Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2000-04-12 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY APRIL 12 2000 _ 7 : 00 P. M . APPEAL of Alfred Eddy, Appellant , Brayton Foster, Agent , requesting Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct a mining operation with the excavation of more than 2 , 500 cubic yards of sand and gravel at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1 - 14 . 2 , fronting on the Mecklenburg Road , Town Agricultural District . APPEAL ADJOURNED APPEAL of David Archung , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an outside wood deck on a nonconforming house that is 5 ± feet from the south side property line ( 15 foot setback required) at 911 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25-2-3 , Residence District R- 15 , APPEAL DENIED APPEAL of David McCune , Appellant , Michael Ward , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a new home with a building height of 40 ± feet (36 foot height limitation ) at 260 Coy Olen Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 29-8-5 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Orlando lacovelli , Appellant , Lawrence Fabbroni , PE , Agent , requesting a variance from Article III , Section 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit creation of a building lot by subdivision , with a lot width at the maximum front yard setback of 63 ± feet (73 feet required) at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-7-6 , Residence District R-9 . An alternative subdivision plan could result in a request for a variance from Section 9 to permit the building lot to have a lot area of 7, 560 square feet (9 , 000 square feet required) . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of David J . Raimon , Appellant , requesting a modification of a previously granted variance (from May 23 , 1967) to permit a change in the operation of a restaurant to include catering and outdoor events at 919 Elmira Road (formerly Turback's Restaurant) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 35- 1 -9 , Residence District R-30 . Said parcel was subdivided without subdivision approval , which must be obtained from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board . APPEAL GRANTED Ah C1-\ TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS � e WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 2000 Cork 1� 11 7 : 00 P. M . i� _ _�___�_ � PRESENT: Harry Ellsworth , Vice Chairperson ; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; James Kiefer , Board Member; Kirk Sigel , Board Member; Kristie Rice , Assistant Zoning Officer/Building Inspector; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7 : 14 p . m . ) ; Michael Smith , Planner. EXCUSED : David Stotz, Chairperson ; Andrew Frost , Director of Building/Zoning . OTHERS : Don Crittenden , 173 Bundy Road ; Larry Fabbroni , 127 Warren Road ; Stephen Eddy, Eddydale Farm ; Ann Byrne , 137 Hopkins Road ; W . Hansen , 1013 Hector Street ; Bonnie & David McCune , 924 Cliff Street ; Michael Ward , 107 Woodcrest Lane ; Brayton Foster , Trumansburg ; Orlando lacovelli , 210 Pennsylvania Avenue ; Joe lacovelli , 509 Lake Street ; David Raimon , 434 North Cayuga Street , Vice Chairperson Ellsworth led the meeting to order at 7 : 11 p . m . , stating that all posting , publication , and notifications of the public hearings had been completed . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Alfred Eddy, Appellant , Brayton Foster , Agent , requesting a Special Approval form the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct a mining operation with the excavation of more than 2 , 500 cubic yards of sand and gravel at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27= 1 - 14 . 2 , fronting on the Mecklenburg Road , Town Agricultural District , Brayton Foster, Trumansburg , stated that he is the consulting geologist from Trumansburg . He prepared the application and the mining permit application to go to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation . The project is a simple mining project . It is 4 . 8 acres out of 93-acre parcel . There will be no impact on ground water, wetlands , or any type of environmentally sensitive areas . The only disturbance is to active farmland . The intent is to return the site to farmland at the completion of mining and reclamation . Mr. Foster stated that they have a buffer strip of vegetation surrounding the site and an erosion and sedimentation control plan to minimize or eliminate any off site erosion and siltation . The mining operation is more than 300 feet from the closest property line . There are only two neighbors that will be able to see any portion of the mine . They have both indicated to the applicant that they do not have any objections . The conditions recommended by the Planning Board are 7 years as a maximum time frame . The maximum volume to be excavated is 90 , 000 yards . He met with the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) engineer. The entrance plan was submitted to the Town . It is a standard , minor commercial entrance that the DOT requires . The engineer recommended moving the entrance approximately 110 feet uphill from the existing farm entrance . The applicant did not have a problem with the driveway being moved . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Krantz stated that it mentions that amount of noise generated will be the same as what is generated by farm equipment . This is going to be excavation equipment . Is it considered farm equipment? Mr. Foster stated that a front loader would do the mining . It is comparable noise to a large farm tractor. Mr. Krantz stated that the application says the proposed project will occur on land currently zoned agricultural where a certain level of noise produced by farm equipment is to be expected . It is not farm equipment . Mr. Foster stated that the excavation would be by front loader. It would be loaded into dump trucks . The dump trucks would need to be muffled in accordance with DOT rules . They do make noise . Michael Smith , Planner, stated that the area is zoned for agriculture . It is not a residential area that is going to be mined . There is already tractor and farm equipment that does make noise . It might not be the same type of equipment , but it is equipment that can make noise . Mr. Krantz asked if Mr. Smith felt that the noise level from the excavation is approximately the same as farm equipment . Mr. Smith stated that it is going to be in the same range . There is not a residence close to the property. Mr . Krantz stated that on Mecklenburg Road a unit of 56 apartments on one side of the road and Ecovillage on the other side of the road . There has been an increase in traffic . There will be more traffic as the apartments become occupied . Mr. Foster stated that they are adding 4 round trips an hour. This is not a large scale mining operation . They would be constrained by the ability of a front loader to load the truck . It takes about 5 minutes for the front loader to load the truck . Most contractors are only going to have 2 or 3 trucks available . Mr. Krantz stated that the report the board received said that if all the gravel were excavated within a one year period , the project would generate approximately 45 truck loads a day , 5 . 5 truck loads per hour. Mr . Foster stated that it would be an absolute maximum . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that they are being given an idea of what the operation would be . There is no guarantee that this is what it will be . It could be larger and faster moving . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Foster stated that the 90 , 000 cubic yards is slightly more than the 80 , 000 yards that was to be placed in the Southwest Park. By gravel mining standards , it is not a big deal . It is a small operation . The board and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation can constrain the number of trips per hour or trips per day. The applicant is comfortable with 4 loads per hour. Mr. Niefer asked if Mr. Foster was familiar with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Mine , Land Reclamation Permit and all the requirements contained therein . Mr. Foster responded yes . Mr. Niefer asked if there is a provision in the permit that requires the applicant to have a performance bond for the ultimate clean up and restoration of the site to its original conditional . Mr. Foster stated that there is a required bond . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will dictate the amount . Mr. Smith stated that the land would be returned to agricultural . They have an incentive to return the land to agriculture . Mr. Foster stated that the applicant is the owner. Mr. Niefer asked if the State could waive the requirement to bond . Mr. Foster responded that he does not think that the State can waive it . It is mandatory. Any mine has to have a reclamation bond . It has to be retained to their standards before they will release the bond . Mr. Sigel asked if the applicant would be comfortable with a restriction on loads per day if they were to do all the excavation in one year. It would be 45 truckloads a day. Mr. Foster stated that they do not have a problem with that . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that they are not looking at this as a one-year project . Mr. Foster stated that this would be driven by market demand . Mr. Sigel stated that he would not want to unnecessarily restrain the applicant's ability to fill a larger order. Mr. Foster stated that they do not want non -stop traffic to the point where it is going to interfere with traffic on Route 79 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked what type of investment is required in order to get the operation going . Mr. Foster stated that it would be about $7 , 000 of cash up front . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that there would also be the $ 10 , 000 bond . Mr. Foster stated that there are 3 ways to acquire a bond with the State . The biggest expense is the entrance . It does need to be blacktopped . There is a residential entrance down the hill . It will look exactly the same . It has to be paved to the edge of the State right-of-way. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked if they had to blacktop the road that they are going to run the trucks over. Mr. Foster stated that it only needs to be paved to the edge of the State right-of-way. They have to replace the shoulder with compacted gravel . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth opened the public hearing at 7 : 24 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . Bill Hansen , 1013 Hector Street , stated that his house is about 7/ 10 of a mile from the entrance to the proposed mine . It is just inside the City of Ithaca limits . He does have some concerns . It would be a minimum of 80 truckloads per 8- hour day. Mr . Foster stated that it would be a maximum . It would be if they were to move everything in one year. Mr. Hansen stated that they do have 56 new units in the neighborhood . There are between 60 and 80 cars that are not used to going around the curve . He is convinced that this will have a cosmetic impact on the neighborhood . It is hard for him to figure out how they would not see it from the road and other properties . There is not active farming going on now. There is going to be a difference . He is not hearing a lot that reassures him about that . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked what Mr. Hansen meant by there is going to be a difference . Mr. Hansen stated that there is a potential for this project to be an eyesore . He is not hearing anything that convinces him that it is going to be limited to 5 or 6 acres . He is concerned about the traffic. He is concerned about the possibility of noise . Ann Byrne , 137 Hopkins Road , stated that she could hear things happening from across the lake. Last fall they had two dump trucks that came at 6 : 00 a . m . and started emptying dump trucks on farmland across the road from them . They were woken up . She does not want that . She likes to use the property that is supposedly buffered from where Perry's farm is . She does hike and walk back there . It is a very peaceful , serene place . She wants it kept that way. There is no guarantee ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED that it is not going to be at maximum going out . If they go bankrupt , how is this going to be fixed and filled in ? She would like an assurance that it will be fixed . The corner on Route 79 is very dangerous . There are school buses and it is icy. This is commercial . It is not zoned commercial . She did not buy the property to live with this noise . It should be further away from the residential area . The farm trucks are not there all day long . They plow and then they leave. This sounds as if this is going to be constant . Don Crittenden , 173 Bundy Road , stated that he is about one field over from where this project will be located . From his house he can hear Route 79 traffic. If this project generates 4 trucks per hour being loaded with a front loader, it is constant noise the entire day. This is a commercial project going into an agricultural zone. They are going to be overburdened with noise pollution . Even if they were to take 9 truck loads a day, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 8 months a year, for 7 years , it is a lot of noise . It is a long time to be living with this project . Is there existing gravel ? Mr. Foster responded that it is Howard soil . Mr . Crittenden asked if there are mounds of gravel . He tried to find the location of the project . Mr. Foster responded that there are mounds of gravel naturally occurring . The access road is directly across from City Lights Antiques . They are dealing with the little low ridge 4 mile from the road . Mr. Crittenden stated that he is concerned that it is a commercial project going in with constant noise of trucks all day long . He would hate to see that happen . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth closed the public hearing at 7 : 32 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr . Smith stated that on the first page of the Environmental Assessment under C1 , it refers to the Williams Brook being over 100 feet from the site . The Williams Brook is farther away. It is a tributary of Williams Brook, which runs through the woodland behind the parcel between the Perry's and Eddy's . Mr. Krantz asked if this land is used for farming . Was it used last year? Mr. Foster responded yes . The mine site had pumpkins on the lower half and hays on the upper half . The majority of the parcel is vegetable farming . Attorney Barney asked what are the hours of operation . Mr. Foster stated that New York State Department of Environmental Conservation would impose the hours of operation . They are normally 7 : 00 a . m . to 5 : 00 p . m . The Zoning Board of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Appeals could be more restrictive to the hours . It is not a problem to stop earlier in the afternoon . Most contractors like to begin at 7 : 00 a . m . Attorney Barney asked if they could deal with beginning at 8 : 00 a . m . Mr. Foster responded that they could . Attorney Barney stated that the operation is just front loader and dumping the load into the dump truck. Will there be any crushing operations or conveyor belts? Mr. Foster responded that if there is oversized material , larger than 3 inches in diameter . It is difficult to compact . Most of the material would be used for sub- base . If there is a lot of oversized material there is a need to remove it before it is taken to the job site . It would be dumped through an incline grate. The large material rolls off one side and the small material through the other side . The small material would be loaded into a truck. This is the limit of on -site processing . This would only be done if it were needed . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked if Mr. Foster is talking about the limit of operation as they see it or as the regulations require . Mr. Foster stated that this all they are asking New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for a permit . If they ask for any processing they would need to ask the board and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , Mr. Krantz stated that he is concerned with the traffic, the noise level , aesthetics , and how the environmental assessment deals with them . He moves that the board deny the environmental assessment . The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Sigel stated that he has not thought very much about the noise that would be generated . He was thinking that the number of trips per day was not that large . He is now reconsidering . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that the board could limit the number of trips per day. Mr. Sigel stated that it is a question of what is more annoying , a lot of noise for a short time or less noise for a longer period of time . The board cannot dictate that it be removed quickly. Limiting the hours would be very reasonable . It would be a project that continued for a number of years that created noise everyday. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked if the operation would be year round . Mr. Foster stated that it is a fair weather activity. It would start this time of year through October. There is going to be the truck traffic going into the City from somewhere . The demand for ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED the material is downhill . If it does not come from this pit , it will come from another pit and another neighborhood . The market is in the greater City area . Mr. Krantz stated that the draft speaks of an approximately 8- month work year . Mr. Sigel asked how long does it take to fill a truck . Mr. Foster stated that it takes about 5 minutes . It is related to the size of the truck and the size of the front loader. RESOLUTON NO. 2000=13 — Environmental Assessment — Alfred Eddy Mining/Excavation Operation . MOTION made by James Niefer, seconded by Kirk Sigel . RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Alfred Eddy, requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct a mining operation with the excavation of more than 2 , 500 cubic yards of sand and gravel at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1 - 14 . 2 , fronting on Mecklenburg Road , Town Agricultural District , based on the reasons set forth in by the reviewer in the Environmental Assessment Form . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : Krantz. The MOTION was carried . Mr. Sigel stated that he would like to talk more about what people think might help to mitigate the impacts of the project . There could be restrictions on the hours of operation , loads per hour, loads per day. Attorney Barney stated that if there was a motion to pass the appeal , he has prepared some conditions . The first is that there would be no crushing or other processing activities occurring on the site other than the stationary fixed grate without a conveyor belt . Secondly, there would be no activities before 8 : 00 a . m . or after 5 : 00 p . m , on any day. Thirdly, there would be no more than 4 vehicle trips per hour and no more than 32 vehicle trips per day. All operations are to be in compliance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation permit . There will need to be a copy of the reclamation bond in the amount of at least $ 10 , 000 be provided to the Town before any excavation begins . If the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation does not require a bond , then the Town would require a bond . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated that he would like to suggest a time limit on the permit . He was thinking of a 3-year time limit . At the end the 3-years , it could be reviewed and renewed . It would give the Town an opportunity to look at it to see if it has been a problem . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that the Planning Board made a recommendation of 7 years . It does not need to be 7 years . Attorney Barney stated that the last condition would be that the operation be confined to no earlier than April 15t and no later than October 31 Ot . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that they could limit the hours of operation to 4 : 00 p . m . Mr. Sigel stated that he would like to see a condition that there be no loading on the weekends . Mr. Niefer stated that a number of representations have been made in the application . Will the representations be part of the requirements of the Special Approval ? Attorney Barney stated that they are the conditions of any application . Mr. Foster stated that New York State Department of Environmental Conservation would enforce all regulations. Mr. Sigel stated that he thinks it could be a 3-year limit and then renew it . It could all be removed within the 3 years . If they needed more time , the board could review it . Mr. Foster stated that he does not object to the 3-year limit as long as it would be renewable based on satisfactory performance . Mr. Sigel stated that even if the applicant was in compliance with all the applicable rules , the board could choose not to renew it . Attorney Barney stated that this is not a major commercial area . If there is a sense that this is a real problem to the neighborhood , 3 years gives the applicant an opportunity to get back some of their investment . If it has been a real headache , then the permit might not get renewed . There could also be other conditions imposed at that time . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that the area could change within the next 3 years . If there are not some of these conditions , the application probably will not pass. There are going to be some limitations . Mr. Foster stated that the applicant could deal with any of the conditions proposed . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr, Krantz stated that putting a mine operation in the midst of a developing section . Fifty-six new housing units have just been built on Hector Street . Ecovillage is adjoining the property. A retirement home has just been built on Bundy Road . A new section of new homes has also been built on Bundy Road . It shows a remarkable insensitivity, once again , to West Hill . Shame on the board if it is passed . Attorney Barney stated that the Town has a Zoning Ordinance that does not prohibit these kinds of operations . It does authorize the obtaining of a permit and impose conditions with the permit . The fault lies with Ordinance . They are working on the mining portion of the Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Smith stated that this is in an Agricultural Zone . According to the Zoning Ordinance , it is set for agricultural uses . RESOLUTON NO. 2000-14 — Special Approval -- Alfred Eddy Minin-g/Excavation Operation. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Alfred Eddy, requesting Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , be permitted to conduct a mining operation with excavation of more than 2 , 500 cubic yards of sand and gravel at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 14 . 2 . The board in making this determination has made the findings required by Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Subparagraphs a- h , subject to the following conditions : a . That the hours of loading be restricted to weekdays , between the hours of 8 : 00 a . m . and 5 : 00 p . m . ; b . That there be no on -site processing other than outlined by the applicant to do filtering of oversized objects ; C, That there be no more than 32 truck loads per day or 4 truck loads per hour; d . That all operations are to be otherwise in compliance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation permit and in the compliance with the representations made with the application of the permit to the Town ; e . That a copy of the reclamation bond required by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation be provided to the Town and the bond be in the amount of at least $ 10, 000 and if no bond is required by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , a bond be provided to the Town in that amount to occur before excavation begins ; f. That the operations be limited to April 1st through October 318t each year; ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED g . That the permit be for a time limit of 3-years from this meeting ; h . That the maximum sand and gravel removed is not to exceed 90 , 000 cubic yards . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : Ellsworth , Krantz, The MOTION was declared to be a 2-2 vote . Attorney Barney stated that the board needs to adjourn the matter until they have a full quorum . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that they would need to return at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting . Attorney Barney stated that PRI is coming before the board with a significant proposal . Kristie Rice , Assistant Zoning Officer/Building Inspector, stated that they do have a number of cases for the next meeting . Mr. Sigel stated that they could hold a second meeting . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that if the applicant has to come back in June , then they have lost half the construction season . Mr. Foster stated that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation permit would take at least 60 days to acquire . Attorney Barney asked if the applicant needs to get the permit from the Town before they can apply for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation permit . Mr. Foster stated that they need to have the Town ' s approval before New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will grant the permit . His judgement was to make an application to the Town first. Attorney Barney stated that he suggests that the matter be adjourned until the Director of Building/Zoning determines the first available date . Mr. Frost should discuss with Mr . Stotz if he would like to have another public hearing . Mr. Sigel stated that he would like to have another public hearing . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 APRIL 14 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVIED RESOLUTON NO. 2000=15 — Adiournment — Alfred Eddy Mining/Excavation Operation . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED, that this board adjourn the appeal of Alfred Eddy, requesting a Special Approval form Zoning Board of Appeals under Article Xlil , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct a mining operation with the excavation of more than 2 , 500 cubic yards of sand and gravel at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1 - 14. 2 , fronting on the Mecklenburg Road , Town Agricultural District , due to the inability of the board to reach a conclusion with the scheduling of an additional public hearing when the appeal is rescheduled for the next available Zoning Board of Appeals meeting . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Niefer asked if staff could have a larger map showing the surrounding residents . This will give the board a better feel of where the speakers live in relation to the proposed site . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that he would also like the housing developments shown as well . The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of David Archung Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct an outside wood deck on a nonconforming house that is 5 ± feet from the south side property line (15 foot setback required) at 911 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25=2-8, Residence District R- 15. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked if there was anyone present to present the appeal . There was no one present to present the appeal . Attorney Barney stated that the board could wait until the end of the meeting . If no one is present , then the appeal will need to be rescheduled . The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of David McCune , Appellant, Michael Ward , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 1412000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED to construct a new home with a building height of 40 ± feet (36 foot height limitation) at 260 Coy Glen Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29-8-5.2, Residence District R-15. Mr. Niefer stated that he would abstain from discussion or voting on this matter because of a potential conflict of interest . Attorney Barney asked if the conflict is arising out of the activity of his spouse . Mr. Niefer responded no . The builder has done work for him . The McCunes are neighbors of his daughter. Attorney Barney stated that he thought that his wife had done some real estate work for them . That would be a conflict of interest . He does not see this as a conflict of interest . It depends upon the comfort level of Mr. Niefer. Mr. Niefer stated that on the advice of counsel he would participate . David McCune , 924 Cliff Street , stated that the appeal has to do with height of their house as designed . The style of the house is a post and beam home . In pursuing architectural assistance in the local area , there were not any architects that had experience in designing that style of home . They sought assistance from the Wood House Timber Frame Company located in Mansfield , Pennsylvania . In designing this house for this parcel , they used BOCA National building code standards . They failed and neglected to incorporate the Town of Ithaca standards into the building design . In placing the building design on the lot , there is a 9-foot drop from one corner of the house to the opposite corner. In looking on the parcel of land , they have cited the house on the flattest portion of the land to minimize the slope . Due to the exposure of the third floor, which is the basement walkout, it exceeds the height limit . The architect did not know about the requirement and they did not know about it . They had been granted the building permit . The walkout basement looks out over the ravine . It is not visible by any neighbor's dwellings . It is visible from adjacent lands . Any visible view from the road or neighbors is as a two-story house . They would like to request from the board a variance for the building height . Michael Ward , 107 Woodcrest Road , stated that the variance would only be for the south elevation . They have addressed the west elevation . Mr. Ward asked if the board received the letter that the McCunes took around to the adjacent neighbors . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth responded that the board received it in their packet . Mr. McCune stated that the direction that he had received was to make certain that anyone who had any visual sight of the house had the ability to comment on it . They talked with their neighbors and they were all willing to sign the letter. There are more signatures than people who will ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED be able to see the house . The intention of building the house in this location was to not have it visible by anyone . They have plan to plant trees , which will provide them with additional screenings from the other houses . They would be happy to share the plans for the plantings of the trees . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked if they wanted to retain the roof slope and the entrance to the basement . Mr. McCune stated that if they changed the roof slope it would change the architecture of the house. The house was designed to blend into the woods . The colors are going to be greens and browns . Significantly changing the slope of the roof would make a difference . The house is being built . The company cuts the timber frames . It would cause major problems to change the roof line . Mr. Ward stated that the slope of the land caused the problem . There is no place on this lot that would allow the building to be built the way it is designed to come within the 36 foot height limitation . The land above this location is in the center of the Coy Glen Unique Natural Area , The slope of the land caused the problem . The McCunes in good faith designed this house to meet all building codes . To change the process now, would be catastrophic for the McCunes . It would also have a financial burden to Oak Crest as well . The house could not be built on the lot to conform to building codes with a full basement . Mr. Sigel stated that the Conservation Board was not favorable to this project . Does their opinion mandate anything upon the Zoning Board of Appeals to do anything different? Does it require a majority plus one vote? Attorney Barney responded no. Mr. Krantz stated that he is confused about it as well . Did they assemble specifically for this one issue? Attorney Barney stated that if someone is building in or adjacent to a unique natural area , the Conservation Board is given an opportunity to review the project and give their opinion . This board can choose to pay a great deal of attention to the comments or they can choose to do otherwise . Mr. Krantz asked if they have given comments in the past . Attorney Barney responded yes . Mr. Smith responded that they frequently give comments to the Planning Board . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Ward stated that with conversations with Mr. Frost , Mr. Frost stated that he has never seen a letter like this . This letter had a great impact on the McCunes . Attorney Barney stated that he would not spend a lot of time on the letter. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that the board has approved many height variances . They have seen a lot of houses that have the similar problem due to the nature of the Town . Many of them have been passed . Mr. Sigel stated that there were comments made in the letter not relating to the height of the house . There are comments on the impact on the septic system . Mr. Smith stated that a lot of the comments that the Environmental Review Committee ( ERC) had were the same type of comments that planning staff had . There are some similar topics . The elevation causes the height problem . The problem is the house is going to be visible from the unique natural area . People do enjoy looking at nature , and not structures . The unique natural area is supposed to be preserved . The ERC also had concerns about drainage and erosion . The building is very close to the ravine . The drainage will be going in the direction of the ravine . There are a lot of impervious surfaces added to the area . There is not a lot of direction for the septic to go from where the house is located . Mr. Ward stated that the Tompkins County Health Department would not allow the tail ditch to come within 100 feet of the stream . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that there are specific rules about siting the septic system . Mr. Ward stated that the septic system has been designed and approved by the Health Department . Mr. McCune stated that there is a comment regarding a culvert . The road was put in prior to the design of the septic system . When the septic system was then designed the culvert will be removed . Any water flow that heads toward the septic area will be diverted . The other drainage suggestions that were made would have been further along , but the weather held them back . The only thing that could be done is to dig a temporary ditch that would turn into a swale and route the water as suggested . Mr. Ward stated that they have dug a swale from where the house is going to be located , down to the edge of the driveway. The water has been diverted and it has dried up significantly. The installation of a silt fence has also been discussed . It would take any of the dirt piles that are created by digging the hole . They are going to try and take the roof water as far away from the ravine as possible . Attorney Barney stated that the list of people who signed the letter is not located on the map . The Gilesbees are to the south , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. McCune stated that they are right across the natural area . It is the property line that borders them . Their house is not close to the property line . They own 50 acres . Attorney Barney asked how the Gilesbees felt about the house being built . Mr. McCune stated that he talked with her the night before . She expressed that they do like to hike up the gorge . He was able to answer all of her questions . He did not ask her to sign the letter. She did know about the meeting . If there were concerns , they probably would have come to the meeting . Attorney Barney asked where the people listed were located . Mr. McCune responded that they all live across the road . There is no one on their side of the road . All the land that borders their property is wild . Mr. Smith stated that one of the large property owners behind their property is Cornell University Plantations , Vice Chairperson Ellsworth opened the public hearing at 8 : 30 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Vice Chairperson Ellsworth closed the public hearing at 8 : 31 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Mr. Smith stated that the two items of concern was the visual impact the height of the house had on the unique natural area and the drainage and erosion . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked if they recommended a negative determination . Mr. Smith responded yes . RESOLUTION NO. # 2000-16 — Environmental Assessment - McCune Height Variance . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of David McCune , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a new home with a building height of 40 ± feet (36 foot height limitation ) at 260 Coy Glen Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 29-8-5 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , based upon the reasons set forth in the comments made in the Environmental Assessment Form . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None . The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Sigel stated that there are a lot of heights mentioned . What is the height being requested ? Mr. Ward stated that 39 feet is what they need . Attorney Barney asked if the applicant would have an objection to submitting a drainage and sedimentation control plan to the Town Engineer. Mr. McCune stated that Mr. Walker has been to the site . He has advised them on all the site work. Attorney Barney stated that they could make the condition that it be a sketch outlining what is to be done with drainage and sedimentation control to be approved by the Town Engineer . RESOLUTION NO. 2000=17 — McCune Height Variance. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of David McCune , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a new home with a building height not to exceed 39 feet at 260 Coy Glen Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 29-5-5 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following condition and finding : a . That there be a sketch showing the proposed silt control and drainage of the project subject to the approval of the Town Engineer before issuing the final Building Permit , and b. That the board makes the determination that balancing the interest of the applicant versus the character of the neighborhood does not have a deleterious impact on the neighborhood . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Orlando lacovelli , Appellant, Lawrence Fabbroni , PE, Agent, requesting a variance from Article III , Section 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the creation of a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED building lot by subdivision , with a lot width at the maximum front yard setback of 63 ± feet (75 feet required) at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-7-6 , Residence District R-9. An alternative subdivision plan could result in a request for a variance from Section 9 to permit the building lot to have a lot area of 7,560 square feet (9, 000 square feet required). Mr. Smith stated that the map with the even parcels has been labeled as Alternative 1 . The map with the parallel line is labeled as Alternative 11 , The Planning Board has given Preliminary Subdivision Approval . They gave Preliminary Subdivision Approval to Alternative I . The reason was that it required the least amount of variances . Larry Fabbroni , 127 Warren Road , stated that he is presenting the request for the variance . They divided an 18 , 000 square foot lot into two 9 , 000 square foot lots . In 1993 , the requirement that the lot be 75 feet in width at the setback line was added as a requirement . They are able to maintain a legal side yard of 10 feet on an existing house . There was some question from the Planning Board about where the existing house sits on the lot . The 63 feet would not be a detriment to the neighborhood . It is in an area of this lot where the houses that are 50 feet than there are in the Town of Ithaca . There are plenty of houses in the neighborhood that are as small as 5 , 000 square feet in lot size . The side yard on the existing house will be maintained . It meets the 10-foot requirement in the R=9 zone . In 1993 , the Zoning Ordinance was changed . There is a 66-foot right of way that used to be a railroad right-of-way. It is now part of the Town of Ithaca Recreation Way. The rear lot is buffered from the lots that would border on the back of the lot . Mr. lacovelli bought the property in 1988 with some intention of subdividing the property. Mr. Sigel asked if they considered having the lot line step over instead rather than diagonal . Mr. Fabbroni stated that he thought it would limit the area in the rear of the existing house where the patio was if it were to be stepped . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Fabbroni if he scaled of the distance from the most westerly corner to the diagonal lot line . There is a back yard requirement of 30 feet . Mr. Krantz stated that the applicant is asking for a 2- lot subdivision with one lot that has a setback deficiency. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the width at the set back line is only 63 feet . Seventy-five feet is required . Mr. Niefer asked if there will be any variances required for the vacant portion . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Fabbroni responded that no additional variances would be needed . The side yards and fronts yards would comply. The proposed house is planned to be 30 feet by 40 feet . The 30400t dimension is going to be along the street line . Mr. Niefer asked if it will have a walk out basement . Orlando lacovelli , 210 Pennsylvania Ave , stated that it does not have a walkout basement . Attorney Barney stated that it looks as if the back porch is 3 or 4 feet too close to the property line . Mr. Fabbroni stated that he can adjust the line to accommodate the problem . Mr. Sigel asked is they could make it a condition . Attorney Barney stated that the board could grant a variance for less than 30 feet in the back. The advertising was just for the dimensional front yard . The board can also grant the variance as requested conditional on the back line being adjusted in a way that creates a 30400t back yard . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth opened the public hearing at 8 : 53 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . Joe lacovelli , 509 Lake Street , stated he owns the properties to the east of Orlando lacovelli . How are they going to gain access to the property? Mr. Fabbroni stated that they would have access from Pennsylvania Avenue . Mr, lacovelli asked where will the parking be . Mr. Fabbroni stated that it would be located on the side of the lot nearest to the existing house . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth closed the public hearing at 8 : 54 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Mr, Smith stated that there is no environmental assessment . RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 - Orlando lacovelli Variance for Front Yard Setback. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Orlando lacovelli requesting a variance from Article III , Section 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the creation of a building lot by subdivision , with a lot width at the maximum front yard setback of no less than 62 feet whereby 75 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 19 APRiL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED feet is required at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54=7- 6 , Residence District R4 The motion and findings are as required under Section 267 of Town Law that the interest and detriment to the applicant outweighs any possible detriment to the neighborhood based upon the following conditions : a . That the diagonal line be adjusted in a manner as to preserve a 30 foot back yard for the property at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue ; b , That the revision be approved by the Planning Board as part of the Final Subdivision Approval ; c. That the line maintains 9 , 000 square feet for each lot . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None , The MOTION was determined to be carried unanimously. The fifth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of David J . Raimon , Appellant, requesting a modification of a previously granted variance (from May 23, 1967) to permit a change in the operation of a restaurant to include catering and outdoor event at 919 Elmira Road (formerly Turback's Restaurant), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35=1 -9, Residence District R-30. Said parcel was subdivided without subdivision approval , which must be obtained from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board . Ms . Rice stated that part of the reason this need to come before the board is due to the conditions of the variance granted in 1967 . The variance was suppose to be specific to Turback's Restaurant . The applicant would also like to include a catering business , which is different from the original variance . He is also interested in outdoor entertainment . This is also different from the original restaurant . Mr. Sigel stated that it is his understanding that the variance from 1967 is no longer in effect . When this building was operated as Mr. Yeppi Presents that it was illegal . Attorney Barney stated that one could take that position . There is some question about time limiting variances to the owner of the property. If the board wants a time limited variance , then it should be limited to a specific period of time rather than to the owner of the property. Mr. Sigel stated that it could have been appealed by a previous owner. Attorney Barney stated that there are cases going both ways . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 20 APRIL 14 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked where the outdoor catering would be located . David Raimon , 434 North Cayuga Street , stated that it would be located directly behind the restaurant . There is a level area of grass about 60 feet by 100 feet where he might want to rent a tent for wedding groups that would not fit inside . Mr. Niefer asked if he is going to expand or pave the area . Mr. Raimon stated that the area is level . Mr. Niefer asked if Mr. Raimon was planning to change the contour of the land . Mr. Raimon responded no . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that if someone looks directly facing the restaurant from Route 13 the outdoor tent will not be seen . The restaurant does sit above Route 13 . Mr. Niefer stated that he thought the outdoor catering area was going to be north of the restaurant , in the area of the gravel parking . Mr. Smith stated that it is going to be located between the building and the old tennis courts . Mr. Sigel stated that the blue outline is a subdivided parcel . It is not part of the application . Ms . Rice responded that the blue outline is an illegal subdivision that occurred with the previous or current owner, not the applicant . They are scheduled May 2"d for subdivision approval . Mr. Raimon stated that the area where he would on occasion want to put a tent for a special event would be if one were facing the front of the restaurant from Elmira Road , the tent would not be visible . Mr. Sigel asked where is the closest residence . Mr . Smith stated that is nothing in the immediate area . Mr. Sigel asked if there were music or a DJ it would not impact anyone . Mr. Smith stated that it would not impact anyone . Ms . Rice stated that they would have to be within the noise ordinance after hours . Site Plan approval from the Planning Board is not required . The board may want to have it as a condition . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth stated that the board may specify where the he can have the catering tent . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 21 APRlL 1272 0 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sigel stated that the appeal says catering and outdoor events . Will there be off site catering ? Mr. Raimon stated that he would use this location as the base for his current off premises catering business . He will be moving from where he is located now in the City of Ithaca to this site . Mr. Sigel asked if off site catering is currently permitted . Attorney Barney stated that unless there is something in an application that was previously submitted that said they were going to do off premises catering , then it is not permitted . Ms . Rice stated that the original variance was strictly for a restaurant . Attorney Barney stated that the variance is tightly crafted because this is a residence zone , but they wanted to be able to preserve the ability of the house to be used as an adaptive reuse . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked Mr. Raimon if he has a catering business . Mr. Raimon stated that he leases a site that he does strictly off premises catering . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked that he is going to move the off site catering to the outdoor tent . Attorney Barney responded no . It will be in the building . He wants 3 modifications to the variance . One is to permit off premise catering . The second is to permit outdoor events . The third is to tie the variance to a time limit . Mr. Sigel asked how many people would he host at one time on site at the outdoor tent . Mr. Raimon stated that the most that he could accommodate would be about 250 people . He would not try to accommodate more than 250 people . Mr. Sigel asked how often would there be outdoor events . Mr. Raimon stated that their average wedding size is about 150 people . In 12 years , he has done about 6 weddings that were over 200 people . Mr. Sigel asked how often would he have an outdoor event that was larger than 50 people . Mr. Raimon stated that it would happen about every 3 weeks from April to October. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked what is an outdoor activity. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 22 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Raimon responded a wedding or another group that would like to lease the space for having a catered event . Mr. Sigel asked if he would object to having one event a week. He does not know if the board would view it as a good think if it turned into a daily event that the tent was up . Mr. Raimon stated that renting a tent of that size cost about $5 , 000 . He does doubt that it would be a very frequent event . Mr. Sigel asked if the tent would only go up for an event and then come down after the event . Mr. Raimon stated that he is not buying the tent. He would need to rent the tent for the events . It is a seasonal business. The bulk of the business is done in the first couple weeks of June . The limit of once a week is reasonable . Mr. Sigel stated that they could specify a number of events per year. Mr. Raimon stated that he does not have a problem with a limitation . He would appreciate it if the limit were per year rather than per week. Mr. Sigel asked if Mr. Raimon felt he might exceed 10 events per year. Mr. Raimon stated that it is possible . It is difficult for him to foresee that needs of the events in advance . If he has people that need to accommodate a larger group than he can accommodate inside ; he would need to turn people away if he has exceeded the number of tent uses per year . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth asked Mr. Raimon what number of events he would be comfortable with . Mr. Raimon stated that he would be comfortable with 30 events being outside . Mr. Sigel stated that he thinks that 15 events per year would be reasonable . There are not a lot of people nearby who would be impacted . The tent would be located behind the building . He would not have a problem allowing 20 events . He would also be in favor of time limiting the outdoor, on site catering aspect of the variance. It would be good for the board to retain the right of reviewing it . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth opened the public hearing at 9 : 15 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Vice Chairperson Ellsworth closed the public hearing at 9: 16 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 23 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Smith stated that there is nothing significant . It is a developed site . There are mature trees surrounding the site . Otherwise , there is no vegetation on the site . The area is mainly mowed grass . RESOLUTION NO. 2000-19 — Environmental Assessment --David Raimon Variance. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of David Raimon , requesting a modification of a previously granted variance (from May 23 , 1967) to permit a change in the operation of a restaurant to include catering and outdoor events at 919 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 35= 1 -9 , Residence District R- 30 . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2000=20 — David Raimon Variance. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of David Raimon , requesting that the previously granted variance (May 23, 1967) be deleted and replaced with a variance that is permanent except as to the provisions relating to the outdoor events . The outdoor events is limited in time to 5-years , to be permitted to operate a restaurant , including catering and outdoor events at 919 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 35- 1 -9 , Residence District R-30 subject to the following conditions : a . That there be no more than 20 outdoor on site catered events per year; b . That no event shall exceed 250 people ; C , That all activities outside are in compliance with the Town 's Noise Ordinance ; d . That alkoutdoor activities last no longer than 12 : 00 midnight . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel , NAYS : None , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 24 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Raimon asked if the variance was subject to subdivision approval . Attorney Barney stated that it should be a condition . RESOLUTION NO. 2000=211 - David Raimon Variance Modification . MOTION made by James Niefer, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that RESOLUTION NO . 2000=20 be amended to include an additional condition that before the variance becomes perpetual that subdivision of the property be approved as shown on the map by the Planning Board . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL of David Archung, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct an outside wood deck on a nonconforming house that it is 5 ± feet from the south side property line (15 foot setback required) at 911 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-8, Residence District R- 15. Attorney Barney stated that the board could deny the appeal without prejudice to renewing the appeal . The applicant will have to reapply. RESOLUTION NO. 2000=22 — Appeal of David Archung. MOTION made by James Niefer, seconded by Kirk Sigel . RESOLVED, that this board deny the appeal of David Archung , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an outside wood deck on a nonconforming house that it is 5 ± feet from the south side property line ( 15 foot setback required) at 911 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25=2-8 , Residence District R- 15 , due to the non =appearance of the applicant without prejudice to renewal of the appeal if the applicant so desires . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 25 APRIL 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth adjourned the meeting at 9 . 26 p . m . All vah vzz /1 Hd4yvffllsw rth , ice Chairpe son Carrie L. Coates , Deputy Town Clerk • • V 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 Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York on Wednesday, April 12 , 2000, commencing 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: April 5, 2000 Date of publication: April 7, 2000 ' o J c { Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning D a artment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 7th day of April, 2000. Notary Public - DEBORAH KELLEY Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 KE6025073 Qualified in Schuyler , County COmmiccion Expires May 17. 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 2000 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, April 12, 2000, 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 Alfred Eddy, Appellant, Brayton Foster, Agent, requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII, Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct a mining operation with the excavation of more than 2, 500 cubic yards of sand and gravel at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1 - 14 .2, fronting on the Mecklenburg Road, Town Agricultural District. APPEAL of David Archung, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct an outside wood deck on a nonconforming house that is 5 + feet from the south side property line ( 15 foot setback required) at 911 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-24, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of the David McCune, Appellant, Michael Ward, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a new home with a building height of 40 + feet (36 foot height limitation) at 260 Coy Glen Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29-8-5 .2, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Orlando Iacovelli, Appellant, Lawrence Fabbroni, PE, Agent, requesting a variance from Article III, Section 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the creation of a building lot by subdivision, with a lot width at the maximum front yard setback of 63 + feet (75 feet required) at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-7-6, Residence District 11-9. An alternative subdivision plan could result in a request for a variance from Section 9 to permit the building lot to have a lot area of 7, 560 square feet (9,000 square feet required). APPEAL of David J. Raimon, Appellant, requesting a modification of a previously granted variance (from May 23 , 1967) to permit a change in the operation of a restaurant to include catering and outdoor events at 919 Elmira Road (formerly Turback' s Restaurant), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 - 1 -9, Residence District R-30. Said parcel was subdivided without subdivision approval, which must be obtained from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 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: April 5, 2000 Published: April 7, 2000