Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1995-12-13 FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 13 , 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 , December 13 , 1995 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COHMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of Gregory Page , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , of the Tom of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an outside wood deck with a west side yard building setback of 10+ feet ( 15 foot setback required ) , at 218 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57 - 1 -8 . 100 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Andrew Ezergailis , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V . Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a single - family residence with a south side building property line setback of 33 feet ( 40 feet required ; and a garage setback on the south side of 13 . 8 feet ( 15 feet required ) , at 1157 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 36 - 2 - 17 , Residence District R- 30 . APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer , Appellant , Peter Newell , 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 add a fourth dwelling unit to an existing multiple dwelling and modify a separate garage building on a non-conforming building / lot located at 1060 Danby Road , Town & f Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 39- 1 - 15 . 2 , Business District C . Said building and lot are nonconforming since business zones do not permit residential uses . APPEAL of Anthony Lucatelli , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XI , Section 51 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a small restaurant / convenience store at 1456 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24 - 1 - 19 . 11 , Agricultural District ( R- 30 regulations also apply ) . Said district does not permit restaurant / convenience stores by use . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs , as appropriate , will be provided with assistance , as necessary , upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : December 5 , 1995 Publish * December S . 1995 0 F1 NAL TOM OF I[TiaM ZOM17G WMD OF APPEMS 7r f�c�op�, QyAGA !7zM1.tl13a79JA u DA:ESeAS:E'Y 3V 23 , 199 7000 P . M . 10 Appeal of Gregory Page at 218 Eastern Heights Drive , 2 . Appeal of Andrew Ezergailis at 1157 Danby Road , 3e Appeal of Evan Monkemeyer at 1060 Danby Road . 4e Appeal of Anthony Lucatelli at 1456 Trumansburg Road . 59 Appoint Chairman for 1996 , Andrew Se Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273 - 1783 Wateds December 5 , 1995 0 Or lTk:,,ACA CA ZONING BOARD OFF I 'Ns A L TOWN OF I �PEALS CiU: � WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 13 , 1995 The following appeals were heard by the Board on December 13 , 1995 : APPEAL of Gregory Page , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an outside wood deck with a west side yard building setback of 10+ feet ( 15 foot setback required ) , at 218 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57 - 1 - 8 . 100 , Residence District R- 15 . GRANTED . APPEAL of Andrew Ezergailis , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V . Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a single- family residence with a south side building property line setback of 33 feet ( 40 feet required ) and a garage setback on the south side of 13 . 8 feet ( 15 feet required ) , at 1157 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 36 - 2 - 17 , Residence District R- 30 . GRANTED . APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer , Appellant , Peter Newell , 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 add a fourth dwelling unit to an existing multiple dwelling • and modify a separate garage building on a non-conforming building/ lot located at 1060 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 39- 1 - 15 . 2 , Business District C . Said building and lot are nonconforming since business zones do not permit residential uses . GARAGE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS . FOURTH DWELLING UNIT DENIED . APPEAL of Anthony Lucatelli , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XI , Section 51 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a small restaurant / convenience store at 1456 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24 - 1 - 19 . 11 , Agricultural District ( R- 30 regulations also apply ) . Said district does not permit restaurant/ convenience stores by use . DENIED . 0 FILED 1 `0WN OF ITL IACA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �a4e DECEMBER 13 , 1995 CCOerk • PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Harry Ellsworth , Edward King , David Stotz , Director of Building and Zoning andrew Frost , Town Planner Jonathan Kanter , Planner II JoAnn Cornish , Town Attorney John C . Barney . OTHERS : Jane and Lee Schafrik , Mrs . Athena Grover , Mr . William Grover , Mr . Anthony Lucatelli , Mr . Jason Demmer , Mr . Peter Newell , Mr . Gregory Page , Mr . Andrew Ezergailis , Mr . George Vignaux , Rhonda Bickford . Chairman Edward Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 06 PM , stating that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in order . The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Gregory Page , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an outside wood deck with a west side yard building setback of 10± feet ( 15 foot setback required ) , at 218 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1-8 . 100 , Residence District R- 15 . Mr . Frost spoke first to state that they received a building permit application for the garage on the property to be converted to an art studio . In reviewing the application , they discovered the deck was built too close to the property line . There • were no variances or building permits for the deck , so the assumption is that the previous owner to Mr . Page constructed the deck without a permit , too close to the property line . So , now they are looking at a variance request . If that ' s approved , then the property is no longer non-conforming , as it is currently . The construction on the conversion of the garage has taken place , but they have an early building permit warning notice that he believes is part of the packet . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Page when he purchased the property . Mr . Page said they have been there two years as of this past August . Chairman Austen asked who owned the property previously . Mr . Page replied that they purchased it from Joseph Ciaschi . Mr . King asked if the deck was on the house when the Page ' s purchased it . Mr . Page said it was . They had no idea the situation with the deck existed . There ' s a wonderful view of the other side of the hill from the deck . He assumes the deck was put in so that the owners could see that view . He indicated that there should be a letter from neighbors , John and Josephine Churey . Mr . King asked on which side the Churey ' s live . Mr . Page responded they live on the west side and they are the closest neighbors to the deck . Mr . King asked if the Page ' s had made any changes in the deck . Mr . Page said no . Pictures of the deck were passed around . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . He then referred to the Churey letter . Mr . Stotz asked if there is an entrance to the house from the deck . Mr . Page noted that it goes down to another deck and the entrance to the house is on the lower deck . • Chairman Austen asked how far is the other house from the deck . Mr . Page said it is farther than the property line , probably another 30 - 50 ' . Mr . Frost agreed with this . Mr . King noted that there is really a good separation between the deck and any other building next door . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the appeal . * Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 • MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the appeal of Gregory Page , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 13 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , be granted to permit Mr . Page to maintain the existing outside wood deck , with a west side yard building setback of 10+ at 218 Eastern Heights Drive . This variance takes into account the fact that there is still considerable separation between the edge of that deck and the house on the adjoining property . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Andrew Ezergailis , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a single- family residence with a south side building property line setback of 33 feet ( 40 feet required ) and a garage setback on the south side of 13 . 8 feet ( 15 feet required ) , at 1157 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 36-2- 170P • Residence District R-30 , Mr . Frost brought to the Board ' s attention that the case was heard and one of the findings was that a variance be produced to show setbacks as proposed in the survey . The survey came in and showed that Mr . Ezergailis did not have what they thought he did . So , the case is back before the Board at present . Mr . King asked if this is a new house . Mr . Frost answered that there was a room added on to an existing house . Mr . Ezergailis added that the garage has been there for approximately 50 years . Chairman Austen asked if there is a copy of the survey . Mr . Frost said it should be in the packet . He then made reference to a letter from T . G . Miller . That letter was read into the record by Mr . King . Mr . Frost added that the Board , at the last meeting , requested a sketch of that side of the property line . Mr . King noted that the garage is shown to be as close as 13 . 8 ' to the property line at one point and 15 . 9at the other corner . Chairman Austen added that 15 ' is required . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . He then asked the Board if they had any more questions . Mr . King stated that Mr . Ezergailis is 8 . 6 ' closer than the ordinance calls for . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . 4Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 • RESOLVED , that the Board grant a variance from the requirements of Article V . Section 21 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the property at 1157 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 36 - 2 - 17 . The applicant is permitted to maintain a single - family residence with a south side property setback of 30 ' , whereas 40 ' is required . That is for the house . For the garage , the setback is 121 , whereas 15 ' is required . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer, Appellant , Peter Newell , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to add a fourth dwelling unit to an existing multiple dwelling and modify a separate garage building on a non-conforming building/ lot located at 1060 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 39- 1- 15 . 2 , Business District C . Said building and lot are nonconforming since business zones do not permit residential uses . Mr . Frost noted that the record should show that the property was before the Zoning • Board several years ago . There was approval granted for a two- family home to be converted to a three- family home . There was an office in the basement , which was permitted by the Zoning Board . At some point , the office space moved out and the space in the basement was converted to a fourth dwelling unit without the benefit of Zoning approval or a building permit . They ended up with a building code violation being created , as well as a violation of the Zoning Ordinance . He indicated that the packets should contain a letter from him to Mr . Monkemeyer . He noted that there is a stipulation agreement between the Town Attorney and the attorney representing Mr . Monkemeyer , since this was moving in the direction of some legal , court action . Chairman Austen stated he needed to refresh his memory concerning the office . He asked if the office was to be there until Mr . Monkemeyer completed some building . Mr . Frost said the office was granted to be placed in the basement of the house . The building code at that time would not have permitted what would be called a mixed occupancy of the apartments and the office ( which was part of a rental agency ) . The variance should probably not have been granted when it was , in the first place . Mr . Newell said he would like to add that it hasn ' t been changed , physically , since the 1982 approval . They are asking for a change of use to allow it to be turned into the dwelling , as it was built in the first place . Again , as Mr . Frost pointed out , it was a State code issue concerning mixed use . They would now like to turn it into a multiple dwelling . The second part of the appeal is an area variance to allow a garage to be set within the proper width within the side yard setback in order to give the fourth unit a garage . It ' s a two- part variance . Mr . King said that Mr . Newell stated there had been no physical change , but the . basement has been occupied . Mr . Newell pointed out that his understanding of the history is as follows . When it was converted , there was some kind of office in the basement . This was a private home . Mr . Monkemeyer got the approval for three units and the office and built it as an apartment . Mr . King noted that Mr . Monkemeyer did not do that with Tom of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 • the blessing of the Board . Mr . Newell continued by saying that the plans were presented with the kitchen and the bath . He was using it as an owner- occupied office . Then , several years later , he moved out without getting proper authority . He then rented the approved office space out for an apartment . Mr . King asked how far the commercial zone extends ( referred to a map ) . Mr . Frost showed him on the map where it goes . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . He then referred to a letter from Mrs . E . L . Rose Gostanian . He read the letter to the Board . He also read a letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning . Mr . King wondered if the Planning staff can shed any light on the complaint by Mrs . Gostanian regarding the spill of fill over onto her land . Mrs . Cornish stated that she did not notice . There was quite a bit of snow on the ground the day she went out there . The slab is already existing . She doesn ' t know if actually building on the slab will rectify the situation or not . The slab currently contains some rafters , scaffolding and construction items . It ' s not just a clean slab and a clean wall . The garage was obviously built to have four bays . It presently only has the three bays and the slab . Mr . King asked if the additional garage would be on the south side . Mr . Newell said it would be on the north side . Mrs . Cornish agreed with that . Mr . King noted that it is the side closest to Mrs . Gostanian ' s house . Mr . Newell agreed and added that the slab is 12 ' from the property line . Mr . Stotz asked if the reason for wanting to put the additional garage on the slab • is because the slab already exists . There seems to be other room on the site . Mr . Newell said Mr . Monkemeyer has created an allay with the trees on the south side . He ' s put in an easement . There ' s an arcade at the top . Mr . Stotz said he is referring to the parking area . Mr . Newell stated that was on the south side . Mr . Stotz asked if there is space within that area , labelled parking area? Mr . Newell responded by saying there would be the same footage as on the other sides . Then he said maybe it would be different . He continued by saying the intent is to complete the garage . As Mrs . Cornish noted , one side is unfinished and has been since this arose in the early 801s . Mr . Frost recollected that somewhere in his travels in Town Hall , he has seen something about a variance being denied by the Zoning Board for that fourth garage . He has spent a fair amount of time trying to find that file or any information on that subject . He cannot find anything . He doesn ' t know whether Mr . Austen , having been here a while , remembers anything . Chairman Austen did not remember anything . Mr . Newell said they approved one garage per unit and , since the office was not a unit , there was no garage approved for that . Mr . Frost added that maybe construction commenced without any approval from the Tom . After construction started , he then appeared before the Board and the Board allowed only three garages because they would only allow three dwelling units . So , the fourth unit never came to pass , though it was planned prior to the Zoning Board approving the process back then . Mr . King stated it sounds as though Mr . Monkemeyer has a habit of forgetting to come to the Board for approvals . Attorney Barney agreed with that and added that they had to go to court to remind him . • Mr . Kanter said one of the questions to answer is whether or not there is a grading or drainage problem between the slab and the adjoining property owner . If there is , maybe that should be corrected , regardless of what the Board ' s decision is . Mr . Newell added that the slab and the fill condition is there now . Mr . Monkemeyer would be Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 • willing to address it . Mr . Newell guesses that , before the neighbor wrote the letter , she talked with him personally and Mr . Monkemeyer is aware that something would have to be done to correct her issue , regardless of whether or not the garage is there . He ' s not sure that has anything to do with the garage construction because the slab is existing . Mr . Monkemeyer would try to correct the errors . Mr . Stotz asked if there is any indication as to how the correction would happen . Mr . Newell said he is not too sure . Maybe by shoring up the dirt at the edge of the slab , potentially with railroad ties , stakes , etc . He ' s just not sure . They would have to discuss solutions . It is 12 ' away , so it ' s a slow , reasonable mound . He wasn ' t aware of this issue until this afternoon . He can ' t say that he ' s been up there to look at it . He ' s sure some provisions could be discussed . Mr . Stotz stated that it would certainly be cheaper to put an additional bay on that garage than it would be to build a separate single - car garage . Mr . Newell said it would , most definitely , be cheaper . The slab is there and the driveway is there . He pointed out that the reason this is a non- conforming property is because it ' s a commercial , versus a residential , zone . If it were to be a residential zone , there would be a setback problem . It ' s a matter of the commercial zone that creates the problem . Chairman Austen noted that four units make a problem anyway because it ' s not a multiple- residence zone . Mr . Frost said they already have the variance to have three units . Attorney Barney added that it involved special approval . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • Mrs . Cornish reviewed the case on December 6 , 1995s She said looking at the environmental factors involved , other than the fill which she was not aware of and did not appear visually to be something she would notice , she did not find any negative environmental impact . There appeared to be adequate parking on the site . The circulation seemed to be working , the property was very neat and orderly . They gave a negative determination of environmental significance . Chairman Austen asked if there is construction material existing on the pad . Mrs . Cornish said yes . Chairman Austen asked if it has been there for quite some time . Mrs . Cornish said there are some trusses there to complete the garage . She thought she saw some scaffolding , but she may be wrong . There is construction material there . Mr . Frost added that he believes the trusses are the original trusses left over from when the garage was first built . Chairman Austen asked if they would still be good after 13 years . No one was sure about that . Mr . Frost was not aware of the drainage , either . It was a little interesting in the complaint that there is some sort of relationship between the complainant and the property owner . It actually took him by surprise . He ' s not saying there ' s not a drainage issue , but he ' s not aware that there actually is one , either . He thinks they should further determine that fact . Chairman Austen stated that he ' s not sure this indicates a drainage problem . Maybe it ' s the fact that the fill has slid into the neighboring yard due to the fact that no retaining wall has ever been put in to keep it in place . He ' s not sure whether it ' s a current drainage problem or an erosion problem . Mrs . Cornish said it didn ' t seem to drop off quickly ; it seemed to be a reasonable slope . The Board looked at some pictures to try and verify this fact . • Chairman Austen reiterated that the staff came up with a negative determination of environmental significance . He then asked for a motion on the environmental assessment form . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 MOTION • By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of the appeal of Evan Monkemeyer , requesting authorization at 1060 Danby Road from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to add a fourth dwelling unit to an existing multiple- dwelling unit with a modified separate garage building on a non- conforming building lot . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen noted that the public hearing was still open . He asked if anyone wished to speak . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Attorney Barney addressed the stipulation between the Town of Ithaca and Evan Monkemeyer . He said the premises , as presently configured , violate both the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code . After repeated efforts to get into the property in order to make an inspection and to get Mr . Monkemeyer to take some action to bring him into compliance were unavailing , they instituted a proceeding against him , an injunction . • He was served and on the day they were to argue the motion for an injunction , Mr . Monkemeyer ' s attorney called Attorney Barney to ask if they could , in essence make the stipulations that are currently in the stipulation before the Board . It , basically , allows him to keep the extra unit long enough for him to come before this Board to get a determination as to whether he can keep it or not . It also requires him , regardless of what this Board does , to bring it into compliance with the Building Code by the end of June , 1996 ( if it ' s going to be habitable space ) . There were also some other time constraints and requirements in terms of time for filing applications , etc . One of the most important aspects of it was that he was required to install smoke detectors throughout the building , which is not normally required by Building Code . However , it was required due to the potential life safety aspects of it . He understands Mr . Monkemeyer has done that . Mr . Frost nodded agreement . Attorney Barney continued by saying that , for the moment , the Board is in a position , if Mr . Monkemeyer fails to comply with the stipulation , to automatically get a court order directing him to cease occupying the lower unit as an apartment . Mr . King asked if the lower unit is presently occupied as an apartment . Attorney Barney stated it is right now . Mr . King asked if the stipulation states that , if the approval is denied , the apartment would have to be vacated by June 15 , Attorney Barney said that is correct . Mr . Stotz asked if Mr . Newell has any idea what it would mean if the apartment could not be rented . Pyr . Newell said it would mean financial difficulties . Mr . Stotz asked if Mr . Monkemeyer lives on the premises . Mr . Newell responded no . He lives a couple hundred yards away , across the street . He lives close to , but not on , the premises . • This was his house until he moved to Springwood Associates . Mr . Stotz asked if it had until then been used as an office . Mr . Newell said it had been used as Mr . Monkemeyer ' s own office , even though the original variance did not stipulate that it had to be an owner- occupied office . After that it was used as an apartment . Mr . Stotz asked if there has been any attempt to rent that space out as office space . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 Mr . Newell said there are difficult issues involved . It ' s against New York State • Building Code to make an office , so the original approval was in error . He doesn ' t know if a grandfather clause would apply or not , because it was never supposed to be used as an office . It ' s difficult to talk about any of that . Mr . Monkemeyer would be willing to go back and rent it out as an office but he can ' t due to the New York State Code issue . There is an interest in doing that . There ' s some problem with not being able to do real estate out of his current office . Mr . Newell ' s recommendation to Mr . Monkemeyer is that it ' s impossible to use the old office and his only alternative is to return it to an apartment . Attorney Barney said it ' s not impossible , but it is difficult . Mr . Frost stated that you just can ' t mix the occupancy , period . Where it ' s allowed to mix occupancies , there are fire walls to separate those occupancies . It ' s rare , if ever , that you will see an apartment complex mixed with an office occupancy . Mr . Newell said if it was a duplex it would be OK . Chairman Austen asked if there is currently an ordinance on sprinklers . Mr . Frost stated that retrofit is supposed to be deadlined July , 1998 , Mr . Newell pointed out that Mr . Monkemeyer would have to do the sprinkler , regardless of what the present decision will be . Mr . Frost said the State can , by way of a variance , consider allowing a mixed- occupancy for some sort of trade- off , such as sprinklers . But , that ' s something this Board can ' t predict . It ' s up to the State . Mr . Newell added that , on the other hand , they are off compliance of New York State Code by 1 - 1 - 1 / 2 " . Therefore , Mr . Monkemeyer is either willing to remove the slab or to see if New York State would waive the head height . At that time , it would be in • compliance . Mr . Frost noted that the apartment , as it is now , is illegal . The ceiling height in the apartment doesn ' t comply with the Code . Light and ventilation with windows does not comply . There will be some improvements that have to be made . Mr . Newell said the ceiling heights are correct and one of the windows has been brought into compliance . Again , this was done in 1982 and shouldn ' t have been . They have to remove a window unit to make proper egress . If they do , in fact , end up lowering the floor , they will have to lower some of the ceiling heights . So , it does get a bit complicated . Chairman Austen stated he thinks the reason the office was allowed was because it was there when he was living in the house . That was the office he used , and that ' s the only reason he had the variance . Mr . Newell asked if that was true , wouldn ' t it have been stipulated as an owner- occupied office . Attorney Barney responded by telling Mr . Newell to be careful . There were a number of representations made at that time . History has not borne out that those representations were , indeed , followed . He ' s not sure if there were some representations concerning oi-mer- occupancy , but he does know there were some representations about the size , etc . , that sort of evaporated as years passed . Mr . Frost explained that it ' s a typical rule that a person can live in a house and maintain an office within certain limitations . Mr . Newell agreed with this . Chairman Austen asked the Board if they had any more questions . Mr . Stotz stated he was curious whether or not this can be treated as two separate variances - - one for the house and one for the garage . They could do one for the house and table the one for the garage , pending looking into whether or not there ' s a problem with the fill . Attorney Barney said that could be done . Mr . King stated he thought they • could make a condition , if they were inclined to approve the garage , that the Planning Department survey the situation and determine whether some kind of retaining wall or something was necessary . That could be required before any building permit is issued . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 Chairman Austen asked if they have any other multiple- residence units in that area that are as many as four units . Mr . Frost noted that College Circle is across the street . Chairman Austen asked if that was changed to a multiple - residence . Attorney Barney said it was . Mr . Frost noted they were R- 30 at one point and some rezoning was involved . Mr . Kanter added that Mr . Monkemeyer also has his student housing buildings right next to College Circle . Chairman Austen said that is R- 9 . Mr . Frost said the Hayloft is a multiple - residence , and there ' s another building that ' s a multiple - residence . Then , there are several two- family buildings . Mr . Stotz asked if the lot belonging to the neighbor is a single - occupancy . Mr . Frost presumes it is . Mr . Stotz asked if the neighbor has made any complaints over the years . Mr . Frost responded by saying that actually , they are legally related . Mr . Newell ' s understanding is that the neighbor wants the fill cleaned out so she can mow around her grapes . Mr . Ellsworth asked how Mr . Monkemeyer and the neighbor are related . Attorney Barney said she is Mr . Monkemeyer ' s step-mother . Mr . King asked if the other units are across Danby Road . Mr . Ellsworth said yes . Mr . King asked if the Ziebart Garage is immediately south . Mr . Frost said that is correct . Mr . Kanter added that there are also the Cayuga Vista Townhouses just to the north . Chairman Austen said they are in the R- 9 District . Mr . Frost reiterated that there is a definite mix of businesses . There ' s an industrial zone down the street , a college across the street , there ' s a furniture store and a gas station also . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the appeal . • NOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , concerning permission to construct the fourth bay of a garage on the existing slab on the north side of the Monkemeyer property , at 1060 Danby Road , that the Board grant permission , under Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance , to permit that fourth bay to be added to the garage if Mr . Monkemeyer chooses to do so , with the following conditions : 1 . The Planning Department must first check out the complaint the Board has received from Mrs . Gostanian , who owns the adjacent , north property , concerning the fill spilling into her yard . 2 . The Planning Department will specify specific measures to correct any problem found concerning the fill before the construction of the bay may begin . 3 . Any issuance of any building permit will be conditioned upon the agreement of the applicant to perform the corrective work the Planning Department may determine . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Stotz . • NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 • Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the additional apartment unit . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the applicant has failed to apply to the proper authorities in the past for permission to use this property in conformity with the zoning ordinances and building codes . In this location , the proposal to have a four-unit residential property is not in harmony with the general purpose of Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs A-H . Concerning the premises being reasonably adapted to the proposed use , they might be reasonably adapted , but do not meet building codes . There is no evidence that this additional unit would fulfill a community need . As to design and location being consistent with the character of the district , it would probably meet the character of the district , being a hodge - podge collection anyway . As to item D , the proposed use would not enhance the value of the neighboring property . Concerning items E and F , it is difficult to make a finding on the evidence presented as to safe design and general affect of increasing residential occupancy here . This is in a zone that does not permit the residential occupancy and there are already three residential units in that building on this property . There is also a question as to whether or not the lot area is sufficient for the proposed use as it affects the property adjacent , north . For those reasons , the request for permission to build the fourth unit in the basement is denied . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows . AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King . NAYS - Stotz . The motion was carried . The final appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Anthony Lucatelli , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article %I , Section 51 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a small restaurant/convenience store at 1456 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 - 19 . 11 , Agricultural District ( R- 30 regulations also apply ) . Said district does not permit restaurant/convenience stores by use . Chairman Austen asked if the Planning Board is aware of this case . Mr . Kanter said the Planning Board is aware of it , but there is no process for their reviewing it prior to coming to the Board at this time . They are , however , aware of it and there is a memo from one of the Planning Board members in the packets . There are also references to the discussion that the Planning Board had . Right now , the Town has no process for formal review by the Planning Board of use variances . Mr . Frost said he is not suggesting that the Board approve this appeal . However , if the Board does , in the past they have sent things to the Planning Board as a condition of approval . Mr . Anthony Lucatelli explained his situation . He stated that one reason he wants • this restaurant/ convenience store is because he already owns the property . He has tried to sell it on three different occasions and it won ' t sell . He has the kitchen equipment already . It ' s hard for him to find a job and he has to do something with the property in order to keep his home . He thought this would be the best way for him and the community . Tom of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 • Chairman Austen asked if this is a former Bruce Babcock property . Mr . Lucatelli said it is . Mr . Kanter asked if it is currently one tax parcel . Mr . Lucatelli said it is . Mr . King asked for the size of the building . Mr . Lucatelli said he is not sure . The size he submitted to the Board is just a rough idea . He doesn ' t really want anything that large . He just wants something he can do himself , something he can use to make a living . Mr . King asked what kind of a building would it be . Mr . Lucatelli said it would be a single - story building . As for as the looks , he would leave that to the Planning Board . If he needs to make it look like a home , that would be OK . Mr . King noted that Mr . Lucatelli has indicated a fountain and a reflecting pool . Mr . Lucatelli agreed with that . He stated that it does not exist and it doesn ' t have to , either . Mr . King asked how far back the building would be from the highway , from the center line of the highway . Mr . Jason Demmer said it would be about 183 ' . Mr . King asked who made the sketches . Mr . Demmer replied that he did . Mr . King asked him if he based it on a survey . Mr . Demmer said he did . The survey , he believes , was by Miller . Mr . King noted , for the record , that the sketch being referred to is dated September 28 , 1995 . The owner approved it , by signature , dated October 2 , 1995 . He then asked if the elevation being shown is just schematic . Mr . Demmer said it is and is to show height requirements and a rough idea of what it would look like . Mr . Stotz asked if the entrance to the parking area would be along the existing driveway . Mr . Demmer said it would . Mr . Stotz asked if the smaller profile is facing the road . Mr . Demmer again agreed . Mr . King asked what the seating capacity would be . Mr . Lucatelli said it would be from 50 - 75 . Mr . Stotz stated he is curious , due to the fact that there is a restaurant • dorm the road from Mr . Lucatelli . He believes it is Rosetti ' s . He added that the restaurant has always had a tough go of it . They ' ve seen a number of incarnations under different names and owners , He asked if there is any reason Mr . Lucatelli feels assured that his restaurant wouldn ' t go the same route . Mr . Lucatelli said no , not positively . He stated that the Odyssey was there ( where the other restaurant is ) for about 12 years . The Pines has been there for about 20 years . Mr . Frost asked Mr . Stotz which place he was talking about . Mr . Stotz said he was talking about the restaurant on the left , heading towards Trumansburg . Mr . Frost asked if there was a small eatery on the right also . Mr . Stotz said there is and it has also changed a couple of times recently . Mr . King asked if Mr . Lucatelli is contemplating a bar . Mr . Lucatelli said he does not want to serve hard liquor , just beer and wine . Mr . Frost asked when Mr . Lucatelli bought the property . Mr . Lucatelli responded he bought it 7 - 8 years ago . Mr . Frost asked if he was employed then . Mr . Lucatelli responded affirmatively . Mr . Frost asked where he was employed . Mr . Lucatelli said he ran the Italian Carryout in Ithaca . Mr . Frost then asked Mr . Lucatelli what would prevent him from starting up an eatery in the City of Ithaca again . Mr . Lucatelli said it would cost him a lot more money . To buy and renovate a building or to buy an already- existing business would cost him twice as much and he couldn ' t afford it . Mr . Frost asked if he had been intending to use the property commercially when he purchased it . Mr . Lucatelli said he was not . He did buy it with the purpose that , if anything did happen such as his current situation , he would be able to make a living off it . Mr . Frost asked if he was aware when he bought it that it wasn ' t zoned for commercial use . Mr . Lucatelli agreed . Mr . King asked Mr . Lucatelli if he lives in the house on the property . Mr . • Lucatelli answered that he does . Mr . King asked about the convenience store aspect of the proposal . Mr . Lucatelli responded by saying he would like to operate both a restaurant and a convenience store . Mr . King asked what the convenience store would be selling . Mr . Lucatelli said it would , mainly , be selling necessities - - bread , butter , etc . It would have a small deli for take - out sandwiches and dinners , pizzas , subs , etc . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . • Mrs . Jane Schafrik , who lives at 1491 Trumansburg Road spoke first . She lives across the street and up about one mile from Mr . Lucatelli . She thinks Mr . Lucatelli makes the best pizza in town and she would love to be able to get it , but not on her road . She sat for three years on a Comprehensive Planning Commission for the Town of Ithaca . A plan was designed and there was no commercial area set aside in that particular spot , if she remembers correctly . She wanted the Board to know that she tried to find her paperwork from that but was not successful . She believes that there is not public water and sewer at that location and she believes that one of the recommendations from the Commission was that any development go where the infrastructure was existing . She understands , completely , the frustration of the property not being sold . She sells real estate for a living . All in that business have been extremely frustrated with the market over the last number of years . But , in point of fact , it is an agricultural and residential area . She is also Vice -President of the West Hill Neighborhood Association , which all on the Board have heard from before . They are an issue - oriented association and no one hears from them until something comes up that demands their attention . Some of the members are present and will also speak . All of them are neighbors on the Trumansburg Road . They would like , very much , to avoid having happen to Trumansburg Road what happened to Route 13 between NYSEG and Dryden , where there was a great deal of spot zoning . If people think it ' s hard to market their homes on Trumansburg Road , they should try to market them on Dryden Road . They would like to keep it , in spite of the fact that it ' s a high- traffic road , a residential and agricultural area as it is currently zoned . Rhonda Bickford , 1466 Trumansburg Road , spoke next . She and her husband live about three lots up from the proposed development . They don ' t want to live that close to a • convenience store due to the traffic , noise , bright lights , litter and people that would be hanging around the neighborhood . They enjoy the residential character of the area and wouldn ' t want to be that close to an establishment like that . Not that there ' s anything wrong with that kind of business ; it ' s just a residential area . Chairman Austen asked Mrs . Bickford how long she has lived there . Mrs . Bickford responded they have lived there for 5 - 1 / 2 years . Mr . George Vignaux , 1470 Trumansburg Road , spoke next . He lives about four houses up from the proposed location . They almost touch in the back . He borders on Bruce Babcock ' s old field . He doesn ' t think anyone in the neighborhood is particularly in favor of this and many of them are vehemently opposed to it . It is definitely not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood . They have , for a number of years , sought to maintain the character of the neighborhood as strictly residential or agricultural . On that basis , having spoken against others concerning developing it non- residentially , he would speak against it in this case . He wants to maintain it as a residential / agricultural neighborhood . Another point he brought out is a pond across the street . It probably drains from the area where the proposed restaurant / convenience store would go . He ' s not sure about the stability of the land . It ' s been used for a number of years as pasture land . He believes , from driving by it on a daily basis , that it might very well be marshy and may pose a problem . Air . Vignaux continued with there ' s also the problem of fire protection . The hydrants on Trumansburg Road do not work at the present time . There is no question of them having working hydrants for at least five years , because the water tower will not • go up for a minimum of five years . He ` s been in the restaurant business for a number of years before he was in real estate . Approximately 1 / 3 of restaurant fires come from exhaust fan/ duct work problems . Restaurant fires are not unusual and he thinks , before they have a restaurant there , it would behoove them to have better fire protection than they have . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 Mr . Vignaux mentioned that , having been zoned residential and trying to keep the • character up , every time you do something that removes the strictly residen- tial / agricultural designation there is a salami effect where eventually they will not have that designation . He lives on a five or six acre parcel that formerly had about nine acres . Previous owners sold the property and retained two parcels for their own use in the future . They cut them off so they would be 1 . 9 acre parcels , thereby prohibiting more than one house from going on a large lot , which is zoned one acre . They came on the market at some time in the future and one of them was sold to someone who immediately broke it into two parcels with the Board ' s approval and two houses went up . The other parcel was bought by the Bickford ' s , his next- door neighbors , to protect the neighborhood and maintain it residential . If they had not bought it themselves , and someone else had bought it , that probably would have been another 1 . 9 acre down- zoned to two . 95 acre parcels . Then they would have five houses where they formerly had one house . He would prefer , and he thinks his neighbors prefer , that they maintain the neighborhood as it is and keep it residential . He thanked the Board . Mrs . Athena Grover , 1486 Trumansburg Road , spoke next . They have lived there since December 15 , 1965 . They live in the first passing zone , which includes the Lucatelli property , coming out of Ithaca . It ' s really kind of dangerous to cross the road to even get to your mailbox . Also , since they removed the school from the area , the make -up of the whole area has changed . They ' ve gone through two convenience stores . Since there are not many families with children , they just went out of business . Chairman Austen asked where the convenience stores were . Mrs . Grover said they were just over the town line . There ' s just a restaurant there now . She thanked the Board . • Chairman Austen left the public hearing open and referred to a letter from residents from the area . The letter was actually a petition in reference to the property . Chairman Austen read the contents into the record . It was in favor of Mr . Lucatelli operating the proposed business . There were 19 names on the petition . Mr . Vignaux asked Chairman Austen to read the names on the petition . He was particularly interested in who signed from 204 DuBois Road . Chairman Austen said that was June Chandler . Mr . Vignaux asked when she signed that . Chairman Austen did not know . It was not dated . Mr . Vignaux said Mrs . Chandler does not live there . He sold her house and she has been gone for a substantial period of time . That house is unoccupied and has been for some time . He , therefore , questioned all of the signatures on that petition . Attorney Barney asked if Mrs . Chandler owns the house . Mr . Vignaux said she does , but she is not a resident . Attorney Barney reminded Mr . Vignaux that he said he sold the house . Mr . Vignaux said it is under the contract for sale at present . Attorney Barney said the people on the petition are not claiming to be residents , just real property owners . He added that Mrs . Chandler did sign the petition as a real property owner . Mr . Vignaux said OK . Mr . Vignaux reiterated that he would like to see all of the names on the petition . He added that he was curious as to why he was not approached to sign the petition . Also , he wanted to knows why none of the people present in the room were approached to sign . He then asked if it is dated and is it legal . Attorney Barney explained that the petition is only an expression of feelings by these people . They generally accept Petitions , Chairman Austen said it is just a list of names for the consent of the proposal . He has no way of verifying names , but most of the people on the petition he • is aware of . Mr . Vignaux said he spoke with Mr . Joseph recently and he informed Mr . Vignaux that he was of the opinion that it would not pass . He had seen plans and was not in favor of the proposal . So , Mr . Vignaux was surprised to see his name on the petition . He , again , questioned the entire petition . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 Chairman Austen referred to a letter from Mary Russell , Vice-Chair and members of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board . He read the letter into the record . The letter was dated December 5 , 1995 . Chairman Austen referred to the Agricultural Statement by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department . He then asked Mr . Kanter to consolidate the information for the Board . Mr . Kanter said the memo speaks for itself . It starts off by talking about hardship criteria . That is , obviously , something this Board will have to consider . In terms of other things , there is a concern that this proposal would not be consistent with the Town ' s comprehensive plan . The plan chose the area for rural , residential , agricultural and open space . Also , concerning the impact on community and neighborhood character , the restaurant would tend to encourage strip development , as well as isolated pockets of commercial development . That would , obviously , not be consistent with comprehensive plan policies . As a planning element , it would not be good planning . Mrs . Cornish will speak about the potential impact of traffic and parking . There is also the concern of the potential impact on the nearby farming operations . The comprehensive plan does show this parcel as having prime agricultural soils . That ' s something the Town would be interested in seeing protected for future farm operations . Chairman Austen then referred to a letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning , addressed to Mr . Frost . He read the letter into the record . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Lucatelli to tell him if he had stated he purchased the property 7 - 8 years ago . Mr . Lucatelli said that was right . Attorney Barney asked how much he paid for the property . Mr . Lucatelli said he believes it was $ 273 , 000 . Attorney Barney asked if that included the house . Mr . Lucatelli said yes . Attorney Barney then asked Air . Lucatelli if had to buy out his wife ' s interest . Mr . Lucatelli said yes . Attorney Barney asked what that cost him . Mr . Lucatelli said $ 75 , 000 . Attorney Barney asked when that happened . Mr . Lucatelli said it was about 1990 . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Lucatelli how many times he tried to sell the property . Mr . Lucatelli stated it was three different times . Attorney Barney asked if he listed it with a real estate agent . Air . Lucatelli responded that he did . Attorney Barney asked what price he asked . Mr . Lucatelli indicated he was trying to get at least what he owed for the place ; $ 170 , 000 . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Lucatelli to tell him when he last put it on the market . Mr . Lucatelli said it was about one year ago . Attorney Barney asked if that was at $ 170 , 000 . Mr . Lucatelli responded affirmatively . Air . King asked Air . Lucatelli if he received any offers for the property . Mr . Lucatelli said he did not . Mr . King then asked how long it was on the market . Mr . Lucatelli responded that it was for about six months . Attorney Barney asked him if he adjusted the price at all . Mr . Lucatelli said no , but he would if he has to . Attorney Barney asked if there ' s another mortgage or anything on the property . Mr . Lucatelli stated there was not . Attorney Barney asked if the only lien is for the benefit of Mr . Lucatelli ' s former wife . Mr . Lucatelli agreed with that . Attorney Barney said there ' s a $ 75 , 000 mortgage then . Mr . Lucatelli said no , the mortgage is still about $ 135 , 000 , plus his former wife ' s share . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Lucatelli if he paid his former wife $ 75 , 000 plus he picked up the mortgage . Air . Lucatelli responded affirmatively . Attorney Barney asked if , in 1990 , when he borrowed his former wife ' s interest , was there $ 135 , 000 mortgage on the property . Mr . Lucatelli said there was . Attorney Barney asked • if , at that time , did he pay an additional $ 75 , 000 . Mr . Lucatelli said he did . Attorney Barney asked if he has a mortgage to his wife or did he pay her cash . Mr . Lucatelli said he paid her cash from another piece of property he owned . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mrs . Cornish spoke concerning the short environmental assessment form . After reviewing the proposal and filling in the environmental assessment form , there were several areas of concern . One thing is the traffic . In particular , the peak hour traffic . Since it would be a convenience store , there ' s some concern that the turning and maneuvering in and out of this convenience store during peak hours ( morning and evening ) , in a 55 MPH speed zone , that there will be accidents occurring at that site . Cars would have to turn left into that project and then out again . Noise is another issue . It is a very residential neighborhood . There are no other commercial properties in the direct vicinity . Also , the associated lighting and signage is a concern . This might have some potential impact . The neighborhood character is rural and agricultural , It ' s clear to see that when you drive by . It also is not in keeping with the comprehensive plan , which designates the anticipated land use for this area as rural / residential ,, suburban / residential and agricultural / conservation open space . West Hill is one of the remaining agricultural areas . It does have some active farms still occurring in the area , which are becoming few and far between . According to the comprehensive plan , this is an area slated to remain agricultural . It was also in the agricultural report to keep this area an agricultural area . That ' s how the comprehensive plan came to make one of its formal recommendations . Development should be focused to avoid sprawl . This segment of commercial property would lead to other requests for commercial zoning in that area , which would not be in keeping with the plan . She brought the Board ' s attention to a letter from one of the Planning Board members concerning hardship . She asked the Board to take a look at the hardship issue . Staff • recommendation would be for a positive determination of environmental significance . If the Board chooses to do so , they would recommend that an environmental impact statement be done for this project . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Lucatelli if he has a fall -back position for this property in the event the restaurant use is not granted . Mr . Lucatelli said no . Mr . Stotz asked what Mr . Lucatelli anticipates will happen to the property . Mr . Lucatelli said he would probably just hold on to it as long as he could and he would try to sell it again . Mr . King asked if he has made any other use of it in the seven years he has owned it . Mr . Lucatelli said he has put in an upstairs apartment . There was an existing apartment , but he put in a separate entrance . Mr . Stotz indicated that he was quite surprised to see 19 people sign the petition in favor of the project . His sense of people in that area is that , notwithstanding all the environmental concerns , there is some concern about being able to buy a loaf of bread or quart of milk without traveling long distances . Mr . Lucatelli said that is true , especially with the way the Octopus is . Mr . Stotz said he senses their main reason for consenting to sign the petition has to do with the convenience store as opposed to the restaurant . There is an issue of getting people out of their cars . He ' s sympathetic to that . However , a restaurant seems to be a place that people from outlying areas come to . Mr . Lucatelli said his opinion is that he ' s going to have the kitchen there anyway . He wanted to know what is the big deal about putting a few tables in a room so people could sit down to eat in a separate room from the deli . That ' s his idea of a restaurant . He plans no fancy dining- type restaurant . Mr . Stotz reiterated that it will contain 70 seats and that ' s a fairly substantially sized restaurant . He then asked about the deck . • Mr . Lucatelli said the deck is optional . Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 Mr . Stotz said that establishment would not necessarily attract people in the • neighborhood . A convenience store might , but the restaurant would bring in people from a much wider area . Mr . Lucatelli said Mr . Stotz might be right . However , local people would come to get groceries and pick up dinners for their families . That would be much better than waiting two hours to get to Wegman ' s . Mr . Stotz brought up something else he noticed . He took a ride up there and stood on the side of the road where the proposed entrance would be . When he pulled out onto the road in his car , he looked to the left . There ' s a slight dip there . As he was pulling out , he almost got hit because he couldn ' t see the oncoming car . Mr . Lucatelli said that has never happened to him . Mr . Stotz reiterated that there is a slight dip there . Mr . Lucatelli asked to make another point . There ' s DuBois Road that comes off of Route 96 , also Hayts Road and Indian Creek Farms . All of those roads , especially DuBois and Indian Creek Farms ( which is a commercial business ) have the problem of not being able to see 50 yards on either side of them . Mr . Stotz said he was not disputing that . However , he believes there ' s a real issue with traffic at that site . Mr . King asked how wide the proposed driveway is . Mr . Demmers said it is 24 ' wide . Mr . Kanter added that he has now heard Indian Creek Farms mentioned a few times . It ' s a sales operation , but it ' s related to agricultural uses , which is consistent with farming operations in the area . Whether or not it sells all locally- grown products , he doesn ' t know . However , it ' s the kind of thing that is anticipated and encouraged as a combined use of the agricultural uses . Although it is a retail operation , it ' s a different kind of operation from the restaurant . Mr . Stotz said he thinks an argument could be made for a neighborhood- scale • convenience store somewhere in that location to save people the trouble of having to get in their cars and driving to Jacksonville or down to Pete ' s . But whether the number of people who would use a convenience store like that would make it economically viable or not is another question . He ' s not sure there ' s enough people in the West Hill area that would like to see something like that . Chairman Austen said they once had a proposal for a convenience store by the hospital and it could never get approved . That ' s a location where the traffic is slowed down and where there is good visibility . Attorney Barney said that was a rezoning , too . Chairman Austen noted that everyone who lives in that area will see some major changes when the Octopus gets changed , both in the traffic and opening the area up residentially . Mrs . Schafrik asked Attorney Barney if the State had passed a law saying that hardship could not be considered in zoning variances anymore . Attorney Barney said there were amendments to the zoning variance provisions of the State Legislation back about three or four years ago . They changed the Town , Village and City Law . They didn ' t do away with the hardship requirement ; they attempted to define hardship as it applied to use variances and as it applied to area variances . The theory was that they actually weren ' t changing the law at all ; all they were doing was articulating what the case law had been . They now have a recent case that says they did change the law as related to area variances . But for use variances , you still have to show hardship . That hardship has to be shown by the use of economics . You have to prove that you cannot obtain a reasonable return from the property under any use permitted by the ordinance before a use variance is granted . Mrs . Schafrik then stated that there have been two other properties that tried to put in convenience stores up there . One was the Indian Creek Fruit Farm and one was the Kyong Development . Neither was approved . The Kyong Development , in its favor , had at least the traffic light at the hospital as a benefit . Town of Ithaca 16 " Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 Mr . Vignaux made a point of clarification . Mr . Lucatelli had mentioned that there • was a commercial operation at Indian Creek Fruit Farm . It ' s not commercial ; it ' s agricultural . They cannot bring in products that are not agricultural in nature and locally produced . They have to use their own product there . It ' s quite different than a convenience store . He asked to direct a question to Mr . Lucatelli . Chairman Austen stated the question would have to be directed to the Board . Mr . Vignaux wondered if whether or not application had been made to have an apartment at that place , since it was zoned single - family . He wondered whether proper procedure was followed . Attorney Barney informed him that the Zoning Ordinance permits anywhere in the Town of Ithaca , at the moment , for a second unit to be added . Mr . Vignaux asked if that means without an application . Mr . Lucatelli said there was nothing added . It was already there . Attorney Barney said whether or not it complied with building code is another issue . However , in terms of zoning , a second unit is permitted . Mr . Vignaux said his understanding was that a commercial business was being conducted from the house . He has no way to verify that other than to ask Mr . Lucatelli regarding a beauty shop . Attorney Barney said hairdressing would be permitted as a home occupation . He asked Mrs . Schafrik what the trend has been of real estate prices in Tompkins County since 1988 . Mrs . Schafrik said there ' s been no appreciation since the second half of 1989 . In many cases , people have taken a significant beating , as much as a 30% depreciation in their homes , especially if they were bought at the peak of the market in 1986 - 1988 . There has been no appreciation since July of 1989 . Mr . Stotz asked Mrs . Schafrik if , based on her experience , does she know how long someone would have to , realistically , have a property on the market in order to sell it . • Mrs . Schafrik said a quick is until the right buyer comes along . This discussion was had by members of the Board of Directors of the Board of Realtors last week . She knows of a house that is fairly priced and has been on the market since 1982 . It has not sold . Some properties will sell very quickly , some will not . This particular property is a very large home and will require a buyer with a large family or a use for a large home . There are many , many others like it out there that have been on the market for the same amount of time and have not sold . Attorney Barney asked Mrs . Schafrik if the Realtors ' Board keeps statistics as to the average length of time a house is on the market before it is sold . Mrs . Schafrik asked Mr . Vignaux to answer that , as he has the book with him . Mr . Vignaux said the book is the Multiple Listing Book of the Ithaca Board of Realtors . He said he was not sure he had to- date statistics . For the West Hill area there are 88 new listings , three back on the market . There were only 24 old . Median price was $ 109 , 000 . Average sale was $ 113 , 000 . Average days on the market was 147 . They sold for 92 . 890 of the listed price . If they go to all classes in residential throughout the five- county area , there were 2 , 837 new homes ; 71 came back on the market and only 591 were sold , at a median sale price of $88 , 000 . The average time on the market was 127 days , residential throughout the county . Houses that are priced properly sell quickly . Houses that are over-priced sit out there forever . If you have a house that is priced at higher than market , it doesn ' t get looked at , let alone get any offers made on it . He listed a house in Interlaken on a Friday , someone stopped to look at it as he was putting out the sign and he had an offer on it the next day . He listed a house in Newfield last week on Sunday and he ' s had four offers on it . It is now on a contract . Those houses were priced properly . He has other homes that he ' s had in his portfolio for quite a long time . He • knows it is over priced , the owners knows they don ' t choose to lower the price . A properly priced home will sell quickly ; a poorly priced home will stay out there forever . If one had paid $200 , 000 for a home seven years ago and they expect to sell it for that today , it will still be available next year for $ 200 , 000 . Eventually , with inflation , the market will come up to meet your price , but that may be 7 -8 years down the road . + Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals December 13 , 1995 Por . King asked if the average of 147 days is for the houses that sold . Mr . Vignaux said yes . Mrs . Schafrik said each was under $ 115 , 000 . That ' s the significant figure here . First time buyers are buying ; people who would be moving up are not . The price range of Mr . Lucatelli ' s house right now is high . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . He then asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board deny the requested variance . This Board finds that there ' s not been sufficient evidence of the inability to obtain a reasonable return on the property , particularly in view of the fact that the general economic trend of real property pricing in the county and , indeed , in this area of the state , has been static or downward , and there ' s been no real effort to sell this property at a price that would be realistic . This Board also finds that the proposal is out of character for the neighborhood that it ' s in . The proposal , as set forth with the potential for 70 seats , would create an additional load of traffic on a road that is already heavily burdened with traffic . The financial difficulty here is not unique to this property , but is a problem that is community-wide . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : • AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 9 : 41 PM . n , b.. I x a Deb Raines , ZBA Secretary Edward Austen , \cb_aix%Aa, JKidg , Vice Chairman •