Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2000-05-10 Ll it ; T 1;ACx, "e TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, MAY 102 2000 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 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 -8 , Residence District R- 15 , APPEAL DENIED APPEAL of Katherine Heine and Philip Syphrit , Appellants , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , in order to construct a building addition onto a single-family residence at 696 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 49- 1 -23 , Residence District R- 30 . The proposed addition will have a south side yard building setback of 25 ± feet , whereas 40 feet is required . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of the Paleontological Research Institution , Warren Allmon , Executive Director, Appellant , TG Miller PC Engineers and Surveyors and Weiss- Manfredi Architects , Agents , requesting a Special Approval under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to construct the Museum of the Earth at 1259 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24-3-3 . 1 , Residence District R-30 . A variance from Article XIII , Section 69 of said Ordinance is also request in order to permit parking of vehicles in the front yard , which is otherwise restricted . Additionally, a variance from Section 3 . 02- 1c of the Town of Ithaca Sign law is requested in order to permit a freestanding sign that is 36 ± square feet (or greater) , whereas a freestanding sign for a museum is limited to 24 square feet in area . APPEAL GRANTED LDale - 5" b .ED ; 11HACATOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 46)WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2000 7 : 00 PM PRESENT; David Stotz, Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Kirk Sigel , Board Member; Andy Frost, Director of Building/Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Planner, OTHERS : Brayton Foster, 4442 Lower Covert Road ; Stephen Eddy, 15 East Enfield Center Road ; David Archung & Melanie Miller, 202 Brookfield Road ; Leon Zaharis , 1398 Mecklenburg Road ; Phil Syphrit , 696 Coddington Road ; Katherine Heine , 696 Coddington Road ; Keith McNeill , 139 Oakwood Lane ; WG Hansen , 1013 Hector Street; David Herrick , TG Miller, Chairperson Stotz led the meeting to order at 7: 05 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 from 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, 4442 Lower Covert Road , stated that he prepared the mining permit before the board . This is a permit application that will go to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to mine 4 . 8 acres of a 93-acre parcel . It is a simple mining permit . There is no impact on ground water, wetlands , or any environmentally sensitive areas . It is only a temporary disturbance to active farmland . There are two knolls being mined for gravel . They are active farmland and will be returned to farmland once the mining is complete. They have an erosion and sediment control plan included in the application . There is a buffer strip of vegetation around the site . The mining sequence is initially westward and uphill . This portion will be returned to agriculture before the balance is mined . This is to minimize erosion potential . All operations are 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 . Both neighbors have indicated that they have no objections with the mining operation , The mining applicant is the landowner. The Planning Board proposed that a maximum volume of 90, 000 yards be mined . At the last Zoning Board of Appeals hearing it was proposed that the permit only be granted for 3 years . There was also a comment at the last hearing about the tillable acreage . The total parcel is 93 acres . The applicant considers 68 acres tillable and they were all farmed last year, It will be farmed again this year, The balance of the land is a pond , woodland and hedgerows . It was also proposed at the last meeting that maximum daily mining be limited to the equivalent of 32 truckloads . This is an average of 4 truckloads per hour. It was also proposed that mining be limited to the spring and summer, from April to October. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr, Foster stated that he has brought a current tax map for the board . At the last meeting hearing they were discussing distances to adjoining homes and properties . He sketched the mine location on to the tax map . The present access road is opposite of the City Lights Antiques . During the last application , the DOT recommended moving the entrance 110 feet up the hill to get a better line of site . The entrance does need to be done to the DOT specifications . It is a requirement of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation mining permit , He also has an aerial map of the area . Behind the site there is woodland on the Eddy property and adjoining parcels to the north . They do act as a buffer between the mine site and any of the homes on Perry Circle or Bundy Road . It is approximately 2700 feet to the Crittendon residence . It is 2350 feet from the mine boundary to Bundy Road . It is approximately 1300 feet to the closest house on the farthest lot on Perry Lane and it is through approximately 500 feet of woods . The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation mine handbook uses 200 feet of woods an effective noise barrier to generate a 10-decibel reduction in noise . Mr. Foster stated that they also discussed noise at the last meeting . If they are only loading 4 trucks per hour, 32 trucks per day, the noise is not going to be continuous . This site is going to have engines consisting of the loaders and the trucks that come and go , They are roughly the same horsepower as large farm equipment . There is not going to be continuous noise . It will not generate continuous sound 8 hours per day, 5 days per week . This is being prevented by the maximum amount of the loads permitted . The demand for gravel will not change . The market for gravel will remain the same , The road traffic and highway noise into the Town is not going to change as a result of this site other than at the entrance road . Chairperson Stotz asked where is the Linderman Creek housing development , Mr. Foster stated that it is right on the curve . Mr, Frost asked how far is the mine site from the creek. He has had at least three parties come to him with serious concerns about creek water. Mr. Foster stated that they are maintaining a 50400t separation from the mine boundary to the edge of the woods . It is 100 feet to the closest point of the tributary to the north . Mr. Frost asked what provisions are made for the sedimentation and erosion control . Mr. Foster stated that the access road enters the middle of the pit . They will mine uphill first using the downhill as a buffer. There will also be a silt fence . They cannot have any stormwater leaving the site . They are also dealing with permeable soils so that they can collect stormwater on site and allow it to percolate internally, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that there a lot of wet areas along the woods . Mr. Foster stated that the wet area is not on or in the mining site . Mr. Frost stated that the concern that has been brought to his office is rainwater and then washing things down into the creek. Mr. Foster stated that they couldn 't let that happen . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will shut them down quickly if it happens . The minute they start mining , they will be mining in a depression . The slope will be eastward . The spill point is where the access road is while the western part of the site is being mined . Chairperson Stotz stated that the Environmental Assessment says that it does not appear that the excavation project will have an adverse effect on air and water resources , Mr. Smith stated that the mining site would be at least 100 feet from the brook . It appears that the water will be contained on site . Mr. Ellsworth stated that he tried to locate the site . He does not have anything in the paperwork that describes how he can find the site . There should be an orange site posted on the site . Mr. Frost stated that the sign has been posted since the first meeting . Mr. Ellsworth stated that he could not find the site . It is not described in the document . It is a nice picture , but it is not in the information that the board has . The applicant has a lot of rules they need to follow. It seems like the board is lacking information so that an individual that does not live on West Hill can locate the site . It is described as being on the north side of Route 79 . It does not indicate the adjoining roads . There is no site plan that show where the roads are . He does have some problems with this . Mr. Foster stated that in the mining application he did state the nearest road . The only other item that would have identified the site is a topographic map . It is figure 1 . Chairperson Stotz stated that the proposal is to pull a maximum of 32 truckloads of gravel out of the site per day. Could the trucks be described ? Mr. Foster stated that the trucks would be 10 wheel dump trucks . They would hold approximately 12 yards . Chairperson Stotz asked what is the loaded gross weight . Mr. Foster stated that a yard of gravel weighs about 3 , 000 pounds . There will be about 40 , 000 pounds of material . The gross weight for a 10-wheel truck is about 56 , 000 pounds . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 MAY 101 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz asked if there is Jake brake on the trucks . Mr . Foster responded that some trucks do have Jake brakes . Chairperson Stotz stated that it is reasonable to assume that a Jake brake is going to be used on the truck. Chairperson Stotz asked if there is other gravel in the area . How does the vein run ? Mr. Foster stated that it runs along the 1050-foot elevation along the west side of the lake valley. The deposit can be traced from both ways from this site . It can be traced from areas on Sheffield Road to Jacksonville . This is the beach from the pre-glacier lake . There was a lake level at approximately 1050 feet elevation for an extended period of time . The gravel that was deposited was here was deposited as a stream entered the lake . Chairperson Stotz asked if there are other sites on this property where the gravel is accessible . Mr. Foster responded no . Chairperson Stotz asked if there are other sites on adjoining properties . Mr. Foster responded that in his opinion there were . He has never dug into the other property. He is referring to the Perry property to the north and the across Bundy Road . Chairperson Stotz asked if it was reasonable to assume that at some point in the future someone might want to mine that gravel as well . Mr. Foster responded yes . Chairperson Stotz stated that it could get to be a lot of gravel mining in the area . Mr. Foster stated that the demand for gravel in Tompkins County is present . The area is already an importer of gravel from outside the County. It is going to come down the road from somewhere. A number of the properties are being built up . Mr. Frost asked where the site is located in relation to the logging that occurred over the last few years . Stephen Eddy, 16 East Enfield Center Road , stated that the logging was located in the woods behind the site . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 MAY 10; 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr, Frost asked how far away was the area that was logged , There were several trees cut out throughout the woods in that area , He is curious where the mining site is since the site itself is not marked . He looked in the area and was not sure where it was located , Mr, Eddy stated that there are different sections to the woods . It depends upon the location in the woods how heavy it was logged . Mr. Frost asked where was the site that the trees were cut from relative to the mining site . Mr, Eddy stated that it was in back and above the mining site . Mr. Frost stated that the mine site borders the woods , The woods are where the trees were cut , Mr. Foster stated that the mine does not go into the woods . The mine is 50 feet from the woods , Mr. Frost asked if this is the same area that was logged , Mr. Eddy responded that the woods on the Marshall Farm , that they own , were logged . Mr, Smith stated that he does have an aerial photograph for the board 's reference . Chairperson Stotz stated that he is bothered by the truck traffic. On average there will be one truck every 15 minutes . The trucks are going to be travel Hector Street . Most of Hector Street is in the City. One of the things that need to be considered is the general amenity of the neighborhood . If he were living in a house on Hector Street and on average had to listen to a Jake brake every 15 minutes , he would be concerned . Mr. Foster stated that the material is going to go into the City either by Hector Street or Route 96, It needs to go where it is needed one way or another, They originally proposed a 7-year mining span . If the mining were spread over a 7-year period then there would only be intermittent sessions of mining , Chairperson Stotz stated that his other concern is that if the board approves this as a special approval in an Agricultural District , they set a precedent for a gravel pit in that area , It could be easily used as a reason for someone else mining gravel . Attorney Barney stated that the Town Board has instructed him to look at the Zoning Ordinance to see if mining is an appropriate activity everywhere in the Town . It might result in a Zoning Ordinance amendment that would limit mining to certain areas of the Town , Once this mining operation started , it would be a valid non -conforming use . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 MAY 10; 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Foster stated that a geologist could define the areas using soil maps that would have the potential for mining . It could be done very easily in the Town of Ithaca . This site is Howard gravel . It is deposited as glacial out wash . There is not much Palmyra soil in the Town of Ithaca . There are two or three other soils that are potentially under lying by layered gravel . Mr. Foster stated that there would not be a mine in everyone' s backyard . There is a narrow band at that elevation that would have a potential for mining . Mr. Ellsworth asked if there were people in the area in favor of the project . Mr. Foster responded that the Mr . Carroll and Mr. Auble are the two landowners that can see any portion of the mine site from their residence . They have both expressed to the Eddy's that they have no objection . They do not have anything in writing . Mr. Frost asked if when the Environmental Assessment Form was complete , was there any consideration done in the logging that occurred . Mr. Smith stated that he did not personally know about it . He does not know if Ms . Ritter was aware of it when she completed the Environmental Assessment Form . He does not believe the distance that they are talking about would have changed it . Chairperson Stotz asked if there are houses around the cul-de-sac . Mr. Foster responded yes . It is Perry Lane . The closest end lot house is approximately 1300 feet from the north boundary of the proposed mine site to the house . Mr. Foster showed the mine site to the board on the aerial map. Mr. Ellsworth asked where is the Linderman Creek development . Mr. Frost stated that it is to the east of the mine site . He received a call saying that when Linderman Creek was under construction the heavy equipment could be heard on Perry Lane . The project is now being phased out . The site cannot be seen from Perry Lane . Mr. Smith stated that he passed out a map with circles on it . Each circle represents one quarter of a mile. The Linderman Creek development is at least one half mile from the mine site . Chairperson Stotz stated that a bulldozer could be heard from one half mile . Mr. Frost stated that he does not think that there is a visual impact . Mr. Ellsworth stated that the trucks would be doing a lot of shifting as they come back up the hill . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Foster stated that it is a State highway. There is about 3700 vehicles a day traveling the road . Mr. Niefer asked if there is a gravel pit close to the proposed mining site . Mr. Foster stated that it is about 15 miles to the west . Mr. Niefer asked if it is operational . Mr. Foster stated that it is the DeWitt Company. He is unaware of any permitted mines on the Mecklenburg Road . Mr. Niefer stated that DeWitt does work in Ithaca . Do their trucks come down Mecklenburg Road? Mr. Foster responded that they do not . Many of the trucks come in on Route 96 . He does not know the percentage . There are not many permitted gravel pits close to Ithaca on the west side . There are not many permitted pits in Tompkins County, Chairperson Stotz asked if the gravel would be sized . Mr. Eddy responded no . Chairperson Stotz asked if it would be straight bank run gravel . Mr. Eddy stated that there are two knolls . They are trying to get down to the silt , the better soil . They have a lot a trouble with this area . In a dry season everything dies . There is no crop there . They are going to reclaim everything as they go . The quicker it comes back the better. Chairperson Stotz asked if the primary reason for the mining was to restore the farmland . Mr. Eddy stated that it is very hard to make any money farming . They would like to keep the land in farming . They do not have a lot of flat land . If they can make any of their land flatter it is a good thing . They would be able to produce in the area that they are cleaning up . They are subsidizing their farming with a little money from the gravel . They are used to gravel . His father has been mining gravel for many years . They know how to go through the permits . The follow the rules and have a good reputation with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation . Chairperson Stotz asked how many acres do they actively farm . Mr. Eddy stated that they farm about 500 acres . Chairperson Stotz stated that they are not going to be sizing the material . They are not going to be running it through a screen . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 MAY 110, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Eddy stated that they are not going to do it . They never proposed to do so . They are not allowed to do so with this permit . Mr. Foster stated that the only provision is to deal with oversized material . Most of this material is item 44ype sub- base . The specifications for Item 4 have a maximum size . If bank run material is being loaded that is larger, there needs to be some provision to remove it . In the application they do have permission to dump the material dry through a grate . They would then load the material that drops through the grate . Chairperson Stotz stated that it would be a basic screen to take out the heavy material . Mr. Foster stated that this would only be done when it was needed . Mr. Eddy stated that the basic plan is to not use any equipment . They do not end any screening equipment . Chairperson Stotz stated that they would need a front-end loader to dump it onto the screen . Mr. Foster stated that the typical mining would be by front-end loader. If the job demands removal of the oversized material then it goes through the grate . Mr. Eddy stated that it is not a shaker. Mr. Foster stated that it is not mechanical . It is a sloping grate . He does not think that any noise could be heard over the motor. Mr. Eddy stated that they are constantly running farm equipment in that area . Chairperson Stotz asked if gravel underneath soil served a purpose of drainage . When gravel is removed and the soil it put back, does not it affect the ground 's permeability? Mr. Foster stated that the volume of unsaturated would be diminished . They are not going to encounter the water table . If they do , they are required to stop by the mining permit . They have done test pits in the area and have not encountered any. Chairperson Stotz asked if the surface water would leach into the ground as effectively as it did when the gravel was present . Mr. Foster responded that the answer is yes because they are not going to take all the gravel . If they take all the gravel the result is a slippery surface that is hard to drive trucks on and load . They will still have gravel subsoil , but much thinner. Chairperson Stotz stated that some gravel would remain . Was it discussed with the Planning Board ? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 MAY 1: 0, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 140 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Foster stated that he does not recall making a specific point of it . It is an operational thing . If you encounter underlying till , the slightest amount of rainwater will make it slippery. They need to maintain the permeability to get stormwater off the surface . Mr. Ellsworth stated that the permeability has to do with what they bring in to fill the area back in with . Mr. Eddy stated that they are going to fill with what they have there already. Mr. Foster stated that the topsoil would be stock piled . Then it will be brought back onto the site . Mr. Niefer asked what is the average overlay of topsoil over the site . Mr. Foster stated that there is not much topsoil to recognize . It does look a lot like gravel pile on the lower portion . The piles are not going to be large . If they are able to skim the site back over with six inches of topsoil then they are doing well . Mr. Niefer asked how deep is the maximum cut going to be . Mr. Foster stated that it would be slightly more than 20 feet below the present surface . Mr. Niefer asked what type of slope would it be after the topsoil is laid back over the area . Mr. Foster stated that the permit write up stated that the slope would not exceed any of the slopes that are presently on the site . The steepest slope on the site is on the extreme northeast corner near the woods . The reclamation map uses that slope as a maximum slope . They need to preserve the ability to farm the land with mechanical equipment . Mr. Niefer asked what is the anticipated maximum equipment that is going to be on site at any one time aside from trucks . Mr. Foster stated that they would have a front loader. They would strip portions of the topsoil in advance of mining with a bulldozer. The loader can do it . This is not a large mine site . Mr. Niefer stated that the maximum would be two pieces of equipment , a front loader and a bulldozer. Mr. Foster responded correct . There is no need for anything else . Mr. Eddy stated that they are relying on the people who buy the gravel for the equipment . It is not going to be on the site any more than it has to be . Unless they are loading , the equipment will not be on site . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 MAY 10 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Niefer asked who is going to do the loading and the striping . Will it be the buyer? Mr. Foster stated that most of the time it would be the buyer. It will in most situations be a contractor who is taking gravel to a job . The Eddy's are the owner of the mining permit from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation . They are responsible for the pit being in compliance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation mining permit . Since the permit is so small and the Eddy's are not going to have a dedicated machine , the loading would be done by the purchaser. Chairperson Stotz asked if they would have anyone supervising . Mr. Foster stated that the operation is too small . Chairperson Stotz asked if they would allow the contractor to take the amount of gravel that they would want . Mr. Eddy stated that they would be able to tell if there were more missing . Chairperson Stotz stated that a contractor could come in and use any type of equipment to get it out . Mr. Foster responded yes . A front loader is the standard piece of equipment . The erosion and sediment control plan will limit the amount of the site that can be exposed . Chairperson Stotz stated that his point is that there will not be any ongoing supervision of what occurs at the pit . Mr. Eddy stated that they are going to be watching it . Chairperson Stotz stated that they are going to be watching it in a general sense . Every time that someone goes to the pit the Eddy's are not going to be out at the site . Mr. Eddy responded that they would not be there every time . They are going to be farming it throughout the season . They will be out there quite often . The mining is in relationship with the farming . It will be the exact same time . They are not going to let anyone go into the mine . It needs to be done right . If it is done wrong then they can be in trouble . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 51 p . m . , and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard . Keith McNeil , 139 Oakwood Lane , stated that his animosity is towards the Town of Ithaca Town Board and Planning Board . He lives 250 feet east of the Linderman Creek housing development . He was one of the five people that sued the Town to prevent the housing development . He came to find out about the mining operation . He realizes that someone is making ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 141 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED an application to the board to get approval . When the housing development did go through , Mr. Frantz, Assistant Town Planner, is also the President of the West Hill Civic Association . In the newsletter he blasted the opposers to the development . The application to that was filed with the State stipulated that there were no drainage problems and that the water table was 15 feet . The water table is actually 3 feet . It said that there would be no problems on Hector Street . The developer completed the traffic count and it was rather short . The developer also stated that there would be no objection from the neighbors . They collected 150 signatures against the project in two days . The application stated that it would be affordable housing . They did not want to say low income . A friend of his applied to live there , but was told he earned more than $24 , 000 and he could not . It was promoted as a 52- unit development , but there is an option for 120 more . The main purpose is to find out the purpose of the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Is it only an application to remove sand and gravel ? Mr. Foster responded yes . Mr. McNeil responded that the only effect that he could see would be the one truck every fifteen minutes coming down the hill . The traffic from the housing development will also cause difficulties . Mr. Foster stated that he agrees with the impact . Chairperson Stotz asked Mr. McNeil if he had an opinion on the traffic . Mr. McNeil responded that it would be difficult to get out of Oakwood Lane . He would not have any serious problem with it . Leon Zaharis , 1398 Mecklenburg Road , stated that he is concerned about traffic speeds and trying to get the speed of the road down . The other concern is how big the high wall is going to be in the pit . Another concern is how much possible acid mine drainage they are going to create in the neighborhood . There is a potential for acid mine drainage because of the movement of the soils . His other biggest concern is if one of the machines has a fuel or oil leak . It will purchase the creek and the ground water. Traffic is also a concern . There is a large amount of traffic from September to May. There is a lot of traffic going through Ithaca , to Watkins Lenn , to Elmira picking up loads at the salt plants . Bus traffic is a normal . His biggest problem is traffic . He is not denying the Eddy' s' right to earn a living. He is worried about the Town . Cornell started hauling coal from the rail yard on Route 366 . It did and still does generate a lot of noise . There is going to be a lot of noise and a lot of traffic . There is also a potential security problem . Will silt dams be put up in addition to straw bales ? Mr. Foster stated that they should not need them . The silt has to be contained on site . Mr. Zaharis asked if contractors would be coming in with their own lubrication equipment . Mr. Foster stated that there would be no fuel on site other than what is in the tank. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Eddy stated that the entire mine is only 20 feet deep . There are two knolls . They are going to be skimming the top of the two knolls . The flatter that they can keep it the better that it is for them . Bill Hansen , 1013 Hector Street , stated that it has been said that it does not make a difference if this site is mined . There will be the same amount of gravel coming down east on Route 79 . His imagination suggests that the gravel could come from many different places . He does question the statement . It has been stated that when the land is reconstructed the slope of the land will be same . There will be less gravel . If the slope remains the same , less gravel , and the soil is less permeable , there could be potential water problems . He is concerned about the noise . His family does walk in the area a lot . The development from the Linderman Creek development has been easy to hear the noise of the machines . There could be noise for the people who live near the mine . He is mostly concerned with traffic noise , truck traffic , wear and tear on the road and traffic safety. At the previous meeting he thought he heard 84 trucks per day. If there is a truck every 15 minutes then it is 32 trucks . It is 64 passages of a truck . It is not a small amount of 10 wheel trucks . It is the most significant concern that he has . Mr. Hansen stated that he has a bit of a worry that when one mine begins , then there is another mine and another mine . Things do start small . If there is one mine and there is going to be a mining zone , is this going to be the mining zone? He would like to see the Eddy family has a prosperous farming history. Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 05 p . m . Mr. Frost asked if in any environmental assessments , was any consideration given to the fact that they have a housing development nearing completion that will possibly be fully occupied . There will be traffic generated from the housing development and the impact of the trucks . Mr. Smith stated that in the Environmental Assessment Form it talks about traffic patterns . It states that if the mining operation took place within one year, there would be about 45 truckloads per day, 5 . 6 truckloads per hour . The mining would be complete within one year. If it extended over a 5 - year period it would be 9 trucks per day. It does not seem like a lot depending upon what time period the mine takes place . Chairperson Stotz asked about the mining noise being heard from Linderman Creek , Mr. Smith stated that they focused more on the residences that were closest to the site . They are over a quarter mile away. The Linderman Creek development is over one half mile away and downhill from the site. Chairperson Stotz stated that if there is no supervision and a contractor comes in with bad equipment , there could be a lot of noise generated . There would be no control . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 MAY 1072000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Eddy stated that if they do want to extend the development below, they might be the first customer. Gravel is location . If it is close , it is where they are going to get it . Trucking is the problem . The trucking cost more than the gravel . Mr. McNeil asked if there is a time limit on the operation . Mr. Eddy responded that it is 3 years . Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board placed a limit of 7 years on the application . The discussion at the last Zoning Board of Appeals meeting talked about a 3-year limit . Mr. Frost asked if there was consideration given to what will be quick turn around of traffic impact . Linderman Creek will soon be occupied . Mr. Smith stated that he is not sure . He did not write up the application . He talked with Ms . Ritter about the application and has been at all the meetings . He does not believe that it has come up before . Mr. Krantz stated that the discussion is that the operation would be limited to 3 years and that the trucks would be limited to one every 15 minutes . Mr. Eddy stated that it would depend on the location of the site . If the gravel is being hauled a distance away, then there will be a large time span . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Attorney Barney stated that at the last meeting a negative determination was made on the environmental assessment . Mr. Niefer stated that he had not heard about the acid affect . Mr, Foster stated that Howard soil by definition has between 1 - 5 % limestone in the gravel . It would tend to neutralize any acid rain . The mining exposes the gravel ; it is shoveled up , and then recovered with topsoil . They are not going to do anything but remove a substantial portion of the gravel that would alter the water chemistry. He does not feel that it would change . Mr. Smith stated that he agrees with Mr. Foster. It was not an issue when they looking at the project, Chairperson Stotz stated that there are some unanswered questions about drainage , the noise , traffic and traffic noise . He is also concerned about the lack of supervision . There is not someone there to monitor the operation , He is not in favor of this project . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 MAY 10 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Ellsworth stated that he has the same concerns as Chairperson Stotz , The Eddy's are in a different line of business . He would not expect too much supervision . Mr. Niefer stated that after last month 's meeting and the comments that came forth in the public hearing , he fully expected that there would be 25 people that lived in the area that would be here . It was the impression that he was left with . He assumed that the word got out to people in the neighborhood . He assumes that the notice was posted . He assumes that it was the topic of discussion in the community. Mr. Niefer stated that he does not see any public outcry or objection . This is a situation where someone has expressed themselves as desiring to maintain an agricultural area . The removal of gravel will enhance the agricultural productivity of the land . No one has disputed that point . When the Linderman Creek Apartments was started there was a lot of noise . The project developed a lot of traffic . The project had a significant impact on the adjacent neighborhood . The people living in the City of Ithaca are impacted by it . They are going to have to live with it as long as they are alive . This is a short-term situation . Linderman Creek is a long-term situation . There are some reasonable , legitimate arguments that this request has some merit . He would ask to reintroduce the resolution that was made at the last meeting with the provisos that were added to it for the purpose of getting this matter on the agenda . Chairperson Stotz stated that the people in Linderman Creek were never informed of this project . Mr. Niefer stated that it was advertised in the Ithaca Journal . RESOLUTION NO. 2000=23 — Special Approval = Alfred Eddy MininWExcavation Operation . MOTION made by James Niefer, seconded by Kirk Sigel . 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 ; ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 MAY 10 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 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 1 at through October 31 at each year; 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 901000 cubic yards . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Niefer, Sigel , NAYS : Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz, The MOTION was declared to be defeated . Attorney Barney stated that the board needs to propose a motion denying and findings for the basis of denial . The findings are that the project would produce an additional amount noise and traffic on Hector Street and the neighboring properties ; there is no on site supervision so that the concern is that the noise and other activities will be detrimental to the neighborhood ; the addition of traffic on Hector Street creates a great safety concern . RESOLUTION NO. 2000w24 — Special Approval — Alfred Eddy Mining/Excavation Operation . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board deny 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 , and Subparagraphs a-h , based upon the following findings : a . the project would produce an additional amount noise and traffic on Hector Street and the neighboring properties ; and b , there will be limited on -site supervision ; and ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED C , the noise and other activities will be detrimental to the neighborhood ; and d , the addition of traffic on Hector Street creates a great safety concern . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES : Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz. NAYS : Niefer, Sigel . The MOTION was declared to be carried . 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 . Melanie Miller & David Archung , 202 Brookfield Road . Mr. Archung stated that he is planning to put the front portion on the deck. He is undecided about the side deck . The side deck is only going to be about 12 to 15 inches above the ground . He does not know if he will need a variance for it or not . Mr. Frost stated that this was scheduled for the April meeting . The Archungs were not here . It is a non -conforming property. The existing house is within 5 feet of the south side property line . The addition of the deck is enlarging a non -conforming building . Therefore , special approval is required . There is a steep drop off from the back of the house to the Lakeshore . Chairperson Stotz stated that the deck would be going over the stone patio . Mr. Niefer asked if the stone patio extended around the cottage towards the lake . Mr. Archung stated that the front portion faces the lake . The side deck is over a stone patio . The area to the right of that is the front of the cottage . It is the primary deck area . Chairperson Stotz asked if the deck would be on the east side of the house . Mr. Archung responded that it would be on the east side . Ms . Miller stated that they are not sure if they are going to extend the deck around the corner of the house . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr, Archung stated that the deck is on the lake side of the cottage . Chairperson Stotz asked if the house next door has a deck. Ms . Miller responded that it does . Chairperson Stotz asked how far will the deck extend out. Mr. Archung responded that it would extend out 12 feet , Chairperson Stotz asked what is the width of the house . Mr. Archung responded that the width of the house is 30 feet . Chairperson Stotz asked if it would be similar to the deck next door? Would it have pressure treated lumber? Mr. Archung stated that it would be similar. Attorney Barney asked how close will it come to the north line if the deck is extended around to the north side . Ms . Miller stated that it would be the size of the stone patio . Mr. Archung stated that it is about 10 feet from the patio to the lot line . Attorney Barney stated that the patio is not an issue , It would not be subject to the side yard restriction , Mr . Frost stated that it would need to be within 3 foot of the ground surface . Attorney Barney asked how high up from the stone patio will the deck be . Mr. Archung responded that it would be about 15 to 18 inches above the patio . Mr. Krantz asked if the height of the deck enter into this . Mr. Frost stated that it is addressed in Section 69 of the Zoning Ordinance . Attorney Barney stated that the Ordinance does not apply to terraces , steps , unroofed porches , or other similar features not over 3 feet high above the level of the ground story. Mr. Frost that the ground story is the lowest level to the ground . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 MAY M 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Krantz stated that it does not seem to be too controversy. Mr. Sigel asked at the furthest extent of the deck, how high is it to the ground . Mr. Archung responded that at the house level it is about 8 feet . It then extends out over the banking about 15 feet . Mr. Sigel stated that it drops about 7 feet . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 31 p . m . , and asked if any persons present wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 32 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Chairperson Stotz stated that the only comment was that erosion and drainage control measures should be utilized during construction and afterward to minimize erosion . Mr. Archung stated that they just planted 200 plants on the embankment to maintain the embankment . There are root structures from bushes that were previously on the embankment . They do not drain onto the slope . Chairperson Stotz asked if in issuing the building permit would drainage control be specified . Mr. Frost stated that the he does not think that there is a lot of soil there . Chairperson Stotz asked what is meant by other measures maybe necessary both during and after construction . Mr. Smith stated they mean silt fence . Mr. Frost stated that on the lake side they would post holes . There is not a lot of soil there . The lake side is very steep . Mr. Sigel stated that they will have to stand on the slope for the work on the deck . Mr. Frost asked if the concrete pads were poured in preparation of the deck application . Ms. Miller stated that they were poured in preparation of the application . Mr. Archung responded that the concrete supports are 4 feet deep and they extend under the base of the basement cement floor. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 19 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 1 4, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2000=25 — Environmental Assessment — David Archung Nonconforming Deck. MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter 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 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 R15 . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel , NAYS : None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Stotz asked what would happen if the deck is extended around the side of the building to the north and part of the deck is more than 3 feet in height . Mr. Frost stated that then technically it would need a 15 foot setback . There is about 10 feet from the stone patio to the property line . RESOLUTION NO. 2000=26 — David Archung Construct Outside Deck on Nonconforming House. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants 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 is approximately 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 . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel , NAYS : None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The third appeal to be heard was as follows : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 20 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPEAL of Katherine Heine and Philip Syphrit , Appellants , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , in order to construct a building addition onto a single-family residence at 696 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 49- 1 -23 , Residence District R-30 . The proposed addition will have a south side yard building setback of 25 ± feet , whereas 40 feet is required . Katherin Heine and Philip Syphrit , 696 Coddington Road , Chairperson Stotz stated that the house is less than 700 square feet . Ms . Heine stated that she bought the house in 1987 . She has lived there alone until she was married last year. For a single person it is not a bad amount of space . It is small for two people . There are not a lot of ways that they can economically expand the house . This is the only way that they can economically expand the house . Mr. Syphrit stated that the triangular shaped lot also limits what can be done without infringing on the setback requirements. Mr. Niefer stated that it was mentioned in the material that the location of the current septic field poses a problem . Where is the current septic field ? Ms . Heine stated that it is located on the north side of the house toward the back of the property. Mr. Niefer asked what they would do when they wanted to build a garage . Ms. Heine responded that they do not have plans to build a garage . Mr. Krantz asked if there are any objections from the neighbors . Ms . Heine responded that they have spoken with the neighbor who would be impacted by this . He did not have any objection . Mr. Syphrit stated that he has also spoken with the neighbors across the street . They do not have any objection . Chairperson Stotz asked if the addition would be a bedroom . Ms . Heine responded that it would be part of the living room . Mr. Ellsworth asked if they were willing to take the deck down and build the addition in the back of the house . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 21 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Syphrit stated that the deck is in good shape . There is a gorgeous Maple tree right beside it . The addition will easily extend out from the existing roofline . Chairperson Stotz asked if they would be doing the work themselves . Mr. Syphrit stated that they have spoken with a couple of contractors . They have friends that are builders , Sunnybrook Builders did the roof work about 5 years ago . They have spoken with them . They have also spoken with Cleveland Avenue Associates to get basic information . They did not pursue any conversations with them any further. They wanted to obtain the variance first . Chairperson Stotz asked how will the outside be finished . Ms . Heine stated that it will match the house, Chairperson Stotz asked if they talked with the neighbors . Mr, Syphrit responded yes . The neighbor who's property to which they are building did not have any objection . Mr. Frost stated that he did not have any calls or inquiries . Chairperson Stotz stated that it is an unusual lot . Mr. Frost stated that from a floor plan stand point this makes the most sense . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 47 p . m . , and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 48 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Attorney Barney stated that this is Type II Action . There is no environmental assessment . RESOLUTION NO. 2000=27 — VARIANCE — Katherine Heine & Philip Syphrit Construct Building Addition , MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Katherine Heine and Philip Syphrit , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , in order to construct a building addition onto a single-family residence at 696 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 49= 1 -23 , Residence District R- 30 . Said addition is to have a south yard setback no less than 24 feet where 40 feet is required . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 22 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz, 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 the Paleontological Research Institute , Warren Allmon , Executive Director, Appellant , TC Miller PC Engineers and Surveyors and Weiss- Manfredi Architects , Agents , requesting a Special Approval under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to construct the Museum of the Earth at 1289 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24-3-3 . 1 , Residence District R-30 . A variance from Article XIII , Section 69 of said Ordinance is also request in order to permit parking of vehicles in the front yard , which is otherwise restricted . Additionally, a variance from Section 3 , 02- lc of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law is requested in order to permit a freestanding sign that is 36 ± square feet (or greater) , whereas a freestanding sign for a museum Is limited to 24 square feet in area . Warren Allmon , Director of PRI , presented the overall site plan of PRI to the board . The proposed museum is located to the south . It is an 18 , 000 square foot addition . It will double the size of the institution . It is divided into two wings . It is one building connected below grade . The wing located closer to the existing building is the education wing . It will house the lobby and multi- purpose classroom . There is access to the other wing underneath the plaza . The second wing is the exhibition wing . The new museum provides about 7 , 000 square feet of new exhibit space , new multi - purpose classroom , gift shop , and a lobby. The plaza that divides the two wings is metaphorically a gorge dividing the two parts of the building . Associated with that is a water feature to the west and a small water feature to the east and south . The water features are to take care of drainage issues . They wanted to re-enforce the nature of the building as part of the landscape and to re-enforce the building as exeplifying something about the earth . The idea of the building is to show off PRI 's collection and to elaborate on the experience that visitors and residents have in the State Parks and the gorges around the area , this is to help them learn more about their surroundings . It will show off PRI 's collections and make available temporary exhibits . They are expecting about 50, 000 visitors per year. They will be putting the visitors in the parking lots in front of the building . They have done a traffic study which looks at the amount of traffic that will be generated on Trumansburg Road . It also looked at the flow through the site . The entrance has been moved to the south in order to separate it from the Cayuga Medical Center. It is two-way traffic flow. The new driveway cuts diagonally across the site and park in one of the three parking bays . The parking bays are birmed or layered into the landscape so that they are not seen from Trumansburg Road or to prevent see a sea of cars from Trumansburg Road . There is a sidewalk from the parking lot to the building . Exiting cars can exit by the two-way driveway or exit around the loop . The existing driveway will be maintained as circulation ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 23 MAY 101 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE r4, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED flow for buses. They can pull- in in front of the museum and then park in a designated pull -off area on the north side . It is also being maintained as an access for delivery vehicles . Delivery for large vehicles will come to the back of the building . The loading dock is in the back of the building . It will look as if the buildings are not attached , but they are attached below grade . The existing building will continue to serve as its present function . The education and exhibit space will revert back to collect space . It will no longer be public . The exhibit functions will go to the new building . The sign before the board is a long concrete wall . It is two sided with fight fixtures . Mr. Frost stated that he wrote the notice saying 36 ± square feet or greater. It could be determined to be 100 square feet or more depending on how it is measured . Mr. Allmon stated that the present sign is parallel to the road . Mr. Frost asked if the Fire Department looked at the site with regard to access issues . David Herrick, TG Miller, responded that the Fire Department has looked at the site . Mr. Frost asked if the Fire Department had any comment . Is the back driveway coming around to the northeast being looked at for access? Mr. Herrick stated that they did review this with Ray Wheaton . There will be a fire hydrant in front of the educational wing . The anticipation is that they would pull up onto the plaza . It would be the principle point of fighting the fire . They went through curb radii and access . He was satisfied that they had plenty of opportunity to get to the facility and to the back portion of the building . It is a condition of the Preliminary Approval by the Planning Board that they have formal written notification from the Fire Department, Mr. Krantz stated that a museum is a great idea . He can understand the parking in the front . They are making a real effort to hide the cars . There is a Sign Ordinance. Why cannot the museum have a sign within the sign requirements? Mr. Allmon stated that the current sign is 24 feet long . It is parallel to the road . The problem with the sign is that it is hard to read . They have wanted to do a perpendicular sign . If they do a perpendicular sign and were within the sign requirements , they would have to cut the present sign in half and make it back to back. The present sign is 24 square feet . If they wanted to be by Ordinance , they would need to cut the sign in half. It would be too small to notice at 40 mph . Chairperson Stotz asked if people are going to go to the museum because they happen to see the sign . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 24 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Allmon stated that they are hoping that people will stop because they see the sign . They do have a lot of people that stop in during the summer because they have seen the sign from Route 96 , Chairperson Stotz stated that the museum is next door to the hospital . This board has deliberated at length and has heard numerous complaints from people about development elsewhere and traffic . The board discussed Burger King at nausea with people concerned about the increase in traffic . It is interesting that they are going to have an increased maximum of 200 cars per day. It might exceed what Burger King anticipated , but the room is empty. It reflects the attitude of the community about what they will accept in the way of development and what they will not . If this had been a Burger King , there would have been a lot of people talking about the 200 cars per day turning into the site . Traffic has influenced the board ' s decisions in other cases . The traffic consideration should be addressed . Mr. Sigel stated that with Burger King , it was 66 cars per hour at peak time . This project is 200 cars per day. Mr. Herrick stated that the traffic impact assessment that was done for the project estimated that the peak hour on Friday would be 22 vehicles per hour entering the site . There is a lag in when the vehicles enter as opposed to when they leave . They establish peaks that are not within the same hour. The vehicles entering and leaving the site are very small . Chairperson Stotz stated that it is interesting to him that if this had been a commercial project the board would have heard about traffic from many people . There are going to be a lot of cars making a turn to go into the museum . What is the impact on rear-end collisions ? Mr. Allmon stated that there is a rush minute of traffic in the morning and in the afternoon . At that time it is quite difficult to make the turns . It only lasts 15 or 20 minutes . During the peak hours of visitors to the museum , 10 : 00 a . m . to 2 : 00 p . m . , there is hardly any traffic. Chairperson Stotz asked why would the peak hours be 10 : 00 a . m . to 2 : 00 p . m . Mr . Allmon stated that they have not set their regular operating hours . Looking at other museum visitation times, the peak hours is mid-day. It would only be different on weekends . On weekends, there is not the same traffic patterns on Trumansburg Road . Mr. Sigel stated that if there was completely different construction at this site that people were generally opposed to , with the same traffic counts and patterns , he does not think that the public would have much justification to complain about the traffic . He does not feel that he is being lenient on the application because it is a museum . Mr. Herrick stated that they have been concerned about access to Trumansburg Road and safety of visitors to the museum . The first improvement made was moving the intersection further south than the current location . The hedge row makes the visibility to the north difficult . The Cayuga ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 25 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 1 4, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Medical Center light is close to the existing driveway, They recognized that moving the driveway to the south would aid in visibility. Mr. Ellsworth stated that there is a deceleration lane that would come back to the entrance to PRI . Mr. Herrick stated that there is an informal right turn lane that begins at the property line . Chairperson Stotz asked if the applicant gave any thought to talking with the State about a deceleration lane . Mr . Herrick stated that the traffic consultant did a warrant . He looked at the warrants for deceleration lanes . The volumes of traffic coming and leaving the site did not suggest that a turning lane be constructed . They also benefit from the light at the hospital . The light does provide some gaps in southbound traffic. Mr. Smith stated that State DOT has been aware of the project . Their letter did not have any issues . They said that the traffic study is thorough and complete . They agreed with the conclusions . A State Highway work permit is required . Mr. Herrick stated that they are making the intersection suitable for bus traffic . They are making it generous enough that there will not be lane intrusion by larger vehicles . They made provisions for the larger vehicles to turn safely and drop people off in front of the museum . They feel that they have made the right improvements in the transportation network internally and regionally. They have had positive responses from other agencies with what they have done . Mr. Ellsworth stated that he assumes that the birms taper down so that some parking will be seen . Mr. Allmon stated that pieces of the parking lot can be seen when passing by, but the entire parking lot will never be seen . Mr. Herrick stated that the location of where the original building was built in 1927 it did not leave a lot of opportunity with the property lines to provide anything in the rear. Another key factor in locating this building was its relation of the historical nature of the old orphanage . The State Historic Preservation Office has drafted a memo of agreement that will be honored and executed . The recognize that this is the appropriate way to locate the new with the old . The emphasis has been in mitigating the view of the parking spaces in several manners . One is the birming affect . The other is to break the parking up into three bays . The original proposal to the Planning Board was four parking bays with single loaded bays . Considerations were made and good points were made by the Planning Board . They went back and came up with three parking bays double loaded . They feel that it is a hardship situation . They do not have any other options . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 26 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED They are unable to purchase property to the east at this point . The other issue is that the Ciaschi development has a lot of parking in the front and has expanded within the last 10 years to add more . Mr. Ellsworth stated that the professional building has parking in the front as well . Mr. Herrick stated that they are taking measures to mitigate the impact . The development of the birms will tie in to the geology of the area . The architects and PRI are very interested in extending the educational element of this museum out into the parking lot . It is not only a parking lot , it has a story to tell . Chairperson Stotz asked what is the exterior going to be . Mr. Allmon stated that there is not a lot of wail visible . The building is birmed . The part of the building that will be seen is glass . The part that is visible will be poured concrete . In the landscaping and the plaza between the two wings they are going to use as much Len rock as they can afford . There is a considerable amount of Len rock in the plan . The amount that they use will be controlled by budget . Chairperson Stotz asked if there are tentative plans for the expansion of the facility. Mr. Allmon stated that they do not have expansion options on their site . The future of the institution lies to their south . The architects have done a master pian sketch of the entire Old Odd Fellows Complex. It takes out the addition to the Ciaschi building . The plan is expandable . They asked the architects to come up with a plan for the next 50 or 100 years on the site . They could not build a building to keep adding on to . They looked at the entire landscape . The original Odd Fellows design called for a portico that connected the orphanage to the main lodge . There is some historic, tradition for connecting the buildings . Mr. Herrick stated that there are other significant impacts of the project . They spent a considerable amount of time with the Planning Board discussing a rational initial plan . They had some feedback from DOT with concerns of how this project might impact their facilities on Route 89 . In response to DOT concerns they came back with a storm water management plan that is very consistent with what has been seen with other applications . They are doing erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction and after construction . Peak discharge mitigation is also being done. Mr. Ellsworth asked if there is a retention pond . Mr. Herrick stated that this retention pond will have education behind it . It will have plantings introduced to represent wetland species . This came as a result from discussions with DOT and the Town . They have responded responsibly. The size of the project does not merit that they address certain issues , but they have . It has been treated as a 50 acre development . It is an environmentally effective and sensitive plan . The addition of the storm water basin to the back will be a feature to the museum and incorporated into the program . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 27 MAY 10 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz asked if all the required handicap accessible parking spaces are available . Mr. Herrick responded yes . The required number of spaces are in the bay closest to the building. The grading of the parking has been made to accommodate handicap persons . It is the closest route to the museum . The water feature is a series of plunge pools . The design intent is to represent glaciation . It will lined with different Len rock materials . There will be cascading pools along the edge of the road . There will be water in them during storm events . They anticipate that the lower basin will have a permanent pool in it . there is a source of water that created the wet area that they are maintaining . They are not going to be infringing upon it . They are adding to it . Chairperson Stotz stated that it is a great design . Attorney Barney stated that the design has won some awards . Mr. Allmon stated that it has not won awards yet . It has been recognized . It is on exhibit in New York City. A book has come out from Princeton University that features the design . Mr. Sigel asked if all the exhibition space permanent or is it rotating . Mr . Allmon stated that they have 1500 square feet for temporary exhibit space . Then there is 7 , 000 square feet of permanent exhibit space . Mr. Sigel asked how often do they anticipate changing the exhibit . Mr. Allmon stated that it would depend . It would probably to three times a year. Chairperson Stotz asked if they had sufficient storage space . Mr. Allmon stated that they just barely do . They do not have any growth space left . The collections are now stored in the lower part of the addition , in part of the existing building , and the in the annex. They are going to turn the upper floor of the annex into collection space . It will allow 5 to 10 years of growth . Mr. Ellsworth asked what is the square footage of the current facilities . Mr. Allmon stated that including the annex it is 18 , 000 square feet . Mr. Frost asked it they could discuss the sign . Mr. Herrick stated that the lower portion of the diagram shows the sign with respect to the entrance . The architects are looking to integrate everything on the site . They want to start with the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 28 MAY 10 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED entrance sign and down to the museum together. They were concerned that having a stand alone single block of concrete would not be consistent with the way they have developed the grading , birms , and the Len rock walls . He does not think that the garden wall is not part of the sign because it supports the sign . Mr. Frost asked what is the distance between each seam of the concrete . Mr. Herrick stated that the joints are about 8 to 10 feet apart . Mr. Frost asked what they calculated as the square footage for the purpose of the appeal . Mr . Herrick replied that they were not including the entire garden wall . Mr. Frost stated that he is not sure that the Sign Ordinance requires that air needs to be seen through the supports . It talks about the smallest area of a rectangle , triangle or circle that results in the smallest area of calculation circumscribing one face of the sign panel or symbol . He is not sure that one has to see the air space between the seam to consider it two separate pieces . Mr. Sigel asked what is 36 square feet . Mr. Herrick stated that 36 square feet is the lettering . It does not include the face that it is on . Mr. Ellsworth stated that adjacent to this site is the hospital with a big sign . Mr. Frost stated that hospitals are allowed up to 50 square feet . Attorney Barney stated that the question is if the wall is a decorative appendix. The Sign Ordinance states that the area is determined by making a rectangle , triangle , or circle around the sign , symbol , or group panels , inclusive of decorative appendages , but exclusive of supports . One could argue that it is a decorative appendage that goes all the way down the driveway. On the other hand they could take the sign lettering only. Mr. Frost stated that a sign is to advertise and convey information . There does not need to be words to convey information . Mr. Sigel asked what if this were a wall with a plaquered . Attorney Barney stated that the sign was measured just by the plaquered . Mr. Ellsworth stated that the board needs to sort it out before they make an approval . Mr. Herrick has defined only the lettering . Mr . Frost stated that he would encourage the board to measure the first to panels . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 29 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated that he thinks that they can make findings in a case like this that would argue in favor of the sign . There is a large sign at the hospital next door. This is a decorative appendage that is designed to fit in with the overall architecture of the site . Mr. Sigel stated that one issue is if the board agrees that the sign as designed is acceptable . It is important in how the board approves the sign . It could be used by another applicant . It would bother him if they could come up with a different number if they were to mount the lettering on wood and then gluing the wood on the wall . Chairperson Stotz stated that he thinks that it is silly. Mr. Frost stated that it makes sense to count the first two panels . Attorney Barney stated that is not sure that they would have to do that . They could do it with a circumscription around the lettering and the dinosaur. The board needs to make a determination of whether or not they are willing to accept lettering of that size . The lettering requires a variance . Does the 36 square feet include the lettering and dinosaur? Mr. Herrick stated that if they count the dinosaur it would be 61 square feet . Attorney Barney asked if they were making two different rectangles . Mr. Herrick responded yes . Mr. Frost stated that they need to make one rectangle circumscribing the entire message . Mr. Herrick stated that it would be 91 square feet . Chairperson Stotz asked what is the highest point of the wall . Mr. Herrick responded that the highest point is 6 feet and it tapers down to 18 inches . Mr. Niefer asked what is the size of the lettering . Mr. Herrick stated that the lettering would be 15 inches . The smaller lettering will be 5 inches . Mr. Sigel asked Mr. Frost if he agreed that if the letters were mounted on a piece of wood that was attached to the wall then they would only measure the wood . Mr. Frost stated that he would call the wall the support and the wood the sign panel . Mr. Sigel asked what would happen if they would embed the piece of wood into the concrete . Mr. Frost stated that the wall would be the support . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 30 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated that laws are drafted generically. Sometimes there is a situation where generic language makes it hard to interpret . He would interpret the area of the sign under the Ordinance as being 91 square feet . Mr. Ellsworth asked what language would they use for the rest of the wall . Attorney Barney stated that it is a wall . Mr. Frost stated that the wall has seems . Mr. Herrick stated that they are vertical control joints . Mr. Frost asked will it be fabricated on site . Mr. Herrick responded yes . Mr. Sigel stated that the square footage would be increased significantly even if they counted the first two joints . Mr. Ellsworth stated that the board needs to get the square footage settled . The board is concerned with setting a precedent . Attorney Barney stated that the board could make findings specific to this project . The board could choose to grant a variance for an area that is circumscribed to a certain amount of square feet . That there are signs along the road that are equal is size . Mr. Ellsworth stated that there is something similar to this at the entrance of Cornell 's technology park. Mr. Herrick stated that this would resemble the Ithaca College entrance . Attorney Barney stated that the first question is if 91 square feet is an acceptable number. If the answer is no , then the board needs to deal with that question first . If the answer is yes , then the board could create a resolution . Mr. Sigel stated that he would like to arrive at the lowest number as possible . Attorney Barney stated that the square footage will need to be one rectangle . It is the entire sign . The wall is an attractive feature that has its own landscaping . Chairperson Stotz asked if the board could make a finding that this is a unique attraction in the area and as such it is felt that the sign should be of sufficient size to attract the maximum number of people . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 31 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sigel stated that the statement argues against the traffic. Mr. Ellsworth stated that the museum is on a high speed , high volume highway. A certain size is needed to draw the public in . Chairperson Stotz stated that the argument could be made for commercial signs as well . Mr. Frost stated that the argument has been made and accepted by this board before . Chairperson Stotz stated that they made that exception for the sign at the nursing home . Mr. Frost stated that it is much smaller. Chairperson Stotz asked if they could make the finding that the design of the sign is unique to the overall design of the project . Mr. Frost stated that the applicant has given the wording of a garden wall . The board might want to use wording that separates the sign and symbols from the rest of the garden wall . Mr . Sigel stated that he is comfortable in saying that the wall and the sign are not intregal to each other. If the applicant was not allowed the sign , they still might choose to have the wall because they like the way it ties in with the design . The letters are being mounted on a certain part of the wall . The lettering is the sign . Chairperson Stotz stated that the board should not address the wall . It is only the sign . What is the total square footage of the sign ? Attorney Barney stated that it is about 89 square feet . Chairperson Stolz stated that he would like it to be limited to no more than 95 square feet . Attorney Barney stated that the motion could be made that the PRI be granted a variance under the Sign Ordinance to maintain a sign as presented when circumscribed by a rectangle consisting of no more than 95 square feet, inclusive of lettering and dinosaur symbol . Chairperson Stotz asked what are the findings . Attorney Barney stated upon the findings that the sign is attached to the wall , which provides support for the lettering and symbols for the sign . The road on which it is located is on a relatively high speed road and the size of the sign is needed for the visibility for the people who will be looking for the Museum of the Earth and to encourage people to stop that might not be aware of its existence . Another finding is that there are large signs for the Cayuga Medical Center to the north of this property and Classen Health Care to the south of the property. The area is not one with a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 32 MAY 105 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED significant numbers of residences . It is largely a institutional , medical , museum , multiple residence area . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 9 : 43 p . m . , and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 9 : 44 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Mr. Smith stated that the SEQR has to do with the sign . The Planning Board has already established lead agency. They made a negative determination . RESOLUTION NO. 2000=28 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Paleontological Research Institute. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental assessment in the matter of Paleontological Research Institution , requesting a variance from Section 3 . 02- 1 c of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law is requested in order to permit a freestanding sign that is no more than 95 ± square feet , whereas a freestanding sign for a museum is limited to 24 square feet in area at 1259 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24-3-3 . 1 , Residence District R-30 . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Stotz stated that they need to make separate motions for the construction of the museum , the parking lot and the sign . RESOLUTION NO. 29 — SIGN VARIANCE = Paleontological Research Institute. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of the Paleontological Research Institute requesting a variance under the Sign Ordinance to maintain a sign as presented when circumscribed by a rectangle consisting of no more than 95 square feet , inclusive of lettering and dinosaur symbol at 1259 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 24-3-3 . 1 , Residence District R-30 based upon the following findings : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 33 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 1' 412000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED a . That the sign is attached to the wall , which provides support for the lettering and symbols for the sign ; and b . The road on which it is located is on a relatively high speed road and the size of the sign is needed for the visibility for the people who will be looking for the Museum of the Earth and to encourage people to stop that might not be aware of its existence ; and C, There are large signs for the Cayuga Medical Center to the north of this property and Classen Health Care to the south of the property; and d . The area is not one with a significant numbers of residences . It is largely a institutional , medical , museum and multiple residence area . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-30 — VARIANCE - Paleontological Research Institution Parking Lot . MOTION made by David Stotz , seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this board grants the appeal of Paleontological Research Institution requesting a variance from Article XIII , Section 69 of the Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to park vehicles in the front yard , which is otherwise restricted , with the number of parking spaces not to exceed 64 parking spaces at 1259 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 24- 3-3 . 1 , Residence District R-30 based upon the following findings : a . The site is configured in such a way as to make it difficult if not impossible to site parking behind the buildings ; and b . The number of parking spaces required are needed to accommodate the expected number of visitors; and C' The proposed parking will not be very visible from the road ; and d . There is a very large front yard of approximately 500 feet from the road ; and With the condition that the parking be done in accordance with a site plan approved by the Planning Board . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 34 MAY 10, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AYES : Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-31 — Special Approval - Paleontological Research Institute Construction of Museum . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of the Paleontological Research Institute requesting a Special Approval under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to construct the Museum of the Earth as shown on the plans and drawings submitted to the board , and that it complies with Article XIV , Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Subparagraphs a- h , at 1259 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24-3-3 . 1 , Residence District R-30 . A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel , NAYS : None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Frost stated that they have scheduled a second meeting in two weeks . The Cayuga Heights Fire Station needs a Special Approval to temporarily relocate their property in the Town of Ithaca while they build a new fire station . The Village of Cayuga Heights does provide fire service to the Town of Ithaca . Mr. Sigel stated that he will be absent for the July meeting and would like to be absent for the August meeting . Mr. Ellsworth stated that he will be absent for the August meeting . Mr. Frost stated that he might be in surgery in July. They might not have a July meeting . C ' r r on of adjourned the meeting at 9 : 53 p. m . David Stotz, Ct air p rsa . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 35 MAY 105 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 14, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Carrie L. Coates , Deputy Town Clerk. 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, May 10, 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: May 2, 2000 Date of publication: May 5, 2000 C) Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning DeAartment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5th day of May, 2000. �. Notary Public DEBORAH .KELLEY . Notary Pubna, State of New York No. '01 KE6025073 Qualified in Schuyler County. Commission Expires May 17, 20 O c. 0 s TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 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, May 10, 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 Katherine Heine and Philip Syphrit, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, in order to construct a building addition onto a single-family residence at 696 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49- 1 -23 , Residence District R-30. The proposed addition will have a south side yard building setback of 25 ± feet, whereas 40 feet is required. APPEAL of the Paleontological Research Institute, Warren Allmon, Executive Director, Appellant, TG Miller PC Engineers and Surveyors and Weiss-Manfredi Architects, Agents, requesting a Special Approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct the Museum of the Earth at 1259 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3 -3 . 1 , Residence District R-30. A variance from Article XIII, Section 69 of said Ordinance is also requested in order to permit parking of vehicles in the front yard, which is otherwise restricted. Additionally, a variance from Section 3 .02- 1 c of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law is requested in order to permit a freestanding sign that is 36 + square feet (or greater), whereas a freestanding sign for a museum is limited to 24 square feet in area. 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 2, 2000 Published: May 5, 2000