Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1995-02-08 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , FEBRUARY 8 , 1995 FINAL 7 . 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , February 8 , 1995 , 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 the First Assembly of God Church , Appellant , Reverend Robert Lovelace , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2 . 01 - 1 and Section 3 . 01 - 2d of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , to be allowed to maintain a 24 square foot sign on property to be the future site for a new church at 197 Bostwick Road , Portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 - 4 - 1 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said Sign Law allows for such a sign when construction has commenced ( construction is not currently proposed ) and does not allow for wording related to off- site premises . Appeal of Stephen and Patricia Lucente , Appellants , Larry Fabbroni , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of New York State Town Law , to be permitted to construct a new two- family residence at 3 Sanctuary Drive , Portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos . 73- 1 -6 , - 7 . 2 , -8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said laws require a building • to be constructed on property which fronts on a town , county , or state highway . Sanctuary Drive is not currently an official road in the Town of Ithaca . Appeal of Stephen and Patricia Lucente , Appellants , Larry Fabbroni , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of New York State Town Law , to be permitted to construct a new two- family residence at 4 Sanctuary Drive , Portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos . 73- 1 - 6 , - 7 . 2 , -8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said laws require a building to be constructed on property which fronts on a town , county , or state highway . Sanctuary Drive is not currently an official road in the Town of Ithaca . Appeal of Cornell University , Appellant , John Benson , AIA , Agent , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V . Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to relocate the University Mail Center to a partially vacant building used for vehicle maintenance in precinct 7 , Palm Road , Portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said ordinance would allow such a university related use but only with Zoning Board approval . Appeal of Stephen L . Nash , Jr . , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to add a second dwelling unit to a non- conforming building / lot at 261 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 53- 1 - 21 , Residence District R- 15 . Said property is non-conforming since it has a width at the maximum front yard setback of 94 . 6 ' ( 100required ) . A variance from the requirements of Article XIII , Section 57 ( which limits undersized building lots to be used only as single - family residences ) may also be requested . • Appeal ( Adjourned From January 11 , 1995 ) of James Hider , Appellant , requesting authoriza- tion from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two- story 20 ' x 30 ' addition to an existing non- conforming single- family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19- 2 - 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it is located 7 ' 1 ' ¢ from the south side yard property line , whereas 15 ' is required . The property is also . 16+ acres in area , whereby . 34+ acres is required . A variance from Article IV , Section it may also be requested as the building addition may result in an overall building height of 32 ' + , whereas a 30 ' maximum height is permitted . 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 . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs , as appropriate , will be provided with assistance , as necessary , upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : January 31 , 1995 Publish : February 3 , 1995 WN OF ID FINAL ZONING BOARD OIRFHA PEALS L5 * THACA WEDNESDAY , FEBRUARY 8 , 1995 9 The following appeals were heard by the Board on February 8 , 19APPEAL of the First Assembly of God Church , Appellant , Reverend Robert en requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2 . 01 - 1 and Section 3 . 01 - 2d of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , to be allowed to maintain a 24 square foot sign on property to be the future site for a new church at 197 Bostwick Road , Portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -4 - 1 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said Sign Law allows for such a sign when construction has commenced ( construction is not currently proposed ) and does not allow for wording related to off- site premises . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL of Stephen and Patricia Lucente , Appellants , Larry Fabbroni , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Sections 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of New York State Town Law , to be permitted to construct a new two- family residence at 3 Sanctuary Drive , Portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos . 73- 1 - 6 , - 7 . 2 , -8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said laws require a building to be constructed on property which fronts on a town , county , or state highway . Sanctuary Drive is not currently an official road in the Town of Ithaca . APPEAL of Stephen and Patricia Lucente , Appellants , Larry Fabbroni , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Sections 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of New York State Town Law , to be permitted to construct a new two- family residence at 4 Sanctuary Drive , Portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos . 73- 1 -6 , - 7 . 2 , - 8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said laws require a building to be constructed on property which fronts on a town , county , or state highway . Sanctuary Drive is not currently an official road in the Town of Ithaca . • ( MOTION MADE TO COMBINE ABOVE TWO APPEALS ) GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , John Benson , AIA , Agent , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V . Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to relocate the University Mail Center to a partially vacant building used for vehicle maintenance in precinct 7 , Palm Road , Portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 64- 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said ordinance would allow such a university related use but only with Zoning Board approval . SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL of Stephen L . Nash , Jr . , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to add a second dwelling unit to a non-conforming building / lot at 261 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 53- 1 - 21 , Residence District R- 15 . Said property is non- conforming since it has a width at the maximum front yard setback of 94 . 6 ' ( 100 ' required ) . A variance from the requirements of Article XIII , Section 57 ( which limits undersized building lots to be used only as single- family residences ) may also be requested . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL ( Adjourned From January 11 , 1995 ) of James Hider , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two- story 20 ' x 30 ' addition to an existing non-conforming single- family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 2 - 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non-conforming since it is located 7 ' 1 " + from the south side yard property line , whereas 15 ' is • required . The property is also . 16± acres in area , whereby . 34+ acres is required . A variance from Article IV , Section 11 may also be requested as the building addition may result in an overall building height of 32 ' + , whereas a 30 ' maximum height is permitted . SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED . FILE 1 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date I is 1Qs WEDNESDAY , FEBRUARY 8 , 1995 ot Hak;cOcd Clerk �� PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector Andrew Frost , John Kanter , Town Planner , OTHERS : James Hider , Mr . & Mrs . Charles House , Mike Petrisin , Tammo Steenhuis , Larry Fabbroni , Steve Nash , Jr . , John Benson . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 PM and stated that all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in order . The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of the First Assembly of God Church , Appellant , Reverend Robert Lovelace , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2 . 01- 1 and Section 3 . 01-2d of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be allowed to maintain a 24 square foot sign on property to be the future site for a new church at 197 Bostwick Road , Portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31-4- 1 . 2 , Residence District R-30 . Said Sign Law allows for such a sign when construction has commenced ( construction is not currently proposed ) and does not allow for wording related to off- site premises . Mr . Mike Petrisin stepped to the microphone , stating that Rob Lovelace was not present at the meeting tonight but he was there in his stead . Chairman Austen invited • Mr . Petrisin to summarize why the sign with wording on it is needed . Mr . Petrisin explained it is basically because they ' re raising funds for the building now and this will pinpoint the location for the lay people in the church so that they can see where it is and , hopefully , generate support and funds . Mr . Scala asked if the sign was already there and Mr . Petrisin replied no , it is not and he believed the size to be 24 square feet . Mr . King said he didn ' t see anything indicating how the sign is held up and asked what the substructure is . Mr . Petrisin said , basically , just two 4 ' x 4 ' posts and then a 24 square foot sign on top of that - - 3 ' x 8 ' . Mr . King asked how high the posts would be and Mr . Petrisin said he didn ' t know for sure but believed they were about 6 ' to 8 ' off the ground . Chairman Austen asked if this was to the top of the sign and Mr . Petrisin replied , yes . Chairman Austen then stated that the Planning Board had made a proposal that they modify the wording on the sign . Mr . Petrisin said they have agreed to that and have crossed out the bottom " Join Us Now" part and just entered their phone number in lieu of that . Therefore , the whole bottom line would be taken off . Mr . Kanter noted that this went to the Planning Board for a recommendation and that was one of the recommended modifications that the Planning Board had . Mr . Scala asked if they had any tentative dates and Mr . Petrisin said no , not for construction on the property . Mr . Scala then asked if they had any bids yet and Mr . Petrisin said no , they ' re not that far along yet . Mr . King asked if they had to raise money first and Mr . Petrisin agreed that is correct . Mr . King said the Planning Board had recommended , if they have not begun construction by September 1 , 1996 , that the sign would have to be removed and Mr . Petrisin said they would agree to that . Mr . King then said , if they dispose of the property in the meantime , there is to be no sign and Mr . • Petrisin agreed . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to speak . Mr . Tammo Steenhuis stepped to the microphone and said he had a drawing of the Tomlinson Subdivision which the church property is a part of and stated Town of Ithaca 2 ' Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 there is a restrictive covenant on that parcel . He went on to read the restrictive • covenant from the subdivision map and said this sign , though very small , does not fall under that restrictive covenant . Mr . Frost said they would like to look at what Mr . Steenhuis was reading from and stated the sign comes from the sign ordinance , not the zoning ordinance . Mr . King asked if the map he was referring to was a subdivision map approved by the Planning Board and Mr . Steenhuis said yes . Referring to the map , Mr . Scala asked if the church now owns the 22 acres . Mr . Petrisin said they did not own 22 acres and he believed it to be 6 to 6 - 1 / 2 acres that they own . Attorney Barney said he saw the restrictive covenant and said our zoning ordinance , and the portion dealing with Residence District R- 30 , specifically authorizes signs as regulated by the Town of Ithaca sign law for an R- 30 - - that is Section 18 . The regulation permits variances , if this Board chooses to grant them , from what the sign ordinance might otherwise say . Attorney Barney said he didn ' t know that the restrictive covenant would govern what this Board does under any circumstances , but he ' s not stare that what they ' re doing here would be a violation of the restrictive covenant anyway . Mr . Scala asked what the restrictive covenant was and Attorney Barney said it was that there won ' t be any construction other than as permitted by the zoning ordinance for District R•- 30 basically . Our Residence District R- 30 permits , among other things , signs as regulated by the Town of Ithaca sign law . Mr . Ellsworth asked Mr . Steenhuis if he was objecting to what they ' re proposing for the sign or the size and Mr . Steenhuis said they have a big sign . Mr . King then asked Mr . Steenhuis if he was objecting to the sign and Mr . Steenhuis said you could come back next time and maybe it ' s not a sign but something else . There was talk at the Planning Board about changing the whole zoning • of that area and that ' s absolutely impossible . They bought it with the understanding that would not happen . Attorney Barney said he thought churches were permitted in R- 30 zones and Mr . Steenhuis said the church is not a problem . Chairman Austen asked if he was objecting to the sign or the wording on the sign and Mr . Steenhuis said he was objecting against doing the sign . He thinks they should get permission or the neighbors should get permission or whoever owns the property should get permission . Mr . Petrisin stated that they do own the property . Mr . Frost said the sign law and the zoning ordinance both allow for the placement of signs and the law itself also allows for variances of the strict application of that law which is why they ' re here at the meeting tonight . He said to Mr . Steenhuis that they have a right to put a sign up , just as he has the right to put a sign up with a permit which the applicants would also obtain . You also have a right to get a building permit upon approval of the permit . Mr . Steenhuis said the building permit should be for the entire piece . Attorney Barney asked which parcel is the church parcel and said he thinks the adjoining piece to that is owned by the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Steenhuis said that ' s correct and Attorney Barney said there ' s a 60 ' wide right- of-way on the western side which they own now and had just acquired . Mr . King said there are individual owners to the east and Attorney Barney said that ' s on the subdivision but he ' s not sure they get the benefit of the restrictive covenant . Mr . King said it seemed to him there was a reserve . Mr . Steenhuis said the restrictive covenant is over the whole parcel and the entire subdivision and Attorney Barney said that ' s correct , but the question is whether somebody who does not live within the subdivision has the right to enforce a restrictive covenant . Normally , they ' re enforceable only by other people in the subdivision . Mr . Steenhuis stated that he did live in the subdivision and Attorney Barney said he knew that , but a question had been raised regarding someone over to the east and whether they get the benefit of the restrictive covenant . Attorney Barney said he can ' t recall where the Town Park piece came out and Mr . Steenhuis said it ' s at the bottom of the church . Attorney Barney noted that this was not the final subdivision map because the final version showed a park dedication . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 Mr . Frost said , in the final analysis however , the zoning ordinance would allow the sign and the sign la�,r regulates the sign and the process for obtaining signs or variances . He thought the opinion is that the appellants have a right to be here and that the ordinance would allow them to have a sign . Mr . Steenhuis said , under that same argument , that would mean that anybody could start anything as long as they get the Board ' s permission . Attorney Barney said no , for example , if Mr . Steenhuis came and asked for a use variance to put a gasoline station on his parcel , this Board , if persuaded by the evidence , could grant him permission to do that under the zoning ordinance , But that would not stop a neighbor of his from suing him under the restrictive covenant and saying no , you cannot have that gasoline station there . You ' re really working at two levels here : 1 ) This Board deals with what the zoning ordinance says and they are not bound or limited by any restrictive covenants to speak of ; 2 ) A landoemer would be , including the church , bound by any restrictive covenant that applies to them . Attorney Barney said he just didn ' t think that restrictive covenant prohibits the appellants from putting up the sign . Mr . Steenhuis said what he was telling him then is , if he wants to fight a small sign , he would have to go to court and then said he didn ' t want to fight . Attorney Barney said anyone can go to court obviously , it ' s a question of whether you ' re likely to win , and he has tried to phrase this in the form of who is likely to win . Mr . Scala asked if the recommendation from the Planning Board on what the sign should have was in their package of information . Attorney Barney said there are two resolutions ; one is proposed , and one is adopted and the proposed one should be ignored . Mr . Scala said all he ' s asking is if it has the details in it which would allow the oimers to conform to an acceptable sign . Attorney Barney said yes , the adopted resolution had two conditions : 1 ) Limiting the time to September 1 , 1996 and 2 ) • Removing the sentence about " Join us now for services at 520 W . Seneca Street" . The Planning Board felt pretty strongly that made it a real off premises sign because it ' s really directing someone from this location to another location which is typically what an off premises sign does . They did allow them the opportunity , if they wished , to simply put their telephone number there . Mr . Scala asked if they intended to conform with those resolutions and Mr . Petrisin said yes , they do . Chairman Austen asked if there were any others present who wished to speak on this appeal . With no others present who wished to address the Board , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen noted that the environmental assessment form was done by George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner and asked that Mr . Kanter , the Town Planner , review it . Mr . Kanter said the environmental assessment form , which was also presented to the Planning Board when it made its decision , didn ' t identify any significant negative impacts but included some comments to the effect that the sign would appear to be consistent with the character of the area given the proximity of the County Highway garage and the school bus parking area across Bostwick Road . The staff recommendation was that it would be a negative determination of environmental significance . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . • RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner dated January 10 , 1995 and find a negative determination of environmen- tal significance for the appeal by the First Assembly of God Church , Appellant , Reverend Robert Lovelace , Agent , for the property at 197 Bostwick Road , Portion of Tolm of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -4 - 1 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows ° AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen asked if the Board members had any further questions and noted that the sign would be 3 ' x 8 ' and roughly 6 ' to 8 ' from ground level to the top of the sign . Mr . Frost said , however the Board determines this case , should they grant the approval , it should be made contingent upon him obtaining the sign permit so a final review can be done for placement and so forth and so that they have a permit for its placement . Mr . King asked if their review would include anything on the height of the sign and Mr . Frost said it would include height , location from pavement , etc . Mr . King asked if he felt 10 ' was ok and Mr . Frost said it actually could go to a height of 20 ' with a free - standing sign . Mr . King asked if that was optional to the applicants or to the review board . Mr . Frost said , for example , if they had a sign with the top of the sign being over 20 ' , the sign ordinance wouldn ' t allow that . Therefore , if the Board chose to limit it in its conditions , they could do that as well . Attorney Barney said what Mr . Frost is reading from is the Business and Industrial District limits so he thought , if this Board did not want a 20 ' high sign , they may want to make that a condition . Mr . King asked if the land was fairly level there and Mr . Petrisin said right off • the road , it is . They ' re thinking a maximum of 6 ' to 8 ' for the sign . Mr . King asked then if a limitation of 10 ' to the top of the sign would be acceptable and Mr . Petrisin replied that would be fine with them . Chairman Austen noted for the record that a letter dated December 30 , 1994 has been received from the Tompkins County Department of Planning by James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner of Planning . Attorney Barney said there is a correction which is that there is a limitation in a residential district regarding free - standing signs . They are not to be any higher than 6 ' with the support . Mr . Ellsworth asked if that was to the bottom or top and Attorney Barney said , to the top of the sign . The question is then whether the 6 ' will be adequate in this circumstance . Mr . Ellsworth said this would mean a 3 ' sign , 3 ' off the ground and Mr . Petrisin said he believed it would still be adequate . Attorney Barney said the Board may want to put a height limitation on this just to be safe , whether it ' s 6 ' or something higher or lower . Attorney Barney said what Mr . Frost is pointing out and `shat he has been reading from relates to regulated signs . What the variance is asking for is basically an unregulated sign . It ' s an exempt sign , and Attorney Barney said he didn ' t think exempt signs have a height limitation . Mr . Frost said what the appeal is for is from Section 3 . 01 - 2 of the sign ordinance which states , for exempt temporary signs , the following signs not illuminated unless otherwise specified may be placed in any district without a permit . It says one sign not to exceed 24 square feet listing the architect , engineer , contractor , and/ or owner of premises for construction , renovation , repairs , and progress . Therefore , if there is actual construction going on , they can put the sign up and it wouldn ' t be regulated . • Mr . Frost said , in this case and as the appeal says , construction is not currently proposed . Mr . Frost continued that he certainly thinks that applying the standards set forth in the permitted signs for R- 15 zones would be appropriate and he is talking about the appellant needing a permit . Mr . Ellsworth asked if that was the 6 ' and Attorney Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 Barney said what he was reading from was the section relating to regulated signs within • a residential or agricultural district . Mr . Frost said he thought it was a shortcoming in the sign ordinance which , as the Board knows , they are working on changing . Mr . King said , this being out in the middle of nowhere , he didn ' t see any problem with the sign even going as far as 10 ' just so it ' s legible without difficulty from the road . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , the First Assembly of God Church , Reverend Robert Lovelace , Agent , a variance from the requirements of Section 2 . 01 - 1 and Section 3 . 01 - 2d of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , to be allowed to maintain a 24 square foot sign on property to be the future site for a new church at 197 Bostwick Road , Portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 - 4 - 1 . 2 , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . That the sign will be approximately 3 ' high x 8 ' wide atop supports . 2 . Conditioned upon the sign reading as follows : Future Home of. First Assembly of God ( Phone Number of Applicant ) The line reading , " Join us now for Services at 520 W . Seneca St . " will be eliminated . • 3 . Conditioned upon the top of the sign not being more than a maximum of 8 ' above ground . 4 . Accepting the recommendation of the Planning Board in their adopted resolution dated January 17 , 1995 as follows ° The sign will be removed no later than September 1 , 1996 unless construction has commenced by such date . Likewise , the sign would be removed if the property is sold and the project abandoned . 5 . Conditioned upon the applicant obtaining a sign permit from the Town of Ithaca . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The second case to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Stephen and Patricia Lucente , Appellants , Larry Fabbroni , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Sections 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to construct a new two-family residence at 3 Sanctuary Drive , Portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos . 73- 1-6 , - 7- 2 , -8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said laws require a building to be constructed on property which fronts on a town , • county, or state highway . Sanctuary Drive is not currently an official road in the Town of Ithaca . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 Mr . Larry Fabbroni stepped to the microphone and stated that this subdivision was . approved in September , 1993 with certain conditions of the Planning Board . One of those conditions was Health Department approval , so they subsequently got Health Department approval . It ' s actually a 14- lot subdivision even though there are actually only 12 lots . The road was considered one lot and a little addition to the 246 lot was another lot . At the point that they submitted all the materials to the Town and had Health Department approval , they began construction of the project . The road right- of-way was cleared , the water and sewer lines were put in , and the road was rough graded . By that time , they were in to mid-November . They asked the Town Engineer and the Town Highway Superintendent if they could go to the Town Board and post a letter of credit which was , as far as his knowledge or Mr . Lucente ' s , the standard way of handling the incomplete improvements so that building permits could be gotten on the lots on the street prior to the actual finished road being placed . For reasons they could explain better than he could , Mr . Fabbroni said they wouldn ' t recommend a letter of credit to the Town Board and that basically provides the backdrop to why they have a hardship in terms of proceeding on this project any time sooner than the end of May or June of this year . Mr . Fabbroni said he didn ' t want to belabor the point . He would say that ' s the only case he knows of since he came to the Town in 1974 where they ' ve been refused the ability to go to the Town Board and post a letter of credit for whatever amount , for whatever risk the Town perceived on incompleted improvements . He understood the point of view just before they started the project because nothing was cleared or anything but , once they got a month and a half into the project , it seemed onerous to them that they didn ' t have the benefit of that . That ' s not the concern of this Board , but he wanted them to understand why they feel they have a hardship at this point and why they are coming to seek some remedy in terms of permits on some of these lots if that opinion • is going to stand . Mr . Fabbroni said the next map he would shoe them simplifies what they ' re asking for which is basically to start houses on lots 2 and 11 and what would happen if , for some reason they can ' t foresee at this point , the project didn ' t go through and these two houses have to stand on their own . That ' s also what they tried to depict in the submission on the map . He has colored in the map to show the Board that the houses would be on lots 11 and 2 . They would obviously be on those lots conforming to zoning as if those lots were standing by themselves . If , down the line , the project wasn ' t completed ; and , for whatever reason , those houses had to stand on their own , what they would do at that point basically is - - through the Board ' s variance approval - - the yellow area on the map would become one lot , the green area would become another lot , and the brown area would become another lot . It ' s very difficult to even propose this to the Board because they don ' t really know why they have to come to this point . Mr . King asked if the broom area on the map includes the full width of the proposed right-of-way and Mr . Fabbroni said that would be the right-of-way but , just trying to conform to the Board ' s requirements , he pointed out on the map a 60 ' right-of -way in two different locations . Therefore , one 60 ' right- of-way would serve one lot and a separate 60 ' right-of-way would serve another lot . Even though the original parcel for 246 is this smaller area here ( he pointed it out on the map ) , they would encumber an additional area to make this more of a traditional lot . They don ' t ever expect to come to that point . Right now , the water main has been constructed and approved by Bolton Point as far as being tested and disinfected , the sewer main is in and inspected and approved by the Town , and those are two things that sort of come in to play in asking for the appeal . There ' s a water main back in there with a hydrant right in front of those two • lots so , in terms of fire protection , these houses are well served by a full size water main with a hydrant in there . There ' s a public sewer that would serve both of these lots . The sewer he mentioned would serve lot 2 and an already existing sewer in the back of lot 11 would serve lot 11 . The road is roughed out at this point . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 Mr . Fabbroni said he thought he agreed with Dan Walker ( the Town Engineer ) that they can ' t construct a road at this point in time and meet the requirements . What the Town wants as a road , he couldn ' t certify a road constructed at this point in time . To make a long story short - - on engineering , there ' s no way to get the compaction that ' s required for the sub-base at this point in time . They have to have warm weather and dry soil to do that . Traditionally , Mr . Fabbroni said he could only speak to his 12 years with the Town but Mr . Lucente , Stephen ' s father , Mr . Schoenfeld , Mr . Weisburd , Mr . Varn , Mr . Hallberg . . . any of those developers have been able to get a letter of credit for projects in less complete a state than what theirs is . Attorney Barney said he didn ' t think that was quite accurate . It may be true for some of those people because he didn ' t know for a fact . However , as he understands it and had discussed with Dan Walker earlier today because he was a little puzzled as to why this appeal was showing up on the agenda , they have not been giving letters of credit and accepting it until there ' s been reasonably substantial completion . They took them in Hallberg ' s case but , in that case and in each instance , the road was laid , sub- base and base were present , and the drainage and so forth was done . That was also true with a couple of the others and , by the time they went through the process , they were pretty much complete even though they asked for a letter of credit . It ' s been Dan Walker ' s position , since he ' s been Town Engineer ( and Attorney Barney said he couldn ' t speak to before that ) that they have never gone on a letter of credit when there ' s basically been no road or no base at all . It ' s been after there has been some substantial work . Attorney Barney said he remembered Eastwood Commons ( which he thought he and Mr . Fabbroni had worked on at one time ) and , usually , there was a road face in but the top coarse of the paving was not put on and it was actually to everybody ' s advantage not to do that until the construction was done . However , Dan Walker ' s feeling • was that he doesn ' t know what it would cost to do this road because of the wet conditions there . He hasn ' t talked directly with Fred Noteboom , the Town Highway Superintendent , but it ' s been relayed to him that he ' s uncomfortable with even taking title to it at this point in time until they know what ' s going on with this road . Mr . Fabbroni said that was all true , like he had mentioned , before they started ; but , at the point when they went back and asked the question , he didn ' t think the fears about the drainage and everything else were pertinent any more . In other words , the site was secured and the road was shaped sufficiently . The first day they looked at this , there was a 3 " rain at the end of October and the ground was just broken open . It ' s much more advanced in a state beyond that at this point . The road base just can ' t be compacted because of the moisture in the soil at this point , not because it ' s not draining and because there ' s water laying . Mr . Fabbroni said , rather than be argumentative ( which he didn ' t want to be ) about whether the letter of credit should be issued anymore , they didn ' t anticipate not being able to get a letter of credit . When you can ' t get a letter of credit and you ' re under construction in October , you ' re shut out of business for six months basically if the letter of credit can only be issued when you have the gravel base in place , That ' s different than anything the Lucente ' s have had experience with before and it ' s differently , quite honestly , than anything Mr . Fabbroni had experienced with the Town . Therein lies the hardship with not being able to proceed and why they need some relief to proceed with the building construction . Mr . Ellsworth said that we had a fairly warm , dry fall up until a little while ago clear into December and asked what was done on the road . Mr . Fabbroni replied that the road is completely cleared ( this is a wooded area ) , all the top soil is stripped off and gone , and the sub-base is shaped in that it ' s crowned . Once they got to that point and began to get rain at the end of November , there was no way of compacting that earth . It was matted down enough with the machinery so it doesn ' t soak water up like a farm field does . The water sheds itself off and drains away . They did extensive wetland studies and other things , they got the Corp . of Engineers to make a determination that Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 they weren ' t into a wetland area , and they did some pretty extensive and costly analyses • before they ever proposed the subdivision to answer those questions . They realize they have to satisfy people along every step of the way . It ' s just how to proceed and not lose six months and , not having anticipated already those improvements he spoke about , as things get completed and approved and accepted . . . there ' s $ 50 , 000 paid for what ' s done to date . Mr . Frost said he appreciates what Mr . Fabbroni is saying . He was here when Mr . Fabbroni was Town Engineer as well . Things have changed and , when Dan Walker first began working , things have been refined since Dan ' s beginning . So some of what Mr . Fabbroni is saying , Mr . Frost said he understands is valid in terms of what happened in the past . He thought more important , however , is the Planning Board adopted resolutions for the final subdivision approval . Mr . Frost said he would give Mr . Fabbroni his copy if he wished to take a look at it . There were conditions and the conditions listed , among other things , items #a -, n that talked about completion of the road and other public improvements , acceptance of all proposed dedications by the Town Board including sewer easements , water easements , and roads as shown on the plat with a variety of other things . Items #k • - n above are to be accomplished before issuance of any building permits , unless this requirement is subsequently modified by the Planning Board or Town Board . Some of this was set down as a condition upon subdivision approval . Mr . Fabbroni said he would again say , with regard to item #o that Mr . Frost had mentioned ( and you ' re going back to the road completion again ) , they mistook the requirements subsequently modified by the Planning Board or the Town Board to mean what had always been the way of handling this . He ' s not arguing that things can change and different opinions can be expressed , but it ' s not really well known . He ' s just saying • that for himself ; and , if it ' s not well known to him , it ' s not well known to the average person in the town that you won ' t issue a letter of credit unless the gravel base is down . If you go up to the Town of Dryden and you go up to the Village of Lansing ( what they deal with every day ) , you can ' t turn one spade of dirt before you have put down a letter of credit for the full amount of the improvement that you ' re about to undertake . They will deduct that amount as you go along , but you can ' t turn a spade of dirt until that ' s done . Mr . Fabbroni said he wasn ' t saying the Town of Ithaca had to be the same as them . He ' s just saying that what they ' re dealing with on an every day basis , this point of view that they will only accept a letter of credit for the last paving or topping of the road , is quite unusual . He wasn ' t saying it ' s not right or that they shouldn ' t do it . They got into this particular hardship because of that misunderstand- ing is his only point . Attorney Barney said he doesn ' t recall ever doing it where the road was a raw , unstarted in effect , or just cleared road . It may have happened , but it hasn ' t happened in recent memory and there Attorney Barney said he even goes back before Dan Walker , the present Town Engineer . Mr . Fabbroni said he could probably make the best case for his client and say to Dan , why can ' t we have it when before they started they ' ve got an inch of mud all over the place . They proceeded then to put the sewer in , put the water in , to get the whole thing shaped up , and that ' s where he would come back to the Board and say many a time , a letter of credit has been issued from that point on ­ not recently , fine . Again , he would just like to make it clear that he ' s not here to argue whether that ' s right or wrong but just to say to this Board that ' s how they got into the hardship . They didn ' t set out to self-create a hardship , that ' s how they got into the hardship they ' re in and why they ' re appealing to proceed with permits on lots 2 and 11 knowing full well , if the • worst case ever happened , this is what would come out of it . Attorney Barney said that requires further action by both the Planning Board and by this Board because you ' re creating two lots that , at that point , have inadequate frontage on a public road . The requirement is 100 ' in an R- 15 zone and these are basically 60 ' flag lots so that they would require a variance and , on top of that , a resubdivision of the subdivision by the Planning Board either before or after a variance was considered . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 Attorney Barney asked why they are picking lots it and 2 as opposed to lots 1 and • 12 and said he didn ' t know what the rationale was . Mr . Fabbroni said this was only because , if nothing happened and the subdivision didn ' t proceed , for one thing you could create a more legal sized lot for where the house 246 already exists . So that ' s the reason for not going on lot 12 . The original lot , before subdivision ever occurred , was that smaller substandard lot . If this ever happened where the subdivision didn ' t go through , at least the green lot could stand on its own as a legal sized lot so that ' s why lot 11 . Lot 2 was picked because there is somebody else ' s house on this other lot and , if nothing else ever happened , it would at least provide some space between that house and this house that was back lot . Mr . Fabbroni said it didn ' t matter , lot 1 would be fine with them to answer it a different way . Right now , lot 1 is sort of like the extended back yard of that house , too . So , rather than irritate somebody is why they said lot 2 rather than lot 1 . Mr . Scala asked if the street numbers 3 and 4 represent lots 2 and 11 . Mr . Frost said they assign those street numbers . Mr . Scala asked how long 246 has been there and Mr . Fabbroni said since before zoning really . Mr . Scala asked if it was an old house and Mr . Fabbroni said it was the 1950 ' s . Attorney Barney said that ' s not quite accurate because he had just gone back through and done a little looking . That was created in 1959 . Mr . Scala asked where the entrance to that house is and Mr . Fabbroni said it ' s off of Sapsucker Woods Road and comes in right off Sapsucker on the south end of the house where there ' s a driveway . Mr . Scala said they had put in water and sewage , surveyed it and laid it and started the road , then asked why it wasn ' t finished . Mr . Fabbroni said because it was the end of November and it started to rain every other day . Usually you ' re done by the end of October anyway . Chairman Austen asked when the roadway was started and Mr . Fabbroni said in mid-October . What he was trying to explain to the Board , to staff , and to the Town Attorney is they did it on the expectation of • posting a letter of credit for the balance of the work . Otherwise , they wouldn ' t have started it in mid-October . Attorney Barney asked if there was any discussion with anybody at that point in time about that and Mr . Fabbroni said not in the specifics he ' s being given tonight . What was discussed was they were told a letter of credit couldn ' t be issued in this condition . The road was grubbed out , it had just rained 3 " of rain , and it was a muddy mess . As much as he could argue on behalf of Steve Lucente , he could accept the reply at that point . The Town was inspecting the sewer every other hour when it was going in . The water was being inspected and there was not a feeling that they weren ' t proceeding to some healthy understanding . They hadn ' t worked with his contractor before and Mr . Fabbroni said he had worked with him dozens of times , so there was alot of good reason starting out not to be sure about alot of things and not knowing what amount would be sufficient . Mr . Fabbroni said he ' s also saying to the Board that this is Ithaca , New York . Mr . Scala asked if they had started the road in mid-October expecting to finish it or not expecting to finish it . Mr . Fabbroni said they had hoped maybe to get to the first 12 " of gravel and that ' s as far as they had hoped to make . Mr . Scala asked what happened and had they started too late and Mr . Fabbroni said they expected to get as far as they could and then post a letter of credit for the balance . Mr . Scala said , so they didn ' t expect to finish and Mr . Fabbroni said they didn ' t expect to finish . Mr . Frost wanted to clarify , just so there was no confusion , that what they ' re talking about here is on the Board ' s subdivision map lots 2 and 11 with street numbers that would be 3 and 4 . Mr . Fabbroni said , at the point they stopped ( at least in his professional opinion ) , • it was the time to stop both for what they could do well for the Town and what they could accomplish from their own point of view . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 Chairman Austen asked how many of the conditions had been completed ( k - o ) and asked if the Health Department item had been completed . Mr . Fabbroni said that was the • map he had been showing the Board and it was approved by the Health Department and he believed the Town had copies . The issue of the title has been going on between Attorney Barney and Dave Tyler ( Attorney Barney said they had sent him the title ) . Attorney Barney said item #n has not yet been completed but he doesn ' t anticipate a problem . Mr . Fabbroni said it ' s really the road issue . Mr . Kanter said another minor technical point they might want to consider is that the subdivision plat isn ' t filed and hasn ' t been signed by the Chair of the Planning Board as of yet because some of the conditions haven ' t been met yet also . Mr . Fabbroni said he would say they are largely things that Attorney Barney is reviewing , it ' s not a matter of him not having them . Mr . Kanter said he understood that but it presents the Board with somewhat of a problem in terms of the technical interpretation that lots 2 and 11 aren ' t entities yet . They don ' t legally exist yet until the plat is signed and filed with the County Clerk ' s office . Mr . Frost said that would appear though to be something that is inevitable . Mr . Kanter said it could and would happen , but all he ' s saying is that it hasn ' t happened yet . Mr . Scala asked if any building has been started on lots 2 and 11 and if the land has been landscaped or cleaned off . Mr . Fabbroni said lot 2 was pretty open to begin with , it was an old barn site , and lot 2 is clear which is another answer to his earlier question . Lot 11 , as he mentioned , is not really cleared at this point . Mr . Frost noted he wanted to say that the Planning Board conditions are imposed by the Planning Board and what the Board might be entertaining here then is modifying the conditions that the Planning Board has imposed and they might want to think hard about that . Mr . Fabbroni said they ' re not asking for that and , simply put , they thought they satisfied • these conditions ( at least in terms of their submissions ) in mid-October . Mr . Frost said the applicants are asking for the Town Zoning Board to authorize issuance of a permit which is otherwise conditioned as not until certain things are done by the Planning Board . Mr . Fabbroni said the only one they ' re aware of is this confusion over the road . Chairman Austen said , except they don ' t really have an approved subdivision . Attorney Barney said , in a way , he ' s less concerned about that part of it because he thinks that ' s insurable or could be a condition if the Board were to grant a variance . He said he ' s more concerned about the condition about the completion of the road and acceptance by the Town Board because he doesn ' t know that the Town Board has yet accepted the road . They ' ve accepted the location of the road , but the actual acceptance of the road itself usually comes when the road is presented to them for accepting a deed to it and that has not yet occurred either . Mr . Frost said , in fairness , they wouldn ' t necessarily accept that road in even a gravel state . Attorney Barney said what they do is that the Town actually accepts the road in its unfinished state , conditioned on an agreement that it will be completed and the pledging of a Netter of credit to secure that will happen . What we ' re hearing is that Dan Walker is not prepared to recommend ( nor is Fred Noteboom ) to the Town Board that they accept this particular road in its present state . That ' s the condition that ' s the rub here and it is a condition of the Planning Board approval . Attorney Barney said , as he sat and analyzed it as the day wore on today , it seems to him that the place where Mr . Fabbroni should really be making application is to the Town Board or the Planning Board to say this condition should be modified to allow them to do their construction in the winter time . Mr . Frost noted that item #o even says that about modifications being done by the Planning Board or the Town Board . • Mr . King asked , if they had completed those conditions , would there be any reason for Mr . Fabbroni to appeal to them? Mr . Fabbroni said they don ' t have any reason . They knew back lot situations with a 50 ' right-- oft -way had been approved by this Board and it seemed like the only remedy to at least proceed with the construction of two homes and Toem of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 keep people gainfully Employed . The misunderstanding was unfortunate and Mr . Fabbron • said he would be on very weak ground to come back and say the same thing again for somebody , understanding where the Town ' s quidelines are at this point . It was neve ." made clear to them anywhere along the line that , given some reasonable progress in terms of the improvements , they wouldn ' t be able to post the bond ( however big ) for the remainder . That ' s still a remedy under law and he doesn ' t know of any policy that would keep them from going to the Town Board and asking for that , but they don ' t want to do it in a confrontation sort of mode . Attorney Barney said , to a certain extent , he thought we ' re in that mode . You have the Town Engineer having a very strong feeling about what the condition of the road ought to be and , no matter which Board they go to , Attorney Barney said he thought that opinion would be expressed . Whether the Board chooses to go with that opinion or override it is another question . Attorney Barney said he didn ' t know quite frankly , short of having a miraculous winter where the sun comes out and it dries the property out , how you get over that hurdle . Mr . Fabbroni said it is his professional opinion that you would have this problem from November 1 to mid-May any year , any time , however dry because , when it gets cold , it doesn ' t dry . Even if it ' s dry and cold , the soil doesn ' t dry out . Mr . Frost said they would have to admit though that :his area of Sapsucker Woods Road ( and stressed that he was neither for nor against this whole thing but just trying to be objective ) is wet land . Mr . Fabbroni said that ' s a perception that ' s accurate for the general area , but not this area . Mr . Frost said he isn ' t voicing it , but it ' s a concern that was voiced by the Town Engineer and the Tom Highway Superintendent in his discussions with them in trying , as well , to understand what is happening here . Mr . Frost said , at this Board , he didn ' t think they were unsympathetic to what Mr . Fabbroni is saying . Mr . Fabbroni said he can understand the day after 3 " of rain how someone • would feel that `say but then , a month later when asked the question , he can ' t understand it . Attorney Barney said he would assume that Mr . Walker has been up that road and asked who is doing inspection . Mr . Fabbroni said .- - Dan , Eric , and Mayne - - they were there every other hour when the sewer was being done . Attorney Barney said it ' s not twat he ' s not unfamiliar with what its state is more or less right now . Mr . Fabbroni said he didn ' t know that for sure but he would be surprised if he wasn ' t aware of it . Attorney Barney said he hadn ' t quizzed Mr . Walker unequivocally as to when was the last time he was up there and when he last saw it , but the information he was getting today was that he ' s been up there: relatively recently and that ' s the state of the road now , not in October or whenever it had rained heavily . Mr . Frost said he thought the bottom line would come back to the wording of item #o which says . . . " unless this requirement is subsequently modified by the Planning Board or the Town Board " . braving been a Town employee for alot of years , Mr . Frost said that puts the Zoning Board in a precarious situation . Mr . Fabbroni said , just for lot 2 , is the Board in a position to grant a variance for lot 2 because it doesn ' t really alter the subdivision pyan7 There ' s alot involved with lot 11 because you have to resubdivide . But , L. terms of lot 2 , it doesn ' t really imperil the Planning Board ' s action that he could see . It utilizes the new road as the right-of-way to that lot . That world be combined lots 1 and 2 with the construction on lot 2 . Something is more than nothing is what Mr . Fabbroni would say back to the Board . Hearing everything that ' s been said , there is alot involved with the Planning Board inevitably if it was going to wind up as he had showed the colors here . But , for just what was shown in broem on the map , it seems alot simpler matter that this Board might entertain . Mr . King asked if he had made any application to the Planning Board to modify that • condition and Mr . Fabbroni said , until tonight , he really was not aware that was needed . Mr . Frost said , in some ways , he feels bad that Mr . Fabbroni is looking at this now . Also having been here for a number of years and worked with Mr . Lucente for a number of years , Mr . Frost said he would have presumed that he had his conditions and was aware Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 of them . Mr . Kanter said the resolution had been given to them quite a while ago . Mr . • Fabbroni said his point is that they thought they had submitted everything on this checklist in mid--October . At the same time , he ' s not saying to Attorney Barney that they ' re under the impression he might not have a few minor comments on what he ' s reviewing . Attorney Barney said it ' s not the submissions that he ' s as concerned about , it ' s really item #k which is fairly explicit coupled with item #o which says , if you want to modify k , the place to go is the Planning Board or the Town Board . Attorney Barney said , quite frankly ® until tie started digging into this today to find out ghat is going on , he had forgotten about this juxtaposition of these two paragraphs . Mr . Frost said that ' s kind of what he is saying , also . It. . Fabbroni said he was restating himself but they would normally have read this thing about the road to be taken care of by a bond , a letter of credit , or that way of satisfying that there ' s a guarantee that improvement will happen . That ' s where his appeal comes back to the Board . If you accept that statement , they unknowingly dug a pretty big hole for themselves because of that misunderstanding . M" . Scala asked , if they had just gone ahead ignoring or not being involved with these restrictions , what they would have now . . . would there be two houses started? Attorney Barney said he wouldn ' t have gotten the building permit for those . Mr . Scala then. asked where he would have expected to be and Mr . Fabbroni said they expected to be started with two homes back in December . Mr . Frost said , with a letter of credit being accepted by the tonna and a dollar amount being accepted . Mr . Scala asked if they had been held up then for two months and Mr . Fabbroni said , in effect , if this all played out , it would be six months is what they ' re saying . They can ' t get back to the road until d May to do the final two or three weeks of work on the road to get it to the point • Attorney Barney eras describing . Mr . Scala asked , if they were to get this variance , could they proceed with the building permit? Mr . Fabbroni said , as bizarre as it is , they had even entertained not getting the Certificates of Occupancy until they had To, emedied their opening . That works out time raise , but nothing works when you can ' t even start the houses in a six--month window . 11A. . King asked what they were proposing to build and if they were single- family or trVo• - family homes and 11r . Fabbroni replied they were two- family homes . Mr . King asked if there would be one In the area of each of those subdivided lots and Mr . Fabbroni said they would be situated within the zoning requirements of that hypothetical lots 2 and 11 . In other words , they mould be facing to the street ( Mr . King said the street being Sanctuary Drive , and Mr . Fabbroni agreed ) and they would be 25 ' back for a setback line on a minimum and they would meet the zoning envelope . Mr . Frost asked if lot 2 was being proposed to be the future home of the landowner ; in other words , is Steve Lucente planning on building a house for himself ? Mr . Fabbroni said he ' s building them and they ' re all for sale . fir . Frost said it ' s not like the landowner , which is Mr . Lucente , is looking to build on one of those lots for himself and Mr . Fabbroni agreed and said Mr . Lucente suffers from bad asthma so that ' s why he can ' t be present at the meeting . Mr . Scala said this sounds kind of silly but is there any reason why they couldn ' t build on , let ' s say , lots 11 and 12 and build it from Sapsucker as a temporary arrangement through the property for access? Mr . Fabbroni said they could and they were just trying to structure it in trays they knew the Board had dealt with in the past . They ' re really open to any suggestion but this is something , if you had to walk away from , it was not abno mal . You had dealt with 50 ' right-of--ways and some of the points they made , in terms of facts , were they would be 30 , 000 square foot lots instead of • 15 , 000 square foot lots which is what the zone is and they were trying to make it as easy as possible for this Board to grant a variance for those lots . Chairman Austen noted that the P _1_ann.ing Board would have to approve it before they could even do that . Towm of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 Mr . Fabbroni said he knew , from what Attorney Barney and Mr . Kanter had said , that • the green and the yellow areas on the map are kind of difficult . But the brown area is pretty straight forward in teems of , if he could only go away from the meeting tonight with one house approved on lot 2 and if they chose to go back to the Planning Board and pursue the other business , that would help . Their problem is they ' d have to go over there and just say hypothetical because they don ' t really want that . They don ' t want to do a three lot subdivision . Attorney Barney said , suppose we look at it this way . The Planning Board has established these conditions and you have two Boards with roughly co-equal authority and jurisdiction . Supposing they forget about the subdivision entirely and revert back in our minds to what Mr . Lucente had before the subdivision , he has at that point one big logL with an inadequate frontage . He ' s got a 60 ' strip and that ' s all he ' s got . Supposing this Board were to consider granting the normal 280A variance which allows construction of one house on a lot but , because this Board is concerned with the co- equal jurisdiction , it makes their variance conditional on returning to the Planning Board and getting the Planning Board to modify condition #o to permit that construction . Then the applicants could go back to the Planning Board and it ' s really probably there where the decision should be made , whether they felt strongly that one house could go with a normal 280A or whether they really meant they don ' t want anything in there until there is a road buil so that emergency vehicles could get in and out or whatever , the pitch would have to be made there and they ' re probably the Board that should be making the decision ( or the Town Board ) . He said they could go to their choice of either the Town Board cr the Planning Board . Attorney Barney continued with it ' s really saying , if something in the subdivision • gets held up or you can ' t get it done , this Board would give you the 280A variance ( and he wasn ' t saying the Board would but just throwing it out on the table ) but only if this condition is modified to permit the conditions of the building permit and modified by one of the Boards specifically referenced to authorize such modification . Mr . Frost said , in a sense , they ' re supporting a request for at least one modification with the condition that the Planning Board or Town Board concur with the Zoning Board decision . Mr . Kanter said one argument of going to the Town Board with it would be that they could , at the same time in a sense , argue the case of accepting the road . Mr . Fabbroni said they could drag Mr . Walker back up to the property and at least revisit the issue and , hopefully , remedy it that way if possible . Attorney Barney said , just legally , he has tremendous difficulty talking about two houses right now because they don ' t have a filed map . Even if they did have a filed map , clearly a pretty strong violation is being talked about . Attorney Barney said that ' s troublesome to him but , again , he didn ' t want to speak to the Board because it ' s a Board policy decision . Mr . King said he has the feeling , if this Board did that and approved construction or lot 2 whatever the condition and it goes back to the Planning Board , then we ' re at a draw . The Planing Board is faced with the same dilemma they had in approving something . Attorney Barney said not really because what they would be saying then is , to get over the hurdle of 280A ( which is the authority of the Zoning Board and they are the only one who can grant that authority ) , they would really be deferring to the Planning Board in terms of whether the Planning Board wants to alter the condition that imposed . It ' s not that this Board is saying that the Planning Board did anything wrong but just :saying legally, to build on a lot that has less than 60 ' , this Board has to grant a variances and , if there ' s going to be any building on that lot , that variance • is obtained but it ' s up to the Planning Board ( and it could probably be expressed in that manner in the resolution as to whether they will waive the requirement that they have already imposed ) . If they don ' t , then this variance doesn ' t authorize anything . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals February B , 1995 Mr . Frost said another perspective on that is , if the appellant didn ' t act tonight • and he goes back to the Planning Board , he would still have to come back to the Zoning Board to get the variance for lack of road frontage . If that was gotten out of the way tonight , at least that "pushes them along a little . Mr . Ellsworth asked about the lack of read frontage and lir . Frost said , if the appellant has 60 ' at the lot now , he would meet tae road frontage but these he has to open up to a bunch of foot on the maximum front yard setback ( which is 50 ' ) and which 111r . Frost didn ' t believe he would have . Mr . Fabbroni said he believed what Attorney Barney had been saying ( and correct him if he was wrong ) is that this is one lot ( and pointed it out on his map ) because this plat is yet to be filed at the county . This Board can act on the fact that there is a right- of- -way that ' s more than 50 ' back into that lot and approve one house back there . Mr . Frost asked if it wasn ' t more than just a right- of -way so , if the appellant was here tonight without any discussion of subdivision , he could come to the Board ( with no houses being on this large piece of land ) and say he wants to build a house here but doesn ' t have the required lot with the road frontage which this Board has done before . Mr . Ellsworth asked if it was greater than 60 ' and Mr . Frost said it needs to be 60 ' at the road and then it has to open up to at least 100 ' at what they call the maximum front yard setback . Appro.:imately 50 ' back from the road ( as if you were looking at a piece of pie ) , it has to open up to a width of at least 100 ' . Mr . Fabbroni said that would be a standard lot and H.L. . Frost said he can ' t accomplish that given where this lot is . Mr . Fabbroni said , in the next instance then , you have to have at least 50 ' to do something back lot and asked if that was right . Mr . Ellsworth asked how far back it has to go and Mr . Frost said , approximately 50 ' from the pavement . Attorney Barney said that is the maximum front yard setback for an R- 15 zone and , for lot 2 , the frontage Wou' d be on Sapsucker Woods Road . 11r . Frost asked how many total acres they are talking • about with all lots and Mr . Fabbroni said the total acres are 5 . 33 . Mr . Frost said , then in a sense , you ' re looking at a building lot with five plus acres . Obviously , when he subdivides , he. may end up with 12 lots but they would be approaching it as if it was just a five acre lot without proper road frontage . Chairman Austen opened up the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . ENV QNMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen requested that Mr . Kanter summarize the review . Mr . Kanter stated there as no problem with envi ryronmental assessment form and staff had recommended a negative. determination of environmental significance for this action . Mr . Scala asked if he understood correctly what was being suggested is that they simply consider this whole parcel and allow the building of one home on that parcel with the access being the road that .4s intended to go in there . Mr . King said that was correct and Mr . Scala said , as such , it doesn ' t make any difference and they could pick out one or the other lot . Mr . Frost said it does make a difference and he thought lot #3 is to the south side of Sanctuary Drive . Mr . Fabbroni said lot 2 is on the south side . Mr . Frost asked if their odd numbers were normally on the north or south side when they do street numbers . Mr . Fabbroni said there , it is the south side and , over in the Birchwood area , the south side is odd and the north side is even . Mr . Frost said what he is suggesting is that they make it clear , after they get past • the EAF , that this is for lot 2 which he believed would be 3 Sanctuary Drive as advertised here . '1r . Frost asked how he would want to deal with the second appeal and Mr . Fabbroni asked if it made a difference to him . Mr . Frost said it was just- in regard to hoes he had it advertised . P-Sr . Fabbroni asked what if he said lot 11 would be better Tom of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals ^ebrua ol .1 8 , 1995 and Mr . Frost said he thought Mr . Fabbroni had made it clear that lot 2 is less onerous • than lot 11 . Attorney Barney asked if they had to decide that tonight . If this was a flag lot , they would tell the applicant he could put one house on it and put it anywhere on the lot you grant- to as long as it meets the side yard setback . At this juncture , they ' re looking at a five acre lot so he wasn ' t sure it needs to be identified . Mr . Frost said , other than that he has advertised two separate units . Mr . Scala said they would either adjourn it or reject it and Attorney Barney said , or they could agree to consolidate it so there is basically one appeal . Attorney Barney then asked if they could agree to consolidate these two appeals into one so that the SEQRA finding can be made respective to the whole thing . Mr . Scala said he has a question because those lots don ' t exist and the only thing that exists is the parcel . Attorney Barney said the tax parcels do exist and he would simply say that tax parcel 73-• 1 - 7 . 2 is the big lot . Mr . Fabbroni said this gets more complex all the time and asked the Board to refer to the dotted line on the map which goes from east to west across the middle of lots 12 , 11 , 10 , 9 , 8 , and 7 . The big parcel ( 7 . 2 ) is south of that line and north of that line is 8 . 2 . Attorney Barney said , in terms of locating the house , it would be on 7 . 2 and Mr . Fabbroni agreed . Mr . Scala asked why they had to locate the house en lot 2 and Attorney Barney said it was tax parcel_ 73-• 1 •- 7 . 2 . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Fete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of JoAnn Cornish , Planner II • dated February 6 , 1995 and find a negative determination of environmental ;significance for the appeal by Stephen and Patricia Lucente for the property at To of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 73- 1 •- 7 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , Chairman Austen then asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES Austcnp Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Attorney Barney suggested that a formal motion be made , with the consent of the applicants ' agent , that the above two appeals be consolidated into one prior to determination of whether a variance would be granted . MOTION By Mr . Edward Fling , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board consolidate the two applications such that they would be under consideration as one matter , noting that permission is granted from Larry Fabbroni , Agent for the Applicants . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES _ Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . • NAYS - None . The motion eras carried unanimously . Tot-in of Ithaca 16 Zoning Beard of Appeals February S . 1995 %.haia-man Austen then read into the record a letter dated February 1 , 1995 which had • b,en received from David G . and Joan G . Allen of 254 Sapsucker Woods Road , Mr , Scala asked ruhat basically is the cb ; cction and Mr . King said they are saying the Board should adhere to the law , as written . Mr . Fabbroni said this is only his opinion but , in forming this subdivision , they ,droved what was going to be a town road right-of-way away from their parcel . By doing ghat they had come here to do with lot 11 , they would have wound up with a driveway right next to their house again . They were feeling good about this Miele subdivi :: ion because the road that accessed the lots was moved down where before , if the town had gone through with the water and sewer , the road would have been right neat to the _ r lot . : 1r . Fabbroni said he has to feel they were a little apprehensive about any variance that would allow a driveway in the yellow section of the map . M.L . Scala said , instead of a road though , they would be putting a row of houses , Mr . Fabbroni said again , it was just his opinion , but they were as happy as they could be about. a subdivision neat to thei :L house the tray it was proposed . Mr . Frost said he was not so sure about what has happened although he did try to explain to Mr . Allen what was happening . He said he thought it was noteworthy that the same laws Mr . Allen is asking the Board to uphold what is allowed in the law but , under a case of hardship or difficulty , the same lacy allows you also to provide the variances . Therefore , the Board is still operating ty9_ .,h n the limit of the lacy . Mr . King asked if. Mr . Fabbroni could submit the colored map to the Board for the record and this t;as d ne . Mr . Kanter stated he didn ' t know if the engineering memo was ever actually referred to . Chairman Austen apologized and said they had just received these tonight so he hadn ' t had a chance to review everything . Chairman Austen then noted for the rocord that a memo dated February 7 , 1995 had been received on the Sanctuary Woods Subdivision from Dan Walker , Town Engineer . A copy of this letter was • given to Mr . Fabbroni , Mr . Fabbroni said he doesn ' t disagree with anything in the letter other that , if the Board does what it just said it would , then one house could get a permit off t e eysi ;�tin; crater and setycr main . " lore than likely , they would build tic rouse on lot 11 or 12 because , in back of those lots , is where the existing accepted mains are . Mr . Fabb- on4 said he didn ' t think it would destroy anything the Board might re about to consider here . fie said Mr . Walker has set out pretty clearly what he wants to fi.t,ally accept for the othCr water and sewer gains . Mr . Ellseaorth asked if those two would be connected to mains to the north and Mr , ra�:bro ni said , :if they were to approve one house and didn ' t specify exactly where it eynuld be , he t-70UJf3, 4, cl1 them, it would be in the area of lot 1. 1 or 12 because they could connect in to the existing water and set-yer mains north . The last thing Mr . Walker talked about in : .is letter is lots 8 through 12 are served by existing water and sewer mains . Mr . Ellsworth said the sewers would be connected from the south to their proposed road . Mr . King said , in this case , they would be considering the Sanctuary Drive area as the proposed access way rather than the yellow area on the map ( Mr . Fabbrori agreed that is correct ) . With no further questioas or discussion , Chairman Austen asked that a motion be made on this appeal . MOTION 3y Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . • RESOLVED , on the consolidated appeal of Stephen and Patricia Lucente , that the Board grant a variance frcm the requirements of Article IV , Sections 14 and 16 of the Tocian of Ithaca Zoning 04dinance and Section 280A of New York State Town Law , to be permitted to construct one neva two - family residence on Town of Ithaca max Parcel 73- 1 - 7 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , c-Jith th :: fo ' lot-ging findings and conditions Torr$ of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 1 . On the understanding that the proposed Sanctuary Drive will be the access way to the parcel upon which the residence will be built . 2 . Conditioning the variance upon the applicants obtaining from the Planning Board the modification of its requirements as set out in the motion adopted September 5 , 1994 as to condition #o . which requires that conditions #k , #1 , and #m be accomplished before any building permits be issued unless that requirement is modified by the Planning Board or the Town Board . 3 . In granting this variance , this Board is neither recommending for nor against the Planning Board ' s modification of its conditions . N:Lth no further discuss:'',on , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as f_ollowso AYES - Austen , Ell swor h. Tang , Scala . NAYS - Mone . The motion was carried unanimously . The next appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows ° APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant , John Benson , AIA , Agent , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to relocate the University Mail Center to a partially vacant building used for vehicle maintenance in precinct 7 , • Palm Road , Portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 64­ 1• -2 , Residence District R-- 30 . Said ordinance would allow such a university related use but only with Zoning Board approval . Iir . John Benson stepped to the microphone and stated that they have continued to eros: on the sits: plan since lit was submitted so , if the Board would like , he could give them seven copies of an updated site plan that has a little more information than what fithey had available previously . These were then given to the Board members . Mr . Benson said this is a relatively simple project for Cornell . There is an existing building in precinct 7 which was built as a combination warehouse and vehicle maintenance garage . In line with a couplo of policies pursuant to Cornell ' s master plan ( and master planning has been under discussion with the Town for a feta years now ) , there are some advantages to relocating the university ' s mail facilities and consolidating them at this location . One of the reasons for doing that is the principal of reserving the core part of the campus for academic facilities , things most directly related to teaching and that :wind of thing , and putt.-,ng in services that support them closer to the periphery of the campus . The other thing that is served by this is bringing together facilities that are now operating as separate operational groups or in different locations to achieve greater efficiency and better service . They will be combining here both mailing cperations and handling of all the U . S . ; Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals February B , 1995 concrete paving of walkways and the most critical parking spaces in front of the building . While spaces that are designed for access by people with physical disabilities aren ' t always the most frequently used , it ' s important that they be on firm paving rather than gravel and that they be convenient . The areas where small trucks will most frequently coma. to the building for the mail operations are also hard paved because that avoids near and tear on a gravel surface . Apart from that , the principal change seen will be more windows in the building and four added man size doors which are 3 ' x 7 ' . There will be no overhead doors added to the building and most of the truck traffic will be on the side away from Dryden Road . The building is already almost 1 , 000 ' from Dryden Road . Mr . Benson then asked if the Board had any questions about the specifics . Chairman Austen asked if they would be removing the overhead doors and Mr . Benson said no , they ' re not , they ' re going to keep the one in the mail center side that ' s facing south because occasionally ( he would say on the average of once or twice per month ) a tractor trailer would come and make deliveries of large scale paper supplies like catalogs and application forms to the building . The other overhead doors at the west end of the building will continue to be used as they are now for access for vehicle service . Chairman Austen said he was a little confused as to why they would want a vehicle maintenance in one end of a building and mail in the other and noted that it ' s a wooden building . Mr . Benson agreed it is a wooden building and said it will be fully sprinklered . He believes this stems from , operationally , the fact that Cornell has one director for both transportation services and mail services . Probably the reason for that is they both involve a fleet of vehicles around the campus . Couriers , mail pick-up and delivery on campus , and the bus system for the university are all under one director . :1r . Frost asked. f they dere putting in a sprinkler system regardless of whether building code demands it or not . Mr . Benson said that is correct and they believe it ' s good practice . Mr . Frost noted , with that being said , then the memo from Assistant Fire Chief Wheaton regarding his reservations after visiting the site and his being comf:: rtable with the concerns if the building was totally sprinkled is now a dead issue . Mr . Ellsworth asked if he had said both sections would be sprinklered and Mr . Benson said that ' s correct , not only the mail center but the other half of the building . Mr . Frost: said he knee there weme not a whole lot of sprinkler systems in the orchards area and asked lir . Benson if 1.e was comfortable they would have the hydraulics necessary . Mr . Benson said they are going to increase the service to the building to provide for it and they ' re using a computer based hydraulic analysis to insure they get the proper distribution . Chairman Austen opened up the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was then closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSJ= Mr . Kanter said he could quickly highlight this and stated it was before the Planning Board just the night before . The Planning Board granted this proposal preliminary and final site plan approval as well , but also looked at basically the same environmental assessment form . In terms of traffic , the staff review indicated that the proposed conversion is expected to result in some increase in traffic in the range of 50 to 7e vehicles per day . However , the anticipated increase is well within the • capacity of the road network , In terms of effect on character of the area , none really anticipated given that this fits in within the context of the existing Cornell facilities . Those were really the only things that were highlighted and , based on staff review , it was recommended that there be a negative determination of environmental significance . Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 With no other discussion , Chairman Austen asked that a motion be made on the • environmental assessment . LOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of George R . Frantz , Assistant Tom Planner dated January 31 , 1995 and find a negative determination of environmen- tal significance for the appeal by Cornell University , Appellant , John Benson , AIA , Agent for the property at precinct 7 , Palm Road , Portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 64- 1 - 2 , Residence District R-• 30 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES -- Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Kanter said there was something else he wanted to point out ( and the Board didn ' t have this in their packets because , again , this was only approved last night at the Planning Board ) but there is the adopted resolution for preliminary and final site plan approval that was granted by the Planning Board last night as well as a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for Special Approval be approved . He also wanted to point out , within the site plan resolution , there was one • point that was made . Basically what the Board discussed was that there was previously a site plan dated June , 1990 which was subsequently approved by the Planning Board which indicated several improvements on this site relating to the fuel tanks . One of the parts of that proposal had to do with a canopy and related pad to be constructed in the area of those fuel tanks . The Planning Board felt , if that portion of the past approval weM still in place , there could be some potential conflicts with trucks moving in and out of the facility . So , basically , they attached the condition on Page 2 of the resolution the Board had before them which indicated that the new approval ( the approval given February 7 , 1995 ) supersedes the prior approval for installation of the fuel dispensing system and related canopy . In other words , that was done with Cornell ' s understanding that the canopy and related improvements would no longer be a part of this CUZ.Cent site plan . If that were to be something they did want to pursue in the future , They would have to come back for a new modification of the site plan approval . Chairman Austen asked if the canopy was part of the fire suppression for the tanks . Mr . Kanter replied , from chat they understand , there is currently in place a state-of-- the -art system . Mr . Frost said the canopy might have been more just for the protection of people or users because there is a fire protection system required by code . Chairman Austen said he had been thinking it was incorporated in the canopy and Mr . Kanter^ said , usually , a canopy will usually incorporate that in a normal fuel station . Mr . Frost said he also wanted to make it clear that the location of the existing fuel dispensing tanks do comply with all building codes with regard to their distances from structures , so those tanks are in compliance with building and fire codes . Mr . Ellsworth asked if they are buried tanks and Mr . Frost replied they are above ground but , unfortunately , they could not be seen in the picture he took . Chairman • Austen said , if he remembered correctly , they had a retaining wall around them . Mr . Frost agreed and said there is basically a catch basin for overflow encompassing what are two tanks . Chairman Austen said , if he measured right , these tanks are approximate- ly 75 ' from the building anyway so they shouldn ' t prove to be in an area where trucks Town of Ithaca 20 Zoning Board of Appeals February S . 1995 are going to be near . Mr . Frost said the only thing he wasn ' t sure of ( and , in the • absence of any pictures , his memory didn ' t serve him ) was what kind of ballards they have for protection of the fuel pumps . Mr . Benson said he thought they ' re at the edges of the pad , but he would have to check to be sure . Mr . Frost said he was pretty comfortable that , when the tanks were put in , everything complied with all the rules and regulations of fire and building codes . Chairman Austen said there were vehicles in that area anyway because that was still the service center for the maintenance , then asked if there was service on that end of the building . Mr . Benson said yes , the garage has been there since 1985 and the tank farm since 1990 so the overall level of traffic won ' t change that much from what it has been . Mr . Frost said he was curious . . . they have the larger dumpster right along Palm Road which looks like it ' s a recyclable for cardboard or something . Mr . Benson stated it was for construction materials and it would stay and not be moved anywhere . Mr . Frost said , when you get towards the back of the building facing the fuel storage tanks , there are dumpsters there now that appear to be recycleables for metal materials . He asked what would happen Fyith those and Mr . Benson replied that those three would be relocated to another part of the lot ( he pointed it out on the map ) . Mr . Frost said the concerns with the Fire Department had been resolved with their proposal to have a sprinkler system there . However , he was curious if the fencing , as it is now , is meant to provide security to the fuel dispensing or some portion of the building . Mr . Benson said it was principally for the fuel dispensing as it was the most critical thing but it also does provide security to the vehicles that are stored there over night and provides security to the mail . Mr . Frost asked then if the intent of modifying the fencing wculd be to protect the vehicles as well as the fuel storage . Mr . • Benson said , eliminating it would . Attorney Barney asked , with regard to the site utility map that was done , if it accurately portrays the relative locations of the tanks ( Mr . Benson said he believed so ) . Attorney Barney then asked if it plots the accurate location and the dimensions of those gas storage tanks and pumps and Mr . Benson said yes . Mr . Frost asked if one of those tanks is diesel and Mr . Benson said that was correct and the larger tank is unleaded fuel . Mr . King said he wasn ' t sure what the previous site plan approval was and asked if it was for extending the facility . Mr . Benson asked if he meant in 1990 and Mr . King said yes . Mr . Benson said he understood it was for creating that facility , but he wasn ' t with the university at that time . They contemplated a more extensive facslity than they actually built . Therefore , the canopy and possibly additional tanks that might have been part of the presentation at that time weren ' t built . Mr . King asked if Cornell was comfortable with the condition the Planning Board made a part of their approval and Mr . Benson said yes , they were asked that the night before and they said they were comfortable with it . If there were ever a wish to modify the tank farm , they would come back in separately and discuss the merits of that at that time . Mr . King said they would have to come back before the Board if they wished to modify or extend the tank farm and ter . Benson agreed . Mr . Frost said he had not really had an opportunity to look at any building plans but he presumes that someone has looked at it with regard to the proposed mixed occupancy in this -rood frame structure to know they can get as far as actually doing it . Mr . Benson said the architects for the project are Egner & Associates of Ithaca ( probably well known to everyone at the meeting ) and they determined that , by extending • the concrete block wall they now have in the building , it becomes a fully gradable fire wall providing the right rated doorways and door frames for the two openings in the ewall . That , together with the voluntary sprinklers and so forth , will provide the proper separation . Town of Ithaca 21 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 Mr . King said , what about the second concern noted by the Fire Chief that the • proximity of the fuel tanks poses a problem without proper access . Mr . King then asked if they were providing proper access in some way . Mr . Frost said he would like to address that by fhe following ° 1 ) It was the Assistant Fire Chief , not the Fire Chief , and 2 ) He did have a conversation with him earlier today and he basically felt , as long as they have a sprinkler system , he would be satisfied . If the sprinkler system was not there , Mr . Frost said he would have been proposing some discussion of realigning the fencing as well as providing an access to the east side of the building which would have put it in the field . This would be just so the Fire Department could have vehicle access . Again , that would not be necessary as long as they have sprinkler protection . Nor . Scala asked what is garaged there now and if it was buses . Mr . Benson replied no , the buses are combined with the county and the city and are at a completely separate site . There isn ' t any fleet that ' s garaged here , this is where vehicles come for service . There are four service bays and there might be a dozen or so vehicles waiting for service or waiting to be picked up . Mr . Scala asked if they are warehoused there and Mr . Benson said what has been warehoused on the east end is , principally , equipment that ' s used seasonally for commencement . Mr . Ellsworth asked if that was where the mail facility is going to be and Mr . Benson said yes , and that ' s the only side that is used for storage . Mr . Scala asked if that equipment then is going to be warehoused somewhere else and Mr . Benson said that ' s right and this is equipment such as large size seating risers , speakers , etc . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked that a motion be made on the appeal . • MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , Cornell University , John. Benson , AIA , Agent , a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V , Section 18 of the Torn. of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to relocate the University Mail Center to a partially vacant building used for vehicle maintenance in precinct 7 , Palm Road , Portion of Torm of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R-• 30 , with the following findings and condition : 1 . Conditioned upon installation and use of a full sprinkler system in the facility . 2 . Any modifications to the fuel dispensing system and canopy must have prior approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Zoning Board . 3 . That this matter is in compliance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- f of the Torn of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows ° AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . • The motion was carried unanimously . The next case to be heard by the Board was as follows : Town of Ithaca 22 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 APPEAL of Stephen L . Nash , Jr . , Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning • Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to add a second dwelling unit to a non-conforming building/ lot at 261 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 53- 1-21 , Residence District R- 15 . Said property is non-conforming since it has a width at the maximum front yard setback of 94 . 6 ' ( 100required ) . A variance from the requirements of Article XIII , Section 57 ( which limits undersized building lots to be used only as single-family residences ) may also be requested . Chairman Austen asked that Mr . Nash tell the Board why he needs to add to this property . fir . Nash said he bought the house in hopes of repairing it . Being a first home and being in remodeling , often times they look at properties to buy that are in need of repair , repairing them , and then later on selling them or at least having some equity there to borrow on to get into some other place that ' s more of a dream home . This isn ' t any dream home at all but was his first house and he did get into it in hopes of remodeling it and bringing it up to par . His income will not permit him to put the amount of money this house needs into it without a second income . The bank has approved a mortgage which he obtained according to his specifications which are that he was assuming he could get a second dwelling in there for a second income to help with the mortgage payment . His other feeling is that the property in that area , being very close to the college , is soon tc be income property if it isn ' t already . He looks across the street and he ' s looking right at Ithaca College . Basically , he wants to put this second unit in to help pay the bills . Chairman Austen asked if this would be his residence also and Mr . Nash said yes , owner occupied . Mr . Frost said he knows it ' s hard to predict the future but asked if Mr . Nash would envision some day , if finances allowed , not living there and renting it • as a two- family house . Mr . Nash said , to be completely honest , yes he would . He would much rather be in a place that isn ' t so populated . He is kind of stuck in this position . He doesn ' t ever intend to sell the property but it may not always be owmer occupied . He doesn ' t want to be in a position to be granted this variance and then have to live there and , if he doesn ' t live there , have to sell it to another person who will bv owner occupied . That mould put the property on a very small market for that area . Chairman Austen asked how much renovation it would take to do this . Mr . Nash said the overall appearance from the road won ' t change other than the fact that the driveway will be moved to accommodate more vehicles and it will be in a much better location which will be to the south of the house . It will be right in front of the concrete patio which will be removed and become the end of the driveway . The driveway wouldn ' t extend any closer to the south line than roughly to the concrete patio . As far as the inside , he will have to do some things suggested by the architect . As far as the extent of the renovations , they are completely gutting the property inside . Outside , there is nothing . Mr . F :os'; asked if the footprint of the building would be the same and Mr . Nash replied it would remain unchanged but they are adding a couple of walls inside . Mr . Frost noted they do have plans with an architect ' s letter for the proposed modifications for a building permit to be issued . The existing roof lines and existing ex" crior walls and foundation remain unchanged . Mr . Scala asked if it was a full attic and Mr . Nash replied that you can stand up in the middle . Mr . Nash then pointed out the location of several items on the survey map and what they would end up as after the :renovation . Mr . Nash said the shed shown was just an old metal one that they tore down . Mr . Nash said the current second floor porch would • become a kitchen and the first floor porch would become a bedroom . Town of Ithaca 23 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 Mr . Kanter wanted to ask about the parking and wanted to know how many cars could • be parked on this site . Mr . Nash said , very comfortably in this one driveway ( he didn ' t have it drawn here but has received advice on it ) , four to six cars could be accommodated . Mr . Kanter asked what the current driveway configuration could hold and Mr . Nash said , one . It really doesn ' t have a driveway , there ' s a path around the back and it was not put together very well . There is one smaller driveway where people are parking mainly on the street right now . He is proposing getting rid of that parking on the street which he doesn ' t care for anyway and bringing that down to his property . Chairman Austen asked if he could move the driveway to the other side of his house and Mr . Nash said it would be -moved to the south side . Right now , there ' s one driveway that can hold one vehicle . toren he has company or his girlfriend visits , everyone has to park on the street . This isn ' t a problem except that they have to play musical vehicles . Chairman Austen noted that Coddington Road is quite a busy road . Mr . Kanter said he is a little concerned about the adequacy of room for parking in that front area . When they get to the environmental assessment , the Board would see that was raised as an issue by staff . He suggested that they might ask that be shown on a revised plan to see what kind of layout is proposed before the Board takes final action . Mr . Frost asked if Mr . Kanter would be comfortable if the Board took action in a positive fashion and conditioned it upon a plan to be approved by the Town Planner and / or Building Inspector to provide adequate off street parking . Mr . Kanter said he would be comfortable but he thought the Board might want to have that decision making rest with itself . Mr . Kanter said his suggestion would be to ask for that revision to be made on the plan and have it brought back to the Board before a final determination was made . Mr . Nash said he wanted to add one more point . Currently , there are two driveways • ( although he wouldn ' t consider them as such to his standards ) . There is one that went around back down by the porch where the former owner had all his tools and worked on his vehicle . There is a driveway that can hold approximately three to four cars but they ' re all in a single line . There is another driveway next to that which could hold one very comfortably with plenty of room . Currently then , it would probably hold four to five vehicles but in a line and it ' s not very convenient . Mr . Nash said he has plenty of room in the back too but just thought it would be neater to have it out by the road . He doesn ' t want it to look like a commercial property but would like it to stay looking like a residence . Mr . Scala said they were over 80 ' deep on the lot everywhere , so there ' s plenty of room for four cars of 10 ' x 20 ' each . Mr . Nash said the other thing is that he has a fairly nice back yard and he wanted to secure that and wanted to leave that for leisure , recreation , etc . Mr . Kanter said it ' s hard to tell from the photo , but it looks like it kind of slopes down fairly steeply once you get past the back of the house . Mr . Nash said , actually , there ' s a bank which is an old retaining wall and it comes down and then levels out around the back . It slopes down gradually and there is not a huge sloping back yard . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Chairman Austen then noted for the record that a letter dated January 26 , 1995 had been received from the Tompkins County Department of Planning by James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner of Planning . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • Chairman Austen requested that Mr . Kanter review the highlights of the environmental assessment . Mr . Kanter noted that part C2 indicates there would not be a significant 4mpact on the character of the neighborhood . Basically , the only yards affected by this Town of Ithaca 24 Zoning Board of Appeals February 8 , 1995 are the side yards and those are conforming . However , the staff was concerned with parking . If the dwelling is converted to a two- family , parking may become problematic with the additional cars which would be there and parallel parking along the shoulder of Coddington Road is not recommended . It is suggested that the applicant provide more detailed plans that would show how the parking arrangements would be handled on this site . Other than that , the staff had recommended a negative determination of environmental significance . With no other questions or discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a motion . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of JoAnn Cornish , Planner II dated February 1 , 1995 and find a negative determination of environmental significance for the appeal by Stephen L . Nash , Jr . for the property at 261 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 53- 1 - 21 , Residence District R- 15 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS -• None , The motion was carried unanimously . With no other questions , Chairman Austen asked that a motion be made on the appeal . • MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , Stephen L . Nash , Jr . , authorization under Article XII , Section 54 of the Tot-in of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to add a second dwelling unit to a non-conforming building / lot at 261 Coddington Road , Tot-in of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 53- 1 - 21 , Residence District R- 15 . A variance is also granted from the requirements of Article XIII , Section 57 ( which limits undersized building lots to be used only as single - family residences ) such that this may be used as a two- family residence , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . Noting that the lot concerned is deficient only by something less than 6 ' in width at the setback line and , according to the survey , is almost 4 / 10 of an acre lot . 2 . That the applicant has demonstrated significant financial hardship if the second dwelling unit is not approved . 3 . Conditioned upon the applicant providing plans showing adequate graveled parking for at least four vehicles to avoid parallel parking along the shoulder of Coddington Road , such plans to be submitted to and approved by the Town Planner prior to issuance of any building permits . 4 . That there be a further condition that the parking space , as shown on that plan , • be constructed and finished by the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the second duelling unit . 5 . That this be in accordance substantially with the plans being submitted . Town of Ithaca 25 Zoning Board of Appecals February 8 , 1995 G . That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a-h . • A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS -• None . The motion was carried unanimously . `fhe last case to be heard by the Board was as follouse APPEAL ( Adjourned From January 11 , 1995 ) of James Hider , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two- story 20 ' x 30 ' addition to an existing non-conforming single- family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19--2-2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non-conforming since it is located 7 ' 1 "± from the south side yard property line , whereas 15 ' is required . The property is also . 16+ acres in area , whereby . 34± acres is required . A variance from Article IV, Section 11 may also be requested as the building addition may result in an overall building height of 32 ' + , whereas a 30 ' maximum height is permitted . Chairman Austen requested that Mr . Hider quickly review his appeal for the benefit of the Board members . Mr . Hider said he is attempting to build an addition onto a property that ' s located on the lake and is about 60 years old . It presently has only approximately 600 square feet of useable space and he wishes to build some bedrooms and • a luring room as an add- on , and remove two existing porches . Mr . Frost said , in the process of last month ' s meeting , it became apparent that the neighbor to the south side was not aware at all of the proposed project . They adjourned to enable the appellant and the neighbor ( who is in the audience ) to discuss the proposal . They are eager to know the outcome of those discussions . Mr . Hider said he showed his neighbor eallactly ghat was planned and he thought he wished to speak at the meeting tonight . Mr . King asked if his proposal was to extend the footprint of the existing building and Mr . Hider said that ' s correct . Mr . Scala asked if the present fool.-Print comes within the allowed relative area to the . 16 acres . Mr . Frost said he could shoos them the survey with the dotted line indicating the addition to the rear of the building and proceeded to do so . Mr . Frost continued that the concern is whether the projection off to the gest ( the addition to the building ) will reduce or eliminate the view of the neighbors in a northerly direction . Mr . Scala said , apart from the fact that it ' s non- conforming because of the dim:Msions , height would also be added . What he was asking is if this exceeds the allo, red footprint for the lot size , as well , and if that is another problem in this combination of variances . Mr . Frost said he couldn ' t answer that question and it would have to be worked out . Mr . Scala said the principle objection then is the interference w ' th the vice-' and Mr . E .11scrorth said that ' s correct . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing and said he believed that ' s what they are all waiting to listen to . Mr . Charles House stated he is the neighbor to the south and said Mr . Hider and his wife had staked out the area in question and , as of this time , he has no problem at all as far as the view goes . He is satisfied as far as the view • and that was his only major complaint , Mr . King asked if the addition would be a one or two story and Mr . Hider said it would be two , removing the existing parches and extending out 12 ' in front of where they now exist and going to the corner of the house . Mr . Frost asked , excluding the shed- Tocia of Ithaca 26 Zoning Board of Appeals February S . 1995 like structure to the crest side of the building , if Mr . Hider knew what the current building footprint is . He said the proposed addition is 20 ' x 301 , or 600 square feet . t•1r . Hic'e:. said the footprint , exclusive of the porches now , is in the neighborhood of 600 feet . You would add another 115 ' or thereabouts for the porches . You ' re not adding a total of 600 feet to the footprint . You ' re adding 600 ' less perhaps 120 ' . Mr . Scala asked if this is a single-- family residence and Mr . Hider said that ' s correct . Mr . Frost asked if he didn ' t own any property to the lake and if his property ended at the railroad and Mr . Hider responded that everyone ' s property there ends at the railroad tracks and the railroad ocrns the bed and the other side . Mr . Frost asked if it was pertinent to determine 200 of the total square feet because this is already a non- conforming building lot . Regardless of that conformity , the Board i-could still be granting a special approval for a non-conforming lot . Mr . Scala said it is curiosity as to whether everything has been exceeded or not ( they ' re now doing over on the height , as Drell ) . Mr . Frost agreed but said it ' s also clear that they noir have more than 20% line coverage but that ' s a product of the fact that this is already a non. -confct:,.aing building lot . Attorney Barney added that it ' s obviously now being made more non-conforming by adding . You ' re adding about 440 more square feet of footprint to the building . Mr . Frost asked if the garage was useable space and Mr . Hider said that it is still used . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . He then noted for the record that a letter dated December 15 , 1994 had been received from the Tompkins County Department of Planning by James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner of Planning . ENMONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • Chairiian Austen r quested that Mr . Kanter review the environmental assessment . Mr . Kanter said this eras J>retLy straight forward and staff recommended a negative determination . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a motion . MOTION By Mr . Edward Xing , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of the planner and find a negative deternir .nation of environmental significance for the appeal by James Hider , Appellant , for the property at 1134 East Shore Drive , Toon of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 2 -� 2 , Residence District R- 15 . A vote on the Lotion resulted as followso AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen asked if they were within the 30 ' height and Mr . Hider said he is not sure if they ° o-^e going to have to drop the front . He hasn ' t put a transit on it and they may have to drop the lake side possibly 1 ' .from preliminary measuring from the interior of those porches ; or , they may have to drop it 6 " . The height of the house is • not going to charge . The lower portion of the house may drop by 6 " to 1 ' . Mr . Ellsworth asked if that puts it over 30 ' and Mr . Hider said he doesn ' t know that either and hasn ' t measured that . Mr . Frost said what they ' re saying is , in the end , he ' s still potentially going to end up with an overall Height ( since the back is being lowered ) of 32 ° but it didn ' t seem like it would be over 32 ' . * 1r . Hider said he wouldn ' t think so . Mr . Frost said then he thought they shc :. ld still be considering the height variance . Town Wv� Ithaca 27 Zoning Board of Appeals February B , 1995 LOTION 3y Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , James Hider , Appellant , special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Article XII , Section 54 of the Torn of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two- story 20 ' x 30 ' addition to an existing non- conforming single- family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax rarCel Ns, 19 - 2 - 2 . Residence District R-- 15 . A variance is also granted from Article IV , Section 11 as the building addition may result in an overall building height of 32 ' -x• , with the following finding : 1 . That this matter is in compliance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- f of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows AYES -- Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - • None . The motion was carried iManimously . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 15 Pal . ° • *ecordintag -2 . McLaughlin Secretary Austen , dhafrmwi •