Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2001-06-18 FILEhi - Hc, TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPE , E MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2001 7 : 00 P. M . APPEAL of Cornell University Real Estate Department , Owner/Appellant , SB Ashley Management Corporation , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 37 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to erect a light pole 33 ± feet (30 foot height limitation ) in the parking lot of the East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business District C . Said light pole is to serve the ATM machine at the M &T Bank at 325 Pine Tree Road within said plaza . a ra VA 0 APPEAL of Uri M . Possen , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to construct a carport with an east side yard building setback of 1 + feet ( 10 foot setback required ) at 117 Clover Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59 -2 - 11 , Residence District R- 15 . n to M L cl APPEAL of Lakeview Cemetery , Appellant , Jack Brooks ,ooks , Agent , requesting a special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to erect an 18 ' x 24' storage building , located at 605 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 16-2-5 , Residence District R- 15 . The cemetery is non -conforming with regard to its use in an R- 15 zone . 67Y014 �( APPEAL of John and Carolyn Neuman , Owners/Appellants , Vincent Mulcahy , R . A . , Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to demolish two residential buildings and construct two new residences at 1077- 1079 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 21 -2-7 , Residence District R- 15 . The parcel is non -conforming since it contains two residential buildings , whereas only one is allowed and the proposed new construction will not be in the exact same footprint as the demolished buildings . I1VG( UikCI APPEAL of Joseph Salino , Owner/Appellant , Thomas Schickel AIA , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the placement of a retail business in an existing non - residential building located at 630 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33-3-3 , Light Industrial Zone . Said zone does not permit retail sales as a primary use . An interpretation of the property's previous use , Salino Electric Motors , as a retail business and not as a light industrial use is also being requested . Should an interpretation by the Zoning Board conclude that Salino Electric Motors was a retail business , then a. use variance would not be required , as the proposed new business would be legally non -conforming . yn4 � FILE1)a2a.� DATE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 18 , 2001 7 : 00 P . M . PRESENT : Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; David Stotz , Board Member (7 : 14 p . m . ) ; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andrew Frost , Director of Building & Zoning ; John Barney , Attorney for the Town (7 : 14 p . m . ) ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner. ALSO PRESENT : Gloria C . Howell , 120 Clover Lane ; Jack Brooks , 804 N Aurora St ; John & Carolyn Neuman , 1077 Taughannock Blvd ; Uri & Rhoda Possen , 117 Clover Lane ; John Murray , 95 Brown Road ; Joseph Salino , 484 Troy Road ; Thomas Schickel , Schickel Architecture ; Vincent Mulcahy, Taughannock Boulevard ; Monty Ruge , Llama Real Estate . Chairperson Sigel opened the meeting at 7 : 04 p . m . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Cornell University Real Estate Department , Owner/Appellant , SB Ashley Management Corporation , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 37 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to erect a light pole 33 ± feet (30 foot height limitation) in the parking lot of the East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business District C . Said light pole is to serve the ATM machine at the M &T Bank at 325 Pine Tree Road within said plaza . John Murray, 95 Brown Road - We are asking for a variance . We have received Planning Board approval . M &T Bank is located in the in - line center portion of the plaza . They are required to comply with NYS Law for ATM lighting . It is required for all banking institutions in New York. M &T was required to add a light on the top portion of the fagade , which faces outward into the Plaza . The complaints were made known to us during the Burger King application . We shared the complaints with the University . We worked with Richardson Brothers and Rudd Lighting . We tried to maintain the aesthetics to the existing pole system . The distance of the poles did not allow it . The proposal is to install a new light pole . It will be outside the traffic lane and have a two- headed fixture that will face the face of the Plaza . The bank must maintain this light level to comply with the law . The pole is 33 feet high . Chairperson Sigel - Is the extra 3 feet only for aesthetic reasons ? Mr. Murray - We need to hit a certain candle power. It is a matter of aesthetics and functionality to keep the candle power. It would not have worked with a lower pole . Mr. Ellsworth - Could there have been a higher wattage for a lower pole ? Mr. Murray - The lights are rated in large increments . The wattage jumps from 750 to 1 , 000 . t APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 2 Chairperson Sigel - Is there a requirement to have a certain light intensity at the ATM ? Mr. Murray - There is a requirement for the ATM . Then there are certain requirements surrounding the ATM . This was designed to keep the necessary light levels . Mr. Niefer - How does the height of this pole compare with the height of the other poles in the plaza? Mr. Murray - It is identical to the poles in the plaza . Chairperson Sigel - It is not a large request . It seems counterintuitive to me that a higher pole would provide you with more light intensity . Mr. Murray - There was an attachment in the packet that showed the required foot candles surrounding the ATM . The engineers did field testing for the lighting . Mr. Krantz - It does not seem that a pole at 30 feet high would not made a significant difference . Mr. Murray - I do not know how it would impact the foot candles . It was a 10% difference against the other heights of the poles . Mr. Smith - The height of the pole is 30 feet . The lights mounted on top gives the additional 3 feet . Mr. Ellsworth - Do the other banks in the plaza meet the law requirements ? Mr. Murray - Tompkins Trust Company made provisions for the requirement with their renovation plans . The Credit Union might have done the same . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 12 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 13 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . Mr. Smith - Staff researched the requirements for State Law . It seems to be the only way to meet State requirements . RESOLUTION NO. 2001 =39 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = Cornell University, 325 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 121 , June 18, 2001 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Cornell University Real Estate Department, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII, Section 37 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to erect a light pole 33 feet high in the parking lot of the East Hill Plaza, 325 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business District C, based upon the environmental assessment form completed by Town Staff. APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 3 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. ABSENT., Stotz. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. . RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -40 - Cornell University, 325 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 121 , June 18, 2001 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Cornell University Real Estate Department, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII, Section 37 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to erect a light pole not to exceed 34 feet in height in the parking lot of the East Hill Plaza, 325 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business District C based upon the following condition: a . The light pole is to be erected as shown on the plans submitted to the board in the Zoning Board of Appeals packet. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. ABSENT., Stotz. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Uri M . Possen , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to construct a carport with an east side yard building setback of 1 ± feet ( 10 foot setback required ) at 117 Clover Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59-2 - 11 , Residence District R- 15 . Uri Possen , 117 Clover Lane - I would like to put a carport behind where our driveway is located . The driveway is very close to the property line . I need a variance in order to build the carport . Chairperson Sigel - The drawings had conflicting measurements between the scale given and dimensions listed on the survey . Mr. Possen - The length is 25 feet and the width is 10 feet . Mr. Krantz - What is the setback requirement? APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 4 Mr. Frost - The required setback is 10 feet for a garage or carport . An accessory building setback is 3 feet . Mr. Possen - We have a shed in the rear of the property . The previous owners obtained a variance for the shed . Mr. Frost - The location with the 1 foot setback is just ahead at the end of the driveway . It does not encroach on a whole lot . It is along side a driveway to the next door neighbor to the south . Mr. Niefer - Is the current garage under the house? Mr. Possen - Yes . Mr. Niefer - Is the use of the basement being expanded ? Mr. Possen - No . We would like to purchase a second car. We would like to put the second car under something . Mr. Niefer - Where is the orange sign posted ? Mr. Possen - It is posted on our mailbox facing Mitchell Street . Mr. Niefer - What is the structure at the rear of your property that the small lane leads to? Mr. Possen - It is a house . Mr. Stotz - Could the carport be located elsewhere ? Mr. Possen - We would not be able to use our driveway . Chairperson Sigel - There is no Environmental Assessment , Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 21 p . m . Gloria Howell , 120 Clover Lane - I support the project . Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 22 p . m . RESOLUTION NO. 200141 - Uri M. Possen, 117 Clover Lane, Tax Parcel No. 59-2- 11 June 18 2001 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Uri M. Possen, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct a carport APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 5 with an east side yard building setback of no less than 1 foot whereby a 10 foot setback is required at 117 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59-2- 11 , Residence District R- 15. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Lakeview Cemetery , Appellant , Jack Brooks , Agent , requesting a special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to erect an 18 ' x 24' storage building , located at 605 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 16-2-5 , Residence District R- 15 . The cemetery is non -conforming with regard to its use in an R- 15 zone . Jack Brooks , Superintendent of Lakeview Cemetery - We have been using an old storage building in the cemetery and it is about 100 years old . It is very small and we have a hard time getting all our equipment into storage . It is starting to fall apart. We need to put the building up behind the caretakers house . They do not have an objection to the small building . Mr. Frost - How close would the building be to the gorge or creek? Mr. Brooks - The building would be 10 to 15 feet from the creek . Mr. Frost - Does the bank drop off dramatically in that location ? Mr. Brooks - No . It is only about 4 or 5 feet deep in that area . Mr. Niefer - What is the existing building that the proposed shed will be 25 feet from ? Mr. Brooks - It is a house . It serves as an office and the residence for the caretaker. The front of the building will be visible from the road . Mr. Stotz - The plans show a very basic building . Mr. Brooks - It is basically an 18 ' x 24' garage . It will have a 9 foot overhead door in the front that will be seen from the road . There will be no windows and one service door. Mr. Stotz - Will there be any landscape around the building ? Mr. Brooks - No . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 6 Mr. Krantz - Could landscape be planted around the building ? Mr. Brooks - The only place the landscaping would be seen from is the front of the building where the overhead door is located . It will be a white building with brown skirting and brown trim . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 27 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 28 p . m . RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -42 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Lakeview Cemetery, 605 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 16-2-5, June 18, 2001 . MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Lakeview Cemetery, requesting a special approval under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to erect an 18 ' x 24 ' storage building, located at 605 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 16-2-5, Residence District R- 15, based upon the environmental assessment form completed by Town Staff. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -43 - Lakeview Cemetery, 605 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 16-2-5, June 18, 2001 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Lakeview Cemetery, requesting a special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to erect an 18 ' x 24 ' storage building, located at 605 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 16-2-5, Residence District R- 15. It is noted that the cemetery is a non -conforming use in an R- 15 zone. The board finds that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Article XIV, Section 77, subdivision 7, subparagraphs a -h. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 7 APPEAL of John and Carolyn Neuman , Owners/Appellants , Vincent Mulcahy , R . A . , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to demolish two residential buildings and construct two new residences at 1077- 1079 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca .Tax Parcel No . 21 -2-7 , Residence District R- 15 . The parcel is non -conforming since it contains two residential buildings , whereas only one is allowed and the proposed new construction will not be in the exact same footprint as the demolished buildings . Vincent Mulcahy , Taughannock Blvd - Mr. and Mrs . Neuman bought the property with the intention of using the home initially as a weekend and vacation home . They are active Cornell Alumni . They like to come back to Ithaca . Mrs . Neuman is a Trustee at Cornell . It has been their plan since 1991 to eventually to demolish the two existing buildings and build a retirement home . The Neumans would like to demolish the building nearest the road , which has been a rental property . They would construct near its current footprint a guest house . The guest house would be used as a residence for themselves so that they can retire here as early as next spring . Once that is completed , they would like to demolish the lake house . It is a turn of the century cottage that has been winterized . They would then construct a primary residence for themselves there . The reasons for wanting to have the two buildings is because it is important to them that they have access . The property nearest the road would give them an assured access . They are also concerned about the scale of the building . They would like to have their extended family visit them . They would rather not build a large structure which is out of context with the other structures along the lakefront . The Neumans have thought carefully about what their needs are going to be . They tried to think the design through . Mr. Stotz - How large is the extended family? Carol Neuman , 1077- 1079 Taughannock Blvd - We have 4 generations of family who come to visit in the summertime . This has become the center of our family life . We also invite Cornellians to visit our home . Mr. Stotz - Will there be enough parking ? Ms . Neuman - Many of our guests fly in . We would not have more than 4 cars at the house at a time unless we are having a party. Mr. Mulcahy - We have included provisions for parking . There is good vehicular access for the guest house . Mr. Krantz - Barbara Yale has been disabled for many years . The large lake house was very inappropriate for a place for her to live . A smaller cottage was built because of her handicap . Mr. Mulcahy - There were 2 dwellings on the Yale property . Ms . Yale reconfigured from a rental property into a winter residence . During the summer she has multiple family members in town . It is clear the Neumans are looking forward to their family visiting . APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 8 Chairperson Sigel - The footprint of the new guest house was described in the packet . The packet also mentioned that the new residence was anticipated to be 3 , 000 to 4 , 000 square feet . Mr. Mulcahy - We have not designed the lake house at this time . The guest house is 1 , 950 square feet . They do not want the lake house to be significantly larger than the guest house . The guest house is inflated by a fair amount of storage . The 3 , 000 to 4 , 000 square foot number that we have discussed is a total per square number, rather than a footprint number. Chairperson Sigel - What is the total square footage of the guest house? Mr. Mulcahy - It is about 2 , 600 square feet . There is a basement level and a primary level . Chairperson Sigel - Does the basement level encompass the entire footprint? Mr. Mulcahy - Yes , but out 50% is storage space . The primary story does not fully occupy the footprint because there is a deck . Mr. Stotz - Will this be the primary residence? Mr. Mulcahy - They will sell their current home and move to Ithaca . The Neumans did not know that an appeal would be required . The house next to the road needs to be removed . This will be a tremendous improvement of the property . The Neumans want to do something in keeping with the character of the lake front neighborhood . Mr. Stotz - How many houses along the lake have a second dwelling ? Mr. Frost - There are a number of houses that have a second dwelling along the lake . Mr. Stotz - The application it to demolish 2 existing houses . The applicant will be starting with a fresh lot . I wonder about justification in this case . We need to treat this as if it is a fresh lot . What is the justification for permitting the construction of 2 buildings on this lot? Mr. Niefer - This lot is over 500 feet deep from the road to the lake . The lake frontage is 103 feet . The road frontage is about 150 feet . It is an exceptionally large lake lot . I would feel differently if this were a smaller lot . Mr. Stotz - There are other properties in the Town that are large . Someone could come before the board and request to build a guest house . Does a large lot justify whether properties in the Town should be allowed to have 2 dwelling units? I do not know if that is adequate justification . Anyone else along the lot with a large lot could have the same justification . Mr. Frost - The applicant could demolish both buildings and re- build them within the same footprint without Zoning Board of Appeals approval . John Neuman , 1077- 1079 Taughannock Blvd - We have lived at the property seasonally for 10 years . We come to Ithaca in April through October every couple of weekends . It is a lot of drop . It is quite APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 9 narrow . We have played with sketches for a house by a lake . The width at 103 feet puts a lot of compression on what can be down close to the water. We can drive to the lake . The property is long and narrow. We have looked at several options near the lake . It is very restrictive to have nice lake views and reasonably open space for a livingroom and kitchen where we could see the lake . We see the house next to the road as relieving the space pressure down by the lake . We have not designed the structure at this point . There is not much that can be built next to the lake and be a comfortable living house and room for guests . Functionally , we can not get everything into one house . We know the Ithaca winters . There are times that we would not be able to get down or backup the road to the lake house . We would like a reasonable accommodation up by the road as an alternative . We would also like it as an alternative for when we are older. The compression of the width of the property going to the waterfront has held us back from putting in what we would normally put in for a lakefront structure . Mr. Stotz - What is the current footprint of the lake house ? Mr. Mulcahy - The main cottage is 40 ' x 30' or 40 . It is 3-stories high . I have to include porches and garages . Mr. Stotz - What will be the living space of the main house ? Mr. Mulcahy - The Neumans are interested in a livingroom , kitchen , 2 bedrooms , and a recreation room in the main house . It will be 3 stories because it is quite steep and it is likely the house will be 3 , 000 square feet . I am citing 4 , 000 because one does not want to understate the possibility . It is relatively equivalent in size . I know of a property closer to the City of Ithaca , which is an extraordinary large property on a small site . The house seems inappropriate . The size of the site is important . The fact that there are currently 2 dwellings on the site is important . The Neumans are investing resources in a way that will improve the property . There are constraints on the site that would be daunting for most people when they retire unless there are certain accommodations that they can make . It is the circumstances of the site and the grandfathered conditions of the site . Mr. Stotz - I am struggling with the justification . The first justification is the size of the extended family and associates visiting . The second justification is the topography of the site that may on occasion require the applicant to occupy the guest house because they cannot reach the main house . I wonder how many other lake front owners are in a similar situation and could come before this board with the same justifications . What is unique about your request? Mr. Mulcahy - The presumption on the part of the Neumans was that there are 2 residences on the site . Mr. Stotz - The 2 buildings are being demolished . Mr. Mulcahy - It was presumed that they would have the flexibility to continue to have the 2 residences . Mr. Stotz - It is a bare lot when the houses are demolished . The applicant is starting from scratch . APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 10 Mr. Krantz - The Neumans bought the property with 2 residences . They now want to improve the houses . Mr. Stotz - The difference is they are eliminating the 2 houses and starting from scratch . Chairperson Sigel - We do not receive many applications like this . The applicant is asking for permission to do something of which the board has no plans for. Attorney Barney - This is a different situation because there are 2 existing buildings . There is nothing preventing them from upgrading the structures . Chairperson Sigel - I am sympathetic to the application and the applicant's need . I do not feel comfortable approving a large , blanket size for the house by the lake . We have scrutinized single homes by the lake that have come before the board for height and setback variances . The board has scrutinized them carefully as far as impact from the lake . We cannot approve the applicant to approve to build whatever they want by the lake . Mr. Frost - Could the applicant demolish the buildings and rebuild them within the same footprint without coming before the board ? Attorney Barney - I do not think they would need to come back before the board . Mr. Frost - Could they rebuild in the same footprint with a slightly different aesthetic look would they need to come back before the board ? Attorney Barney - The applicant could demolish the buildings and replace them with identical buildings would not require them to come before the board . The board could approve the plans for the building the board has received plans . The applicant could come back before the board with plans for the main house . Chairperson Sigel - I agree . I do not see how the board could approve something that they do not have plans for. Mr. Niefer - Is the rear height of the guest house going to exceed 30 feet? Mr. Mulcahy - No . It is an exposed single story with a single story on top of it . It is a low building . The lakefront property will be conforming with all requirements . Attorney Barney - The board cannot approve a building for which they have not seen plans . Mr. Stotz - It will be better for us to approve plans . We can permit the reconstruction of the guest house at this time . Chairperson Sigel - The applicant will then be required to come back before the board with the plans for the house by the lake . APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 11 Mr. Ellsworth - The applicant should bring proof of similar size structures in the neighborhood when they come back for approval on the lake house . Mr. Ellsworth - The County sent a letter to the Town regarding their review of the application . They feel that the Town should consider potential accumulative impacts that may result from replacing small residential structures along the lake with larger structures . This will change the roadside and lakeside views . Mr. Mulcahy - The current house is almost 3 , 000 square feet. Mr. Stotz - The board is not only concerned with square footage . We are also concerned with the visual impacts . Ms . Neuman - We would like a home that looks like it has been in existence for 50 years . We also need something that works for us and does not have a negative visual impact . Mr. Krantz - The board would prefer to give permission to demolish the rental unit next to the road first . Mr. Stotz - I would need to see justification for the second house beyond the fact that you have an extended family . I struggle with that . There are many people along the lake that have an extended family . There needs to be something unique for this property. Mr. Ellsworth - The concern is that the board will set a precedence . Mr. Niefer - This is a unique property. The house next to the road has generous side yard setbacks . They are over the requirements . I would hope the applicant would not ask for a variance regarding the lake house . The size of the lot makes a difference . This has the potential of being a very attractive lakefront property . I do not see that it is going to be detrimental . Mr. Stotz - It is premature for the board to come up with justification . Mr. Ellsworth - The applicant needs to describe what is unique about the site . Attorney Barney - This sit has 2 existing buildings . There are not many lots along the lake that have 2 existing dwelling units . Mr. Mulcahy - It is a concern for people to be able to retire and have easy access to a lakefront property . It is a unique concern . The board could decide that these homes are destined to be summer homes . The board could decide there is an advantage to having a fulltime occupant . The Neumans have to make plans . They will undertake the project of the guest house with the notion that it is a secondary issue . They are assuming that they will be able to demolish and re- build the lake house . I am hearing that subject to the board 's review relative to its presentation on the lake and appropriateness , the board would be inclined to support it . It is difficult to launch ahead with the APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 12 guest house project , which of a secondary concern , without some sense that they will be able to do the other. Chairperson Sigel - I sympathize with your viewpoint . I have not heard strong opposition from the board . The best answer I can give is that if you want a guarantee that the main house would be approved before you start on the guest house to design the plans of the main house and get them approved . Then the board could grant an approval for that plan . Any alterations would need to come back before the board . Mr. Stotz - How far along is the design of the lake house? Mr. Mulcahy - We have not started the design . The plan was that we would get this phase taken care of and then spend the summer designing the next step . Chairperson Sigel - It is a tough position to put the board in to expect us to approve something that we have not seen plans for. Mr. Krantz - We have specific plans for the guest house . We need specific plans for the main house . Chairperson Sigel - The point of requiring approval for something non -conforming is to be able to exercise greater control over that situation and try to mitigate the non -conformity . Attorney Barney - The board cannot guarantee that the second house will be approved . The board may not have the same members the next time this comes before the board . Mr. Neuman - We are looking at a window of selling our current home that is in the near future . Our intent was to move forward very quickly with the house by the road so that we could move into it within the next 10 months . We need to patch the houses to keep the rain out . It is reasonable for the board to ask for more details on the second house . There could be an approval that requires the main house stay within resemblance of the current house . We need to know we are not going to be denied the opportunity to reconstruct the lake house . We would need to redesign from the beginning if we are not permitted to reconstruct the lake house . We did not want to build a large scale lake house . Mr. Ellsworth - Mr. Yale petitioned his neighbors and received their signature regarding his plans . He discussed the plan with all of his neighbors . Chairperson Sigel - The applicant could rebuild the lake house if it is the same footprint . It is hard for the board to say that 10% larger would be okay. Mr. Mulcahy - I am comfortable that we would be back before the board at the end of the summer with a design . I would be comfortable with the board reviewing it . Mr. Stotz - I sense the rest of the board is much more sympathetic to going along with 2 buildings on this property . I am concerned about the impact on lake and neighboring properties . APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 13 Mr. Mulcahy - We are comfortable that we can make the board happy with the design of the second house . Mr. Ellsworth - I would feel comfortable that the lake house structure will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood if it is designed by an architect next door. Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 23 p . m . With no persons to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 24 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Smith - Staff was concerned about the need for sedimentation and erosion control measures during demolition and throughout construction . Mr. Stotz - There EAF stated that the vegetation between the road and the new guest house should be maintained . Mr. Smith - Currently, the guest house is not visible from the road . Someone would need to stand on the shoulder of the road to see the house . The roofline is below the road grade . It will be more visible with a story and garage at grade . The site will need to be opened up for the garage . Mr. Mulcahy - The plan is that the new guest house is withdrawn 25 feet from the shoulder of the road . It will not be at grade with the road . It will be 5 or 6 feet below the crest of the road . We have an opportunity at the drop to do some landscaping . The landscaping is currently railroad ties . We would keep any vegetation that is worthy . The plan is to plan vegetation between the driveway and the road as a screen to road noise . We are willing to commit to it . RESOLUTION NO. 200144 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = John & Carol Neuman 1077- 1079 Taughannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel No. 21 -2- 7, June 18, 2001 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of John and Carolyn Neuman, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to demolish one residential building and construct one new residence building (known as the roadside guest house) at 1077- 1079 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2- 7, Residence District R- 15, based upon the environmental assessment form completed by Town staff. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 14 RESOLUTION NO. 200145 - John & Carol Neuman, 1077- 1079 Tauclhannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel No. 21 -2- 7, June 18, 2001 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of John and Carolyn Neuman, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to demolish one residential building and construct one new residence at 1077- 1079 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2- 7, Residence District R- 15. The property is non -conforming since it contains two residential buildings, whereas only one is allowed. The appeal is granted subject to the following finding & conditions: Finding: a. That the requirements of Article XIV, Section 77, Subdivision 7, subparagraphs a -h have been met. Conditions: b. A sedimentation and erosion control plan be submitted and approved by the Town Director of Building & Zoning, and C, That there be vegetation planted as screening from the road as shown on the site plan drawing DWG:A 1 , and d. The house to be demolished and replaced is the guest house shown on the site plan. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: Stotz. The motion was declared to be carried. The fifth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Joseph Salino , Owner/Appellant , Thomas Schickel AIA , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the placement of a retail business in an existing non - residential building located at 630 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 33-3-3 , Light Industrial Zone . Said zone does not permit retail sales as a primary use . An interpretation of the property' s previous use , Salino Electric Motors , as a retail business and not as a light industrial use is also being requested . Should an interpretation by the Zoning Board conclude that Salino Electric Motors was a retail business , then a use variance would not be required , as the proposed new business would be legally non -conforming . APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 15 Thomas Schickel , Schickel Architecture - We are requesting an interpretation in favor of the owner that what they have is an existing use continued . Salino Electric has been in existence prior to the requirement that retail businesses were not permitted in a Light Industrial zone . Mr. Frost stated that the change in the zoning stipulated that retail was not permitted in a Light Industrial zone came out in the late 1980s or early 1990s , Mr. Frost - The Zoning Board of Appeals made an interpretation in 1974 that permitted Bell 's Convenience store to be built . The board made the interpretation that retail was allowed within a Light Industrial zone . The Zoning Ordinance was applied in this manner until 1991 . Then in 1991 the Town changed it . The original Salino business came before the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1971 . At that time the appeal was for electronic repair. There was nothing enunciated in the approval that either allowed or disallowed retail use . When Mr. Schickel came to me with plans for a craft shop , the argument was made that there was retail business within Salino Electric . Mr. Krantz - Is there any argument that Salino Electric was not largely a retail business? Mr. Frost - My sense from the minutes of 1991 is that it was essentially for electronic repair 1991 . Some retail has occurred as an accessory to Light Industrial use . Mr. Krantz - This was the only business in Tompkins County to take an electric motor for repair. Mr. Niefer - I always went there for repair or replacement for my electric motors . It struck me as a retail operation . Chairperson Sigel - Is it Light Industrial because they repaired motors or is it retail ? Mr. Krantz - They sold motors as well as repair motors . Chairperson Sigel - Is there an issue with time elapsing ? Mr. Frost - There has been electronic storage in the building . Joseph Salino , 484 Troy Road - We sold the major portion of the business . The buyer still allowed me to do _ some water pump repair and water pump sales . We stopped when my dad passed away. I still get calls from people . I will order a pump or make a repair. Mr. Frost - How long has it been since you closed the doors of the business? Mr. Salino - We sold the major portion of the business in September of 1999 . Mr. Frost - This could also be a mixed occupancy building . The applicant is planning to continue to use a portion of the building as electronic storage . This board approved the sale of used vehicles for this site a number of years ago . Is that continuing ? Mr. Salino - No . There are some vehicles behind the building that will be removed . We plan to completely clean up the back of the building . We will plant grass . APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 16 Chairperson Sigel - The time limit is 1 year for the abandonment of use . We would have to find that retail sales have occurred within the last few years . It sounds as if it has not occurred . Mr. Frost - I have had calls over the last 6 months for persons wanting to establish businesses . Would it still be considered abandonment of use if they have been trying to find a buyer for the property? Attorney Barney - The law was changed . It used to be that they would have to improve the intent . The applicant no longer has to prove the intent . The use expires if sales have not occurred for 1 year. This should be a use variance . How many sales have occurred over the last year? Mr. Salino - I did a couple dozen sales . I would receive calls at home and meet them down to the store . I would order new units if I was unable to fix the part . The name of the business is still existing . Chairperson Sigel - How does the board feel ? Should it be determined that the retail sales have continued ? Mr. Stotz - It should be pursued as a use variance with a concentration on the fact that this building has been unoccupied of this use for 20 months . Mr. Krantz- The wholesale retail craft store that would be occupying the same space will have approximately the same retail wholesale ratio . Chairperson Sigel - The previous use was a mix of retail and light industrial . Mr. Salino - We never manufactured anything at our business . It was mainly repairs and replace components . We gave the customer the option of buying a new part if it was not repairable . Mr. Stotz - What attempts have been made to find a suitable tenant? Monty Ruge , Llama Real Estate - Mr. Salino has listed with us for the last year and a half to find a suitable tenant . I have received calls for light industrial businesses to look at the site . The only problem is that they wanted to be closer to town . I have had many calls of retail businesses . The outskirts are cheaper for leasing than in the city . Mr. Stotz - What efforts have been made to target light industrial businesses? Mr. Ruge - We had two calls from printing businesses . I showed them the location . The only problem is that they need to do their business closer to Cornell and to the City . They liked the space , but it was further away than they liked . I receive more calls for retail . Mr. Stotz - Has this property been advertised in newspaper listings ? Mr. Ruge - I do a lot of marketing through other brokers . We do not advertise in the paper. We deal with different brokers to bring light industrial to Mr. Salino 's building . APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 17 Mr. Frost - I did receive a call from someone interested in using the building for a church . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 50 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 51 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Smith - The traffic and parking will be similar to the previous use . RESOLUTION NO. 200146 " ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = Joseph Salino, 630 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. 33. -3-3, June 18, 2001 . MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Joseph Salino, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V111, Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the placement of a retail business in an existing non - residential building located at 630 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-3, Light Industrial Zone, based upon the findings made in the environmental assessment form completed by Town Staff. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Stotz - Is there a mortgage on the building ? Mr. Salino - No . It is owned through a trust with my mother, sister and myself. Mr. Niefer - Is the house next to the road part of this parcel ? Mr. Salino - Yes . Mr. Niefer - Is it occupied ? Mr. Salino - Yes . It is rented . Mr. Stotz - What would it mean if this property were to stay on the market for another 20 months? Mr. Salino - It would take a lot of money out of our own pocket to pay for the taxes and upkeep . It would create a financial burden for us . Taxes are quite high on the building and the building does need some repair. Mr. Stotz - Is there a sign posted on the building advertising it is available for sale or lease? APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 18 Mr. Salino - Yes . Mr. Stotz - Have you marketed the building any other way besides through Llama Real Estate ? Mr. Salino - No . The roof will need to be replaced in the back section . The paint is starting to peal . It looks as if there are some boards that need to be replaced . I would like to put the building back into good shape . I am limited to what I can do with the funds that I have . Mr. Stotz - How long does a property for light industrial use stays on the market before it is used for that purpose ? Mr. Frost - Maguire Gardens has been vacant for a long time . Mr. Ruge - Light industrial is fading away at this point . There are more retail tenants that want to locate in this area than light industrial . There is not a strong demand for light industrial . Mr. Stotz - How long would it take to sell or lease the building for a light industrial use? Mr. Ruge - It depends upon how other businesses are attracting going towards that end of town . Southwest Park will bring more business to the area . People look when something is happening . Mr. Stotz - Would it be likely that in another 20 months a light industrial tenant would occupy the building ? Mr. Ruge - It would take longer than another 20 months . Mr. Salino - It would put me in financial distress to keep the building for another 20 months . Mr. Schickel - Could the storage use continue ? Attorney Barney - The storage has been there all along and it continues . Presumably is it a non - conforming valid use . Chairperson Sigel - Should it be a general variance allowing retail use in general or specific to the wholesale retail craft store? Attorney Barney - It should be specific to the application . Mr. Stotz - The use should be limited to what is outlined in the applicant's proposal . RESOLUTION NO. 200147 - Joseph Salino, 630 Elmira Road Tax Parcel No. 33, -3-3, June 18 2001 . MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 19 RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Joseph Salino, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V111, Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the placement of a retail business in an existing non-residential building located at 630 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-3, Light Industrial Zone with the following condition: a. That the use be as outlined in the applicant's proposal for the operation of a Wholesale and Retail Craft Store Outlet. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Ellsworth - Have we heard anything on the Eddy case ? Attorney Barney - We filed the appeal and have not heard anything . Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9 : 03 p . m . r HaIr Vffll's 01ANice airperson Q -fJ Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes 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 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on Monday, June 18 2001 commencing at 7 .00 P.M ., as per attached Location of sign board used for posting : Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of posting: June 8, 2001 Date of publication : June 13, 2001 zrl Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Depar' ment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8th day of June, 2001 . Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New YOfk No. 877 Tioga County . Commission Expires December 0 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JUNE 189 2001 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 Monday, June 18, 2001 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, N .Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P .M. , on the following matters: APPEAL of Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owner/Appellant, SB Ashley Management Corporation, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII, Section 37 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to erect a light pole 33 + feet (30 foot height limitation) in the parking lot of the East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business District C . Said light pole is to serve the ATM machine at the M&T Bank at 325 Pine Tree Road within said plaza. APPEAL of Uri M. Possen, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct a carport with an east side yard building setback of 1 _+ feet ( 10 foot setback required) at 117 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59-2- 11 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Lakeview Cemetery, Appellant, Jack Brooks, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to erect an 18 ' x 24 ' storage building, located at 605 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 16-2-5 , Residence District R- 15 . The cemetery is non- conforming with regard to its use in an R- 15 zone. APPEAL of John and Carolyn Neuman, Owners/Appellants, Vincent Mulcahy, R.A . , Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to demolish two residential buildings and construct two new residences at 1077- 1079 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2- 7, Residence District R- 15 . The parcel is non-conforming since it contains two residential buildings, whereas only one is allowed and the proposed new construction will not be in the exact same footprint as the demolished buildings. APPEAL of Joseph Salino, Owner/Appellant, Thomas Schickel AIA, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the placement of a retail business in an existing non-residential building located at 630 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -3 , Light Industrial Zone . Said zone does not permit retail sales as a primary use . An interpretation of the property ' s previous use, Salino Electric Motors, as a retail business and not as a light industrial use is also being requested . Should an interpretation by the Zoning Board conclude that Salino Electric Motors was a retail business, then a use variance would not be required, as the proposed new business would be legally non-conforming. 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 : June 8, 2001 Published : June 13 , 2001