Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1998-05-13 FINAL • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1998 7:00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, May 139 1998, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following matters: APPEAL, of Lee W. Schruben, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a non- conforming building/lot at 869 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-25, Residence District R- 15 . Said enlargement consists of a modification to an existing single-family home with the addition of new first and second story space. Said building/lot is non-conforming, in part, as the house is currently over the south side yard property line ( 15 foot setback required) and 9 + feet from the north side lot line. A building height variance under Article IV, Section 11 , Subparagraph 6 of said ordinance may also be required as said proposal may approach a building height of approximately 48 ± feet (36 foot height limitation). APPEAL of Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, Ann Shumate, Agent, requesting a modification of a previously granted Special Approval from April 19, 1989, under Article III, Section 4, Subparagraph 3(b), of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to occupy graduate student housing units by persons of post graduate and graduate student age and above, who are short-term university affiliated visitors and participants, located at Maplewood Park, 201 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. • 63 -2- 1 , -2, -3 , - 10.2, and - 14, Residence District R-9. APPEAL of the Paleontological Research Institute, Appellant, Warren Allmon and Anton Egner, RA, Agents, requesting a modification of a previously granted Special Approval from February 12, 1997, under Article V. Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to alter site plans and floor plans in conjunction with a recent 6,000 ± square foot building addition at 1259 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-3 . 1 , Residence District R-30. Said modifications include interior wall partitions, handicap accessibility provisions, and automobile parking spaces. APPEAL of the Montessori School, Owner/Appellant, Andrea Riddle and Peter Dem 4anec, RA, Agents, requesting variances from Section 4.01 - 1 (a) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to have a 20 square foot freestanding sign at the main school building (4 square feet maximum allowed) and a 10.5 square foot freestanding sign at the annex building (4 square feet maximum allowed) at 120 and 117 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 43- 1 -3 .5 and 43-2-7, Residence District R- 15 . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m ., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273- 1783 Dated: May 59 1998 Publish: May 8, 1998 FINAL fovea o* ffMCA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I_ G ! � g �► WEDNESDAY , MAY 139 1998vc-d 7 : 00 P . M . The following appeals were heard the Board as follows : APPEAL of Lee W . Schruben , Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zooning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge a non - conforming building/lot at 869 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25-2 -25 , Residence District R- 15 . Said enlargement consists of a modification to an existing single-family home with the addition of new first and second story space . Said building/lot is non -conforming, in part, as the house is currently ovr the south side yard property line ( 15 foot setback required) and 9 + /- feet from the north side lot line . A building height variance under Article IV, Section 11 , Subparagraph 6 of said ordinance may also be required as said proposal may approach a building height of approximately 48 + /- feet (36 foot height limitation) . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL Fo Cornell University, Owner/Appellent, Ann Shumate , Agent, requesting a modificatio of a previously granted Special Approval from April 19 , 1989 , under Article III , Section 4, Subparagraph 3 (b) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to occupy graduate student housing units by persons of post graduate and graduate student age and above , who are short-term university affiliated visitors and participants , located at Maplewood Park, 201 Maple Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 63 -2 - 1 , -20 - 39 - 10 . 2 , and - 14 , Residence District R-9 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of the Paleontological Research Institute , Appellant, Warren Allmon and Anton Egner, RA, Agents , requesting a modification of a previously granted Special Approval from February 12 , 1997 , under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to alter site plans and floor plans in conjunction with a recent 6 , 000 + /- square foot building additiion at 1259 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24-3 -3 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 . Said modifications include interior wall partitions , handicap accessibility provisions , and automobile parking spaces . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of the Montessori School , Owner/Appellant, Andrea Riddle and Peter Demjanec, RA, Agents , requesting variances from Section 4. 01 (a) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , to be permitted to have a 20 square foot freestanding sign at the main school building (4 Square feet maximum allowed) and a 10 . 5 square foot freestanding sign at the annex building (4 square feet maximum allowed) at 120 and 117 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 43 - 1 - 3 . 5 and 43 -2 -7 , Residence District R- 15 . (Main Building) APPEAL GRANTED (Annex) APPEAL DENIED ANAL low a MIM � Iglq �_ • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �� WEDNESDAY , MAY 13 , 1998 7 : 00 P . M . PRESENT : Chairman David Stotz, Harry Ellsworth , Ronald Krantz , James Niefer , Kirk Sigel , Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning, John Barney, Attorney of the Town , Christine Balestra , Planner. OTHERS : Ann Shumate , Shirley Egan , Anton Agner, Joseph Westbrook, Lee Schruben , Donna Schruben , Mark Ladd , Warren Allmon , Male Signature Unidentifiable . Chairman David Stotz called the meeting to order at 7 ; 06 p . m . , stating that all posting, publication , and notification of the public hearing had been completed and the same were in order. Chairman Stotz introduced Carrie L . Coates as the new Minutes Secretary. The first appeal to be heard by the board was as follows ; APPEAL of Lee W . Schruben , Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building/lot at 869 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 -2 -25 , Residence District R- 15 . Said enlargement consists of a modification to an existing single -family home with the addition of new first and second story space . Said building/lot is non-conforming, in part, as the house is currently over the south side • yard property line ( 15 foot setback required) and 9 + /- feet from the north side lot line . A building height variance under Article IV, Section 11 , Subparagraph 6 of said ordinance may also be required as said proposal may approach a building height of approximately 48 + /- feet (36 foot height limitation) . Mr. Ellsworth asked the Schrubens what the height of the roof would be . Donna Schruben , 869 Taughannock Boulevard , responded the roof was going to be thirty-four feet, the deck would be fourteen feet, for a total of forty feet in height. Lee Schruben , 869 Taughannock Boulevard , present photographs of the house to the board . He explained from the lakeside , longest corner is the thirteen foot corner which is the front, right post facing from the lake . The other side of the house is below grade . Mr. Ellsworth asked if he had talked to his neighbor on the creek side . Mr. Schruben replied after the last meeting they had a conversation with his creek side neighbor, and also talked to his other neighbors . Mr. Ellsworth asked Director of Building and Zoning Frost if the height of the roof and the concerns of the neighbors were the only two issues . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated there was another issue of the enlargement in the southerly • direction of the building, but the plan has changed as seen in the sketches provided . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 2 Mr. Schruben stated the deck was staying within the current deck boundary with the exception of a post in the corner. He presented the sketch of the post which was not in the boundary. Mr. Ellsworth stated the foot prints were going to stay the same . Mr. Schruben stated before the foot print was extended two or three feet to the other side . Chairman Stotz stated what he saw from the plan was the second story addition was going to stay in bounds of the first floor. It is not going to extend out over the deck. Mrs . Schruben stated it would be built on the deck. Mr. Schruben stated on the third page there was a stairway within the deck. A foundation will be built underneath the current deck on the far north side , for the stairway. Chairman Stotz stated the pitch on the roof was quite steep , and asked if it was for additional living space . Mr. Schruben responded it was a fourteen twelve pitch . He stated with the pitched roof the house looked better. The pitched roof also helped in the maintenance of the roof. Mr. Schruben stated the roofs were nearly flat. The leaves build up , causing them to have to shovel . It also had resulted in the Schrubens replacing the roof a • couple of times . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the pitch was making the height. Mr. Schruben said the pitch and the aesthetics . Chairman Stotz asked what Mr. Schruben envisioned people would see from Taughannock Boulevard . Mr. Schruben stated the house was seventy feet below the road level . He explained the reason they did not have their plans at the last meeting was because the architects canceled their meeting for that morning. The architects called the height into them , and it was not exact enough . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated in the original plans the building was moving in a southerly direction . The Town of Ithaca had a concern about the building encroaching on the neighboring property. Mr. Schruben stated he wanted to be able to retain the ability to sell the property to the south . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated since the last meeting, the Schrubens have made an attempt to compromise the project somewhat from the original plans . Mr. Ellsworth asked if there were any problems with his neighbors . i TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 3 Mr. Schruben stated he has talked to his neighbors and they would love to see the property values increase . His neighbor to the south was present and could speak for himself. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing, and asked if anyone from the public wished to be heard . Mark Ladd , 871 Taughannock Road , stated his wife owned the property south of the Schrubens . His only concerns about the project are the creek side that runs between the properties . Mr. Ladd presented photographs of the creek, but was referred to as a drainage ditch . He stated his yard is directly below the creek and deposits into his yard . The concern is silt, construction , and anything that falls over the bank of the construction site will fall into the creek and falls onto his property. There is a beam which lays across the creek to make a wall . The wall does not look stable and he presented and explained pictures of the creek. Mr. Ellsworth asked if it was a railroad tie bank. Mr. Ladd responded it was a railroad tie bank, and has been present a long time . Chairman Stotz asked what Mr. Ladd 's specific concerns were . Mr. Ladd replied the silt, or anything that could fall into the creek from the construction . • Mr. Ellsworth stated the structure was straddling the existing structure . He asked if only footers would be constructed on that side . Mr. Schruben answered the deck would actually be three feet within the current deck. He stated a footer and a post would be present. Mr. Ladd stated he was not opposed to the Schrubens building, he is just concerned the ditch is maintained . Chairman Stotz stated Mr. Ladd was concerned with silt during construction . His other concern about any way the flow of the creek would divert, and flow onto his property. Mr. Schruben stated there was a recommendation for a erosion and sediment control plan because it is a steep slope . Mr. Ellsworth stated if there was a problem of sediment and construction waste falling onto Mr. Ladd 's property, Mr. Ladd should call Director of Building and Zoning Frost. Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the plan must be approved by the Town Engineer. • I • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 4 Chairman Stotz asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. With no one present to be hear, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Chairman Stotz asked if there was a discussion of the Environmental Impact. Planner Balestra stated the staff did have some concerns with erosion and sediment control . She would like to state for the record the Planning Department from a long range land use planning perspective , the Planning Department does not support the continuation of development and the granting of variances along Taughannock Boulevard . It is stated in the Comprehensive Plan , Taughannock Boulevard is an area to be preserved for esthetic beauty and character. Taughannock Boulevard has changed significantly since then . It is stated in the EAF . The Planning Staff feels it needs to be dealt with on a larger scale . Chairman Stotz asked if there was any consideration given to view shed from the lake . Planner Balestra stated from the pictures the applicant provided , it is clearly shown how the view shed is broken up by development of large houses . These are houses which need variances for height and area . As a result of all the variances which have been granted , the view shed is significantly being changed along with the character of the area. • Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the twelve years he had been with Town , he thinks they have only issued a couple of variances for height along the lake . Planner Balestra stated the Planning Staff was currently studying the issues of Taughannock Boulevard and the development. They are reviewing the past files . Mr. Schruben stated he and his wife were proud of the fact they have left the trees around their property. Unfortunately, it is unusual around the lake and there is no intent of cutting trees down . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Neifer. RESOLVED , the board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Lee and Donna Schruben , requesting a special approval at 869 Taughannock Boulevard , Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25-2-5 , Residence District R- 15 , to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building/lot. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS - None . ABSTENTION - Stotz . • The motion was carried . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 5 MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED , that this board grant the appeal of Lee Schruben , requesting a special approval from Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , at 869 Taughannock Boulevard , Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 5 , Residence District R- 15 , be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building to add a second story. The building lot is non-conforming as the house is currently over the south property line , and applicants own the lot on the side which the house is over the property line . There is a fifteen foot set back required , and the building is nine feet from the north side south line . The special approval would allow a building height that will be approximately forty- nine feet, where as thirty-six feet is the height limitation based on the following findings : I . The finding are in keeping with Article XIV, Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraphs a-h of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and 2 . That a recommendation be made to the Planning Department for sedimentation control . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS - None . ABSTENTION - Stotz. The motion was carried . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED , this board grant the appeal of Lee Schruben that a building height variance , Article IV, Section 11 , Sub- paragraph 6 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the construction of a house to a height no more than 49 feet, at 869 Taughannock Boulevard , Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 5 , Residence District R- 15 based on the findings : I . It is not out of character with the rest of the homes in the area, 2 . The applicant owns the property immediately adjacent to the south , and 3 . Denying the variance is a greater detriment to the community than granting the variance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : • AYES - Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS - None . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS • APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 6 ABSTENTION - Stotz. The motion was carried . The second appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, Ann Shumate , Agent, requesting a modification of a previously granted Special Approval from April 19 , 1989 , under Article III , Section 4 , Subparagraph 3 (b) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to occupy graduate student housing units by persons of post graduate and graduate student age and above , who are short-term university affiliated visitors and participants , located at Maplewood Park, 201 Maple Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 63 -2 - 1 , -2 , -3 , - 10 . 2 , and - 14, Residence District R-9 . Ann Shumate , Associate Director of Campus Life , stated the Maplewood Apartments were built about ten years ago to replace the Cornell Quarters . This is a residential community for single graduate students and graduate student families , with domestic units . Cornell has some vacancies there , Maplewood has not been totally occupied . The number of vacancies varies from time to time . Cornell has recently has been experiencing some reduction in the number of enrolled graduate students , particularly international graduate students . The University has a need for some short term housing. It is an increasing need for people who come to the OUniversity for short periods of time to either join a research project, take a special course , affiliate internship , or consult with faculty. These are not people who stay at Cornell for only a few days , or a week, they are at Cornell for several weeks , a month , six weeks , or even several months . Cornell has great difficulty finding furnished housing for their guest. There are vacancies in Maplewood and Cornell would like to incorporate these people into the Maplewood Community. Maplewood would still be a priority for housing graduate students and their families . Cornell would be able to make these vacant units available . Cornell is asking for a modification of the restriction of graduate students and their families only. Chairman Stotz stated the matter had been brought before the Planning Board on May 5 , 1998 . The last page has recommendations by the Planning Board to the Zoning Board . Attorney Barney stated the resolution stated it be Alimited to persons twenty-one years of age or older, temporarily affiliated with the University as visiting researchers , academic fellows , faculty, scholars , or other similar academic or professional association and their families . Mr. Ellsworth asked if these people were currently present at Maplewood . Ms . Shumate stated there was a restriction . Mr. Ellsworth asked Ms. Shumate what the restriction was . 0 • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 7 Ms . Shumate responded the restriction is for graduate students and their families only. Cornell is asking for modification of the restriction . Chairman Stotz stated a faculty member was considered an employee . So Cornell would be providing temporary employee housing. Ms . Shumate replied the people might be employed , and then they might not be . A visiting faculty person would not necessarily be an employee . Chairman Stotz asked if the modification would be for visiting faculty only. Ms . Shumate stated it would only be short term . Chairman Stotz asked about faculty that would be short term or paid by the University. Ms . Shumate said they might possibly consider it. Mr. Ellsworth asked what the definition of short term was , less than a year. Ms . Shumate stated people who come to Cornell for a significant period of time , find some kind of housing. *It is very difficult to find space for six weeks , two or three months . Board Member Kenerson stated he would hate to see the University find a young protjg) and would not have a place for them to stay because they are under age . Attorney Barney stated Cornell had other space for undergraduates . Chairman Stotz asked if Cornell had a faculty member arrive and is looking for a place to live in the community, would be eligible to live in the Maplewood Community . Ms . Shumate stated Cornell would consider that. Attorney Barney stated that in 1989 Cornell originally applied to get an approval to build these neighborhood housing, under the representation the students would be graduate students . There were neighborhood meetings and discussions , the neighbors were not enamored with the construction of any buildings , but were alleviated at some part, by the assurance the apartments would be limited to graduate students . Unfortunately, Cornell , once they got into it, discovered they could not fill the apartments with graduate students . Cornell asked for an elimination of the restriction . The Board denied the request because of the concerns . It has been that way since 1989 . The Planning Board was sympathetic with the plight Cornell found himself in , and at the same time wanted to maintain the integrity of the apartments . The Planning Board was not prepared to remove the restriction entirely. This was olanguage negotiated at the Planning Board meeting to prevent the removal of the restriction entirely. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE S Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated they have not had any complaints since the project started . Ms . Shumate stated Cornell did not have any desire to allow undergraduate students to live in the Maplewood Apartments . James Niefer asked if it was faculty, spouses and their children also. Mr. Ellsworth stated he walked through the area regularly, and there are playgrounds and parks for families and children . James Niefer asked if this classification of people presently looked for housing in the private sector in the community. It is an increasing problem . The department who is responsible for housing their guest, it is very problematic and often stay at a faculty's home . Generally, they do not take commercial space . James Niefer asked if the Maplewood Apartments were on the Tompkins County Tax Roll . Ms . Shumate stated it was not, the apartments were University property. James Niefer asked if the time this facility was built, was an assessment of the need of housing units and if the .construction was based on the assessment. Ms . Shumate stated Cornell did as best as they could at the time . Chairman Stotz stated some of the things he was concerned about was the fact that there was an unacceptable rate in the apartments . There will be an increase in temptation to expand the use of the facility to include other people outside of the limits specified . Cornell 's role is not to play community wide landlord and make property available even to people affiliated with the University under certain conditions . There are facilities and landlords which can provide that service . What he is particularly concerned about is visiting faculty often turn into permanent faculty. Faculty will arrive on campus and not have a place , build a house , or look for property to build a house , and two years later, the house is ready. In the meantime , instead of trying to find an apartment, Cornell make the space available to them . He would not like to see that happen . Ms . Shumate stated Cornell would not like to see that happen either. Cornell was looking at being able to maintain this as a priority graduate student area . They would not be interested in signing any kind of long term contracts with some one . Cornell would want the space available for graduate students if they wanted the space . They would not be looking for the kind of situation that was going to be long, it would be very short. Chairman Stotz asked how long short would be . Ms . Shumate stated she did not want to give a definite period of time . • Chairman Stotz asked in what range of time . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 9 Mr. Ellsworth asked what period of time the contract asked for. Ms . Shumate stated Cornell does not have a contract for these people at the present moment. They would have to develop a contract. For graduate students , it is either nine months or twelve depending on their situation . One of the things that happen in graduate , aside from the fact there are vacancies , graduate students lives are not as ordered as undergraduate . They finish their dissertation in the middle of September and gone in October. That would be a space which could be used because graduate students rarely arrive at that time . Chairman Stotz asked if there was an idea of a maximum time limit some one could stay at Maplewood . Ms . Shumate stated a semester, may be two , depending on why they were at the University. Cornell has no interest in proving long term housing for people while they settle themselves into the community. They are looking for a group of people who are at Cornell for a special purpose for some period of time . Cornell could under some circumstances , have some one for one month while they find an apartment. Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated that if you look at the land use in the area, there are a variety of apartments available , many stores and businesses . There is only a small corner of the area that has single family or two family residence . Mr. Ellsworth stated some people may be working as a researcher as they are finishing their degree , meaning they are not full time students . What he is thinking of is a year and a half. The reason is a lot of a time the person does not know when they will be finished . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated some times graduate students are present for a number of years . Mr. Krantz stated he did not have a problem with the graduate student use . He sees it as an expansion of the original intent. It encompasses a whole new classification of people may stay, and it takes them out of the current housing market. In the situation of an oversupply of units which was created by the University, they did not make an accurate forecast of the needs . In some extent Cornell created their own hardships . Shirly Egan , Cornell University Counsel , stated she was involved in the first application . She would like to say that no prediction is accurate until after it is over, then you have found out if you were accurate . Ms . Egan pointed out the University did study the market and in the intervening years since that time a lot of quality housing has come onto the market. It was not Cornell 's fault more housing came onto the market. Most people looking for housing are actually gratified because it did get rid of some sub-standard housing. Cornell had a lawyer from the National Science come to her office , for a short period of time . The period of time was too short to rent an apartment, but too long to have her be a house guest. Many people who come in this situation are from foreign countries . They do not have driver's license , and do not know how to do many of the things required in having an apartment. To be able to have a librarian coming in from Indonesia and say here is this place , with shopping set up , and they go to directly to the office . It is a great relief to the department who otherwise has to struggle with how are we going to help them . When they stay at a place like Maplewood Apartments , they are staying with a lot of people who have already been in their situation , and it is a very compatible situation . It is not Cornell 's desire for anyone who is in a • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 10 regular track of things , and it will take them a year, they will get an apartment. Cornell is talking about some one for a much more period of time . Chairman Stotz asked what the time frame Ms . Egan envisioned between being a house guest and finding an apartment. Ms . Egan stated she could not say, it was really up to her clients . In this case , the clients are actually small departments and otherwise their secretary trying to find some place for the person to stay. Mr. Ellsworth stated they are trying to pin point a time period and are receiving a number of varied answered . Ms . Egan responded it was because there were varied answers . Mr. Ellsworth stated he thought they needed to decide if they were talking about graduate students , students in a program , or transients that are just coming for a few weeks . Ms . Shumate stated if their graduate students and in a program , it is already taken care of. What Cornell is talking about is modifying it to the extent to be able to take people who are compatible with , who are here for • special reasons . Most of them are here for a limited time . Kirk Sigel asked if Cornell had any present facilities they could use for these purposes . Ms . Shumate stated Cornell there were a couple of places . Mr. Ellsworth stated at the Law School there was . Ms . Shumate answered the rooms had been converted into offices . Ms . Egan stated those facilities were used for guests of the Law School . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the area used to be called Vetsburgh . It was used like a military camp . Ms . Shumate wanted to reiterate that Cornell has a big investment in Maplewood as a residential community, not just as a group of housing. They have no intention of jeopardizing the program they have set up for the housing facility. Mr. Niefer asked what the percentage of hardship was . • Ms . Shumate stated she was unaware what the vacancy of Maplewood Apartments . . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 11 Mr. Ellsworth stated Cornell was trying to prove a hardship case . Ms . Egan stated it was not a use variance . This is a use which is allowed with a permit in this zone . It is merely a modification of the special permit. Cornell does not have to prove hardship . Attorney Barney stated technically it was correct in a sense that they do not have to show an economic hardship . In terms if the board chooses to grant the variance or not, it is nice to have a little evidence suggesting why the modification needed to be made . Mr. Niefer stated Cornell was saying there was a unique quality of this development to serve the need for people who need short term housing. What he is hearing is not just a vacancy issue , it is to provide a service . Attorney Barney stated the justification that has been given for it is Maplewood can not be filled with graduate students . Ms . Shumate responded in saying if Maplewood did not have the vacancies , Cornell University would not consider removing graduate students to solve this problem . There are vacancies , and the University does have a problem , they serve each other. 0 Attorney Barney stated he would like to know the magnitude of the modification Cornell University is looking for. Would there be three or three hundred people in need . Ms . Shumate stated the numbers were not looked at. Chairman Stotz asked what the vacancy rate was for a year. Ms . Shumate stated there were about four hundred spaces , and twenty or twenty-five vacant spaces . Attorney Barney stated there was a provision on special approvals in consideration of the affect on the community. He assumes one portion of that community is the economic community, and is wondering what affect this has on those people in the community that presently gain their livelihood from providing short term housing. For example , Fairview Heights regularly advertises for short term housing. He wonders what will happen when Cornell enters the short term market as a nonprofit, and if the rental rates will be competitive with other facilities . Ms . Shumate stated she had a hard time imagining Cornell competing with Fairview Heights . She knows people who have been looking for housing and are unable to find these places in the community. The housing is not available for six weeks or a month . Attorney Barney stated the old argument about Cornell and its non- profit status competing with segments of the community that are not non-profit keeps coming up . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 12 Ms . Egan replied that on his first point she is the person who sees all the leases that the Cornell University signs . These would be leases , and stresses Ms . Shumate will not be signing up individuals , but departments . She sees all University leases and also sees Fairview Heights leases . Fairview Heights has about three to four short term leases a year, and run about four months . Cornell University has used Fairview Heights for short term housing, but there is more of a need than provided . Another item Ms . Egan wished to stress was she views it is Cornell 's legal right to be able to take care of people who come on University business , whether it be in Maplewood or not. Cornell is not offering to start doing taxes and housing for faculty members , it is not legal to do so . It will be an agreement between a certain department and Residence Life , and the department is paying for the housing, not the individual . If there was a response from someone in the community to provide short term housing, may be the need would have been filled , but it has not been filled . She does not feel Cornell University is doing anything wrong or improper, these are people coming for a University purpose . Chairman Stotz asked if any of the classes of people listed were paid by the University. Ms . Egan stated she did not want to rule it out. Their understanding of the need they have seen is that for the most part they are not Cornell University employees . They are sent to Cornell by their governments or their home universities , all expense paid . Cornell is acting as their host, and might contribute something to their expenses because they are helping Cornell . It is not one way knowledge . Chairman Stotz asked if they received a pay check where deductions of Social Security, and taxes as employees would . Ms . Egan responded if they ever were a Cornell University employee they would . Chairman Stotz stated that no person would be living in Maplewood who would be paid by the University as an employee . Ms . Egan stated she did not say that. She said she could not rule it out but her understanding is the majority are employed full time some place else . Chairman Stotz asked if there might be an isolated incidence where Cornell is providing housing for an employee . Ms . Egan replied in the very strict legal sense on a very short term , as a temporary employee because it was the only way for the person to come to Cornell , and is certainly in the minority. Ms . Shumate stated the University has many different ways to negotiate its affiliations with people . They are not talking about an every day permanent employee . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the final analysis this is not different from Cornell people going to •different institutions . It offers a unique housing situation for foreign people who are not familiar with the country, and offers some piece of mind for the individual . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 13 Chairman Stotz stated it provides an opportunity who are taking jobs advertised as three or six months duration to find housing. He said there are numerous job offerings at Cornell that are specified for a specific period of time . What he concerned about is it might evolve into providing housing for temporary employees and wanted to know if they would make a judgment about who it was . Ms . Shumate stated they would make some judgment about the fact they are at Cornell University as part of the educational program at the University. She is unaware of anyone who has taken a full time regular permanent position for three months . Cornell University is looking at the situation as a mutually beneficial issue in the community also. Attorney Barney asked if there would be a problem placing a time limit on how long a person could occupy a space at Maplewood . Ms . Shumate stated that all limits were a problem and it is hard to speak to that. Cornell would prefer not to have a limit because it would limit how Cornell University was able to serve . Attorney Barney stated he understood where Chairman Stotz was coming from . He was looking at a time limit so Cornell University would not be competition for landlords . Attorney Barney stated most people stay about four months , and to make it a six month limit. It would be with the understanding if some one were to stay for more than six months , they would look on the market. Ms . Egan stated nine or ten months was the shortest lease some one would be able to find . Attorney Barney stated his problem was every time an issue is raised , Cornell comes up with an exception . The Board is trying to look at a reasonable basis to go on , and six months sounds like a reasonable time frame . Ms . Shumate stated the time on stays varies , she has heard of people who were at Cornell University for more than six months but no more than a year. Mr. Ellsworth stated he was for the special approval , but there would need to be a time limit. He could give three or four other reasons why the whole picture was going to change . Number one there are people who make a living out of helping these people get settled . There are people who find them cars and everything else . Number two there are going to be three or four large apartment buildings built in college town this year which will change the housing picture more than what has happened already. What he is trying to project is it might have a chance of passing if there is a time limit. Mr. Niefer stated there was no specification as to the number of housing units that are subject to this . The way the resolution is , there is a blank check for the whole complex. As things change , there may be a total vacancy, so it is changed into subsidized housing. May be there should be a limit on the number of housing units . • Ms . Shumate stated they would agree to a six months time limit. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 14 Chairman Stotz asked if twenty percent would be a good limit on the housing available . Mr. Ellsworth stated the reason Cornell University was here was because they built new buildings and part of them are vacant. What amazes him about Cornell University is they do not know the vacancy rate , and are not sure how many calls are received about housing. Chairman Stotz stated things have a way of evolving if there are enough loop holes to make additional accommodations . His concern was what the Board said could be involved into something else further down the road . Chairman Stotz asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. With no one present to be hear, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Chairman Stotz asked if there was a discussion of the Environmental Impact. He stated the memo from Assistant Town Planner Frantz on April 28 , 1998 pointed out the restriction of housing of graduates and their families was one imposed the Zoning Board of Appeals in April of 1989 , so it becomes a Zoning Board of Appeals matter to deal with rather than the Planning Board . Al the Planning Board is doing is making a recommendation . Planner Balestra stated the Planning Department did not find any adverse impacts associated with thisro'ect. P 1 Chairman Stotz asked if there was any discussion about the Environmental Assessment. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Kirk Sigel . RESOLVED , that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance to Cornell University located at Maplewood Park, 201 Maple Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 63 -2- 1 , -31 - 10 . 2 , and - 14 , Residence District R-9 , based upon the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz , Sigel . NAYS - None . ABSTENTION - Niefer. The motion was carried . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that paragraph four of the approval of this board granted April 19 , 1989 to Cornell University for Maplewood Apartments be modified as follows : • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 15 is That this project be restricted to housing for graduate students and their families and 2 , other persons , twenty-one years of age or older, temporarily affiliated with Cornell University as visiting researchers , academic fellows , visiting faculty, scholars or other similar academic or professional associations and their families , who occupy the apartments in the project for no longer than six months . No more that twenty percent of the apartments in the project shall be occupied by such persons . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Sigel . NAYS - None . ABSTENTION - Niefer. The motion was carried . The third appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of the Paleontological Research Institute , Appellant, Warren Allmon and Anton Egner, RA, Agents , . requesting a modification of a previously granted Special Approval from February 12 , 1997 , under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to alter site plans and floor plans in conjunction with a recent 6 , 000 + /- square foot building addition at 1259 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 3 - 3 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 . Said modifications include interior wall partitions , handicap accessibility provisions , and automobile parking spaces . Anton Egner, 205 Elmwood Avenue , stated he was the architect for the storage building. What they have been doing is building the storage building over the past year and every other Saturday there is a public access to the building. They still do not have enough money to do the compacted storage program the new building is programmed for. He stated they would like to do a number of things . One make the building accessible for handicap . In the past people in wheel chairs were unable to get beyond the front entrance . They are also proposing to do is to take the upstairs , which was designed for compacted storage , but intend to build one very secure storage in one room . Cornell is donating storage cabins which will be put in the room for specimens . The other room would have the similar type of cabins . What they would like to do as part of the program of showing people what they do on Saturdays , not only the collections , but what the curator does in her laboratory. They are trying to straighten out the existing driveway and parking lot, increase the parking up to ten cars and provide a handicap parking space . Also add a sidewalk with handicap access to the north end of the building, so that will be the entrance used by people on Saturdays . A handicap bathroom is also being put in where the existing bathroom is . Using diagrams , Mr. Egner explained where all the modifications would be . They are planning to improve the drainage where the ten car parking lot will be . Mr. Egner presented the •detail of the new drainage on diagram 4L2 . The drainage will then come down the hill side . A drainage pipe in the TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 16 back of the curb and draining it to the existing drain inlet. They have improved the drainage over the last few weeks because the drainage pipe collapsed , and was replaced . Mr. Egner described the inside modifications of the new building with diagrams . The new floor is one and a half inches below the existing floor so that the tracks may be put in and put a topping on it. With the diagrams he showed the ramp and a rail , the secure storage area, the storage area , and the display where people can come in and see the curator at work. At this particular time he pointed out where the sink was . The University of Rochester offered them enough laboratory benches to do so, and the sink will be put in if a sink is given to them . On the last sheet is the detailing on how the petitions will go in . They are presently under revision and trying to be simplified due to trying to reduce cost. They had a successful Trustee meeting and came up with some extra costs to do so. Another gift may come in by May 29 , 1998 that will allow them to complete more of the project. They are not changing the concept of the building , they are changing the use of the building. Chairman Stotz stated they were basically moving partitions from what was originally planned and re- designating the use of certain spaces . Mr. Egner replied he was correct. He stated it was storage , they just did not have the money for the compactors on the upper so cabinets Cornell donated will be used . Mr. Egner explained the north end would be regraded so the side walk would come up from the curb and the other side walk would wind around . In the process , it also includes the drainage up to the building. Chairman Stotz asked if the side of the building of the new addition will have a facing put on it. Mr. Egner stated they started out to build a block building and the block building would have a stucco finish eventually, that was budgetary. When they went to the State Historical Committee , they said to use fractured block on the face side , it makes it look more like the existing building. In doing that process , they insulated the block inside rather than outside . The rest of the building would have been done in fractured block if they had had the money. The bare side is the future they are still looking at. Chairman Stotz asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. With no one present to be hear, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Planner Balestra stated Sue Ritter, Environmental Planner, prepared the EAR Basically the only environmental issues associated with this project was the drainage . It appears the drainage issue will be addressed . Chairman Stotz stated what the project was asking for was positive . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 17 Planner Balestra stated there were no other environmental concerns and recommends a negative determination . MOTION made by made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Kirk Sigel . RESOLVED , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance to the Paleontological Research Institute , at 1259 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 3 - 3 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 , based upon the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. MOTION Ronald Krantz , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that this board grant in the Special Approval to PRI , requesting the modification of a previous . grant, located at 1259 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3 -3 . 1 , Residence District R-30 , to allow them to alter their site and the floor plans according to the drawings submitted . This includes additional parking spaces , handicap accessibility provisions and re-grading. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Sigel . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The fourth appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of the Montessori School , Owner/Appellant, Andrea Riddle and Peter Demjanec , RA, Agents , requesting variances from Section 4. 01 (a) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , to be permitted to have a 20 square foot freestanding sign at the main school building (4 Square feet maximum allowed) and a 10 . 5 square foot freestanding sign at the annex building (4 square feet maximum allowed) at 120 and 117 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 43 - 1 - 3 . 5 and 43 -2 - 7 , Residence District R- 15 . Joseph Westbrook, Associate at Demjanec and Associates Architects , 1796 Slaterville Road . Mr. Westbrook showed photographs of the signs they wished to erect. He stated East King Road was outside of the city, and there is a certain spaciousness . Mr. Westbrook feels a four square foot sign out in that area would not be very visible . The ,school wants its presence known . When they did the annex last year, one of the things they did was put in a reduced speed zone , which in affect during the school hours . He feels everything they can do to make their presence known , TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 18 as a school facility and to make motorists aware , is very important, that is one of the reasons they want a sign to be well visible . The third item that has evolved is during the course of improvements , and building of the annex, is Elizabeth Anne Clune . She is a former student and her parents have donated a sizable amount to make the improvements . Therefore , the school has recognized Ms . Clune as someone who embodies everything that the school strives to accomplish , which is to do your personal best. Elizabeth Anne Clune is a down syndrome child . She was with the school from age two to twenty, and is now a working person in the community. The school recognizes her achievements , and her parents generosity. This is why the sign includes her name . Chairman Stotz stated he noticed there were two different resolutions . Planner Balestra stated that according to the plans that were given to the Planning Board , the sign at the annex building did have proposed lighting. Mr. Niefer stated the proposed action includes the illumination of the sign using low watt flood light, staked in the ground , facing the sign . Planner Balestra stated , the plan Chairman Stotz was holding, at the top showed a sign light, it was relatively 0small . She explained there were separate resolutions because there were separate signs . Chairman Stotz asked if there was a reason the annex sign was to be lit and not the sign at the main building. Mr. Westbrook stated that Demjanec and Associates were the architects for the annex, and their design included the sign . He said his understanding was they did have after hours meetings there . Chairman Stotz asked if the intent was only to light the sign when there were people in the building. Mr. Westbrook stated his understanding was the school only had daytime hours . The issue came up with the reduced speed zone , it is very limited to 9 a. m . to S p . m . , Monday through Friday . Chairman Stotz asked if the sign was to be lighted for safety reasons . Mr. Westbrook stated there were a lot of safety concerns when they went through the original annex planning approval . Planner Balestra stated it was possible because of the location of the annex sign , it will be closer to the road , as opposed to the main building sign . Mr. Westbrook stated the concern of the Planning Board was the permission from the county to be in the ,right of way. He talked with Gerald Stern at the Highway Division . Mr. Stern said if the sign was beyond twenty-five eet from the center line of the road , you would not fall under any county restrictions . Mr. Westbrook took the two TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 19 maps which were submitted , and dropped the twenty-five foot line in , both signs were beyond , and county permission was not necessary. Chairman Stotz asked what the sign ordinance said about lighted signs . Director of Building and Zoning Frost replied it provides a maximum lamination . Chairman Stotz asked if sign could be lit in any case . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated they could be back lighted or direct lighted . Chairman Stotz asked if any signs were permitted to be lit in the area . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated there was a limit on the lighting. Mr. Niefer stated there was a regulation , and the sign was five times larger than what is allowed at the main building, and almost three times larger at the annex. Mr. Westbrook asked if Mr. Niefer had been by the sign , and he stated the sign would only be two inches bigger in each direction . He gets the sense that it is hard to spot. Planner Balestra stated the Planning Board did discuss issues of size . They adopted the resolution for the proposed sign variances . The Planning Board did not have many concerns with the signs . Mr. Westbrook stated the Planning Board did have a concern with the height of one sign , and put a six foot restriction on the sign . Chairman Stotz asked if Mr. Westbrook could help the board understand why a larger sign was needed . Mr. Westbrook stated the dimensions on the annex sign were sixty-three by twenty-four inches , and the dimensions of the main building sign were forty-eight by sixty inches . He thinks the signs are in different proportions . Mr. Ellsworth asked what the speed limit was reduced to . Mr. Westbrook replied it was reduced from forty miles per hour to thirty miles per hour. Chairman Stotz asked if any one had spoken with the adjoining property owners . Mr. Ellsworth stated coming from the east, a small sign would visible . Mr . Westbrook stated the school was very interested in making their presence known , especially since they are on both sides of the street. As part of the Planning Board resolution , every time a student crosses the street a •teacher must be present with them . . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 20 Mr. Ellsworth stated due to limited parking the teachers were parking at the main building and crossing to the annex. Chairman Stotz asked if they had requested the county to put up a sign warning motorists of the school crossing. Mr. Westbrook responded they went to the state level , and the reduced speed zone signifies the school is the reason . Chairman Stotz asked if there was going to be a sign put up by the county saying School Zone . Planner Balestra stated at the last meeting of this issue she passed around pictures of the school zone in place . Chairman Stotz asked if there would be warning on the road . Planner Balestra replied the sign stated School Zone , thirty miles an hour, 7 a. m . to 6 p . m . , Monday through Friday. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Westbrook if it were safety reasons a larger sign was needed . • Mr. Westbrook responded the sign was needed to make them aware people were present, a highway sign is very impersonal . It is recommended for the driver to see and understand . The sign of the school recognizes that is has a personality and an image , and a place in the community. Chairman Stotz stated if they say the school was there and it had a place , and people are there . It is the same rational that any one else could do for their business . He wanted to know if there was something unique about Montessori that warranted a larger sign other than just letting people know they are there . Attorney Barney stated the school wanted to put the Elizabeth Anne Clune on the sign , and Montessori big enough to read it. When everything is put on , it begins to run together. It was articulated as the reason they wanted to make the name and Montessori . Chairman Stotz stated if the board were to agree , he was waiting for some one to come a long and say Montessori has one . He is wondering about what it means to other people when they read the resolution , and they say it was done for Montessori , do it for us too. Mr. Ellsworth stated the sign was just over ten square feet. Part of what is bothering the Board is it five times the allowable . Mr. Westbrook stated the school had professional advice , and relied on the advice . The school ended up in an illegal situation . 0 • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 21 Director of Building and Zoning Frost asked if it would be fair to say this type of sign was consistent with the type of sign that is seen in front of a school . Mr. Westbrook stated they were not a business , but an institution who's goal is to educate children . Attorney Barney stated the sign ordinance applied to both non- profits and profits equally. Mr. Sigel stated the law might need to be changed for this area. If the new ordinance can not be changed , then they should not change it by granting a variance . Attorney Barney stated finding some justification for that sign and restricting the other one to what the sign ordinance permits . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated a college or institution can have a sign identifying the building or activity of the college or university not to extend twenty-four square feet. What they are coming from is in a residential district . Since this is a non-residential permitted use in a residential zone , it is limited to four square feet. Attorney Barney stated it said colleges and universities . Chairman Stotz asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. With no one present to be hear, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Planner Balestra stated the color schemes and design of the sign is relatively intrusive to the area . To give a little perspective a four square foot sign is a little smaller than a real estate sign . The staff does not find any adverse environmental impacts . Attorney Barney stated the school was in a residential zone , normally large signs are not seen in a residential zone . In a business or non-residential zone , there can be larger signs . Chairman Stotz stated in other words , if a doctor or professional who was permitted to work out of their home , would have a small sign indicating their business . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance to permit a twenty square foot sign at the main school building, 120 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 43 - 1 -3 . 5 , Residence District R- 15 . It is noted four square feet maximum is allowed . AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . • NAYS - None . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 22 The motion was carried unanimously. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance to permit a ten and a half square foot sign at the annex building 117 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 -2 -7 , Residence District R- 15 . AYES - Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer , Sigel . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Stotz stated there were a number of combinations , keep one not the other, keep both , do a way with both , apply the sign ordinance . Mr. Sigel stated in theory they should not be swayed by the existence of an illegal sign . The board should not pass the larger sign because there is one there of approximately the same size . • Chairman Stotz stated the financial hardship of removing the sign and paying for another one is self imposed . Mr. Ellsworth stated it was in a residential zone , but adjacent is a gas station , and furniture store . It is in a residential zone , but on the edge of joining a business zone . Mr. Krantz stated there were a lot of good reasons to allow the signs . Planner Balestra stated she spoke with the business manager, Kim Querner, of the Montessori School . Planner Balestra had questions about whether they were going to replace the existing sign . Ms . Querner stated because the sign they were requesting was relatively the same size of what is illegally there , they would use the same post, and replace just the sign . Mr. Sigel stated he agreed with Chairman Stotz , which is there is not necessarily a reason to put the extra information on the annex sign , so it could be four square feet and serve its purpose . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the board grant the appeal of Montessori School , Owner/Appellant, Andrea Riddle and Peter Demjanec , RA, Agents be permitted to construct a 20 square foot freestanding sign at the main school building (4 Square feet maximum allowed) located at 120 East King Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 - 1 -3 . 5 , Residence District R- 15 , based upon the review of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board . This approval is being made in recognition of the fact that it is a school area located on two sides of a busy road . It is • beneficial and advisable that motorists be given as much notice of children and people crossing the road as possible . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 23 AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. Planner Balestra stated there was a clarification , the Montessori School main building is zone R-30 , and the Annex is R- 15 . Mr. Ellsworth stated he saw Chairman Stotz point . The school is already identified by the oversized sign . There is not a need for a second for an oversized sign . He stated he agreed with one large sign , non-conforming, one small sign , conforming. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED , that the board deny the appeal of the Montessori School , Owner/Appellant, Andrea Riddle and Peter Demjanec requesting a variance for a 10 . 5 square foot freestanding sign at the annex located at 117 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2-7 , Residential Area R- 15 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : • AYES - Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Sigel . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Krantz stated the Montessori School was growing rapidly, and within another few years there might be a few more annexes . Mr . Westbrook stated currently a classroom is being built behind the annex and three more classrooms were approved to be built also . Mr. Ellsworth stated he and Mr. Krantz went to the County Planning Meeting and heard an idea from the Board of Appeals in Groton . The board sends a letter out to the people who are to come before the board for special appeals which outlines exactly what needs to be proved . There are cases , like the first case , that come before the board and they do not have the information needed . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated he did not have a problem with a letter. He wanted to offer in some ways to try to make sure the board receives information that allows them to make a decision . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated that they would need to be careful about how to present the appeal . He would not want to tell them what argument to make , he rather their arguments be pure in how the applicant sees it. 0 • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 24 Attorney Barney stated they could formulate a letter. There is three different matters to deal with , use variance , area variance , special approval , and these would all require a different letter. So in all , there would need to be three letters . Mr. Ellsworth stated there was some one from Danby present, is new to the Board of Zoning Appeals , and he stated his idea was to help the person through the process and not intimidate them . Attorney Barney stated there was a certain amount of intimidation in the way the furniture was arranged . On the other hand , people who might have a good argument, and instead of interrogating them , they could come prepared . The applicant would know exactly what was expected when they came before the board . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated it would be all right to send them relevant excerpts from the law. This is one of the topics brought up in the class in Syracuse he attends . The instructor felt you needed to be careful in sending out letters of this nature , to make sure you fall short of giving legal advice . If some suggestions are offered , they take them , and the appeal is denied , the applicant can say they did what the board asked . Attorney Barney stated the letters should basically say what the board must consider in making the determination of their application . The letters should contain the criteria of what the board must consider, and do that for each variance and the special approval . • Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the staff does do that briefly. He stated he tries not to feed them the answers he wants to hear. Director of Building and Zoning Frost does not have an objection to a letter, they just need to be careful , otherwise they are preparing the applicant to make an argument which may not be the actual objective argument. Mr. Krantz stated what he thought Mr. Ellsworth meant was the people from Cornell about Maplewood did not really know how long, how many, how many vacancies , or how many apartments . Attorney Barney stated it was inexcusable . Cornell University has paid council on staff, but the answer is to expand it as much as possible . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated he thought it was fine to give the applicant copies of Section 77 , he feels he should not listen to their arguments , and tell them what is and is not acceptable . Mr. Ellsworth stated it was an idea to make it more businesslike . Attorney Barney stated he would try to come with a letter for the next meeting. Chairman Stotz adjourned the meeting at 9 ; 36 p . m . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 25 Carrie L . Coates , Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder David Stotz, Chai an • TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zonin!l Board of Appeals in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca New York on Wednesdati Mav 13 1998, commencim* at 7 : 00 P. M. , as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Bulletin board , front entrance of Town Hall. Date of posting: May 5, 1998 Date of publication: May 8 , 199 • O Dani L. Holford, Building and ZM g Department Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8th day of May, 1998 . Notary, is Lary J. Saxton Notary Public, State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga Coun y 1 My Commission Expires /c-2 " FINAL • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY. MAY 111998 7 : 00 P. M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, May 131 1998, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . . on the followine matters : APPEAL of Lee W. Schruben , Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a non - conforming building/lot at 869 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-25 , Residence District R- 15 . Said enlargement consists of a modification to an existing single- family home with the addition of new first and second story space. Said building/lot is non-conforming, in part, as the house is currently over the south side yard property line ( 15 foot setback required) and 9 ± feet from the north side lot line. A building height variance under Article IV, Section 11 , Subparagraph 6 of said ordinance may also be required as said proposal may approach a building height of approximately 48 ± feet (36 foot height limitation). APPEAL of Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, Ann Shumate, Agent, requesting a modification of a previously granted Special Approval from April 19 , 1989, under Article 111, Section 4, Subparagraph 3 (b), of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. to be permitted to occupy graduate student housing units by persons of post graduate and graduate student age and above, who are short-term university affiliated visitors and participants, located at Maplewood Park, 201 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 63 -2- 15 -21 -3 , - 10 .2 , and - 14, Residence District R-9 . APPEAL of the Paleontological Research Institute, Appellant, Warren Allmon and Anton Egner, RA, Agents, requesting a modification of a previously granted Special Approval from February 12, 1997, under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to alter site plans and floor plans in conjunction with a recent 6,000 _ square foot building addition at 1259 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3 - 3 . 1 , Residence District R-30. Said modifications include interior wall partitions, handicap accessibility provisions, and automobile parking spaces. _APPEAL of the Montessori School , Owner/Appellant, Andrea Riddle and Peter Demjanec, RA, Agents, requesting variances from Section 4 . 01 - 1 (a) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to have a 20 square foot freestanding sign at the main school building (4 square feet maximum allowed) and a 10 . 5 square foot freestanding sign at the annex building (4 square feet maximum allowed) at 120 and 117 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 43 - 1 -3 . 5 and 43 -2-7, Residence District R- 15 . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 : 00 p.m ., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated: May 5 , 1998 • Publish : May 8, 1998