HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1994-09-14 FINAL
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY , SEPTEMBER 14 , 1994
7 : 00 P . H .
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 , September 14 , 1994 , 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 Ruth B . Kane , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of
Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to
maintain a property fence with a height of 7 feet 3 inches to 7 feet 10 inches ( 6 feet
maximum height permitted ) at 1434 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 10- 8 ,
Residence District R- 15 .
Appeal ( Adjourned from August 10 , 1994 ) of Francis E . Egan , Appellant , 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 40 + feet ( 30 foot maximum height permitted ) at 954 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25- 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15 .
Appeal of Mauro Marinelli , Appellant , 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 36 + feet ( 30 feet maximum
height permitted ) at lot # 10 , 5 Perry Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 35 . 10 ,
Residence District R- 15 .
Appeal of Dr . Michael Goodfriend , Appellant / Owner , Bruce D . Wilson , Esq . , Agent ,
requesting an interpretation and / or a modification of a previously approved use variance
( granted on December 15 , 1982 ) to permit a residential structure to be utilized as a non
resident physicians professional office at 1212 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 26 - 3-8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said modification is for the use of said
building as professional home health care administrative offices and an on site adult
day care facility . A use variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance may also be requested . Said ordinance does not
permit health care administrative offices or adult day care in residential zones .
Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all
persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent
or in person .
Andrew S . Frost
Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement
Officer
273 - 1783
Dated : September 7 , 1994
Publish : September 9 , 1994
FINAL
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca , New York
WEDNESDAY , SEPTEMBER 14 , 1994
7 : 00 P . M .
Agenda
1 ) Nominatation for the Vice -Chairman for the remainder of 1994 .
2 ) Appeal of Ruth B . Kane , 1434 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 10-8 .
3 ) Appeal ( Adjourned from August 10 , 1994 ) of Francis E . Egan , 954 Taughannock
Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 1 - 1 .
4 ) Appeal of Mauro Marinelli , lot # 10 , 5 Perry Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 -
1 -- 35 . 10 .
5 ) Appeal of Dr . Michael Goodfriend , 1222 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 26 - 3- 8 . 2 .
Andrew S . Frost
Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement
Officer
273- 1783
Dated : September 7 , 1994
•
FINAL FILED
FDate--Li-,
WN OF ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA I 9
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS o
WEDNESDAY , SEPTEMBER 14 , 1994 Clerkx �
The following Appeals were heard by the Board on September 14 , 1994 :
APPEAL of Ruth B . Kane , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of
Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to
maintain a property fence with a height of 7 feet 3 inches to 7 feet 10 inches ( 6 feet
maximum height permitted ) at 1434 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 10- 8 ,
Residence District R- 15 .
GRANTED WITH CONDITION ( TIME LIMIT ) .
APPEAL ( Adjourned from August 10 , 1994 ) of Francis E . Egan , Appellant , 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 40 + feet ( 30 foot maximum height permitted ) at 954 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15 .
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS .
APPEAL of Mauro Marinelli , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of
Article IV , Section it of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to
construct a single family residence with a building height of 36 + feet ( 30 feet maximum
height permitted ) at lot # 10 , 5 Perry Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 35 . 10 ,
Residence District R- 15 ,
GRANTED WITH CONDITION .
APPEAL of Dr . Michael Goodfriend , Appellant/Owner , Bruce D . Wilson , Esq . , Agent ,
requesting an interpretation and / or a modification of a previously approved use variance
( granted on December 15 , 1982 ) to permit a residential structure to be utilized as a non
resident physician ' s professional office at 1212 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 26 - 3- 8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said modification is for the use of said
building as professional home health care administrative offices and an on site adult
day care facility . A use variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance may also be requested . Said ordinance does not
permit health care administrative offices or adult day care in residential zones .
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS .
FILED /
TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date
^
SEPTEMBER 14 , 1994 Clerks ,N An• �O\ Cc�
PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , David Stotz , Town.
Attorney John C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew
Frost , Assistant Zoning Officer Pat Keller , Town Planner Jonathan Kanter .
OTHERS : Ruth B . Kane , Barbara App , Gossa Tsegye , Tom Schickel , Mauro Marinelli , Jim
Kerrigan , Esq . , Ed Dellert , Bob Shaw , Frank Liguori , Bruce Wilson , Esq . ,
Elizabeth Classen , Patricia Classen , Gail Harper , Deb Shock .
Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 08 PM stating that all posting ,
publication , and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same
were in order . Chairman Austen stated that the first item on the meeting agenda was the
nomination of the Vice -Chairman for the remainder of 1994 and stated that he would like
to nominate Edward King , that he had previously talked to Mr . King and Mr . King is
willing to accept this position , then asked if there were any other nominations for this
position . Mr . Pete Scala made a motion to close the nominations .
MOTION
By Chairman Austen , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
RESOLVED , that the Board elect Mr . Edward King as Vice-Chairman for the remainder
of 1994 .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS -- None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows :
APPEAL of Ruth B . Kane , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of
Article %III , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to
maintain a property fence with a height of 7 feet 3 inches to 7 feet 10 inches ( 6
feet maximum height required ) at 1434 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
70- 10-8 , Residence District R- 15 ,
Chairman Austen asked how long the fence had been up to which Mrs . Kane replied ,
about one month . Chairman Austen then invited Mrs . Kane to the microphone to tell the
Board about her appeal and granted permission for Mrs . Kane to read her letter dated
August 15 , 1994 . After reading the letter , Mrs . Kane said she would have preferred to
plant trees between their properties but trees take a long time to grow . However , Mrs .
Kane said she intends to plant fast growing plants in the spring .
Mr . Frost asked if he could make a comment and stated they got involved in this
matter by way of a complaint , then a letter was written to Mrs . Kane notifying her of
the violation as the fence is over 6 feet ( because of time constraints , that letter did
not make it into the packet of information which each Board member received ) . Chairman
• Austen said they would also normally get the photograph or picture in the packet , but
they did have Mr . Frost ' s photograph . Mr . Frost added he would like to clarify that ,
Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• unbeknownst to him , laundry is seen in the picture but that is not the laundry in
question ; that is Mrs . Kane ' s laundry hanging out , and Mr . Frost hadn ' t realized it
until he got the pictures back . Upon viewing the photo , Mrs . Kane confirmed that it is
her laundry that shows in the picture but she does take her laundry right in as soon as
it ' s completely dry .
Mr . Frost stated he had taken another photo on the past Monday and asked that Mrs .
Kane be shown the picture . Mr . Frost then drew Mrs . Kane ' s attention to the corner in
the picture which clearly showed the laundry she was referring to . Mrs . Kane said she
saw this in the photo and , when the fence was put up , she stood up on the porch and
that ' s why it ' s higher on one side because their post is higher . That means she had to
have them put the fence so , when she looked down from the porch , it didn ' t show the post
on the other side .
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who
wished to speak . Mrs . Barbara App of 1436 Hanshaw Road stated that she was the person
who had complained and was also the owner of the laundry . Mrs . App said she understood
that no building permit had been issued for the fence which had been built on Mrs .
Kane ' s property and she did not know how proper it was to grant a variance for something
that was already built without a permit . She did not know about the precedent , but they
have a neighborhood that is free of fences . From their yards you can look around and
not see a fence other than Mrs . Kane ' s . However , you will see other people ' s laundry .
Mrs . App said Mrs . Kane called this a fence ; however , the other neighbors refer to it
as the billboard . It stands off the ground and is quite high ; there are several feet
before the fence begins off the ground , so the other neighbors call it the billboard .
Mrs . App said Mrs . Kane had acted ( probably unknowingly ) outside the law by putting
the fence up but , for example , when they built their porch , they could probably have
built it 3 ' or 4 ' more out . However , they had gotten a building permit and followed the
codes and did it right . She stated their children were offended and asked , why did Mrs .
Kane build that fence ? When she tells them it ' s because of the laundry , they say that
Mrs . Kane also hangs her laundry out . Mrs . App said she also takes her laundry down
when it ' s dry because they have weather that ' s unpredictable . She is home all day , she
actually takes it down as soon as it ' s dry in order to accommodate the neighbors -- - even
in shifts , because she just tries to get it down as quickly as possible . Mrs . App then
said her laundry was there long before Mrs . Kane moved in and long before she built her
porch ; it ' s been there always , as are many of the other neighbor ' s laundries . She said
Mrs . Kane hangs her laundry out regularly , it can be clearly viewed from their porch ,
but she is not complaining . The one photograph shows this and , actually , it would be
a little higher up because their porch is higher than the ground , but it ' s a great view
of Mrs . Kane ' s laundry . Mrs . Kane ' s laundry is hung up regularly but there are not as
many people in her family so it ' s not as often . Mrs . App asked the question , why is it
ok and inoffensive for Mrs . Kane ' s guests to look at her own laundry but theirs is
offensive ?
Mr . Frost asked permission of Chairman Austen to add that building permits are not
typically required for fences but the zoning allows them without permit as long as
they ' re not over 6 ' . Mr . Frost confirmed that , however the Board should rule on this
appeal , Mrs . Kane would not be required to have a building permit in any case .
With no others present to speak , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Chairman Austen read Parts II and III of the Environmental Assessment form reviewed
by George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner and asked if there were any questions . With
no discussion required , Chairman Austen then asked that a motion be made .
Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• MOTION
By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of George R . Frantz , Assistant
Town Planner dated September 8 , 1994 and find a negative determination of
environmental significance for the appeal by Ruth B . Kane for the property at 1434
Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 10- 8 .
With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which
resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Attorney Barney then asked Mrs . App if her concern was with respect to the fence in
its entirety or just to the extra foot or so that extends above . Mrs . App responded
that the fence is high off the ground and some of the neighbors don ' t like it because
it ' s that high . Mrs . Kane said she had explained why it was that high previously . Mrs .
App then went on to say that it looks like a billboard out there . Chairman Austen asked
if her objection then was to the size of the fence and Mrs . App said yes , it ' s just that
it ' s so high and it ' s a shame - in a neighborhood free of fences - - to put one in .
Attorney Barney said that ' s what he was trying to get at . . . is her concern really to
. have a fence there at all or just the fact that this particular fence is 1 ' to 1 - 1 / 2 '
too high? Mrs . App said she understands that it ' s Mrs . Kane ' s legal right to put a
fence in if she wants but it ' s awfully high and it really looks like a billboard .
Attorney Barney said to Mrs . Kane that she had indicated she ' d built a porch . Mrs .
Kane said the porch is up high , and Attorney Barney asked if the fence was necessitated
by the building of the porch ; in other words , was she able to see the laundry prior to
building the porch . Mrs . Kane replied that they had always been able to see the
laundry . Attorney Barney then asked , if they hadn ' t built the porch as high as they
did , would they have been able to get by with a G ' fence . Mrs . Kane replied no , they
had to put the porch up there because a deck had already been built when they bought the
house and so they had to line the porch up with the deck ; it could not have been put
down on a lower level .
Mr . Frost explained what Mrs . Kane is saying is that the rear door to her house
( which you can see in the picture ) came out on the deck ; so , if you came out the back
of the house , you ' d be stepping down to get to the porch and there was a building permit
for that . Attorney Barney asked if you wouldn ' t be stepping down already unless he was
misreading what he was looking at . Chairman Austen asked if the porch was there when
they purchased the house and Mrs . Kane replied that the deck was there , then they built
the porch . Attorney Barney said he still did not understand , so Mrs . Kane pointed out
to him on the photo the deck that was already there and the new structure that had been
built . Attorney Barney said the new structure was built up 3 ' or 4 ' off the ground to
match the door ( Mrs . Kane agreed and said there was no other way to put it unless they
came out the kitchen , and then they ' d have to go down the steps with all their food ,
etc . ) .
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Mr . Kanter asked if they had given any thought perhaps to putting in landscaping
like evergreens to screen the view . Mrs . Kane said yes , she planned to completely
landscape it this fall on her side . Mr . Stotz asked what their plans were for
landscaping , and Mrs . Kane said she wants to put in some flowering crabs that would grow
up but there are several things to consider . It would have to be a very tall tree
because of the height of the laundry that can be seen . Therefore , the fence had to be
as high as it is because there wasn ' t anything she could plant except trees that would
take 20 years to get that high . They go up a slight hill anyway on their roadway out
front so that doesn ' t help , and their posts are way high on the side where the laundry
is . Therefore , she feels she had to put them up on one end or take it down ; there ' s no
way if you shortened it that it would help them .
Attorney Barney asked the overall height of the fence and Mr . Frost said it ranges
from 7 ' 3 " on the low end to 7 ' 10 " on the high end . Mrs . Kane said it goes a little over
1 ' on one side because that ' s the way the land is on the App ' s property , but then you
have to put it up higher on this end . You couldn ' t possibly take it down to 6 ' or it
would be ridiculous and wouldn ' t cover the laundry . Mr . Stotz asked if the time they
built the fence was approximately the same time they had built the structure in the
back . Mrs . Kane said no , but she couldn ' t take the laundry another week so she put the
fence up , She wished to comment to the Board that she is terribly sorry , but she didn ' t
know about getting a variance to begin with . That would have been the way to handle it ,
but she didn ` t realize that it was a requirement . Mrs . Kane added that there is now
another fence just like hers . One of her friends put it up about two months ago and she
copied it . Her friend is in the Town of Ithaca , and no one has ever complained so she ' s
never had to take it down .
Chairman Austen asked if the Board had any other questions and went on to ask if
Mrs . App had something she wanted to add . Mrs . App said she just wanted to comment on
the height of the laundry - - she is not a gigantic person , and she can easily reach it .
Mrs . Kane pointed out that their property was on a higher level than hers and Mrs . App
said , but she ' s much shorter . Chairman Austen then declared that there would be no
cross talking and only the Board was to be addressed .
Chairman Austen read the letter dated August 25 , 1994 from the Tompkins County
Department of Planning by James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner of Planning and asked if there
was any further discussion ..
Mr . Scala said he went over to look at the fence and whether the fence is , or is
not , acceptable is in the eye of the beholder . It ' s obviously a plain wooden fence that
accomplishes its mission , hiding what Mrs . Kane thinks is not a very pretty sight but
that ' s a question of taste . Certainly , you see alot of fences around taller than that .
Whether they have been accepted or it ' s just that people have gotten used to them , Mr .
Scala said he wasn ' t sure . They ' re always built at some expense to hide either the
outside or the inside . Mr . Scala said he believes this fence has accomplished what Mrs .
Kane wants but it looks unsightly from the other side , it cuts away a view that was
there before , presumably , of all the back yards . There is no other view that he. knows
of , other than the yards . Mr . Scala said he thinks whereas the fence is above the
accepted limit ; if there had been a series of trees planted 10 ' high , the Board would
have accepted it and it would be just as effective as a fence . What ' s being talked
about then is whether the wood is dead or alive , and there is also color involved . The
fence has been left plain , so there can ' t be much objection there . Mr . Scala said , if
® it ' s a stand-off , then it would seem like trees or shrubs ( or a combination of the two )
could be put in and the fence subsequently taken down when you have the other screening
there ,
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Mr . Scala continued that there ' s no question , if they force the fence to be cut back
or taken down , the result would be an unhappy neighbor . Mr . Scala said he would suggest
they consider the possibility of just using shrubs and / or trees and , in the meanwhile ,
the Board should decide if the fence should stay up or be taken down . If one has
sufficient money , a living fence could be put up overnight ( Cornell does it all the
time ) but that ' s a budgetary problem . Mr . Scala said he would recommend that Mrs . Kane
consider the above as an option .
Chairman Austen then asked if Mr . Scala would like to make a motion along these
lines . Mr . Scala said he believes the above property fence should be left in place only
until the shrubs , trees , or living fence substitutes for the unsightliness of the 7 '
wall that is presently there . If you started out with 50 cent plants , you might have
to wait quite a few years and Mr . Scala said he must admit that planting good size trees
is quite an expensive item and could be a hardship . Mr . Scala said he would move that
the living fence would eventually be used to replace what is present . Chairman Austen
asked if Mr . Scala could add something to the motion to say that the trees have a
certain height now to start out with and would not take forever to attain the size of
the present fence . Mr . Scala replied that even 4 ' to 5 ' cedar trees are quite expensive
so he felt he wouldn ' t be able to put that in . However , typically , the fastest growing
trees and shrubs are also going to be the most unsightly and , in the long run , not
particularly pretty . The typical fence you ' ll see put around a tennis court or a yard
would be cedars , and cedars that are put close together easily come up to 5 ' or 6 ' even
in the first year or two . Mr . Scala said he would propose that the living fence be put
in as a replacement for the present fence .
MOTION
By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . David Stotz .
RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , Ruth B . Kane , a variance from the
requirements of Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to
be permitted to maintain a property fence with a height of 7 feet 3 inches to 7 feet
10 inches at 1434 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 10- 8 , Residence
District R- 15 , with the following finding and condition :
1 . It is suggested by the Board that the present property fence is to be replaced
by a living fence using live trees and / or shrubs .
2 . Because of the somewhat slow growing nature of trees and shrubs , that this is
conditioned upon a time limit of five years . By the end of the five - year
period , the present property fence will either attain a legal height of 6or
will be completely removed .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The second appeal to be heard by the Board was the following :
Appeal ( Adjourned from August 10 , 1994 ) of Francis E . Egan , Appellant , 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 40 + feet ( 30 foot maximum height permitted ) at 954 Taughannock
Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25- 1- 1 , Residence District R- 15 .
Town of Ithaca 6
Zoning Board -of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Chairman Austen invited Mr . Gossa Tsegye to the microphone to speak . Mr . Tsegye
stated he had brought his architect to answer any specific questions that the Board
might have on the structure and noted that the contractor was present , as well . Mr .
Tsegye said he also had a couple of statements to make later on , as time permits .
Chairman Austen said they had received new Drawings ( A1 . 1 and A1 . 2 , titled " Egan
House " , prepared by Schickel Architecture and dated September 7 , 1994 ) but he hadn ' t had
a chance to compare it to the one previously supplied . He asked if this drawing was
different from the other one , to which Mr . Tsegye answered yes , it was a little
different and the architect could answer any questions the Board might have on the new
drawing .
Mr . Tom Schickel of Schickel Architecture stated he had worked with Gossa and Frank
Egan , the client , on this project . He said the two proposals that are presented here
are A1 . 1 , which would be the preferred solution , and A1 . 2 . They ' re the same in all
respects except that the roof height is slightly lower in the second drawing . The
preferred solution would be the one with the higher roof pitch ( A1 . 1 ) . Mr . Schickel
summarized what was done since the August 10 , 1994 meeting as follows . Previously , the
roof height was at 401 ; but , in reality , it was approximately 39 ' ( just because the
scale of the drawing indicated it at 40 ' ) . What they ' ve done is to lower the roof pitch
from 10 and 12 pitch down to a 9 - 1 / 2 and 12 pitch . They ' ve also reduced the floor- to-
floor height at the first floor from 10 ' to 9 ' . Those are the two material changes that
directly address the fact that it ' s over the 30 ' limit . On the lowered roof height
( A1 . 2 ) , the roof height was changed from the original 10 and 12 all the way down to a
7 and 12 pitch ; therefore , it ' s a substantially lower pitch .
Mr . Schickel wanted to point out a couple of related changes that don ' t directly
address the zoning issue , but he believes they mitigate what some of the concerns were .
They ' ve lowered the building down a little bit into the site ; previously , the ground
came off of the lower elevation about 8 " below the floor in the basement . Mr . Schickel
directed the Board ' s attention to the revised drawings and pointed out where the ground
used to be ; they ' ve lowered the building down a little bit which has some associated
problems to contend with , as far as the structure , etc . , but they can be dealt with .
From the street , it would appear to be roughly 2 ' to 3 ' or 3- 1 / 2 ' lower ; in other words ,
you have less exposed wall . Also related to that is they had a window ( and pointed out
its location on the drawing ) that was the same size as some other windows . They ' ve
reduced the size of these windows to a much smaller window so that , perceptually , it
won ' t appear so much to be a third floor . It will appear more like a basement window
in that sense , and there is much less of the basement wall exposed .
Mr . Ellsworth asked if the grade had been raised on both drawings . Mr . Schickel
stated both of them are exactly the same with the exception that the roof pitch in the
first one is 9- 1 / 2 and 12 and the other one is 7 and 12 . Mr . Schickel said he knew Mr .
Ellsworth had been out to the site and wanted to point out a few additional things . Mr .
Schickel said when you drive along Taughannock Boulevard , this is a heavily wooded area .
Mr . Schickel said , when he first drove out to the site , he drove right past the opening
and he thinks that most people driving past wouldn ' t even notice that the house is
there . Mr . Tsegye added , this is when you ' re driving at a normal speed of 55 miles per
hour . Mr . Schickel agreed and said , if you were slowing down to 10 miles per hour and
purposely looked , you might notice it but that ' s how protected the opening is .
Mr . Schickel said the other thing he wanted to note is the peculiarity of drawings ;
these are not perspective drawings , so they don ' t give you a true three dimensional
view . One of the deceptions of elevations is that , for any roof , this roof plane is
actually tilted back in relationship to the wall . The effect of that in an elevation
is that , to most lay people , the building often appears to be much higher than it
Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
actually is in reality . When he first went to architectural school , Mr . Schickel said
he had to get accustomed to looking at elevations that way instead of thinking that a
roof is enormous . His concern is that , if you lower the roof down too much , some of the
sort of romanticism you associate with these types of houses will completely go away .
At a 7 and 12 pitch , from the road , you may not even be able to see the roof ; it would
be that low down . Mr . Schickel said it doesn ' t show on the site plan the Board has but
the grade is pitching up quite steeply so , if you want to see the roof , you have to have
some pitch to it .
Mr . Kanter asked what the roof material is that they ' re proposing , and Mr . Schickel
said these would be fiberglass shingles .
Mr . Ellsworth asked , when he had said preferred , did Mr . Schickel mean preferred by
him and Mr . Schickel said Frank Egan , the owner , had indicated what was preferred and ,
as the designer , he would concur with that .
Mr . Scala said , if he understood correctly , they had done the following . The size
of the first and ground floor has been reduced to 9 ' , taking off 1 ' . The height at the
basement level has been reduced 1 ' . Mr . Schickel disagreed and stated he would say
about 2 ' down because , previously , the grade was actually about 8 " below the slab and
now it ' s up a couple of feet . Mr . Scala said , so that entire section of the whole house
is down 2 ' ; it ' s not just that section we ' re looking at under the deck that ' s down 2 ' ,
it ' s the whole house . Mr . Schickel said , in relationship to the ground , he would say
( just to make sure there ' s no misunderstanding ) in the back of the house , the grade
would be adjusted . In other words , they wouldn ' t be burying the house 2 ' deeper on the
back side because then you ' d be up on the wood . Essentially , you would accomplish this
by bringing in a little bit of a grade shifting . The previous plan that was submitted
with the working drawings conforms with the natural slope and that ' s one of the reasons
it was done that way . There are trade - offs and , if one of the things you ' re trying to
do is to reduce the impact on the street , this will do it . However , it does introduce
a sort of artificial look , in that the grade is going to go up and then it ' s going to
kind of bump up a little bit to accommodate this adjustment and then go back up again .
Mr . Scala said , to begin with , they had said something about correcting the height
on the drawing ; before , it was 39 ' and now it ' s 37 -- 1 / 2 ' . Mr . Schickel stated what he
was referring to is that he had put a note on the drawing when it was presented at the
August 10 , 1994 meeting . It was a note to the Zoning Board that said the height was
38 ' 9 " ; the note was put on there because it wasn ' t graphically correct . Apparently ,
when Mr . Frost took it off , he measured it at 40 ' and so it went through as 40 ' . Mr .
Scala said that should be corrected then to 37 ' 7 - 1 / 2 " ( Mr . Schickel said that ' s in one
proposal ) .
Mr . Scala then said , in their second modified proposal , they had reduced that by
roughly 3 ' and , in fact , it ' s really closer to 4 ' compared to what had been filed
originally ( Mr . Schickel agreed and said it was about a 4 ' total reduction in height ) .
Mr . Scala said you start out with a 4 ' reduction from the original proposal and this
comes about because of the reduced pitch ; or , is it a correction in the drawing , or
both? Mr . Schickel replied that , if you ' re starting at 40 ' and you subtract out 1 ' 3 " ,
that would simply be a correction for what the building would have been previously ( in
other words , if the carpenters built it according to the dimensions , it would have come
out at 38 ' 9 " and it ' s scaled to 40 ' ) . Mr . Frost noted that it was scaled much closer
to 39 ' . Mr . Schickel then said , in addition to that , they took 1 ' out of the first
floor . Mr . Scala said , so you took 1 ' out of the drawing and 1 ' out of the first floor
and Mr . Schickel continued that , by reducing the roof height , 1 1 / 2 ' was taken out . Mr .
Ellsworth said this was with a new roof pitch and Mr . Schickel said that was correct .
Town of Ithaca 8
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• Mr . Frost brought it to the Board ' s attention that they were proposing three
different plans : the original , which was last month ; and two different elevations at
this month ' s meeting . Mr . Schickel stated those were the items that addressed the
zoning . In addition to that , to mitigate the circumstance , they ' ve lowered it from 2 '
to 3 ' ( he said 2 ' to 3 ' because they have it pitching across the front so it varies a
little bit ) . In terms of the wall and roof combined that would be exposed , instead of
it being about 40 ' , it would be approximately 35 ' ( in the case of the first drawing ) and
32 1 / 2 ' ( in the second drawing ) from the ground to the peak of the roof . Mr . Scala said
what he was looking at said 34 ' 10 " and Mr . Schickel said the 34 ' 10 " dimension is in
conformance with the zoning which is defined as from the basement floor . Since the
basement is below grade , as far as the exposed circumstance , it would actually only be
about 32 1 / 2 ' from the peak of the roof down to the ground floor at the front . Mr .
Frost asked if they were really sinking the building or just raising the grade and Mr .
Schickel said it might be a little bit of a combination of both . Mr . Ellsworth wondered
if the building was located on the site as before and Mr . Schickel replied , yes .
Mr . Schickel said that was one of the concerns ; on the back of the site , you ' ve got
the old railroad trestle built up there so you can ' t push too far back before you begin
to get into an extremely steep grade condition . Chairman Austen said that ' s still
NYSEG ' s right- of-way and Mr . Tsegye said that ' s correct .
Mr . Scala said they ' re still 4 ' 10 " over the maximum normally allowed and Mr .
Schickel said that was correct and in the drawing also . Mr . Scala noted they had
reduced that over 4 ' and Mr . Schickel said the other relevant issue is , in that drawing ,
perceptually , from the street , you ' d only be about 2 1 / 2 ' over the maximum because the
• only place you would be able to perceive it would be from the garage ' s south side .
Attorney Barney asked which elevation the street side was and Mr . Schickel replied that
it was the east elevation .
Mr . Schickel then said one of the things he wanted to point out is that the only
thing you ' re really going to perceive are the dormers ; the other roof where it ' s peaked ,
you would barely be able to see it because it ' s going to be so far back .
Mr . Schickel said that Mr . Scala seemed to be leaning towards the second drawing
and , just to put in a pitch , the down side of it again is that the roof will practically
go away and he would raise the question , is that what you ' re really trying to
accomplish? Most people like roofs with a little bit of pitch and he thought he would
lose that effect in the second drawing and just wanted the Board to be aware of that .
Mr . Scala said that it ' s a compromise of what the law permits versus the aesthetics and
added that he had a further question - - most of the drawing is dominated by vertical
lines and asked if he was right . Mr . Schickel replied , in the drawing , the siding would
be horizontal . Mr . Scala again said the vertical lines in most of the drawing are what
stand out so , in essence , they want to make the building look taller . Mr . Tsegye said
they wanted to make the building look attractive and he thought that ' s what they are
trying to accomplish in this process . Mr . Schickel said , if you look at the west and
the south elevations , the basement is right at grade . The side , Mr . Schickel would
guess , is at about a 1 and 4 pitch .
Mr . Scala said the point he ' s making is that the objection to the elevation starts
out with the fact that it ' s over the limit required by zoning law but they ' ve added to
that the architectural factor which makes it look still higher . Mr . Schickel said he
• didn ' t quite understand Mr . Scala ' s point . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Schickel if he didn ' t
think there were any vertical lines and Mr . Ellsworth asked what type siding they were
putting on . Mr . Schickel said he just wanted to try to understand and asked if they
Town of Ithaca 9
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
were just saying it had a vertical appearance and Mr . Ellsworth added yes , from looking
at the drawing . Mr . Scala referred to the drawing and wondered if the two tall things
were columns . Mr . Schickel said that ' s a projection where the stair comes out and the
two items Mr . Scala was referring to were walls .
Mr . Schickel said he thought it was really kind of a deception of the drawing - -
it ' s a graphic thing and , if the siding were drawn in , that would introduce a lot more
horizontal lines . The siding would be horizontal vinyl siding . Mr . Schickel said he
doesn ' t think , in that sense , the intent here is to really exaggerate the verticality ;
it ' s a much more conventional house , in that sense . Mr . Tsegye then said , in order to
satisfy the Board ' s wish , they had to go back and redo the whole thing and that is why
the architect was present at the meeting , so that they would have specific answers for
their concerns .
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing and , with no one present to speak , he
closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen then noted they had done the environmental
assessment at the previous meeting and had found a negative determination of
environmental significance , then asked if the Board had any further questions or
comments .
Mr . Stotz asked if there is a middle ground between 34 ' and 37 ' or is that dictated
by the next lower slope that you would have to go to . Mr . Schickel said you could pick
a number . If the question is where those particular dimensions came from , he thought
the preference would be to keep it steeper ; and , from what Frank Egan , the client , had
told him ( Frank Egan is in Buffalo and wasn ' t able to be present at the meeting tonight
or the previous meeting in August ) , Mr . Egan felt the Board might go along with 35 ' if
they did some changes . That was why they were trying for the 35 ' dimension and the 7
and 12 was an even increment that was 35 ' or less . You could just pick a number , but
carpenters generally like to work with relatively even increments because it ' s simpler
to do the math .
Mr . Frost said the north elevation is very clearly where the garage floor comes in
and is shown on the north elevation as 37 - 1 / 2 ' . The north elevation , obviously , does
not face the road . The east elevation is what faces the road and 37 - 1 / 2 ' is shown , and
this is perhaps what Mr . Scala was referring to that Mr . Frost also didn ' t quite follow .
The 37 - 1 / 2 ' is really to the basement floor ( Mr . Schickel said that ' s correct ) . Mr .
Frost said his question is then , if you ' re actually looking at the elevation standing
on the road , you ' re really seeing 35 ' ( Mr . Schickel again said that ' s correct ) . So the
37 ' 7 - 1 / 2 " that is shown on the east elevation is not visual , it ' s to the basement floor .
Mr . Tsegye said , at the same time , you can ' t see that at 55 miles per hour when you ' re
going by . Mr . Schickel referred to the drawing , drew the Board ' s attention to the east
elevation at this dimension , and pointed out the line of the basement which is below
grade . Mr . Scala asked if that was referring to Drawing A1 . 1 or Ala 2 , and Mr . Schickel
said they ' re identical in that regard and there is no difference . Mr . Schickel then
said these drawings are presented to address the issue of zoning , and zoning says from
the basement floor . Mr . Frost said they require two measurements - - basement floor as
well as lowest grade . Mr . Schickel said , according to the zoning , they could bring the
grade all the way up to here ( and pointed to the drawing ) and they would still not be
in conformance with the zoning . Mr . Frost noted that this was because of the north
elevation being 37 - 1 / 2 ' .
•
Town of Ithaca 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Mr . Schickel then noted , as a side point , there really isn ' t an option on the site
• of building a garage which would be sort of the other way of addressing it . Mr . Scala
said he was trying to understand this and asked if the reason why this building comes
down above the 30 ' limit is because , in essence , they ' re trying to come up with a house
that has three floors but not a flat roof . Mr . Schickel said , in essence , it ' s because
they ' re trying to get the garage into the basement ; and , if you didn ' t have a garage in
the basement , then it would be a little bit simpler . However , you ' d still be confronted
with the problem that the site is extremely steep so they either have to build up the
grade artificially on the front of the house or they have to bury it so far in the back
that the grade in the back would be literally covering up the first floor windows . This
is a steep site and Mr . Schickel said he just wants the Board to understand that these
aren ' t willful or artificial things that are being done here ; they are considered
necessary .
Mr . Scala noted that the question he had brought up last time was that , if it ' s due
to the steepness of the slope , then it ' s understandable that it ' s always going to be
over the 30 ' limit ; they ' ve seen that before . Mr . Scala said , however , he didn ' t see
that they have a steep slope ; the steep slope is in back towards the railroad in back
of the house , and they ' ve gotten rid of the slope . Mr . Schickel disagreed and said that
is not the case . The whole site , right from the road and all the way back to the
railroad , is at about a 1 and 4 pitch which is very steep . Mr . Frost suggested Mr .
Scala look at one of the photos provided , and Mr . Scala said he had looked at the slope
the house is resting on and pointed out the slope ' s location and said they ' ve got the
slope adjusted accordingly . Mr . Schickel said it was in a little more natural site
before but , to ease it , they made it a little bit artificial ; in other words , they
levelled it a little bit at that point to try to address some of the questions . He
• thought the preference would have been to keep it a more natural slope across ; it would
be easier if that had been done .
Mr . Scala asked if he was correct in saying , if they had done that , the effective
height would be even greater . Mr . Schickel said if they had kept the site more natural ,
yes . Mr . Scala said so , in effect , the site has been adjusted to minimize the effect
of the slope but , again , the height is due to the fact that you have three floors - -
there is a basement , first floor , and second floor . Mr . Schickel said according to the
zoning , it ' s a two- story house . Mr . Frost agreed and said , by all code standards , it ' s
a two- story house with a basement . Mr . Scala said that most people building two- story
houses can keep them less than 30 ' . Mr . Frost said on an absolutely flat site that ' s
true and he would say most houses they issue permits for have basements or cellars . In
fact , looking at the elevations , this probably wouldn ' t even qualify as a basement or
cellar . Mr . Scala said the reason that it comes out less than 30 ' is that the basement
isn ' t really a basement ; it ' s underground . Mr . Frost said probably , more technically ,
it ' s a cellar because there ' s a difference between cellars and basements , cellars having
an average elevation that ' s deeper than 4 ' below grade which he would suggest that the
average elevation is deeper than 4 ' . Therefore , Mr . Frost noted this is not a basement
- - it ' s a cellar , meaning that it ' s in the ground .
Chairman Austen wanted to note one other thing - - to have a colonial style home runs
considerably higher than just a basic cape cod or something like that . Mr . Schickel
said he thought the answer to the question is that , with a reasonably steep roof , two
floors and a basement , you can ' t do it . You have to take your pick - - you either do a
basement or you have a flat roof or something , you have to make trade-offs .
•
Town of Ithaca 11
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• Mr . Ellsworth said he had a question that pertains to a lot of cases and asked Mr .
Schickel , as an architect , if there appears to be a growing trend for steeper roofs all
of a sudden . Mr . Schickel said he hasn ' t done an analysis of it but , certainly during
the 1950 ' s when ranch homes were built , there were a lot of roofs being built at 3 and
12 pitches and so on . He thought , in part because some of them proved to be too shallow
for the northern climate , most roofing people recommend at least a 4 and 12 pitch . In
this area , a lot of the homes that have been built are sort of higher end homes and have
traditionally been a steeper pitch . Mr . Schickel said it is a visual issue and pointed
out these are all hip roofs with the exception of the dormer and the gable on the front ;
so , as far as the overall mass of the house , the fact that they ' re hip roofs instead of
just going out to a full gable at each end actually sort of reduces the mass of the
house a little bit .
Mr . Scala said one of the typical reasons for having a steep roof is that , later on
if you want to , you can add dormers and have more rooms . Mr . Schickel said , under the
New York State building code , you would not be able to do that any more because you can
only have a two- story wood frame structure .
Chairman Austen said he thinks what they ' re looking at is the aesthetics of this
house , whether the 7 and 12 pitch or the 9 - 1 / 2 and 12 pitch make a more conventional
looking house . It seems like , to put up a colonial style house with a low pitch , would
look out of place to him . Mr . Scala said , if aesthetics is being talked about , then you
have to have all the colors in there to get the total appearance of what ' s being
achieved . He said he really didn ' t want to bring in Lamb at this stage because it ' s
going to come up again at some point . That started out the same way , allowing for the
• variance because it was on a steep slope , and now the vertical lines that have been put
in it give it a far different appearance than would first have been expected . That ' s
possibly what can be achieved here although every effort has been made to bring it down
as close to the allowable maximum .
Mr . Frost said each case that comes before this Board is coming on its individual
merits , and he has often wondered - - if they put two houses side -by- side on this lot or
any other lot and they have one that was 30 ' and one that was 35 ' - - what the human eye
would really see is impact of the difference . Mr . Frost he wasn ' t so sure you would
really see a significant difference . Mr . Frost said , however , he is certainly there to
uphold the ordinance . Mr . Scala said these aren ' t exactly Frank Lloyd Wright lines ;
they ' ve been kept low and horizontal , but that ' s a question of taste . Mr . Schickel
showed the Board the previous elevation with the siding drawn in so he thought it gave
a little more mature image .
Mr . Kanter asked if he could add a couple of observations and was given permission
to do so by Chairman Austen . One thing not shown on these elevations is landscaping and
Mr . Kanter said he thinks there is obviously no landscaping plan shown to the Board , but
that may be a good way of helping to mitigate concerns about the vertical appearance of
the building and the foundation view of the east elevation where the basement or cellar
windows are in view below the deck . It would seem that the addition of some foundation
plantings there would help buffer that . In addition , Mr . Kanter said he just wanted to
reiterate ( and noted that the Board had seen his memo dated August 4 , 1994 for the last
meeting ) where he felt it is very important , whatever happens with this house , that as
much of the existing natural vegetation and plantings along Taughannock Boulevard be
preserved as well as much of the mature trees around the perimeter of the site in the
• back and side parts . Mr . Kanter said he feels all of that should be taken into
consideration .
Town of Ithaca 12
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• Mr . Tsegye asked permission to respond to Mr . Kanter ' s remarks and was given
permission by Chairman Austen . Mr . Tsegye said they had talked about that and will
maintain the natural beauty of the site . One thing he wanted to remind the Board about
was that they , too , had concern about the environment as much as the Board does and they
would also like to preserve the beauty of the area . They are not some kind of a
developer coming in to build this house so their purpose is not to try to destroy the
environment . They will try to maintain the vacant lot which is next to it in its
natural beauty as much as they can . Even through the building of the house , there will
not be any kind of a disruption to the flow of the creek . Mr . Tsegye said , environmen-
tally , he would like it to appear in the records that they are as much concerned as the
Board is .
Chairman Austen noted that the trees in that area are of considerable height
( probably 40 ' or 50 ' ) and said the Board has a picture of them . He felt this would
certainly mitigate some of the height problem in regard to what you would see from the
road . Chairman Austen then asked for any other comments and , with no further discussion
required , asked that a motion be made .
MOTION
By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . David Stotz .
RESOLVED , that the Board grant the Applicant , Francis E . Egan , a variance from the
requirements of Article IV , Section it of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to
be permitted to construct a single family residence with a building height of 37 '
• 7 1 / 2 " ( distance from the basement to the peak of the roof ) at 954 Taughannock
Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15 , with the
following findings and conditions :
1 . That the planned construction is to be per Schickel Architecture Drawing A1 . 1
dated September 7 , 1994 that allows the distance from the basement to the peak
of the roof of 37 ' 7 1 / 2 " .
2 . Upon noting that the effective appearance of the building height will be less
than the actual height due to the grade above the basement and with the
suggestion that the owner consider plantings along the east elevation to break
up the appearance of the height .
3 . Upon the condition that a landscaping plan is to be submitted for approval by
the Town Planner , Jonathan Kanter , before issuance of a building permit .
4 . Conditioned to the extent reasonably feasible that as much of the existing
vegetation along the Taughannock Boulevard frontage be preserved as possible in
order to retain the wooded character of the area .
5 . Upon the condition that a sedimentation and erosion control plan for measures
to be taken , both during and after construction , will be submitted and approved
by the Town Engineer before the building permit is issued .
Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows :
• AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Town of Ithaca 13
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Mr . Scala asked why the applicant was made to come back if the Board is accepting
• the 37 ' . Mr . Ellsworth said he didn ' t say the applicant had to come back but that he
should do plantings per the Town Planner , Mr . Scala noted that is why the applicant
came back , in order to decrease the building height . Mr . Frost said this is a lower
elevation , approximately 2 ' or so lower than what he showed the Board one month ago
which was 39 ' . Mr . Scala said , in other words , by adding the 2 ' of dirt on the outside .
Mr . Frost said the roof pitch has been dropped . Mr . Scala said no , not at 37 1 / 2 ' and
Mr . Schickel said that the roof pitch has been dropped 1 ' 3 " . The pitch was previously
10 and 12 and now is 9 1 / 2 and 12 and 1 ' has been taken out of the first floor . The
floor- to- floor height has been changed from 10 ' to 9 ' , so those two items ( in drawing
A1 . 1 ) together reduce the height 2 ' 3 " .
Mr . Stotz said , so the original drawing showed a roof pitch that was higher than
A1 . 1 and Mr . Schickel said that ' s correct , it was approximately 39 ' ( in Mr . Frost ' s
memorandum , it was at 40 ' but it was actually 391 ) . Directly addressing the zoning ,
they ' ve dropped it 2 ' 3 " + . Then , in addition , they ' ve changed the effective appearance
approximately another 2 ' to 3 ' so the total change , in terms of visibility , is about 5 ' .
Mr . Scala said the basic effect of going from Drawing A1 . 1 to A1 . 2 which is a further
reduction in pitch is that Mr . Schickel had stated the steeper the pitch , the better ,
for their design . Structurally , there ' s nothing involved here , just the overall
appearance . Mr . Schickel said it ' s merely an aesthetic difference , it doesn ' t give you
anything else .
The third appeal to be heard by the Board was the following :
• Appeal of Mauro Marinelli , Appellant , 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 36 + feet ( 30 feet
maximum height permitted ) at lot # 10 , 5 Perry Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
27- 1-35 . 10 , Residence District R- 15 .
Chairman Austen invited Attorney Jim Kerrigan , who is presenting the case , to the
microphone . Attorney Kerrigan stated he would try to be brief as this is the second
height discussion for the evening and the second height variance application the Board
has had on this same street . Back in May , one was granted for two or three lots down
the street .
Attorney Kerrigan said , in addition to the drawings the Board has had , he ' s asked
Mr . Marinelli ( who is also present at the meeting and is going to build this home ) to
do a couple of drawings to help Attorney Kerrigan understand a little bit better what
was proposed . What they are talking about is a lot that slopes from Perry Lane down
towards Trumansburg Road . The front elevation of this house ( which Attorney Kerrigan
said he would describe as a story and a half ) is on the sketch the Board has which shows
a cape with a garage . The rear elevation is what they ' re concerned with as the lay of
the land , as you can see from the topographical drawing which the Board has , drops away
from Perry Lane and down towards Trumansburg Road .
Attorney Kerrigan said he has asked Mr . Marinelli to sketch something so that the
Board can see , from the rear elevation , the nature of the variance that ' s being asked
for and Mr . Marinelli has done two things . He has shown the existing grade in the red
line at the bottom . Measured from the basement of the house , he has drawn a line at 30 '
• which is what the zoning would permit when there ' s a single family home . The drawings
are here that show , in the basement , there ' s a family room and one bedroom ; there are
bedrooms on the second floor . It ' s a 12 on 12 pitch which is the fairly steep pitch
they ' ve just talked about . There can be no addition because there are bedrooms up
there . As a matter of fact - even at 12 on 12 , there ' s a requirement of the skylight
to meet building code to get height above what is required for minimum ceiling heights
inside the building .
Town of Ithaca 14
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Attorney Kerrigan continued that the practical difficulties are that this is a lot
that pitches away , that almost all of the house is within the compliance , it ' s only at
the rear ( which is some half mile or so uphill from Trumansburg Road ) . As you can see
from the site plan , the front of the house is at grade and the preference would be to
not drop that any lower so that the main floor of the house would not be below grade .
In terms of the back of the lot , the intent of the owner is to keep as much vegetation
as possible and not excavate more of the pitch by lowering the house and maintaining as
much of the natural vegetation as possible . There is a natural opening that looks out
down over Candlewyck and , presumably , upon the lake and probably to Cornell on the far
hill beyond . That is naturally open and has vegetation which is not being moved there .
It ' s a relatively narrow opening and , from the next road east ( Trumansburg Road ) ,
there ' s a very narrow opening upon which this relatively small area of the peak of the
house he just suggested is not visible .
Attorney Kerrigan said , just as practical difficulties were found by this Board in
May for two lots down the road on a relatively compact house which he is describing as
one and a half stories , it ' s almost impossible ( with a basement underneath it ) to keep
the peak of the roof under 30 ' . Attorney Kerrigan stated that Mr . Marinelli would be
happy to answer any questions the Board might have and that he is also happy to answer
questions to the extent he is able to :
Attorney Kerrigan said the garage peak is 27 ' from grade ; it ' s more than 30 ' from
the level of the basement cellar , but it ' s not by much . There ' s about 6 ' total of the
peak of the house that ' s above the 30 ' suggested by the ordinance . Mr . Scala referred
to the last sheet of the house design and said it shows the slab of the garage door of
932 ' 6 " and then , down on the right , you can see that it ' s 929 ' 4 " . Therefore , we ' re
looking at a difference of 3 ' 2 " but that certainly looks like alot more than 3 ' 2 "
where the windows are . Attorney Kerrigan said , if you flip back to the topo , you see
that the slope of the land is not perpendicular to Trumansburg Road . Mr . Scala said his
question is , " How can this drawing show 3 ' difference in elevation based on the
measurements , whereas the appearance where those four casement windows are looks
significantly different? " Attorney Kerrigan stated that Mr . Marinelli tells him that
the figure on the elevation ( 929 ' ) should be 925 ' . Attorney Kerrigan said he had asked
Mr . Marinelli to go to the property today with a transit so he could shoot this lower
line . Mr . Scala said , therefore , this shows a 7 ' difference .
Chairman Austen asked where the proposed grade line on the basement was and Attorney
Kerrigan replied that the existing grade is the red line that he had asked Mr . Marinelli
to shoot today and reduce and show on this map . Chairman Austen asked if that was going
to be the finished grade , and Mr . Marinelli replied 928 ' is the corner and that ' s the
existing grade ( the bottom right-hand corner is the existing grade ) . Mr . Marinelli said
that disturbs the least amount of topsoil and vegetation on the lot . Mr . Marinelli
again stated that the existing grade is 928 ' and the finished grade for them at the
other corner would be at 928 ' . Attorney Kerrigan confirmed that Mr . Marinelli is
indicating that the finished grade is level and parallel and at the level of the
basement floor . Attorney Barney said he was still having a little problem with the
grades ; he said it was shown as 929 ' on the drawing originally , and now Mr . Marinelli
is saying that it ' s 9251 . Mr . Marinelli said that ' s correct , it should be 925 ' .
Attorney Barney then asked if 925 ' was the finished grade also , and Mr . Marinelli
confirmed that it should be 925 ' in that corner . Chairman Austen asked if 925 ' was the
finished grade in that corner , and Mr . Marinelli said it was 925 ' all the way across
just for the daylight basement .
Town of Ithaca 15
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• Chairman Austen asked what their finished basement floor was , and Mr . Marinelli
replied that it ' s concrete . Attorney Barney explained that Chairman Austen was asking
what the elevation would be and Mr . Marinelli replied that the elevation of the finished ,
basement floor is 925 ' 4 " . Chairman Austen asked if that was also their finished grade
elevation and Mr . Marinelli said ( where Mr . Austen was referring to on the drawing )
should read 925 ' 4 " and that ' s the finished floor , the daylight basement and their grade
would be just beneath that . Chairman Austen said so , actually , the basement floor and
finished grade are the same level and Mr . Marinelli said it was required for it to drop
but the finished floor is just above the finished grade . Mr . Frost said he thought what
they were talking about is that probably the drop for the drainage required 1 / 4 " for a
foot .
Mr . Stotz said from the corner where it ' s 925 ' 4 " and looking at the topographic
map , the topo map shows 925 ' to be out some distance from the house - - is that then
graded level with that corner of the house ? Mr . Marinelli said that ' s correct , the fill
- - upon excavating the basement - - is then used to grade all around the house to give
it the pitch Mr . Frost had mentioned ( the required minimum ) . Mr . Frost said it wasn ' t
exactly the minimum , just the proper drainage .
Chairman Austen asked if they had the elevation on the west side and Mr . Marinelli
passed out sketches to the members of the Board noting they were the elevations for the
front of the house . Mr . Stotz asked what the ceiling heights are and Mr . Marinelli
replied as follows : master bedrooms - 10 ' , other bedrooms - 8 ' , first floor - 81
,
basement - 8 ' . Mr . Stotz asked if the master bedroom was on the second floor and Mr .
Marinelli said that ' s correct , in the main body of the house , and the other two bedrooms
• are over the garage .
Mr . Scala said he ' s assuming this was all drawn to scale and Mr . Marinelli explained
that theirs was not to scale ; the blue line drawings that were done are to scale , but
those the Board has were reduced for accounting purposes . Mr . Scala noted that he can ' t
compare heights then and what he ' s trying to do is get the height of the house . Mr .
Marinelli confirmed that the height is 36 ' in back and 27 ' in the front . The elevation
in question is 36 ' from the final grade to the ridge of the house . Mr . Scala said he
was thinking that they ' re constantly up against the slope of the land and , as a result ,
always penalized being over 30 ' for a normal , acceptable house . Trying to average this
out , it ' s roughly an average of 31 ' between front and back ; so , on the average , this
isn ' t that much above the maximum if that ' s a valid way to look at it . Mr . Scala said
they couldn ' t very well decrease the slope here ( the pitch of the roof ) without
seriously interfering with the size of the room ; you couldn ' t very well chop off the top
- - some barns are , but that would affect appearance and the structure .
Chairman Austen then opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the
public hearing was closed .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Chairman Austen read Parts II and III of the Environmental Assessment form reviewed
by George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , on September 8 , 1994 . A letter was then
read from the Tompkins County Department of Planning , signed by James Hanson , Jr . ,
Commissioner of Planning and dated September 1 , 1994s With no further discussion ,
Chairman Austen then asked that a motion be made .
• MOTION
By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
Town of Ithaca 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of George Frantz , Assistant Town
Planner on September S . 1994 and find a negative determination of environmental
significance for the appeal by Mauro Marinelli for the property at lot # 10 , 5 Perry
Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 -- 1 - 35 . 10 , Residence District R- 15 ,
Chairman Austen then asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen noted that this is a little different design than what ' s currently
on this subdivision , although it ' s in keeping with the same general concept . Most of
the homes up there are colonial , they have steep roofs , and very few of them are 30 ' or
less although - - on the roadside - - most of them probably are within the 30 ' from grade
to the peak . They ' re typical for that type of development .
Mr . Stotz asked if there was vegetation in back that was going to be cleared and Mr .
Marinelli said no . Mr . Stotz said there ' s no vegetation in back . Mr . Marinelli then
said , if you look at the topographic map ( Mr . Stotz said he could see a vegetation
line ) , they ' ve preserved all that and have just cut out for the footprint of the house .
They saved all the old growth trees and there ' s a natural notch in the trees and it has
a lake view and is still there . Mr . Marinelli stated he situated the house to disturb
the lot the least . Chairman Austen stated , for the Board ' s information , the existing
growth of trees probably runs in excess of 50high and they ' re probably more like 70 '
high as they ' re very tall trees . Some are deciduous and some are evergreens .
With no further discussion , Chairman Austen then asked that a motion be made .
MOTION
By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , Mauro Marinelli , 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 36 +
feet ( 30 feet maximum height permitted ) at lot # 10 , 5 Perry Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 35 . 10 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following finding and
condition :
1 . Since the front of the residence will have only a 27 ' height , the appearance
from the road and from the front of the house will not show that full 36 ' which
is from the basement away from the house .
2 . Conditioned to the extent possible that mature trees should be preserved and
there should be minimal disturbance to existing vegetation on the property .
Chairman Austen then asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Town of Ithaca 17
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• The fourth appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows :
APPEAL of Dr . Michael Goodfriend , Appellant/Owner , Bruce D . Wilson , Esq . , Agent ,
requesting an interpretation and / or a modification of a previously approved use
variance ( granted on December 15 , 1982 ) to permit a residential structure to be
utilized as a non-resident physician ' s professional office at 1212 Trumansburg Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 26-3-8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said modification
is for the use of said building as professional home health care administrative
offices and an on site adult day care facility . A use variance from the require-
ments of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance may also be
requested . Said ordinance does not permit health care administrative offices or
adult day care in residential zones .
Chairman Austen invited Attorney Bruce Wilson to the microphone and Attorney Wilson
stated he is the agent in the sense that he represents the Classen Home Health
Associates . Attorney Wilson said what he was hoping to do , with the Chair ' s consent ,
is make an introductory remark and then ask that Patricia and Elizabeth Classen ( who are
also present at the meeting ) speak on behalf of their plans . Ed Dellert of Warren Real
Estate of Ithaca is also present to speak relative to the issue of unnecessary hardship ,
and , additionally , Frank Liguori ( an immediate neighbor to the property ) is present to
speak on behalf of this appeal .
Attorney Wilson said he believes the Board already has the petition from the
neighbors in favor of this project which was part of the original packet . Since then ,
there are a couple of additional letters which he would like to have made part of the
• record . Dr . Goodfriend was not able to attend the meeting tonight due to a religious
holiday , but Attorney Wilson read Dr . Goodfriends ' s letter dated September 8 , 1994 .
Additionally , a letter from the Tompkins County Office For The Aging prepared by Irene
W . Stein , Director and dated September 14 , 1994 was read into the record ( Ms . Stein was
also unable to attend the meeting due to the religious holiday ) . Attorney Wilson again
stated he believes the Board already has the petition from the neighbors which is in
favor of the proposed plan ( from Neighbors of 1212 Trumansburg Road , dated August 10 ,
1994 , and signed by Frank R . Liguori , 1210 Trumansburg Road , George Lavris , 1207
Trumansburg Road ; Earle & Irene Van Zile , 108 Bundy Road ; Elaine Leeder , 112 Bundy Road ;
and Sally Schultz , 1216 Trumansburg Road ) .
Attorney Wilson stated that the nature of the application is because of the prior
zoning ; it was zoned for professional offices and the doctor ' s offices were located
there back from the prior zoning this Board approved . He has a letter in the records
also , but what Mr . Dellert will speak of is the issue of the inability to market this
kind of doctor ' s office any more . It ' s been on the market for over a year , as Mr .
Dellert will comment on , and there has not even been a nibble even though every attempt
has been made directly to all doctors in an effort to do that . The nature of the
practice has changed , people don ' t look for these doctor ' s offices anymore . There is
also included in the Board ' s packet of information the cost of conversion back to a
residence . Because of the nature of the conversion that took place to doctor ' s offices ,
this would be an unsurmountable financial burden given what any rental would be later
on relative to this . These items will be addressed at a later time by Mr . Dellert , in
terms of both the cost of renovation back to a residence or the inability to have any
attempt of sale of doctor ' s offices at the present time .
Town of Ithaca 18
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• Attorney Wilson said what they ' re specifically asking for is the interpretation by
this Board that professional offices includes the home health care ; likewise , an
interpretation that adult day care is permitted . The Board does permit child day care
but makes no differentiation , apparently , for adult day care ; Attorney Wilson said he
didn ' t see adult day care in the zoning ordinance . Their position is , if it ' s not in
there , then it is permitted since the zoning ordinance does permit child day care . As
an interpretation of the Board ' s own ordinance , Attorney Wilson stated ( in the
alternative ) they would ask that the Board widen the use variance if the Board does not
so interpret it , allowing both of those as adult day care and as professional offices .
Attorney Wilson said Classen Home Health will be addressing the Board as to what
kind of activities they would be involved in with use of the building , but they provide
home care for , obviously , people at home and there would also be the need to provide day
care for certain people . The nature of this project is that they filed simultaneously
with this a request for an extension of use and the Board should have a map in front of
them . That ' s because the adult day care will require some modification to make it
functional . This is not an area variance request ; it ' s just a use variance since it ' s
an additional portion of the building that would be utilized for this type of use . Any
extension would obviously have to meet all codes , code requirements , area variances ,
etc . which Mr . Frost might present .
In conclusion , Attorney Wilson said they are asking for an interpretation of the use
and , in the alternative , that the Board grant an extension of the prior variance to
allow for this . With the Chair ' s consent , Attorney Wilson said he would like Mr .
Dellert first to speak on the issue of hardship and then go on with the presentations .
• He asked that the Chair reserve some time at the end for him so that he could try to put
the facts and the law together in terms of presentation , if possible . Chairman Austen
agreed .
Edmund J . Dellert , Vice President /General Manager of Warren Real Estate of Ithaca ,
Inc . introduced himself and said he had been a real estate broker in the area for about
twenty- three years . In 1982 , Dr . and Mrs . Goodfriend bought the property at 1212
Trumansburg Road and paid $ 110 , 000 for it . After receiving the variance to operate as
a two doctor office , they put another $ 70 , 000 into renovations of the property so they
have in the property right now $ 180 , 000 ( in 1982 dollars ) . For reasons stated in Dr .
Goodfriend ' s letter dated September S . 1994 , he vacated the building in late 1992 and
moved his offices up to the office building adjoining the hospital .
Early in 1993 , Dr . Goodfriend listed the building with Warren Real Estate for
$ 250 , 000 ( Mr . Dellert thought that was in April of 1993 , but the dates are in his letter
to Bruce Wilson dated August 4 , 1994 ) . Immediately upon listing the building , Warren
Real Estate put it on multiple listing to get maximum exposure and targeted the medical
community for the best place to market it since it was set up as doctor ' s offices . They
put together a nice package : a letter and a nice brochure describing the building ,
offering the building for rent and for sale to the medical community . This letter was
sent to everyone in the medical community in Tompkins County . They received absolutely
no responses . These letters were followed up by phone calls , but still no responses .
Mr . Dellert said the price then was reduced $ 25 , 000 to $ 225 , 000 in June of ' 93 . That
information was passed on to the medical community and to the other realtors with still
absolutely no responses . Early in 1994 , a fresh listing was put out on the property for
a much reduced price of $ 190 , 000 ; again , the information was spread around to the
• medical community to everyone they thought might be interested in such a building . . .
again , with zero results .
Town of Ithaca 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Mr . Dellert said he thought , if we look back and see what changes have taken place
in the nature of physician ' s practices from 1982 to the current day , we can get some
idea why all of their marketing efforts had been met with zero results . Back in ' 82 ,
most doctor ' s practices were one or two doctors set up in a practice ; alot of times ,
housed in a converted residential building or in a small office complex somewhere . As
we approach the 90 ' s , we saw alot of the doctors grouping together to form larger
practices . Alot of that , Mr . Dellert thinks , had to do with the economy of numbers ;
they were able to not only share clerical staff , share nursing staff , and share each
other ' s expertise but also share the high cost of machinery and equipment and the high
cost of technology that not a single doctor by himself or herself could afford , As a
group , they could afford this type of machinery and equipment that was necessary to
maintain this state - of- the - art practice . All of these larger groups of doctors and the
larger practices required larger , more modern quarters with centralized labs and places
for the equipment ,, and so forth . Fortunately , the community responded with the
Convenient Care Center up on Warren Road and with the medical complex that ' s attached
to the hospital . These provided that type of space for these physician ' s groups .
Unfortunately , it also obsoleted Dr . Goodfriend ' s old office .
Mr . Dellert said the Warren Real Estate office has the good fortune of working with
the majority of the new , incoming doctors that come into the Ithaca area and he can say
( pretty emphatically ) that no doctors are going to buy Dr . Goodfriend ' s building to use
it as offices - - it is simply too small . They also had to look at marketing the
property as a residence ( since it is in a residential district , even though it has a
variance for it to be used as offices ) . They looked at what would be required to
convert it back to a single family residence and market it as such . In the package of
materials the Board has is an estimate of materials from a local builder , Bill Farrell
of Farrell Construction Company , who ' s been around for many , many years ( letter dated
August 11 , 1994 to Classen Home Health Associates ) . He went through the property and
there is a $ 90 , 000 estimate to convert it back to a residence . If you put the $ 90 , 000
on top of the $ 180 , 000 that the Goodfriends already have in the property , they would
have to market that property at $ 300 , 000 or more in order for them to break even . They
would be foolish to put the $ 90 , 000 in if they couldn ' t get it back out in the sale .
Mr . Dellert said , as the Board members know , there are only a few areas in the
Tompkins County area that support values of that magnitude . To put a $ 300 , 000 house
there , it would be an impossible thing to sell . They also looked at it as far as
converting it to residential units ( three units ) . If they had three apartments in
there , the market rent for an apartment in that area right now would be in the $ 650
price range per apartment . Even taking it with just the current investment in the
property of $ 180 , 000 and not taking into consideration the additional money that would
be required to convert the property into three units and using a simplistic ap-
proach / evaluation of a gross rent multiplier of 5 - 1 / 2 to 6 , that would result in a value
of that property of somewhere in the neighborhood of $ 125 , 000 to $ 140 , 000 which is less
than what they already have into it ( not taking into consideration any conversion
costs ) . Therefore , both ideas of converting it to a residence and converting it to a
three family residence prove to be a financial impossibility ; they just wouldn ' t make
sense and it would be throwing good money after bad .
Mr . Dellert continued that it ' s a fairly obvious thing that , with the current sale
( if the sale goes through to Classen Home Health Care Associates at the $ 175 , 000
purchase price ) , the Goodfriends are already suffering a financial loss since they have
$ 180 , 000 of 1982 dollars in the house . What that equates to in 1992 dollars , Mr .
Dellert said he didn ' t know but the Goodfriends are willing to take that loss because
they can see that any of the alternatives would result in even a much larger loss .
There doesn ' t seem to be any easy way out of it for them because of the change in the
way that the medical community operates .
Town of Ithaca 20
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
. Patty Classen then stepped to the microphone and introduced herself and Elizabeth
Classen . She said she wanted to take a minute to describe her organization to the Board
in case anyone is not familiar with it . They are a New York State licensed home care
agency . They provide in-home nursing and home health aid services . They have a New
York State approved training program and they presently employ 110 men and women in
Tompkins County . They would like to increase their scope of services and include an
adult day care program and Dr . Goodfriend ' s office is the area they would like to do
this in .
Elizabeth Classen then stated that , after many conversations with various families
in this community and being involved in alot of family conferences , they have discovered
that there is a definite need in this area ( as well as everywhere in the nation ) for an
alternative to institutionalized care for elderly members of the community . Therefore ,
they ' ve decided they would like to start the adult day care center in this setting and
the setting is very key . That ' s why they feel this location will meet their unique
needs and that is because of the home - like setting that is present . She said she didn ' t
know if any of the Board members had been there , but you walk in and it ' s a beautiful
setting and is very warm and inviting . It looks like a home and doesn ' t look like an
institution and that ' s what people are looking for . They ' re looking for that dignity
while they ' re getting care . Dr . Goodfriend ' s offices provide that ; they ' re not really
offices , it ' s a home and that ' s what they ' re looking for . They are looking for office
space for their administrative offices for Classen Home Health , but they ' re also looking
for an effective place to carry out their adult day care .
Elizabeth continued that , after talking to many families , there are a few adult day
• care centers presently in the area but they ' re operated in a basement of a church or
they ' re connected with a nursing home and it ' s a definite institutional setting . They
have long corridors , etc . and that ' s what they want to get away from . This is
definitely what they ' re looking for and it is a unique situation that they ' re looking
for . They ' ve been searching for a place for several months with their realtor , Bob
Shaw , and they have not found anything that meets both needs . The Orthopedic Associates
is for sale right now and she thought the Board members might be asking themselves why
Classen has to go where it ' s not zoned accordingly for their needs . Something like the
Orthopedic Associates property wouldn ' t be appropriate for what they want to do because
you drive up and it ' s definitely an institutional setting . There ' s no way around that ,
and she thinks families are looking for a very warm home environment .
Mr . Scala said he was thrown by the remark pertaining to the 110 employees , and
Patty Classen said that she was just going to clear that up for the Board and that they
have 6 to 8 inside employees . Mr . Scala asked how many facilities they have and Patty
replied that they have one . Mr . Scala then asked where the facility was located and
Patty responded that it ' s at 704 West Buffalo Street . Mr . Scala asked how many people
were there and Patty said , in the administrative office , there are only 8 . Elizabeth
said , actually , there are 5 full - time and 2 part- time ; there ' s also 1 employee who only
comes once per week . Mr . Scala asked if they were 2 of the 5 full - time and the Classens
said yes , they are .
Mr . Stotz said , so the balance of the 110 employees are care givers ? Patty said
they are care givers that are out in the field . . . home health aides and nurses that
don ' t come to the office on a regular basis ; they are supervised in the field at
individual ' s homes . Mr . Stotz asked how many total administrative people they have and
is
Patty Classen said , if he meant how many would be at Dr . Goodfriend ' s office on a daily
basis , 6 to 8 . They have 2 nurses that come and go and usually are out in the field ,
but there would be 6 people on a daily basis . Elizabeth Classen said , when they say 6
to 8 , they are planning on having somebody else for the adult day care who will come in
and be the administrator .
Town of Ithaca 21
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
. Mr . Scala asked how the facility would be divided into two parts and if it would be
physically separate as far as offices and day care . Patty said , when you walk in to Dr .
Goodfriend ' s office , it has two big , large open rooms and then it has several spots that
he used as examination rooms so they would be able to create ( at a minimum expense for
what they want ) such that part of it would be used for adult day care and the other part
would be their administrative offices . Mr . Ellsworth asked if that would be the west
end ( the newer section of the building ) and Elizabeth replied yes , that would be the
administrative offices for Classen Home Health as well as a couple of small rooms which
would be dedicated to activities rooms . They may have , for example , a woodworking area
for some of the participants in one room or a resting room in another area . In that
way , if all the participants don ' t want to join in with the singing activities of the
day , they can go into their various different rooms and do what they want ; they ' ll have
a little library , etc .
Patty added that they haven ' t created a total floor plan yet of the adult day care
yet and how it will work out because it will grow in stages . It will start out small
because it ' s a new service that they ' re offering and there may be only two or three
participants in the beginning stages . Mr . Scala wondered what they were looking at in
the future , 10 or 15 people coming in the morning and leaving in the afternoon ? Patty
said yes , they will provide the transportation and will be open from 8 : 00 AM to 5 : 00 PM .
The participants will all be coming in at once and then all leaving at the same time .
Mr . Stotz said the second floor of the building is pretty ragged and wondered what
the Classen ' s plans for the second floor are , if it was going to be offices or if they
were going to renovate anything . Patty said yes , they are going to and it isn ' t as bad
as it appears . She said their father is a contractor , as well , and they had Bill
Farrell , another contractor , look at it and it ' s really more cosmetic than the physical
structure of the building . . . the water stains and the wallpaper coming down really kind
of make it look that way , but it ' s not quite as bad as the appearance had led them to
believe .
Mr . Frost asked if they had any plans for having any day care on the second floor
and Patty responded absolutely not , there would be no participants on the second floor .
Mr . Frost said , as he had discussed with Bruce Wilson , there are building code
limitations when you have mixed occupants in a wood frame structure ; however this Board
rules , ultimately - it still does not grant the Classens a building permit for the
renovations which would be strictly a building code issue . Patty and Elizabeth Classen
both confirmed they understand this .
Chairman Austen said , if he understands correctly ; presently , they send people to
people ' s homes for the day care . Patty Classen said no , that is not correct ; they have
a group of home health aides and nurses that go into people ' s homes and care for them
in their home . They have clients that are terminally ill , they have clients who are
recovering from a stroke , there are currently several Alzheimer ' s patients now , and they
also have some clients who just do not feel comfortable such as a spouse doesn ' t feel
they can take care of the other , etc . They send their employees in to care for them
during the day ; they have several cases where they have people there 24 hours per day ,
7 days per week because the families don ' t want to go to a nursing home or any other
kind of an institutional setting . It just gives people the option to stay home longer .
•
Town of Ithaca 22
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• Chairman Austen asked , so the property being discussed tonight is a place where the
Classens will pick up people and bring them to the facility for the day and are these
always the same people or can it be different people ? Patty responded that it will be
a varied group of people for various reasons ; some people need the day- time care because
of socialization or , for instance , their sons and daughters are working for the day and
don ' t want to leave Mom and Dad home alone . They may opt to have them take care of
their parents five days per week ; it ' s a less expensive service than home care and it
allows families to keep elderly members in their home longer because , in the evenings ,
they ' re home from work and can pick up the care from there .
Chairman Austen asked if people could drop off the participants at the facility or
is it strictly that they take them someplace and the Classens pick them up . Patty said
that option is open , they can drop them off and pick them up although she imagines
( because they provide transportation ) that most families would rather Classen come and
pick them up and drop them off .
Mr . Scala said that the Classens then are planning a facility that will house 6 or
8 professional / administrative people ; and , in addition ( he said he was trying to get the
correct numbers here ) they would have 15 or 20 transients . Patty said that number would
be the very most and she could see that happening perhaps a few years down the road .
Mr . Scala asked if it would be fair to say , in a year or two , they would have 5 or 10 ,
and both Patty and Elizabeth said yes . Mr . Scala said , then these 5 - 10 people would be
using this facility instead of one of the other facilities so now they are expanding .
Patty said yes , that ' s correct , and they ' d like to have them under the same roof for
reasons of administration and quality of care . They have state regulations that they ' re
bound to with the adult day care , as well as with the home care , such that they cannot
be mixed in the same building - - their staff cannot be walking back and forth between
facilities .
Mr . Scala asked if New York State had specifications on how many square feet are
allowed and Patty said yes , that ' s correct , they have to meet several specifications .
Mr . Scala then asked how that fits in with zoning / building code , and Chairman Austen
said that District R- 15 allows for day care centers ; it doesn ' t state that it isn ' t for
adults . Attorney Barney stated that refers to day care for children and Mr . Frost said ,
actually - - by definition , social services defines it on the basis of age which
terminates at age 12 and that would be for day care where the day care is being offered
in a home or the provider lives in the home ; or ; day care is offered in a building where
the provider doesn ' t live there , it ' s just in a day care center which is not inherently
permitted in R- 15 zoning .
Attorney Wilson said that ' s one of the interpretations they ' re asking for ; whether
it does , or doesn ' t , allow for it right now . Attorney Barney said it doesn ' t , and
Attorney Wilson said he understands what they ' re saying . . . it provides for child day
care , but there ' s nothing in the ordinance defining adult day care . Attorney Barney
said yes , it does , if you go back and look at the definition section , it defines two of
the entities of day care center or family home and that ' s for the R- 15 zone . Mr . Frost
said that is based on social service law which defines it on the basis of age . Attorney
Wilson then said the regulations define group family care homes , day care homes , group
day care facilities which are the three definitions he saw . Mr . Frost said yes , but
referencing the social service law , that then defines ( under the social service law ) 3
to 6 , 6 to 12 , and that ' s it . Again , that ' s only where the day care is provided for in
a home where the resident of the home is providing the day care .
Town of Ithaca 23
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Attorney Wilson said their position was that it is an error of omission and that
there is no provision for adults in what , apparently , the regulations provide for in
children . Attorney Barney said the history is that it was an error of omission on day
care altogether . Then , about four to five years ago , the day care was added to several
of the zones but it was actually added at the instigation of the council on day care or
child day care so their definitions were tied in specifically to that type of day care .
Mr . Frost said that was based on state legislation which was attempting to increase day
care facilities in homes where the providers reside , as opposed to day care centers .
Attorney Barney said , trust me - - at this point , we don ' t authorize it except by
variance from the ordinance . Attorney Wilson said that ' s why they are at the meeting
tonight .
Mr . Stotz said there are then 6 to 8 staff members including administrative staff
and he assumes some people who are special care givers who would be in that building ,
also . Patty agreed and said there would be 6 to 8 people for Classen Home Health and
the adult day care would also have to have the appropriate number of care givers in
their section , as well . Chairman Austen asked how many that would be and Patty said the
state recommends 1 care giver to every 8 participants ; they ' re having 1 care giver to
every 5 participants . Mr . Stotz asked how many participants they would have there and
Patty said she imagined , for the first year , they would start out with a very low number
. . . perhaps 2 or 3 . The adult day care centers are a new concept ; they ' re springing up
all over the country now ; it ' s a very logical resource for the community if they want
to keep their elderly members home longer . With the aging population , so many more
adult day cares can be seen all over .
Mr . Stotz asked if there were any respite services for people who come and go during
the day and were they going to make any definition , for instance , if someone was going
to stay for the day , the day consists of having to stay from 8 : 30 in the morning until
the transportation leaves at 5 : 00 ; or , would there be sort of a respite service included
where people could leave off participants at any time during the day . Patty responded
that , as long as they create a structured environment , they can ' t have people dropping
off residents they don ' t even know . So they would require an admission period where
they would get admitted , they could get to know them and their families , and know if
they have any specific problems .
Chairman Austen asked if , at the present , they have this type of facility on Buffalo
Street now and Elizabeth Classen said no , they don ' t , it ' s just a new branch of what
they ' re already doing ; they ' re already caring for the elderly in their own homes upon
their request . Now , they can come to the Classen ' s facility and have kind of a respite
service during the day and it will actually be more than that .
Mr . Scala asked if they had any of this drawn up yet ; for instance , the rooms in the
house showing which room is going to be used for what or a plan showing where the
residents are going to go and wondered if anything like this has been put together yet .
Elizabeth said no , not yet , they didn ' t want to spend a great deal of time as far as
getting an architect or a contractor to do it until after they met with the Board . Mr .
Scala said he meant did they have anything drawn up just in terms of how they viewed it
would be and Elizabeth said yes , they have a map and can give the Board an idea of what
they ' re planning .
Mr . Frost noted they had said the Health Department certifies them to operate as
health care givers and wondered , in the day care operation , if there is any kind of
certification that either Social Services or the Health Department has to give . Patty
said yes , of course , the State of New York who gave them their license to operate as a
home care agency ; and , for the adult day care , that is governed under the Department of
Social Services and the Office of The Aging . Mr . Frost asked if they provide a square
Town of Ithaca 24
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• footage per person and Patty said yes , she knows that footage is exactly the same size
as a sheet of plywood ( if the Board knows what that is ) . Mr . Frost then said that would
be 32 square feet . Patty went on to say that is the only reason she remembered because
it was exactly the same as a sheet of plywood . Mr . Frost said the building code is
significantly different than that but , again , they ' d have a permit . Attorney Wilson
said he assumes that would be a different issue than the use issue they ' re dealing with
right now and Mr . Frost said that ' s correct .
Patty said that she could do a little drawing to show the Board members what they ' re
planning and Mr . Scala said that would be helpful because , at this stage , everyone is
in favor and believes this is a good thing but they need to understand more about what ' s
planned . Attorney Wilson then directed the Board ' s attention to a map which is also in
the record ( part of the information packet the Board has ) but the map in the record is
a reduced version and this was a " blown up " version which is relative to the extension
they had talked about because it wouldn ' t function as an adult day care without that
extension . That ' s why they had also filed the short form for a negative declaration
only as to use .
Chairman asked if the extension he was seeing would be an activities room and
Elizabeth went on to point out on the map the front of the house , the home like setting ,
and the part of the structure that would serve as 2 large activity rooms . Also pointed
out were smaller rooms which would be for various different activities ( a " quiet " room ,
a room for books , a room with a bed for any participant who wishes to take a nap or
rest , etc . ) . She said what they want to avoid is having all the activities just in one
group or one area ( which alot of day cares centers have ) . Each person doesn ' t want to
• do the same thing as the whole group is doing , so that ' s basically why they want to have
the flexibility of adding more space on because they do need some space for their
administrative offices for Classen Home Health . Elizabeth also pointed out the area on
the map that would serve as administrative offices and Patty was simultaneously pointing
out the above areas to other Board members .
Mr . Stotz said he has several questions on the parking : If they have 6 to 8 staff
members there and they already have parking ( the map shows existing parking of 12
spaces ) and they ' re expanding the parking space , what ' s the additional parking space
going to be for? If they ' re picking people up and / or somebody is dropping them off , are
these additional spaces for when people come in during the morning so there would be
alot of traffic ? Elizabeth Classen said no , they just wanted to show that there are
additional parking spaces and that they ' re not limited to just a little bit of parking ;
say , in the event that some family members stop in to talk to them or some employees
come in for one reason or another , then there would be more space available for parking
if the need ever came up . Patty said they have , as one of their requirements , that
their employees have continuing education and they do hold some small groups of perhaps
10 to 15 at a time ( service ed is what it ' s called ) . They hold these classes at their
offices , and that is the reason why they would need some additional parking at different
times ; they hold them about once per month . Mr . Ellsworth asked if they do that on
Buffalo Street now and Patty said yes , they do . Mr . Ellsworth then asked if they were
going to be leaving Buffalo street and Patty said yes , they are .
Mr . Stotz said , periodically then , they call in their care givers for training
( Patty and Elizabeth said that ' s correct ) . Mr . Stotz then asked , if they have almost
100 of them and call in 10 per month , do they go through the whole cycle every month?
• Elizabeth responded that , within a year ' s time , they have to have " X " amount of training
hours under their belt . Patty added that they must have 12 hours per year according to
New York State regulations , but they don ' t have to have all 12 through Classen ; they can
go to some of the lectures that take place at Ithaca College or there are several other
Town of Ithaca 25
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• things that would be approved training . About 800 of their people would rather go to
a lecture at the hospital or a college than come down to their offices and have someone
do the training there ( not all the time but , alot of times , they seek the training at
other places besides their offices ) . Elizabeth said they do , however , occasionally have
speakers from Hospicare , etc . come in and do a presentation and they do get quite a good
turnout for that . Every once in awhile , they ' ll have a get together for their clients
in the field and that has become really popular so they ' ve been doing that which
requires some additional parking spaces . Mr . Stotz said so , periodically , they would
have alot of cars in the parking lot . Elizabeth said , maybe once per month , they would
have approximately 12 to 14 cars parked there ; the other times , there would be 6 to 8 .
Elizabeth said she wanted to mention that they did walk around to all of the
neighbors surrounding the property , they introduced themselves and let them know
specifically what their plans are . They received alot of very positive feedback from
the neighbors , and Mr . Liguori would be speaking at a later time on behalf of some of
those neighbors . They were really happy that there isn ' t anyone opposed to what they ' re
doing . The neighbors are accustomed to all the traffic that ' s involved at a doctor ' s
and cardioligist ' s ; it was a fairly busy office , and she remembers bringing a client up
there and seeing several cars parked there - - there were several people in the waiting
area , and it was a fairly busy operation . Elizabeth said , as far as traffic goes , she
would say it ' s going to be about the same as Dr . Goodfriend ' s and she wouldn ' t imagine
it would be any more . Patty added that 900 of their business happens out in the field ,
and the adult day care is just something new they ' d like to be able to offer the
community and think it would be an added service to the community .
• Chairman Austen opened the public hearing and invited Mr . Liguori to the microphone .
Mr . Frank Liguori of 1210 Trumansburg Road introduced himself and said the property
under discussion was just north to him and bordered his property . Dr . Goodfriend had
offices there for almost a decade and the neighborhood in general , and himself in
particular , found that it was a very compatible situation . This is a very generous
piece of land in terms of size ; it ' s probably well over an acre , has good frontage , and
is very well screened on the front with a hedge all across the front except where the
driveway is . The driveway entrance has good visibility in both directions , the parking
area is primarily to the rear of the property , and the area is very well shrubbed and
has trees throughout the entire parcel . Mr . Liguori said , speaking for himself , it was
compatible with his lifestyle of living . He has talked to several of the neighbors from
time to time and never experienced any complaints from the neighbors with Dr .
Goodfriend ' s operation . The neighbors in general , at the present time , view this
proposal as something similar to medical offices and they understand that it would be
about the same amount of traffic and the same amount of activity . As he understands it ,
Mr . Liguori said everyone of the neighbors that was given a presentation by the Classen
girls spoke in favor of the proposal . There ' s no doubt in his mind that it is viewed
as a medical office , and he has no reservations with regard to compatibility with their
living standards in the area and the surrounding neighbors feel the same . Mr . Liguori
said he would urge the Board members to find ways to approve the concept as he feels
it ' s a needed service and it will be more needed in the future as many of us continue
to age .
Chairman Austen asked if there was anyone else present to speak and , with no one
present , closed the public hearing .
•
Town of Ithaca 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Chairman Austen said this is actually a step between a nursing home or Ithacare ,
etc . ( it ' s more temporary than Ithacare , of course ) but it ' s kind of an intermediate
step before people would require total care . Attorney Wilson noted that it ' s not a
residential unit , it ' s a day care . Mr . Scala asked if people would pay to come there
and be taken care of every day . Patty said yes , a very good example to help the Board
understand would be ; say , if you had your father living with you and - - during the day -
- he becomes a little bit forgetful and may forget to take his medication and you ' re at
work all day or you ' re a little bit worried about him getting near the stove or worried
about him wandering out and down the street or whatever . He doesn ' t need skilled
nursing care and he doesn ' t need a nurse with him or even the cost of one of their home
health aides all day long but what he does need is just a little extra supervision , and
that ' s what they want to provide . . . that in-between section so your father can continue
living with you and , at the same time , be safe during the day and enjoy social activity
and the company and companionship of other peers like himself in the same situation .
Mr . Frost said that would certainly be less expensive than the alternative of having
someone in their home basically providing the supervision and Patty said yes , home care
is expensive , Mr . Scala asked if the cost could be covered by social services or by
long-term care and Patty said long- term health care insurance is now starting to cover
adult day care and Medicaid is now covering adult day care . She has also heard about
a policy that Aetna has ; not alot of people have it now , but it does cover adult day
care . Mr . Scala asked if they were , in effect , considered professional care because one
of the problems with long-term care is that it has to be considered professional people .
Patty said yes , they will be professional people and will meet all required standards
for long-term care insurance coverage .
® Chairman Austen asked if the building was going to be occupied at night and Patty
said no , they ' re open Monday through Friday - - no weekends , no holidays - - from 9 AM to
5 PM . He asked if the offices would have the same hours and Patty replied that the
offices are 9 AM to 5 PM and the adult day care would probably be 8 AM to 5 PM , seeing
that families need to go to work so that would be the time they ' d receive the family
member that needed the help .
Mr . Frost asked if they had any plans whatsoever for the second floor because , if
so , it should be brought up before the Board tonight as part of the package that they ' re
asking for . Patty said no , they were hoping to use one of the rooms on the second floor
as a storage for their files ; the other room may be used as an office for their
education director or something of that nature . Mr . Frost asked if there was something
about a building addition , too , in the packet and Patty said yes , they cannot have the
adult day care without putting on an addition , there just wouldn ' t be room . Mr . Frost
asked if they had explained that addition sufficiently and Chairman Austen said it shows
on the site plan . Attorney Wilson said that Schedule B of the application before the
Board is referring to the extension of use ; it ' s not an area variance they ' re requesting
and it ' s not a building permit they ' re requesting . Because it requires some additional
construction , it will be an extension of use . Mr . Frost said there ' s no sketch or
anything like that . Presuming the Board grants the approval , they may come to him at
some future point presuming that it ' s been approved for a building permit ; is he to
allow that , or is some further decision required? Attorney Wilson said that ' s why
they ' re trying to make this a one step process in terms of doing that and saying , for
variance of use purposes , they would like to be build out that level . Mr . Frost asked
if he was suggesting then that they would come back and Attorney Wilson said no , their
request before the Board is to get that addition now ; the adult day care won ' t work
without the addition and the building won ' t be sold without the day care being part of
the office ,
Town of Ithaca 27
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Chairman Austen pointed out that they don ' t have enough drawings on this to really
know what the addition consists of or know what the size is . Mr . Ellsworth added that
it ' s not even mentioned in the appeal statement . Attorney Wilson said 48 ' by 30 ' is the
dimension and the parking lot increases the dimension . Elizabeth said she believes a
sketch is in the packet , and Patty said the addition would just be a one story , small
addition that would complement the building and be in keeping with the same style .
Chairman Austen asked Mr . Frost if this met the requirements , and Mr . Frost said it
doesn ' t give him enough information . Mr . Frost said he ' s confident , when they request
the building permit , they would provide whatever is required ( Patty and Elizabeth
confirmed this ) which might include some fire separations . Attorney Wilson said they ' re
at Mr . Frost ' s discretion on that but , in terms of the variance ; obviously , one step
leads to another . If they ' re getting in a situation here where this is not going
through , it could get very costly .
Mr . Scala said , correct him if he ' s wrong , but the problem is that they have no
definition of a day care center . Attorney Barney said there definitely is a definition
which does not permit this . Mr . Scala said they have no definition of an adult day care
center and Attorney Barney said it ' s not about a lack of definition ; it ' s not
authorized , plain and simple . We do have a zoning ordinance ; it ' s a prohibitory
ordinance ; if it ' s not permitted , you can ' t do it . This is not permitted ( you can ' t do
it ) without a variance and that ' s why they ' re here before the Board tonight .
Mr . Frost said , short of the building permit plans which they obviously have not
seen , he doesn ' t see anything of a problem with what they ' re proposing , just on
footprint . Chairman Austen said that ' s what he is asking and Mr . Frost said there ' s
• nothing he sees from the footprint that would be a problem . Attorney Wilson said
they ' re assuming that all setback requirements and building requirements would be met
during the normal application process but , for the use of the building and the extension
of the building , they want it to quality for adult day care and for office space . Mr .
Frost said ; clearly , if the Board approves this , they ' re approving the addition as well .
Attorney Barney said the variance , if the Board were to approve it , would be a variance
for both uses . . . the administration and the adult day care . Also , if they saw fit , to
approve - - as part of granting the variance - - authorize construction of the additional
building , not to exceed a 48 ' by 30 ' footprint .
Mr . Scala asked if they are saying that somewhere he can go look up what an adult
day care center is . Attorney Wilson said he doesn ' t think it ' s in the ordinance ; he
doesn ' t think it defines an adult day care center , and he thinks that ' s a real problem .
It ' s a problem by omission , not referred to and defined in the ordinance . Attorney
Barney said that you don ' t define something you don ' t permit .
Mr . Scala then asked , what is an adult day care center and where do I look it up?
Elizabeth said there is a brief description as part of their appeal and Mr . Scala said
he knows what they have as a description but he ' s asking what the law defines it as .
Attorney Barney said he could pick up the dictionary , he supposed , but what ' s being
asked is that they be allowed to do a program that they ' ve described tonight ; that , for
tonight , is the definition of an adult day care . Mr . Scala said he doesn ' t have any
boundaries then and Attorney Barney said , that ' s correct in a sense other than it ' s the
program that ' s outlined here ; those are the boundaries . Attorney Wilson said there are
other jurisdictions besides this one which define and would require them to have
approvals . Patty said there are two kinds of adult day cares : there ' s a social model
. and a medical model , and those are how you would find the definitions . They ' re only
asking for permission for a social adult day care ; in other words , no one participates
that has a diagnosis that requires medical attention or nurses .
Town of Ithaca 28
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Mr . Stotz said , since this building is not going to be occupied at night , do they
have any plans for security? Patty said yes , they ' ll install motion detectors outside .
Mr . Stotz then asked what they envisioned putting up and Elizabeth said they ' re small
lights , probably about 8 " or so . Mr . Stotz asked if they would be yard lights or area
lights and Patty said they just happened to do this on a residential facility they just
finished in Jacksonville . They had to do security so now they ' re a little bit more
familiar with what he ' s asking . They put up small lights , like a step above a motion
detector . They light up a building and you can aim them wherever you want like a
floodlight , and they only go off when someone comes to the door or comes within the
property lines .
Mr . Scala said he had interrupted them before and they were going to show him where
in the appeal it showed the description of the adult day care . After review , Mr . Scala
said he would like to suggest that the amount of information that ' s available on what ' s
being requested , an adult day care center , is not really sufficient to go by . There is
a measurement or building here , but it seems to him that there has to be something
flushed out in terms of numbers of people , numbers of square feet , what ' s there now ,
what ' s going to be added , and maybe that they ' re also looking for some potential
expansion for the next couple years . Mr . Scala said it seems to him that he needs a
plan with both people and facility outlined ; he doesn ' t know what ' s in there by way of
bathrooms or kitchens , etc . that are possibly known to the applicants but he doesn ' t
know what he ' s approving . Attorney Wilson stated they would comply with all code
requirements as far as the application goes for the use variance . The definition of
adult day care is a licensed facility and they have to abide by an independent set of
codes relative to that . Mr . Scala said he would like to suggest that he doesn ' t know
what he ' s approving ; it ' s like opening a door here and he needs some limits .
Chairman Austen said he thought they ' ve talked about number of adults at the present
time of possibly 10 ; and , in the next couple of years , expanding to perhaps 15 . Patty
Classen said she can ' t imagine it being more ; if they had more than 15 participants ,
they probably would elect to have another site . They ' re not interested in having 20 or
30 people on that particular site , that ' s not even the atmosphere they want to create .
Therefore , if their business did allow them to have 25 or 30 participants someday , they
would rather have two locations in different areas ; it would make more sense
geographically , transportation wise , etc . but they don ' t anticipate that . This is sort
of a side interest they have and they wanted to enlarge their scope of services . They
see a really big need by alot of their clients .
Mr . Frost said the building code will impose some limitation and actually specifies
150 square foot per person . For instance , on a 3 , 000 square foot space used for their
adult day care , they would be limited to 20 people so there are built- in limitations
right there . Patty said they have limitations as far as bathrooms go and they have alot
of different codes where they have to follow regulations in order to be approved by the
state .
Mr . Kanter said he had some other questions but one thing that ' s pertinent to what ' s
being discussed now is that the Board might want to consider , as a condition of granting
any variance on this , that a site plan be prepared and submitted for approval by the
Planning Board . There seem to be alot of site plan related issues like parking , access ,
and lighting that really fall under the kinds of perviews that site plan review would
• approve . That might be one way to cover this . Mr . Ellsworth said that the applicants
have a problem . they ' re trying not to invest alot of money in defining this until
they know it ' s going to go somewhere . Attorney Barney said he believes what Mr . Kanter
is saying is that , if this Board chose to grant the variance , you could then grant the
variance but condition it . The applicants would then have the knowledge that the Board
Town of Ithaca 29
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• has given them the authority to use the property described but they have to provide more
detail and either bring it back to this Board or take it to the Planning Board ,
whichever the Board desires . Patty Classen said they do have alot of information on the
parking and Attorney Barney said the problem is what they have is pretty sketchy in
terms of size , location , and the car/ traffic flow . Patty said they had allowed what the
average parking lot allows which she thinks is 8 ' per car . Mr . Kanter said what ' s
needed is for them to put down on paper a little more specifically what they ' ve been
saying and show the dimensions , parking spaces , etc .
Mr . Scala said there ' s a next stage to this which they ' re planning on doing anyway
and that ' s obviously some of the details of the move . He said they ' re all in favor of
what the applicants are trying to do , but he doesn ' t know how this should be worded to
say go ahead but make sure you give us some more information for the next round . Mr .
Frost said what ' s been suggested is that this Board grant that approval but with a
condition that then passes them on to the Planning Board so that they know they have
approval for the use but they ' re still perhaps at the mercy of the Planning Board to say
where they want parking spaces , etc . Attorney Wilson said he ' s a little confused and
asked for edification as to what discretion and what authority does the Planning Board
have to do what . Attorney Barney said , if he was being asked to help them draft the
resolution , it would be referred to the Planning Board for site approval in accordance
with Section 46 -A ( or whatever the section is in our zoning ordinance ) and in accordance
with the criteria outlined . That outlines pretty specifically what you have for a site
plan and what you have to show on it and also outlines the basis under consideration
that they can and would apply to the granting of the site plan approval .
• Attorney Barney asked if they were under some time constraint or contractual
constraint . Attorney Wilson said he doesn ' t know how Attorney Barney wants to get
involved in this because he may be in a difficult position as his firm represents Dr .
Goodfriend in terms of doing this . However , they have a time constraint in the contract
plus the delays going on are affecting a variety of construction and other issues
( including interest rates , which Mr . Ellsworth suggested and Attorney Wilson agreed
with ) . Attorney Wilson said there is also a demand relative to the Classen ' s existing
residence ; they are leaving as tenants from their space on Buffalo Street . Chairman
Austen asked when they planned on leaving and Attorney Wilson replied , right now , it ' s
on a month- to-month scenario .
Mr . Scala asked if the next meeting was scheduled in two weeks and Chairman Austen
said there ' s not another meeting scheduled until October . Mr . Scala suggested , if the
next meeting is a few weeks off , perhaps the applicants could attend at that time with
this added information . Patty said one of their options would be to look for a new
piece of property and that ' s why they ' re trying to find out is if this is going to work
for them . If it ' s not , then they need to go ahead and move forward with their search
for an alternate piece of property . Elizabeth said they have invested a certain amount
of time and expense already up to this point in the information they ' ve prepared , in
their attorney , etc . and they ' re definitely willing to provide the Board with all the
information they need . However , it is kind of expensive to get a professional on board
if they don ' t know that this might be an opportunity .
Elizabeth then asked if it ' s possible ( like it has been suggested ) for the Board to
grant this variance . Obviously , they ' re going to have to live up to the codes that are
• required by the Board and by the State of New York . Mr . Scala said they ' re the
professionals , so how much of a strain is it to put down specifically the number of
people , professionals , etc . ; how much floor space is going to be needed , etc . The Board
is not looking for an elaborately detailed plan . Patty said what she could do is submit
to the Board what she submitted to the State , and that ' s the minimum rules and
Town of Ithaca 30
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• regulations of an adult day care which has been approved by them and has everything from
environmentals on to every question you could ever imagine . She said she thought that
was addressed in their letter to the Board and Attorney Wilson agreed , he thought it was
also but he ' s not sure exactly what question it was in terms of what he ' s looking for .
Elizabeth said it was the exact amount of administrative staff that it would take to
accomplish what they want to do ; Attorney Wilson said the staff and the people who would
be present at the facility , the size of the addition , etc . He ' s not sure what was
looked for on the Planning Board site other than building construction issues that would
be addressed by Mr . Frost relative to codes . Attorney Barney said , for example , he
looks at this site plan and you can ' t really tell if it accommodates 12 people parking ,
15 , 100 or what? There ' s no scale really to speak of . Attorney Wilson said the Board
can certainly set down restrictions - - the addition to the site , the parking , etc . Mr .
Scala said no , it was up to the applicants to set the requirements ; they know what the
requirements are ; they ' re going to come up with them and have a number on them like how
many dollars it costs . Even if they only know it in round numbers , there has to be
something and he feels they ' re ready for a plan . Patty said they are ready for a plan
but she just didn ' t realize everything involved in the requirements . Mr . Scala said
he ' s not saying to go out and hire an architect , just give the Board their plan . Patty
said she hadn ' t realized the Board would want that tonight or she would have been glad
to bring that .
Mr . Frost said , if they went to the Planning Board on October 18 , 1994 and have to
come in with a site plan that is somewhat to scale , shows parking ( which would include
at least a certain percentage of handicapped parking spaces , for example ) and some kind
of floor plan , would that be possible ? He said he realizes they have to move out of
• their building but , if something were written up in such a way to enable them to do the
above ( and they would still have to go through the permit process for renovations ,
etc . ) , would they be able to provide these items ? The Classens said that would be fine
and they would be happy with that if what the Board is saying is they could go ahead and
give them permission for a footprint of what they want here as far as square footage .
The addition , obviously , has to meet these particular codes . Mr . Frost said that ' s not
exactly what he ' s saying other than , in the zoning ordinance , it specifies what you need
to do for a site plan which is some of the components of the information the Board would
like to see which is not presented before them tonight . Attorney Wilson asked if that
wasn ' t part of the building permit process and Mr . Frost said no , but what he ' s
suggesting is that they may be intimidated just by the words of going for a site plan
or going back to the Board . In the building permit process , for them to draw up their
plans anyhow , could dovetail - - with probably minimal impact on their plan to vacate
Buffalo Street - - and they could still make it through the Planning Board and meet the
concerns of the Town Planning Board or Zoning Board .
Mr . Scala said they must have a contractor that they could talk to and Patty said
they ' ve already done it , they ' ve gone through the whole process with a contractor . Mr .
Scala asked where it is then other than what had been provided , and Patty responded that
they hadn ' t been aware that the Board wanted that information tonight . They have a
blueprint that ' s to scale and , before they even pursued an interest in it , they had to
make sure it would work for them . Attorney Wilson said they are primarily concerned
with the use variance issue , not the construction stage of this , other than the reason
they asked at this sitting for an extension which gave the one floor footage
requirements , was so that they don ' t view this as a back door for extending the use .
They want to be up front about what the intent is , but it ' s a use variance they ' re
• requesting .
Town of Ithaca 31
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• Chairman Austen said , but they ' d really like to see the whole thing before they do
that . Mr . Scale said there ' s got to be an envelope of some kind and Patty said they do
have that . Attorney Barney said he would suggest that , to give these folks indication
of the floor view here - - if you saw a site plan and the sort of things the Board wants
to see - - he ' s sensing that nobody is against the proposal , as such . Attorney Barney
said maybe the Board could give these folks a kind of a straw vote which says yes , we ' re
in favor of the proposal but we want to see some details and bring them back before the
Board next month . Patty asked if she could bring the materials in the next day and Mr .
Frost said you have to go through a legal notice process and there might be some
required plans that they may not have . Mr . Ellsworth asked why they couldn ' t do the
environmental impact , and Chairman Austen said they would proceed with that shortly .
Attorney Wilson asked if it ' s possible to do this in terms of voting on the use
issue and condition upon whatever plan being submitted to the Board . He said Mr . Kanter
was referring to the Planning Board taking over that function rather than the zoning
issue which is before this Board . They ' re not asking for an area variance , they ' re
asking for a use variance and then deal with the building issue as a building issue and
that ' s where logic would take him .
Mr . Frost asked if they have blueprints , sprinkler plans , etc . or do they still have
to get all that type of stuff prepared? Patty said they ' re aware of the fact that they
have to have sprinklers and have talked to Dave Ferris about that . Mr . Frost said all
he ' s suggesting is that this Board could grant them the use so that they know they ' ve
got the use and could prepare their building plans by October 18th . Attorney Barney
said he doesn ' t want to speak for the Board , but he ' s sensing some hesitancy on granting
• the use completely on the information they have available tonight . He said he ' s sensing
it from at least one Board member and doesn ' t know if that accurately represents the
views of the other Board members . If that ' s the case , then they go at it one way . If
the case is that three Board members are prepared to grant the use variance on the
information they have tonight , then they can go in that direction and deal with the site
plan either with the Planning Board or at another meeting .
Mr . Kanter said something Attorney Barney brought up before is that there are really
two parts of the use variance ; one is the administrative office portion , and the other
is the adult day care portion . Although the applicants are proposing it as one building
package with both uses , he thinks the Board may really want to give some consideration
as to the total aspect of both uses of the building and what that means for the area .
When Mr . Kanter was doing the review , as the Board will see , there seems to be a
difference between the former professional medical office use variance that was granted
which limited it to no more than 2 doctors and provided for an upstairs apartment which
kept some aspect of residential in it ( although how much that was used as an apartment ,
he doesn ' t know ) compared with what ' s currently being proposed which is totally doing
away with the residential use and adding what he would consider a fairly significant
office type of use . Mr . Kanter said he also had trouble , when he was putting the review
together in terms of identifying the traffic impacts just because of the types of things
they ' ve been discussing - - difficult to tell how many people are going to be in there ,
possible training programs for 10 or 15 people at different times ( that would account
for a certain number of cars coming in ) , etc .
Mr . Kanter said the other thing he wanted to mention is access . He did look at the
existing driveway and , for a residential use , he sees no problem with the sight
• distance . However , for a larger number of cars coming in , there did seem to be a
limitation on sight distance looking downhill back towards the city . In fact , Mr .
Kanter thought the County Planning Department letter ( which is in the Board ' s packet of
information ) also raised the same question . He recalls looking through the previous use
Town of Ithaca 32
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• variance material and seeing that there had been a condition actually attached to that
variance to provide a second driveway entrance on the north side of the property which
actually does have better sight distance looking downhill . One thing he was wondering
is , whatever happened with that aspect of the appeal ? Mr . Frost said he knows it is
there because a former owner of the property to the north at one time called because ,
when Dr . Goodfriend moved out , they wanted to do away with the access . There was
evidence , when he took pictures on the property several days ago , of gravel coming
across to the back parking lot across a westerly direction to the neighboring driveway .
Mr . Scala suggested that type of facility needs a circle of some kind and Mr . Kanter
said yes , it could very well be like a one way in and a one way out . Mr . Ellsworth
noted that there is a circle around the building and Mr . Frost said , theoretically , it
could be cut perhaps across the front yard but those kinds of considerations could be
brought before the Planning Board . Attorney Wilson said that ' s what he ' s thinking and
he isn ' t sure how involved in that kind of site planning the use zoning issue gets into
as far as the Board ' s concerns .
ENVIRON14MAL ASSESSMENT
Chairman Austen read Part III of the Environmental Assessment form prepared by
Jonathan Kanter , Town Planner , dated September 8 , 1994 , Chairman Austen said the one
thing he wanted to bring out was the recommendation by the Town Planner and Attorney
Wilson said he would be happy to address that to the Board in his summary . Mr . Stotz
said ( in terms of residential character ) , in many ways , this use is more residential in
character than the previous use . Chairman Austen said he also suspects that the traffic
will be less than the former use . Mr . Stotz said it could be but , of course , that
• doesn ' t address the issue that was brought up about the administrative offices .
Mr . Kanter said he ' s just curious , if a scenario worked out where they could have
adult day care at this building and administrative offices at some other building , had
they considered that as a possibility? Patty said no , they can ' t do that ; especially
because this is their first one , they wouldn ' t want to separate the two businesses . The
administrative costs would double because they ' d have to have staff there and at the
other facility and phone systems in both spots . While this is in the infant stages ,
they really need the Classen Home Health administrative staff there or their fees
wouldn ' t even make sense . They ' d have to increase their fees and it just wouldn ' t work
out . They don ' t plan on going into this with a huge marketing campaign - - this is
something where they would start out with a few participants and have it kind of grow
as the need increases . Attorney Wilson noted also that , when Dr . Goodfriend ' s offices
were there , it was probably a comparable staff ( Dr . Felice was there with his staff
members , both clerical and nursing , also ) .
Mr . Stotz said perhaps it might make sense to limit the number of people who could
occupy the building who are administrative so that , down the road as they become more
successful and add additional facilities , a concern might be that gradually this
facility might evolve more and more into an administrative center and less a care giving
center .
Mr . Scala asked if they could do the environmental assessment and get that out of
the way and Attorney Barney said yes and no , if the Board needs more information , the
environmental is based upon what you hear . The Board is making either a positive or
negative determination of significance based on what? If the Board feels they need more
• information , he said he ' s not sure he feels comfortable with running through the
environmental assessment and making any determination there until they have all the
information they want . If they ' re comfortable with the information to make that
determination , then the question is : Is that sufficient information to then go on and
Town of Ithaca 33
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• make a decision on the appeal ? Mr . Scala said , up till now , he ' s been so taken by what
the Town Planner does and the Assistant Town Planner that they more or less go along and
rubber stamp it . Attorney Barney said the Board takes a hard look and makes a reasoned
determination and Chairman Austen agreed that the Board does not really " rubber stamp "
anything . Mr . Scala said he had just been talking about the environmental portion .
Mr . Scala then said , presumably , the biggest effect on the environment would be the
traffic , is that correct? Chairman Austen said he thinks they ' ve gone through the
traffic at a prior time on this particular building when they approved it for Dr .
Goodfriend some 12 to 13 years ago and he didn ' t see where there would be any major
change in the traffic flow , especially if they provide transportation themselves . It
certainly wouldn ' t be like hauling in one person at a time , and he then asked if they
would run a van or something similar and pick up a group of people and bring them in
( the Classens said yes , they would do something of this nature ) . Mr . Ellsworth said
their hourly flow is going to be less , their day flow may be the same total . Elizabeth
agreed they had summarized the traffic correctly .
Mr . Scala said he would like to attack this as two separate items ; in other words ,
he ' d like to make a proposal as it relates to 'the administrative offices and address
that environmental impact statement with respect to that function first . There are
going to be two separate parts to the building that are involved . Chairman Austen
suggested that perhaps they could combine them as they go along and Mr . Scala said all
he ' s saying is that he can address that part of it because he knows the number of people
and something about the traffic and he thinks it can be positively put . All he ' s asking
is that they divide the appeal into " A" and " B " . . . " A " as administrative offices and
adult day care as " B " and wanted to know if they could do that . Mr . Scala then asked
if he could go ahead and make a motion ; Chairman Austen deferred the decision to legal
counsel , and Attorney Barney confirmed Mr . Scala could proceed with the motion .
MOTION
By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of Jonathan Kanter , Town Planner
dated September 8 , 1994 and find a negative determination of environmental
significance relative to the operation of a health care administrative services
office for the appeal by Dr . Michael Goodfriend , Appellant / Owner , Bruce D . Wilson ,
Esq . , Agent , for the property at 1212 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 26 - 3-8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 .
Chairman Austen asked if there was any further discussion and Mr . Kanter said he
would ask that it be entered into the record that , based on his staff recommendation ,
this Board is making a determination beyond what staff mentioned in the report and so
their finding is based 'on their own judgement that this will not set a precedent for
future cumulative impacts on the residential character of the area . Mr . Ellsworth said
he agreed , due to the medical facilities in that area - - doctor ' s offices and the
nursing home ; Mr . Stotz added , and the nature of the care that ' s being given .
With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which
resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
Town of Ithaca 34
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
The motion was carried unanimously .
MODIFICATION TO THE ABOVE MOTION
Modification by Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . David Stotz .
The above motion finding a negative determination of environmental significance is
amended to cover not only the administrative health care services , but also relative
to the use of the site for the adult day care facility as presented .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Stotz , Scala .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen then asked if the Board feels they have enough information to give
a variance for this appeal . Mr . Stotz said the only area where he would feel
uncomfortable is the issue of traffic flow because he ' s not quite clear in his own mind
what it ' s going to be and with regard to the recommendations that have previously been
made about extending the driveway to have another entrance . Attorney Wilson said the
driveway having another entrance was a condition set by the Zoning Board of Appeals when
the original one was done in 1982 and what the Town Planner was saying is that he wasn ' t
sure whether that had been done ; the comment was that it had been done , so there is the
second entrance that exists as a result of this Board setting it as a condition in the
• prior variance . Mr . Ellsworth said that ' s not off from Trumansburg Road and Chairman
Austen said no , it ' s out of a neighbor ' s driveway ( Attorney Wilson agreed ) and it was
a right-of -way or something granted to them for use of the driveway . Chairman Austen
said he doubts if it was ever used to any extent ; he never saw any vehicles coming and
going there , and he drives that road several times a day . Mr . Stotz said he is not
inordinately concerned but , if that ' s overlooked and there ' s some kind of an accident
involving one of the facilities vans , etc . , people would not feel very comfortable if
that had been passed over . Chairman Austen said he thought the Planning Board would
probably like to comment on that and asked Mr . Kanter if he was correct . Mr . Kanter
said that would certainly be one of the issues .
Chairman Austen said he ' s not sure they have the total amount of information needed
to give a variance tonight ; he thinks they could give them an indication that the Board
would most likely look at it in the affirmative . Attorney Barney said he thought there
were two ways they could go - - they could go that way , or the other way would be to do
what Mr . Kanter and Mr . Frost had suggested and that is to grant the variance , but
condition the granting on the provision of a complete site plan and approval of that
site plan in accordance with normal requirements by the Planning Board at its earliest
convenience . That site plan would include , among other things , a second mode of ingress
and egress , the actual parking layout , the actual site layout of the building , and maybe
the floor plans of the building as far as lighting , landscaping , traffic flow , and those
types of things .
Chairman Austen then asked if Attorney Wilson wished to summarize or if he was
satisfied . Attorney Wilson said he did not want to belabor this because he assumes
• everyone has read the materials before them , but he did want to go through the fact of
what constitutes the unnecessary hardship and the proof of that so it ' s on the record
in terms of what they ' re dealing with . As was mentioned in comparing the facts of this
appeal , the doctor ' s offices are no longer marketable ( and this one is totally
unmarketable ) so its existing use as a doctor ' s office is not happening . He said he
Town of Ithaca 35
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• thinks it ' s almost a bygone era , unfortunately , that you have houses like that being
used as such but there ' s no market for it . There ' s a glut of new doctor ' s office
scenarios . The whole terrain down there is emptying out , unfortunately . The history
shows that there ' s no interest in this as a doctor ' s office , even with active marketing
as Mr . Dellert discussed and as to the issue of a reduction in price . Due to the glut
in the market ( such as Orthopedic Associates ) , no one wants these types of old
facilities for medical offices . Attorney Wilson said he ' s raising that as a point of
showing that , as such , the property can ' t be sold for a doctor ' s office . The sale price
is still losing a value as far as Dr . Goodfriend is concerned .
As to the other alternative which the Board must consider ( the residential use ) ,
Attorney Wilson said he thinks they ' ve shown the dollars are such ( with the contractor ' s
estimate and Mr . Dellert ' s comments that you can ' t convert this and make it a tenable
scenario with any chance of financial return and , thus , making it an unnecessary
hardship to make that conversion ) . The dollars can ' t work in terms of financially and
that ' s been proven through the materials submitted and through the testimony , that
there ' s no reasonable return to reconvert that . That leaves Dr . Goodfriend between a
rock and a hard place , more or less . He can ' t convert it to residential and he can ' t
use it for doctor ' s offices .
Attorney Wilson said he doesn ' t believe it ' s a generalization then that it changes
the character of the neighborhood from it ' s current medical offices . As the Board is
aware , the hospital , the nursing home , the apartments , and the county offices are all
along this strip . They have active support from the neighbors as was reflected and the
Board does allow for child day care in this area but , apparently , there are no
• provisions in the zoning ordinance for adult day care . Attorney Wilson said he believes
that ' s an omission and a problem that could be amended by this issue . Without going
back into the whole scenario , it ' s an area that causes unnecessary hardship financially
in any context within it ' s presently zoned provision . The reason for the addition
requested , in addition to the adult day care office , is to make it a financial venture .
At least as far as the Classen ' s are concerned , it ' s not a viable option to separate the
two issues . Where that leaves Dr . Goodfriend with , Attorney Wilson said he doesn ' t
know ; but , in terms of where he ' s at , it ' s not a viable option any other way . It ' s best
suited for adult day care to maintain the integrity of the building . This is not a
self- created hardship for the record , but just because of the nature of the change in
medical practices in the area .
Chairman Austen asked if someone would like to make a motion on the appeal . Mr .
Scala said he ' s ready to make a recommendation , but not a motion . Mr . Scala said he
would recommend that the applicants and the people involved in the health care facility
submit a floor plan to show where these people are that they ' ve discussed , some evidence
of the amount of traffic they would have ( first , in the administrative part ; then , for
the adult day care ) and that this be enough information to give the Board a feel for the
size of the facility as planned , understanding that they may be talking about up to 15
people for the next couple of years . Modification may be required anywhere along the
line , and the Board is really not in a position to make a decision on how far they open
the door until they get some additional information that permits them to recognize the
traffic load involved and how the community will be affected .
Mr . Stotz said he didn ' t believe there is any question in his mind that the amount
of traffic is not a factor in this . The factor would be how that traffic is going to
• be handled . His sense ( and they had discussed this ) is that there ' s not going to be
more traffic than existed there before . It ' s just a matter of how that traffic is going
to be routed on the property and ingress and egress routes . Mr . Scala stated he did not
agree with that . Mr . Scala said the previous offices had people going every 10 to 20
Town of Ithaca 36
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
• minutes because Dr . Goodfriend ' s schedule was typically every hour except when he was
over at the hospital as well as technicians that were in his office . Therefore , the
traffic before was rather sporadic as compared to what the applicants will have where
6 people come in the morning and perhaps leave for lunch . Beyond that , though ( the so
called 10 to 15 people in the adult day care ) that could mean anything from Grandma
coming when Mom goes to work to picking them up with a bus . That type of traffic is
going to be all over the lot .
Mr . Stotz said he believed , in the beginning of their discussion , that was clarified
in terms of the block of time that people are going to be there . . . they ' re checked in
at a certain time in the morning and they check out in the afternoon at a certain time ,
and there isn ' t respite care in terms of checking people in for an hour and out for an
hour . Mr . Stotz said that was his understanding , that there would be a peak traffic
flow in terms of those vans coming in during the morning and a peak traffic flow when
the vans left at the end of the day ( the Classens agreed ) . Mr . Kanter said he ' s not so
sure that the peak hour traffic generation will be better under this scenario than
compared with the doctor ' s office and peak hour traffic is really what you want to be
concerned with on that particular roadway . . . which is between 3 : 00 PM and 4 : 30 PM ,
Patty Classen stated , and theirs doesn ' t start until 5 : 00 PM . Mr . Kanter said the peak
hour is really up until 6 : 00 PM on that roadway ; it ' s really peak 2 hours , from 4 : 00 PM
to 6 : 00 PM .
Mr . Scala said they ' re leading into what might happen if they had a day care center
here and they have to propose what that is . That ' s exactly what he ' s asking for , what
is the traffic pattern? He said they ' re assuming the applicants are the pros and are
• correct but , right now , they ' re hearing various versions . Mr . Frost said that wouldn ' t
necessarily be significantly different than if it was child day care out of someone ' s
home , in terms of impact .
Elizabeth said she believed Mr . Ellsworth summarized it the most accurately so far ,
and that is that there will be two times in the day that will be their heaviest traffic
pattern . During the day , it would probably be less than Dr . Goodfriend ' s traffic
pattern , since he probably had six people on his administrative staff at any given time .
They were mostly all full - time , but Elizabeth said she knows they have a certain amount
of administrative personnel associated with that doctor ' s office . In the very worst
case scenario , their traffic would not be any heavier than his traffic per day . Patty
said the dangerous parts of Route 96 are when the hospital lets out on their shifts ( Mr .
Ellsworth said that ' s at 3 : 30 PM ) and Lakeside and , after that , they travel that route
all the time . At 4 : 00 to 5 : 00 PM , it ' s nothing compared to what it is between 3 : 00 and
4 : 30 PM . Mr . Kanter said he travels the road also ( he lives up on West Hill ) and he
wouldn ' t say it ' s nothing as far as traffic .
Patty said she would be concerned if they were letting their adult day care out
during the times when Lakeside and the hospital lets their staff out . That is the time
when you see cars going down the road constantly but you don ' t see cars coming up , you
see them going back down the road into Ithaca . That is the time of day she would be
concerned about , but anytime after Lakeside ( they run 7 : 00 AM to 3 : 00 PM , 3 : 00 to 11 : 00
PM , and 11 : 00 PM to 7 : 00 AM ) shift changes let out , she wouldn ' t view it as a dangerous
time at all . Elizabeth said she doesn ' t believe the traffic pattern will be any more
severe than it has been with Dr . Goodfriend ' s office even in the best case scenario ;
say , this idea takes off better than they ever imagined . They can only speculate , they
• can ' t give the Board numbers because they would only be speculating as to how well this
Town of Ithaca 37
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
concept will do . Mr . Ellsworth said the Board doesn ' t want to know numbers on the
highway , they want to know numbers in their operation . Chairman Austen said , just from
one other aspect , this is a reduced speed limit of 45 MPH on this road at that point .
Mr . Frost said he thought some of these considerations would be mitigated by the
Planning Board should this Board choose to condition it with Planning Board approval .
With no further discussion , a motion was made as follows :
MOTION
By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , Dr . Michael Goodfriend , Appel-
lant/ Owner , Bruce D . Wilson , Esq . , Agent , a variance for the requested use of the
property for an adult day care facility as described and as an administrative office
for Classen Home Health Associates , Inc . as described , with the addition of a
building addition in size not to exceed 48 feet x 30 feet . This is for the property
at 1212 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 26 - 3- 8 . 2 , Residence District
R- 15 , and is subject to the following findings and conditions :
1 . The maximum number of adults to be serviced by the adult care facility would not
exceed fifteen ( 15 ) .
2 . The maximum number of administrative personnel to be located there would not
exceed eight ( 8 ) .
• 3 . That the applicant produce and deliver to the Planning Board a complete site
plan in accordance with our normal site plan requirements to be reviewed by the
Planning Board for ( among other items ) methods of ingress and egress , traffic
flow , number of parking spaces , layout of building , and any other items that the
Planning Board will usually consider in matters of this nature for approval by
the Planning Board ,
4 . That the adult care be performed in accordance with all applicable Federal ,
State , and local laws and regulations .
5 . That the Board is in receipt of the following :
a . A petition dated August 10 , 1994 from the five closest neighbors of this
property expressing support for this plan .
b . A letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning dated August 25 ,
1994 from James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner of Planning which states that no
recommendation is indicated by the Planning Department and the Zoning Board
is free to act without prejudice .
Chairman Austen then asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Stotz .
NAYS - Scala .
The motion was carried .
Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 10 : 50 PM .
Town of Ithaca 38
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14 , 1994
Mi{;! a /
Y anda M . McLaughlin
Recording Secretary
Edward Austen
Chairman
•