HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2003-09-15 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Andrew
Dixon, Board Member; Andy Frost, Director of Building/Zoning; John Barney,
Attorney for the Town; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner.
EXCUSED: Ronald Krantz, James Niefer
OTHERS: Daniel Walker, Town of Ithaca Engineer; Louise Richards, 1023
Hanshaw Road; Jim Randall, Crown Construction; Jim Miller True Walsh &
Miller, 202 East State Street; Rick Couture, 104 West Haven Road; Bonnie
Howell, 883 Taughannock Boulevard; Joe Fitzgerald, Cayuga Medical Center;
Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design, 2150 South Salina Street, Syracuse; Fred
Vanderburgh, Ithaca College; Deb Cowan, 1022 Hanshaw Road; Scott Flatt, 660
Sterling Park, Cortland; Rick Hartman, 1018 Hanshaw Road; Stanley O'Connor,
617 Highland Road; Janet O'Connor, 617 Highland Road; Janet Carruthers,
1008 Hanshaw Road; James Henry, 1118 Autumn Ridge Lane; Jan Wingate, 34
Searles Road; Paul Levesque, HOLT Architects; Bernie Hutchens, 1016
Hanshaw Road; Jim Merod, 10 John Street; Klaus Beyenbach, 1024 Hanshaw
Road; Christina Beyenback, 1024 Hanshaw Road; Alfred Digiacomo, 1025
Hanshaw Road.
Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Chairperson Sigel — Good evening and welcome to the September 15, 2003
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have six
appeals, the appeal of the Town of Ithaca, the appeal of Bonnie Howell, the
appeal of College Circle Apartments, the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center, the
appeal of Jim Merod, the appeal of Scott Flatt.
APPEAL: Town of Ithaca, Appellant, requesting variances from the
requirements of Article III, Section 7 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a public utility building with a front
yard building setback of 12 feet (25 foot setback required) and a side yard
setback of 7.5 feet (10 foot setback required) at 202 Stone Quarry Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40-3-14.2, Residence District R-9. Said
variance requests are necessary due to the required placement of the
building.
Chairperson Sigel - Dan, you want to sit down and have a seat?
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Dan Walker, Director of Engineering, Town of Ithaca —We're doing a major water
transmission project to carry water from South Hill down to the Inlet Valley to
provide Bolton Point water to the Inlet Valley and West Hill area of the Town of
Ithaca. Because of the grade change of the tank on Danby Road and the bottom
of the valley, we had to reduce the pressure so we need to build a building to
house the pressure-reducing valve. You read the, there is a brief little summary
at this point, it is basically for access. It's at the right area for the elevation
change protection and the pressure. I believe you all have the 11 x 17 inch plan
and profile drawing?
Chairperson Sigel — Yes.
Mr. Walker— Is everybody familiar with the location? This is Stone Quarry Road,
coming down over on the City line basically. This is the location of the pump
house as shown on that blow-up with the drawing on it. It is a former railroad bed
that is owned by the State Parks. It will be a trail, so we had to keep the building
off the trail. In the past, we have built these structures and Harry's probably
familiar with these, in pits under ground, but, with new confined space regulations
and safety issues, we are putting them in above-ground buildings. Actually, this
building is only about half above ground because it's being built into the bank, as
you can see on the little detail section down there. It is only a 60 foot wide lot, but
it is several thousand feet long, so I'm taking a pretty small part of it. We're
keeping it back far enough so that it will not obstruct the proposed trail that will go
through that area at some point in the future.
Chairperson Sigel — So, it looks like the roof line of that building will be below
street level. Is that right?
Mr. Walker— Right. You will look right over it from Stone Quarry Road. You won't
even know it is there.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Walker— From the opposite side, it is quite sloped down and it's woods so
that it is not visible from the far side.
Chairperson Sigel — That seems pretty straightforward. Does anyone have any
questions?
Mr. Ellsworth — Is that pre-cast concrete?
Mr. Walker— It will be pre-cast concrete.
Mr. Ellsworth — Like up on Pine Tree?
2
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Walker—Very similar to that
Chairperson Sigel — Mike, any comments?
Mr. Smith — Nothing really to add. It seems like a good location, keeping it out of
the way of the future trail. With it being built back into the slope, any visual impact
is lessened.
Chairperson Sigel —Anything else you want to say Dan?
Mr. Walker— No, if there are any other questions, I'll answer them.
Chairperson Sigel — If there are no further questions, we'll open the Public
Hearing at this point.
Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 p.m. With no persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 051 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Town
of Ithaca, 202 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40-3-14.2,
Residence District R-9.
MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Andrew Dixon.
RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in the appeal of Town of Ithaca, Appellant, requesting variances from
the requirements of Article 111, Section 7 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,
to be permitted to construct a public utility building with a front yard building
setback of no less than 11 feet and a side yard setback of no less than 7 feet at
202 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40-3-14.2, Residence
District R-9. Said variance requests are necessary due to the required
placement of the building. This determination is based upon the Environmental
Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated September 9, 2003.
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT. Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
3
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 052: 202 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 40-3-14.2, Residence District R-9
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon.
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of the Town of Ithaca, Appellant,
requesting variances from the requirements of Article 111, Section 7 of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a public utility building with
a front yard building setback of no less than 11 feet and a side yard setback of no
less than 7 feet at 202 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40-3-
14.2, Residence District R-9. Said variance requests are necessary due to the
required placement of the building.
FINDINGS:
a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied.
CONDITIONS-
NONE
ONDITIONS:NONE
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT. Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPEAL : Bonnie Howell, Appellant, Jim Wavle, Crown Construction,
Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain
portions of an existing single-family residence with a side yard building
setback of 12 ± feet (15 foot setback required) at 883 Taughannock
Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-18, Residence District R-15.
The appellant also plans on constructing a new outside wood deck with the
12-foot setback being maintained.
Chairperson Sigel — Hi.
Jim Randall, Crown Construction — You didn't read it wrong, I had to sit in. We're
just asking for a variance because, actually Bonnie inherited this situation that
the house actually sits over a 12 foot setback on the north side there. The
proposed steps that we are asking to have a variance on are just within the 12
foot setback on the south side. So it is a situation that she did inherit. The
4
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
hardship here is that without the steps, there is no way down to the beach at all.
It's very rocky and steep. The only way to get down to the deck is through the
house and the only way you can get down and back to the beach is through the
house. That's why we are asking for a variance for the steps and the deck.
Chairperson Sigel — So, of the new construction, only the steps are going to go
within the required setback?
Mr. Randall — That's correct. The house itself sets over the setback.
Chairperson Sigel — Right.
Mr. Frost— The property, which was before the Board before was built by a
developer who owned multiple properties, not just this one, kind of violated the
setbacks and site plans for the building permits he had obtained. This house
originally, on the north side, was supposed to have a fifteen foot setback. It
obviously wasn't built according to that standard.
Mr. Dixon — Yeah. We did the carport on this one a couple of months ago.
Mr. Frost— Yeah. The carport was in the front and then we had the property next
door was also in for something similar.
Chairperson Sigel —What has the access been up until now to get around the
house? Or has there been no access.
Mr. Randall — You had to go through the house, actually to get down to the
beach.
Chairperson Sigel — Just through the house or just walk down the grade, or try to.
Mr. Randall —Well, you really can't because it's pretty steep and rocky. It's very
difficult to get down through there.
Chairperson Sigel —Any questions. Mike, any comments? I know there wasn't an
assessment.
Mr. Smith — Nothing to add.
Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. With no persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 053: Bonnie Howell, 883 Taughannock
Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-18, Residence District R-15
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon.
5
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Bonnie Howell, Appellant, Jim
Wavle, Crown Construction, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements
of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted
to maintain portions of an existing single-family residence with a side yard
building setback of no less than 11.5 feet, also being permitted to construct a
stairway along the south side of the house to be no less than 11.5 feet from the
side yard lot line at 883 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
25-2-18, Residence District R-15.
FINDINGS:
a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied.
CONDITIONS-
a.
ONDITIONS:a. All construction be as indicated on the applicant's submitted plans.
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT. Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPEAL : College Circle Apartments, Owner, Michael O'Shea, Agent,
requesting a variance from Section 3.02-16 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law,
to be permitted to construct and place a 54 square foot property
identification sign (24 square foot limit) at the College Circle and Danby
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-2.2, Multiple Residence District.
Chairperson Sigel — Hello. Could you please give us your name and address, for
the record? Could you just give us a brief over view of what it is you are asking to
do?
Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design, 450 South Salina Street, Syracuse - Yes. This
sign is designed to be installed at the entrance of the Phase I and Phase 11 of the
recently completed College Circle Project. It represents, both in character and in
configuration, similar signs of the one that is at the entrance to Ithaca College
and also to the Coddington Road entrance of the college. Since the college
controls the property, as part of their student housing, they wish to identify it as
such and match the other entrances with the sign. This is approximately about 60
percent the size of the sign at the main entrance of the college and basically, the
6
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
54 square feet most appropriately comes from the fact that it is an oddly
configured sign and it is unique in it's design. That's really what's creating the 54
square feet. You have a 30 square feet variation. The sign is about four foot
three at the front and about a little over a foot in the back. So, in terms of its
impact on the site, it isn't as if you are posting a 54 square foot sign on a pylon.
This is close to the ground and it kind of matches that configuration.
Chairperson Sigel — The 54 square feet is the entire concrete surface, is that
correct?
Mr. Nicotra — It's the entire concrete surface on one side. The face square
footage.
Chairperson Sigel — Right. So if, for instance, you, I think say, if you had your
letters mounted on a, say a separate board and then it was just attached to the
concrete. You could argue that that was just a support structure and it would not
be included. Do you know the area of just, say, the circumscribed, a rectangle
drawn around the letters?
Mr. Nicotra — I do not, but I would actually say it's probably less than 24 square
feet because it's twelve feet, % of twelve is nine, so "Circle Apartments" would
represent nine square feet and "Ithaca College" certainly isn't 15 square feet, so
it's under 24 square feet. Again, this was referred and we submitted the
application to the Planning Board.
Mr. Dixon — It's a lot smaller than the sign for the Museum of the Earth.
Chairperson Sigel — That's true.
Mr. Frost— Is this the same size of the one by the Ithaca College entrance?
Mr. Nicotra — 60 percent of the size of that sign. That one is considerably larger.
Mr. Frost— I think what's nice about the sign is that it is consistent with the Ithaca
College main entrance sign, which is quite similar.
Mr. Nicotra — Again, the intent here is to blend and match these both in style. The
letter is not as tall. That is twelve inches at the main entrance, this is nine inches
for"Circle Apartments". So it's a scaled down version of that sign.
Chairperson Sigel — Do you know if the apartments formerly had any kind of
variance for a sign?
Mr. Nicotra — I don't believe there was ever a permanent sign out there.
7
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Chairperson Sigel —Well we have a Planning Board resolution here which was
unanimously approved, acting as Sign Review Board. Mike, any comments.
Mr. Smith — Nothing really different than what's been mentioned. It's similar to the
existing signs. It doesn't have lighting?
Mr. Nicotra - No, no lighting.
Mr. Smith — There is no lighting on it.
Mr. Nicotra — There is a light pole, just behind it that will provide some light, but
that's an existing pole.
Chairperson Sigel — No specific illumination to the sign?
Mr. Nicotra — No.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any other comments or questions?
Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m. With no persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 054: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT :College
Circle Apartments, College Circle and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 43-1-2.2, Multiple Residence District.
MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Andrew Dixon.
RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in the appeal of College Circle Apartments, Owner, Michael O'Shea,
Agent, requesting a variance from Section 3.02-1 b of the Town of Ithaca Sign
Law, to be permitted to construct and place an property identification sign not to
exceed 55 square feet at the College Circle and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 43-1-2.2, Multiple Residence District, based upon the
Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated August 26, 2003
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
8
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 055: College Circle, College Circle and Danby
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-2.2, Multiple Residence District.
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon.
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of College Circle Apartments,
Owner, Michael O'Shea, Agent, requesting a variance from Section 3.02-1 b of
the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to construct and place a property
identification sign not to exceed 55 square feet at the College Circle and Danby
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-2.2, Multiple Residence District.
FINDINGS:
a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied.
CONDITIONS:
a. The sign be built and placed as indicated on the plans submitted by the
applicant.
b. The sign not have any lighting.
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPEAL : Cayuga Medical Center, Owner, Lawrence Hoffmann, Agent,
requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct an addition to the Medical Center, for
use with Radiation Oncology, located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-2.1, Residence District R-30. A variance from
Article V, Section 18.10 is also being requested to permit a building height
of 48 ± feet (36 foot height limitation).
Chairperson Sigel — Good evening.
Paul Levesque, HOLT Architects — We're here tonight because the Cayuga
Medical Center is an area zoned R-30, it's a permitted use for this special
approval. So, we're here tonight to seek an approval for a radiation/ oncology
9
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
addition and we're also here to seek a height variance. I've got just a couple of
quick shop cleaning issues that I wanted to go over real quick before we get into
this. There were a couple of errors in the submittal that I made to you guys. One
of them, in the project narrative, I referred to the location as the north, northeast
corner and that actually should read north, northwest. In sketch 2 of your packets
of the building exterior elevation, those are incorrectly labeled. The one at the top
that says "east elevation", should have been labeled "north elevation" and the
lower one labeled "south elevation" should have been labeled "west". I apologize
for those.
Chairperson Sigel — Say that one more time.
Mr. Levesque —Are you on the elevation sheet?
Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I just got to the elevation sheet.
Mr. Levesque — I'm really sorry about this, I apologize. On SK-2, the top elevation
labeled "east" actually should have read "north". In the lower elevation on that
page, labeled "south", should have read "west".
Chairperson Sigel — It was acceptable the other way, but this is completely
unacceptable.
Mr. Levesque — I could go over the project or do you have any specific questions
of the information that was provided in the packet. I could proceed however you
would like to.
Chairperson Sigel —Why don't you just give us a brief over-view of what you
want to do and then we'll ask you any questions.
Mr. Levesque — This is a site plan of the hospital. Date's Drive is right here, the
parking lot. Where we are planning to do the proposed oncology addition is right
here on the northwest corner. It is right here. It's a very good location for this
because it's close to the radiology department and it actually would allow an out-
patient entrance at this building.
Mr. Ellsworth — Isn't there construction there right now?
Mr. Levesque — There is. Under construction right now is education center.
Actually, it's the Bonnie Howell Education Center. The primary floor plan, is, it
actually lines up with the second floor of the hospital. Which, if you are entering
from the emergency department, the out-patients entrance up there, is right here.
It's cut off, but right here is the radiology of the hospital. This here would be the
exterior entrance. There's a small mechanical room down by the lower entrance.
Up on the upper level, we'll be lining up, actually, with the third floor, which is the
storage room and the upper part of a two level atrium. As far as the elevations of
10
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
the buildings, it's very perpetual of the existing hospital finish. We're using the
same materials, the eight by eight brick, the pre-pressed concrete panels, the
windows. This here, the north elevation, would be an elevation, actually, it would
be very difficult for the public to see it from this way, but to demonstrate the
building, the parking lot is here, you can walk along here, that would be the
entrance to the two-story atrium.
Chairperson Sigel — Is it the case that the roof height of the addition is no higher
than —
Mr. Levesque — Yes. This being parking lot level, the second floor level, lines up
from the top of the existing hospital. It is actually about 28 feet from grade to the
top of the building from what the public sees. Actually, you could go over to this
site and if you measure from the lowest level up to here, it exceeds your 36 foot
height level, but there would be nothing above the height of the existing hospital.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any questions? It seems pretty straight forward. Mike,
any comments?
Mr. Smith — Nothing to add, no.
Joe Fitzgerald, Vice President, Cayuga Medical Center— If I could interrupt. I just
wanted to explain why we're doing this and also to explain why we're going to do
something in the next couple of weeks to go back to the Planning Committee,
that did recommend a contingency related to obtaining a New York State
Certificate of Need prior to getting a Building Permit and why we're going to
come back and ask that that be re-reviewed. Let me just back it up. Radiation/
oncology services have been provided by a private practice out of Syracuse,
New York since the late eighties in an adjoining medical office building on our
campus. About two to three years ago, we at the hospital, Bonnie Howell, who
you met tonight, Rob Mackenzie, who is now the CEO and myself began to have
discussions with this group over the fact that we became aware that their
equipment was out-dated and wanted them to update the equipment. Finally,
after a lot of persistence, they explained to us that this past January, they were
going to take the equipment out of service for a period of about four to six weeks
and they would have to transport patients up to one of their sites in Syracuse
while they installed the new equipment. They also, in writing, invariably explained
that they were going to buy, what I'll call the most up to date technology, the
latest and greatest for the community. As we sit here today, there has been no
equipment put in, although, I will say that within the past week, equipment did
arrive for installation. I expect that that ought to be placed in about three to four
weeks, which is about the normal time that would happen, but that leaves this
community for ten months without any radiation oncology. In the meantime, we
have some concerns. First of all, we're very concerned, not only about what has
happened, but also what they purchased. They purchased a 1989 piece of
equipment form Varian, who no longer makes that equipment because it is out-
11
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
dated. They bought a tube that goes with the equipment. It was manufactured in
1997. This is second hand equipment, out of a place in Texas, we have no idea
of the maintenance records, we don't know how well this was taken care of and I
have been in tough with oncologists around the region, Binghamton, Elmira,
Syracuse, Rochester, who have explained to me point blank, it is out—dated
technology. I think that's something that we don't want to have in this community.
We have been, at the same time, talking to the State Health Department who has
been encouraging us to get a Certificate of Need to operate this. From the
perspective of the State Health Department, the hospitals should be the ones
who operate linear accelerators, radiation oncology because, in their view, a
private practice can cause a problem. A private practice can start, a private
practice can end, a private practice can relocate and they have no requirements
to do anything under the Health Department as compared to a hospital, who is
controlled under the Health Department for it's operations, for it's quality
insurance, for other things. So, the Health Department is moving as rapid as
they can. It typically takes over a year to get a Certificate of Need. They have
indicated to us that, if they can, they want to get on their October review cycle, if
not, the latest will be in December, which, in the Health Department's standards
is extremely fast. We've been out to Albany on three different occasions. They
have assured us that this Certificate of Needs is going to happen. I think at the
Planning Committee misunderstood and I'll take the responsibility for this
because I don't think that it's the Planning Committee's intent to do anything
incorrect. I think the question was raised of was there a need because one of the
physicians came in and challenged the need for this because they were going to
re-open again. I think there was also some confusion because the question was
asked "Do you need a Certificate of Need to do this?" I think the question was
misunderstood, at least on my part, when we answered and said "yes". To do this
meant we can build this building without the Certificate of Need. The Health
Department wouldn't care less if we built this building tomorrow, we could build
five of these buildings and the Health Department wouldn't care. If the Health
Department gives you a Certificate of Need, it's to turn on the accelerator to start
radiation oncology. That's what they would approve. They are not concerned at
all about the building. I think if we could clarify that back to the Planning
Committee and ask them to reconsider because I think what's going to happen is
we are going to slow this process down. I think we are going to leave this
community in a situation of two things. One, they are going to have out-dated
equipment. The second thing is that there is a lot of new radiation oncology
treatment that is now up to date. They're implanting what they call seeds, which
is taking a small radiation molecule and surgically implanting in various types of
cancerous cells. Fantastic. These guys will not do that do that with our surgeons.
The other folks that we are interviewing, will. What we want to do and we feel is
very important to this community is to provide the best radiation oncology
services, that I think this community deserves. We treat about 400 patients a
year, of which about 275 are going to get radiation oncology. I think to give them
1989 equipment is just a shame, they deserve better.
12
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Chairperson Sigel — So, I just want to make sure that I understand the purpose of
the State Certificate of Need. Do you need that before you can start operating
the services?
Mr. Fitzgerald — There are certain departments that the Health Department
requires you to obtain, what they call a Certificate of Need before you can
operate. Radiation oncology happens to be that. The Health Department has set
up certain criteria for a hospital to do that and you have to meet this criteria. One
of the criteria will be, for example, the most basic is, how many sites are there in
your community. From the Health Department's perspective, there is no site right
now and there has been no site because they don't acknowledge that a private
practice is a radiation oncology site. So right now, Tompkins County has no site,
as far as they are concerned and they feel we need a site.
Chairperson Sigel — So, it's the case that no private practice would have such a
certificate?
Mr. Fitzgerald — Correct.
Chairperson Sigel —And you need the certificate before you can begin to
operate?
Mr. Fitzgerald — Yes.
Mr. Hoffman — However, you can build and do everything else, you just can not
treat a patient.
Chairperson Sigel — Right.
Mr. Barney— I don't quite understand it. You can build anything you want to there
at the hospital and no get approval.
Mr. Fitzgerald — You can build up to three million dollars, Mr. Barney, without a
Certificate of Need and the expense for this is estimated at about 2.6 million for
the building. If you go beyond three million dollars, up to ten million dollars, it
requires what they call an administrative review, which is just a paper review by
the Health Department. Beyond ten million dollars, then they do a full review, if
that answers you question.
Mr. Barney - I didn't think hospitals were totally unregulated.
Mr. Fitzgerald — No, but they have loosened the regulations up significantly, but
because of the technical aspects of radiation oncology, they do want that, which
we think is appropriate.
13
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Inaudible voice from the audience
Mr. Ellsworth — I just wanted John Barney to know that I am involved in the
engineering for the used radiation machine. I was at the hospital Friday and I did
the mechanical engineering, which is basically for the plumbing of the machine. It
is my understanding that for these facilities the Health Department from Albany
comes with their radiation detector after building is built to detect if the equipment
is adequate sealed.
Mr. Fitzgerald — Correct, they do a physicist's report.
Chairperson Sigel —Are you saying that you are involved in the —
Mr. Ellsworth — I am not a customer of theirs, I'm a customer of the competing
facility.
Chairperson Sigel — The private practice.
Mr. Ellsworth — Right.
Mr. Barney— You're a customer or you are a —
Mr. Ellsworth — They're my client. I'm working with the contractor who is doing
the installation. I just wanted you to know that I was involved but not with this
project, with the competing project, I guess.
Chairperson Sigel — Have you been paid yet?
Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah, mostly.
Chairperson Sigel — Do you see a problem at all?
Mr. Barney— Inaudible
Chairperson Sigel —Any questions at this point? Andrew?
I appreciate your explanation of that issue. So, you say you are going to go back,
I see that the Planning Board's requirement is that you obtain this certificate
before a Building Permit is issued, I assume what you are going to ask them for
is to change that so that you have to obtain-
Mr. Fitzgerald — We're going to ask them to reconsider dropping that requirement
since the building would not require a Certificate of Need and I spoke to the
Health Department about this the other day, as well. We are going to ask that
they drop that so that we can move forward with the facility, get the Certificate of
Need, either in October or December and then we can move forward. Otherwise,
if we wait, let's say we don't get on the agenda until December, then we can't
14
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
start to build according to that until December. If we have a rough winter than it
could be this time next year until we get the facility open. We've already had
people traveling now for ten months. I frankly would not want to see people using
a 1989 piece of technology longer than they have to.
Mr. Hoffman — If everything goes through as we'd like, we'd like to start
construction on the first of November. With the requirement of the Certificate of
Need, it is a possibility that if we don't get on until December's agenda, we may
not have a piece of paper, I wouldn't be surprised if it was February or January.
We're sort of at the State's mercy on that .
Chairperson Sigel — I assume that you wouldn't have any objection if it was
changed such that you had to obtain by the time that the project was completed
for a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Fitzgerald — I wouldn't object to that at all because —
Chairperson Sigel — That's effectively what it is anyhow from the state.
Mr. Hoffman — Yes, that's exactly what it is.
Mr. Fitzgerald — We can't operate the facility.
Mr. Ellsworth — They want to get their footers in the ground before the middle of
winter.
Mr. Fitzgerald — That's correct. I think Mr. Ellsworth would probably have an
appreciation for the other project, which is a much smaller unit, for the size of
what we need to put in for a much larger piece of equipment.
Chairperson Sigel — So, I assume, John that we could just simply not reference
condition 2c of the Planning Board as a condition of that approval, if we wanted
to. Therefore if the Planning Board modified that or removed it, then it would still
be consistent with our resolution.
Mr. Barney— You could do that or you could do it on the basis — I've spoken with
the attorney for the hospital, he called me a couple of days ago and basically
advised me of this problem of sequencing because they can start construction
without the Certificate of Need, but they can't operate the facility. What I
suggested to her was that she, that the hospital make an application to the
Planning Board to modify that particular condition to be one that would be
obtained before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. This, I think, at least when I
spoke to her last, this wouldn't be a problem.
Jim Miller, True, Walsh and Miller, 202 East State Street— I believe the Planning
Board determined it's recommendation to approve this special approval, the
15
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
recommendation to this Board to not make that a condition. What they did is they
made it conditional in terms of a Building Permit, but in terms of the resolution
that they passed recommended to this Board that they approve this approval, at
least that was my understanding.
Mr. Barney— You had to be here to understand what happened. In order for them
to recommend, they are supposed to make a finding that there is a need for it.
There was contradicting testimony to as to whether there was or was not a need
for this particular facility in this community. The Planning Board, I think quite
wisely said " We're not medical people, it's not really appropriate for us to be
determining whether there is or is not a need. We don't want to stop the process,
so we will go ahead and make our recommendation, based upon some of the
testimony here, but we are concerned that the need be demonstrated at some
level and that a document be provided." So, that's the way that the resolution
was done. They wanted to allow the process. Had they been hard-nosed about it
Jim, they could have said "Wait until you get your Certificate of Need and then
come back again." Which they didn't do. Then we had to articulate the resolution
the way we did in order to for it to continue the process, which we are really
doing out of an effort to try to keep this situation moving.
Chairperson Sigel — In a variance resolution, we typically do reference the
requirements of the Planning Board as a requirement also for the variance.
Mr. Miller— (Inaudible, speaking away from microphone.)
Mr. Barney— I understand that. I think this Board understands that. We'll hope
that the Planning Board understands it.
Chairperson Sigel —Any questions? Mike, any comments?
Mr. Smith — Nothing to add.
Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m. With no persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 056: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT :
Cayuga Medical Center, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 24-3-2.1, Residence District R-30
MOTION made by Andrew Dixon, seconded by Harry Ellsworth.
RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center, Owner, Lawrence
Hoffmann, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the
16
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct an addition to the Medical Center,
for use with Radiation Oncology, located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-2.1, Residence District R-30. A variance from Article
V, Section 18.10 is also being requested to permit a building height of 48± feet
(36 foot height limitation). This determination is based upon the undated
Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff.
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT. Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel — Do you recommend, John, two separate motions for the
special approval and the height variance?
Mr. Barney— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel —And which one would you prefer first?
Mr. Barney— Would I prefer?
Chairperson Sigel — Yes, as our legal advisor.
Mr. Barney— I would recommend that you might want to do the height variance
f rst.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 057: Cayuga Medical Center, 101 Harris B.
Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-2.1, Residence District R-30
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon.
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center, Owner,
Lawrence Hoffmann, Agent, requesting a height variance from Article V, Section
18.10 for a building not to exceed 49 feet in height for an addition to the Medical
Center for use with Radiation Oncology, located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-2.1, Residence District R-30.
FINDINGS:
a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied.
17
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
CONDITIONS-
a.
ONDITIONS:a. The building be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the
applicant.
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT. Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel — John, would you recommend any conditions related to the
Planning Board in regard to their conditions orjust leave it out?
Mr. Barney—Well, one of your determinations that you make under Section 77,
subdivision d is that it would fill a neighborhood or community need. So, I would
suggest that you probably would want to make the same condition that they did,
but modify it to tie it to the Certificate of Occupancy.
Chairperson Sigel — Does the hospital not count as a public building in that they
are exempted from -?
Mr. Barney— It's a private hospital. You could make that argument but-
Chairperson Sigel —Well, it's easy enough to add the condition. The other
conditions don't really seem relevant to us, I'll just add that one.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 058: Cayuga Medical Center, 101 Harris B.
Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-2.1, Residence District R-
30.
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon.
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center, Owner,
Lawrence Hoffmann, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article V,
Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct an addition to
the Medical Center, for use with Radiation Oncology, located at 101 Harris B.
Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-2.1, Residence District R-30.
FINDINGS:
18
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
a. The requirements for a special approval have been satisfied.
CONDITIONS-
a.
ONDITIONS:a. The building be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the
applicant.
b. The hospital submit to the Town a copy of the Certificate of Need from
the New York State Health Department, confirming the Health
Department's determination that there is a need in the community for
such a facility. Said copy of the Certificate of Need must be supplied to
the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued which would allow
the radiation device to be used on patients.
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT. Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPEAL: Jim Merod, Appellant, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Article IV, Section 11.6 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a residential building with a height
of 43 + feet (36 foot height limitation) at 17 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 56-3-13.22, Residence District R-15.
Chairperson Sigel opened this segment of the meeting at 7:52 p.m.
Chairperson Sigel — Hello. Would you please state your name and address for
the record?
Jim Merod, 10 John Street— I live probably about 150 feet from the proposed
house.
Chairperson Sigel — Could you just give us a quick overview of what you are
doing and why you are doing it?
Mr. Merod —We are seeking to build a house, which from the street is going to
be approximately 33 feet tall. In keeping with every other house in the
neighborhood, this particular lot slopes off such that it would be very easy to put
a walk out basement. That's all we're really asking the Town Board to take a look
at and grant the variance based on being able to walk out the basement into the
back yard. Not necessarily having to build a shed for tools and stuff. It is going to
be an unfinished basement, one you can store lawn mowers, etcetera. It's not
going to change the elevation of the house. The house itself will look the same
19
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
from the road whether there is a walk our basement or not. So, in this case, we
have pictures of the site, the way it slopes up, you see, it's only asking for one
corner. It would be the southwest corner, would be the only one that is actually
exposed down to grade. So, the rest of it we would actually just fill right around
the foundation. We would rather not have to bring more fill in than necessary, so
one way around that would be to have a walk out basement in that corner. As a
neighbor, I think it's in keeping with the rest of the houses that we have. It's a
very hilly sight. So, in this case, I don't think we are changing the character of the
neighborhood. It was brought to my attention, "Well, what if you change the roof
truss to fall under that variance." Then it changes the whole nature of the plan of
the house. Architecturally, the house wouldn't work with a 3-12 pitch on it.
Chairperson Sigel — So, will you need to lower the current ground level at that
southwest corner at all? Or it already that low?
Mr. Merod — It is already low. If we have to lower it at all, it will be about a foot.
So, we are actually going to have to bring some fill in to be able to back fill
around the other side of the house.
Chairperson Sigel - Okay, so the entire back or the basement is not going to be
exposed.
Mr. Merod — Exactly, it's only that one corner. It's the lowest corner. There's a
site, as you drive up the road, it slopes off in two directs. The lay of the land
lends itself very easily to being able to have a walk out basement.
Chairperson Sigel — Could you, let's see, this is 43 feet. It's seven feet more than
the ordinance allows. Could you estimate how far along the back of the house
you estimate you would be, that the grade would have gone up enough, say that
you would have gained seven feet.
Mr. Merod — From that corner, to gain seven feet, I'm going to say it's probably
about 18 to 20 feet.
Chairperson Sigel —Across the back of the house?
Mr. Merod — Yes.
Chairperson Sigel —And how wide is the house total?
Mr. Merod — The house total? I believe it is 61 feet. Actually, the outside is 57
feet.
Chairperson Sigel — I don't know how the other Board members feel, but if we
wanted to grant this. Personally, I think it is certainly a difference when you have
the entire back exposed as three stories as compared to what's being described
20
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
as just a corner. We could for instance, make it a condition that the height be
within the 36 feet at some distance from the corner. You know, basically, just to
require what the applicant is describing. We could make it maybe 25 feet or
something.
Mr. Merod — That sounds fair to me, given the slope, that is going to happen
anyhow. We did sort of a simulated sketch if where there is going to be a deck,
there is no windows here, I'm looking at, I think it is page two.
Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I see you sort of sketched in a door over on the —
Mr. Merod — Exactly. It's just that very back corner, that's it. That is the only part
that is going to be exposed. Everything else, where that deck is, that deck is only
going to be two or three feet off the ground at that point.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Can you estimate how far along the side is it going to
be until you are up to seven feet?
Mr. Merod — Yeah. I would say it would be less than 20 feet.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Does anyone have any questions?
Mike, any comments?
Mr. Smith — The house appears as a two-story from John Street. It only has the
three-story violation in the one corner. I would mention that the Board granted a
height variance for 5 John Street, which is very similar to this, right down the
street, about a year ago.
Chairperson Sigel — That one was for 39 feet. We had a variance just down the
street recently.
Mr. Smith — It seems that the terrain along that street lends itself to that.
Chairperson Sigel — opened the Public Hearing at 7:57 p.m. With no persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:58 p.m.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 059: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Jim
Merod, 17 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3-13.22, Residence
District R-15.
MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Andrew Dixon.
RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in the appeal of Jim Merod, Appellant, requesting a variance from
the requirements of Article IV, Section 11.6 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
21
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a residential building with a height of no
more than 43 feet at 17 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3-13.22,
Residence District R-15, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form
prepared by Town staff dated September 3, 2003.
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT. Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 060: Jim Merod, 17 John Street, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 56-3-13.22, Residence District R-15.
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon.
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Jim Merod, Appellant,
requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11.6 of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a residential
building with a height not to exceed 43 feet at 17 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 56-3-13.22, Residence District R-15.
FINDINGS:
a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied.
CONDITIONS-
a.
ONDITIONS:a. Only the southwest corner of the house be greater than the required 36
feet height, specifically that all portions of the house must be 36 feet or less,
except for an area running 25 feet across the back of the house from the
southwest corner and 20 feet towards the front from the southwest corner.
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT. Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
22
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
APPEAL : Scott Flatt, Appellant, requesting variances from the
requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance, to be permitted to create, by subdivision, a parcel of land with
road frontage of 27 + feet (60 foot frontage required) and 27 feet at the
maximum front yard setback (100 foot width required) at 1020 Hanshaw
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2, Residence District R-15.
Furthermore, a request for a variance from the requirements of Section 11.2
is being made to create a two-family home with each dwelling unit having
an equal floor area.
Chairperson Sigel — Is Mr. Flatt here? Could you please start off by stating your
name and address for the record? Could you give us a short overview of what
you are proposing?
Scott W. Flatt, 660 Sterling Park, Cortland — Well, breaking it into the two
segments; the first segment would be to actually build a house on the lot and I
believe that even though it is, in a regular situation, by your regulations, the fact
that it's 1.7 plus acres lends it to be a very nice site for a house. In an area where
houses are at a premium, this is one of the last vacant spots in the area and it
will eventually be built on by somebody somewhere and I was glad to find it, take
an interest in it and would like to build a house there.
The second portion of my appeal is that I'm allowed to be a house of equal
square footage on each side because I would like to make it a two-family house.
The reason I have asked for that is simply because, when I do a building I like to
fit it to what's around it and that is a single-family neighborhood and I feel that it
would be best for everybody including the neighbors, if I did it as a single-family
appearing house on the outside. I have the exact same house, which I proposed
to built, which you have plans for, I have that house almost completed, about 75
percent completed, at 820 Hanshaw Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights. I've
contacted the two neighbors on either side of this lot and asked them to go down
and take a look at that house and they have and we've met a couple of times to
talk about ways of fitting everything to their liking.
Chairperson Sigel — I see this has already been before the Planning Board for
subdivision approval. This was an illegal subdivision?
Mr. Smith — From what we can find, it looked like it was a subdivision from 1961
and it never went through the Town approvals, it was just filed and it's been that
way since that point. They came in September 2nd to receive the Planning Board
approval to match the existing lines.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And of course, the Planning Board motion is
conditional upon us granting the lot dimension portion of the request. The road
frontage and 100 feet back? I assume their motion is not dependant on the
issuance of the use variance.
23
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Barney— I don't think that would really be in their jurisdiction anyway. I think
the condition was the receipt of all required variances and clearly the frontage
variance is a required variance for the subdivision approval, but granted a
variance for the shape of the house is not necessary to make it a legal
subdivision.
Chairperson Sigel — I'll just remind the Board that the portion which it has to do
with the size of the two units basically having two identically sized units as
opposed to a larger one and a separate unit that is at least 50 percent or at most
50 percent of the size of the main unit. This is a use variance and as such the
requirements of that are fairly substantial. Basically, the applicant would have to
show that they can not obtain a reasonable economic return from this property
without the granting of such a variance, which, I assume- Do you have any
financial evidence to- ?
Mr. Frost— Could we determine before we get to far with this question, whether
this is really a use or an area variance?
Mr. Barney— It's really dimensional.
Mr. Frost— I would say that I think it's an area variance, but he's the attorney.
Mr. Barney—And I always go with the Building Inspector.
Mr. Frost— I always go with the attorney.
Mr. Flatt— My take on the situation is I would like to fit the neighborhood. It would
be in everybody's best interest if the neighborhood was homogeneous as far as
the types of houses that are there and I guess that's what you folks are here for
is to make sure that everybody's happy. I'm perfectly willing to tailor my siting of
the house to what makes the neighbors happy. The situation now has a shared
driveway and I'm working with the next-door neighbor that I would be sharing that
with, to actually make it the way they want it. They are still considering some
options there, but I have given my word to them that I would place their
recommendations to me at the forefront and do it as they would like to see it
done. As for the house, the size and shape of the house being single-family, it
would seem to me that it would be in everybody's best interest to not have a
house like I have a photo of here, which doesn't fit the neighborhood, but fulfills
the regulations. That, in this photo, is one that I built a couple of years ago right
up the street, in the same neighborhood. In my discussions with some of the
other neighbors, in my area of the neighborhood, that I am interested in, they,
even though it's up the street a ways, feel that that has negatively impacted the
neighborhood in their viewpoint. This is more of the facade of the house that I am
going to build. The blueprint for that house is in front of you folks and that's the
house that I propose to build. It's a hair different from the one in the photograph,
24
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
but they are similar as far as the treatment of the window sizes and the
entranceway. We're actually putting stucco and fake dormers on the one down at
820 to make it look like it appears to blend in with the neighborhood. I can say
that until I'm blue in the face, but basically, I want to go into this as a house
owner in the neighborhood, not a landlord. It's basically a long-term investment
for my wife and I and we only plan to do this two or three times, of which this
would be house number two. Basically, we feel that the more that we put into it
now to make the people around us like us, the better time we're going to have for
the 15 years that we plan to own it and the better return we will have out of that if
we built a nice house instead of just a low-end, get- the- money- while- you- can
rental.
Mr. Frost— One of the attempts of the ordinance, by the 50 percent rule is to
reduce the mass of the building. It is very easily possible to build a two-family
residence with an apartment in the basement, thereby reducing the mass or put
an apartment over the garage also, thereby reducing the mass. The picture you
passed around of the large building is actually a two-family home with one side
twice the size of the other. Quite a bit more expensive house, a larger floor area,
but it does meet with the ordinance in that one side is 50 percent the size of the
other one. But I would slightly disagree, I think you can build a two-family home,
keeping the mass down and have it look as a single family home, and keep
within the ordinance.
Chairperson Sigel — So, you are set on building some sort of two-family home, I
assume?
Mr. Flatt—Actually, I am here, number one, to be able to build a house on that
site. A separate issue is issue number two where I would like to make it a two-
family home and own it myself for the next 15 years. Obviously, if I can't have the
second issue, I'd still like to have the first issue resolved in my favor.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. John?
Mr. Barney— I think it's an area variance. An area variance is defined as "the
authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the use of land in a manner,
which is not allowed by the dimensional or physical requirements." As opposed to
a use variance, which is " Authorization of the Zoning Board for the use of land
for a purpose not allowed or is prohibited by the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance." This I
think falls, because two families are allowed.
Mr. Barney— Two families are allowed, so it just really falls on the side of the
dimensional issue, rather than a use issue. Now, don't ask me the same question
a month from now, you might get a different answer, but that's the answer for
now.
Chairperson Sigel — Mike, any comments.
25
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Smith — I guess you can forget about the part that I put in there about the use
variance too, in SEAR. The two area variances for the road frontage seemed
necessary to legalize the lots that were subdivided a while ago. The area
variance for the two building sizes equal doesn't necessarily seem necessary to
do that.
Chairperson Sigel — So, would you —
Mr. Smith — So, I guess even though it's not considered a use variance, I don't
see that it's been demonstrated that they need the two equal sizes.
Chairperson Sigel — Obviously, it doesn't seem related to the position of the lot or
the shape of the lot or the size of the lot. It's really just a desire of the applicant.
Mr. Flatt— I'd like to actually reinforce what I said before as far as, I would hope
and, by the end of the evening we'll know if I'm right or wrong, but I would feel, if I
was one of the neighbors living there now, I would want to see the house that I
propose to build as opposed to the other photograph that I passed around as my
next door house. I guess, by the end of the night, we will know how the neighbors
feel about that, but I really feel that it fits the neighborhood better and looks
similar to the single-family houses around it. So, yeah it doesn't affect how the lot
lines are and the statutes for the road frontage and what not. What I'm trying to
say if I think first and foremost the people there should be happy with what goes
in there since it's the last thing in.
Mr. Frost— I think one of the first inquires to me was building a three-family
home, though I informed you that only two-families were allowed. Secondly, the
larger building there, in the picture that you passed around, is on a building lot
that would accommodate such a large size two-family home. I'm not so sure that
your building lot itself would be capable of supporting a house the size of the two-
family side by side that you passed around.
Mr. Flatt— The lot I propose to buy is almost two acres in size.
Mr. Frost—All I'm saying is what you're saying is, is that, if necessary, you'll build
a larger house yet, if you can get the —
Mr. Flatt— No, I didn't say that.
Mr. Frost— You said you will then build a house the size of that picture.
Mr. Flatt— I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood. I never have had an intention
of building anything even the size of that 50 percent, 100 percent house. I'm
sorry if I mislead you.
26
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Chairperson Sigel — Your point is just those are two examples of two-family
homes and you are saying that you believe that your design is the more
attractive.
Mr. Flatt—Well, that's my opinion. I have to say that if the neighbors cry out and
say "Oh no, we'd like to see the other thing." I guess I can't swim up stream for
too long.
Mr. Frost— Maybe I misunderstood.
Mr. Flatt—And if I asked that question earlier on, I don't feel that's relevant now
because I just asked a lot of questions, but what I am asking for now is just to put
the question out there and if these folks like the idea, fine. If they don't, we'll go to
plan B.
Mr. Dixon —What do you plan on renting each side for?
Mr. Flatt— The one that is at 820 Hanshaw, which is two doors down from the
Triphammer stop sign, where Triphammer and Hanshaw meet, is the same
house that you have the blueprint for. We've listed it at the graduate upward level
at the Cornell Housing Office for$1590 per side. The house is assessed for
roughly, I think $355,000. We're building it as an "energy star" house. We've put
radiant heat in the floor, put dormers on the roof, stucco siding on the front and I
don't think you would find a normal rental type of situation being built in that
respect, but, as I said before, we're not building it as a rental, as such, we're
building it as a home that we can sell later on, 15 years down the road. So, it's
being built nicely and it's an expensive house.
Mr. Dixon — It's a rental though. What's the limit on the number of unrelated
persons in a situation like this?
Mr. Frost— Two families or two unrelated people in each side. So, you can have
two families, either traditional or non-traditional and then you can have two
unrelated people, that are considered a non-traditional family without any further
evidence needed to show that it is a non-traditional family, then you can just
have, theoretically, two unrelated people in each side. And, if I think I know
where you are going with this, you can have a two-bedroom on each side and be
at it's max, unless you had a family with children.
Mr. Dixon —And these are three bedroom.
Mr. Frost— Though, typically, a lot of the graduate students maybe are families,
they are traditional families.
Chairperson Sigel — That's a good point Andy.
27
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Chairperson Sigel — I assume you are aware, although maybe not, that the
Zoning Ordinance doesn't permit you to rent, I see each unit has three
bedrooms.
Mr. Flatt— That house does have three bedrooms and we were discussing that
with the two immediate neighbors just today on how that might be regulated
because I also do not want to have more than a couple of people in there or a
grad student and his wife and a child or whatever, but my mind just started
kicking that around as to how we could legislate that or enforce it. We talked
about parking and limiting the number of vehicles that each side would be able to
have on site. We're now just kicking that around between us as to how we would
settle it so that it was etched in stone, even if I were to pass away the day after it
was built and someone else wound up owning it. We're just trying to get
everybody happy in the neighborhood and, if it comes to it, I told them we would
work it out with legal agreements.
Chairperson Sigel — The Town Zoning Ordinance wouldn't permit you to have
more than two unrelated people in each side.
Mr. Flatt—Well, with all due respect, there's not a real heavy enforcement of that
after the fact, five years down the road, say-
Mr. Frost— In the Town of Ithaca there is.
Mr. Flatt—Well, I'm just going by my experience in other areas and this is my first
experience with you folks, but I'm willing to sign off on it that I won't rent to any
other situation, other than what's agreed to by myself and the immediate
neighbors and what's on your books.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay, I just wouldn't want to see you build a house with
three bedrooms and assume, for your economic return analysis that you needed
to rent to three graduate students and then find out that that wasn't allowed.
Mr. Dixon — Because the market is such, in Town right now, all the owners are
doing a room by room rental.
Mr. Flatt— I recently have been building customer houses and spec houses in the
Lansing area and the thing that gave me this idea is that a lot of the people that
came in to talk about houses, part of the conversation was how much trouble
they had coming to Ithaca and finding a place to live that was decent enough to
bring their wife and kids when they came to take whatever next job they were
coming here to take. That gave me the idea that they were needed because a lot
of them come and they need to rent for at least a year to set something up with a
builder, buy a lot, get it closed and get the house built. So, I feel —
28
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Chairperson Sigel — So your target would mainly be families then?
Mr. Flatt—Well, my target is, the best case scenario would be a retired couple
that wants to get out of the empty nest and have a place where everything is
done for them. The bottom of the list would be to rent to under graduate students
and, of course I would set my bar at graduate students as far as I am going to go
because I'm not into the whole landlord scenario as such. I'm just looking to have
two or three of these houses in the Ithaca area that we can use a future
investment.
Chairperson Sigel - Okay, any more questions at this time for the applicant?
Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 8:24 p.m.
Chairperson Sigel — Is anyone interested in speaking? Well, I've been doing a lot
of talking so far somebody must want to talk.
Mr. Frost— If you want, you can sit on the end of the table there.
Bernie Hutchens, 1016 Hanshaw Road — My property borders, the back portion
borders this property of Henry's. I guess we're not terribly happy with the idea
that there would be a duplex in there because of the amount of traffic and the
number of people that would be in and out of that very narrow road. In fact, we
look at it as a road, you look at it apparently as a lot, but if you're talking about
something that was supposed to be sixty feet and you're talking about 27 and
you're talking about 100 that is supposed to be 27. 1 look at it like you're talking
really about an access road. Shouldn't it be treated, somehow as an access road
and aren't there some kinds of regulation on how that would be done. So, that
was our concerns, as I say, we're worried about the back portion and a little bit
about whether any noise or anything would come across from anybody that is
there. The additional thing that I would like to mention, I don't know whether it
goes to this Board or to the Planning Board, but it was mentioned at the Planning
Board meeting that the approval of this subdivision was contingent upon a
survey, new survey being made that was contiguous with the survey map that
was submitted at that time, which was dated 1961, 1 think re-certified sometime in
the eighties. We would be interested in seeing that survey to see if that's correct
and the reason I wanted to mention that is because there are several
discrepancies in the maps and the deeds and everything that everybody has right
now, in particular, the line that divides our property from Henry's property and our
property and Hartman's property from Henry's, there's two paths down at the end
and one of them is from the pin that's at the corner of Hartman's lot, 292.1 or
277.5 feet. So, there is a discrepancy of about 14 — 15 feet in the direction
perpendicular to Hanshaw Road. In addition, there is a discrepancy in the
dimension that is parallel to the road of about eight feet. So, I have my survey
map as far as it went. Let me show you what happens in the perpendicular
direction. In the other direction, parallel to the road. I have a letter from Fred
29
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Beck who was our attorney at the time of the closing to the surveyor for the
seller, Mrs. Buckner, and there's a discovery in here, made by Al Foulkerson,
who I we, I think very highly of, most everyone does, that the distance of the back
line is 241 feet and not 249 feet. So we have those two —what I'm saying is that
we don't know where the back corner is and I would like to see that clarified
before the Town actually signs off on the subdivision. I think that's all I have.
Chairperson Sigel — This is the northwest corner you're talking about?
Mr. Hutchens — Northeast corner. Northwest corner of Henry's, northeast corner
of our property. I have the map here.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay, northeast corner of your lot? This is a map of your lot?
Mr. Hutchens — Yes, that is our survey, made in about 1995 or '96 and the letter
that is attached there concerns the error in the survey and I'll give these surveys
to whoever— maybe it goes to Planning, I'm not sure.
Chairperson Sigel — Thank you, Mr. Hutchens. Is anyone else interested in
speaking?
Klaus Beyenbach, 1024 Hanshaw Road — On the east side of the lot in question
tonight. I would like to offer some historical perspective on that lot. In 1986, when
the Uris' were selling their properties, they offered that lot to us to purchase and
we were interested in building a home for ourselves back there. We did you
through a purchase offer and made it contingent upon the approval by the Town.
I don't know if you remember Mr. Frost, we came to see you and explored the
possibility—
Mr. Frost— This is 1986.
Mr. Beyenbach — 1986 yes. — of building a home back there and you strongly
discouraged us from doing so, thinking that the Town would not permit it for two
reasons. You gave one reason that the sewer line back there was running to
capacity and would not tolerate addition units.
Mr. Frost— It's pretty unlikely that you were talking to me if you were talking
about sewer capacity.
Mr. Beyenbach —And the other reason was that the Town would request a road
to be built back there at our own expense.
Mr. Frost— It's unlikely that if I was talking about sewer capacity, that that was a
conversation I would have had with you in 1986. But, be that as it may. It could
have been the Town Engineer.
30
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Beyenbach — That's what my records show. I took notes, if you wish to
inspect those. I was under the impression that the zoning allowed only one-family
per lot. Tonight, I am hearing there is actually two.
Chairperson Sigel — Yes. The zoning allows for a two-family house.
Mr. Beyenbach — The subdivision that is being considered in September 2 and is
continued being considered, will that set a precedent that other units along
Hanshaw Road will also be able to subdivide.
Chairperson Sigel — It certainly wouldn't require that the Town approve those
subdivisions if there are other similar circumstances, I don't know how many lots
there are in that area that have such a substantial piece of ground behind them
that could be subdivided.
Mr. Beyenbach - What would be the minimum size?
Chairperson Sigel —Well, this is an R-30?
Mr. Frost— 15. 15,000 square feet
Chairperson Sigel —An R-15. For the zone, it's only 15,000 square feet per lot. I
wouldn't be so sure that for someone wanting to subdivide 15,000 square feet at
the back of their lot that that would necessarily get approved. In this case, this is
obviously substantially more than that at 1.7 acres.
Mr. Smith —And this isn't creating a new lot. This is just matching existing lines to
it.
Chairperson Sigel — Right, that's a good point. This is a subdivision that there is
some evidence that it was made in 1961, it just wasn't necessarily filed with the
Town correctly at the time. Was it on County records as being subdivided?
Mr. Flatt— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel — In this case, we have evidence that someone did make an
effort to subdivide many years ago and just ask them that the discrepancy be
cleaned up, which is obviously different than if someone came along and asked
for a new subdivision.
Mr. Beyenbach — But what are the chances that other lots will be subdivided as
well?
Chairperson Sigel — I can't tell you that. Andy do you have any clue as to how
many?
31
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Frost— I think the area is pretty well developed. It's pretty unlikely.
Mr. Beyenbach — This would be the last house to be-
Chairperson Sigel — Obviously there is no way that we can guarantee that.
Someone might come along and ask for a subdivision of their lot, but— I don't
think there are many more lots in this area that are of this size.
Mr. Beyenbach — The last concerns I have about that building project is
restricting tenants. Wouldn't that be a form of discrimination saying that "Well, I
will rent only to graduates or to families and not to undergraduates." I wonder
whether there is any legal basis for doing so and for offering such a restriction.
Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I'm not sure, that's a good point.
Mr. Flatt— If I could comment on that. The only advertisement I've made to rent
the house I'm building in Cayuga Heights is at the Cornell Housing Office and
they have, in very large print at the top of their application "Willing to rent to
undergraduates. " Willing to rent to graduates only," and they have the box for
you to check there, so I think that if anybody's is doing something wrong, it is
further up the food chain than myself.
Mr. Beyenbach —What I'm afraid of is that you are going to have people wanting
to rent the house and I don't think you can discriminate. That's all I wanted to
say.
Chairperson Sigel — Thank you.
Mr. Barney— I think you can discriminate between graduates and non-graduates.
Mr. Dixon — I know you can.
Mr. Barney— You can't discriminate on the basis of age.
Chairperson Sigel —Anyone else interested in speaking?
Alfred Digiacomo, 1025 Hanshaw Road — I think the Board should realize that
this spot is not a level piece of ground. It slopes down towards the stream that
flows along the back of the property and is interrupted by a sewer line that runs
through the property as well. So, you may not be able to build over the sewer line
and believe there is a restriction as to how far away from the stream he has to
build. I think before any positive moves are made, you should take a look at that
property.
32
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Do you have any information about restrictions
from this stream?
Mr. Frost— No, I don't think it is a classified stream. It's probably a drainage way.
Just the standard setbacks, 35 feet.
Mr. Smith — He does have 1.7 acres so there is quite a bit of room to set a house.
Chairperson Sigel — It would appear that certainly the sewer would be more of a
restriction than the stream. Does anyone else wish to speak?
Rick Hartman, 1018 Hanshaw Road — There are two right-of-ways on my
driveway. The people who live in the new house would have to go on the
driveway to get into their property. I just want to make that clear.
Chairperson Sigel — This new subdivided lot does have a 27 foot wide strip going
all the way to the road, so is there any particular reason why a driveway couldn't
be built on that other than maybe the fact that it would duplicate a driveway?
Mr. Flatt—When I first got into this situation, I contacted Mrs. Hartman and made
the offer that I would do it either way, whichever they wanted to do, preserve the
appearance exactly as it is now and maybe pave it. I had offered to do what they
wanted. I guess they thought it over and decided that sharing the driveway, from
the last think I hear, was not a great idea because 1, myself, wasn't living there or
if another single family was permanently living there, they could discuss it with
them and maybe have some rules on sharing the driveway, as far a speed with
the kids playing and what not, but since there is a possibility of turnover every
year or two, they thought maybe re-negotiating a new friendly agreement with
whoever is there could possibly get tedious after a while a it would be hard to
keep up with for them. So, they felt, as Mrs., Hartman told me today that they
would opt maybe to go with the dual driveway, in which case, I offered to actually
built it. Then we got into, I thought, what keep people from straying over because
the driveways would be so close and we got talking about different scenarios.
Maybe a white picket fence right down the middle to really make it two and then
we considered what that might do for snow plowing, etcetera. In the end, I told
Mrs. Hartman that I would actually build a stone planter with some shrubs, like an
island in the middle to delineate the two and we would develop how we would go
down the line with a median or something as we mulled it over, but I agreed to
build all of that at my expense just to make them happy because I don't want to
come in there and have to go like this every time I drive down the driveway
because I plan to be their neighbor for the next 15 years, whether I live there or
rent it or not, I'm still the accountable person and I don't want to make enemies,
so I offered to make that either way.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Please continue.
33
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Hartman — That's all I wanted to say. I just wanted to bring that up. That's a
pretty reasonable solution.
Chairperson Sigel — So what you're saying is that you are not comfortable with
entering into an easement with them where they would be allowed to use your
driveway, which obviously then requires them to build their own driveway on their
property.
Mr. Hartman — Your question is to leave the driveway the way it is? Is that what
you are asking?
Chairperson Sigel- Well, it seems that—
Mr. Barney— Right now, I think each party has the right to use the adjoining 25
feet on the others parties combined right-of-way. That can be changed, but
(inaudible)
Mr. Hartman — There probably is only 20 feet of gravel that we travel on. That's
all I had to say.
Chairperson Sigel —Anyone else wish to speak?
Deborah Cowan, 1022 Hanshaw Road — I had a question about something that
was discussed here a little bit before about making the duplex not a use
variance, but saying that was a dimensional issue only. I don't quite understand
how that happened. My understanding was, according to the zoning regulations
that a two-family, the second dwelling shall not exceed 50 percent of the floor
area of the first, which made it a use variance as you mentioned at first and some
way it seemed to turn into an area variance and I didn't quite catch how that
happened.
Chairperson Sigel —Well, that happened because —
Mr. Barney— Because the attorney said so. Sometimes it's not the only way.
Ms. Cowan —Well, it seemed pretty clear to me.
Mr. Barney—Well, an area variance is usually where you are dealing with a
dimensional aspect of the property and you want to do something other than
what is permitted by the dimension. Here, the issue is whether 50 percent limit is
a dimensional limit or a use limit and the cases seem to say that would be a
dimensional limit or an area variance, rather than a use variance. There is a
Court of Appeals case, I just want to confirm my advice, there is a Court of
Appeals case, which is the top court of the State of New York, which basically
said an apartment complex is permitted but they have a certain floor area ratio
where they can only have one apartment for every 800 square feet of land that
34
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
they have. A reduction of that number to 500 feet was an area variance, not a
use variance, even though it meant that you were going to increase the number
of apartments from 50 apartments to, in that case, 70. Those kind of situations
are area variances.
Ms. Cowan — So he would still be required to have the second unit be 50
percent? It's just—
Mr. Barney— Well, it's just the test that this Board needs to apply is a little
different.
Ms. Cowan —Which variance it is would change the language, but the
requirement is still there.
Mr. Barney— The whole argument over whether it's a use variance or an area
variance is what test one applies with the granting of a variance. A use variance
is a very difficult thing to show because you basically have to show that you can't
realize any reasonable value from the property under the uses that are permitted
by the ordinance. If it's an area variance, the test is more of a balance as to what
is the advantage to the landowner versus what is the detriment to the
surrounding neighbors. It's this Board that has to make a judgment as to what-
Ms. Cowan — This made it a little easier.
Mr. Barney—That's a little easier test.
Ms. Cowan — I believe Mr. Digiacomo's comments about looking at the land there
because looking at it on the map, it appears to be a flat lot. It's certainly got the
sewer right-of-way and the stream, which prevent building there and also has an
area which slopes down. I believe that was part of his concern about it being not
a full 1.7 acre buildable lot.
I looked pretty carefully over the area variances and what we were supposed to
address tonight and part of my concern is the 27 foot frontage where 60 is
required and 27 where 100 is required and, as a citizen, I guess my assumption
is that the zoning regulations are there to protect the character of the
neighborhood, to protect other homeowners so that you don't have these
situations where you are building houses behind houses in kind of a box car or a
train kind of effect. So, I think that having that frontage and having that house on
the road is an important thing. I do feel we have a number of points here about
whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood. Mr. Flatt himself says it's a single-family, residential neighborhood
and he's proposing to build, in that neighborhood, a 3,000 square foot unit, which
is much larger than the surrounding houses. He's is proposing to be an absentee
landlord, for a two-family unit, three bedrooms each, which makes for a sizable
number of people. I think that does change the character of the neighborhood. I
think it is detrimental also to the value of the nearby properties. You have a
35
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
situation with an absentee landlord. Despite everyone's good intentions, I think
that there is no guarantee that you're going to get the highest class of family to
live in there, because the economic reality is that if those people don't materialize
and there are three individuals or two individuals who are students or
undergraduate or whoever they are come up with the money, then certainly you
are going to — the pressures of the economy are going to cause you to fill you
apartments with whoever you need to get your return. And I appreciate Mr. Flatt's
idea of being a neighbor, but he won't be a neighbor and it won't be owner-
occupied and that's a change. Most of us moved into this neighborhood for a
reason, we bought for a reason. We didn't want neighbors too close, we usually
have substantial property around us. We wanted a certain residential type of feel,
which, I think, we basically have had up to this point. I think, if allowed, this
particular variance would change that. Number 3. here asks whether the variance
is substantial and I think 27 to 60 feet and 27 to 100 feet certainly is substantial.
The traffic will increase. It's not in my right-of-way, it's the Hartman's side, their
property, but in thinking about and talking to Mrs. Hartman, when you have two
families behind there, you going to be dealing with probably at least four vehicles.
If they have older children, teenagers, it will be more than four vehicles, plus the
two Hartman vehicles, so you have quite a number going up and down the road.
It's a little difficult, even now to turn onto the busy road of Hanshaw, so I think
that traffic concerns are something that have been mentioned to me, as well as
our neighbors around us and neighbors across the street. I don't know, my
husband made this point so I'll pass it on, what happens if there is an emergency
in terms of fire access or ambulance access? Normally, when you have a house
on the road, it's pretty visible and it's reasonably close to the road. His concern
there is getting vehicles or emergency or fire vehicles back there, whether that
would present a problem. So, I thought that's something I hadn't thought of and
to pass it on. I guess that's basically it. The character of the neighborhood, the
single residential nature of it, that is sort of changing, given that a rental unit will
be put there. For me, it's essentially, rather than in my back yard, it's in the back
yards of a number of people. I think it's awkwardly placed and certainly is
something that won't help the values of our properties. I have some things to say
about the 50 percent under the use variance, but I guess that's not there any
more so it would just be repetitive, so those are basically my points.
Chairperson Sigel — Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak?
Janet O'Connor, 617 Highland Road — My husband, Stanley O'Connor and I own
the property at 1010 Hanshaw Road, which, in the back, abuts the Hutchens,
which, in turn, is next to this property. So, I don't know, Mrs. Cowan went through
a lot of my problems with this, so I would have to sort of, I'm not sure what I am
addressing, whether it's an area variance or the use variances, but I think that
makes no difference. I think these variances are substantial for the 25 foot
frontage, the setback is only 27 feet, but not mentioned in that is the setback
where you measure the 100 foot frontage is supposed to be 50 feet and the
36
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Cowan's house is right over that 200 feet back from the road. So, the setback is
considerable because that's a long way from 27 feet. Then the idea of a two
family house when the law says that it is to only be 50 percent of the total, that is
in the zoning laws, that is why we have zoning ordinances because we want to
live in a certain kind of neighborhood. We don't want to have a dog kennel in the
back or a trailer park next to us. We are well aware of what area we are living in
and we want to preserve the quality of that neighborhood, which is individually
owned, single-family residences and it's been that way for years and I grew up
on the property that we are talking about, so that takes us back 64 years or so
and that has always been in our family. So, now we are having a situation where
the line of houses that existed for a very long time is being all divided up and, in
the back, there is going to be a huge house looming up over all the others in the
backyard of the people on Sienna Drive and the ones on Hanshaw, especially
the Cowan's and the Hartman's. So, the house is larger than the other houses, it
will look much taller because it will have to be set on that crest of land before it
drops off. In other words, the frontage from their property to the Cowan's house
will be as short as possible, instead of a wide setback. So, as far as people who
have houses right there, that's one thing, but the feeling of the neighborhood,
that's another thing. As you drive by, you will see this, this house just perched in
the backyard. It's out of sync with the neighborhood and also to get into the
house itself, this will not be occupied by the owner, it is an absentee landlord,
that means you have two sets of people. Now we don't even know what kind of
sets of people they would be, just that we're dealing with graduate students, you
know, how many people can there be. But anyway, you will then have, generally
speaking, a transient population. Mr. Flatt just said, with the driveway
considerations, maybe people would be leaving once a year. So, as far as a
neighborhood feeling goes, that is shot because people have lived there for
years. So, let me see, of course there would be a lot more cars. And then you
lose a certain communal feeling, I would say in the neighborhood from family
houses and kids growing up, people getting old and the families all living
together, you have a situation where two families in this huge place will be
changing every year. The idea also that it is built to produce income, that's
another situation. All the houses in the neighborhood are built to live in, to enjoy,
to be part of this neighborhood and this is an income producing situation. So, I
probably had some other things to say, but maybe I have said enough. But
anyway, I would say this change is undesirable, the character of the
neighborhood definitely would change. That is a detriment to all the properties
right along that area and of course it will devaluate the properties. Imagine trying
to sell a house when in your back yard is this monster with all these cars and two
families living in it. That's all I have to say.
Chairperson Sigel — Thank you very much. Anyone else care to speak?
Mr. Flatt— Could I make a few comments at this point?
37
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Chairperson Sigel — I would appreciate it if you could wait until after everyone is
done.
Stanley O'Connor, 617 Highland Road — Janet and I own the lot at 1010
Hanshaw and I'd like to read a letter from Peter Carruthers, who lives at 1008
Hanshaw, so is a close neighbor. "I wish to object to the proposed variances for
the following reasons: The proposed dwelling changes the essential character of
the neighborhood because the proposed structure is absentee landlord, double
occupancy. The dwelling will attract transient residents and students. The
proposed structure is 50 to 100 percent larger than most structures in the area.
Approval of this variance sets a precedent for other nearby undeveloped land.
Peter Carruthers."
He couldn't be here because his employment didn't permit it. I hadn't intended to
speak in my own right, but I would suggest that in your determinations, objective
facts are a relevant issue, rather than intentions. Although Mr. Flatt as assured
us that he intends to own this building for 15 years, there is no legal requirement
that he do so. Therefore, it could easily be sold to someone whose sensitivity
were less exquisite. That's all. Thank you.
Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?
Louise Richards, 1023 Hanshaw Road — I'm a recent owner. I moved here two
years ago from Washington D.C. One of the main reasons I moved is to get rid of
the traffic, but I think I'll make this short because my main concern, I agree with
the other concerns that there will be more cars, there will be more people coming
out on Hanshaw Road and it is already crowded. There are people who walk and
jog on the shoulders of Hanshaw Road, I won't do it because I don't think it's
really that safe. More people being added to that mix, I don't think is a good idea.
So, I'll just let it go at that because I think my neighbors have spoken very well
about the other issues.
Chairperson Sigel- Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?
James Henry, 1118 Autumn Ridge Lane — My wife owns this lot, I am an attorney
also and I represent her and we have a contract to sell it to Mr. Flatt, contingent
upon him obtaining the necessary approvals of Planning Board and this Board to
do what he wants to do. I'd like to emphasize that there are basically two
applications before the Board. One is for the area variance concerning the road
frontage itself and the frontage or width requirement which are basically, I think,
the same question. The second, is the application for an area variance regarding
a particular building that he wants to put on it. I am going to speak mostly to the
first question because that's the one that I have particular knowledge as to. This
lot, as indicated has existed in its present form for a long time. It seems to me
that a lot of the objections that people are making are that they object to the fact
that the Zoning Ordinance allows two-family residences because a lot of the
concerns expressed for increased traffic, et cetera are really geared to the
38
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
question of any residence that has two families. It's been said that this area is a
single family residential area and I supposed that most of the residences are
single family, but it is not completely true that they are. In fact, the neighbor, Mr.
and Mrs. Beyenbach have, for many years and as far as I know, still rent out a
separate building on their property so there are two families in that property line
all the time. You still rent out to students, right?
Mrs. Beyenbach — Just to one.
Mr. Frost— Mr. Henry, you really should be addressing the Chair.
Mr. Henry — But my point is that there are two family residences in the immediate
area. The balancing test is the benefit to the applicant versus any possible
detriment to the neighborhood. The health, safety, welfare of the neighborhood
and it seems to me, this is a residential neighborhood, what is contemplated here
is to put a residence on this large lot and the neighbors have been aware of that
potential or probability for many years. The Beyenbachs indicated tonight that
they had tried to buy that property and wanted to put a residence themselves
there. The Hutchens/ Hartman property used to be Bruckman, they were divided
and Hutchens built a new residence there. Hartmans, when they purchased their
property were aware of this 50 foot wide right-of-way, which is laid out for access
back into this lot, as well as Hutchens lot, which was, at that time Bruckman. Deb
Cowan has indicated her opposition to both the area variance regarding the
particular residence, but also the frontage variances. However the Cowan's when
they purchased 1022 Hanshaw, specifically agreed, in their contract to purchase
that house and from this lot, that they would not oppose a frontage variance. In
fact, I would like to read, for the record, from the contract when Cowans
purchased the property, it said "Sellers may wish to obtain a frontage as to the
lands owned by sellers to on the west and north for construction of a residence.
In such case, buyers agree not to object to such a variance as to required street
frontage. I respect that opposition to the particular building, her opposition to the
50 percent rule and asking for a variance for that, but to object to having a
residence put on that property is contrary to the agreement that they made when
they purchased their property at 1022 Hanshaw.
Mr. Dixon — Is that in the Deed?
Mr. Henry — No, it's not in the deed, it's in a Contract. It's been said about this,
it's been described as a monster. I'm afraid I don't quite understand that. I think
with being intimately familiar with the lot, I do not believe, unless you exceeded
the height for the height requirements that you could see the residence from,
probably from Hartman's or Hutchens, probably not form Beyenbachs because of
the trees. Hutchens property has a forest on the back part of theirs, their house —
do you have this thing, this is from the Planning Board.
Chairperson Sigel — Not that exact sketch, but something similar.
39
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Henry — I don't know if you can actually see what I am talking about, but
Hutchens have a forest back there. Along Cowan, there is a row of pine trees.
Along Beyenbach there are trees. This lot is very protected. From the road, you
won't see the residence. Unless it's very tall. There has been some mention
about the fact that the lot slopes down. There is a level spot, where a house can
be constructed, you can construct it down the slope. Somebody mentioned fire
access, it's level right straight in to that. The driveway would be no longer than
the property next to Hutchens, which I believe is O'Connor's. It is in character to
have a residence on this property with the character of that neighborhood. That's,
I guess, all I wanted to say.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else. Please just re-
state your name.
Ms. Cowan — I would like to see a copy of this, I mean, I don't know. I will have to
tell you that we were very naive when we bought this property. We were
unrepresentative by council. Mr. Henry and his wife are both real estate lawyers.
Admittedly, we should know what we signed. I have looked at my deed, it's not in
the deed, it is on a contract, but I would like to explain a couple of other factors.
When I was told by the real estate agent, in the presence of the Henry's that this
lot was un-buildable. That I did not have to worry, we did not have to be
concerned with it because people have tried to seek variance two or three times
before and had always been turned down. We just accepted this. Recently, when
all this has come up, what I found was that no one has ever tried to seek a
variance before and that this was really an untruth. I also asked Mr. Henry at the
time and his wife, we wanted Right of First Refusal before we bought the
property. He said, and I know again this seems very naive to believe this, as a
lawyer he said that that was too complicated to write into contract, "but you have
our word that we will approach you first before we attempt to sell the property."
So we took that in good faith and we did not have that looked at and we did not
ask for any language to be put in and we have not been offered this right or even
knew anything about this. I know that there are several people in the
neighborhood who were not approached, who would have been interested in this,
that might be irrelevant. This, truthfully, okay, we're here, I see my initials on it,
but I can tell you that I was not aware of that, not until tonight. I don't know if
there's anything legal that restrains me from having the feelings that I have, but
those are my feelings. My feelings of zoning, as I mentioned, is to protect the
citizen. We are uninformed or naive citizens. I don't know anything about the
zoning process, there is very little I knew about this until two weeks ago when
we started looking and copying relevant materials and trying to think of things to
say that would be meaningful to you according to codes. 27 feet on a road is not
a lot. This 27 feet on the setback is not a lot and you're basically cramming a
residence, shoehorning it behind another residence. I just don't think it really is in
character with our neighborhood or what we wish to do there and I would ask that
40
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
the Zoning Board protect its citizens from that kind of outside development.
Thank you.
Chairperson Sigel — Thank you.
Mr. Henry — I don't know what the broker told the Cowan's, but it was not in our
presence, no one said that this was an un-buildable lot. We put a clause in that
contract for exactly this situation, of applying for a variance for construction of a
residence and secondly, we did offer it to Cowan's. We had it for sale a couple of
years ago, we offered it to Cowan's and they said, at that time, they weren't in a
position to purchase it.
Chairperson Sigel — I assume all the people in the area were informed, I mean
anyone bordering this lot.
Mr. Henry — They were informed that it was for sale. It was listed with a real
estate broker.
Chairperson Sigel — Have you had a sign up at any point?
Mr. Henry — Yes, I'm sure the broker had the sign up before. We did not have a
sign up this time. Mr. Flatt actually approached me out of the blue and said
"Would you like to sell that lot?" I said "We were just talking about putting it on
the market again and this will save us a broker commission."
Inaudible voice from the audience
Mr. Henry — It was a couple of years ago.
Mr. Barney—We're not going to get into this.
Mr. Frost— You really should direct your conversation to the Board.
Chairperson Sigel — Did you have any other points to make? Anyone else wish to
speak.
Inaudible voice from the audience.
Mr. Dixon — Does it make any difference?
Chairperson Sigel — No, it doesn't really have any —
Mr. Henry —Would you like a copy of the contract?
Chairperson Sigel — I don't think it's really necessary. Anyone else wish to
speak?
41
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 9:17 p.m.
Chairperson Sigel — Yes you can say anything you'd like to say at this point.
Mr. Flatt— I'd like to rebut a few of the points that were made. I looked at that lot
in the very beginning for the specific reason of the size of it and the shape of it.
Number one, I've built a lot of houses and I think that my houses have been
viewed by the neighbors as assets. The main portion of that lot is so far back
from the road that I believe that it would be impossible to see the house that I am
going to build. In that regard, we have to look at who can see it at all and I
believe the Cowan household is the only household that would actually be able to
see it. Say, maybe somebody over on the other side of the block looking across
the valley where the creek is. I went to the Cowan's and made them an offer that
I think rarely you would see somebody make and I went to the Hartmans and
made them an offer about the driveway, which we talked about before. The offer I
made to the Cowan's is to meet with them in person and have them help me pick
a location on the lot for the house that they would feel would have the least
impact and, if there was any chance of doing that, to keep the situation of their
view similar to what they have now, I told them that I would voluntarily buy semi-
mature 15 foot, was mentioned, pine trees from the nursery, at $150 a whack,
and I would put a row of those in between the sight line of their house to this
house and in the process of having that meeting with them, and they seemed fine
with that, but in the process of having that meeting with them, Mrs. Cowan did
show an interest in me positioning the house a certain way where the end would
only show to them rather than the broad side and would I put the garage on the
opposite end of the house so that they wouldn't have to see that. I said, well, I'm
here to try to please you folks to try to make it a nice situation. In the course of
the conversation, I brought up something that I feel is very important here tonight.
These faces in front of me may change in four or five years and some of the
neighbors may change in four or five years, but the ones that are left may not like
who comes next and what they build next. I'm trying to give them a chance to
give me their advice and their likes and dislikes and I feel that, actually, that's a
pretty good deal in a situation like this. In closing I'd like to say to the folks that
don't like the traffic, I imagine, from my experience on Hanshaw Road, that this
would be about 1/10,000 of the number of cars going up and down that street so
nobody, even with a computer is going to be able to figure out a difference of
percentage of increase of traffic that this house is going to add. The variance that
I'm asking for to build two sides equal, I thought was going to make the
neighbors happy. Okay, 3,000 square feet, with 1,500 on a side and three
bedrooms, that's six bedrooms. How about I go a 2,500 square foot hose on one
side and 1,250 on the other. I could wind up thinning the ratio out, but it's not
going to be as nice as what I am proposing for them. So, when you start looking
at it in that respect, 100 percent, 50 percent situation could backfire and these
folks could be shooting themselves in the foot and when you look at it that way,
I'm not saying I would do that, but somebody else could come along later and
42
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
certainly do that and wind up with six bedrooms. It's how you cut the cake. I'm
looking at making it a single house and I don't feel that the house that I have a
820 is out of character with what's there. You have a lot of 1.7 plus acres that,
gee when they came to the neighborhood, did they all say, "maybe we should get
together and make a park out of it." Or "maybe we should come and lobby to the
Town to buy it and make a park out of it because we don't' want to see one more
house on the street." That whole area is parceled up with lots and you have one
left, so is this "Gee, we should make sure that is never built on because it's the
last lot on the street." It is a big lot, let's face it, it's huge. I'm talking about one
house that will be very small in comparison to the lot lines. So the words "shoe-
horning" I can't see a house being shoe-horned into 1.7 acres unless it's the
Trump Mansion.
Chairperson Sigel — Thank you.
Mr. Barney — Can I ask a couple of questions? If the Board were to approve this,
is it possible that you could observe somewhat larger than the ordinance required
setbacks from the adjoining properties?
Mr. Flatt—Well, I think we're over 100 feet from the folks on the east and I've
offered the input-
Mr. Barney—What about the people on the south?
Mr. Flatt— On the south side are the Cowan's and I've offered to have them give
me their input.
Mr. Barney— Giving input, that sort of stuff, I don't want to knock it, but from this
Board's standpoint—
Mr. Flatt— Excuse me sir. I made the offer to put things in writing for them this
afternoon.
Mr. Barney—What you worked out with your neighbors is fine, I think that's great,
but, I think, from this Board's standpoint, some of the questions I would have, if I
were sitting making a possible decisions is how far back from the Cowan's house
can you comfortably locate the house to minimize it's impact.
Mr. Flatt—Well, I think realistically, footage is not the situation here, it's the
visible barrier.
Mr. Barney— Can I ask you to answer my question, how far back from the
boundary line do you think you can put the house?
Mr. Flatt—Well, it's going to be at least 50 feet, maybe 75 is where we decided
today would be a good place for it.
43
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Barney— You can do that without impinging on the sewer line?
Mr. Flatt— She showed me where her sewer line ran from her house across this
property to the main line and I already know where the main line is, so I am very
aware of where those two things are and they are no where near where I want to
put the house. I mean people are used to putting houses as you have it in your
regs, 15,000 square feet. This lot is five times plus 15,000 square feet.
Mr. Barney— But there are some constraints on where you can put a building,
given that.
Mr. Flatt— I don't view them as constraints simply because the size of the lot
gives me so much room to work with. I never felt there was a constraint on it.
Mr. Barney— So, if this Board were to grant a variance for the frontage issue, you
wouldn't have any objection if they put a limitation that said the house would be
at least 75 feet away from all of the adjoining parcels property lines?
Mr. Flatt— That's correct.
Chairperson Sigel — John, what would the situation be if this lot had been
properly subdivided back in '61, but had never received the variances for the
frontage?
Mr. Barney— I don't know how you could subdivide it without that.
Mr. Flatt— Can I ask a question? When was the —
Mr. Barney— This is now our time to be able to discuss without interruptions.
Chairperson Sigel — Or, you know, if, say it was subdivided, say the requirements
were different then? Then I assume it would have been grandfathered.
Mr. Frost— One of the things that, when we first started the dialogue with Mr.
Flatt about the lot was trying to determine the legality of the situation. Not, to say
that he did anything illegal, we just couldn't establish what we needed to
establish.
Chairperson Sigel —Any questions from you guys?
Mr. Flatt— That was the question that I was just getting ready to ask. What date
did the rules for road frontage come into play?
Mr. Barney— These frontage requirements have been in place since 1954 or
something similar to them.
44
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Frost—Very definitely before the 1960's. The ordinance, as we know it, was
pretty well established by this time.
Chairperson Sigel — So what happened? The subdivision was just filed with the
County as best as we can guess?
Mr. Barney—Apparently the Underwood property subdivision got filed some time
back in '61. This version of the map was filed in the Clerk's Office?
Inaudible speaking away from microphone
Mr. Barney— But the version that was filed in '61 or '62 was the one with the
updated certification. These things happen. Even today we have had a couple of
squabbles with the County over its accepting subdivisions without— they are
supposed to get a stamp of approval from the Chair of the Planning Board before
they accept them over there.
Mr. Flatt— I'd love to make one more point.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Flatt—As an outsider viewing this, it seems to me there was some rather
large oversight that didn't look like a large oversight at the time, but now it has
become a large oversight, that this thing wasn't properly handled back then.
Does this mean that Mr. Henry should be penalized and not be able to sell it to
Mr. Flatt, who, obviously like anybody else is going to want this approval to build
a house there prior to taking the lot. Which brings me back to what use is that
lot? It's 1.7 acres, it's a nice home site in the middle of home sites. So, just
because it was not taken care of way back then, obviously this bug would have
been worked out at the time of this road frontage thing. It just seems to me that it
would be unfair to penalize anybody owning a piece of land that size because of
a former oversight years back.
Chairperson Sigel —Well, the lot is deficient and so, it's not a given that the
subdivision would have been approved in '61.
Mr. Flatt— It was created deficient and the problem was that nobody wised up the
owner at that time that " Hey that's not going to be cool."
Mr. Barney—Wait a minute. You're putting the burden in the wrong place. It's not
the Town's responsibility to wise up owners. If anything, it's the owner's
responsibility to abide by the law.
Mr. Flatt— Oh, I didn't say that it was the Town.
45
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Barney— I don't know quite where you're going with that, but you've got a
problem today that you've go to deal with and I don't think that the Board is totally
unsympathetic with the situation. But, on the other hand, with all do respect to my
colleague, Mr. Henry, buyer beware. This property was apparently bought or
maybe even subdivided, I don't know, out at a time when there should have be a
subdivision approval done, that may not have gotten done. There's no obligation
of this Board to necessarily unwind the problem that's been created.
Mr. Barney— To alleviate a little bit of the impact of having a house there. It's
always a little interesting when you have these flag lots as to exactly what is the
front yard and what's the side yard for the purposes of applying the relevant
provision of the ordinance, but I don't think it would be an unreasonable condition
to impose, in these circumstances, just the side yard lot, 75 foot yard limit on all
four sides of the yard. Which is more than double.
Chairperson Sigel — So, Mr. Barney is suggesting a 75 foot setback from all lot
lines for the lot as a possible mitigation.
Mr. Dixon — It doesn't do it for me.
Chairperson Sigel — It doesn't do it for you regarding the 27 foot width at the
street issue or the 50 percent?
Mr. Dixon — It's the (inaudible)
Mr. Barney— You have done this probably six or seven times. I'm not going to
say you individually, but the Board has done it six or seven times over the last
several years, have permitted flag lots. This is a flag lot configuration, where the
lots where clearly adequate, they more than met the minimum size.
Chairperson Sigel — So, are you saying you are not comfortable imposing the 75
feet additional requirement? Or are you not comfortable approving?
Mr. Dixon - I'm not comfortable approving the whole thing.
Chairperson Sigel — John is correct. In the cases of most, if not all of the flag lots,
I'm not saying that this is necessarily similar to others, there have been others
that, I think, admittedly more rural areas where we've seen this. Probably not in
as dense an area as this, so there is a difference there.
John, how do you suggest we proceed? Andrew has indicated he's not in favor.
We could adjourn. We only have three out of the five members.
Mr. Frost— To have a positive vote, Scott, they've got to have all three people
because there are two members missing, so all three people have to vote in
favor for this to pass.
46
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Barney— Unfortunately, under a recent Court of Appeals decision, if it goes
to vote tonight and fails to pass, that is a denial. We used to take the position that
if you didn't get three votes one way or the other, it was not action until you could
get three votes. The Court of Appeals recently ruled that in the Board of Zoning
of Appeals, if the vote fails to garner three votes of a positive that it is a denial. In
fairness to you, I think you may want to, since we have only three members here
and you know how one member feels about it, you may want to have it
adjourned.
Mr. Flatt— I'll take the adjournment.
Chairperson Sigel — Harry, how are you inclined?
Mr. Ellsworth — I thought I read that the Planning Board approved the subdivision.
Chairperson Sigel — They did approve it.
Mr. Ellsworth — Conditional on our 27 foot?
Mr. Barney— Yes. Conditional on you granting the 27 foot variance.
Mr. Ellsworth —Well, the second part I have a problem with. The 100 percent.
Chairperson Sigel — Making the twin houses? How do you feel about the width at
the street and the width of the setback?
Mr. Ellsworth — 27 feet is pretty small, I think. We have, I think, approved
something similar.
Mr. Barney— You had a 15 footer in an R-30 zone two months ago. It's not
unheard of.
Chairperson Sigel — So would you suggest allowing the applicant to request and
adjournment.
Mr. Barney— I think if the applicant chooses to withdraw, request an adjournment
until we have a full Board, I think that probably in fairness. Again, it's up to you.
Chairperson Sigel — That seems fair to me.
Mr. Ellsworth — Several people suggested, I think, the individuals of this Board
need to go over and look at that lot before it comes up again. We've had two
different people mention that.
Chairperson Sigel — It couldn't hurt. Should we move to adjourn or should the
applicant request?
47
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
Mr. Barney— I think I just heard him say that he would like to do that.
Mr. Flatt— I'd like to request an adjournment and request that Mr. Frost
coordinate a tour or the lot with me present to explain how I would position the
house and build the driveway and as part of the tour, I would also request that we
stop several blocks down the street at the house I'm constructing to show the
building that I plan to put there.
Mr. Barney— I think the only problem with that is once you've coordinated people
with up to groups of three or more, we basically have what amounts to a meeting,
which requires, under the Open Meeting Law, to advertise it as such and invite
the public to attend. So, I think rather than that, if these folks want to go up and
take a look, they can do it on their own.
Chairperson Sigel — If you could just maybe, you could sketch where you intend
to put the house. I've been by the house that you have mentioned on Hanshaw
and seen that. It works better, as John said, actually if we can go individually,
rather than.
Mr. Flatt— I would maybe offer then to show each person, individually. I'd like the
opportunity to speak for myself as to where I want to put things and how it would
look.
Mr. Frost— Is that really appropriate? The basis of a Public Hearing is to conduct
a discussion in front of everybody.
Mr. Barney— It's not unreasonable for a Board to meet individually or collectively
to go view the property.
Mr. Frost— Yes, but with the appellant present?
Mr. Barney—Well, I think you could get into a problem with that, but if you want
to go and stake it out, that certainly would be okay. That way anybody could go
look at it.
Chairperson Sigel — So, do we need to make a motion?
Mr. Barney— I think it probably would be appropriate to make a motion to
adjourn.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 061: Scott Flatt, 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2, Residence District R-15
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth.
48
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
RESOLVED that this Board adjourns the appeal of Scott Flatt until the October
20, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon
NAYS: None
ABSENT. Krantz, Niefer
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Frost— So, for the audience's sake, obviously no decision was made. If you
come back to next month's meeting, this adjourned case will start up again.
The Public Hearing is close, I think, at this point, so it will just be more continued
discussion from the Board as to the wisdom of granting or denying the appeal.
Inaudible voice from the audience
Chairperson Sigel — They'll receive the minutes of the meeting, so they'll be able
to read everything that you said.
Mr. Barney— You have to decide if you want to re-advertise and start over again.
Chairperson Sigel — I'd prefer to just continue.
Mr. Frost— For those interested, you might want to call me sometime around
October 15th if you're interested to see if we are going to have a new public
hearing or just continue, but you're welcome to call me at my office.
Chairperson Sigel adjourned the September 15, 2003 meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 9:40 p.m.
Kirk Sigel, Chair
Lori Waring, Deputy Town Clerk
49