Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2002-03-25 FILE JZ�t'It lit TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSDATE MONDAY , MARCH 25 , 2002AdF` QZ � 7 : 00 PM APPEAL of Orlando lacovelli , Owner/Appellant , Edward Mazza , Esquire , Agent , requesting a special permit under Article III , Section 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the occupancy of a two-family residence by up to six unrelated people at 271 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-6-7 , Residence District R-9 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Alan Falk , Owner/Appellant , Richard Hautaniemi , RA , Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law to permit the modification of a second dwelling unit and the enlargement of the existing two-family residence , that does not have building frontage on a Town , County , or State highway located at 501 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 70- 1 -42 , Residence District R- 15 . An authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 may also be requested as the property is non -conforming with current regulations . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Patricia Pullman , Tompkins Trust Company , Appellant/Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 and Article XIII , Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit an existing non -conforming single-family residence with a deficient south side yard building setback and a deficient building lot width , to be modified with the addition of a second dwelling unit within said building located at 985 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 -2-28 , Residence District R- 15 . An authorization from the Zoning Board , under Article XII , Section 54 to permit said addition may also be requested . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of the Coddington Road Community Center, Appellant , Anne Morrissette and Claudia Brenner, RA , Agents , requesting a special approval under Article V , Section 18 and Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge an existing non - conforming day care center by 1 , 900 ± square feet located at 920 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47- 1 - 11 . 3 , Residence District R-30 , APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of JMS Realty , Owner/Applicants , Integrated Acquisition and Development Corporation/Herman Sieverding , Agent , requesting modifications to previously granted approvals for the College Circle Apartments form January 24 , 1990 and variances from Article VI , Section 26 and 29 , and Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit an increase in the number of persons allowed to reside in said apartments and to allow for vehicular parking variations at 1033 Dani A/ Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 4 ­ 1 -2 . 2 and 2 . 3 in a Multiple Residence Zor : APPEAL ADJOURNED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MARCH 25 , 2002 7 : 00 P . M . PRESENT : Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andy Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; John Barney , Attorney for the Town (7 : 36 p . m . ) ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner. EXCUSED : David Stotz , Board Member; Ronald Krantz , Board Member. ALSO PRESENT : Alan Falk , 501 Warren Road ; Bill Seldin , 120 Northview Road ; Pat Pullman , Newfield ; Mark Wheeler, 102 Woolf Lane ; Richard Hautaniemi , Groton ; Lisa Kerslake , 40 Dart Drive ; Herman Sieverding , Integrated Acquisition & Design ; Anne Morrissette , Coddington Road Community Center; Orlando lacovelli , 271 Pennsylvania Avenue ; Ed Mazza , Mazza & Mazza Law Firm ; Tim & Tom Colbert , Integrated Acquisition & Design ; Phil Perjanski , Integrated Acquisition & Design ; Tom Salm , Vice President Ithaca College . Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 12 p . m . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Orlando lacovelli , Owner/Appellant , Edward Mazza , Esquire , Agent , requesting a special permit under Article III , Section 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the occupancy of a two-family residence by up to six unrelated people at 271 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54- 6 -7 , Residence District R-9 . Mr. Ellsworth - Lets shorten this . How is this different from the other one you did ? Ed Mazza , Mazza & Mazza Law Firm - Not at all . Mr. Ellsworth - Do we have to go through all of this? Mr. Frost - I think you probably should for the public . Chairperson Sigel - I think if you could give just a brief overview of what you are asking for. Mr. Mazza - Mr. lacovelli has a house that is situated on two of the Ithaca Land Track lots and he has an adjoining Ithaca Land Track lot . The request is that he gets a special permit to be able to occupy the house by up to six unrelated persons . The theory being that he could build on the other lot a single-family home and have three unrelated people living there and three in this one for a total of six . So he is just going to be doing this under a grant of restrictive covenants so that he could never build on the other lot . It is a few hundred feet from where Jim lacovelli was in during January for the same exact request . A few hundred from where Mr. Livitsky had a similar, but not exactly the same approval some time ago . Chairperson Sigel - Are you proposing the same restriction as his brother? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr . Mazza - Yes , we are . Although , I 've got to say that I gave Mr. Barney those proposed covenants in January and I haven 't heard from him to be honest with you . But I would propose the same thing . We 've done those many times in the past on similar requests over the years , the last 20 years . Mr. Frost - Are you proposing to consolidate 54 . -6-6 into 54 . -6-7 ? Mr. Mazza - Into one tax parcel . Mr. Frost - The board may or may not have this handout of the tax parcel . Just so we're clear when looking at the survey map , this is going to be consolidated with this . Mr. Mazza - Yes . This one next to the yellow one will be consolidated into one tax parcel . Chairperson Sigel - Is that what we agreed upon with Mr. lacovelli 's brother? Mr. Mazza - Yes , it was . Mr. Frost - Did he consolidate ? Mr. Mazza - I don 't know if he has yet because we haven 't gotten the restrictive covenants done , but that was the idea , yes . Chairperson Sigel - Okay . Any questions from the board ? Mr. Niefer - Is there going to be room for six off street parking there . Mr. Mazza - There is . Mr. Niefer - How is this presently occupied ? How many people are living there now? Mr. Mazza - There are six . Mr. Niefer - Has there been or will there be a Certificate of Occupancy issued for this property? Mr. Frost - Should the board approve this , we could do that . We haven 't . Unless you request it , there is no building permit involved . We wouldn 't automatically issue a certificate . Mr. Ellsworth - I think there was some wording John wanted , but maybe that is what you are trying to work out . Mr. Mazza - I haven 't heard from him so I don 't know . Mr. Ellsworth - That is what I recall from the other meeting . Mr. Frost - Any motions that are made can be made with the condition that those restrictive covenants be approved by the Town Attorney . 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Mazza - John and I have worked those out before so I don 't think there will be any problem . Mr. Niefer - Andy , looking at this picture , if this is a two-family house and if the lower level is for one- family , presumably there is some two or three bedrooms on the ground level . Those windows look awful small . I don 't think I could crawl out of them in case of a fire . Mr. Frost - On the lower level ? Mr. Niefer - Yeah . Mr. Frost - I really couldn 't comment without seeing it myself . That would also be a condition . Mr. lacovelli showed where the bedrooms were located. Mr. Frost - I might suggest to the board that if you were to grant an approval to do so with a condition that they meet the building code . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 19 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 20 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Chairperson Sigel - We have an environmental assessment with this appeal . Mike , any comments? Mr. Smith - Nothing additional to add . It is similar to many others the board has granted in this area . Chairperson Sigel - Christine kindly attached for us the conditions for defining the definition of a family unit , but I don 't think that is really quite what we are doing here . Chairperson Sigel - If there are no further questions , would someone like to make a motion on the environmental assessment ? RESOLUTION NO. 2002-5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Orlando lacovelli. 271 Pennsylvania Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 54. -6- 7, March 25, 2002. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Orlando lacovelli, requesting a special permit under Article Ill, Section 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the occupancy of a two-family residence by up to six unrelated people at 271 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 . -6- 7, Residence District R-9, based upon the environmental assessment comp,'eted by Town planning staff dated March 13, 2002. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel - Any further questions or discussions? If not , 'I ' m going to make an identical motion to the motion that we made in the case of James lacovelli . RESOLUTION NO. 2002-6 - Orlando lacovelli, 271 PennsVlvania Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 54. -6- 7, March 25, 2002. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Orlando lacovelli, requesting a special permit under Article Ill, Section 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the occupancy of a two-family residence by up to six unrelated people at 271 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54. -6- 7, Residence District R-9, based upon the following: Finding: a . The conditions of Article XIV, Section 77, Subsection 7, Subparagraphs a -h have been met. Conditions: a . The adjacent parcel, tax parcel number 54 . -6-6, be consolidated with tax parcel number 54. -6- 7. b. The combined single lot is allowed occupancy of no greater than six unrelated persons. C. The declaration of Restrictive Covenant, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town, be recorded immortalizing that restriction. d. At such time as the premises are occupied by six persons that parking spaces for at least six cars off the street be provided on the premises. e. That all egress from all bedrooms comply with New York State Building Code. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Alan Falk , Owner/Appellant , Richard Hautaniemi , RA , Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law to permit the modification of a second dwelling unit and the 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED enlargement of the existing two-family residence , that does not have building frontage on a Town , County , or State highway located at 501 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 1 -42 , Residence District R - 15 . An authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 may also be requested , as the property is non -conforming with current regulations . Chairperson Sigel - Could you give us an overview first ? There didn 't seem to be a summary of what the current conditions are and what you would like to do . Alan Falk , 501 Warren Road - The current conditions are it' s a building that was converted from a barn into a residence in the 1930s as part of the original form . Richard Hautaniemi , Groton - It was part of the original Hanshaw Farm . The barn was built in 1864 and the residence was created in 1935 . When the residence was created , it was our understanding that the primary residence was on the first floor and part of the second floor. There was an apartment on the second floor of the residence . What the applicant is attempting to do at this point is to recapture some of the space on the second floor for use as part of the primary residence and reposition the entry to the apartment on the second floor. Part of this is repositioning the access stair that goes to the second floor, which is in a seriously deteriorated condition . It is too steep . It ' s a non - conforming stair. The addition to the building is just the stair and platform on the exterior . There is no change to the footprint of the building for living space . Chairperson Sigel - Okay . Mr. Frost - The only noncompliant issue , which has brought them to the Zoning Board of Appeals , is the road frontage . I put in Article XII , Section 54 just to cover all the bases here . You could look at it that it has existed prior to zoning , therefore , it' s nonconforming . I think the greater issue , as I see it , is the road frontage , which would be the Article IV , Section 14 and 16 as advertised . Everything else that they are proposing , really , is compliant . If they had road frontage , I ' m not so sure that they would be sitting before the board tonight . Chairperson Sigel - So all other standards are met . Mr. Frost - Right . Chairperson Sigel - So is it just a private driveway essentially that you are off of? Mr. Falk - Yeah . It' s a private road shared by two houses that have no road frontage and two that do . Chairperson Sigel - Okay. Mr. Frost - Are there provisions made for plowing that guarantees fire department access to the back parcel ? Mr. Falk - We have a contract with Crispell & Scott . Mr. Frost - Is that just your property or all the other properties ? 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Falk - All the properties jointly . Chairperson Sigel - Any other questions or comments? Mr. Niefer - Is the set of existing stairs going to be removed ? I noticed the pictures that they have here show some existing stairs and them some partially completed stairs . Mr. Hautaniemi - The existing stairs will be removed . Mr. Niefer - That's really basically the only change in the footprint of the property is just the reconfiguration of the stairs . Mr. Hautaniemi - We are taking off about 41 square feet of stair and putting back an additional 170 feet . Mr. Frost - The decking and the stairway is an improvement as to what they have now . Chairperson Sigel - Okay . We will open the public hearing . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 28 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 29 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Chairperson Sigel - We have an extremely brief environmental assessment form , which I assume Mike has no comments on . Mr. Smith - Right . Chairperson Sigel - Would someone like to make a motion on the environmental assessment form ? RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 7 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Alan Falk, 501 Warren Road, Tax Parcel No. 70. 442, March 25, 2002. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Alan Falk, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law to permit the modification of a second dwelling unit and the enlargement of the existing two-family residence, that does not have building frontage on a Town, County, or State highway located at 501 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 170. 4 -42, Residence District R- 15, based upon the environmental assessment form completed by Town planning staff. 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-8 - Alan Falk, 501 Warren Road, Tax Parcel No. 70.442, March 25, 2002. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Alan Falk, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law to permit the modification of a second dwelling unit and the enlargement of the existing two-family residence, that does not have building frontage on a Town, County, or State highway located at 501 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70. - 1 -42, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following: Finding: a . The requirements of Article XIV, Section 77, Subsection 6 a -c have been met. Conditions: a. All work is to be done in accordance with the plans submitted. b. The only exterior work to be done is the removal of one set of stairs and the installation of another set of stairs as indicated on the submitted plans. C, The only other work being done is rearrangement of interior walls. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Patricia Pullman , Tompkins Trust Company , Appellant/Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 and Article XIII , Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit an existing non -conforming single -family residence with a deficient south side yard building setback and a deficient building lot width , to be modified with the addition of a second dwelling unit within said building located at 985 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 -2 -28 , Residence District R - 15 . An authorization from the Zoning Board , under Article XII , Section 54 to permit said addition may also be requested . 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Frost - I might bring up to the board , I 'm sure you 've all looked at it , the opinion from Attorney Barney in the back of your packet on this particular case stating that he believes that this is an area variance . There was some discussion by staff and as the letter states this is an area variance . He did suggest to me that I also put it in Article XII , Section 54 as well . Chairperson Sigel - Could you give us an overview of what is there presently and what you are proposing ? Bill Seldin , 120 Northview Road - At 985 Taughannock Boulevard there is a house that we have established a record was built prior to the enactment of the code in November of 1954 . We know that from looking at the abstract of title because there was an easement granted by NYSEG and in the copy of the easement , which I will furnish the members in a moment , it specifically states service to a cottage . So the dwelling in question has been there since May 10 , 19547 if not earlier. So in other words , the better part of almost 50 years . I 'd like to highlight a couple of things that are stated in our application . The first is that hopefully we can all agree and appreciate having John 's opinion that this is an R- 15 zone , which is zoned for two-family residences . We are strictly talking about an area variance because of the deficiencies associated with the width . Mainly we have 75 feet versus 100 feet and also 2 . 9 feet on the side yard versus 15 feet . Now as to the width of the property , I am going to suggest that it is not unlike a multitude of other lake front properties . The board hopefully will appreciate the fact that density wise , we exceed the required density by some 40 percent . That is to say , the required density for this lot is 15 , 000 square feet . We have 21 , 000 square feet , which hopefully will figure into your thinking when you evaluate our application . I took the liberty of also copying the tax map . If you look at all of the lake front properties on the tax map , you will see that a multitude of properties appear to have similar side yard deficiencies and they are also built on lots that are very narrow . We literally inherited this difficulty when Judd Welch died . The Trust Company has seen a lot of papers as the trustee . We are prepared to invest what we calculate to be $ 50 , 000 in order to bring this property up to code . I would publicly like to thank Andy . We have really struggled with our approach to this difficulty . At the outset , I believe Andy will confirm this , we made sure that our contractor conferred with him so that we were sitting on the right track . I would be pleased having said all of that to answer any questions that you might have . But in looking at the mandates of Section 77 in the code and also 267b of the Town Law , I would respectfully submit that there is nothing about this proposal , the location of the house , that is inconsistent with the requirements that are presented by the law itself . Again , Pat and I are happy to answer whatever questions you might have . Chairperson Sigel - It appears from the packet that there was at least some discussion of tying this request in with some restriction on the lot next door. Mr. Seldin - Absolutely . Given , and the reason why we did that Kirk , is that we recognize that there is a garage for one thing that straddles both properties . We ' re here to say that we would appreciate the ability to have a condition that would lint : common ownership of these properties . Then , if need be , provide an encroachment agreement as to the garage . That really hasn 't been an issue because of 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, .2002 MINUTES APPROVED the common ownership of the properties . I am here to say tonight if you want to make that a condition , you got our consent to that . Mr. Niefer - Could you clarify something for me ? Mr . Seldin - Sure . Mr. Niefer - When you ' re speaking of a garage , a lower garage , where does that appear on our print? Chairperson Sigel - I think it is labeled as the carport . Mr. Seldin showed Mr. Niefer the location of the garage. Mr. Seldin - That is not used for housing or anything in a residential nature . The upstairs is strictly storage . Again , if there is any concern about that we 'd be happy to make that a condition . Chairperson Sigel - Are you proposing that a restriction be placed on both properties stating that they must be owned by the same person ? Mr. Seldin - Well , that would apply to this property . We would be here to say that if there ever comes a time when there isn 't common ownership , then what you grant here tonight would be setback . Mr. Niefer - Okay . Mr. Seldin - I think that is the way. I would defer to John about that , but I think that' s the way it would have to be set upon the record . Mr. Niefer - As far as the picture here that says lower garage and then the plot plan that we show shows a carport . There is a second story there in the way lake properties tend to change , that would be an ideal spot for somebody to put in another apartment . Would you be willing to stipulate that there is no habitable occupancy then ? Mr. Seldin - Absolutely. Chairperson Sigel - I assume it currently has electricity , but nothing else . Patricia Pullman , Tompkins Trust Company - It doesn 't have anything else . Right this minute it is just full of furniture and storage . It ' s all open in the bottom . The storage part is up above it . Mr. Seldin - The unqualified answer to your question is yes , we would be willing to consent to that as a condition . It wouldn 't be used as a residence . It wouldn 't be used as an apartment Mr . Niefer - It would not be used as an apartment . Mr. Frost - It couldn 't legally be anyhow . 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Niefer - Okay . I read through the material that was given to us . Would you clarify for me what is the present status of 987? Is it a one-family house or is it a two -family house ? Mr. Seldin - One-family . Mr. Niefer - Are you proposing that it become a two -family house ? Mr. Seldin - No . We ' re not here for that . Mr. Niefer - With regard to 985 , there is some confusion as to what it is or what it was . Is that a one , two or three family? Mr. Seldin - Here 's what happened . When Judd passed away and the Trust Company took over, we realized that it wasn 't in conformity because there were three tenants in there . The Trust Company, at some expense , bought out one of the tenants to get him out of there . So there are now two tenants in that dwelling whose leases don 't expire until the end of August . So we have tried to ameliorate the situation and remedy part of the problem . In answer to your question , at present time it is two-family . Mr. Frost - The building labeled on parcel A , which was a two , is now back to a single-family residence . When the Trust Company had me out there a while ago , we had concluded that the deceased owner had made some conversions by increasing dwelling units without proper approval . In an effort to at least make the situation better, they reduced the two-family to a one-family and the three family to a two-family with the intent , depending upon what this board should decide , taking what was the three family and making it a one-family unless they got the approval to maintain it as a two-family . Chairperson Sigel - That makes sense . Attorney Barney - I don 't understand . Chairperson Sigel - Is it my understanding that you are also planning if you get approval for a two- family at 985 , you are planning to make further modifications to the structure to make it suitable as a two-family? Mr. Seldin - Correct . As I mentioned before , the moment the Trust Company came on the scene as it were , they immediately hired a contractor. I believe he has visited with Andy to some extent in an effort to determine the cost of bringing that property up to code as a two-family . We have done that . It is calculated . It is going to cost us between $40 , 000 and $50 , 000 to do that to meet all the requirements of code . As I 've said on the record , or it is given in this kind of proceeding that we have to bring it up to code if we intend to use it as such . Mr. Niefer - Will there be any change in the footprint of 985 ? Mr. Seldin - No , sir. 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - I assume you wouldn 't be opposed to a condition of approval that 987 remains a single -family occupancy . Ms . Pullman - We are putting this on the market as one package . We are going for a two and a one . If I sit here and I say we sell this property and it ' s a one and a two , what if somebody wants to down the road . . . Mr. Seldin - If that were case . . . Ms . Pullman - Come here and change that to a two and a two because it is going to be another big expense to make that a two , too because that is not . . . Mr. Seldin - That' s not on the horizon , but let me say this . If we were to do that , we would have to come back before the board . Chairperson Sigel - Right . It just makes it seem a little stronger say to a future board that may not be composed of the present members that it was our intention at the time that that would be a . . . Obviously, any future board could lift that as you know . Mr. Seldin - With the restriction of common ownership I would hope that that wouldn 't be . . . I have struggled with that concept . My hope is that the board would not make that a restriction because we don 't know what the future holds . I would assume there are enough safe guards so that in terms of having to come back to the board for reapplication process to 987 , we are just focused on the 985 . Attorney Barney - Our problem , Bill , is we've had a situation where obviously somebody ignored the requirements and we wound up with five families in an area , which really by our records should only have been two families . I don 't think it is an unreasonable condition to suggest . However, if we tempered with the statement without prejudice on the part of any owner to come back at a later time . Mr. Seldin - We would want the authority to in the future to at least revisit this on an application process . Attorney Barney - I think that we would state going forward , with this board ' s understanding and you are representing to us that it is a single-family unit you are selling for. If there is going to be a change in that use , it has to be brought back to this board for approval . Mr. Seldin - If you were to word it that way , I wouldn 't have any difficulty . Mr. Frost - Could you clarify , are you consolidating parcel a and b or keeping them separate ? Mr. Seldin - We ' re keeping them separate . We ' re going to sell them . Mr. Frost - Even keeping it separate if what is now known as 987 , which is proposed to be a single- family residence , that building lot regardless is nonconforming . So any change in that building would still need to come before this board as a special approval . For the board ' s sake , there shouldn 't be 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED any concern because ten owners from now they still have to come back to the board to get an approval to extend a nonconforming building lot . Chairperson Sigel - True . It is redundant , but it still makes us feel better. Mr. Seldin - Just so Pat understands , you are not precluding our ability to come back before the board on 987 . Chairperson Sigel - No . We don 't have that power. Mr. Seldin - As a matter of fact you are reinforcing the notion that you would have to in any event if we were to change the usage of that property . Attorney Barney - Our concern is to make the record very clear. One-family , two-family units . The other question I have I may have missed it . How is this carport that straddles the line . . . who gets that ? Which parcel does it really go with ? Ms . Pullman - 987 . Attorney Barney - Is there going to be some sort of an easement agreement? Mr. Seldin - Yeah . In our application we stated two things . One that we would consent to a condition of common ownership . Two that there would be an easement or encroachment agreement and that would be subject to your approval . Attorney Barney - Okay . Chairperson Sigel - If you sell it to one owner for both lots , you ' re hoping as a practical matter it' s not an issue for the new owner. Mr. Seldin - I don 't think it would be because we have an encroachment agreement . We have a condition of common ownership . If anything were to change . . . Attorney Barney - It goes with 987 so the encroachment agreement would be with 985 authorizing the encroachment . Mr. Seldin - Exactly . Attorney Barney - Is there some sort of easement agreement to allow somebody to get onto parcel b by winding their way around the top of parcel a ? Mr. Seldin - We could build that into the agreement . Attorney Barney - You probably would need to . 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Seldin - We have a good accurate survey to do that with . I would anticipate that we would have to , John , if you look at the line of the driveway . Attorney Barney - Actually both ways . Mr. Seldin - It would be a mutual easement agreement . Attorney Barney - Parcel a has to get across the corner of parcel b . Chairperson Sigel - Now , the way that you envision this approval having the common ownership requirement , is it your assumption that the present owner being the Trust Company or new owner could in fact sell one parcel only and the only effect of that would be the loss of the right to have two families in 985 ? Mr. Seldin - Correct . Chairperson Sigel - But otherwise , if someone were willing to do that they would not need to come back before the board and would need no further approval . Mr. Seldin - If they wanted to use it as a one-family? Chairperson Sigel - Correct . Mr. Seldin - As it was prior to the enactment of the code , yes . Again , this is a property that we have established was used as a single-family prior to the enactment of the code . Chairperson Sigel - I was asking mainly just to stress that is seems to make it all the more imperative to have appropriate agreements between the two set up for the carport in particular. Mr. Seldin - We would have to do that in any event . But yes , Kirk , we are prepared to do that . Mr. Ellsworth - What is in the upper part of that carport? Mr. Seldin - Storage . Ms . Pullman - Its very rough . Its nothing . It 's just a room . Mr. Ellsworth - You ' re going to have two different owners for . . . Ms . Pullman - We are selling it as one . Mr. Ellsworth - Both properties ? Ms . Pullman - As one . It goes on the market as one . 13 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Seldin - In the agreement , so there will be no misconception here , the agreement that we come up with would be product of John and I come to terms with . I shouldn 't say that . Whatever John tells me . Attorney Barney - I like that better. Chairperson Sigel - But your plan is to have the carport actually owned by 987 . So if 985 were sold separately , it would be the 987 's property . Mr. Seldin - That's right . The agreement itself . . . the owner of 985 would acknowledge the right of 987 to encroach upon that part . Chairperson Sigel - Any other questions at this time ? Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 54 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 55 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Chairperson Sigel - There is an environmental assessment form prepared for this . Mike , any comments ? Mr. Smith - Nothing significant anticipated . Chairperson Sigel - Any further questions or comments? RESOLUTION NO. 2002-9 " ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Tompkins Trust Company, 985 Taughannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel No. 21 . -2-28, March 25, 2002 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Tompkins Trust Company, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and 16 and Article XIII, Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit an existing non-conforming single-family residence with a deficient south side yard building setback and a deficient building lot width, to be modified with the addition of a second dwelling unit within said building located at 985 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 . -2-28, Residence District R- 15, based upon the environmental assessment form completed by Town planning staff. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 14 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 200240 - Tompkins Trust Company, 985 Taughannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel No. 21 . -2-28, March 25, 2002. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Tompkins Trust Company, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and 16 and Article Xlll, Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit an existing non -conforming single-family residence with a deficient south side yard building setback and a deficient building lot width, to be modified with the addition of a second dwelling unit within said building located at 985 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 . -2-28, Residence District R- 15 based upon the following: Finding: a . The requirements for an area variance have been met under Article XIV, Section 77, Subsection 6. Conditions: a . It is understood that the house at 987 Taughannock Boulevard is currently and will be maintained as a single-family residence, but that the board is not prejudiced towards a reconfiguration if a future application is made. b. That there be an easement agreement subject to approval by the Attorney for the Town concerning the carport which straddles the boundary line between 985 and 987 Taughannock Boulevard. C, That such agreement also cover an easement for the use of the shared driveway between the two properties. d. The approval of the Attorney for the Town be obtained prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of the Coddington Road Community Center, Appellant , Anne Morrissette and Claudia Brenner, RA , Agents , requesting a special approval under Article V , Section 18 and Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge an existing non - conforming day care center by 1 , 900 ± square feet located at 920 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47- 1 - 11 . 3 , Residence District R- 30 , Anne Morrissette , Coddington Road Community Center - Claudia Brenner is out of town . 15 � I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - I believe you already received approval for a somewhat smaller addition and you are . . . ? Ms . Morrissette - That approval expired . Chairperson Sigel - Okay . Ms . Morrissette - We have made a few alterations . The square footage increases were largely to the . . . about a 150 square feet on the front extension that goes out into the front play yard . Then the office entry area on the driveway side of the back addition was also increased . Chairperson Sigel - Is the addition mostly classroom space ? Ms . Morrissette - Well , the old kitchen that exists now will be removed . So that will be replaced with the new kitchen . Then there is office entry with a little support space and a handicap accessible bathroom and a staff bathroom . Chairperson Sigel - Any questions ? Ms . Morrissette - I would note that the one condition the first time we were here was to remove the storage shed that extended towards the boundary that is closest to the building , which is part of the reason we are before you . I think we are a variance and nonconforming . Is that right ? We have removed that shed . It' s gone . I think it is shown as being removed . Chairperson Sigel - If there are no other questions or comments we will open the public hearing . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 03 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 04 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Chairperson Sigel - Mike , any comments ? Mr. Smith - Nothing to add , no . Chairperson Sigel - It seems it is pretty similar to the last proposal . Attorney Barney - Anne , is this being funded by the dormitory authority ? Ms . Morrissette - Largely . We have been raising money . Basically that is why our first approval expired . We 've finally pulled it all together. Over half of the funding is dormitory authority . We don 't have that contract in hand yet , but we have our approval arid are in the process of developing a contract with them . There is actually some other state funding that goes along with that for the school age expansion aspect of the program . 16 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - Any other questions or comments ? Would someone like to make a motion on the environmental assessment form ? RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddinqton Road, Tax Parcel No. 47. - 1 - 11 . 3, March 25, 2002. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of the Coddington Road Community Center, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 and Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing non-conforming day care center located at 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47. - 1 - 11 . 3, Residence District R-30, based upon the environmental assessment completed by Town planning staff dated March 14, 2002. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 12- Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddinqton Road, Tax Parcel No. 47. - 1 - 11 . 3, March 25, 2002. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of the Coddington Road Community Center, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 and Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing non -conforming day care center by no more than 2, 000 square feet located at 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47. - 1 - 11 . 3, Residence District R-30, based upon the following: Finding: a . The requirements for special approval under Article XIV, Section 77, Subparagraph 7 a -h have been met. Conditions: a. With the restriction that the addition be built according to the plans submitted to this board, b. All conditions imposed by the Planning Board also be met. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: 17 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel - Is it the case , John , that we couldn 't approve this given the current state of it before the Planning Board ? Attorney Barney - Yeah , the current state before the County Planning Department . Chairperson Sigel - Oh , it' s the referral to the County . Attorney Barney - When it was originally referred , there was a . . . at the time it was contemplated that there would be no fill removed from the site . It would all be cut and fill . Since that time , it appears that there is going to be substantial fill removed . That was never brought to the County so when they did their 239 review they gave the usual we don 't care kind of thing . But they almost simultaneously gave us another response on another project where 7500 cubic yards of fill were being moved and they said they felt that did have impact . They disapproved that without certain conditions . So we felt really it would be inappropriate to proceed on this one without them being aware of the fact that there was a substantial amount of fill being taken off site . The papers have gone back to the County . We haven 't heard back from them yet . They have 30 days from when they receive them . You could just go ahead and hold the public hearing , discuss the matter. Comments not audible. Mr. Frost - What we are doing , I don 't know if you guys overheard part of this , is there was a problem with filing a form with the County over what this project is doing at the Planning Board level . Therefore , this board cannot make a decision until some of the issues with the County are resolved . This case will come to the Zoning Board of Appeals in April for a decision , but we already have six cases . So we will have a total of seven of cases to be heard in April . With that in mind , we decided to follow through with the public hearing tonight to at least get some of the issues out of the way . So that in April we could spend much less time . The intent here is for people to make a presentation , open the public hearing and then you don 't have a decision to be made until the April meeting . Attorney Barney - The only question that I would have is , are all three of you planning to be at the April meeting ? Mr. Niefer - Yes . Attorney Barney - Because it would be a little painful for three of you to hear it , which is the minimum number of people . . . Mr. Ellsworth - Is Dave going to be back then ? 18 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Attorney Barney - Yeah , but the problem is he wouldn 't have heard the presentation tonight . He would need to make his decision based on the minutes and things like that , which I am sure Carrie will have done . Mr. Ellsworth - It looks like a good night for public hearings . Chairperson Sigel - You ' re going to be here next month ? Mr. Ellsworth - Yeah . Mr. Frost - The motive here simply was to , because we already have six cases this will make seven cases , is to try to efficiently use the time we have tonight to carry over the decision . Chairperson Sigel - Okay . The fifth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of JMS Realty, Owner/Applicants , Integrated Acquisition and Development Corporation/Herman Sieverding , Agent , requesting modifications to previously granted approvals for the College Circle Apartments form January 24 , 1990 and variances from Article VI , Section 26 and 29 , and Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit an increase in the number of persons allowed to reside in said apartments and to allow for vehicular parking variations at 1033 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 . - 1 -2 . 2 and 2 . 3 in a Multiple Residence Zone . Chairperson Sigel - Would somebody like to . . . ? Herman Sieverding , IAD - I work with Integrated Acquisition and Development . With me are Tim Colbert and Tom Colbert and Phil Perjanski from Integrated Acquisition and Development and Tom Salm , Vice President of Business Affairs at Ithaca College . Brian Mc Aree , who is the Vice President of Students Affairs at Ithaca College , was going to be here as well , but given the weather side of that it was probably better for him to stay home . I think you have the application that we prepared that has a narrative description of the two variances that we ' re seeking . One is actually a modification of a condition to a variance that was granted to this property in 1990 . That variance had to do with the number of unrelated individuals occupying a dwelling unit . The Zoning Board of Appeals at the time that that variance was granted made a condition to that variance , essentially repeating a condition that the Planning Board had imposed when it did site plan review for that project in 1988 and 1989 . That limited the occupancy of the property to no more than 600 persons . So one of our requests is to modify the condition to that variance that would allow an increase in occupancy to a maximum of 750 persons . The second request is an area variance relative to parking . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance stipulates that parking stalls or parking spaces be 180 square feet . Typically that translates into a 9 by 20 parking space . Our site plan and site plan discussions with Planning Board have been based on utilizing an 8 foot 6 by 18 parking space in front of the apartments . The 9 foot by 18 foot in front of the proposed community building , which is in the center of the circle . Each of those spaces is less 19 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED than 180 square foot that is stipulated in the ordinance , 152 or 163 square feet respectively . So we ' re asking for an area variance from that particular provision . I guess we could start with the modification discussion first ? Chairperson Sigel - Sure . Mr. Sieverding - We have proposed and have been discussing with the Planning Board a proposal whereby Integrated Acquisition would acquire the College Circle property and renovate the first phase , complete the construction of the second phase and then lease the property to Ithaca College . Ithaca College would operate and manage the property . Why are we doing this ? Several reasons I think as we explained in the narrative . Ithaca College has identified housing demand of somewhere between 600 to 800 beds . This demand has been identified by the college over a series of strategic plans and master plans . The most recent master plan , which I think has been presented to various boards and committees of the Town and that , stipulated the demand for 600 to 800 beds . We believe that College Circle provides an opportunity to respond to that demand in a way that we feel has certain benefits I think both for Ithaca College and for the Town . It' s a site that is already approved for 449 apartments albeit with the stipulation that the occupancy can 't exceed 600 persons . We believe that by developing this relationship with Ithaca College it will bring stronger, more comprehensive management to the site . I think the reasons that we 've outlined here that would support modifying this condition are several . I think there are both significant additional capital and operating expenses that will be incurred as part of the overall redevelopment of the property . In terms of capital expenses , our site plan proposal to the Planning Board includes I think four major elements . There is the community building that is in the center of the site . It is a 7 , 885 square foot building . A connector road , which will be on the north end of the site that would establish a direct physical connection between the College Circle property and the main campus . The campus , Ithaca College is proposing to extend its data and voice networks systems to all of the apartments at College Circle . The college is proposing to extend its blue light system . In fact , our site plan now shows 18 blue lights scattered throughout the property . All those are sorts of initial capital expenses that weren 't initially anticipated when the project was first developed . In terms of operating expenses , the college has prepared a pretty comprehensive staffing and management plan for the property . That includes a live- in Resident Director. It includes Resident Assistants at about a ratio of 1 for every 100 to 125 students who will reside in the property . The campus will extend all of its security and life safety patrol and services to the College Circle property . The Ithaca College physical plant group will maintain the College Circle property . There would be a number of programs and corresponding staffing that would be run out of the community building . Again , I think all of those features add additional operating costs to the property that weren 't originally anticipated , but that we feel are absolutely essential in terms of improving the management of the property . Chairperson Sigel - Can you tell me what is the capacity of the units currently built ? How many occupants ? 20 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Sieverding - There are or will be once the second phase is completed a total of 600 bedrooms . There are 149 apartments . It' s a mix of two bedroom , three bedroom and four bedrooms . Chairperson Sigel - What is the capacity of what is built now? Mr. Sieverding - I ' m sorry . There are 89 apartments with 324 beds . We are proposing to add 60 apartments with 276 beds . Chairperson Sigel - When you say 324 beds that is in some cases two people in a bedroom ? Mr . Sieverding - No . The 600 is at one person per bedroom . What is being proposed is that certain bedrooms would have double occupancy in order to get to the 750 occupants . Chairperson Sigel - Okay . So currently there are 324 bedrooms . . . Mr. Sieverding - In the first phase of the property . Chairperson Sigel - And they hold at most 324 people ? Mr. Sieverding - Correct . Chairperson Sigel - And you are looking . . . will the capacity be exactly 750 for the new proposed ? Mr. Sieverding - I think that Tom can sort of help respond to that . I think that 750 are what I would call an upset figure that is the targeted number for the college . That would be predicated on doubling up in some of the bedrooms . If you were to take a look at the floor plans for these apartments there are any number of bedrooms, but particularly the four and five bedroom apartments and some of the threes that have bedrooms that are in excessive of 145 or 150 square feet , those are the ones that have been targeted for double occupancy . Chairperson Sigel - So , you are looking at increasing it by about 425 occupants ? Mr. Sieverding - If you are counting the yet to be built second phase . Chairperson Sigel - Yeah , above what is currently built . Mr. Sieverding - Above what is currently constructed . Chairperson Sigel - Presently , I assume it is almost all or entirely students in there ? Mr. Sieverding - Yes . Chairperson Sigel - So the benefit to Ithaca College is room for 425 more students ? Mr. Sieverding - Yes , over and above what' s been constructed , not over what has been approved . 21 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - I understand that . And Ithaca College will be running this as college housing ? Mr. Sieverding - Correct . Chairperson Sigel - It will be part of the normal college housing system ? Mr. Sieverding - That' s right . Chairperson Sigel - Students will be paying their rent and everything to Ithaca College . Mr. Sieverding - To Ithaca College , that' s right . Chairperson Sigel - Rather than a separate leasing agency as it is now . Mr. Sieverding - That ' s exactly right . Resident ' s Life will be running the property . As I mentioned , there will be a resident director on site who will oversee student activities and behavior on the site . All of the leasing , all of the operation , all of the management would be by Ithaca College under this arrangement . Chairperson Sigel - And Ithaca College will be paying your company, I assume , a lump sum ? Mr. Sieverding - It ' s a master lease lump sum payment . Chairperson Sigel - I ' m sorry . Go ahead with your . . . Mr. Sieverding - I think the point I want to make in summarizing the variety of physical improvements and the annual operating expenses related to running all these programs , I think it really forms the basis for the request for the increase in occupancy . The project needs to generate additional income in order to support the variety of physical and programmatic improvements that are being brought to it . A lot of those physical improvements are designed to really integrate this property into the campus . Make it feel as if it is part of the campus . Tom Salm , VP Ithaca College - Can I make a comment? Let me just remind you that the last time I was down here we were looking for some additional parking . If you remember, we talked about the master plan that we were working on or are working on at that time . And if you remember, part of our strategic plan and in our master plan was to add 600 to 800 beds to the campus . At the time that I was down here we didn 't know where those were going to be , but we did know that we wanted to go out and try to find an arrangement with a developer. What turned out to be the best opportunity we thought was to work with this combination of JMS Realty for purchase of that property . Then work with the Integrated people to put that together. I say that because this will take care of that need in our master plan and then it won 't be necessary for us to come back in looking for another complex to build if we are able to accomplish this . But , we need the beds in that kind of a range in order to deal with the number of students that we would like to have on campus . So ne of you might have remembered having heard me talk about that . I just thought that might be helpful as background . 22 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - So does the college view this as the acquisition of effectively 750 beds or . . . ? Mr. Salm - Absolutely . Chairperson Sigel - Or just as the difference ? Mr. Salm - No . It will all be under the purview of the college so it is acquisition of 750 beds . So for us it is the same as if we had gone out and found a totally separate party to work with us on some kind of a development and we were intent on doing it with a developer rather than trying to do it ourselves for financial reasons . They will all be under our control . Chairperson Sigel - So you don 't feel that effectively the removal of the present . . . Mr. Salm - The roughly 324 that are there . . . Chairperson Sigel - Yeah , from the non -college market or from the private market will not affect the demand for beds on campus ? Mr. Salm - No , because remember it is all Ithaca College students right now . All 324 beds are currently occupied by Ithaca College students . In essence we are just going to kind of absorb that and then pick up the 400 plus additional beds to work towards the numbers that we want under our supervision . Ultimately the students that have been there will either go to live someplace else or they will live with us and live under our rules . Chairperson Sigel - Okay . Mr. Sieverding - I think it should be fair to point out that our discussion relative to this occupancy level , we spent a quite of bit of time talking to the Planning Board about that , not to confuse matters here . With the Planning Board , there was a discussion of a two-tier structure in terms of occupancy ; I think you should be aware of . Seven hundred fifty for the college and because there is a provision in the agreement whereby after a certain point in time , while we don 't think it is likely, management of the property could revert to Integrated Acquisition and Development . We had discussed with the board , I think , a revised occupancy structure for IAD of somewhat less than the 750 , 690 . In fact this was part of the proposed condition to site plan approval that was discussed with the Planning Board at the meeting , which the Planning Board agreed with . I think in terms of the economics of that I think IAD operates at a somewhat different cost structure than the college does . We believe that 690 occupants , we can amortize the cost of the capital improvements that are being made as well as absorb with the additional beds , the increase operating cost that we will experience . Those operating costs are in direct relation to trying to match point for point the type of operating programs that the college is bringing to the property . So where we mentioned before where the college would have a resident director and resident assistants at this ratio of 1 to 100 or 125 students , we would match that by having a leasing manager on site and then having assistant managers in that same ratio . Basically , to fulfill the functions of residents assistants . So point for point , we have matched that , think that is basically the essence of our request relative to the modification of this condition . Chairperson Sigel - How long is the agreement that you 've entered into with Ithaca College ? 23 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Sieverding - The overall agreement is 40 years . So it is a housing agreement that is 40 years long , but it does provide this option for management to revert back to Integrated Acquisition . Chairperson Sigel - Before the 40 years is up ? Mr. Sieverding - Yes . Chairperson Sigel - Is there any guarantee for how long Ithaca College will perform the management functions ? Mr. Salm - Only as we were to have control of the property , but we do have a responsibility to provide students to the project for the entire 40 years . So , even if we ' re not managing it , we will put students there . That is why we along with IAD were interested in seeing a similar kind of supervision to be continued if the college were to get out of this agreement . It is very unlikely that would occur. This is a process that occurs nationally in terms of way that colleges and universities work with developers . The problem is they are both looking for. protections under certain circumstances if things were to really go sour or enrollment fell by 1 , 000 or 1500 students . They want some assurances . The reverse is that if we found that if they needed to get out for some reason , they should have the opportunity as well . The expectation is that we will be in it for the long haul . This is our 750 beds , like I said , as part of our master plan that we are depending on to use for the next 40 years . Mr. Sieverding - I think in sort of reading the section of the ordinance that applies to this condition , there are a couple of factors or couple criteria that you will be looking at that have to do with whether or not granting this condition would have any undesirable change in the neighborhood or any adverse impact on the environment . I think in our narrative I think we tried to spell out why we don 't think either of those events would occur. I think in terms of density , this is a 30 . 5 acre site . Even at 149 apartments , we are talking about 4 . 8 units per acre , which if you compare that with other multi-family residential developments in the county , which generally rank between 12 to 18 units per acre . We ' re substantially lower. I think parking . . . I think we ' ve demonstrated in our site plan discussions that particularly by going to the 8 foot 6 wide stalls , we can provide adequate parking on the site . I think we total 552 spaces on the final plan . I think , again , relative to your earlier question , the increased occupancy doesn 't involve any additional building . It doesn 't result in any additional impervious surface being added to the site . The increase is really gained by doubling up in what are certain pretty large bedrooms in some of these units . Thus , in terms of environmental impact , there really is no environmental impact that would be caused by this change . Similarly , traffic . Traffic , we did a very detailed traffic analysis . SRF Associates did this as part of our site plan package . They determined that at the numbers that we ' ve been discussing , there would be little to no adverse impact on traffic on Route 96 . Particularly , with the construction of a connector road that will connect the College Circle property to the Ithaca College campus . Chairperson Sigel - Are the bedroom sizes that you are anticipating having two students , are they at least as large as similar bedrooms as other on - campus housing that would have two students ? 24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Salm - Yes , in fact , they are larger on balance by far than what we have in our Garden Apartments . The other place that we have apartments is just the Garden Apartments and they are quite a bit smaller. We have two , three and four bedroom with three , four and five students in them now in the Garden Apartments as well . Mr. Sieverding - These are very large units . I think the four and five bedroom units, Tom correct me , are in the range of 2200 square feet . They go down from there . They are very large units . Everybody who goes into them comments on them . We 've taken just about every various sort of categorical functions within the college : life safety , maintenance people , and resident's life . They are actually quite amazed at how large these units are . I don 't know if you want to move right into discussion on the parking or . . . ? Chairperson Sigel - Any other questions? Mr. Niefer - Reference is made to traffic studies and traffic flows and so on and the connector road . I believe there is some reference also made to some type of a bus service from this complex over to the main campus . Is that going to be Ithaca College bus service or is it going to be TCAT service ? Mr. Sieverding - It is going to be TCAT service . In fact , Tom Salm , Tom Colbert and I along with several other people at Ithaca College met with Rod Ghering and Dewight Mingle just today to sort of refine a proposal for TCAT service that we would like to have in place no later than August of 2003 . August of 2003 is the scheduled completion date for the new construction . That's really when the occupancy levels we are talking about would be hit . I think that the Planning Board will have as a stipulation to our site plan approval that the connector road be completed at that time . It would be within that time frame that we would also like to have the TCAT bus service in place . Chairperson Sigel - Will that service be primarily to get off campus or also within campus ? Mr. Sieverding - The route that we discussed today would actually go through the College Circle property and through campus . There are two different alternatives that we ' re discussing with them . One is the modification of an existing route , route 11 . The other is the creation of a new route . The new route , if we go that way , would primarily serve the campus . Although , it is likely that it would also go down to upper South Hill . Down Coddington Road , across Hudson Place , circulate by Hudson Heights and then go back up through campus , College Circle and then back again . Route 11 is an existing route . We are also looking at reversing that route and bringing it up Aurora Street . Right now it comes up Coddington , circulates through College Circle and campus . Go back down to Green Street , turn around and come back up . Chairperson Sigel — How far is it from these units to say where students would typically go for classes ? Is it anticipated that students would typically walk that or . . . ? Mr. Sieverding - Ideally , it would be a combination of walking and taking TCAT service if we had the bus . I think we estimated that the walk from College Circle to the main portion of campus is probably in the 12 to 15 minute range . 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - Okay . Mr. Salm - They do it now . Remember , again , that it is full of Ithaca College students right now and we get a mix . Mr. Sieverding - You see them walking back and forth . Chairperson Sigel - I assume now, few if any , take TCAT. Mr. Sieverding - Right , because there is no bus service . Mr. Salm - TCAT doesn 't service up there right now . That is one of the things that we are working on a plan . Again , if you remember my discussing parking , we finally , finally got started with free bus passes for all of our employees . That started just two weeks ago . We are doing discounted bus passes for our students now . We want to extend that also to Longview . Route 11 did get changed around to go to Longview once an hour. We would like to extend that so that we have Longview twice an hour as well as College Circle and College Circle being serviced on the interior road . I think we will get a lot more play . That is what we are working on . Chairperson Sigel - Any other questions at this time ? Go ahead , did you want to talk about the parking ? Mr. Sieverding - Yeah , the other request is an area variance relative to the parking . I think without getting into a detailed discussion on sort of the evolution of parking spaces , the fact of the matter is that increasingly parking space sizes have really evolved . I think over the years from the standard 180 square feet , 9 by 20 stall down to typically 8 foot 6 by 18 . 1 think that is the standard most commonly used . I know it is the standard in the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . It is the standard that is used at Cornell . That standard has really been arrived at , I think , through a series of studies that have been conducted by the National Parking Association in conjunction with the Urban Land Institute . In fact , if you were to look at the most recent edition of the Dimensions of Parking , which was just published in January of 2000 , they've established a size relative to the type of landuse in question and whether you are talking about parking spaces that turn over frequently versus less frequently , low , medium , high rate of turn over. I think the kind of parking that we are talking about here at College Circle is low turn over parking . The recommendation that they make is that a stall that is 8 foot 6 is adequate to serve that type of parking demand . I think that is true more so when you take a look at the overall geometry of your parking lot . Parking stall sizes is also a function of the size of the drive lane that is servicing those parking stalls . The standard parking module is 59 to 60 feet curb to curb . We have 61 feet . So if you have 18 feet parking stalls , that leaves you a little over 12 foot drive lanes . Again , it makes movement in and out of these parking spaces that much easier. Mr. Ellsworth - What are you doing ? Coming down from 9 foot to 8 . 5 foot to get more parking on the width ? Mr. Sieverding - Exactly right . The way the math works out is that generally , I think it is about every 18 or so spaces that you do on a 9 -foot stall , if you do on an 8 foot 6 , you pick up an additional parking space . So by changing this layout on the site , we can pickup an approximately an additional 26 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED 30 parking spaces . Where we are not doing this in terms of the 8 foot 6 parking stall width is in the center of the site in front of the community building . I think those spaces you can anticipate will turn over maybe a little more frequently than the spaces in front of the apartments . So in that case , we 've kept the spaces 9 feet wide . Mr. Ellsworth - And you ' re still keeping your proper percentage of handicap parking ? Mr. Sieverding - Yes . Mr. Ellsworth - They get two spaces for one to open their door and get in their chair. Mr. Sieverding - You have sort of their access lane and if you were to track what we thought we could get in terms of the overall number of parking spaces and what we ended up , by the time we added , I think we have six handicap parking spaces distributed around the site , we ended up losing a total of 12 parking spaces in order to create that . So , we are still at 552 spaces . Mr. Ellsworth - A full size car can go into an 8 . 5 foot space ? Mr. Sieverding - Yeah . Mr. Niefer - The standard garage door opening is 9 feet . It is surprising that up on the college there is medium to small size cars predominately on that area right now . Over half of them are medium to small size cars so they are narrower to begin with . Mr. Sieverding - They are . Actually , at College Circle we spent over a two week period counting empty parking spaces and the number of large vehicles that are parked , particularly SUV 's because we were concerned about that . At College Circle , only 15 percent of the vehicles there are in the SUV category . Mr. Ellsworth - As long as you didn 't do that study last week . Mr. Sieverding - It wasn 't spring break . I think area variances require you to take a look at five different criteria . We tried to address in the narrative each of those criteria . Undesirable change in the neighborhood . I think clearly from our point of view this benefits the property . The more parking spaces that we can provide I think in relation to the number of people that we are housing , the less likely that you 'll find people parking in fire lanes , on lawns , in front of dumpsters . It also increases the likelihood that whatever spillover affects there are from a development like this they will be contained on site . Alternatives to the requested variance I think is another criteria that we are required to take a look at . We did look at a number of different alternatives in terms of providing additional parking . All of those alternatives required in some fashion , I think deviating from the original design premise of the property . That original design premise of the circular layout , if you were to take a look at the original site plans they describe it as buildings in an open landscape , almost park like setting . The only way we found , given the configuration of the lot and the layout of the site that you could find or create additional parking is obviously by adding more impervious service . We didn 't think that was worth 27 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED doing . But again , changing the geometry of these spaces we feel we can provide parking in an adequate ratio to the number of occupants . The size of the variance , I think if you took a look at the alternatives . The size of the variance that we are requesting is the smallest one relative to meeting our basic objective of increasing this ratio of parking spaces to residents . Impact on the environment . I think in terms of providing additional parking , there are two things that could happen in terms of potential environmental impact . One is that you increase the amount of impervious surface and then you run into difficulties with the overall stormwater management plan and program . I think we have created a balance here where the amount of impervious surface , frankly , isn 't changing in terms of parking anyway relative to what was originally proposed . It is well within the capacity of the site to absorb and certainly well within the parameters of our stormwater management system , which includes expanding a detention basin . An increase in the amount of parking could theoretically have a traffic impact . Again , that has been thoroughly analyzed by the SRF study that is predicated on a maximum occupancy of 750 persons . Again , their conclusion there is no or very little traffic impact on Route 96 particularly given the connector road . So I think in terms of the various criteria that you are asked to look at relative to an area variance , we think that this is a reasonable request that will not have any impact on the environment . It is generally beneficial for both the property and the surrounding neighborhood . Chairperson Sigel - Any questions from the board ? Okay . At this time we should open the public hearing . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 43 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 44 p . m . Chairperson Sigel - Would it be appropriate to adjourn at this point ? Attorney Barney - Unless you want to discuss it some . Chairperson Sigel - Any discussion among board members ? No questions at this time ? Attorney Barney - Are you ready to vote ? Mr. Ellsworth - On what ? Environmental ? Attorney Barney - The overall project . Mr. Ellsworth - I am . This is the second time I 've been through this . Chairperson Sigel - You were on the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1990 ? 28 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 25 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Ellsworth - I was at the Planning Board meeting . I heard the long security version . Chairperson Sigel - Okay , well I would move to adjourn the appeal then until the next meeting . Attorney Barney - Did you close the public hearing ? Chairperson Sigel - Yes . Attorney Barney - Just adjourn it for purposes of discussion and decision at the next meeting . It won 't be advertised as a public hearing . Mr. Sieverding - Is there anything that we can anticipate relative to the April 15th meeting ? We will be going through another presentation or questions and answers ? Attorney Barney - No . Mr. Frost - We anticipate that the absent board members would receive copies of the minutes of this meeting in the packet . Chairperson Sigel - Your packet is pretty thorough , so I think just be prepared for questions . I don 't think a repeat of the presentation is necessary . Mr. Sieverding - Okay . RESOLUTION NO. 200243 - Adiournment of JMS RealtV, 1033 DanbV Road, Tax Parcel No. 43. - 1 -2. 2 and 43. 4 -2. 3, March 25, 2002. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board adjourns the appeal of JMS Realty, requesting modifications to previously granted approvals for the College Circle Apartments from January 24, 1990 and variances form Article Vl, Section 26 and 29, and Article Xlll, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit an increase in the number of persons allowed to reside in said apartments and to allow for vehicular parking variations at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43. - 1 -2. 2 and 2. 3 in a Multiple Residence Zone until the April 15, 2002 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Frost - We do have seven cases for the next month . 29 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 257 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - Any other official business ? Attorney Barney - Your appeal in the Eddy case is now filed . It is scheduled for argument in May . Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8 : 47 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ft Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receive of Taxes 30 TONAIN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 7 : 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, March 25 , 2002, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P.M. , on the following matters : APPEAL of Orlando Iacovelli, Owner/Appellant, Edward Mazza, Esquire, Agent, requesting a special permit under Article III, Section 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the occupancy of a two-family residence by up to six unrelated people at 271 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-6-7, Residence District R-9 . APPEAL of Alan Falk, Owner/Appellant, Richard Hautaniemi, RA, Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law to permit the modification of a second dwelling unit and the enlargement of the existing two-family residence, that does not have building frontage on a Town, County, or State highway located at 501 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70- 142, Residence District R45 . An authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 may also be requested as the property is non-conforming with current regulations. APPEAL of Patricia Pullman, Tompkins Trust Company, Appellant/Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and 16 and Article XIII, Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit an existing non-conforming single-family residence with a deficient south side yard building setback and a deficient building lot width, to be modified with the addition of a second dwelling unit within said building located at 985 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2-28, Residence District R- 15 . An authorization from the Zoning Board, under Article XII, Section 54 to permit said addition may also be requested. APPEAL of the Coddington Road Community Center, Appellant, Anne Morrissette and Claudia Brenner, RA, Agents, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 and Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing non-conforming day care center by 1 ,900 ± square feet located at 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47- 1 - 11 .3 , Residence District R-30. APPEAL of JMS Realty, Owner/Appellants, Integrated Acquisition and Development Corporation/Herman Sieverding, Agent, requesting modifications to previously granted approvals for the College Circle Apartments from January 24, 1990 and variances from Article VI, Section 26 and 29, and Article XIII, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit an increase in the number of persons allowed to reside in said apartments and to allow for vehicular parking variations at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -2.2 and 2. 3 in a Multiple Residence Zone. 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 : March 14, 2002 Published : March 18 , 2002 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 Monday March 25, 2002, 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: March 18, 2002 Date of publication: March 18, 2002 Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Depart ' nt Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of March 2002. ` wttjoltov Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Public, State of NeW York' NotaN 7 p1VVH605287 NO . OTioga county Cornrnission Expires December