Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1995-03-08 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FINAL WEDNESDAY , MARCH S . 1995 7 . 00 P . M . Is 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 , March 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 Zetta Ruff Sprole , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the operation of a Bed and Breakfast known as " The Hound and Hare " with a maximum of four lodgers , to be located in a single - family residence at 1031 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 7 - 5 , Residence District R- 15 . The Appellant was granted a 5 year time- limited variance on January 3 , 1990 which has now expired . Appeal of Susan and Harold Mix , D . B . A . Mix Trucking , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to renovate a non- conforming business at 805 Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59 - 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 9 . The renovation primarily involves only the existing building and does not include enlarging the business operation . Said business is non-conforming since R- 9 zones permit only residential uses with limited associated home occupations . Appeal of Ronald Schassburger , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V . Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single- family residence with a building height of 33 ± feet ( maximum 30 feet allowed ) at 798 Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 30 , Residence • District R- 30 . Appeal of Nancy Given , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XI , Section 51 and Article V , Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of New York State and Town Law , to be permitted to maintain a single- family residence and animal kennel on a property that does not front on a town , county, or state highway , located at 274 Hayts Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24 - 1 - 34 . 1 and Portion of 24 - 1 - 34 . 4 , Agricultural District ( Residence District R- 30 regulations also apply ) . A 60 foot wide right-of-way will provide access to the property . The Appellant will be subdividing and transferring ownership of the parcels of land . APPEAL of Patricia Classen , D . B . A . Classen Home Health Associates , Inc . , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 4 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place a free - standing sign reading " Classen Home Health Associates , Inc . " with a total sign area of 16 . 5 square feet ( maximum 4 square feet allowed ) at 1212 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 26 - 3- 8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . 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 : February 27 , 1995 Publish : March 3 , 1995 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF IThIACA FINAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS _ WEDNESDAY , MARCH 8 , 1995 Date �- • Clerk z n The following appeals were heard by the Board on March 8 , 1995 : Appeal of Zetta Ruff Sprole , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the operation of a Bed and Breakfast known as " The Hound and Hare " with a maximum of four lodgers , to be located in a single- family residence at 1031 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 7 - 5 , Residence District R- 15 . The Appellant was granted a 5 year time- limited variance on January 3 , 1990 which has now expired . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Appeal of Susan and Harold Mix , D . B . A . Mix Trucking , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to renovate a non- conforming business at 805 Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59- 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 9 . The renovation primarily involves only the existing building and does not include enlarging the business operation . Said business is non- conforming since R- 9 zones permit only residential uses with limited associated home occupations . GRANTED WITH A CONDITION . Appeal of Ronald Schassburger , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V . Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to • construct a single- family residence with a building height of 33 + feet ( maximum 30 feet allowed ) at 798 Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 30 , Residence District R- 30 . GRANTED WITH A CONDITION . Appeal of Nancy Given , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XI , Section 51 and Article V . Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of New York State and Town Law , to be permitted to maintain a single- family residence and animal kennel on a property that does not front on a town , county, or state highway , located at 274 Hayts Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 - 34 . 1 and Portion of 24 - 1 - 34 . 4 , Agricultural District ( Residence District R- 30 regulations also apply ) . A 60 foot wide right-of-way will provide access to the property . The Appellant will be subdividing and transferring ownership of the parcels of land . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL of Patricia Classen , D . B . A . Classen Home Health Associates , Inc . , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 4 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place a free - standing sign reading " Classen Home Health Associates , Inc . " with a total sign area of 16 . 5 square feet ( maximum 4 square feet allowed ) at 1212 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 26 - 3- 8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . ADJOURNED TO FUTURE MEETING . • FILED 1 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date_ $ MARCH 8 . 1995 C1erkpCtn0 �7O �T�d • PRESENT : Vice Chairman Edward King , David Stotz , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Director of Building and Zoning Andrew Frost , Town Planner Jonathan Kanter . OTHERSo Zetta Ruff Sprole , Attorney Martin Shapiro , Ronald Schassburger , Nancy Given , Henry Theisen , Ilene Lambiase , Harold Mix , Douglas Pokorney . Vice Chairman King called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 PM , stating 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 Zetta Ruff Sprole , Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the operation of a Bed and Breakfast known as "The Hound and Hare " with a maximum of four lodgers , to be located in a single-family residence at 1031 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 -7-5 , Residence District R- 15 . The Appellant was granted a 5 year time-- limited variance on January 3 , 1990 which has now expired . Vice Chairman King informed the Board that the variance which was granted five years ago was subject to certain conditions and , at that time , there were a number of people in opposition to the application . As far as the written records go , some of those people • who were opposed have now submitted to this Board consents for the extension of the variance . About 12 people have written to the Board . Attorney Shapiro informed the Board that they had before them an application for an extension of the variance granted five years ago . He continued by stating that , since that time , the Board might also remember that a variance was also granted to expand the property for Mrs . Sprole ' s own private use , and that was completed approximately three years ago . She continues to use that section that has been expanded just for her own use . Attorney Shapiro stated that he E-Mould like to bring to the Board ' s attention some additional matters , arising in the last five years . First of all , the personal hardship for Mrs . Sprole has increased as her family- run business has suffered some reverses , resulting in some financial reverses to her . So , now Mrs . Sprole primarily resides on the relatively small income from the bed and breakfast for her livelihood . The application also provides the Board with color pictures so that both the inside and the outside of the premises can be seen . Attorney Shapiro also included the before and after pictures for the addition so that the Board might see the beauty that really has been added to the building by the addition . Attorney Shapiro continued by saying that once again the appeal is for a fairly minimal variance . Mrs . Sprole could maintain the so-called bed and breakfast for two additional people , other than herself , since she is the sole resident of the premises . All she has ever asked for is that she be allowed to have two couples from time -to-time . The actual usage over the past five years shows that , generally , from April to October , • weekend usage is pretty good , in that , many of the weekends , she has two couples staying with her in the bed and breakfast . He pointed out , for the Board members that may not remember , Mrs . Sprole lives in the residence herself . It ' s owner- occupied all the time . The rest of the year , from November through March or so , the occupancy rate seems to be Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • about 50 percent on weekends . It varies a little bit depending on what is going on at Cornell , of course . Occupancy during the week , Sunday nights through Thursday nights , inclusive , is pretty low and spotty . It ' s pretty rare that there really is any occupancy during the week . Mr . Ellsworth asked if that was true even for the summer . Attorney Shapiro replied yes , that was true . He believes the occupancy is a little bit greater in the summer than in the winter , but it is basically weekend travel that gives rise to the occupancy . He continued to say that , other than what he has already said , the Board has before them just about everything that could tell them about the property and the usage . Also , as the Vice Chairman has noted , there are attached , signed statements by virtually all of the neighbors and people who had any concerns five years ago . That is true , at least , of everyone who was present in Ithaca at the time they ran around to get the signatures . He also stated that he thinks it ' s important to note that many of them actually use the Hound and the Hare Bed and Breakfast for their guests that visit them when they don ' t have enough room to put them up . So , this really turned into a kind of neighborhood convenience . He added that everyone just seems so pleased at having this in the neighborhood . Attorney Shapiro referred the Board to the pictures to show them how this variance that was granted five years ago has enabled this property to be , not only maintained , but improved , so that it ' s a fantastic addition to the neighborhood . He started with the interior pictures , stating that there were also some exterior pictures . He mentioned a before picture , with an after picture on the back , noting that it added symmetry to the building that is absolutely gorgeous now . He then invited the Board to ask any • questions . He continued by saying that the effect on the neighborhood , with respect to parking , is nominal ; the effect of traffic is nominal because the usage is so minimal . He said that what they are asking for now , since they ' ve had a five-year experiment that seems to have worked in an exemplary fashion , is that Mrs . Sprole be granted a variance without limitations as far as years go , but with the same conditions that the Board imposed before . As he recalls , those conditions included the fact that the variance was personal to her . If she sells the property or stops living in it herself , the variance would cease . Vice Chairman King noted that the variance was , indeed , limited . He added that it required that certain documents be recorded to indicate that this was a temporary variance . Attorney Shapiro answered that he believes they were all recorded . He noted that he ran them by Mr . Barney and got concurrence on that . Vice Chairman King asked how long Mrs . Sprole intends to operate this . Attorney Shapiro replied that , God willing and health willing , indefinitely . This is her only home at this point and how she gets her livelihood . Vice Chairman King noted that , for the record , it ' s a very Colonial -appearing house and quite charming . The grounds are adequate . He believes there ' s over one acre of land involved . Attorney Shapiro responded that it ' s approximately one acre of land . Mr . Stotz asked if there are four bedrooms for guests . Attorney Shapiro said that there are four bedrooms in all , but only two are ever utilized for guests . One bedroom is utilized by Mrs . Sprole and one is not utilized at all . • Mr . Stotz asked if there are a maximum of four guests there at any time . Attorney Shapiro responded with yes . Town of Ithaca 3 toning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Mr . Frost stated building code would require a fairly stringent set of fire safety regulations if she rented to more than four lodgers . With the limitation of four lodgers , the building could be used as a single_ family residence classification . Mr . Stotz asked if they are asking to just continue on with the same conditions that were placed on it at the previous time in 1990 . Attorney Shapiro said yes , except they are asking that there not be a five -year limitation . Simply because to come back before the Board requires an expenditure of time and money . Since the track record over the last five years has been outstanding , and generally viewed by the neighborhood , without exception , as a positive thing , it would seem to him that the Board might grant a variance , once again personal to Mrs . Sprole , but without having to come back in another five years . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Frost if there have been any complaints at all . Mr . Frost said they have received no complaints since 1990 . Mr . Ellsworth then asked Attorney Barney " how this fits . " Does it work? Attorney Barney answered that it ' s up to the Board . It could grant permanent , or five year , or seven year extensions . Mr . Scala noted that five years ago there was some talk about dogs . Attorney Shapiro answered that there are four dogs on the premises , although one has , unfortunate - ly , a terminal brain tumor , so there will be three dogs on the premises . He added that there has been no breeding of dogs on the premises and he believes that what happened after the last variance application is that one of the people who complained about the dogs barking , if he recalls correctly , was the neighbor behind the house , and he didn ' t realize that the barking was not coming from Mrs . Sprole ' s dogs , but from the dog next door . That has since been rectified to the extent that they at least know where the dog barking is coming from . Those people are some of the people who have signed the consent form that ' s been attached to the application . Vice Chairman King noted that the consent forms he mentioned appear to cover every house , both sides of the street and to either side , east and west of the property . Attorney Shapiro added that it also included behind the property . Vice Chairman King added that there are at least three consents from properties on each side of the house and across the way . Nobody has filed any objections . Attorney Shapiro said that everybody has seemed to wholeheartedly support the continuance of the bed and breakfast there . Mr . Scala informed the Board that he stopped to talk to the manager of the country club and they do not have any objection . They have not heard any comments or complaints . Mr . Scala asked if Mrs . Sprole maintains the fence between the property and the country club . Attorney Shapiro responded that Mrs . Sprole nodded in the affirmative so he assumes it ' s true . Vice Chairman King opened the public hearing . Since no one appeared to address the Board , Vice Chairman King closed the public hearing . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Vice Chairman King referred to the environmental assessment form which was reviewed by JoAnn Cornish , Planner II of the Town of Ithaca Planning Department . He read portions of the environmental assessment form . Vice Chairman King said that the staff recommenda- tion is that , based on the scale of the proposed operation and the materials submitted , a negative determination for environmental significance is recommended . Vice Chairman King then asked for a motion on this . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that , with respect to the appeal by Mrs . Sprole , the owner at 1031 Hanshaw Road , of the Hound and Hare lodging , the Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance and recommend the action based on the report by the Planner , JoAnn Cornish . Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - King , Scala , Ellsworth , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Vice Chairman King read the letter from the Tompkins County Planning Department . Vice Chairman King noted , for the record , that in 1. 990 the conditions imposed on the granting of the variance were six in number and they are in the records before the Board members . Vice Chairman King then asked for those six conditions to still be imposed if there is a motion in favor of the variance . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . • RESOLVED , that , with respect to Mrs . Sprole ' s appeal , relative to 1031 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 7 - 5 , known as the Hound and Hare Bed and Breakfast , the Board grant the appeal without restrictions as long as Mrs . Sprole remains the owner and runs the Hound and Hare ( this is with the consent of the applicant and her attorney ) , with the following conditions : 1 . That the applicant supply the Board with a document in properly recordable form agreeing to limiting the duration of the variance to her ownership of the property . 2 . That the applicant , herself , continue to occupy the premises and , if she vacates the premises , the variance will cease ; such condition to be included in the document to be submitted to the Board . 3 . That no pets be accepted from any of the proposed boarders at any time for occupancy on the premises . 4 . That the Building Inspector inspect the premises and be satisfied as to the life safety aspects of the premises for an occupancy of a residence occupied by no more than four lodgers . 5 . That , as the applicant has represented , the anticipated use will be principally on weekends and occasionally mid-week . • 6 . That at no time will there be more than four ( 4 ) bed and breakfast occupants . 7 . That the premises be inspected at periodic intervals , to be determined by the building inspector , but at least every three years for fire safety consider- ations and that any code violations be brought into compliance . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals March S . 1995 • Mr . Frost asked that the condition be modified to say for occupancy as a residence occupied by no more than four lodgers . Mr . Scala asked if there had been an inspection . Mr . Frost said they did the inspection shortly after 1990 . They were also involved with a building permit that was entertained and he was up there last week . He added that he didn ' t see any problems with his walk-through of the building . There are a number of smoke detectors in the building , most of which he did not test . It wasn ' t clear whether or not they were connected to a security system . He didn ' t want to test the smoke alarm and have police and other people show up at the door . He continued by stating that he would like to have verification that all smoke detectors are operating satisfactorily . Mr . Scala asked if carbon monoxide detectors are required . Mr . Frost responded no . Mr . Scala asked what kind of heating system the home has . Attorney Shapiro stated that it ' s forced air , gas . Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Scala if his motion included the imposition of the six conditions from 1990 . Mr . Scala answered that yes , it does . Vice Chairman King asked if he agreed that condition number four should be modified . Mr . Scala answered that yes , he does . Vice Chairman King continued that the life safety aspects be inspected for occupancy by no more than four lodgers . Mr . Frost said that you can ' t have a bed and breakfast with ten people or a whole set of different regulations apply . So , the record should show that it ' s at a lower level of fire safety requirements . Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Scala , Ellsworth , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . • The motion was carried unanimously . The second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Appeal of Susan and Harold Mix , D . B . A . Mix Trucking , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to renovate a non-conforming business at 805 Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59- 1- 1 , Residence District R-9 . The renovation primarily involves only the existing building and does not include enlarging the business operation . Said business is non-conforming since R-9 zones permit only residential uses with limited associated home occupations . Vice Chairman King invited Mr . Harold Mix to take the seat by the microphone . He then asked Mr . Mix if the extent of his appeal is to turn a bay into a lounge . Mr . Mix said that the extent of the appeal is that there are a couple of rooms that are presently office space and there ' s additional space , which used to be a truck bay . They would like to incorporate that bay into their existing office space . Vice Chairman King asked if that was the bay on the north side of the building . He noted that there are two bays on the southeast side of the building . Mr . Mix stated that those two bays would continue as truck bays . They would like to eliminate the third truck bay . Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Mix how long they had been operating there . Mr . Mix replied that it ' s been since 1980 , he believes . He added that he originally started to rent the property and then bought it . Vice Chairman King then asked if that had been part of the Kopper ' s property . Mr . Mix responded affirmatively . • Mr . Frost noted that also as part of the proposal is an extension on the building . There ' s a covered entryway on columns . Vice Chairman King asked if that would be an extension to the north . Mr . Frost said yes and that it appears to be open on all sides , so you ' d be standing with a roof over your head . Mr . Mix agreed with that . He then Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 added that the reason for that is to try to improve the looks of that end of the • building , to get a little covered entryway . Vice Chairman King noted that not many people see that end of the building . Mr . Mix said no , not a lot of people . Vice Chairman King added that it was very well shielded from Vine Street . Mr . Mix said that Vine Street runs fairly close , but there ' s a hedge row along there from Mitchell Street , and you can barely see it at all . Mr . Frost stated that it would probably be visible from the walkway or possibly standing on the street to the northwest . It is clearly exposed from that point . Mr . Mix stated that , along with the conversion into a little more office space , they are hoping that they could redo some of the electrical wiring inside , which would probably bring it up to a better code , and a little bit of improved plumbing . Also , a new heat system would certainly increase the efficiency on their end , with added insulation and new windows . Vice Chairman King asked if this would signify an intention to increase the intensity of the use as a trucking business . Mr . Mix said not really ; they are a pretty low- key operation . Much of their business is over the phone . They also hire trucks , besides their own . The number they own is fairly limited and the trucks they hire occasionally will pull in , but seldom , come near that property . Mr . Ellsworth asked if they are trucking coal for Cornell . Mr . Mix replied no , that is his cousin ' s business . He ( Mr . Mix ) does a lot of freight business , so his trucks are out on the road , away from the shop all week long much of the time . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Mix if there is any usage as storage such as storing a full truck . Mr . Mix said no . Mr . Frost said there are some trailers there sometimes and the number varies from time -to-time . Mr . Mix said there are a few storage trailers which he has owned for a number of years . They were originally over- the - road trailers with normal • usage . They are to the point where they are old enough so they are not used on the road anymore . Ninety percent of the time those trailers are empty . In the summer time , there are some things put in them , some are rented out occasionally , but fairly low-key stuff . Mr . Frost stated that the property is non-conforming and that , from time -to- time , the Town has to address the uses of non- conforming businesses such as Mr . Mix ' s . He then stated he would like to document , specifically , what there is in terms of numbers of vehicles that are used for storage and so forth , so the Board knows what is there . If down the road something changes , there would then be some measure of what that change is . He asked Mr . Mix to explain how many tractors he has going in and out of the property , the number of employees and the extent of storage . Mr . Mix responded that there are probably anywhere from 3 - 4 tractors to 6 - 7 , at the most , on the property at any one time . Normally , these are tractors Mr . Mix owns . He continued with there are probably seven trailers total . A lot of those are parked at the customers who Mr . Mix ships for . So , nine times out of ten , there are probably three or four trailers sitting in the yard at any one time . Mr . Frost asked if there could be a maximum of seven and if that included those that are on the north side of the lot . Mr . Mix replied yes to the maximum of seven but that the ones on the north would be in addition . He believes there are three or four of the storage trailers . He parks them out on the end in order to keep them out of the way when maneuvering around . Mr . Scala asked if that would then mean a total of 11 or 12 . Mr . Mix said yes , if they were there all at one time . Mr . Frost asked about the maximum amount of emplyees , either working in the garage or on the site . Mr . Mix said probably ten people at any one • time . T0wn of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals March S . 1995 Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Mix if his usage of that site has gone up over the past five to ten years . Mr . Mix said that it has probably increased a small amount , but minimally . His equipment , that he actually owns , has increased a little . He used to have straight trucks . He still has one ; he used to have four at cne time , over and above the tractor trailers . Mr . Frost asked if the straight trucks were flatbeds . Mr . Mix replied that no , they are just trucks , units within themselves , like dump trucks . Mr . Scala asked if Mr . Mix maintains all of his equipment there . Mr . Mix responded that yes , they do . Most of their maintenance is general maintenance . The heavy-duty repairs , such as replacing engines , etc . , are usually farmed out . Mr . Scala asked if the plan to add office space is because that end of the business is growing more than the need to repair trucks . Mr . Mix said exactly . He continued to say that they don ' t really need a lot of office space in order to add a lot of people . If someone should come in and see the office space they would see that it ' s very limited . They would like a little more room for each person , per office . They would also like a little more room to store files and at the same time , they would upgrade the electrical and telephone systems . Mr . Scala asked if they communicate with their trucks do they have radios . Mr . Mix stated that they don ' t . All of their communication , for the most part , is done by telephone . As far as they ' ve gone is to send a mobile phone with a truck for a driver to call back in if he needs to . Attorney Barney said that he assumes Mr . Mix is going to plan on being there for a while . Mr . Mix answered affirmatively . . Vice Chairman King opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Vice Chairman King referred to the short environmental assessment form reviewed by JoAnn Cornish , Planner II . Mr . Scala noted that it has been said that everything is effectively hidden by surrounding vegetation . He asked if that meant weeds . Mr . Mix stated that a lot of vegetation has grown into the fence and there was , along Vine Street , some pine tree type vegetation . Mr . Frost stated that you could see the property from Mitchell Street . Vice Chairman King noted that it ' s a very unobtrusive appearance ; you have to look for it . Mr . Mix agreed with that . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of the appeal of Susan and Harold Mix , D . B . A . Mix Trucking , to be permitted to renovate a non-conforming business at 805 Mitchell Street , and that the renovations would primarily involve only the existing building , does not include enlarging the business operation . Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - King , Scala , Stotz , Ellsworth . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Vice Chairman King noted that they had a letter from Mr . Hanson , the County Planning Commissioner . Vice Chairman King asked the Board for any comments . Mr . Scala asked what is being looked at in terms of the area of the property , 2 or 3 acres . Mr . Mix replied that the triangle piece is 2 . 39 acres maybe and they have seen the size of the building . Vice Chairman King noted that the application would affect only the existing building at the southwest corner of the property . Mr . Stotz asked if the portico that is being built ( which he thinks is rather nice looking ) is being constructed in a way that it could be enclosed at some point . Is there any intention to do that? Mr . Mix answered that there is , at this point , no intent to do that . He continued to say that the architect had been asked to make some kind of covered entryway . It ' s an option whether or not they do it . Mr . Stotz asked if it was being constructed in a way that it could be enclosed . Mr . Mix , answered that he supposes it could be enclosed at some point because there are pillars that hold it up . You would still have to frame it to enclose it . Mr . Frost asked if it makes a difference to the Board because the environmental assessment form suggests that it would enhance the looks of the building if it were not put in . He thought he heard Mr . Mix say it was an option . Mr . Mix said , yes , it ' s an option . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Mix if he had gotten prices on the work yet . Mr . Mix . responded affirmatively . Vice Chairman King asked if Mr . Mix ' s present intention is to build the portico . Mr . Mix said he would like to ; again , it ' s a question of dollars . He thinks that part is somewhere in the neighborhood of $ 2500 , expense wise . Vice Chairman King asked that , if Mr . Mix didn ' t do that , would he still be putting in a door , a single door in place of the huge overhead door . Mr . Mix said right ; the overhead door would come out . Vice Chairman King noted that they would have to block up that part of the building or the door would extend above . Mr . Mix agreed with that . He said it would be finished off to either blend in with the building or give it a nice finished appearance , Vice Chairman King said that his personal opinion is that it wouldn ' t make much difference as not many people would even look at that building , other than the people who work there . Mr . Frost asked Mr . Mix to clarify , on the average , how many people would be working in the building or on- site on a daily basis . He said he goes back to his 1986 letter , when he first got involved with this , during his third week on the job with the Town . He notes that it was quite a struggle to verify the legal non- conformance of the property . At that time , they were talking about three additional people plus Mr . Mix and his wife . Because from time to time , there are complaints about enlarging the use or increasing the intensity of the use - - which Mr . Mix has no right to do unless the Zoning Board approves . He wants to be clear in his own mind , for the future , how many people can be expected , without slight increases which would not be permitted . Mr . Mix asked Mr . Frost if he meant on average or at any one time . Mr . Frost said he means on a daily • basis . Mr . Ellsworth said the maximum is 11 when they have a sales meeting or something . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 Attorney Barney asked how many people work in the building . Mr . Mix said there are about five on average . Sometimes a driver will come in with a truck and , if it ' s in need of repair , he might be standing around watching or helping . Or , there might be two of them . Attorney Barney asked , typically , who is stationed there . Mr . Mix responded that himself , his wife , a mechanic and a part-time mechanic . Attorney Barney asked if there was someone else that is basically there and not on the road , driving . Mr . Mix said no , there ' s not . Besides the one full - time person we have in the office with us , is a part- time secretary/ office worker . Mr . Scala asked if they operated on a second and third shift basis . Mr . Mix replied no , they are pretty much eight-to- five . If they have breakdowns , they might be there in the evening . Mr . Frost asked Mr . Mix if he has any intent to have any storage of any kind where they would be renting space , taking on warehousing of property for people . Mr . Mix said no . Attorney Barney asked if he was doing that now . Mr . Mix , again , replied no . Vice Chairman King asked for a motion on the appeal . He added also that the appeal is not to renovate the business , but the building . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that regarding the appeal of Susan and Harold Mix of Mix Trucking , 805 Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel No . 59 - 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 9 , the Board grant special approval for renovating the building based on the business being • fundamentally the same as it is presently . This would include enlarging the building by possibly adding a portico , with the following finding and condition : 1 . That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a-h . 2 . The work must be in substantial conformance with the plans , prepared by Precision Design , as presented to the Board . Vice Chairman King called for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - King , Scala , Ellsworth , Stotz . NAYS � None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Frost reminded Mr . Mix to get a building permit and Mr . Mix agreed to that and then thanked the Board for their time . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : Appeal of Ronald Schassburger, Appellant , requesting a variance from the require- ments of Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a building height of 33 + feet ( maximum 30 feet allowed ) at 798 Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1- 30 , Residence District R-30 . • Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Schassburger to tell the Board just what elevations of the building are going to be affected . Mr . Schassburger asked to start by saying that , when the house was originally designed with this architect , it was over 30 feet . The architect , Mr . Ainslee , normally works on schools outside the area and is not familiar Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 with that particular regulation of the Town of Ithaca , and he had a 12 on 12 pitch on the roof . When he reminded him of that , the pitch of the roof was changed to 8 on 12 to bring it into conformance with the regulation . At that time , they were right at 30 feet , with the plans the Board has in their possession . He continued by saying that once they went over to the site to lay out the house , they discovered that , in taking some elevations , the entrance to the garage was considerably higher than the bridge that one crosses to get onto the property and they needed to lower the garage two feet to reduce the steepness of that grade . They did that by ordering some precast foundations that were an extra two feet high and then sinking them two feet lower than the basement of the house . It was at that point that they became in non- conformance with regulations . So , they are about three feet above the height variance . Mr . Schassburger indicated that he had brought some photographs to show the steepness of the grade to that existing garage . They installed the foundations and have begun the rough framing . The other thing the photographs show is the old house that was there previously . It was at a height above the surrounding ground level , the same or higher than this house will be . What they have , in fact , done is not increase the height , but the depth of the attached garage . The other point he wants to emphasize by the photographs is the isolated nature of the piece of property . They own 3 . 3 acres and it sits right in the middle of a surrounding 200•- acre heavily wooded forest , right at the top of Coy Glen . If the building were , in fact , 60 feet high , it would not interfere with anyone ' s view or be noticeable . Mr . Frost stated that had the existing house when Mr . Schassburger bought it been in better condition , he may have attempted to utilize it rather than tear it down and build new . There were significant problems with that existing house . He continued by • saying that what actually happened was that the fire department , in a controlled burn , burned the building down for them . Mr . Schassburger continued by stating that , when they first purchased the property 1 - 1 / 2 years ago , their intent was to renovate the house . When they brought an architect in , he said it would not be worth the money it would take to spend on it . At that point , they decided to burn that and the garage down . They also found out that the well and septic tank had collapsed . Instead of buying four acres , which they thought they were buying , it was just 3 . 3 acres . They had to put in a new well and a new septic . They put a lot of money into the property . In light of that , they had to build up rather than out , due to cost effectiveness . They really didn ' t have the option of building horizontally as opposed to vertically . Attorney Barney asked where the house is going to go . Mr . Schassburger said that it sits right on the knoll between the two creeks that form the beginning of Coy Glen , right next to the old house . Vice Chairman King noted that the site plan shows it immediately to the east . Mr . Schassburger said that there is a right- of-way of 460 ' over Cornell property , off of Elm Street Extension , so the house cannot be seen from the road because it ' s heavily wooded around that area . Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Schassburger if they own frontage on Elm Street and do they use the right--of-way? Mr . Schassburger replied yes , because the creek runs across the property . That ' s a view down Elm Street , looking from Poole Road , or just below Poole Road . The other photograph is looking the other way, headed down towards the property , towards Poole Road . You can see the right- of-way on the right . • Vice Chairman King noted that in one picture you can see a little house . Mr . Schassburger said that ' s the right- of-way; that ' s the only house in the entire depression . The smaller picture is the view down the driveway from the small bridge that goes over to the house , Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 Vice Chairman King stated that he has not studied Mr . Schassburger ' s plans so he is not sure where he will exceed the 30 feet . Mr . Schassburger responded that he did not believe , originally , that he had exceeded the 30 feet . The garage is really attached , in part , to the main house , with the master bedroom above it . That height is less than 30 feet , it ' s 27 feet . But , concerning the adjacent structure that ' s tied into it , has a walk-down basement that ' s 2 - 2 - 1 / 2 feet higher than the garage . That ' s what brings it over the allowable limit . Mr . Stotz stated that the issue is the distance from the floor of the garage to the peak . He said that the lowest point is the slab on the garage . He asked if the reason Mr . Schassburger lowered it was because the grade coming up from the bridge was too steep . Mr . Schassburger said yes and it ' s still too steep . They ' ll have to do something else in terms of excavation . Vice Chairman King asked if he is to understand that the interior measurements are within the 30 feet . Mr . Schassburger said yes , if you measure from the walkout basement to the top of that roof , it should be just 30 feet . Mr . Scala noted that the drawings refer to future decks . Mr . Schassburger stated that they were going to try to do that with this construction . Mr . Scala continued by asking Mr . Schassburger if what he is essentially asking for includes the decks . Mr . Schassburger responded affirmatively and stated that the decks would be modified from what is on the plans . Vice Chairman King noted that it had nothing to do with exceeding the height . Vice Chairman King opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the • public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mr . Kanter noted that the building under construction is close to the depressed area . He asked Mr . Schassburger where the depressed area goes . Mr . Schassburger replied that it goes down to the creek , and that there ' s another creek on the other side . Mr . Scala asked if there are creeks running through the property . Mr . Schassburger said that there are two of them . Mr . Scala then asked Mr . Schassburger to show where they are . Mr . Schassburger did so . Mr . Kanter noted that dirt is flowing into the creek . Mr . Schassburger replied that it ' s just during construction . It ' s not usually flowing into the creek . Mr . Frost noted that if the dirt sat for a while and there was rain , it would wash into the creek . He also noted that there is limited space there to push the dirt . He asked Mr . Schassburger if he would have any problem putting in a silt fence . He is sympathetic to the difficulties of keeping the dirt on the bank , but some measure needs to be provided to maintain that pile of dirt , presuming it ' s going to be there for the remainder of the construction period . Mr . Schassburger said he would ask the contractor , as he is an excavator . Mr . Stotz asked where the dirt will go . Mr . Schassburger replied that , for some of the dirt , he can ' t say because the contractor told him it is soft and may not be able to be used for a road bed . They do need to leave some dirt up at the garage entrance to build that area up and have a turn around there in order to be able to drive up the bridge . There ' s a problem he hasn ' t resolved yeti that is , getting up to that garage entrance when it is winter and icy . Also , backing out of the garage and not • backing into the creek . That is something they ' ve been talking about and are going to do something about . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Mr . Scala asked if the driveway is Mr . Schassburger ' s . Mr . Schassburger said no , the long one is Cornell ' s . Mr . Scala asked if Cornell maintains the bridge . Mr . Schassburger stated that no , it is his responsibility . Technically , the line runs down the middle of the bridge . That bridge was put in by the former owner , David Dense . Mr .. Schassburger added that , with respect to anything going into the creek , those creeks have been cleaned up considerably in the past year and a half . The former owner had cinder blocks and barrels and pipes and automobile parts and tires throughout the property and creeks . It ' s taken that long to clean it up . He has spent over $ 3000 just cleaning up the property . He ' s very concerned with maintaining the property . Mr . Kanter said that what ' s interesting to note is that , on the northwestern edge of Coy Glen , there ' s a critical environmental area that ' s designated by the Town . When you get to the environmental assessment , you ' ll see that we had to do a long form , rather than a short form , on it because , under the Town ' s Environmental Review Law , any action that ' s within 250 feet of a critical environmental area is a type 1 action and that ' s what triggered the long form . It ' s just interesting to point out that , with the importance of the creek and the natural area in Coy Glen , some kind of protective measure , like what is being recommended with the dirt piles and sedimentation , screening or fencing he thinks would certainly be appropriate to try to reduce the impact of construction . Mr . Scala asked if there is an added fee for a long form versus the short form . Mr . Kanter replied no , but it ' s a good idea . Vice Chairman King noted that Coy Glen divides into three branches . He doesn ' t quite see where that division occurs . Mr . Kanter said he thinks it ' s indicating a triangular part where the property surrounds it on three • sides . Vice Chairman King said he sees the creek coming from the southeast and flowing the other way . The creek meets southeast of the proposed construction site . Mr . Frost said that you could stand on the site , basically , three out of the four directions and see the creek . He believes it ' s the most wonderful site in the Town of Ithaca . Vice Chairman King asked exactly where the problem is concerning the piling up of dirt . Mr . Frost pointed to a spot on the map . Mr . Scala asked if there is now a sedimentation and erosion control plan . Mr . Frost said there is none . Vice Chairman King said it would have to be developed by the applicant , in conjunction with the Planning Department . Mr . Scala asked if that ' s a plan that is to be submitted to the Town Planner . Mr . Kanter stated that it ' s really more of an engineering kind of thing , which Mr . Frost has experience with and Dan Walker , the Town Engineer , is really the one who reviews those . But , usually a sedimentation and erosion control plan would not be required with a building permit process . In a case like this , where it ' s a critical environmental area , that being a factor , it would certainly be a consideration to have one prepared . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Schassburger if his contractor had a plan , or some knowledge of a need for this . Mr . Schassburger responded that no , this is news to him . Quite frankly , with the amount of water that runs doom through there , if the whole pile of dirt were to wash in , it would not affect the land ; that ' s his personal opinion . Vice Chairman King asked if he was saying that it would not go down the creek . Mr . Schassburger replied no , he is saying that it would not go down the creek but that it would be flowing so fast it would not settle in the creek . You would not find any sedimentation within the land . It ' s very steep all the way down . For years there have • been heavy objects just sitting in that creek . Sediment would go down very rapidly . Particularly , between now and the time the house would be finished , there will be a lot of water running through there . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Mr . Stotz noted that the assessment form states to periodically check sand and filter of dispersion ditch for failure to the system . Are you saying that it should be checked more frequently than one normally checks systems? Mr . Frost said that the Health Department prepared a permit for the sewage treatment . The statement was shown to Mr . Schassburger . Mr . Stotz said that , in determination of environmental impact , is it the duty of the Board to look at a statement like this and add that as a contingent , that the system has to be checked twice a year . Attorney Barney replied that everything they have there is the view of Mrs . Cornish . The Board can either adopt it , reject it , or modify it . The decision is the Board ' s ; this is her opinion , her recommendation . The Board does not have to accept it . Mr . Stotz asked if what Mrs . Cornish is saying is that it is recommended to the owner that the sand filter in the dispersion ditch be inspected periodically . Mr . Kanter replied that this review happened to coincide with the Conservation Board meeting last Thursday . JoAnn ran this by the Conservation Board , and so this recommendation , and the sedimentation and erosion control plan were also recommendations that came from the Conservation Board . Given the proximity and the constrained site , which is right on the edge of the creek in the critical environmental area , the recommendations certainly seem to be appropriate ones . Mr . Scala asked if there are 15 degree slopes between the construction and the creek . He can ' t tell how steep it is . Mr . Schassburger responded that , with the dirt piled up there , it ' s more than 15 degrees . He also added that the existing septic that was there hadn ' t failed . The septic tank collapsed and all he was under obligation to do was to replace the tank . He took it upon himself to go to the expense of putting in a septic field so that he wouldn ' t have problems . He has a feeling that the old field that was there was probably nothing more than a leech field that was running directly • into the creek . He believes he ' s been very responsible in doing that . He has a brand new septic field in there that has been approved by the Health Department . He would not like to go to the expense of having to test it twice a year or whatever . Mr . Kanter said that he doesn ' t think twice a year is necessary , but some kind of periodic monitoring is . Mr . Schassburger stated that it would certainly be pumped on a yearly basis . Mr . Ellsworth noted that this is up to the owner because if something fails , the environmental people are going to go out and fine him . Mr . Kanter replied that the concern of the Conservation Board was just that the septic system is so close to the creek . The Health Department has to look at certain things . They may , or may not , have looked at the significance of the critical environmental area nearby . They should have if they didn ' t , but they may not have . Mr . Kanter said that one of the responsibilities of the Town Board is to look at Town interests and whether the Health Department does that all the time he doesn ' t know . Attorney Barney said if this becomes a problem , the people who are going to be enforcing it are going to be Tompkins County . Mr . Ellsworth added that the Health Department would go up there on calls from the neighbors . Mr . Frost noted that he could appreciate the concerns that the Conservation Board may have . At the same time , if Mr . Schassburger just repaired the house that was there , there would be no control over this . If he tore down the house and rebuilt it to the exact same height , he wouldn ' t even be before this Board and there would be less culpability . Attorney Barney said that he thinks the issue here ise is there proper reason for granting a variance here ? A lot of other things have come out , but the issue is the height . From the environmental impact question , the height is really the only is issue we should be talking about . Town of Ithaca 14 -Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Mr . Kanter said yes and no , actually there ' s also language in the environmental law that indicates that building permits , technically , should be considered type 1 actions in a critical environmental area . Mr . Scala asked him to repeat that . Mr . Kanter replied that the Environmental Review Law , which is local law number 5 of 1988 , states that " any action which takes place in , or within , 250 feet of any critical environmental area designated by a governmental agency ( which in this case is the Town of Ithaca ) is considered a type 1 action . " Mr . Ellsworth asked what that means . Mr . Kanter said that , normally , building permits are considered a type 2 action . Specifically , under that section , type 2 actions would be the construction or alteration of the single or two- family residence , except not when within 250 feet of a designated critical environmental area . Normally , building permits are fairly expedited and actually don ' t require any environmental assessment to be filled out . But when a critical environmental area is involved , technically , the building permit itself should have been considered a type 1 action . What we did , just to cover that , was to modify and add a height variance and building permit to be covered under this to protect the Town ' s interest . That ' s why I ' m bringing up some of these other things , too , that the Conservation Board indicated . It ' s true that the reason this is before the Board is for a height variance , but , in terms of the environmental review , you are really talking about the building permit as well . Mr . Scala asked if the building was started before there was a permit . Mr . Frost said they had what was called an early building permit with the delivery of a prefabricated foundation . He signed an early building permit and then put in the foundation . Mr . Scala asked if any digging that has been done has been done before the permit . Mr . Frost indicated that both the Health Department and his office were not aware of this • 1988 law and , to the credit of the Planning Department , they uncovered the law . Vice Chairman King asked if that is a local law . Attorney Barney said it ' s their local law . You can ' t ignore an exempt action which includes official acts of a ministerial nature allowing no exercise of discretion . That , in essence , is what a building permit is . We don ' t have the discretion to decline , to grant or deny . So , he ' s not entirely sure that ' s what was intended in that legislation , which he drafted back in 1988 . Mr . Kanter reiterated that , whether it was meant to be said or not , his interpreta- tion is that permits in critical environmental areas would be covered . Anyway , whenever you deal with environmental reviews , the conservative side is usually the way to go . Mr . Scala asked if there is something that can be done now , in terms of laying mats over the piles of dirt , or some other way of protecting this when the thaw comes . Mr . Kanter stated that some kind of silt fencing , again , would probably be the recommended way if it could be done . Mr . Ellsworth said that could be placed in the acceptance criteria . Vice Chairman King noted that Mr . Schassburger should be presented with a copy of this environmental review . Mr . Schassburger reiterated that , had he just renovated the house that was there and kept that septic system , he would not be going through this process and that basement would really be in a mess , just with the septic system . He also pointed out that he is a professionally trained biologist and naturalist and it ' s not just an aesthetically beautiful piece of property to him , but it ' s a piece of property that he will treat as a private nature reserve . He thinks that people who know him in the Town know that and will appreciate the fact that he has , indeed , purchased • this property , considering what it was like before . -Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Schassburger what is his occupation . Mr . Schassburger replied that right now he is teaching gross anatomy and neuro anatomy at the New York Chiropractic College , but still trying to build a natural history center in the Ithaca area . Vice Chairman King addressed the full environmental form . He said that much of the material has already been commented on at length . He noted that the property is in the Coy Glen critical environmental area , and the reviewer notes that the recommended procedure would have been to have developed a sedimentation and erosion control plan for excavation on the site and for existing material . It ' s noted that , as long as the material remains frozen , there ' s no problem of its moving , but it could become a problem . It is recommended that a sedimentation and erosion control plan be implemented immediately for all loose excavated material . Mr . Scala asked , as a point of information , who sets up that plan - - the contractor , the owner or the Town . Mr . Ellsworth said that the owner does . Mr . Frost added that they have the Department of Environmental Conservation ' s standards ; they actually have a little packet that they hand out that provides either technical information for either silt fence or straw bales that act as a silt fence . Mr . Scala asked if the owner would be given that packet . Mr . Frost said yes , they would provide that , and the owner would essentially follow that . Mr . Scala asked if , from that packet , comes the plan . Mr . Frost said that basically the plan is already part of the packet of information . Mr . Scala asked if this is already under way . Mr . Frost responded that no , it ' s not . Vice Chairman King noted that it isn ' t a " one plan fits all , " you have to tailor • make it for the site on which you ' re proposing to work on . Because in this case the excavation has been substantially completed . It does not appear that , according to the reviewer , the loose material will be of great impact as long as there is some retention measure taken . Mr . Scala asked if there is a final statement in this , similar to the short form . Vice Chairman King said yes , there is a recommendation of negative determination of environmental significance . Vice Chairman King then asked for a motion on the environmental assessment . LOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of the appeal of Ronald Schassburger , of 798 Elm Street Extension , to construct a single- family residence with a building height of 33 + . With no further discussion , Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . • Vice Chairman King asked if Mr . Schassburger is sure that the height variance would be encompassed by permitting a 34 foot height . Mr . Frost stated that he had actually asked for 32 . 8 feet , but he took the liberty of putting in 33 to give at least four inches of leeway . Mr . Stotz asked if Mr . Schassburger wanted 34 feet . Mr . Schassburger said it would probably be safer . He ' s not in a position to lower the garage anymore than it is . Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 Vice Chairman King asked for a motion on the application for the height variance . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that in regard to the appeal of Ronald Schassburger , requesting a variance from Article V , section 18 from the ordinance for the property at 798 Elm Street Extension , the Board grant the variance in height to a maximum of 34 feet , with the following findings and condition : 1 , That the Board , in making this decision , has made a finding that it is not feasible to construct the house within the height limitation pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance and that the particular location of this house , as so constructed with the height variance , would not adversely affect the neighbor- hood or devalue property within the area . 2 . That the consideration mentioned be a formal condition that the applicant provide to the Zoning and Building Officer an erosion and sedimentation control plan that is satisfactory prior to any construction . 3 . That this height is approximately the same as the house that was there previously . Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz , Ellsworth , Scala , King . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously , Mr . Scala noted from past experience , you get into problems after the place is finished , particularly if you pave the driveway , in terms of runoff . You get a very significant change in what ' s happening . He presumes that gets taken into account somewhere here in the plan . More often than not , it isn ' t discovered until a year after you finish the building , but on steep slopes , that kind of runoff is very serious . Mr . Schassburger stated that he ' s not creating anything that ' s any steeper than what ' s been previously there . Mr . Schassburger thanked the Board . The fourth appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : Appeal of Nancy Given , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article %I , Section 51 and Article V , Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of New York State and Town Law, to be permitted to maintain a single-family residence and animal kennel on a property that does not front on a town , county, or state highway, located at 274 Hayts Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1-- 34 . 1 and Portion of 24•- 1•-34 . 4 , Agricultural District ( Residence District R-30 regulations also apply ) . A 60 foot wide right-of-way will provide access to the property. The Appellant will be subdividing and transferring ownership of the parcels of land . Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Vice Chairman King asked Attorney Theisen if the 60 foot wide right- of-way would provide access to the property . Attorney Theisen responded that the proposed sale , which is supposed to occur within the next week , is that it be a 30 foot wide right- of-way . That ' s in the contract of sale . So , he doesn ' t know how the 60 feet got in there , but the proposal is that the drive shown on the map would be 15 feet on either side of the center line of the drive . It would be a total of 30 feet . Vice Chairman King noted that it appears to be a 60 foot strip on the map . Attorney Theisen said it ' s a 60 foot wide piece of property , retained by Nancy Given . Ms . Given will be granting a 30 foot wide driveway right- of-way on that strip , from Hayts Road to the kennel property . Vice Chairman King asked what is the involvement of the Parcel D- 1 . Attorney Theisen responded that it was an additional parcel that did not come with the kennel property it came later on from Douglas Pokorney , who ' s here tonight , as a separate deed . They had to go to the Planning Board last night for retroactive subdivision approval . That was approved last night by the Planning Board , to have subdivided that from Douglas Pokorney ' s property , which is a greater piece on the north and west . Vice Chairman King asked if the applicant now owns Parcel B and D- 1 . Attorney Theisen said yes , and that 60 foot wide parcel . Attorney Barney noted that the applicant owns half the Town up there . If you take a look at the tax map , the applicant owns parcels 34 . 1 , 34 . 2 , 35 and 34 . 6 , too , he believes . Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Pokorney if he owned 67 acres . Mr . Pokorney answered affirmatively . Vice Chairman King asked how many acres the applicant owns . Ms . Given • stated that she ' s not sure , not very much , just a lot of road frontage . Attorney Theisen stated that parcel 34 . 2 , which is immediately south of the kennel and east of the 60 foot wide parcel , is actually where Ms . Given lives . Her residence is there . Vice Chairman King asked if she lives on the east side of the 60 foot strip . Attorney Theisen answered that yes , she does and it ' s pretty much a fenced- in area there . Vice Chairman King noted that the survey map they have indicates that 34 . 2 is also on the west side of the 60 foot parcel . Attorney Theisen said that , if you go west , above the map , there will be two small houses that Nancy Given owns that are rental properties , single- family homes . They are not involved here , and are not shown on the map . Mr . Frost stated that the 60 foot right-of�way came from his writing the notice up and just presuming that the 60 foot strip in the road was the right- of-way . Attorney Theisen said that it was a misunderstanding . He continued by saying that they were asking for subdivision approval last night and tonight they are asking for the variance . Then the third leg is a certificate of occupancy , which is required by the Town for the amount of repairs , which are in process . Mr . Frost said that the certificate of occupancy is going with a building permit that they ' ve issued for repairs on the building . Attorney Theisen said it was for the kennel property . He continued to say that the buyer of the kennel property has been operating that kennel under a lease for the last few years and now she is buying the property . Vice Chairman King asked if she would require title to Parcel B . Attorney Theisen said yes , and also D- 1 . Mr . Frost noted that this is extending Parcel B to the west . • Mr . Frost said that the creation of this by subdivision , as occurred last night , results because it ' s now a different owner , which is going to be Parcel B and B- 1 being land- locked . There is no road frontage , other than the 30 foot access . Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Attorney Theisen continued by saying that , if the Board approves this , there will be a sale that has to take place by the end of next week because the buyer ' s mortgage commitment runs out at that time . Mr . Frost said to Attorney Theisen that the certificate of occupancy is not only to consummate the building permit work that has been done , but also to glue the sale . Attorney Theisen said that ' s right , to satisfy the requirements of the sale . Mr . Scala said that , for point of information , this right-of -way goes from Hayts Road up to parcel 34 . 1 and keeps on going all the way through , not just to the property . Attorney Theisen said no , Mr . Pokorney owns property . Mr . Scala said right , but the way it ' s drawn , such as it is , shows that it is a right- of-way through the whole lot . Attorney Theisen said to Mr . Scala that he might be referring to the 60 foot strip as a right- of-way . Attorney Theisen said that the right- of-way is , in effect , outright ownership right now . However , when this property is sold to the kennel operator , that 60 foot wide strip will be retained ( back to D- 1 ) by Nancy Given . She ' ll be the owner of it ; she ' s not selling that . Mr . Scala asked if she would be building on it - - that ' s what right- of -way means , you can ' t build on it . Attorney Theisen said it is intended that it will be a 30-- foot wide driveway , a normal right- of-way . Mr . Scala said that it wasn ' t a big deal , but he saw that dotted line on the map and it was confusing . Vice Chairman King said that the survey map , dated December 14 , 1994 , shows that , within the 60- foot wide strip , which is part of parcel 34 . 2 and extending into D- 1 , is a driveway which appears to be about 12 feet gide if it ' s drawn to scale . Is that correct? Is there a finished driveway there ? Attorney Theisen said it is gravel . Ms . Given agreed . Mr . Pokorney said it ' s a one - car width , gravel driveway . Attorney Theisen • stated that it ' s basically used , and has been for many years , for access to the kennel property . Customers go in and out that way . Vice Chairman King asked if the proposed 30- foot wide right-of-way would encompass the driveway . Attorney Theisen said yes , it ' s described in the deed as 15 feet on either side of the center line of the driveway shown on that map . Attorney Theisen stated that , if this is all approved , the result of the transaction will result in no change in use of any of the properties . There would be a transfer of ownership but the use would be the same as it has been for many years . If they are not able to get the Board ' s permission to do this , it will be quite a difficult situation because there ' s a contract of sale in effect and it wouldn ' t be able to be carried out . Vice Chairman King stated that he doesn ' t know if 280A of the Tom Law applies to this . Attorney Barney said it ' s not issuance of a building permit except that they ' re talking about a building permit for some construction of some sort . Ms . Given said it ' s to create a fire barrier between residences , that ' s all . Primarily , there are some minor repairs , but mostly it ' s just to bring it up to fire code . Mr . Frost said they were requested to issue a certificate of occupancy , which brought them to the property . They then found some non- compliance items in the existing building . They , therefore , held the certificate . Attorney Theisen said that there is no basic change in the structure , they are just bringing it up to code . There are no additions or changes . Mr . Frost said that , the way he understood it , is that they are theoretically • creating a lot with a house on it that had no road frontage . Attorney Theisen said that is the problem . Mr . Frost said it was almost like treating it in the same vein as if the building wasn ' t there . Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Mr . Scala asked how long the building has been there . Ms . Given replied 22 years . Mr . Scala then asked if it has always used that same right-of-way . He continued by saying that all they are doing now is making it legal ; there ' s no other change . Mr . Frost stated that the way he had understood it is that , when you have the same owner having ownership of the whole property , it was not as much of a problem . Now the owner of the right- of-way is not the same as the owner of the property being occupied . Ms . Given clarified that , when the house was built 22 years ago , the land on either side , including the right- of -way , had a different owner . It ' s only in the last ten years that she has become the owner . Attorney Barney stated that whoever granted the permit 22 years ago , should not have granted it . Vice Chairman King said that he thinks the significant part of the Town Law 280A , Subdivision V says , " that when building on a lot which is not directly on the approved or map streets , access has to be provided to the lot from a regular street or road or highway . " Subdivision V says that , " for purposes of this section , the word access shall mean that the plot directly butts on the street or highway and has sufficient frontage thereon to allow the ingress and egress of fire trucks , ambulances , police cars and other emergency vehicles . A frontage of 15 feet shall presumptively be sufficient for that purpose . " Mr . Frost said that what troubles him is even if he was able to obtain a building permit on the piece of land that is land-- locked but had a right- of-way from the owner that was at least 15 foot wide , he ' s never quite understood why someone still has to have a variance from 280A . Attorney Barney stated that 280A , subdivision I states , " no permit • for the erection of a building . " This is not really a permit for the erection of a building . This does not front a street or highway so he thinks that , clearly , before any construction can be done , whether it ' s a private right- of-way or not , you have to get a variance of Section 280A . Mr . Scala asked if what they are saying is that if the new owner wants to do something that requires a building permit , he has to come in for a variance . Attorney Barney said that , if they are going to erect another building , he assumes they would have to get the variance . The building permit now is for the modification of an existing building so he ' s not clear in his mind if that fits within that definition . Mr . Frost said that it ' s better to advertise it , rather than realize later that they needed to have it advertised first . Mr . Kanter said that , for instance , if the house burned down , and it had to be replaced , that would essentially be the erection of a new building . Vice Chairman King stated that the parcel certainly does not meet the requirements of Section 23 of the Zoning Ordinance as to lot size . Mr . Frost said that , since there ' s no road frontage , they don ' t have a minimum width either . It doesn ' t comply with Section 21 or 23 . Attorney Barney told Attorney Theisen that what he has trouble with is why not convey at least 60 feet of frontage . Attorney Theisen stated that would be talking about transferring the property to somebody for free . Attorney Barney said we ' re talking about curing a problem that somebody created when they set the thing up initially , and they set that up illegally . In 1954 , this lot did not qualify under the Zoning Ordinance . It should never have been done . Attorney Theisen said that it was under a building permit . • Attorney Barney stated that the building permit deals with the construction , but , in point of fact , the lot - - you have to have so many feet of frontage on the road , so many feet of depth , and it has none . It was done illegally at that point in time . Now they Town of Ithaca 20 •Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • are , in effect , coming in and saying keep it illegal . Attorney Theisen said that no , they are asking for a variance so it will be legal , giving a 30 foot wide right- of-way and he doesn ' t see how it detracts from the property to have a 30 foot wide driveway , which is more than sufficient access to the kennel property . Mr . Scala asked Attorney Theisen why he isn ' t making it 15 feet . Attorney Theisen said it ' s because the contract for the sale to this woman says 30 feet . He didn ' t draw up the contract . They are required to give her a 30 foot wide right-of -way , and they are giving her that , which gives her ample access to and from the property and for any emergency vehicles . Attorney Barney said yes , but you have a lot that has no road frontage . Attorney Theisen agreed , but said that if the Board approves the variance , it will be okay . Mr . Scala said that the significance of it is if , in the future , somebody agrees that it was originally 60 feet , that could make it a road - - that ' s the logic of that , which is now being taken away . This means you will not be able to build a road there ; it ' s only going to have a 30 foot strip . Attorney Theisen said that there ' s a good reason for them not wanting to convey 60 feet because Nancy Given ' s house is right next door , and she probably wouldn ' t exactly want a road running by her house . Attorney Barney said that he certainly can understand her personal preference , but he has difficulty with it . The policy in the Town of Ithaca , as enunciated , is that you don ' t have a land- locked piece of land . You don ' t allow lots to be that way . You have a zoning order that says if you have a lot , it ' s got 150 feet of frontage on the road . Now , you can vary from it , sure . You occasionally have a lot that ' s 130 feet or 120 feet and , occasionally , was have allowed lots that are flag lots where you have a 60 foot strip • back . He does not ever recall , in the past , that they ' ve ever allowed a lot that has no frontage whatsoever . He could be wrong , but he can ' t remember any . Mr . Frost said that what ' s troubling him is that 280A talks about access and not about ownership . Attorney Barney said that he ' s talking about the zoning ordinance . Attorney Theisen stated that there ' s nothing wrong with allowing it to be a 30 foot right- of-way ; this Board can allow that . Attorney Barney replied that the Board , if the demonstration of the hardship is there , can grant a variance . He ' s not sure if it ' s an area variance or a use variance . He believes it ' s an area variance , but it ' s a pretty substantial variance and one of the tests that you look at under each area variance is if there ' s some other way that the applicant can accomplish what they need to accomplish without such a gross deviation from the zoning ordinance . Mr . Scala stated that if someone were trying to do that today , they would have to have ownership of 60 feet , if you were trying to set this up now . Attorney Theisen said you ' d have to ask for a variance with 60 feet , or 30 foot right-of-way , or 15 foot right- of-way . Ms . Given responded that the driveway gives her the only access , without building a bridge , to the back part of the plot that she lives on now . If she gives that up , she can ' t get to her land in back of the house where she resides without building a bridge over a creek . If the new owner owned it , I ' d have no way to get to the back . Attorney Barney replied that there ' s nothing that says you have to convey it to her and not reserve a right to be able to use it ; you can do that . The question is , what you ' ve done now is to give her the right . You can flip the situation . Give her title to it and you • reserve the right to use it . I don ' t think you have to go out and build a bridge . Then she has frontage on the road and the variance being asked for is not anywhere near as drastic as what you ' re asking for now . Town of Ithaca 21 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Attorney Theisen stated that the end result is that she ' s still going to be using that driveway to get to and from her property . It ' s substantially changing the transaction . Mr . Scala asked , out of curiosity , why is it being complicated by not just giving the 30 feet along the edge of the property . You said it was on either side of the driveway . Attorney Theisen responded that no , it ' s on either side of the center line of the driveway . It ' s 15 feet on either side . Mr . Scala said yes , so I ' m asking why isn ' t the 30 feet being given in a more logical fashion , which would be one side or the other . Attorney Theisen said because it ' s a gravel driveway . What ' s on the other side , the outside to that , is grass . They ;giant to give her the established driveway . Nancy Given does not want to give her the ownership of that . Nancy Given asked if it would take the two tax parcels and cut them into two more parcels for her . It ' s all one parcel . Does it just subdivide that parcel . That 60 foot wide right- of-way is part of the house property adjacent to it and part of the property on both sides . Mr . Frost added that , even if they transferred the land , they would still need the variance . Attorney Theisen said that the property on either side of that 30 foot wide right- of-way is available to Nancy Given for coming in and asking for subdivisions . It may be important for her to have that for the other properties that she owns . Mr . Scala asked if the new owner knows what she ' s getting into by just having a right-of-way . Because , when she goes to sell the property , she can ' t sell the right- of- way . It ' s written in that it runs with the land . Vice Chairman King noted that the previous applicant , Mr . Schassburger , has to go over Cornell property to get to his residential site , even though he ' s got frontage . It ' s not usable . Attorney Theisen stated that the buyer of this property has an attorney who is representing her and she ' s not unhappy with the 30 foot wide right- of-way . Vice Chairman King said that , essentially , it doesn ' t make that much difference . Mr . Scala stated not at the point of transfer , it only makes a difference when the new oc-mer goes to sell it . Attorney Barney said that , by doing it this way , you create an island , or you create a flag lot , which nobody is particularly happy about , but at least we ' ve done that in the past . He does not ever remembering doing it this way , but it ' s the Board ' s decision not his . Attorney Theisen specified that it is within the power of the Board to do it . Attorney Barney said that the Board of Appeals , in granting of area variances , shall grant the minimum which shall be necessary and adequate and at the same time protect the character of the neighborhood . Vice Chairman King asked if he heard the word reasonable in there . Attorney Barney responded that no , he heard the word minimum . There are six criteria for an area variance : whether it adds an undesirable character to the neighborhood , if it ' s a detriment to nearby properties , whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance , whether the requested area variance is substantial ( and that ' s the criteria we ' re dealing with here ) , whether the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood or district , whether the alleged difficulty was self- created . They shall • grant a minimum variance which shall be necessary and adequate . Mr . Stotz asked if you went back and surveyed that property and deeded it over rather than create a right-of-way , what ' s the implication for the seller and the buyer? Tom of Ithaca 22 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Attorney Theisen speculated that it may very well undo the whole deal . He doesn ' t know what happens . There ' s a signed contract that they signed several months ago that specifies a 30 foot wide right- of-way . The sale of this property is for a certain price that was arrived at by those terms . If we ' re going to change it and say , OK , you get a 60 foot wide right-of-way , he doesn ' t know what ' s going to happen . He doesn ' t know what Nancy would do as far as saying she ' s not going to sell it to her . Mr . Frost asked if there was any discussion at the Planning Board last night relative to this . Attorney Barney said yes , a lot . Almost as much as now . Mr . Scala offered a quick comment . The right- of-way is a convenience , and maybe that ' s the way it ' ll be approved . But , I know you ' re leading to complications downstream by not having a proper lot , flag lot . Attorney Theisen stated that , with all due respect , he doesn ' t see the complications . There are many properties that use a right- of-way as the only way to get to them . Mr . Scala said it complicates everything . Attorney Theisen said that he doesn ' t think it does . Mr . Scala said to take his word for it . Mr . Stotz stated that he believes the point Mr . Scala is trying to make is that it ' s not complicating the sellers ' lives . They are going to convey the property and be done with it . But , the next renovation , or the next addition , that ' s where the complications arise . It could very well be that this Debra Miller might end up with the short end of the stick when she comes for a variance and it isn ' t approved . Attorney Theisen said that he doesn ' t see how she would . He doesn ' t think there are any plans to expand . She has never indicated anything but wanting to have the 30 foot right- of -way . When the parties entered into this agreement that they have the purchase and sale - - Debra Miller was represented by a lawyer , Nancy Given was not . That lawyer who represents Debra • Miller was the one who created the agreement and there was never any indication that she ' s concerned about it . He doesn ' t see that she is . The right-of-way sounds like it ' s something less than ownership . In fact , it ' s an ownership . It ' s an absolute , forever , property right to use that driveway and nobody can stop her from using it . Mr . Frost asked how many times they have properties on the east side of the lake where people have a right-of-way to cross the railroad tracks . If they lost that right- of-ray , they couldn ' t access their property . Mr . Scala said that ' s where you run into trouble . Mr . Scala said he ' s sorry , but he ' s lived through two and it ' s expensive . Attorney Theisen said that there was a right- of-way across the railroad tracks and it was granted in the 1800 ' s . It wasn ' t used for that property all the time , but there never were any problems . He knows there could be problems , but only if it ' s ambiguous . Mr . Kanter said that , last night , the Planning Board discussed it at length and did have reservations about approving the subdivision , but ultimately agreed to do it . Vice Chairman King stated that they were approving the addition of that 60 foot wide right-of- way versus the ownership of the right-of-way . Vice Chairman King asked Attorney Theisen if the topography mould permit extending the width of the paved driveway to 30 feet . Ms . Given answered yes . Attorney Theisen said that it ' s all just level driveway and it ' s wide enough . Vice Chairman King asked if there are any structures or anything within the 60 by 368 feet . Attorney Theisen said no . Vice Chairman King said that 280A says , presumptively , that 15 feet would provide access for fire trucks . Here you have a 12 foot by 12 foot line . Attorney Barney stated that what 280A says is that , if you don ' t have frontage , 15 feet of frontage is sufficient . Mr . Frost said that it seems they have that , whether the • buyer owns the land or otherwise , she still has the access , which in his mind meets the recuirement of 280A . Town of Ithaca 23 Zoning Board of Appeals March S . 1995 • Attorney Theisen said that , as a fact , there is an access . Thirty feet wide is plenty of access and a right- of-way is as much access as a free title of ownership . So , there ' s not really any hinderance to any vehicles getting in and out , of any kind . Mr . Scala asked if the kennel is a business . Attorney Theisen said right , it is , and she lives there , too , he thinks . Vice Chairman King said that they had an access like this some time ago out on Stone Quarry Road . He drove down it and was afraid he ' d never get out of there and they had the local fire chief look it over . He said that it was no problem ; they could get in and out of that . Mr . Frost stated that , as he recollects , the Board denied that one . Clearly , there was great concern of the actual practical use of the width of that access . It was hindered by steep slopes . Mr . Stotz said that this land is absolutely flat and there ' s , even on the sides of the road , no vegetation that comes up to the road . It ' s clear on the side , too , so they could get through even if they had an overhang or something . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Vice Chairman King stated that they have a short environmental assessment form , noting that the actions are listed and will receive coordinated review , apparently by the Planning Board . Him read portions of the environmental assessment form prepared by George R . Frantz . Vice Chairman King then asked for a motion on the environmental review . MOTION • By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property located at 274 Hayts Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24 - 1 - 34 . 1 and a portion of 24- 1 - 34 . 4 , based on the Town Planning Department review dated February 28 , 1995 . Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - King , Stotz , Ellsworth , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman asked for a motion on the grant of the requested variance . There was no response and Vice Chairman King asked if there were any questions . Vice Chairman King opened the public hearing . Mr . Pokorney stated that he is the nearest neighbor and he has no problems with it . Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Pokorney if he owns the land to the north . Mr . Pokorney stated that he owns on three sides of the piece of property being sold and he bumps up against all the rest of it . It ' s the same width as all of Ms . Given ' s property . Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Pokorney if he has any intention of subdividing his land in the near future . Mr . Pokorney replied that , at this time , he has no such plans . Vice • Chairman King asked him if he has road frontage elsewhere . Mr . Pokorney responded that yes , he has a 60 foot right- of-way . He ' s in somewhat the same predicament as Ms . Given . He also has property that doesn ' t have road frontage and he has a 60 foot right- of-way . Town of Ithaca 24 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 • Mr . Scala stated that he doesn ' t think that ' s true . Mr . Pokorney stated that he has since acquired the yellow part on the map . He did have a 60 foot right- of-way , but he has since acquired another little piece . Mr . Scala said that he believes Mr . Pokorney has about 200 feet of road frontage . Mr . Pokorney reiterated that he was , before , in the same predicament . He is Ms . Given ' s nearest neighbor all around and around the kennel area . Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Pokorney if he presently has a right- of-way , or if he plans on getting one over this particular strip , from Ms . Given . Mr . Pokorney replied no . With no one else present to speak , Vice Chairman King closed the public hearing . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , to grant a variance on the appeal of Nancy Given for property located at 274 Hayts Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24 - 1 -34 . 1 and a portion of 24 - 1 - 34 . 4 . The variance could be granted from Article %I , Section 51 and Article V . Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and Section 208A of Town Law , to be permitted to maintain a single- family residence and animal kennel on a property that does not front on a town , county or state highway . This includes permission to convey Parcel B and Parcel B- 1 , as shown on the survey map , dated December 14 , 1994 , with a 30 foot wide right-of-way , centered down the driveway as shown on that • survey . The right- of-way extends north from Hayts Road into Parcel D- 1 , subject to the following conditions : 1 . That any conveyance of Tax Parcel 24 - 1 - 34 . 1 shall include a legal right-of-way across Tax Parcel 24 - 1 - 34 . 2 for the benefit of Tax Parcel 24 - 1 - 34 . 1 and the . 255 parcel nominated D- 1 . Such right- of-way shall be a minimum of 30 feet in width . 2 . That any sale or transfer of Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 - 34 . 2 , being the . 510 acre parcel shown on the map , shall be expressly made subject to the right- of-way for the benefit of Tax Parcel No . 24 - 1 - 34 . 1 , and the . 255 acre parcel . 3 . That there be no construction of any structures within the 60 foot parcel shown as the . 510 acre parcel , other than a driveway or other road service . 4 . That a copy of this resolution , together with additions contained therein , together with the resolutions of the Planning Board dated March 7 , 1995 , be recorded at the Tompkins County Clerk ' s office , at the expense of the applicant , before any further conveyances . Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz , King , Ellsworth . NAYS - Scala , The motion was carried 3 - le • Attorney Theisen expressed his appreciation for the Board and also for the staff of the Planning and Zoning office for doing all of the work quickly . Town of Ithaca 25 Zoning Board of Appeals March 8 , 1995 Mr . Scala said that he believes there are power lines and water down that right- of- way . Ms . Given said the telephone lines go down the side of the driveway . The last appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : Appeal of Patricia Classen , D . B . A . Classen Home Health Associates , Inc . , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 4 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place a free-standing sign reading "Classen Home Health Associates , Inc . " with a total sign area of 16 . 5 square feet ( maximum 4 square feet allowed ) at 1212 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 26-3- 8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Vice Chairman King noted that the Planning Board was to take up this matter last night . Mr . Kanter replied that they did consider this matter , along with a proposed site plan . When the use variance was granted by this Board back in September for the administrative offices , they were , at that time , also proposing an adult day care use . One of the conditions of approval was that the applicant would have to get site plan approval from the Planning Board . So , they came in with a site plan , and the plan is part of the packet . That was considered and also the sign variance . Probably two of the neighbors who live directly across Trumansburg Road came to the public hearing quite adamantly against the size of the proposed sign . To make a long story short , what was decided at the meeting last night was that the Planning Board would table a decision on both the site plan and the sign variance request . The applicant would propose a smaller sign and would come back to the Planning Board , tentatively scheduled for March 21 , 1995 . Hopefully , this could come back at the April meeting . • Mr . Scala stated that he came up with 19 square feet and he decided that it may not be much smaller than Tompkins Community Hospital . Mr . Frost noted that the supporting posts are specifically excluded from the area . Mr . Kanter said that the site plan shows the location , but it was set farther back from where the existing sign is now . There was discussion about whether , if set back that far , it would be visible south bound on Trumansburg Road . The hedge would effectively block it , regardless of how big it was , unless it was a billboard or something . Vice Chairman King stated that , under the circumstances , he thinks this application should be adjourned to the April meeting of the Board . Attorney Barney suggested it be adjourned sine die . The reason for that is they may be back in two weeks , but rather than jumping and adjourning to a specific meeting , we better see what happens at the Planning Board and then readvertise it . If it ' s adjourned specifically it wouldn ' t have to be readvertised . Vice Chairman King adjourned the application to some meeting after the Planning Board has made their determination . Vice Chairman King adjourned the meeting . � L �l'1 , 6'U(aAOXIO?1 1 Debbie R . Raines Recording Secretary • Edward King , Vice Cha rman