Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1995-05-10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , MAY 10 , 1995 7 . 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , May 10 , 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 James Hider , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct a 16 ' X 20 ' outside wood deck on the north side of an existing non- conforming single - family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 2 - 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it is located 7 ' 11 " ¢ from the south side yard property line ( 15 ' setback required ) . The property is also . 16 + acres in area ( . 34 acres required ) . Appeal of Neil and Julie Robison , Appellants /Owners , John Golay , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming single - family residence at 2 Renwick Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17 - 2 - 3 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement consists of adding second floor dormers through the roof . Said building is non- conforming since it is located 13 . 5 ' from the street line ( 25 ' setback required ) on a building lot , . 21 + acres in area ( . 34 acres required ) . Leal of Cornell University , Appellant/Owner , George W . Breuhaus , A . I . A . , Agent , requesting a special approval under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to modify an existing university building , known as the Campus Store Warehouse , located in Precinct 7 , the Orchards area , off NYS Route 366 on Palm Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said modification involves approximately 1 , 700 square feet of the second floor area to be used for office space . The original special approval for the warehouse was granted on January 4 , 1989 . Appeal of Elizabeth Classen and Patricia Classen , DBA Denmark Development , Inc . and Classen Home Health Associates , Appellants , requesting an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals of Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as to whether or not adult residential care and adult day care facilities are permitted at 704 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 - 4 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . If it is interpreted that such uses are not permitted in R- 30 zones , then the appellant is asking for use variances . If it is interpreted that such uses are permitted , then a special approval , as required by Section 18 is requested . The property contains a non-conforming building with a front yard setback of 10 ' + ( 30 ' required ) and therefore a variance from Article V . Section 21 or an authorization ( to enlarge a non-conforming building ) from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , may also be requested . Appeal of Anthony Augustine , Appellant /Owner , Jeff Fredrickson , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an 18 ' x 16 ' enclosed porch at the rear of a non-conforming building located at 1413 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 12 - 12 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it has a 14 ' east side and building setback ( 15 ' setback required ) . 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 . I Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : May 3 , 1995 Publish : May 5 , 1995 TOWN OF ITHACA FILED FINAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY , MAY 10 , 1995 TOWN OF ITHACA bat G. mH The following appeals were heard by the Board on May 10 , 1994 * Clerk Appeal of James Hider , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct a 16 ' X 20 ' outside wood deck on the north side of an existing non- conforming single - family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19- 2 - 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it is located 7 ' 11 " + from the south side yard property line ( 15 ' setback required ) . The property is also . 16 + acres in area ( . 34 acres required ) . GRANTED . Appeal of Neil and Julie Robison , Appellants /Owners . John Golay , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to enlarge a non- conforming single - family residence at 2 Renwick Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17 - 2 - 3 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement consists of adding second floor dormers through the roof . Said building is non- conforming since it is located 13 . 5 ' from the street line ( 15 ' setback required ) on a building lot , . 21 ± acres in area ( . 34 acres required ) . GRANTED . Appeal of Cornell University , Appellant /Owner . George W . Breuhaus , A . I . A . , Agent , requesting a special approval under Article V . Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to modify an existing university building , known as the Campus Store Warehouse , located in Precinct 7 , the Orchards area , off NYS Route 366 on Palm Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said modification involves approximately 1 , 700 square feet of the second floor area to be used for office space . The original special approval for the warehouse was granted on January 4 , 1989 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Appeal of Elizabeth Classen and Patricia Classen , DBA Denmark Development , Inc . , and Classen Home Health Associates , Appellants , requesting an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals of Article V . Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as to whether or not adult residential care and adult day care facilities are permitted at 704 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 - 4- 2 , Residence District R- 30 . If it is interpreted that such uses are not permitted in R- 30 zones , then the appellant is asking for use variances . If it is interpreted that such uses are permitted , then a special approval , as required by Section 18 is requested . The property contains a non- conforming building with a front yard setback of 10 ' + ( 30 ' setback required ) and therefore a variance from Article V , Section 21 or an authorization ( to enlarge a non- conforming building ) from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , may also be requested . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Appeal of Anthony Augustine , Appellant/Owner , Jeff Frederickson , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an 18 ' X 16 ' enclosed porch at the rear of a non- conforming building located at 1413 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 12 - 12 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non-conforming since it has a 14 ' east side yard building setback ( 15 ' required ) . GRANTED . FILED 1 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Dat �L._ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY , MAY 10 , 1995 ClerQnr "O\A6Cd PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , David Stotz , Edward King , Pete Scala , Harry Ellsworth , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Director of Building and Zoning Andrew Frost , Town Planner Jonathan Kanter . OTHERS : Rebecca Clark , Harry Ash , George W . Breuhaus , Ralph Baran , Josh Boggs , Stu Lewis , Attorney Bruce Wilson , Rachel Parady , Patty Classen , Elizabeth Classen , Gail Harper , Jeff Frederickson , Dr . & Mrs . Louis Munchmeyer , Bill Lowe , Irene Stein , James Hider , and Brigid Shipman . Chairman Austen 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 I n order . The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as followsa Appeal of James Hider , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct a 16 X 20 ' outside wood deck on the north side of an existing non-conforming single-family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19-2-2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it is located 7 ' 11 " + from the south side yard property line ( 15 ' setback required ) . The property is also . 16 + acres in area ( . 34 acres required ) . Mr . Frost informed the Board that Mr . Hider had appeared before the Board a few months ago . At that time Mr . Hider had not finalized the plans for the deck . • Mr . Hider spoke to the Board . He stated that the deck is on the north side of the property with a 54 ' setback . Mr . King stated that , with a 16 ' deck , the actual setback would be 38 ' . Mr . Hider agreed . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Chairman Austen then asked if there would be stairs to the ground from the deck . Mr . Hider said yes . Chairman Austen stated he could see the need for the deck , given the new addition was already approved . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen read portions of the short environmental assessment form and asked for a motion . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Board find a negative determination of environmental significance relative to the appeal of James Hider , requesting authorization to construct a 16 ' X 20 ' outside wood deck on the north side of an existing non-conforming single- family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19- 2 - 2 , • Residence District R- 15 . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as followsa Tom of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 AYES - Austen , King , Ellsworth , Stotz , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Board grant a special approval concerning the appeal of James Hider , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct a 16 ' X 20 ' outside wood deck on the north side of an existing non- conforming single - family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19- 2 - 2 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following finding : 1 . That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a-h . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Ellsworth , Stotz , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . • The second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Appeal of Neil and Julie Robison , Appellants/Owners , John Golay, Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming single- family residence at 2 Renwick Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17- 2-3 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement consists of adding second floor dormers through the roof . Said building is non-conforming since it is located 13 . 5 ' from the street line ( 15 ' setback required ) on a building lot, . 21 ± acres in area ( . 34 acres required ) . Mr . Frost indicated that Mr . Golay , the agent , was not at the meeting . The building currently is owned by Neil and Julie Robison , but is being sold to Harry Ash and Becky Clark , who are at the meeting and will represent the Robisons . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Ash and Ms . Clark to tell the Board what they want to do . Mr . Ash stated they are planning on buying the home , which will have two main floor bedrooms for their children . The building ' s attic is proposed to be converted to a master bedroom . Mr . Frost explained that the Building Code would allow this use and that the attic area is really only a second floor . • Attorney Barney asked Mr . Ash if they planned any habitable space for the building ' s basement . Mr . Ash said no , Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Chairman Austen asked if the dormers were going to be installed on the building ' s east and west sides . Mr . Ash said yes . These dormers , he further stated , are necessary to create acceptable room - - floor to ceiling height . Mr . Stotz asked if there would be stairs to the attic . Mr . Ash said yes . He stated there are stairs now and they would be renovated . Mr . Frost stated he has been in communication with the contractor and that code- compliant stairs will be present . Chairman Austen remarked that he was surprised , that given the building , there were not dormers already present . Mr . Ash agreed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen read portions of the short environmental assessment form and asked for a motion . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Board find a negative determination of environmental significance in regards to the appeal of Neil and Julie Robison for the property at 2 Renwick Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17 - 2 - 3 , Residence District R- 15 . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the environmental assessment , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen then asked for a motion for a special approval . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Board grant special approval in regards to the appeal of Neil and Julie Robison , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to enlarge a non- conforming single - family residence at 2 Renwick Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17 - 2 - 3 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following finding : 1 . That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a-h . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Scala , Stotz , Austen , Ellsworth , King . NAYS - None . • The motion was carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Appeal of Cornell University, Appellant/Owner, George W . Breuhaus , A . I . A . , Agent , requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to modify an existing university building , known as the Campus Store Warehouse , located in Precinct 7 , the Orchards area , off NYS Route 366 on Palm Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 64- 1-2 , Residence District R-30 . Said modification involves approximately 1 , 700 square feet of the second floor area to be used for office space . The original special approval for the warehouse was granted on January 4 , 1989 . Mr . Ellsworth stated that Mr . Breuhaus had been a customer of his and might be in the future so he abstains . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Breuhaus to tell the Board what he plans to do and why he needs to do it and what is moving to the area . Mr . Breuhaus stated that he ' s the architect . Mr . Josh Boggs , the director of the campus warehouse , is also here with me . Currently there is office space of approximately 1 , 000 feet in the mezzanine on the second level . There ' s also some storage space that was originally shown to be used as storage adjacent to this . What they are looking to do is to finish off the bay on the second level , the complete width of the building , and expand the office functions to include that whole width . Part of the reason for doing this is that there are currently four employees in the adjacent building next door that they want to bring over to this space and , down the road perhaps , add three employees . There ' s no time table for adding the three , but they need the space in order to do it . He continued by saying that the office space is used for the accounting / bookkeeping and record keeping for the Campus Store . Down on the first floor , the main level , is the actual warehouse space . Mr . Breuhaus referred to drawings that the Board had before them . He said there was a site plan that shows the overall layout of the building . There ' s a partial floor plan that shows the existing areas on the east end of the building and then a second floor plan that shows the proposed expansion and what the layout would become . Mr . Stotz asked if that would all be open space . Mr . Breuhaus said it would also include a conference room and a walled.- in office , but most of it is all open . Mr . King stated he recalled that there is 1 , 000 square feet of the expansion that already exists . Mr . Breuhaus said correct , and there ' s about 700 square feet of new mezzanine , plus a stair that would have to be added because they will now exceed the area permissible for one exit . They ' ll have to have a second exit from the second level . Mr . King asked if the 700 feet is also interior space . Mr . Breuhaus said yes , it ' s already roofed over . The mezzanine currently extends roughly 2 / 3 of the width of the building , so they are finishing the bay all the way to the north end . Mr . Stotz asked where the people would be located . He also asked if it has a high ceiling . Mr . Breuhaus responded that they have the 8 ' required by code . That building is almost a two- story building in and of itself ; it ' s a high bay building . So , to put in the mezzanine and actually have proper ceiling height is not a problem . Mr . Stotz then asked if they would have to put in any air handling equipment . Mr . Breuhaus said yes , they will be changing , almost doubling , the equipment . He then stated that the building is fully sprinklered by local ordinance , not State Code . • Chairman Austen asked if the people presently in there are being moved out . Mr . Breuhaus said that they will get more room . Some of the open offices are fairly small and , when they expand , there will be more room around them and not be quite so packed . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 He added that the same people that are there now will be there when it is complete , plus four more from the adjacent service stores building , plus a potential three more . The parking lots flow almost from one to the other , so he ' s not always convinced that everyone parked in front of the warehouse is working there . Some may be from stores . Mr . Stotz asked if it met parking requirements . Mr . Kanter noted that it ' s been to the Planning Board for a site plan review as well as the Zoning Board for the special approval . In the environmental assessment there is some discussion about traffic and parking . It says that they have to meet the parking requirements . Also in the Planning Board resolution , there a couple of other items : they were concerned with the issue of handicapped access to the office / work area and also the question of whether windows should be provided to provide natural light in the working / office area . Those were put in as suggestions in their recommendations . Mr . King asked Mr . Breuhaus if he had seen the copy from the Planning Board . Attorney Barney stated that someone else was at the Planning Board meeting when the resolution was read . He added that there is some concern as to whether it should be an absolute condition , and therefore binding at the Zoning Board level . The Planning Board , after reflection , decided to make it a suggestion and leave to the Zoning Board the determination as to whether it should be a condition or a suggestion to the applicant . He continued by saying that the Board will notice that there were varying levels of suggestions . There was a suggestion concerning handicap access and a strong suggestion on the windows . Mr . King said that the Planning Board suggests in number 3 , not as an absolute requirement but as a suggestion , that the applicant reconsider the design of the building so as to provide access for the handicapped to the office /work area . Number 4 - - the Planning Board strongly suggests , again not as an absolute requirement , but as a strong suggestion , that the applicant reconsider the design of the building so as to provide windows to provide natural light to the office / work area for the health and welfare of the occupants of the space . He then asked Mr . Breuhaus if that had been discussed . Mr . Breuhaus said yes , that had been discussed . He stated that he had pointed out to the Planning Board that neither of these were required from the building code standpoint so that their requests are in excess of requirements . Attorney Barney said that their suggestion was in excess of building code requirements ; however , Mr . Breuhaus is asking for a special approval and the Zoning Board can impose reasonable conditions in reference to that process . It ' s clearly not required by building code . Mr . Breuhaus informed the Board that there has been discussion of adding at least one other window to the exterior and another window looking down into the warehouse so that people can watch the activity down in the warehouse . That has been discussed and agreed upon . As far as the elevator , economically, that really is a financial feasibility problem . Mr . King asked if he was referring to handicap access . Mr . Breuhaus said he means to go to the second floor , yes . Mr . King asked if the area is open to the public . Mr . Boggs said that it is a working warehouse so accessibility is to an area that is off the main course of activity . It ' s basically a staging area for the Campus Stores materials . What they are doing is moving some people over because they want to do some other things including catalog processing and phone interfacing by catalog ordering . They will obviously accommodate where they can concerning the elevator , but they are on a close budget and he doesn ' t • know what they ' ll do . Attorney Barney said the issue really wasn ' t accessibility of the public but the nature of the jobs are basically telephone and data processing and those barred the handicapped from working . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Mr . Frost stated that the building code during the original construction would be classified as , basically , a storage building with accessory offices . The code would allow up to a two- story warehouse without handicap accessibility . The current handicap accessibility requirements would require some percentage of the cost of any change to a building be put into accessibility . There are different levels of requirements , recognizing that an existing building is more costly to change . He has not determined that any major accessibility changes are required , however , Cornell does have their ADA specialist . Mr . Boggs stated that they had indicated they would try to address the issue as much as they could , given that it ' s a duality of function , basically a warehouse first and then a clerical operation . Mr . Frost said that the Board should understand that the ADA law is not enforced by building inspectors . New York State has modified the building code in regard to accessibility but the complete ADA set of requirements , which is federal law , is not enforced by local people . That doesn ' t exempt them from complying , but it ' s less of a Town issue . Mr . Breuhaus pointed out that when the building was built , the only thing required by code to be accessible was the front door . To go back in with the current renovations would actually be apportioned and apart from the cost , an elevator definitely would not fall under a requirement . He realizes that the nature is to recognize that these are jobs that could be done by the handicapped , but it would make it too expensive to put in an elevator to accomplish that . • Attorney Barney asked if it had to be a full elevator . Mr . Breuhaus said that it could be a lift , but it ' s a minimum of $ 15 , 000 and that doesn ' t include foundation costs , etc . Then there would have to be a path to it . Mr . Boggs added that it would be a problem because it ' s an active warehouse . Chairman Austen asked if there is a separate entrance into the office area . Mr . Breuhaus answered no . There ' s a time clock at the front door where all employees , whether functioning in the warehouse or the office , enter . Mr . Kanter asked if , hypothetically , someone applied for a job and they were determined to be perfect for the job in all other respects except they couldn ' t get to where the offices mould be , mould there be a way to alter some of the office space to be on the lower floor . Mr . Boggs said they are running a close line trying to salvage jobs at the time . That would destroy the functionality of the warehouse . He added that they hope they accommodate as much as they can , but there will be a point where they would just have to go back and do it all over again , and he doesn ' t know how they would do that . Mr . Stotz asked what they would do if someone were temporarily disabled while working there . Mr . Breuhaus said that normally they would not be allowed accessibility to the operation . Mr . Stotz asked what if they had an employee who is working up there who , for an extended period of time , cannot negotiate the stairs . Mr . Boggs said that , fortunately , they have not had that problem , so he doesn ' t know what they would do . Mr . Breuhaus noted that there is the possibility of looking at modems and off - site • operations with the new technologies coming about . He thinks that would temporarily , but they would probably not hire someone on a long- term basis that they never see at the work place . It is , however , always a possibility to do the job off- site as well . That would be a decision they would have to make - -- whether or not they would have an employee that didn ' t come to the office , but their job could be done using modems off- site . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Mr . Stotz asked how many people are there now and how many will be there in the future . Mr . Breuhaus said the current number is 12 , with a future number of 17 . Mr . Stotz then asked if there is a standard for minimum footprint for employee space . Mr . Breuhaus stated the code rules say 200 square feet per person , but they look at the gross area . It ' s not as if a person gets a 12 x 12 or 12 x 15 office . They look at the overall area . Mr . Frost stated that it ' s 150 square feet per employee . Mr . Breuhaus noted that they could then have up to 20 employees as they have 3 , 000 gross square feet . Mr . Breuhaus remarked that if you look at a bullpen- type set up in a lot of spots , there is a higher concentration of people , but when you spread it out over the whole building , the gross for the building is fairly low . Mr . Stotz asked if the partitions are going to be 3 / 4 height . Mr . Breuhaus said they would be roughly five feet . Chairman Austen asked if there are windows on the floor . Mr . Breuhaus said there are . There are two and they are adding a couple more . Mr . Breuhaus said there has been some discussion about balancing it out by adding a window toward the north end on the east side , plus one on the north end . Mr . Stotz indicated a point on the map and asked what the possibilities are of adding a window there . Mr . Breuhaus said there ' s a possibility , but it ' s a metal building and so the windows tend to be potentials for leaks . It is a pre- fab metal building so it ' s not like putting windows in a masonry building . Mr . Stotz said that what concerns him about windows and light is that the 17 people , • with the five- foot partitions , could see natural light coming in . It seems like there ' s a lot of people in a space and it could be very confining if they couldn ' t have natural light of some kind . That ' s his judgment . Mr . Frost informed them that building code makes more of an issue of having proper ventilation rather than dwelling on artificial light . There are many buildings , including academic and non-academic buildings at Cornell and Ithaca College , where the sub- floor levels are used for classrooms and offices and all kinds of things . The great issue is proper ventilation and lighting - - either natural or artificial . There is not a mandate for windows . Mr . Breuhaus pointed out that there ' s not much of a view anyway . Directly to the north is the salt storage for the campus . Then there ' s also a lot of debris . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen noted that the case was reviewed by JoAnn Cornish , Planner II on April 25 , 1995 . Mr . Kanter reminded the Board about the paragraph concerning traffic and parking . He also noted that the staff determined there should be no significant impact in those areas . In C4 , staff stated that the proposed modifications appear to be consistent with the proposed development patterns in precinct 7 . That refers to a project which the Town has been doing with Cornell for several years - - trying to gauge impacts of future development in precinct 7 . He continued by saying that the staff • recommended a negative determination of environmental significance . He did note that there is a condition of some landscaping around the perimeter of the site where the opportunity exists to do that . He will be getting together with Mr . Breuhaus to come up with some plans to enhance the area . Tonna of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the environmental assessment . *10TION 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 Cornell University requesting special approval under Article V , Section 18 , Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to modify a university building known as the Campus Store Warehouse . Chairman Austen asked for any further discussion . There was none . He then asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Stotz , Scala , King . ABSTAIN - Ellsworth NAYS -- None . The motion was carried . Chairman Austen referred to a letter from the County Planning Department , dated April 27 , 1995 , Chairman Austen asked for any further discussion on the appeal . He then asked for suggestions on how they would like to see the area . • Mr . Stotz asked if the reluctance to put in windows is a cost consideration . Mr . Breuhaus said partly cost , partly security and partly because to add a lot of glass doesn ' t really seem, to be warranted in this environment . To add more windows so that there ' s an, opening to allow natural light in is not a problem . There was a discussion at the Planning Board to put in skylights ; a problem could arise in trying to keep everything waterproofed . It ' s a building that is substantial , but it ' s not something that ' s easily modified . It costs money to go back and cut the metal , to trim it all out . Mr . Stotz said that Mr . Breuhaus has indicated that there wouldn ' t be an objection to some modification but not to letting in natural light . He then asked how they propose to do that . Mr . Breuhaus said that the siding on the building is actually attached to a series of horizontal girts that are spaced five feet on center . You ' d have to find where they are on the second floor and then cut out the panel between those girts . You ' d have to go back into the wall and put in an opening . Obviously , the smaller the opening , the less work it is to reinforce all of that . The windows that are there now are tall but fairly narrow . As far as admitting light , the height really throws the light deeper into the room . The width is not the issue . If you have an opening , you will get light in there . There ' s talk among staff about adding light on the northeast side of the addition so that it balances the light that ' s on the other end . They would probably add at least one window to balance what ' s already there on the south end of the east side . Mr . Stotz referred to the resolution from the Planning Board . It ' s worded in such a way to provide natural light to the office / work area . He struggles with that . Mr . Breuhaus said it becomes subjective . Attorney Barney said it was put in the form of a suggestion to redesign , without articulating how the redesign should be , which he feels • is not appropriate for the Board to do . The Planning Board felt it was important , but not important enough to condition their recommendation on it . Chairman Austen noted that the other suggestion from the Planning Board was the handicap access , which may not be feasible . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Chairman Austen asked for any other questions . There were none . He then asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that , with respect to the special approval request under Article V , Section 18 of the Toc-m of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance from Cornell University for the expansion of the existing Campus Store Warehouse on Palm road , the Board allow the expansion as outlined in the drawings with the following conditions : 1 . That there be some landscaping on the outside that ' s acceptable through the Town Planner . 2 . They must submit the original site plan with the modifications on it . 3 . They must obtain a certificate of compliance from the Zoning Office before occupancy . Mr . Stotz wanted to add the condition that Cornell University must redesign the area to provide natural lighting for the occupants . Mr . Frost informed the Board that a local municipality cannot be more restrictive on a building code item without the approval of New York State . A sprinkler law process was undertaken by the Tom and it was approved through New York State ; it was a two-year process . It did , ultimately , involve a lawsuit . Mr . Stotz asked if the Board should anticipate a lawsuit over a condition concerning windows and natural lighting . Mr . Frost said he ' s just saying that it ' s an issue of being more restrictive than building code . Mr . Scala stated that , in these days , it ' s far more important to make sure there ' s proper lighting inside in terms of the age of the people , and the distribution of the people . Windows are pretty arbitrary . Daylight varies with cloudiness , etc . It ' s a psychological requirement , not a technical one . Mr . Stotz said there ' s ample evidence , through literature , that people who work long hours without windows do suffer because of it . Mr . Frost added , as a point of interest , that he ' s seen studies where people in states of depression have benefitted just from fluorescent lighting . Mr . Boggs told the Board that they are going to a more sophisticated system of air conditioning ; the existing one is not adequate . In regard to the lighting : it ' s become critical , due to a PCU-- oriented society , and they ' re investigating lighting sources that do a better job . Mr . Stotz asked if the lighting is going to be modified . Mr . Boggs replied yes . Mr . Breuhaus said everyone ' s doing a full spectrum at this point simply from an economic standpoint . In particular , on this one because of the high use of screenings . • What we ' re trying to do is get an even lighting level off the artificial light . There are windows down in the break area . Mr . Stotz asked : plural ? Mr . Breuhaus responded there ' s one window . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Attorney Barney said he thinks , by their own internal , local laws , they need to impose the same three conditions that the Planning Board did . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the appeal , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Scala . ABSTAIN - Ellsworth . NAYS - Stotz . The motion was carried . The fourth appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : Appeal of Elizabeth Classen and Patricia Classen , DBA Denmark Development , Inc . , and Classen Home Health Associates , Appellants , requesting an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals of Article V . Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as to whether or not adult residential care and adult day care facilities are permitted at 704 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31-4-2 , Residence District R-30 . If it is interpreted that such uses are not permitted in R-30 zones , then the appellant is asking for use variances . If it is interpreted that such uses are permitted , then a special approval , as required by Section 18 is requested . The property contains a non-conforming building with a front yard setback of 10 ' + ( 30 ' setback required ) and therefore a variance from Article V , Section 21 or an authorization ( to enlarge a non conforming building ) from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 , may also be requested . Mr . Frost brought the Board ' s attention to a memo that he wrote dated May 2 . There are multifaceted things going on in this particular case and his memo attempts to explain what ' s going on . He wants to make it clear that what ' s being proposed is not a nursing home . The Zoning Board has been , at times , interpreted to allow similar uses , although not exact uses . The Hospicare project is an example . It was approved by way of a convalescent home in terms of use . So , this particular proposal is not a nursing home . Mr . Scala asked to see the May 2 letter . Mr . Frost said that it ' s a memorandum and should be in everyone ' s packet . Mr . King noted that there ' s also a letter from the Town Planner concerning some of the comments in the application as to whether something is surrounded or not . A lot of it is semantics . His personal view is that it ' s not too significant in any way , but the facts are important . He thinks the Planner correctly states some facts in the memorandum . So , if there ' s any disagreement with them , it can be addressed . Chairman Austen added that the memo was prepared by JoAnn Cornish and it was a follow-up to the environmental review . In the application , she found a number of inconsistencies and some incorrect statements . The memorandum is in no way a position statement ; it ' s an attempt to correct some of the factual statements on the application . Chairman Austen adjourned for a few minutes to take the last case on the list for the evening and to give the Board a chance to look over the memorandums . Upon returning to this appeal , Chairman Austen asked Ms . Classen to tell the Board • ghat they are planning on doing there and why this particular piece of property was chosen . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Ms . Elizabeth Classen stated that she ' s a partner of Patricia Classen . She continued by saying that Mr . Bacon will speak to the Board concerning the hardship involved in selling the piece of property . Mr . Boronkay , the listed realtor is also present . Mr . Wilson is their attorney and will address the others issues regarding the variance they are seeking . Mr . Hoffman is present from Holt Architecture Firm to talk about the architectural design of the proposed - use of the property . Ms . Classen continued by saying that , as owners of Classen Home Health , a local home care agency in Tompkins County , they are very dedicated to serving the needs of seniors in the community . They care for a large number of senior citizens and they have been fortunate enough to have a good reputation and they feel they are in a position to assess the needs of the community for something like this . Throughout the last few years , they ' ve noticed that there ' s definitely a need in the community for something like what they are proposing . That is , an alternative to long-term institutional- type nursing home facilities for residents of the community . Ms . Classen said they ' ve done a project like this on a small scale in Jacksonville - - the Evergreen House . It ' s designed and licensed to only accommodate four residents . That really initiated the vision of their proposed use for the Old Hundred House , which is a long- term care , basically assisted- living home for a small number of partially- dependent elderly people . These are people that don ' t need one - on- one nursing attention , but do need care with activities of daily living . They need assistance to live ; they can no longer live independently and they are proposing that this home be used for that purpose , for no more than 15 residents at any given time . They would like to keep it small so they can keep in line with what their goals are - - to create an environment that is not an institutional - type environment or nursing home environment . They feel limiting • the number to 12 - 15 will accomplish that . Ms . Classen continued with they would also like to have a day program , which would be for non- residents . That means for people that would like to have socialization and activities with other people in the community , other seniors . They could come to the home and interact with the residents and join in on the activities that are going on that given day . It ' s called a day program . There are some definitions in the packet . Ms . Classen said they ' ve knocked on several doors in the neighborhood and introduced themselves . They ' ve talked to the neighbors about their proposed use . They have 100 percent support from every neighbor talked to . They , basically , tried every door and only didn ' t get to the people who were not home at the time or where the homes were vacant . Everyone thought it was a good use . They decided to make sure that the neighborhood was all in favor of it before they came before the Board . The neighbors included Mr . Lower , Lawrence Weaver , Heinz Reider , Daniel Hall , Ed and Brigid Shipman , Louis and Martha Mobbs , Don and Adam Carroll , Anthony Turko , Constance and Alfred Cook and William and Theo Jenks . These were among the people that they gathered support from . Tonight they have some public support : Irene Stein , Director , Office of the Aging for Tompkins County . She ' s present to speak in favor of the project . Dr . and Mrs . Munchmeyer are present and some neighbors : Mr . Lower and Mrs . Shipman . Mrs . Shipman lives directly across the street from the project , so she would be a person that would be looking at the project every morning and every night . Mr . Lower owns quite a bit of property along that area and he ' s quite concerned with the way people keep /maintain their property in that area . Ms . Classen continued with their plans will necessitate an addition to the south side of the building . The addition will be consistent with the character of the house . The house is unusual . They will keep the brackets ; looking high and low until they find some brackets that will be consistent with the ones already on the house and carry that Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 through . They think it ' s going to look very nice . To speak more about the design of the • home , Larry Hoffman is here from Holt Architecture . He ' s been guiding them all through the process with his experience in dealing with codes in health- related facilities . Chairman Austen asked if the addition would be for the residential people or for the day care . Ms . Classen said it will be for the residents ' bedrooms and bathrooms . Mr . Scala reiterated that there mould be both adult and day care around- the- clock care . Attorney Wilson noted that day care is a term that means something very different in the context of the project . This is adult day care . Ms . Classen closed by saying that they are absolutely thrilled with that piece of property . They ' ve had their eye on it for a long time . They ' ve given this a lot of thought . They think this particular home and this particular piece of property is just perfect for what they want to do . There ' s enough lard for the addition and they think it will make a lovely addition to the neighborhood and they really feel like it would enhance the neighborhood and they would be definitely committed to keeping it nice and well manicured . The place they operate in Jacksonville - - they pride themselves on the way they keep it maintained . People in the neighborhood have come to them and said so . Air . Scala asked if it would all be one financial operation - - Jacksonville , the one at the hospital and this one . Ms . Classen said the one by the hospital is the administrative offices . It ' s still Denmark Development that owns the real estate , except not the Evergreen House in Jacksonville . That ' s a general partnership . Mr . Scala asked if it was part of the corporation . Ms . Classen answered no . • Air . King asked what the main part of the existing structure would be used for . Ms . Patricia Classen said it would be for a common living area - - the dining room , the kitchen and a library/ reading room , also a laundry room . Mr . King asked if there would be only one kitchen . Ms . Classen said yes . Air . Scala asked how many employees there would be . I- Is . Classen said there would be four employees during the day shift and two employees during the evening and night shifts . Mr . Frost asked if it would be a 24 •-hour operation . Ms . Classen said yes . Air . Stotz said he assumes all of this comes under Health Department regulations - - about staffing and occupancy . Ms . Classen said yes . The New York State Department of Social Services is where they would get their operating certificate from . They also would give them their certificate for operating a day program after they ' ve been open for a year and can show that they can successfully operate an adult home . Then they would look at the home and see what kind of job they are doing . Then they would give them the certificate for a day program . Air . Scala asked what they are looking at per day for adult day care . Ms . Classen said the average for Ithaca is between $ 50 and $ 75 . They haven ' t determined the day care charge yet . They would include transportation in their price ; so it would probably be in the middle of those two prices . Mr . King asked hoc- the operation would differ from Ithacare . Ms . Classen said Ithacare has been a referral source for Evergreen House because , once their I residents become a little more dependent on the staff and require a little bit more care , that ' s when they are no longer appropriate for Ithacare . Ithacare wants more independent- type • people . At that point , Ithacare refers to Evergreen House . Mr . Frost pointed out that they are a step between Ithacare and a nursing home . Ms . Classen answered yes . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 • Mr . Scala said that , for the record , there are two operations in town that will allow up to $ 100 for adult day care . Ms . Classen did not know that . Mr . Frost said that the key element of the hearing is to determine whether this is a permitted use . If not , then there ' s a series of variance approvals to go through . They should also understand that , however the Board decides , if they decide in favor of the project , they will have to go through a building permit process . There are some building code issues . He ' s been talking with the Department of Social Services to work out a truce over the building code problems . Ms . Classen said they have no commitment from the Department of Social Services at this time . It is contingent on the decision of the Board . Mr . King asked if it is in anyway considered to be a convalescent care facility - - such as recovering from surgery . Ms . Classen stated that DSS doesn ' t allow them to accept any resident that requires continuous medical or nursing care . So , if they needed that they wouldn ' t be able to accept them as a resident . Mr . King said it ' s possible a convalescent wouldn ' t need continuous care , just some assistance . Attorney Wilson answered that there are two alternative approaches . One is the use variance , which they are prepared to show economic hardship on the part of Mr . Bacon . The other is to come in under special approval , which would be permitted under Article V . Section 18 , for a convalescent home for the residents and adult day care . That would require an interpretation of this Board as to what the terms mean . If you approve that interpretation to include this described property , then a special approval would be an • option to them . Or they could go under the use variance and not deal with that terminology and just show the hardships . He ' s prepared to go into the marketing issue when they get to that . Yes , you can interpret convalescent homes as an approved area under the zoning . The Board has had in the past some interpretations that would cover that and , if you want to call this a convalescent home , it would be an approved area . Mr . Frost said he would be more inclined to refer to it as a nursing home , Oakland Manor and Lakeside both have a lower level of beds for residents who don ' t require skilled nursing . Some nursing care does , traditionally , provide some supervision of beds to the elderly who don ' t need nursing care , but need some supervision . Attorney Barney asked if they were being regulated by the Department of Social Services . Ms . Classen responded yes . Attorney Barney asked if they were trying to qualify as a nursing home . Ms . Classen said no . Attorney Wilson stated that the terminology changes every time you deal with a different agency . The Board has certain terminology ; DSS has other terminology and their own definitions . Attorney Barney said that , as the slightly inept drafter of this , it was drafted and geared to deal with children ; all of the definitions . They were lifted bodily out of a statute at that time . He thinks they are probably archaic even though they ' re not that old . This terminology does not have , in the back of the drafter ' s mind nor the Board ' s , any discussion of adult day care . Mr . Ellsworth pointed out that it would all be reviewed and possibly redone in the next few years . Mr . Scala said that what they are looking at as one option is a use variance . If this use variance is approved , they would then turn around and be able to make an offer to the seller of the property . Attorney Wilson stated that they are under contract to buy conditioned upon the Board ' s decision . They will be buying it if they receive approval . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 . Mr . Scala asked if the use variance goes through , when will they own the property . Attorney Wilson responded that they would have to close on the title , but that would only be a short time after . Mr . Scala said that what he is looking for is when they would be in business . Attorney W.J. lson responded that they are going through Social Services for licensing . When that approval passes , they will be operational . They would be closing on the title as soon as they receive zoning approval . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mrs . Stein , Director , Tompkins County Office of the Aging spoke first . She ' s extremely impressed by the Zoning Offices . As the Board probably knows , across the nation , in our county , and in the Tom of Ithaca , there ' s been a dramatic increase in the senior population . Between 1980 and 1990 , fog example , in the Town of Ithaca , she thinks the population growth was over three percent . The 75+ population grew close to eight percent , certainly over seven . The goal they have for elderly people is the same as the goal they have for themselves . They want to stay , as you and I do , independent as long as possible . For some , that comes to an end at some point . We ' ve made a tremendous effort in the last decade to increase the housing options for people who need various kinds of supportive services to allow them to be in as, close to a home setting as possible . Sometimes it isn ' t possible and people have to go into a total institutional setting . Mrs . Stein said the option that the Classen sisters are offering is one of those options that allows people the degree of physical surroundings and atmospheric surroundings that approximate an independent home . They enjoy a reputation , based on their delivery of services in their home care agency based on the way they have operated • the Evergreen House in Jacksonville , of being very careful planners and very effective deliverers of services and of being good neighbors . We know that from the response they ' ve had among the Jacksonville community , as well as among the seniors who are applying to them . She thinks it ' s important for the communities to recognize that the independent living housing options are natural and important components of our communities . It keeps people in our area in the best possible surroundings for them and that ' s the best thing for our communities , as well as for the individuals involved . So , the Classen ' s proposed opt''-cn is very much in line with the Office of the Aging ' s assessment of senior needs across the county and they support it heartily . She then thanked the Board . Dr . Louis 14unchmeyer spore on behalf of himself and his wife , Margaret . As he made rounds this morning , he added the ages of his first four patients , divided by foJ :.r and came out with 87 as the average age . He certainly can speak to the fact that we ' re getting an older and older population in this county . He thinks it went up 23 percent in the last decade of people who are over 85 . So , as a physician , he can certainly tell the Board that there is a need for assisted care . He thinks he can speak a lot more personal . His father- in- law is with them , and has been for about four and one -half years . He is able to dress himself , is able to shave and is able to come upstairs but needs assistance getting meals . He loves to walk and do things . His memory is very short and he can ' t live by himself . Dr . Munchmeyer doesn ' t want him in a nursing home ; his wife doesn ' t want him in a nursing home . Classen ' s has sent people in over the last four and one -half months and it has rejuvenated them . Sometimes he envies his father- in- law on the weekends . He goes here and there , goes fishing and does all sorts of things . • Dr . Nunchmeyer said these people have done a wonderful job of managing him and in helping the Munchmeyers out . The concept of assisted care , where you have a very small , very intimate setting , such as Evergreen House and now such as their proposed Bridges , is just wonderful for people like this and he and his wife both feel so secure , and would Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 • feel so secure in having his father- in- law in that kind of system . Whereas , he could not put him in a nursing home . He falls right in between and he can certainly speak for the quality of the Classens . He then thanked the Board . Mr . Bill Lower spoke next . He lives at 433 Floral Avenue , three or four blocks down the street where he was born . He is a senior citizen now and he ' s been where he lives now for 64 years . He doesn ' t think he ' ll end up there , but if he does it would be nice . He is very excited to see what these young ladies are proposing . When this place first went on the market , his concern was that someone would buy the property and not be able to maintain it . He thinks everyone knows that the older pieces of property that are architecturally beautiful are very , very expensive to own and maintain . Mr . Lower said he has a son that would love to own this property , but he couldn ' t maintain it . He tried and he couldn ' t afford it . It ' s been great to see that Mr . Bacon has done a marvelous job of maintaining this property and , of course , being on the street for 64 years , this piece of property has been the property that ' s been mentioned hundreds of times to him . Most frequently it ' s been referred to as the Old Hundred . People use it as a landmark for giving directions . His feeling is that , if the Classens put in what they are proposing , it appears that they do everything professionally and he thinks that it will be an opportunity for someone to be able to run this kind of low- keyed business and be able to profit enough to maintain the building for many , many , many years . Mr . Lower said living down the street , he thinks people will know where he lives due to the couple of hundred thousand light bulbs . He has 20 acres of land there that he ' s done a significant amount of work on . He ' s spent many hours of his time upgrading it with a large financial burden . He ' s had many people come to him and tell him that he has • beautified the place . They send him letters and cookies thanking him for putting up the Christmas lights . He takes a lot of pride in his place because he grew up there and his folks weren ' t fortunate enough to be able to afford a beautiful , beautiful place . But , it was always nice to go by there all the time and know it was in your neighborhood and it was always a mansion to him . Now that he has his place and people tell him it ' s so beautiful , it ' s nice to hear . When people built the Old Hundred , no one came to them and told them they beautified the place ; it was always beautiful from the time it was built . He ' s beautified his part of the street and he ' s very concerned about the way everything looks . He would urge the Board to give this appeal serious consideration . Hopefully , the Board would grant this as something that would be a great thing for this particular piece of property . He thanked the Board . Mrs . Brigid Shipman , who lives at 681 Five Mile Drive - - directly across from the Old Hundred - -- spoke next . She started by saying that she ' s definitely in favor of the proposed development that the Classens are presenting to the Board . She ' s seen the plans for the new development and thinks they are very nice . If she were going to be doing it , she thinks she would have chosen much the same . She approves where they are putting their addition and changing the driveway . As Mr . Lower pointed out , it ' s a very old home and one of the concerns is that somebody would be able to buy it and not maintain it . Mr . Bacon does an incredible job of taking care of that home and the property it sits on . She thinks it would be very , very difficult for anyone to deal with the property . She ' s checked into the Classen ' s reputation and it ' s wonderful . She feels very confident that they are the ones who will be able to take care of it and keep the neighborhood beautiful . Mrs . Shipman said as for their project , she thinks it ' s a wonderful idea to have • care for the elderly ; this type of care is the perfect opportunity for that home . Having a grandmother herself who is not able to go to a nursing home , but needs some sort of care , her favorite part of this is having a day care program . She ( the grandmother ) does Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 not get out an awful lot . Having a day care program to go to , not in a hospital but in a home , is absolutely wonderful . She ' s definitely in favor of this . Hopefully the Classens will get zoning approval . Mr . Frost told Mrs . Shipman that she ' s probably as close as anyone residentially to the building . Mrs . Shipman said yes ; their front window is nine feet long and looks out directly at their home . She ' s seen the plans and they ' ve done a wonderful , wonderful job with keeping the addition in line with the original structure . Mr . King asked Mrs . Shipman if she is aware that the addition would occupy about twice as much floor space as the present building , Mrs . Shipman said yes ; the placement of the addition is in a very , very key spot on the property . It ' s back farther from the road . It gives them a great extension through the property but yet allows all of the use of the grounds around the building . If it was placed towards the front , it wouldn ' t work . She really agrees with where they are putting it . It won ' t do any damage to the property . Mr . Ellsworth asked if Mrs . Shipman can see the addition from her picture window . Mrs . Shipman said yes . Mr . Scala asked what he is missing - he doesn ' t see the addition on the appeal . Mr . Frost said that it is not . Mr . Scala said then that means the Board is not considering an addition . Attorney Wilson said it is mentioned in the packet he provided . Mr . Scala said that the non--conforming use they are talking about must include an expansion in addition . Mr . Frost stated that ' s why they ' re looking at this not only as a special approval , but also as a use variance . The building , itself , as it sits now , is too close to the road in the front for residential use . This makes the building non- conforming . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Frost to read to him where it mentions the addition , • Mr . Frost informed him that the addition of the building is not described . Mr . Scala asked if the addition is included in the variance . Attorney Wilson said that Exhibit E of the packet refers to it . Mr . Scala said that there must be another stage after this that involves the addition . Mr . Frost tried to explaina Let ' s presume for a moment that this is a permitted use . Then the process set forth by the Zoning Ordinance says they go to the Planning Board and then the Zoning Board , Mr . Scala stated that he understands this to mean that the building by itself , as it is being bought , is not sufficient . It ' s going to require the addition . Attorney Wilson informed them that the ultimate decision on the building codes and the site. would be done by the Planning Board , Attorney Barney said that , if you choose to treat this as a variance , then you are treating the application on its face and it goes nowhere except to the Board and you either grant or deny the variance , which would include granting a variance to construct whatever it is they want to construct . If you are treating it as an interpretation , and your interpretation is that it ' s a permitted use subject to a special approval process , then it goes back to the Planning Board . They need to make a recommendation and that recommendation comes back to this Board to make the final determination . Mr . Scala replied that what he is raising his hand about is the announcement . Why is it not in the announcement? Mr . Frost answered by saying that what they ' re • entertaining is the concept of the day care and the nursing home . Your mailings indicate how that ' s being done . Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 • Mr . Scala responded and said that he sees it as a use variance for 704 Five Mile Drive , period . So , if the Board were to bring a motion on this , it would have to include the statement " with respect to the proposed addition . " Attorney Barney said they would be granting a variance to allow them to do what they want to do , which includes constructing an addition . Chairman Austen reminded the Board that they are dealing with the public hearing at the present time . Mrs . Shipman finished her statements by saying that she is in favor for all of their plans and she is looking fon-iard to an elderly care facility in the neighborhood . She thanked the Board . Chairman Austen asked if there Was anyone else who would like to speak . With no one else present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Attorney Barney suggested that they only suspend the public hearing . If they are going to proceed as if this is a variance application , they will need to hear some hardship evidence . If they are treating it as a special approval , they need not take any further testimony on the hardship issue . He thinks , at this point , it could be wise for Mr . Wilson to give an expose on the law . The public hearing was suspended . Mr . Scala stated that his early. er questions were really fishing for financial stability of what they are looking at . These have been started in other places and • failed . He ' s just questioning what they ' ve done in depth in terms of studying the finances . Me doesn ' t get any feel for that at all . Ms . Classen explained by saying that DSS requires a very extensive financial bacR.ground of information that they have to subrcit before DSS will even consider them . So , they have a great deal of work to do to submit to DSS . They have to have a very strong financial background befoae DSS will even consider them . They feel confident that they can meet the requirements of DSS and thsy ' re discovering that right now , in corresponding with them , but not too far until they have this Board ' s decision . They know that it is economically feasible . They have done a financial feasibility study . Mi . Scala as:ced if their competition would be Kendall . Ms . Classen said not necessarily . Kendall is hoping to have residents that are much more capable of caring for themselves . Mr . Scala said that Kendall has an additional category being added that will take day care people . '?e wants the Classens to be aware of the competition . Attorney Wilson thinks the Classens have demonstrated the need from a lot of different sources in terms of population explosions in this age group . It is so phenomenal . Attorney Wilson said there are two alternative approaches . You can either interpret the existing Zon =.c?, Ordinance to allow this as a permitted use under the special approval process , qualifying the residence as a convalescence home under the terminology of Article V . Section 18 . Adult way care is not actually provided for , nor is senior residential carr provided for at all in the Zoning Ordinance . By omission , they have failed to provide for anything like that . That ' s exactly where they ' re at now . If they wish to interpret it to provide for that , it requires a special approval process . The convalescent home would imply that the residential facility would fit under that definition . If that were the case , then it ' s been mentioned that there ' s around--the - Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 clock supervision going on . They don ' t , per se , provide medical care , but they are able • to secure it . Attorney Wilson said as pointed out in Mr . Frost ' s communique , the definition of day care does provide a provision for a day care center . This is number 43 in the terminology . This provides that a facility , home or other establishment , licensed by the New York State DSS and certified by Tompkins County DSS , in which day care is provided for hire , not be a school and day care home . The Classens would fit under that unless you are making the determination that it means children . Again , this would be a licensed , DSS- approv`3d day care facility . It doesn ' t say adults , it doesn ' t say children . The history may be one thing , but you are certainly free to interpret that to include adult day care . In that instance , both of these uses that the applicants have before the Board would fit under the current terminology . This could be approved , then , with a special approval process . Attorney Wilson said if you don ' t , what brought them here originally was a use variance request and this .las coming in under the unnecessary hardship argument . As put forth in the application before the Board , they went through a lengthy explanation of the problems that Mr . Bacon has had as owner of the property in selling the property . Mr . Boronkay is here , who is the second listed broker . It ' s been listed twice . Once for six months and then after for six months with another agency . The property is not saleable as it is , even though it ' s a beautiful home . The problems that were mentioned are the cost of maintenance of such an exorbitant home . Also , the Board will note , in the application they mentioned the fact that there were 33 showings of this , a substantial number of showings . Yet , nobody even came back for a second viewing . There was absolutely no offer . In the terms of financial proof of the not reasonable return , he • guesses the answer is that it cannot be sold as a single- family residence . The problems are complex , but the listing price has gone down a quarter already before this contract was consummated , and this was only consummated based on the fact that it ' s being used for this use . If Mr . Bacon were to continue to keep it on the market and try to sell it as a single- family residence , he would probably lose more than a quarter of ,What he had in terms of a value for it . It ' s dropped 25 percent . The reason for this , is a problem with the location . He pointed out on his map in the Exhibit list under B . the surrounding areas . This seemed to be a constant comment from the people who were looking at the place . It was heavily marketed , It ' s a beautiful residence and attracted many people to look at it but , once on.- site , people noticed the problem with it . It was front page on the Marketing Journals magazine for real estate in the area . It ' s been on the market for over one year . The problems have been as reflected . Attorney Wilson said there are some photos here shorlying the problems with the surrounding area . He addressed those problemso the County Barns are within sight . Mr . Bacon has owned this property for 25 years . A lot has changed since he ' s been there . The County Barn was actually there at the time he came , but it has expanded greatly since then . The County Barns reflect the fact that there are snowplows coming in and trucks also , reflecting the fact that it ' s a busy commercial area connected with the county facility . All of those things are inconsistent with an R- 30 , by the uay . The Board will find a lot of thing; hero that fall into the category of not being single -- family hospitable . The school buses , again a major facility and traffic , are not positive in the view of selling single -- family residence . There ' s a lot of traffic there . The Board should also reflect on the fact that there ' s a couple of multiple family residences in the near vicinity . That ' s reflected on the map . There also is the church area , which • is posted . Apparently Assembly of God has as a future site . It ' s his understanding that this requires considerable parking . So , all of these basically create a combination of things showing a quasi- commercial area in terms of what ' s going on . It ' s a short cut for some traffic . Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 • Attorney Barney stated that he thinks what the Board needs to do is address the first question - - is it a special use situation or a variance decision? Mr . Stotz asked if it ' s approved under a variance , what type of oversight does the Town have in terms of site development and the plan at that point? Attorney Barney said not a lot . The variance is granted with respect to particular applications and the use of the property would be in accordance with that plan . However , once you ' ve granted a use variance to allow the property to be used for an adult care facility , you lose control in a sense that they can expand it or not , that sort of thing . You can time- limit the use . With a special approval , you do have more control because then it does require a site plan and any modification, in the future requires approval . If you chose the variance route , you could impose a condition that there be no alterations to the site other than what is now shown . Mr . Kanter would urge that , if that is what the Board does , they require as a condition , because there are a number of site issues that need to be addressed , that the Town would like to see more detail than has been able to be shown on this scale of the plan . Mr . Scala asked what would be wrong with proceeding with the proposal for a use variance because it ' s logical , whereas the other hardship is subterfuge . Their real purpose is to sell it and then make the adult cars center . So , let ' s go ahead with the use variance . Attorney Barney stated that the underpinning for a use variance is hardship . • Mr . Frost said that it was his understanding , when discussed initially , since it is somewhat of a good project for the community , a use variance is a little harder to get than special approval . He said that his int.ent was to cover all the bases as thoroughly as possible in order to resolve this . It was the Classens who obtained a use variance for the facility on Trumansburg Road - - that variance was granted to address site concerns and conditioned on them obtaining site plan approval from the Planning Board . This mitigated those concerns for site considerations . Again , the Board could grant the use variance with the condition , among others , that they go before the Planning Board for site plan approval . Mr . Scala thinks that is very straightforward . He suggested moving on it . Mr . Kanter added that he thought it might be helpful to just outline why this might be a good location for the proposed use , which is really more of a planning issue , but he thinks it ' s something the Board might want to think about . A lot of it is sort of taking what Bruce has laid out and just wording it a little differently , maybe on a more positive note . One of the things is that this is not really an established neighborhood . It has single - family uses , but it ' s really an evolving area , and it ' s a mixed area . Mr . Ellsworth asked what the comprehensive plan shows . Mr . Kanter said that it shows it as suburban residential , which he thinks this kind of use is consistent with , considering the overall definition of it . Attorney Wilson said that , in the R- 30 , there are a lot of uses permitted . Convalescent homes , nursing homes and dormitories are permitted within that area . If you • look at the area that has developed historically , you ' ll see an awful lot of different uses . Mr . Ellsworth noted that , to him , that ' s what ' s lacking in the comprehensive plan of suburban residential . You ' ve got commercialization all around there . Town of Ithaca 20 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 • Air . Kanter pointed out that , looking at the road system , it appears to have sufficient capacity to handle traffic from this kind of use . But , public transportation may be extended to the area . The bus line runs close to the area . Attorney Wilson said that , in deference to the zoning , he thinks a lot were exempt from zoning because of the school buses and the County Barns being there . They couldn ' t enforce it anyway because the worst parts of the traffic are with the barns and the school buses . They ' re exampt anyway . Attorney Barney asked if it ' s the Board ' s desire to treat this as a variance application . If that ' s the case , the Board will probably want to hear a little evidence to determine the hardship , if there is a hardship . Then the Board can make their decision . Air . Ellsworth said that his desire is not to make them go back before the Planning Board . Attorney Barney said that special approval does go back to the Planning Board . With a variance , it can or it cannot , depending on how the Board chooses to decide . Mr . Stotz noted that there had been some concern expressed about the site plan . He asked what those concerns are . Mr . Kanter responded that there are some clear site planning issues . These are things that the Planning Board would normally look at for this :rind of facilitya parking , certainly layout and adequacy , drainage , and buffering . Actually , one of the corrections that he made in Bruce ' s outline of adjacencies is that the property directly to the gest , going up Bostwick , is now Town park land . When the Glendale subdivision occurred , very recently ( about one year ago ) it made it so that the adjacency of the park needs some looking at just to protect the Town ' s interests . One • of the things mentioned in the environmental assessment by JoAnn was trying to preserve as many of the mature trees on the subject site as possible . Some may have to come down because of the addition , but there are some significant trees on the site . Those are basically the site plan issues that he thinks the Manning Board should really be able to take a closer look at . He thinks the plan would have to be revised with some more detail shown to these areas to get that clearly looked at . Mr . Stotz asked under special use , they would have to go ?pack to the Planning Board . Attorney Barney said yes , but they could also do a variance , conditioning the granting of the variance on the Planning Board granting a site plan approval . It seems to Mr . Xing that there are going to be more of these facilities required in the future in residential areas , whether they ' re R- 30 or others . If you look at the R- 30 regulations , the special approval is under Section 18 , Subdivision 3 . It runs from day care centers , to convalescent homes to nursing homes and medical clinics . Logically , he thinks somewhere in between those specifications is this type of facility . He believes they would be fumthcr ahead for the community to say this is , it the Board ' s view , a p.:rnitted use under the Section 18 , Subdivision 3 , special approval section . Attorney Barney believes that if it is put in under a convalescent home , it would be stretching it a little . That implies that people are going to get better . With all due respect , he doesn ' t feel the clientele here trould be getting better . It ' s also in the context of the form that they are Health Department regulated , and that ' s not the case he. e . The day care center , with the omission of the word " children , " provides day care for hire . He suggests that the Board seriously consider a variance for this particular proposal . What they would ultimately go to , in the Zoning Ordinance , would be a special approval use . Town of Ithaca 21 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Mr . Frost said that they should also have Article XII , Section 54 , because this • building is non- conforming and it ' s not clear whether they might need approval under this Section . That ' s a totally separate process from the special approval if this were a permitted use . Attorney Barney said the best course of action to consider , after hearing a little testimony to substantiate it -- - a variance that would allow the particular proposal they have , with the building as presently figured and a substandard front yard . In a reference to the Planning Board for site plan approval , there could be the considerations they would normally consider if it were special approval . With that in hand , it would allow these people to process their application with the Planning Board . It ' s probably more appropriate for the Board to determine whether there ought to be a 20 ' or 30 ' buffer . In the meantime , he thinks they would then go to the Town Board and suggest that , very quickly , a study be made to incorporate these kinds of homes . Mr . King reminded the Board that , when you grant a variance , you are supposed to grant the least variance necessary and that is not necessarily , in his mind , to jump to the conclusion that you can triple the apace in granting the variance . Mb . Frost pointed out that DSS likes , in some cases , the residential buildings for adults to be larger than what ' s proposed . So , they are actually down- scaling from what DSS wants in the first place . Ms . Classen said you are allowed to have 200 in an adult home . The average residents in adult homes in New York State is somewhere between 75 and 150- 175 . Mr . Frost stated that he advertised this as he did in order to cover all of the bases and , hopefully , be able to resolve the issue . Chairman Austen asked if they would be in the right context if they listened to the hardships . Mr . Scala said not to list the hardships because , back in his day , every wild west town had a place that looked like this called adult care . They were very successful . Attorney Barney said it ' s necessary to listen to the hardships . Chairman Austen asked to listen briefly to the hardships . Attorney Wilson pointed cut that the price drop is significant already . The cost of maintaining it has been pointed out already as a major factor . Out of 33 people , not one came for a second showing . It ' s not a saleable single - family residence . That ' s the hardship ; you can ' t sell it . You can ' t move it . The requirement is that you not have reasonable return - - how do you know what a reasonable return is? Certainly , he believes that would be an unreasonable return . They don ' t know ghat it would sell for . Certainly it would bne a lot less than what they are paying for it at this point to keep it a single - family residence . The elements of the hardship would be loss of value . Mr . Boronkay is there to speak to the marketing element . It was heavily marketed . It all has to do with the location . Attorney Wilson said the second element for hardship would be unique to the district . He thinks the Board will find that it ' s an R- 30 district but it ' s a unique Property by any definition , looking at where it is in relation to everything else . There ' s heavy traffic there ; there is commercial use there . This particular single- family residence is not setting any precedent for R- 30 because it ' s quite unique due to the location and the terrain and how it ' s developed . The character of the neighborhood - - he ' s tried to show that in the chart in the exhibit . It ' s a mixed-use neighborhood . Tore of Ithaca 22 Zbning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 He doesn ' t think it mould change the character of the neighborhood at all . In fact , the neighbors all suppow-ted this . Certainly , it ' s been a mixed- use area . That ' s not self- created , which is another element that has to be established . Mr . Bacon ' s had this property for over 25 years . The County Barns have expanded a lot . As a practical matter , the location has changed ; the ownership has stayed the same . This is not due to any fault of Mr . Bacon that this is no longer a marketable property . The lack of marketing is the hardship and Mr . Bacon can comment on that , too . They would be requesting a use variance under Article V . Section 18 , for the use defined in the application - -- a 12 -• 15 -bed residential facility licensed by DSS and a use variance for the adult day care . All this would be conditioned upon DSS approval . Attorney Wilson continued to say that Mr . Frost has mentioned that there ' s an area variance issue . He doesn ' t know how to interpret that . If you look at the survey in one of the exhibits and then loot at the site plan in the exhibit , there ' s a 30 ' setback . If the front lot is considered Seven Mile Drive , there ' s a structure that ' s within the 30 ' of the highway right-of-way . The Board ' s definition of front setback doesn ' t refer to highway , whether they are ta.lkirg about the rcad ' s right- of-way or the street . It ' s more than 30 ' , but it ' s within the 30 ' for the highway right-of-way so they would be requesting the area variance . They would ask that the ease variance include the addition , as submitted in the site plan prepared by Mr . Hoffman , who is present . Mr . Frost clarified with , if you call Bostwick Road the front yard , that would ma'.P% e the side of the building facing Five Mile Drive. the side yard , which requires a 40 ' setback . No matter wrrich side you call the side yard , there ' s still a deficiency . Attorney Milson said that however the Board wants to define that , they would ask for • the variance . The existing structure has obviously been there for a long time and that ' s a given ; it can ' t be controlled . They would obviously comply with all building codes when they submit the appropriate building application to Mr . Frost . If the Board feels that a site review by the Planning Board is necessary , they would accept that also . Air . Ralph Bacon spoke next . He ' s the owner of the Old Hundred . His wife and he bcught it roughly 27 years ago . He ' s known it all his life . He ' s really enjoyed living there . They found cut that nothing had been done to it in about 50 years when they purchased it . Consequently , they put most of their money into it right up until recently . They had the insurance people there and they said the house was worth $ 200 , 000 and insured the house for $ 200 , 000 . Everyone keeps talking about how pretty the house is and they have been very proud of it , but now that he ' s trying to sell it , it seems like an entirely different situation . No one seems to want to buy it . Mr . Ellsworth asked what the house is assessed for . Mr . Bacon replied about $ 148 , 000 . He ' s not sure . It was raised about four years ago . Mr . Kanter replied that the current assessment is $ 130 , 900 . Mr . Bacon said he retired four years ago ; his wife was still working , Unfortunately , she got sick three years ago and died . Now, he ' s in the process of trying to keep the house going , with his other properties , on a retirement income , and Cornell doesn ' t pay that much . So , he does have a hardship , in that he does have to get rid of the house as he can ' t afford the taxes on it . They have sewer and water to pay for even though they didn ' t need it . The taxes are a lot more than just the assessed value of the house . Mr . Bacon continued with basically , he got the house on the market almost a year • ago . He asked five realtors to give him an appraisal . They went between $ 200 , 000 and $ 229 , 000 . That surprised him - - to see five within that close range . At the time he selected Remax and listed it at $ 219 , 000 . They had it for six months and a lot of people Tocm of Ithaca 23 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 looked at it , but there were no proposals . So , when the contract ran out , he went with • Century 21 and dropped the price to $ 199 , 900 . Even though they did a great job with pictures in the paper , etc . , there were still no offers . Mr . Ellsworth asked how many people went through the house . Mr . Bacon said that , with Century 21 , there wore about 19 . What he keeps hearing is that everybody who comes and looks at it doesn ' t want it because of the school bus garage . It was right after he moved there that they started to put in the school bus garage . All the neighbors were upset , but it didn ' t do any good . That hasn ' t helped a bit . Not only that , the school bus garage does no trimming . They mora a little bit , but there are no flowers , nothing . They have trailers parked outside , boxes parked outside . They ' re a good neighbor , but visually they are not . That hasn ' t helped with selling the house . The other things are listed : the traffic that ' s coming down from the Town Highway Barns . They had originally said they wouldn ' t come doom that road , but they found out they can ' t get on 13 , so they do . The only thing he ' s not happy about , and he made comment to the people around there , is that there ' s a church coming in with a 200• -car parking lot which certainly isn ' t going to look very good and then right behind him will be a Toren pars . That also doesn ' t make him very happy because a park has to have parking space . That ' s why , when the Classens came to him , he hesitated and then finally accepted the offer . This was due to the fact that he knows the architect personally . He ' s worked with him on projects at his work . He has designed it to look very nice , which pleases Mr . Bacon . If he has to put it back on the market again , he doesn ' t know how he ' ll sell it for any price . He thanked the Board . Mr . Kanter added , for the record , that the Torn park is designed to fit into a residential neighborhood . That ' s the idea anyway . • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mr . Kanter said they did go through a traffic assessment . He noted the reference that the adjacent property to the west is Torn of Ithaca park land . He also noted some references to the fairly substantial size of the addition needing to be looked at to be sure it fits in with the structure and character of the property . He added that JoAnn Cornish mentioned the need to preserve mature vegetation on the site if possible . The conclusion is that the staff recommends a negative determination of environmental significance . He then read the last part of the form : It is recommended , however , that a more detailed site plan be prepared and submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval so that issues such as parking , drainage , lighting and buffering can be more fully addressed because the project site butts Tocm of Ithaca park land and it is imperative that potential impacts on the park land be minimized . Chairman Austen noted that there is quite a heavy hedgerow between the properties . Mr . Ellsworth noted that the property is at a slightly higher elevation than the park land . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the environmental assessment . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . • RESOLVED , that the Board accept the recommendation of the Torn Reviewer on the proposal for the use of the property at 704 Five Mile Drive as an adult residential care and an adult day care facility , and make a negative determination of environmental significance . Town of Ithaca 24 Zoning Board Of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Chairman Austen asked for further discussion on the matter . There was no further • discussion and Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Stotz , Ellsworth , Scala . NAYS - None The motion was curried unanimously . Chairman Austen noted that they had already listened to a pretty good summary of the uses of the property . He added that the public hearing was still open , with no one wishing to speak , the public hearing was closed . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the matter . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . I".ESONLWD , that , for the appeal of Elizabeth Classen and Patricia Classen , DBA Denmark Development , Inc . and Classen Home Health Associates at 704 Five Mile Drive , for an area variance from the requirements of Section 21 of the ordinance for R- 30 Districts that requires the front yard setback of not less than 30 ' ( the building on the site has a front yard setback of only 10 ' , but it has existed long before the ordinance ) , the Board grant an area variance approving that the 10 ' setback is adequate under Section 21 . • Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the area variance , which resulted as follows : 11YES - Austen , King , Ellsworth , Stotz , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . 140TION By Mr . Eduard King , seconded by Mr . Scala . RESO'LlIM , that the Board grant a use variance for the proposed use of the property at 704 Five Mile Drive , changing it from single - family , residential to use as an adult residential care facility , as well as an adult day care facility . This would pebmit the enlargement of the property and the use for those purposes , upon the following findings and conditions : 1 ) That the applicant has demonstrated to the Board ' s satisfaction unnecessary hardship in the restrictive use of this particular property and his ability to realize reasonable value for it without the grant for special use . 2 ) Under th^. applicable regulations , the applicant cannot obtain a reasonable economic return for the property . The hardship to this property is unique and it is the only one immediately opposite the school bus garage and the Town park , and it is in a mixed-use area , which has the effect of devaluing the property generally as a residential property . • 3 ) The requested variance would permit its use for adult residential care and adult day care and would not denigrate the character of the neighborhood and is a use that is needed in the community . The hardship has not been self- created . Town of Ithaca 25 Zoning Board of Appeals P-lay 10 , 1995 • 4 . The applicants present the matter to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for its approval upon a specific , detailed site plan , with such details as the Planning Board might require . 5 . The variance would not be effective unless , and until , the above -mentioned site plan approval is granted by the Planning Board and that would include the approval of the proposed additions and the extent of the use of the property . 6 . It is understood that the title to the property would , if these approvals are obtained , be transferred to Denmark Development , Inc . 7 . The proposed use and the proposed operators must be approved by the State Department of Social Services and any other appropriate regulatory authorities . s . The existing building and proposed addition would be brought into compliance with all applicable codes , including the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code . 9 . Neither the original building nor the addition would be occupied until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Officer . Mr . Stotz asked if the facility were sold in the future , could it be used for adult day care but not for child care ? Attorney Barney answered that to be correct . Chairman Austen asked for further discussion ; there was none . Chairman Austen then • asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Ellsworth , Stotz , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The last case to be heard by the Board was as follows : Appeal of Anthony Augustine , Appellant/Owner , Jeff Frederickson , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 of the To;M of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an 18 ' % 16 ' enclosed Porch at the rear of a non-conforming building located at 1413 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 12- 12 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it has a 14 ' east side yard building setback ( 15 ' required ) . Mr . Frederickson told the Board that the porch currently is a patio that has a shed- style fiberglass roof over it . He referred to the picture in the packets . Mr . King asked Mr . Frederickson if the existing patio / porch would be enclosed . Mr . Frederickson stated that they are going to take down the existing shed- style roof and build a gable - style roof , erhich is much more attractive . It ' s going to be more of a permanent structure . Then they are going to enclose the three walls with windows inside , etc . It will be a seasonal room . There will be storm windows , but the room will be unheated . • Chairman Austen asked if it would require any modifications to the doors and the existing house . Mr . Frederickson said no , they would still use the exterior door going out onto the patio and they are also going to put a storm door onto the new wall to access the backyard from the patio . Toon of Ithaca 26 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 Air . Frost asked if the hedge row is across the road . Mr . Frederickson said yes ; • apparently the builder must have missed on . his marks when he built the place 30 years ago . Mr . Frost indicated that there are no building permit records in Town Hall for the project . Mr . King asked if the lot is almost 300 feet deep . Mr . Frederickson replied yes ; it ' s a very large lot . He also has a letter from the neighbor , which just came in , from the Atilliars . They are on the east side of the property , the part of the property in :question . He then as'_.;ed if he should read the letter . It says they are the neighbors immediately east to the Augustine ' s , at 1413 Hanshaw Road . They are unable to attend the hearing but wish to inform the Board that they support Mr . Augustine ' s request for authorization to construct an 18 ' X 16 ' enclosed porch at the rear of his home . Mr . Frederickson informed the Board that the porch , itself , is in compliance with the 15 ' setback and it ' s already existing . The reason for doing it is that they will get a lot more use out of the porch . They are a retired couple and it ' s a very nice patio . This will just give them a lot more enjoyment and use out of the space and it will also enhance thin property . It will replace the ugly roof that is there now , Mr . Scala asked if it i , facing the south side . Mr . Frederickson replied yes . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . He then noted that they have a latter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • Mr . Kanter said that the form is very straightforward . They recommend a negative determination of anvironmental significance . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the environmental assessment MOTION By , Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that , in the regard to the request by Mr . Anthony Augustine of 1413 Hanshaw Road , for constructing a 16 ' X 18 ' enclosed porch at the rear of a non- conforming building , the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance for this property , which is at Tax Parcel No . 70 - 12 • - 12 , Residence District R- 15 , based on the review by JoAnn Cornish , Planning Department , May 3 , 1995 , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz . NAYS - None The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen said that it certainly loots like a very small addition to a very • large lot . He then asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr , David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Edward King . Town of Ithaca 27 Zoning Board of Appeals May 10 , 1995 • RESOLVED , that the Board grant a special approval for the property at 1413 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70•- 12 - 12 , for the construction of an 18 X 16 foot enclosed porch at the rear of the building , with the following findings * 1 ) In view of the fact that the construction does not appear to be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and the fact that it will enhance the property . 2 ) Also , the addition will in no way exacerbate the non- conformance of the building . 3 ) That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a-h . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the appeal , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . ( The Board returned to the fourth appeal . ) The meeting was adjourned . 0 0 Debbie R . Raines • Recording Secretary Xj Edward Austen , Chairman •