Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2001-09-17 FILE DATE .� o � ._ TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 7 : 00 PM APPEAL of Ithaca Airline Limousine/Neil Wintermute , Appellant , requesting a variance from Local Law #7 , 1988 , under Section 9 , to be exempted from installing a fire suppression sprinkler system in a 3 , 200 square foot storage building located at 615 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -2-30 , Residence District R-30 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of the City of Ithaca , Appellant , Tim Logue , Agent , requesting a special approval under Article V , Section 18 (3) (c) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to install a pre- fabricated steel pedestrian bridge across New York State Route 13 , along municipal boundary lines , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 31 -2-3 . 1 and 38-3-20 , Residence District R-30 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 131 - 1 -3 and 103-4-7 . 2 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Ithaca College , Appellant , Peter J . Trowbridge , Agent , requesting a Special Approval under Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 213 space parking lot on the Ithaca College Campus , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 42- 1 -9 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Peter Newell , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals to enlarge non -conforming buildings on a non -conforming parcel of land located at 891 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 25 -2- 15 . Said parcel is non -conforming as it contains 3 residential buildings (only 1 is permitted ) , with one building located within the 30 foot rear yard building setback line . Said enlargement consists of the addition of porches , decks , roof dormers , and to enlarge 1 building by more than 1 , 000 square feet . Variances from Article IV , Section 11 (6) and Section 15 are also being requested to permit 1 building to exceed the 36 foot building height limit by 4 + feet and to allow the parcel to have a building coverage of more than 20% of the lot area . APPEAL DENIED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 7 : 00 PM PRESENT: Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andrew Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner. EXCUSED : David Stotz , Board Member. ALSO PRESENT : Tim Logue , City of Ithaca ; Tom Salm , Ithaca College ; Bob Holt , Ithaca College ; David Herrick, TG Miller; Peter Trowbridge , Trowbridge & Wolf ; Peter Newell , 891 Taughannock Blvd ; Christopher Anagnost , Christopher George Real Estate . Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 04 p . m . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of the City of Ithaca , Appellant , Tim Logue , Agent, requesting a special approval under Article V , Section 18 (3) (c) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to install a pre- fabricated steel pedestrian bridge across New York State Route 13 , along municipal boundary lines , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 31 . -2-3 . 1 and 38 . -3-20 , Residence District R-30 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 131 . - 1 -3 and 103 . -4-7 . 2 . Tim Logue , City of Ithaca Planning Department - The idea is to put a pre-fabricated steel truss bridge over Route 13 at the south City/Town line . It would connect the two existing railroad abutments . It is the previous railroad line . This bridge is for a spur trail off the soon to be Black Diamond Trail . It will connect from Taughannock Park and down to Treman Park . This spur would allow people on the Black Diamond Trail to come across Route 13 and have access to Buttermilk Falls State Park . Hopefully, if things go well in time , to connect up to the South Hill Recreation Way extension . It would wrap along the existing railroad embankment up South Hill and connect with the existing South Hill Recreation Way. Mr. Niefer - I looked through the material . I noticed that there is going to be a chain link fence along both sides of the bridge as it crosses over the highway. How high is the chain link fence? Mr. Logue - The fence that runs along the railing of the bridge should be high enough that people are unable to get over the top of it . It is to prevent people from throwing things over the bridge to traffic below . Mr. Niefer - It was very difficult to tell if it were a 6 foot fence or an 8 foot fence from the information that I was looking at . Is there a cover over the top of the fence? Mr. Logue - It would be a chain link fence that is vertical and then curves a little at the top towards the interior of the bridge . APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Niefer - Does this meet State specifications for bridges over highways? Mr. Logue - Yes . This project went before New York State Department of Transportation and New York State Office of Parks , Recreation and Historic Preservation . There was some confusion over who would maintain the bridge . The City will be maintaining the bridge . Mr. Krantz - The Widewaters project will alter this area tremendously . How will that impact this project? Mr. Logue - It should not have an impact on this at all . The trail to the north of the bridge would run along the current railroad embankment and connect to the City's Southwest Natural Area and then on up to the Black Diamond Trail . Chairperson Sigel - Will the trail have a railroad crossing at some point? Mr. Logue - It is up to New York State Office of Parks , Recreation and Historic Preservation , who is planning the Black Diamond Trail . At some point they will need to cross railroad tracks and the flood control channel to take the trail north . This is a trail that has been talked about for a decade . Mr. Niefer - Is the sign going to require a variance? Mr. Frost - It will probably be exempt under the Sign Law. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Smith - The bridge , at this point in time , is connecting two abutments . Mr. Niefer - There have been a number of situations around the country where children have been on bridges and thrown concrete blocks into traffic below. This has lead to disastrous situations . I do not know if we have such pedestrian bridges in Ithaca . This is not in the downtown area . It is in a remote area . Access to either end of the bridge will be through wooded and brushy areas . It is an item of concern . Has it been properly addressed ? Chairperson Sigel - Has it been considered to have the fence cover the bridge ? Mr. Logue - I do not know if discussions ever went as far as to have the two fences connect with each other. I know that NYSDOT did review the proposal . They actually added the fence because it was not proposed . They asked that it curve towards the interior of the bridge . It would be more difficult to get anything up and over it . Attorney Barney - The drawings do not show the fence curving towards the interior. Chairperson Sigel - Items could also be thrown from the current embankment . Mr. Niefer - History has been that there have been a number of bridge incidents around the country . Ithaca is a place where strange things happen . 2 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES Attorney Barney - Drawing S2 shows the fence as a vertical 8 foot fence . Mr. Logue - You are correct . My understanding was that the fence would curve at the top . Attorney Barney - What is the width of the bridge ? I am reading 9 . 5 feet from the rails . Chairperson Sigel - It looks as if there is 10 feet between the supports . Attorney Barney - Is there a concern about having something over the top of the bridge? Mr. Logue - I do not know that there would be too much more concern as long as people could walk and bike comfortably through there . I do not know if NYSDOT had any more concern about the fence . I think they were satisfied with the fence as shown . Chairperson Sigel - I do agree with Mr. Niefer's concern . It seems like a very simple matter to have the fence cover the top of the bridge . Mr. Krantz - It could cover the area over Route 13 . Mr. Logue - The bridge is 10 feet wide . The structure is 10 feet tall . Attorney Barney - The supports are lower at each end . The bridge is an arch . Mr. Smith - The site plan shows the driving lane area as 52 feet wide . The bridge is going across that area . Attorney Barney - The bridge is shown as being 160 feet long . Mr. Logue - It would be 8 feet from the deck of the bridge to the top of the fence . Chairperson Sigel - What would your recommendation be , Attorney Barney? Attorney Barney - The board could impose a reasonable condition related to that concern . Chairperson Sigel - I would be inclined to see the bridge completely covered . Mr. Logue - Is there a difference between the pedestrian bridge in your mind than any other bridge that has sidewalks across it? There are other bridges that cross Route 13 that only have a hip high railing on it . It would be easy to throw anything over. Chairperson Sigel - The Triphammer Road Bridge receives a fair amount of pedestrian traffic . There is also a lot of vehicular traffic . This bridge does not serve a purpose . Mr. Logue - Do you mean this bridge does not have a purpose until the trail is completed ? Chairperson Sigel - Yes . I think you would agree that you do not anticipate much pedestrian traffic . 3 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Logue - As a condition of approval from the Planning Board , the bridge needs to be fenced off at either end to prevent people from using the bridge until the trail is completed . There will not be pedestrian access to the bridge until the trail is completed . Chairperson Sigel - Even then , there will be little traffic . It makes it easier for someone to feel that they could to do something without being caught . What is the timeframe for completing the bridge ? Mr. Logue - It is a short timeframe . The project is out to bid . The bridge is being constructed . Delivery time is about 6 weeks away . It is assembled on site . Chairperson Sigel - Mr. Niefer, would you be satisfied if the applicant received a letter from NYSDOT regarding covering the top of the bridge ? Mr. Niefer - There is nothing in the specifications regarding the partial cover of the bridge . I am very leery of it . I am not willing to support the proposal unless it is addressed . Attorney Barney - What about a condition that states the bridge is fully covered , but if the City can obtain a letter from NYSDOT or other responsible agency that they can be granted the privilege of coming back to the board and having the condition modified ? It allows them to go ahead with the project . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 25 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7: 26 p . m . RESOLUTION NO. 2001 =64 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = City of Ithaca, New York State Route 13 Pedestrian Bridge, Tax Parcel Nos. 31 . -2-3. 1 and 38. =3=20, September 17, 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 the City of Ithaca, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 (3) (c) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to install a pre-fabricated steel pedestrian bridge across New York State Route 13, along municipal boundary lines, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 31 . -2-3. 1 and 38. -3-20, Residence District R-30 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 131 . 4 -3 and 103. - 4- 7. 2. , based upon the environmental assessment completed by Town Planning Staff. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 4 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -65 - City of Ithaca, New York State Route 13 Pedestrian Bridge, Tax Parcel Nos. 31 . -2-3. 1 and 38. -3-20, September 17, 2001 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of the City of Ithaca, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 (3) (c) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to install a pre-fabricated steel pedestrian bridge across New York State Route 13, along municipal boundary lines, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 31 . -2-3. 1 and 38. -3-20, Residence District R-30 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 131 . 4 -3 and 103. -4- 7. 2. , based upon the following conditions: a . The bridge be completely covered by a mesh or fencing material to prevent anything from being thrown over the bridge into traffic, and b. The City of Ithaca may obtain an opinion from the New York State Department of Transportation or other State body suggesting that the fencing cover over the bridge is not necessary, the board would be willing to reconsider the condition. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Ithaca College , Appellant , Peter J . Trowbridge , Agent , requesting a Special Approval under Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 213 space parking lot on the Ithaca College Campus , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 42 - 1 -9 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Peter Trowbridge , Trowbridge & Wolf - This is a project that has received Preliminary Site Plan Approval and environmental review by the Town Planning Board . We have proposed lights in the area . There are two proposed blue lights for the parking lot . There is one means into the parking lot at this point . The entrance into the parking lot is through the M Lot . The parking lot consists of four double bay parking aisles . The small black symbols represent double headed , down focused lights . There is not a lot of cut and fill on the site . The parking lot is gravel . It is sheeting primarily to a basin that is just south of the old railway. It is a 213 car parking lot . Part of the rationale here is that we have a draft traffic assessment as part of a bigger planning study. It demonstrated an additional need for parking . Simultaneously , over the last couple of years , freshman classes have increased slightly. There are more students and more vehicles on campus . There are about 46% of students that have vehicles on campus . This is a response to both a long term parking need as well as a short term parking need with increased student numbers . 5 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES Chairperson Sigel - Is this lot going to be for students only? Mr. Trowbridge - No . It is located in a residential area . There is student housing surrounding the parking lot . It may not be totally for students . It is clearly in an area that has a lot of residence halls nearby . Mr. Krantz - Will the parking lot be paved ? Mr. Trowbridge - It will not be paved at this time . Mr. Krantz - Is it a permanent parking lot? Mr. Trowbridge - It is not clear what the longevity of the parking lot is . It is a short-term need . There is an immediate need for it . We would go back to the Planning Board for approval if we decided to pave the parking lot . Chairperson Sigel - Is there a need in this particular area of the campus? Mr. Trowbridge - It is one of the few sites where you can find an area this large . The college recently purchased what is known as the Rapponi Parcel . It is just over the boundary of that land purchase . Chairperson Sigel - I looked at the area . It is densely wooded and vegetated . It is nice in its current state . It seemed like there would have been other areas on campus that were less naturally vegetated . Mr. Trowbridge - The Rapponi parcel was purchased for the intention of Ithaca College growing along that contour. It is primarily on the same contour as the core of the campus . It is quite likely that growth will occur in that direction . It is only about 20 to 25 years since there was agricultural use of this land . It is re-growth forest . A lot of it is closer to the edge . Mr. Ellsworth - Are there lights in the parking lot? Mr. Trowbridge - There are two blue lights in the parking lot . There is concern for policing and safety. The college has two designated blue lights within the parking lot . The lot is very well lit . There are double headed light poles every 45 feet on the center. The blue light is a security light . It has a telephone . It provides , if someone were feeling anxious , a way for faculty, staff, and students to call into security. Chairperson Sigel - There is a lot of vegetation around the parking lot . It would be easy for someone to hide in the area . Mr. Trowbridge - We had the discussion with Ms . Ritter. An environmental review was done on the site . Ms . Ritter called and asked us to cut down more trees . It is shocking coming from Ms . Ritter. We decided to leave as many trees as possible in the buffer area . Once the parking lot is constructed , we will make a further determination of what vegetation should be eliminated for security reasons . 6 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES Tom Salm , Ithaca College - We currently lease 165 parking spaces across Route 96B from AXIOM . They have told us that they may have to have that anytime that they can find a tenant to take the space . It could be on a six month notice . We are not in control of our own destiny from that viewpoint . This will give us a chance to have the parking on our side of the road . Chairperson Sigel - It struck me as odd that the consultant considered 90% occupancy to be full . Twenty spaces will be vacant in a 200 car parking lot . It would not be hard to find a parking space . Mr. Salm - It is related to all parking available on campus . As people come and go , we need to have a certain number of vacancies to allow for that turnover, particularly during peak times . A peak time is our time when classes are changing . We cannot be at 100% and find any space for people to come and go . Bob Holt , Ithaca College - When we look at the campus as a whole , 90% capacity could create a problem . As statistics show , the number of students each year is increasing . We are trying to address that . Also , keeping in mind , that the AXIOM parking lot is really a temporary lot . We do not know how long we will have it . There are ideal spots where students would like to park. They have the practice of waiting for students to come out of the building , give them a ride to their car so that they can take their parking spot . Mr. Krantz - This is an area that is full of trees. They are being removed for a temporary , gravel parking lot . The area is fairly remote and not particularly safe . What happened to long- range planning ? Mr. Salm - This is part of long- range planning . We are looking at our long- range plan right now. The architects we have working on our Master Plan have proposed a parking lot in roughly this location . On a preliminary basis , we think that we would want to keep the space for purposes of parking in the longer term . We do not know at this time because the jury is still out on that . It is not remote if you look at it in relation to the Garden Apartment and Quad Halls . Mr. Trowbridge - There is really only about 100 feet between the residence halls on the east side of campus and the parking lot . There is a perception of remoteness because of the current vegetation . The reality is that it is less than a 5 minute walk from most of the residence halls . Chairperson Sigel - Could you perceive a desire to put in a pathway from this new lot to the Garden Apartments to allow for a more direct line? Mr. Trowbridge - We did provide a pathway from the proposed parking lot out to M Lot. Currently there is not a network of pathways that serve the parking lots . It is something that needs to be considered in the future . Mr. Holt - Safety is a very important question of mine . I am responsible for the safety of students , staff , faculty and visitors on campus . This area is a concern of mine . I am satisfied with the lighting that is proposed . I am concerned that we have only two blue lights . I am hoping we are able to have additional blue lights . Twice a year I travel around campus on a planned tour with students . They point out to me where they would like to have additional lighting and additional blue light phones . 1 7 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES can see that this is where they would go . I hope to use some of my own budget to put in two additional blue light phones . The police officers patrol 24 hours per day. It is heightened at night . There is a very active student patrol that would address this area . Students walk in pairs and have radio contact. There are additional security officers on patrol from 11 : 00 p . m . until 7 : 00 a . m . They also have student escorts until 3 : 00 a . m . Mr. Smith - This is a Type I Action because of the number of parking spaces . The Planning Board was the lead agency . Chairperson Sigel - Do we need to vote on SEQR? Attorney Barney - No . The board would need to vote if they disagreed with the determination the Planning Board made . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 49 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 50 p . m . RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -66 = Ithaca College, Ithaca College Campus Parking Lot, Tax Parcel No. 42. = 1 -9.2, September 17, 2001. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Ithaca College, requesting a Special Approval under Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 213 space parking lot on the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42. - 1 -9. 2, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following: Finding: a . The requirements of Section 77, subdivision 7, subparagraphs a -h have been met. The 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 Peter Newell , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals to enlarge non -conforming buildings on a non -conforming parcel of land located at 891 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25-2- 15 . Said parcel is non -conforming as it contains 3 residential buildings (only 1 is permitted ) , with one building located within the 30 foot rear yard 8 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES building setback line . Said enlargement consists of the addition of porches , decks , roof dormers , and to enlarge 1 building by more than 1 , 000 square feet . Variances from Article IV , Section 11 (6) and Section 15 are also being requested to permit 1 building to exceed the 36 foot building height limit by 4 + feet and to allow the parcel to have a building coverage of more than 20% of the lot area . Peter Newell , 891 Taughannock Boulevard - I am an architect and builder in Ithaca . My family and I live in Ithaca . My wife and I have three young children , ages 1 year, 3 years and 5 years old . We are in the midst of purchasing this property . The variance has to do with creating a single-family residence on the center portion of the property . The property currently has three income properties . There are three , 2 bedroom homes . The house at the road has a garage . The house at the lake is a one and half story with a ship' s ladder. There is no proper stair in there . It has two bedrooms above , but they are accessed by a ladder. The middle house is quite nice . It has a 900 square foot footprint . The upper unit is smaller, but in relatively good condition . There is a 400 square foot two car garage at the very top . The upper house and middle house have a finished basement . The bottom unit has a second floor that is inadequate . The inside is quite nice , but the access is poor. I would like to repair the bottom building . It has some damage where the cliff meets the building . There are problems with leaves , sticks and rot . It has water problems . I would like to fix the wall behind the building . I would like to put in a proper second floor and proper stair. would like to leave the footprint of the upper building . I would like to repair the roof and put two dormers on it. I think the pitch is below 4/ 12 and I would like to give it an 8/12 pitch . I am not going to add any square footage . The middle building is the one that we would like to make into our home and my home office . The upper and lower buildings would remain as income producing . I would like to put a personal single family, large residence in the middle . I am going to be in this community for the long haul . I currently live on Cayuga Heights Road . We would be moving to this parcel . It is a dream come true . There are three issues involved at this time . There is no increase in the footprint of the lower building , except for however I repair the back wall . The middle house increases in footprint quite a bit . The upper building does not change in footprint . The middle portion is going to be roof, deck and gardens . I would like to add a deck to the top building . The middle building wants to have a roof on the taller portion . The lower portion wants to be gardens for the whole site and the house above . I do not want to obstruct their view. I actually want to clean out the view so that they can see the lake . We are keeping all main trees . There is one that needs to come down for safety reasons . The roof on the majority of the central building will be with decks . It is going to be perceived as gardens from the upper side of the property . The issue is the gable height . I am looking for four feet for the peak of the gable . I would not need the variance for a flat roof or vaulted roof scheme . In the design process , I want to know if I have the ability to go for a four foot variance for a gable peak only . The board could word it in the resolution for the use of gable only . I will not bring any other parts of the building up . It is just the proportions of a two and half story building with 8 foot plus one foot structure . Otherwise I have to go to a 4/ 12 pitch . As an architect I am opposed stylistically going to a ranch style roof for something I would like to give a steeper gable . The steeper gable will allow the top floor to work desirably . The other issues of 9 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES repairs in the lower building are construction that is not against any code or height limitations . The house is in the backyard setback , which requires me to come before the board . The last issue is the percentage of lot coverage . Originally I had come before the board not realizing that I needed a percentage of lot coverage request because we own the property across the street as well . Historically this has been one lot that was subdivided by the highway. It has always been one lot as far as I know . It is one lot in the deed that we own from the NYSEG right-of-way down to the water's edge . The bottom line is that the municipality has broken it into two lots . One lot is across the street . We are calling it the east lot and the west lot . It can never be built on . It goes from 21 feet to approximately 36 feet wide . It is a hundred and something feet long . It is on a 15 foot cliff . I would like , for the sake of my request , to include it in the parcel . It would be taking the square footage from the road to the lake and from the right-of-way of the highway to the back of the parcel . I would not need a variance if we combined these two . The small percentage that I am asking for increase has to do with the land across the street . It has been dispersed . Chairperson Sigel - What is the square footage of the lot? Mr. Newell - It is 3 , 888 square feet . Chairperson Sigel - What is the square footage of the lot just east of the highway? Mr. Newell - The eastern lot is 19 , 272 square feet . The west lot is not buildable . I am at 24% lot coverage versus 20% . The three issues are repairing an existing building that is in the setback, the expansion of the large building with a potential to have a four foot height restriction approval , and the percentage of lot coverage . Please realize that I own the land across the street , which would keep it to 20% . Mr. Niefer - Have you purchased the property? Mr. Newell - We are under contract . Closing is pending this review. I am getting a loan from Tompkins Trust Company to purchase the property and for construction . Mr. Niefer - It was indicated that there are two bedrooms in each of the three structures that are rented right now. Mr. Newell - Correct . Mr. Niefer - Are they rented to individuals? Mr. Newell - A woman and her daughter rent the top building . An independent gentleman lives in the middle building . Then there is an independent gentleman in the bottom building . I believe that they may be graduate students . Mr. Niefer - With your proposed renovations , would you be renting the lower and upper structures ? 10 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Newell - Yes . I cannot afford not to rent . Right now it is three rental units . In the long run you can say that there will be two residences , two rentals and a single-family primary residence . Mr. Niefer - Do you have two cars in your own family? Mr. Newell - Yes . Mr. Niefer - There is a potential to have six vehicles . Mr. Newell - We have six parking spaces . Mr. Niefer - Is parking a problem ? Mr. Newell - It would not be a problem unless we exceed six parking spaces . Mr. Niefer - It is a stretch to fit six cars . Mr. Newell - The property has a private driveway . The area from the garage to where the road goes down is the area for parking . I have clearing down there and the retaining wall that clearly could allow four cars . Mr. Krantz - Have you discussed your plans with any of your neighbors? Mr. Newell - Yes . Mr. Frost - I received a letter today via e- mail from the neighbors at 887 Taughannock Boulevard , See Attachment #1 . Mr. Newell - Do you know which neighbors these are ? Mr. Frost - They are the neighbors immediately to the south . They just bought the property . Mr. Newell - I talked with the neighbors to the north . The way the building is set , I am actually pushing it to the north away from the south . Chairperson Sigel - Even before reading the letter, I felt the heart of the neighbor's concern . This is a fairly small lot already and it has three residences on it . I appreciate the effort and the thought you put into it . The idea to improve the lower and upper structures is good . I have a hard time justifying the expansion of the middle structure by as much as you have proposed , given the three residences on the property. The Ordinance does state that only one house is allowed . Mr. Newell - It is a pre-existing condition . Chairperson Sigel - The idea is to eventually remove non -conforming situations if possible . 11 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Niefer - I share Chairperson Sigel 's feeling . I would be more inclined towards the project if we were staying reasonably close to the existing footprint . The middle dwelling has a significant addition to the footprint and size of the structure . I do not feel comfortable supporting it . I like to see buildings along the waterfront , even if though they are non -conforming , improved so long as they stay reasonably within the exiting footprint . This deviates grossly from the existing footprint . It troubles me . The proposal is probably one of the better proposals that I have seen in the short time that I have been on the board . The detail , thought and profile provided are excellent . Mr. Frost - Mr. Newell , I did try to call you . I left a message and did not receive a return call . The upper residence is showing a new deck , which will increase the footprint . I am not sure of the exact dimension . The improvements to the lower building are not clear. The bottom of the lakefront building is increasing , but the footprint is not . The middle building has a footprint increase of at least 50% . How much larger is the footprint of the middle building as opposed to the current footprint? Mr. Newell - The square footage is being increased from 900 square feet to 2400 square feet . The truth is I would bring that down in size and increase the deck at the bottom . I am doing a price analysis . I cannot build something this big . Mr. Frost - The upper building footprint is being increased by at least 200 square feet . The side yards are not being encroached upon except for the lakefront building . Mr. Newell - No . Mr. Frost - The non -conformities are the existing garage is 10 feet from the side yard line and the lower building is within the rear yard setback . I did take some pictures of the property . It is one of the steeper properties that I have been on . I would hate to carry a bag of groceries to the lakefront property . Mr. Newell - I understand the history of the zoning in the area . I understand that lakefront properties are slightly different because they were developed and separated well before zoning was put in place . I understand your concerns if I were to develop a new lot . Under the circumstances , the land is there . I will be reducing the building itself down in size , probably considerably . I would like to retain that number so that if I want to put a deck on the front of the house I can . I do realize that all decks on grade are being counted in the square footage . Mr. Frost - Is the middle building currently a two-family residence ? Mr. Newell - It is a one family residence . They are three separate units . Mr. Frost - One of buildings is listed as a two-family residence . Mr. Newell - It should work to my advantage . I would like to take a two-family home and return it to a single-family home . I understand it now. 12 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Frost - The tax roll shows site 3 as a two-family house . Chairperson Sigel - I am uncomfortable with the expansion of the middle house of that general scope . Mr. Newell - Is there a number that you would feel comfortable with ? Chairperson Sigel - One way you might achieve approval would be to eliminate one of the other dwellings . Mr. Newell - Are you meaning demolition ? Chairperson Sigel - Yes . You would be trading square footage . Mr. Newell - I think that is outrageous . Chairperson Sigel - You have a lot that exceeds the Zoning Ordinance by two residences . They are all modest size residences . Mr. Newell - Sir, do you realize that 600 square feet is the space from me to the telephone ? Please do not throw this out . That is the size of the building . The lot is a large lot . Counting the lot across the street , I am not exceeding the percentage of lot coverage . I respect the exact things that you have been discussing and that is why I want to be there . Chairperson Sigel - We have restricted other people on the lake . It would be setting a precedent . Mr. Newell - You have also allowed quite a bit on the lake . You have done more allowing than restricting , sir, with all respect . Chairperson Sigel - I do not recall any properties coming before the board with three residences on the lot . Mr. Frost - It is actually four residences . Mr. Newell - If it is four, I would like to propose a density alteration that would lessen the density on this lot . That is a serious issue , sir that is in my favor. I would like to change four units to three units . It is an overall positive good . You are going to get a family that is going to take care of this property . Right now it is in okay shape , but it is no beauty by any means . You will have someone living there who cares for it . I am willing to lower the building footprints . I have done my own estimates . There is more space than I need , but I have to start somewhere . I am asking for reasonableness from this board . Chairperson Sigel - How do other board members feel ? Mr. Krantz - This lot is a lot that normally allows just one residence . It has three residences . I do not have a problem with the improvements and moderate expansion of the upper and lower buildings . 13 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES The middle residence is being expanded from 903 square feet to 2 , 438 square feet . It is two and two thirds times bigger. Mr. Newell - Can we discuss a number that this board can feel comfortable with ? I need a decision that I can go away with . This is devastating to me . I need to have something that I can work from as a restriction . Chairperson Sigel - I do not think that this board would approve something merely stating square footage . We want to see plans . It would not be fair to you for us to tell you to make plans with arbitrary square footage . Mr. Newell - It could be similar in size and character but must come down to a certain square footage . will appear in six months if I have to . I need to know if I can move forward and invest . Chairperson Sigel - For me , with three units on the lot , I am only inclined to go with something that is along the lines of the other residences on the property. The existing square footage could be made more usable . Mr. Frost - Mr. Newell , if you proceed in purchasing the property and then come back before the board in six months , you have created your own hardship . A denial by the board is really your tough luck. Christopher Anagnost , Christopher George Real Estate - I have the property listed for sale . The property has been on the market with my office for two years at $250 , 000 originally. It has been lowered to $230 , 000 . It was listed with two other offices before it was listed with my office . It has been on and off the market for the past four years . Mr. Newell has been the only person interested in purchasing it . All three cottages need a fair amount of work . Attorney Barney - How much lake frontage is there? Mr. Anagnost - It is 109 feet of lake frontage . Attorney Barney - What is the going rate for lake frontage? Mr. Anagnost - It is hard to say . People are buying properties and demolishing the current house in order to build . These lots are now becoming teardowns . The property is being bought for future development . It happens that this property already had three houses on it . It would not be economically feasible for this young man to purchase the property without the other two units . The cottage at the lake is originally a fishing cottage that was added onto and renovated . The other two cottages were built in the 1920s . At this point all three cottages need a fair amount of work . The lake house needs the most work . It has a fair amount of stairs to get down to it . Mr. Frost - According to the tax roll , one of the homes is listed as a two family home . Mr. Anagnost - Each house is a single dwelling unit . 14 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Frost - The County Assessment Department has it assessed as four units . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mr. Smith - We would like to see erosion and sediment control measures are used if construction does take place . It appears that currently parking is taking place across the Boulevard . The driveway getting into this residence is accessed from the property to the north . It does not appear that the garage is currently being used for parking . Mr. Newell - They just cleaned the garage out so that it can be used for parking . The owner has taken out about eight truckloads of debris from the garage and basement . Four cars can be parked on the site . We are also lowering the density of the site from four units to three units . Mr. Smith - The larger size of the middle residence is adding a lot of mass that will be visible from the lake . All three buildings will be seen from the lake because of the steep slope . Mr. Newell - I do not think that all three units can be seen from the lake . Mr. Smith - It was mentioned that the area around the upper house will be cleared so that they could see out to the lake . Mr. Newell - I am not removing any of the mature trees . I have been out on the lake looking at it trying to see the structure . It is almost impossible to see the structure . Mr. Krantz - Mr. Newell made an excellent , well thought out presentation , but the middle residence is being expanded greatly . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 28 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 29 p . m . Chairperson Sigel - The board could approve the upper and lower residences . Mr. Newell - It does not help me without getting a number that I can go by. I cannot move on this unless I know what I am allowed . I can go home and work with a number. I cannot do that if the board flatly says no . It is a shame because it is a delinquent property . It is something that I want for my wife and children . I am sorry that I am emotional about this . This is a matter of nuts and bolts because the Zoning Ordinance was made after the properties were defined . Chairperson Sigel - The citizens in this area decided that they wanted zoning . Mr. Newell - The zoning for the lake is vastly different . The conditions of the site make it vastly different . Chairperson Sigel - That is true . It is this board 's job to provide relief where it feels it is appropriate . 15 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Newell - I do not know of anything more appropriate . We have an architect that wants to take a delinquent property and improve it . It has been on the market for four years . It is not being taken care of as a rental unit . Don 't you want someone to take care of these properties? Attorney Barney - At what cost to the Ordinance ? You plead very well for a personal benefit for you . Whatever they give for a variance applies to this piece of land . If you chose not to buy it and someone else bought it , the variance would still apply. I understand where you are coming from , also understand where the board is coming from . We have a property that is grossly deviant from what the Zoning Ordinance presently requires as it stands . You are coming in wanting to double the size of a building on a grossly deviant property . It is not an easy sell to this board . Mr. Newell - The gross deviance is discussing the density or number of dwelling units . Attorney Barney - I do not know of any lot in the Town of Ithaca that has three dwelling units on it that are in a single dwelling unit zone . This property has three separate principal buildings . Our Ordinance states that you are allowed one principal building . It would still be an illegal property if one unit were removed . This has three . Your proposal would make it worse . I am sympathetic to you and the owner for wanting to sell the property . Someone is asking too much for the property if it is going to take that much money to improve the property . The property has a problem . As much as you would like to have it , you are asking the board that because you want this property for your family, they should throw the Zoning Ordinance out the window. Mr. Newell - I am asking this board to respectfully understand that the Zoning Ordinance was made after the development of this neighborhood . Everything that happens along the lake has to come before the board . I am saying that you have to give me guidelines that I can work off of. Attorney Barney - That is not the board 's prerogative . You come in with a proposal . The board either accepts it or rejects it . You show them why they should accept it . What I am hearing tonight is that what you want to do is far too grandiose for a property that has this much of a deviation from the Ordinance already. You can come back before the board with a different proposal . They are not going to give you a number. Mr. Newell - The size does not make the deficiency in the Ordinance . It is the density. Attorney Barney - What you are asking for is to enlarge a non -conforming use . The board has allowed the enlargement of one building , but the condition is to remove the second building . At this juncture , if you want to buy the property then you need to come back before the board with a different proposal . The board could adjourn the appeal . Mr. Newell - Mr. Ellsworth , what do you think of the proposal ? Mr. Ellsworth - I think that this is intense involvement . There is too much area of buildings on the lot . Mr. Newell - I do not need to include the lot across the street . I could build within the lot coverage percentage . I do not want the height restriction or correct anything in the backyard . I would still need 16 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES to come before the board because there are three units on the property. I would still need to come before the board if I were to build a 1500 square foot building and potentially be denied . Attorney Barney - You are starting from a position where you are not within the rules . You are not staying within the rules by building anything . According to the new rules , there is one principal building . There are three on the property and that is what is causing the property to be non - conformant . Chairperson Sigel - The guidance that I have heard from the board so far is that we would not approve the appeal . Mr. Krantz has indicated that he might be receptive to something that is roughly 50% larger for the middle dwelling . I would not be receptive to anything larger than that . Mr. Newell - What if I were to build one large building and combine the middle and lower units ? I would simply have to ask for a height variance . I would make the bottom two buildings one building . I would be moving from four units to two units on the lot . The upper building would remain the same . My original scheme was to do that . I thought it would be thrown out . It would be too big on the lake . Chairperson Sigel - The board would need to see a proposal . I am not sure what you mean by big . Mr. Frost - What is the drop ? Mr. Newell - It is 30 feet . The slab on the middle building is 3 feet above the roof of the lower building . Mr. Frost - What is the distance between the two buildings? Mr. Newell - It is about 30 feet . I would need to redraw it to see if it would work . Mr. Frost - I think that you are asking a lot from the board . Chairperson Sigel - I am not sure what you mean by connecting the two buildings . Mr. Newell - There would be an addition to make the two buildings one building . Chairperson Sigel - In that case , then you could connect all the buildings and make one . Mr. Newell - I would not be able to repair a set of steps on the property without coming before the board . Chairperson Sigel - The existing structures could be maintained . It is my understanding that if you purchased the property and wanted to do something that did not require approval , then you could remove two of structures and make modifications to one . Attorney Barney - Mr. Newell , do you want the board to take action tonight? Mr. Newell - Yes . I would love to hear it . 17 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -67 - Peter Newell, 891 Tauphannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel No. 25. 2= 15, 5. 2- 15, September 17, 2001 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board denies the appeal of Peter Newell, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals to enlarge non-conforming buildings on a non-conforming parcel of land located at 891 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25. -2- 15, based upon the following: Findings: a . Parcel is non-conforming as it contains three (3) residential buildings and only one ( 1) is permitted, and b. The plans submitted show improvements to three (3) buildings and a substantial enlargement to the second building from the lake from approximately 900 square feet to over 2400 square feet, and c. The proposed addition and structures intensify significantly what is already an overbuilt lot, and d. The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The 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 : APPEAL of Ithaca Airline Limousine/Neil Wintermute , Appellant , requesting a variance from Local Law #7 , 1988 , under Section 9 , to be exempted from installing a fire suppression sprinkler system in a 3 , 200 square foot storage building located at 615 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -2-30 , Residence District R-30 , Mr. Frost - Mr. Wintermute was called out of town for a mandatory meeting in Syracuse . He does a lot of escorts to the airport . He has obtained a building permit for the structure . Mr. Wintermute did come before the board for approval of the storage building . He was hoping to have the case heard even if he did not make it back in time . It is a sprinkler variance request . He has a well for his water supply. It would be rather costly to install a system to provide him with the required water and pressure . He does have a security alarm system that is connected to a supervised system . It is unheated storage . The building is remotely located . A sprinkler system would not be required under State Building Code . The supervised fire 18 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES alarm system would not be required either. He is providing a level of protection that normally would not be there . It is a trade off by having the supervised fire system . Chairperson Sigel - Is this unheated ? Mr. Frost - Yes . It is unheated . Chairperson Sigel - Attorney Barney, how do you feel ? Attorney Barney - The board could go ahead if you are willing to consider it . Mr. Frost - The board may want to condition approval on Mr. Wintermute coming back before the board should public water become available . Mr. Ellsworth - Mr. Wintermute would need to have large storage tanks and pumps on site to run the sprinkler system . The tanks have to hold half an hour of water supply . Mr. Frost - Retrofit would be very easy in this building should public water become available . I think the smoke detection system tied into the supervised system is reasonable tradeoff . This is a non - residential building . 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, RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -68 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = Ithaca Airline Limousine 615 Five Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No. 31 . -2-30, September 17, 2001 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Ithaca Airline Limousine, requesting a variance from Local Law #7, 1988, under Section 9, to be exempted from installing a fire suppression sprinkler system in a 3,200 square foot storage building located at 615 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 . -2-30, Residence District R- 30, based upon the environmental assessment form completed by Town Staff. The 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 -69 - Ithaca Airline Limousine, 615 Five Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No 31 , m 2=30, 1 - 2-30, September 17, 2001. 19 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 15, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Ithaca Airline Limousine, requesting a variance from Local Law #7, 1988, under Section 9, to be exempted from installing a fire suppression sprinkler system in a 3, 200 square foot storage building located at 615 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 . -2-30, Residence District R-30, based upon the following: Finding: a . Public water is not available to the property. Conditions: a . The smoke detection system be tied into a supervised system, and b. There be no high fire hazard storage in the building, and C, The occupancy be limited to storage, and d. The building remain unheated storage. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8 : 56 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chairp rson L S Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes 20 TOWN OF 1THACA 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 Mondav, September 17 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: September 10, 2001 Date of publication: September 12 , 2001 1 c� Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Departme t Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this l Oth day of September 2001 . Notary Public CARRIE WHITMdRE Notary. Public, State bt New York No. 01WH605207t . Tioga Caunty . Commission Expires December TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2001 100 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, October 15 , 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 Henry Wan Jr. , Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing house with a side yard building setback of 13 ' 7" whereas a 15 foot setback is required, at 304 Salem Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70-9-9, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Ruth Walker, Appellant, George VanValen, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII, Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to create a freshwater pond with the movement of 1 ,850 cubic yards of fill material at 929 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-2-6.2, Residence District R-30 and Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District. APPEAL of George VanValen, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII, Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to create a freshwater pond with the movement of 1 ,950 cubic yards of fill material at 1001 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47- 2-6. 52, Residence District R-30 and Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District. APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Michael Husar, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, in order to construct a 15 ,000 ± square foot wrestling facility on the Campus Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 67- 1 - 13 .2 and 63 - 1 -8.2 and City of Ithaca Parcel No. 31 - 1 - 1 .2, in a Town zoned R-30 district. A variance from Article V, Section 18 is also being requested in order to permit the building' s entryway to have a height of 42 feet (36 foot height limitation). APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Kim Martinson, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to modify and upgrade the Oxley Parking lot at NYS Route 366, Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2. The upgrades include landscaping, lighting, and walkways. Said special approval includes modifications of previously granted approvals from April 10, 1991 and January 8, 1997, which also include time limits. APPEAL of George Voss, Owner, Independent Wireless One, Appellant, Timothy Frateschi, Harris Beach, LLP, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Town of Ithaca Local Law #4, 1998 and Article XIII, Section 70A of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to create and co-locate telecommunication antennas on an existing silo at 385 King Road West, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35-3 - 1 , Residence District R-30. A variance from Section 70A-5 of said law is being requested in order to deviate from dimensional standards. 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 : October 4 , 2001 Published: October 10, 2001