Barney said whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by
some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the area variance ,
whether the requested area variance is substantial , whether the proposed variance
will have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood or the district , and whether the alleged difficultly is self-
created , which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board , it shall
not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance .
Dr . Lamb said that he wanted to personalize what was happening from his point of
view . He said that when he bought the property and designed the house , he now has
made a substantial investment with the cost of the property and that he has already
spent over $ 300 , 000 . 00 and that is already not retrievable at this point . Dr . Lamb
said this house is in character with the Lambert-Rogers house , with the Diechman
house , and with the Wilson house on the lake . He continued since he was not
anticipating that anyone would have any objections and the neighbors were very happy
about it , it comes as a big surprise to him that anyone would be voicing such
objections . Dr . Lamb said that , on the basis of what other people are going to do in
the future , denying him or giving him such a strong punishment for what the Board may
fear others might do in the future would really be a tough thing to do to him because
of the Board ' s fears of what might happen in the future . Dr . Lamb continued that
someone would have to have a large lot ( of which there are not that many available
along the lake ) besides taking a substantial investment to go forth with a project
like this . Therefore , Dr . Lamb wondered how many people are going to be able to
afford rows and rows of these kinds of houses . Dr . Lamb hoped the Board would take
into consideration what kind of financial stress he would be under to have this
appeal denied . Dr . Lamb said the foundation is in place and cannot be easily changed
and designed .
Chairman Austen asked Dr . Lamb if the lowest level is a basement , and Dr . Lamb
said it was just a basement . Dr . Lamb said there were only two levels of living
space . Chairman Austen said the lowest level shows sliding doors and Dr . Lamb said
those were there just to make it more attractive . He said the only thing in the
plans for the basement is the laundry room .
Chairman Austen stated that the Board has been discussing the Environmental
Assessment Form and asked for a motion on it .
Mr . Geiger asked to say just one more thing regarding Mr . Frantz ' s comment about
doing a tier house . He said that even if you are doing a tier house , if you measure
the distance , it would still be the same height . Chairman Austen said that the
ordinance is quite clear on how the height is measured , being measured from the
lowest level to the highest peak of the roof . Mr . Geiger said that any house that is
not graded down is going to have this same height . He continued to address the issue
that unless you are going to grade the land and get rid of it , the height would
remain the same . Mr . Frantz said that was true , but that it was breaking up the mass
of the house . Mr . Novelli said that the only way you can see the house is from the
lake - - either the tier house or Dr . Lamb ' s house and that whether the house is
tiered or like this model , the elevation is the same and the appearance is the same .
Mr . Frantz said he has seen numerous , hundreds of , homes that the mass of them has
been broken up by tiering going up the slope . Mr . Frantz said he has just one point
of information on what has happened on the west shore and that is that there has been
a consolidation of lots such as what Jerry Weisburd did two years ago which allowed
the Chaloemtiarana house just down the road from this building . Therefore , Mr .
Town of Ithaca 24
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
Frantz said that while there are a lot of small lots along the lake , it is possible
to consolidate . Mr . Frost said the consolidation which resulted in three lots still
left one with two substandard size lots and one lot which was about an R- 15 size .
Mr . Frantz said he wanted to point out a potential without discussing the quality of
the lots created . Mr . Frost said that the fact still remains that this lot is still
more than twice the size of the area of an R- 15 lot .
Mr . King asked if the lot to the north has a house on it , and Dr . Lamb said that
it did . Mr . King asked if there were any pictures of that house , and he was told
there was but they did not have them with them . Mr . King said that it is really the
impact of the house from the lake which is important . He said that , from the
highway , there is very little visibility . Mr . King commented that the lake is a
highway , too . Mr . King stated that there is a 30 foot height requirement .
Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the environmental assessment form .
MOTION
By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
RESOLVED , that the Board accept the positive determination of an environmental
significance , as recommended by the review of the Assistant Town Planner , George
Frantz on December 3 , 1993 for the property at 901 Taughannock Boulevard .
Chairman Austen asked for discussion on the motion . Mr . King said that he did
not believe the Board has enough information to know whether this particular proposal
is in character or out of character . He said that the applicant said that there are
several other houses of this magnitude ( presumably with this kind of height varia-
tion ) along this side of the lake and the applicant also said the neighbors ( who
would be most directly impacted by the height of the building ) have no objection to
it . Mr . King said the neighbors , if they are in favor of it , have not presented
anything in writing . Mr . King said that the Board knows from the zoning map , if it
is accurate , the lot to the north of this property is of substantial size , having a
substantial width ( much like Dr . Lamb ' s lot and possibly larger ) with approximately
the same frontage along the lake . Mr . King said that he felt the Board should have
more input from the applicant in addressing these concerns on the environmental
impact statement and recommendation . Mr . King said the soil erosion question has
been put to rest this evening from the information submitted . Mr . King said that he
did not know if the Board has enough information to know whether the visual impact
( with the 45 foot elevation of the building as it appears from the lake ) would be a
detrimental impact . Mr . King said he favors adjourning the matter to let the
petitioner come back to the Board with further evidence - to try to persuade the Board
that this is a good design .
Mr . Geiger said that he did not know what Mr . King meant by bringing in evidence .
Mr . King said that the evidence would show that this design is not out of character
with other structures along the west side of the lake . Chairman Austen said that if
there are neighbors who agree , the Board would like to have it in writing or have
them appear before the Board . Chairman Austen agreed that he did not think there was
enough information on which to make a decision .
Mr . Geiger reviewed that although there is an area that was stripped , there are
trees and things along the front which will be planted up and , thus , there are things
that are going to soften the whole lower end . However , he continued that , unfortu-
nately , the foundation has to be there , and he said that the existing trees and
Town of Ithaca 25
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• things cannot be put on such a model . He said there are some old oak trees on the
property and some beautiful hemlocks . Mr . Geiger said the whole massive expanse will
not be seen . Mr . Geiger said that , relative to the erosion , there will be shrubs and
things that will spread underground . Mr . Geiger said that the landscaping is what
will soften it . He said that if you take any house in the area and strip the
landscaping , it looks very sterile and stark . Discussion followed as to the existing
plantings on the lot . Mr . Novelli said that there was an area stripped to get the
dirt down to the lake and that the area will be replanted . Mr . Geiger explained the
new plantings regarding the looks and the soil erosion .
Mr . Scala talked about the major argument of the instability of the Hudson-
Dunkirk soils and the potential for soil erosion . Mr . Frost said that was struck
from the findings . Mr . Frantz said that there was an obvious need for a complete
planting plan . Mr . Geiger said that he has a Bachelors and Masters in Ornamental
Horticulture from Cornell and that he can give the Board a list of what should be
planted . Mr . Geiger said that Dr . Lamb is here for a height variance and now the
Board is talking about what plants will be planted . Mr . King said that the Board is
talking about ameliorating the height . Mr . Frantz said that this is the type of
information that is needed and should be on paper . Mr . Jump asked why they were not
given time to provide that information at this meeting . Mr . Frost said that this
whole thing was rather rushed , in part , for Dr . Lamb ' s desire to commence some
construction . Mr . Frost stated that his appeal was originally scheduled for the
January Zoning Board meeting , and it was placed on the December agenda to accommodate
Dr . Lamb , Mr . Frost said , again , relative to the questions about landscaping , what
is going to mitigate the visual impact . Further discussion ensued , and Mr . Frantz
• told Mr . Jump that he got the application last Monday , that his job is to do an
environmental assessment of this project which he has done , and he presented his
professional views to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Frantz said that it is not
his job to be the applicant ' s architect or the landscape architect . More discussion
followed , and Mr . King said that he does not have anything in front of him to prove
what is being said . Mr . Frantz said that what is needed for the record and his
recommendation to the Board is that the applicant submit a full -blown planting plan
that has the hemlocks there in front of the building , that says Dr . Lamb is going to
keep them in front of the building despite the fact that there is all the very
expensive glass work along the east side of the building that the hemlocks are going
to block . He said this should be presented as part of the application package . It
was said that everything that was normally required for a building plan was submitted
a month ago and that did not include a planting plan .
Attorney Barney said that he is concerned that Dr . Lamb did not know until he
walked into the door tonight that anybody had any problem with the variance .
Attorney Barney continued that he is concerned about the Town not reacting in some
way to indicate to Dr . Lamb so he has some chance to put the case to the Board .
Attorney Barney said he feels they are being sandbagged and he is a little uncomfort-
able about it . Attorney Barney told Mr . Frantz to do what he had to do for his
professional standpoint which is fine , but Attorney Barney said that probably the
fairest thing to do is to follow Mr . King ' s recommendation to adjourn the meeting and
let Dr . Lamb come before the Board with his information . Mr . King said that if this
was not done that his inclination would be to say no merits and go along with the
recommendation which would be a hardship . Attorney Barney said that the question he
has for the Board is if it will learn anything more from a planting plan that the
Board does not already know by the rendering and the photographs which have been
passed around . Mr . King said that renderings are notoriously freeform and neighbors '
consents given in the air are vaporous . Attorney Barney said that the mechanical
problem is that if it is adjourned , the next meeting it could be dealt with is
Town of Ithaca 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
January 12 , Attorney Barney said , that if the concern is getting something in
writing from the neighbors and that would be sufficient to satisfy the majority of
the Board , conceivably the Board might consider approval with a condition with those
coming in . Mr . Frost said the neighbors were notified as for any meeting . Attorney
Barney said they are all notified but they may have had other engagements . Mrs . Lamb
said that she told both the neighbors there was a meeting tonight and that she
thought they would be getting some sort of notice . Attorney Barney said that if Dr .
Lamb had known about the potential opposition from somebody from within the Town , he
could have gone out and got the neighbors and brought the stuff in . Dr . Lamb said he
assumed that by the neighbors not showing , it demonstrated to him that they went
along with it . Mr . Scala said that there obviously was not enough time and that he
would be disturbed if Dr . Lamb was not allowed to come in with a fairly intelligent
presentation based on what he heard . Mr . Scala said that what Dr . Lamb has to
accomplish is , if it is technically feasible to prevent the erosion problem , coming
back in with the arguments that show how you can technically prevent what the Board
is concerned with . Attorney Barney said that he thinks the Board is beyond the
erosion and that the issue is now that of visual impact . Mr . Scala said there was a
motion on this , and Attorney Barney said the motion was on the visual impact , the
character of the neighborhood , and potential precedent , not the erosion .
When Mrs . Lamb expressed her frustration about her son ' s dilemma , Attorney Barney
told Mrs . Lamb that the one book that needed to be consulted , the Town of Ithaca ' s
Zoning Ordinance , apparently was not consulted . She said that was the first thing
she asked for before the closing .
Referring to the model , Chairman Austen said the hillside was covered with a
building , and he questioned if it was in character with the rest of the area . He
said he did not want to see a positive environmental assessment done unless the Board
really comes to that point because it would set Dr . Lamb back months . Chairman
Austen said that he feels the Board needs more information . When Dr . Lamb asked what
he could do to move the project forward , Chairman Austen said the Board would like to
see something positive from the neighbors in writing , examples and pictures of other
houses in the area to know if this looks in character with other houses in that area ,
show the Board that this is not an unusual structure in the area and will not change
the neighborhood ' s character .
Discussion followed as to when Dr . Lamb could return to the Board with this
information so that the project could go on , not waiting until mid- January . Chairman
Austen asked if it would be possible to adjourn this for one week . Mr . Scala asked,
if Dr . Lamb could get all the necessary material together in one week . Dr . Lamb said
that he could . Mr . Geiger said that since he was working on the planting plan , he
asked the Board what was wanted . Discussion followed regarding the rendered drawings
and the use of the existing vegetation . Chairman Austen said the Board needs to see
what would be done along the front of the house to minimize the height effect . Mr .
Jump told Mr . Geiger to show the existing trees and what could be added to minimize
the impact and to soften the look of the area .
Mr . Scala said that , although it may not be his style , he is beginning to get
used to seeing large - scale structures now that he has been going by the theater in
Collegetown and looking at the new Sciencenter along Route 13 , and seeing others in
the area . He said he does not react negatively anymore to the architectural style ,
even though they are not hidden by any trees and there are no steep slopes . Chairman
Austen said the Board has so many requests for height variances , and he continued
that a lot of them are justified because of the terrain . He said the Board is aware
that Dr . Lamb cannot build a 30 foot house there and get what Dr . Lamb wants . Mr .
Town of Ithaca 27
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
King said that , but again , the traffic is not on the high side of the building that
• Cayuga Lake provides for this site . He said the Board has given variances where the
house backs up to a big wood lot and no one looks at that side of the building . Mr .
King said this structure is quite a different story . Mr . Ellsworth inquired as to
similar houses on the lake . Dr . Lamb said he has many photos of things that are
comparable , and Mr . Ellsworth said that he would prefer to have the houses located in
the Town of Ithaca . Chairman Austen said that , if this Board has to defend itself ,
the Board wants something to defend itself with .
Mr . King asked if the Board could have a meeting in one week , and discussion
followed .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
RESOLVED , that the Board adjourn the matter until Wednesday night , December 15 , 1993
at 7 : 00 p . m .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - King , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen
NAYS - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
• Chairman Austen told the Board there were a couple of things that the Board had
to do . He said the Town will want to appoint a Chairman for next year and a Vice -
Chairman . Attorney Barney said that the Board nominates the Chairman and the
Chairman is actually appointed by the Town Board , and you can elect a Vice -Chairman
in an election by this Board .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals nominates Edward Austen as Chairman of
this Board .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala .
NAYS - None .
ABSTENTION - Austen .
The motion carried .
- When the subject of electing the Vice Chairman was brought up , Attorney Barney
said he was not sure that the Board would want to do it tonight ; he said the Board
may want to wait until after the first of the year because the Board has an appoint-
ment . Attorney Barney said the appointment will be discussed at the Town Board ' s
January 3 , 1994 meeting . Attorney Barney said the election was up to the Board and
he made a similar recommendation to the Planning Board on the previous night , waiting
until the full complement of the Board is present . Chairman Austen asked if the
Town of Ithaca 28
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 8 , 1993
• single motion would satisfy the Town Board , and Attorney Barney said that it would .
Mr . Scala inquired as to who is presently the Vice Chairman , and he was informed that
it was Robert Hines . It was the consensus of the Board to wait to elect the Vice
Chairman .
With no further business , Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 10 : 30 P . M .
� vIt .ate (T Iko
Roberta H . Komaromi , Recording Secretary
E ward Austen , Chairman
•
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 81 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 , December
81 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 Tompkins County EOC Headstart , Appellant , Eileen Zimmer ,
Agent , requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals
under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance
to operate a day care center at the Church of the Latter Day Saints ,
located on 114 Burleigh Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
72 - 1 - 1 . 170 , Residence District R - 15 .
APPEAL of John Lango , Appellant , requesting authorization from the
Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non - conforming
building / lot at 926 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
• 18 - 2 - 4 , Residence District R - 15 . The proposed extension involves the
construction of 6 ' x 26 ' unenclosed porch on the south side of an
existing single - family residence . Said building is located 4 + / - feet
from the north side property line ( 15 ' sideyard building setback
required ) and a front yard building setback from the road
right - of - way line of 0 + / - feet ( 25 ' setback required ) . The lot depth
is 60 + / - feet , whereas 150 ' depth is required .
APPEAL of Fred Carrere , Appellant ,, requesting authorization from
the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a
non - conforming building / lot at 1065 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2 - 12 , Residence District R- 15 . The extension
involved the addition of a second floor to an existing single story
building without enlargement of the existing building footprint .
Said lot is non - conforming with a 50 + / - foot lot width ( 100 ' lot
width required ) and the building is located at the south side
property line , whereas a 15 foot sideyard building setback is
required .
APPEAL of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant , Monty Berman , Agent ,
requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 ,
19 , and 20 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted
to construct a 70 - foot tall wind testing instrument at Town of Ithaca
Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , located on West Haven and Mecklenberg Roads ,
163 + / - acres , Residence District R - 30 . Said tower is not expressly
permitted as a use in the zone and any primary structures are limited
to a height of 30 feet , with accessory structures limited to a height
of 15 feet .
APPEAL of John Lamb , Appellant , Richard Jump , Agent , requesting a
variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a
single - family residence with a building height of 51 + / - feet ( 30 feet
maximum - height allowed ) at 901 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 41 , Residence District R - 15 .
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
Town of Ithaca
273 - 1783
Dated : November 30 , 1993
Publish : December 3 , 1993