HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2008-02-25 31VO
Zoning Board of Appeals 3i1 �
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca , NY 14850
Monday , February 25 , 2008
7 : 00 PM
Present
Kirk Sigel , Chairman ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; David Mountin , Board Member ;
Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk ; Susan Brock , Attorney for the Town ;
Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering ; Christine Balestra , Planner.
Excused
Ron Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member.
Others
C . George Wiedmaier , Maryland
Tim Peer, Cornell University
David Herrick , 1 Winner' s Circle
Frank Santelli , 121 Winston Drive
George Vignaux , 1470 Trumansburg Road
Peter Trowbridge , 1001 West Seneca Street
Paula Wedemeyer, Tucson , Arizona
Diane Florini , 1603 Slaterville Road
James Hamilton , 1603 Slaterville Road
Alex Johnson , 146 Statler Hall
Ashley Moore , 1028 East Shore Drive
Michelle Palmer, 153 Pearsall Place
Call to Order
Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 14 p . m . He welcomed everyone to
the February meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals and listed the
appeals before the Board .
Appeal 1 :
Ithaca Community Childcare Center, Owner/Appellant ; Sherri Koski , Agent,
requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Sections 221 =
6(A)( 1 ) [a] and 221 -6(A)(2 ) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the placement
of a new 7+/= foot tall , 10 +/- square foot non- illuminated freestanding sign for the
Ithaca Community Childcare Center, located at 579 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 73- 1 - 1 .4, Medium Density Residential Zone ( MDR) . The proposed
sign exceeds the four square foot maximum sign area and the six foot maximum
sign height permitted for regulated signs in residential districts .
Chairperson Sigel stated David Herrick was before the Board on behalf of Ithaca
Community Childcare Center.
I
Zoning Board of Appeals
2 5 FebruaryGN 2008
Final Minutes
David Herrick , 1 Winners Circle
Mr. Herrick introduced himself to the Board and stated he was before the Board at the
request of Sherri Koski and as an at- large member of the Board of Directors to seek
approval for the request for a new sign .
Mr. Herrick reported Ithaca Community Childcare Center received a favorable
recommendation from the Planning Board . He briefly described that the new sign
reflects IC3' s new logo and they are looking to replace the current sign with the new
sign . He made the following points :
• The new sign will be in the same location .
• Variances are needed for the height and square footage of the sign .
• The height of 7 feet reflects the tallest side of the two sides of the sign .
• The current sign is approximately 11 square feet and the proposed sign is
approximately 9 square feet .
• Current location of the sign has not caused problems in the past . It does not
impede vision for people coming into or leaving the parking lot .
• They do not anticipate negative impacts associated with replacing the old
logo with new logo .
Mr. Herrick offered to answer questions from the Board .
Chairperson Sigel disclosed that his children attend programs at IC3 , but he did not
think it was a conflict of interest . No one raised an objection to Chairperson Sigel
participating in the appeal .
Ms . Balestra stated that the Board received a copy of the Planning Board ' s resolution of
approval on the table when they arrived at the meeting .
With no further questions or comments from board members , Chairperson Sigel opened
the public hearing at 7 : 12 p . m . and asked if members of the public would like to address
the Board . There being none , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 12 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental
significance in regard to the appeal of IC3 . Mr. Ellsworth seconded the motion .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-011 : Environmental Assessment, Ithaca Community
Childcare Center, 579 Warren Road, Tax Parcel No. 73. 44 . 4
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in regard to the appeal of Ithaca Community Childcare Center 's sign
variance for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form prepared
by Town Staff.
Page 2 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
February4g, 2008
Final Minutes
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Mountin .
NAYS: None .
ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel then moved to grant the appeal of IC3 with the conditions that the
sign not exceed 10 square feet in total area or 7 feet in height and with the findings that
benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the
community . He then listed each variance criteria as being specifically met . Mr. Mountin
seconded the motion .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-012: Sign Variance, Ithaca Community Childcare
Center, 579 Warren Road, Tax Parcel No. 73. 44 .4
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by David Mountin .
RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Ithaca Community Childcare Center
requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Sections 221 - 6(A) ( 1)[a]
and 221 - 6(A) (2) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the placement of a new,
approximately 7 feet tall, approximately 10 square foot, non-illuminated freestanding
sign for the Ithaca Community Childcare Center located at 579 Warren Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 73. - 1 - 1 . 4, Medium Density Residential Zone based upon the
following:
Conditions:
1 . That the sign not exceed 10 square feet in total area, and
2. That the sign not exceed 7 feet in height as defined in the Town of Ithaca
Sign Law.
Findings:
That this Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the
health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically:
1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met with any other
feasible means given that the applicant does need a sign to identify their
location and that this sign would appear to be the minimal size necessary to
reasonably identify the property,
Page 3 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
2,5 February W, 2008
Final Minutes
2. That there will not an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given that a similar sign has existed here for a number of
years,
3. That the request is not substantial,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects,
5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Mountin .
NAYS: None .
ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Appeal #2
Cornell University, Owner/Appellant ; Tim Peer, Agent, requesting height
variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article VIII , Section 270= 59 of the
Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to erect a transformer A-frame and lightning
arrestor/light fixture mounting masts at the Maple Avenue Substation facilities
located at 651 Dryden Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63= 1 - 5 , Low Density
Residential Zone ( LDR) . The proposed transformer and lightning masts exceed
the 30-foot maximum permitted height for structures other than buildings in the
LDR Zone . The appellant may also require variances from Chapter 173 , the Town
of Ithaca Outdoor Lighting Law, for the proposed floodlights on the lightning
masts .
Chairperson Sigel welcomed the applicants and asked that they state their names and
addresses .
Tim Peer, Cornell University , and Brian White , Cornell University
Mr. Peer and Mr. White introduced themselves to the Board .
Chairperson Sigel asked if the applicant would like to give the Board an overview of the
project . Mr: Peer explained that the project received site plan approval on June 26 ,
2007 , known as the Utility Yard Improvement Project . Approval was granted for the
entire project , but with a contingency for the substation . More documentation was
required in regard to what was associated with the substation portion of the project ; out
of that review it was determined that a height variance was needed .
Mr. Peer and Mr. White provided an aerial view of the project site to the Board and
audience . Referring to the aerial , Mr. Peer explained that it is a University owned
Page 4 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
ZJr February V, 2008
Final Minutes
substation connected to the NYSEG transmission system . Currently there are two
transformers , 2 by 100 % duty , which are redundant transformers . Those transformers
will be replaced and a third transformer will be added . The substation is going to be
upsized and the reliability criteria of the substation will change from a 2 by 100 % duty to
3 by 50 % duty on the transformers . There will also be a new control vault and some
other upgrades . This requires another A-frame , just like the 2 existing A-frames . The
A-frames have an overall height of 61 feet , which is why a variance is needed . Since
the substation is being slightly enlarged additional lightning masts need to be added as
well .
The height of the A-frames is dictated by two things. One is because it has 115 , 000 volt
power lines coming in ; there is a minimum ground clearance requirement because of
the voltage . The additional height is for the low grade switch and lightning protection .
The lightning masts on the back side are 44 feet . They protect the transformer and the
buses . Their height is dictated such that they provide a proper zone of protection
around the equipment . The proposed lighting fixtures and the existing non-conforming
light fixture will comply with the Town ' s lighting law.
Mr. Mountin asked if the lamps were 70 watts or 150 watts . Mr. Peer responded the
fixture would be the 150 watt fixture . Mr. Mountin confirmed that the light fixtures would
have the new down blaster fixture and that the lamps would be high pressure sodium .
Chairperson Sigel noted that this application did not require SEQR review because it is
a Type II action .
With no further questions or comments from board members or staff, Chairperson Sigel
opened the public hearing at 7 : 23 p . m . and asked if members of the public would like to
address the Board . There being none , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at
7 : 23 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel moved that the board grant the appeal of Cornell University with the
conditions that the height of the "A" frame support not exceed 63 feet , the heights of the
new lightning arrestors and light fixture masts not exceed 46 feet , that the new and
existing light fixtures be the fixtures specified by the applicant in their application and
with the findings that the benefits to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health ,
safety and welfare of the community. He then listed each variance criteria as being
specifically met . Mr. Mountin seconded the motion .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-013 : Height Variance, Cornell University, Maple
Avenue Substation, 651 Dryden Road, Tax Parcel No. 63. - 1 -5
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Dave Mountin .
RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University requesting height
variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-259 of the
Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to erect a transformer A-frame and lightning
Page 5 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
1, 5 February 1W, 2008
Final Minutes
arrestor and light fixture mounting masts at the Maple Avenue Substation facilities
located at 651 Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63. 4 -5, Low Density
Residential Zone . The proposed transformer and lightning masts exceed the 30 foot
maximum permitted height for structures other than buildings in the LDR zone . With the
following:
Conditions:
1 . That the height of the A-frame support for the transformer not exceed 63 feet,
2. That the heights of the two new lightning arrestors and light fixture masts not
exceed 46 feet, and
3. That the new light fixtures installed, as well as the existing light fixture, be the
fixture specified by the applicant in their application, specifically the down
blaster full cut-off light fixture .
Findings:
That this Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the
health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically:
1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met by any other
means given that these utilities require certain ground clearance given the
high voltage that is involved,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or
to nearby properties given that this area is already a utility substation and the
expansion to it is relatively modest given all of the other infrastructure in the
area,
3. That while the request is substantial in height, that this is offset by the
benefits to the applicant,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is installing this
to meet their utility needs, but never-the -less, the benefit to the applicant does
outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Mountin .
NAYS: None .
ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer.
Page 6 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
1 S February 0, 2008
Final Minutes
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Appeal #3 :
Robert and Paula Wedemeyer, Owners/Appellants ; Peter Trowbridge , Agent ,
requesting an interpretation , or alternately, a use variance , from the requirements
of Chapter 270 , Article VI , Section 270-26 of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be
permitted to construct and operate an equestrian center that includes an ancillary
residential apartment within the arena of the equestrian center, located at 1458
Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 - 19 . 12 , Agricultural Zone .
The equestrian center is an allowable use in the Agricultural Zone , and received
Planning Board Site Plan Approval on December 18 , 2007. However, it is unclear
whether the proposed residential use is allowed within the equestrian facility.
Therefore , an interpretation is being requested as to whether ancillary residential
uses are a "typical function " of an equestrian center. Otherwise a use variance is
being requested to allow the residential use in the equestrian facility. The
appellant also seeks a variance or interpretation from the requirements of
Chapter 225 of the Town Code , to be permitted to construct the 18 ,000+1- square
foot arena building ( including main arena area , 2 , 160 square foot observation
area , jump storage area , bathrooms , and office) without the installation of a Town
required sprinkler system .
Chairperson Sigel welcomed the applicants and asked that they state their names and
addresses .
Peter Trowbridge , Trowbridge and Wolf, and Paula Wedemeyer, Tucson , Arizona
Mr. Trowbridge and Ms . Wedemeyer introduced themselves to the Board .
Mr. Trowbridge introduced the appeal to the Board and reiterated the reasons for the
appeals ( reasons for appeal listed in public hearing notice ) .
Mr. Trowbridge explained that very often facilities , such as the equestrian center,
include built-in apartments so that there is 24/7 oversight of the facility. He asked Ms .
Brock to clarify her comments , from final site plan approval at the Planning Board ;
regarding zoning . Ms . Brock clarified she was discussing the impacts of the Agriculture
and Markets Law on the ability of the Planning Board to impose certain conditions on
their approval . She did not believe the issue of the apartment was affected by the
Agriculture and Markets Law and thought that the Board needed to look at Town Zoning
and determine whether or not the apartment was something that could typically be
found as part of an equestrian center.
Mr. Trowbridge brought the Board ' s attention to the second part of their appeal , a
sprinkler variance . He stated that they met with Kristie Rice , Senior Code Enforcement
Officer, and it was determined that the arena was an A-4 occupancy classification . He
explained that the arena is basically an unheated pole barn . In their letter to the Board ,
they demonstrated the observation area was less than 12 , 000 as required by New York
Page 7 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
;LSO February IN 2008
Final Minutes
State Code . They also met the requirements that the occupancy would be less than
100 and that exits would be at the same level as the observation area . The site plan
shows double doors that allow access and egress from the observation area . The
applicant was not seeking a variance from New York State Uniform Fire Prevention or
State Building Code . They believed the building complied in both areas .
Chairperson Sigel clarified that the applicant was seeking a variance from Chapter 225
of Town Code .
Mr . Trowbridge observed there is a similar facility in the Town of Ithaca at 445 Sheffield
Road and it does not have a sprinkler system . Mr. Ellsworth commented that the
equestrian center is a new facility and the facility on Sheffield Road is an existing
facility , which may have been built before the Town ' s sprinkler regulations .
Chairperson Sigel stated that as of the date of the cover letter to the Board , it did not
seem that Ms . Rice was in the position to make a recommendation . Mr. Ellsworth
added that Ms . Rice had requested additional information and asked if the information
had been provided to her.
Mr . Trowbridge responded that he thought the description Ms . Rice provided in her
memo was covered in their meeting with her. Mr. Wedemeyer and Mr. Herrick were
also present at that meeting and they tried to make a determination as to whether the
arena was agriculture or not. Ms . Rice determined that under NYS Building Code it was
an A-4 occupancy because of the public involvement aspects of the building .
Mr. Walker stated that he believed there needed to be a fire wall between the arena and
the assembly areas even though it was rated an A-4 occupancy. Mr. Trowbridge
responded that they discussed 30 minute fire ratings in the meeting and wondered if Mr.
Walker was referring to a fire wall between the apartment and the assembly areas . Mr.
Walker responded he thought it was possible to have the fire separation wall built , but
did not know of its practicability .
Mr. Ellsworth expressed his concern regarding someone living in one section of the
building without fire protection . Mr. Mountin asked which floor the apartment was
located and if there was direct access to the outside . Mr. Trowbridge explained the
apartment was on the second floor and that the public area has direct access to the
outside . Mr. Mountin asked if access to the apartment was down through the building .
Mr. Trowbridge clarified the access was down a set of stairs . He assumed that the
corridor and stairs to the apartment would be fire rated .
Ms . Wedemeyer added that there are balcony areas on either end of the apartment .
Mr. Walker stated that the plans did not show stairs from the balcony area , but stairs
could be added for a second means of egress .
Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Walker if he had any more information that is more recent
than Ms . Rice' s February 14th letter. Mr. Walker was not aware of more recent
Page 8 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
� , February la 2008
Final Minutes
information . Chairperson Sigel did not feel comfortable proceeding on the sprinkler
variance because of Ms . Rice' s letter recommending that the Board not proceed until
she receives more information and is able to make a determination .
Mr. Trowbridge thought it was important for the Board to understand that they did not
receive the information from staff until February 21 , 2008 and it is difficult to respond
when you ' re only given a day or two' s notice . He submitted the information to the Town
well over a month ago and wished if staff had concerns that they would have addressed
them prior to a few days before the meeting .
Chairperson Sigel sympathized with Mr. Trowbridge' s frustration , but it was a life safety
issue . Mr. Trowbridge responded that he did meet with Ms . Rice and if more
information was needed , he wished she would have requested it specifically. Their
cover letter, dated January 15 , 2008 , was a direct response to the meeting and it
attempted to respond to Ms . Rice' s determination of what the Code compliance
requirements were . The applicant felt that they had met those requirements as per their
meeting . If they had received more specific requests , they would have had plenty of
time to respond .
Mr. Walker thought the problem was that a fire rated wall cannot contain glass . So if the
applicant has an observation area observing the activity in the ring , it would be difficult
to have an opaque wall serving as an observation area . He also thought that Ms . Rice
was frustrated because she was dealing with an architect that didn 't understand the
building code . Her request was that the architects provide a building design that met
State Code and explained the occupancies . The Town does not have plans showing
that information . Mr . Walker stated it is difficult for the Code Enforcement Officer to
make an interpretation without a full set of plans .
Chairperson Sigel asked when Mr. Trowbridge received a copy of Ms . Rice' s letter
dated February 14th . Mr. Trowbridge responded he received the letter February 21St
with the packet .
Chairperson Sigel asked if there was a procedure in place so applicants receive letters
prior to the packet if more information is needed . Mr . Walker understood that Ms . Rice
had expressed her concerns to the developer prior to writing the letter. He reiterated
that Ms . Rice did not have an adequate set of plans to make a determination .
Chairperson Sigel understood , but thought that a letter should be sent to the applicant
ahead of time .
Ms . Wedemeyer added that the purpose of the meeting with Ms . Rice was to show her
the plans and ask for advice . Ms . Rice informed Ms . Wedemeyer that it was not her job
to do so . Ms . Wedemeyer further explained that during the meeting Ms . Rice
threatened to close them down if the applicant proceeded to build the building the way it
was . Mr. Wedemeyer asked at that time how they should proceed and Ms . Rice then
explained the occupancy was classified as A-4 . Mr. Walker explained that A-4 , or
mixed occupancy, requires sprinklerization under State building code . Ms . Wederneyer
Page 9 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
015 Februant S, 2008
Final Minutes
felt that she was in a catch-22 because Ms . Rice had enough information to determine
that it was classified as A-4 and that it met the requirements to be exempt from
sprinklers under A-4 . She stated that she was confused . Mr. Walker responded the
problem is that a fire area is described as a fire area when it has fire separations
between all other areas of the building . He reiterated that a glass wall cannot be
considered part of a fire area . The glass wall of the observation wall is attached to the
entire arena . The plans have not shown between the observation area and the
remainder of the building .
Ms . Wedemeyer asked if the arena may also need to be sprinklered in order to meet
Code . Mr. Walker explained the entire building needs to be sprinklered if it is A-4-
occupancy. He understood from talking with Ms . Rice that a glass wall will not meet fire
separation requirements .
Ms . Wedemeyer asked how they should proceed . She could have professional pole
builders come in and tell the Board that they are building similar facilities throughout
New York , which all would fall under New York State Law. Mr. Walker could not make
an assumption about what people are doing in other areas , what the use is , and how
the Code Enforcement Officer is or is not interpreting the law in other areas . The point
is the equestrian center is a mixed use occupancy building with the general public being
allowed in the building .
Ms . Wedemeyer recapped that Mr. Walker was saying that the arena area needed to be
included as part of the area in question and that it also needed to be separated by a fire
wall . She concluded that horse arenas cannot have observation areas attached to them
without sprinklers . Mr. Walker said that they could have a glass wall , but there needs to
be fire protection . He explained NYS building code could be varied through obtaining a
variance from the State Code Officer.
Ms . Wedemeyer asked if documentation from the State saying that she meets state
requirements would be sufficient . Mr. Walker stated that if Ms . Wedemeyer received
something from the State saying she was in compliance or that she has a variance , then
it would be fine .
The Board wrapped up discussion on the sprinkler variance and began discussing the
interpretation of whether or not an apartment is an allowed use as part of an equestrian
center.
Chairperson Sigel stated that it made sense to him that there would be a caretaker
apartment in a facility such as the equestrian center. It made sense that one would
want someone at the facility 24 hours a day in case there were problems . He was
leaning towards making the interpretation that a caretaker apartment was a normal part
of an equestrian facility. Mr. Mountin agreed .
Ms . Brock stated that the applicant has asked for the interpretation , but she wasn 't sure
that they had provided any information stating that this is something typically found in an
Page 10 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
*15 February 's, 2008
Final Minutes
equestrian center. She suggested that the applicant state for the record their opinion on
the issue .
Mr. Trowbridge explained that he has two family members who raise and train horses in
facilities much like the proposed equestrian center. It has been his experience in
visiting those facilities that a caretaker apartment is typical . At the Planning Board
meeting , George Conneman said he had appraised several facilities and felt that it was
common in similar facilities .
Chairperson Sigel asked if Mr. Trowbridge if he submitted the guidelines for review of
local laws affecting commercial horse boarding operation . Mr. Trowbridge responded
yes , it is an Agriculture and Markets Law. It was discussed at the Planning Board and
he provided it to the Zoning Board for informational purposes . Chairperson Sigel asked
if he would refer to the farm worker housing section . Mr. Trowbridge was not sure if that
section was completely relevant , but it does bear on having a residential unit as part of
a farm operation .
Chairperson Sigel asked Ms . Brock if she thought the proposal fell under farm worker
housing . The owner has mentioned living in the apartment temporarily. Mr. Trowbridge
explained that the owners planned to live in the apartment until their home is built on the
site . Chairperson Sigel confirmed the person living in the apartment would have tasks
and duties at the facility .
Mr. Mountin asked where the apartment was shown on the plans . Mr. Trowbridge
explained where the apartment was located on the plans ; the stairs next to the
observation area are the stairs to the apartment .
With no further questions or comments from board members or staff, Chairperson Sigel
opened the public hearing at 8 : 00 p . m . and asked if members of the public would like to
address the Board .
George Vignaux , 1470 Trumansburg Road
Mr. Vignaux appeared before the Board and expressed his support for the project .. He
questioned the requirement for a sprinkler system because it was an open arena where
there was not going to be too much spontaneous combustion of horse manure from the
ring in a pole barn building with steel sides . He did not consider it to be a horrible fire
hazard . Mr. Vignaux thought it was a wonderful use for the property and did not have a
problem with the facility as proposed . He welcomed the applicant to the neighborhood .
Chairperson Sigel thanked Mr. Vignuax for this comments and asked if any one else
was interested in addressing the Board . There being none , he closed the public hearing
at 8 : 02 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel confirmed with Ms . Brock that SEAR review was not necessary since
the Board was making an interpretation and not granting a variance .
Page 11 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
25 February ft 2008
Final Minutes
Chairperson Sigel moved that the Board determined that an equestrian facility may
include as an accessory use an apartment or other dwelling within the equestrian facility
that is used for the housing of person or persons whose job it is to oversee , take care ,
and otherwise run and administer the equestrian facility. Ms . Brock modified the
resolution to include language stating that the apartment is in addition to the one or two
family dwelling already permitted in the agriculture zone . The Board agreed to the
additional language and Mr. Ellsworth seconded the motion .
ZB RESOLUTION NO, 2008-014 : Interpretation, Robert and Paula Wedemeyer,
1458 Trumansburq Rd, Tax Parcel No. 24. - 1 - 19. 12
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED, that this Board makes the determination that an equestrian facility, which
is a permitted principal use in an Agricultural Zone, may include as an accessory use an
apartment or other dwelling in addition to one- or two-family dwellings that are permitted
in the Agricultural Zone, within the equestrian facility that is used for the housing of
person or persons whose job it is to oversee, take care of, and otherwise run and
administer the equestrian facility.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Mountin .
NAYS: None .
ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Ms . Brock suggested the Board make a formal resolution adjourning the request for a
sprinkler variance .
Chairperson Sigel moved to adjourn the appeal of Robert and Paula Wedemeyer in
regard to the request for a sprinkler variance until the next meeting where they have
provided adequate information for the Town Code Enforcement Officer to make a
recommendation . Mr. Ellsworth seconded .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-015: Sprinkler Variance Adjournment, Robert and
Paula Wedemever, 1458 Trumansburq Rd, Tax Parcel No. 24. - 1 - 19. 12
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED, that this Board adjourns the appeal of Robert and Paula Wedemeyer in
regard to the request for a sprinkler variance until the next meeting where the applicant
has provided adequate information for the Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Officer to
make a recommendation regarding the sprinkler variance .
Page 12 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
�kS February ;$, 2008
Final Minutes
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Mountin .
NAYS: None .
ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Appeal #4 :
C . George Wiedmaier, Owner/Appellant ; Frank Santelli of T . G . Miller, Agent,
requesting Special Approval per the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article XCVI ,
Section 270=217 , to be permitted to move in excess of 2 , 500 cubic yards of fill in
the Wiedmaier Court 5- Lot Subdivision , located off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79 ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 's 56=4- 1 . 22 , 56=4- 1 . 23 , 56=4- 1 . 24, 56=4- 1 . 25 , and 56=4=
1 . 26 , Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zone . The appellant
performed extensive earthwork and clearing of the site without obtaining Town
approval and that did not conform to a previous subdivision approval of the
property. The deposit, extraction or movement of more than 2 , 500 cubic yards of
fill material requires a recommendation from the Planning Board and Special
Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals . The Planning Board made a
recommendation regarding the proposal at their February 5 , 2008 Planning Board
meeting . The proposed action includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
( SWPPP ) and reclamation plan to stabilize and re-vegetate the site .
Frank Santelli , Michelle Palmer, and C . George Weidmaier
Mr. Santelli introduced himself to the Board and stated that TG Miller prepared the
original subdivision plat and the additional engineering for the reclamation and revision
to the stormwater management design . Ms . Palmer and Mr. Wiedmaier introduced
themselves to the Board . Mr. Santelli asked if the Board would like a presentation and
Chairperson Sigel thought it would be beneficial .
Mr. Santelli provided background information regarding the project including the project
location , size , approval date , and infrastructure . He explained that the original design
for stormwater management of the project was designed to reduce the amount of
disturbance , the amount of impervious cover, not concentrate water flow, and to reduce
the impacts on the site to avoid having to put in a large stormwater facility to mitigate
impacts below the development . Original approvals did not require a formal Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan because the amount of disturbance was expected to be less
than 5 acres . DEC did not require permanent stormwater management controls
because it was a residential project .
Fall of 2007 Mr. Wedemeyer hired a contractor to clear lot 5 for a house . The Town and
DEC became involved at that point because they were concerned about the stability of
the grading and the amount of disturbance . TG Miller then helped Mr. Wedemeyer
stabilize the site , which included silt fencing , mulching , seeding , and erosion control
Page 13 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
'L5 February 0, 2008
Final Minutes
blankets . Steep banks were regarded to reduce the slopes. The surveyors surveyed
the full limit of disturbance for the entire subdivision , which is shown on the first survey
map in the packet . They believe that approximately 5 . 7 acres have been disturbed
since their approval in 2003 . It is estimated that 2 , 500 cubic yards of fill have been
moved on lot 5 . They are not able to determine exact figures because they do not have
detailed topographic information of the predeveloped site . Regular site inspections are
being performed and the site is generally stable . Maintenance needs to occur on the silt
fencing as soon as the ground thaws .
Mr. Santelli stated they received approval of subdivision modification from the Planning
Board and are asking the Zoning Board for a fill permit . They are proposing mitigation
measures that include the addition of rain gardens on each lot and restoration plantings .
DEC has not indicated at this point whether or not they will accept the rain gardens as a
mitigation measure . They will have to return to the Planning Board for approval if the
DEC requires significant changes to the proposed stormwater plan .
Mr. Mountin noted that plans C01 and CO2 reference pavilions that need to have
variances . He asked if those variances would be sought at a future date . Chairperson
Sigel responded that the applicant' s cover letter indicated that the pavilions were going
to be removed . Ms . Brock added that the Planning Board site plan modification
approval requires removal of pavilions that do not comply with Town zoning .
Mr. Santelli turned the presentation over to Ms . Palmer to talk about restoration
plantings on the site . Ms . Palmer stated the restoration plan is revegetating the area
with native vegetation any areas beyond what Mr. Wiedmaier was originally permitted to
clear. They are proposing to plant trees from RPM Systems , located in Dryden . RPM
Systems grow high quality native trees quickly. Standard recommendations for
revegetating a woodland area such as this one are 100 to 200 trees per acre . RPM
Systems suggests 50 to 70 of their trees are adequate . Ms . Palmer suggested planting
100 trees per acre in the areas to be revegetated . Additionally , the site will be seeded
with a native seed mix. She explained that a turf has established in the area and they
do not want to disturb the site further by removing it. The native seeds producer
suggested mowing the grass very short and raking off the clippings so that the seeds
get good contact with the soil then the applicant would be able to over seed with the
native seed mix . The mix has herbaceous plants , wildflowers , and woody plants native
to the region .
Chairperson Sigel asked if staff is reasonably satisfied with the proposed rehabilitation
plan . Mr. Walker responded that staff was satisfied and that their first thought was to
restore the property to the way it was , but more damage would have been done if they
tried to do that.
With no further questions or comments from board members or staff, Chairperson Sigel
opened the public hearing at 8 : 29 p . m . and asked if members of the public would like to
address the Board .
Page 14 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
'ZS February *, 2008
Final Minutes
James Hamilton , 1603 Slaterville Road
Mr. Hamilton introduced himself to the Board and stated he is the across the street
neighbor to the Wiedmaier subdivision . He recalled notifying the Town in the fall of
2003 of the erosion problems associated with the site . When taking samples from Six
Mile Creek for water monitoring , he noticed that the culvert downhill of the subdivision
was clogged with sand and silt from Wiedmaier site work . Since then he has noticed
that the Culver under Burns Road is almost completely clogged with runoff that heads
south off the steep bank into a creek ( not noted on the plan ) .
Mr. Hamilton felt strongly that the plan to plant yearlings and seedlings was not going to
restore the forest . He believed the law regarding forest management had been broken .
He has not seen a forest management plan . The project has been brought to this stage
because Mr. Wiedmaier broke the law regarding fill , but Mr. Wiedmaier did not receive a
permit for the work completed in the forest. Mr. Hamilton did not think turning a forest
into a meadow with young trees was adequate , but something needs to be done and
they need to move forward . He recommended that as the Board tries to approve post-
facto on the illegal fill activity , that the Board requires some assurance that further laws
will not be broken . Mr. Hamilton also wanted assurance that the newly planted trees
are going to survive . He suggested the Board considered the restoration of a forest as
opposed to turning the site into a meadow. The fifth lot is located in a Conservation
Zone ; supposedly a place where nature , forest is conserved . Mr. Hamilton asked that
the Board try and make sure that the remaining trees on the property are protected .
Mr. Hamilton used to look out his window across the street into woods ; now he sees into
the bedroom window of a house . He wants to make sure that the two vacant lots build
houses on the area of the lot that has already been cleared .
Mr. Hamilton asked if a permit was required for the harvesting of the woods . Mr. Walker
answered that a permit was not required . Mr. Hamilton , referring to the Zoning Chapter
of Town Code , stated that under Chapter 270 , Section 11 it states that there needs to
be a plan for clearing woods in a Conservation Zone . Mr. Walker responded that the
Town is having the woods restored with the required tree plantings .
Chairperson Sigel thanked Mr. Hamilton for his comments . Mr. Ellsworth asked if DEC
required regular inspections of site work . Mr. Santelli responded that DEC inspections
are for temporary erosion controls . He added that usually DEC inspects subdivisions
until the last lot in the subdivision is complete . Mr. Ellsworth stated that there were no
inspections in the beginning of the project , which was how the site got out of control .
He wanted to be sure that it was someone' s requirement to have regular site
inspections . Mr. Santelli explained that there were requirements for temporary erosion
controls during construction , but he did not believe inspections were required under the
2003 permit . Mr. Ellsworth confirmed that inspections are now required . Mr. Walker
added the Town was doing inspections in conjunction with building permits and worked
with the contractor to make sure the silt fences were maintained .
Page 15 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
5 February '? 2008
Final Minutes
Mr. Mountin asked when the clearly of lot 5 occurred . Mr. Walker responded that it
happened last year. Mr. Mountin wondered if the upper houses in the subdivision are
occupied . Mr. Walker explained that during initial construction they built water and
sewer lines , and the road . The road went back to where the house lot is shown on lot 5 .
The Town became involved after the clear area was discovered .
Chairperson Sigel stated that the project is not something the Board would approve
knowing what happened , but what is before the Board is approval of the restoration
plan . Mr. Mountin asked if the Planning Board discussed inspections of the newly
planted trees . Mr. Walker answered that the Planning Board included a condition as
part of their approval ( PB Resolution No . 2008- 013 , condition g ) .
Chairperson Sigel asked if other members of the public were interested in addressing
the Board . There being none , he closed the public hearing at 8 : 42 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel felt that it was an unfortunate situation and that the Board did not
have a lot of options . He thought that Town staff, the DEC , and the Planning Board
have come up with a reasonable restoration plan with performance requirements . Mr.
Ellsworth did not understand how the trees were grown faster. Ms . Palmer responded
that the nursery' s process is patented and they don 't describe it in detail . She knows it
involves the use of a lot of water and the trees are container grown . They have nice
fibers root system . The nursery keeps statistics on the trees and it shows that they
grow relatively quickly with a higher survival rate . The trees are also grown from seeds .
There is a lot of discussion in horticulture that plants vegetatively propagated appears to
lose vigor over time because they are clones of each other; seed grown plants are all
slightly different from each other and are not clones .
Chairperson Sigel confirmed with Ms . Brock that an environmental assessment is
needed . Ms . Brock reviewed the requirements that need to be met for Special
Approval .
Chairperson Sigel asked if there was an official engineer' s opinion . Mr. Walker referred
to the Engineering Notes in the Board packet dated December 27 , 2007 and he
concurred with the opinion expressed in the memo . Ms . Brock asked Mr. Walker to
state for the record whether the requirements are met . Mr. Walker stated he has
reviewed the plan and is advising the Board that in his professional opinion the plan
adequately protects the property , and surrounding properties , from significant adverse
consequences of deposit and removal of sediment ; and that the plan addresses
drainage so there would not be adverse drainage , erosion , or other adverse impacts .
Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental
significance in regard to the appeal of George Wiedmaier. Mr. Mountin seconded .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-016: Environmental Assessment, C. George
Wiedmaier, Wiedmaier Court, 56. 44 . 22, 56. -4- 1 . 239 56. -4- 1 . 24, 56. -4- 1 . 25, 56. - 1 -
1 . 26
Page 16 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
15 February 1W, 2008
Final Minutes
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by David Mountin .
RESOLVED, in regard to the appeal of George Wiedmaier, that this Board makes a
negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part 11
Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Mountin .
NAYS: None .
ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel then moved to grant the appeal of George Wiedmaier with the
conditions as listed in Planning Board Resolution No . 2008-013 items b- i , that check
dams and/or erosion control blankets be added to the proposed temporary diversion
swales located on lots 1 and 2 , that a revised drawing C04 be submitted to the Town
indicating the addition of stormwater control measures , and with the findings the
requirements of Chapter 270-217( E ) and 270-200 have been met , and for the reasons
stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment form and stated by the Town Engineer
in testimony to the Board . He then specifically listed the reasons the requirements had
been met . Mr. Mountin seconded .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-017: Site Restoration, C. George Wiedmaier,
Wiedmaier Court, 56. 44 . 22, 56. -4- 1 . 23, 56. -4- 1 . 249 56. -4- 1. 25, 56. - 1- 1 . 26
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by David Mountin .
RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of George Wiedmaier requesting Special
Approval per the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVI, Section 270-217, to be
permitted to move in excess of 2, 500 cubic yards of fill in the Wiedmaier Court 5-Lot
Subdivision, located off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 's
56. -4- 1 . 22 through - 1 . 26, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zone, with the
following:
Conditions:
1 . That the Zoning Board of Appeals imposes the same conditions as those
contained in Planning Board Resolution No. 2008-013, conditions b-i,
2. That check dams and/or erosion control blankets be added to the proposed
temporary diversion swales located on lots 1 and 2, and
Page 17 of 19
ZoningBoard of A peals
Z. February 2008
Final Minutes
3. That a submission of a revised drawing C-04, the Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan, indicating the addition of these stormwater control measures be
submitted to Town Staff.
Findings:
That the requirements under 270-217(E) have been met. Specifically:
1 . For the reasons stated by the Town Engineer earlier in this meeting,
specifically it is the professional opinion of the Town Engineer that the Plan
adequately protects the property, and surrounding properties, from
significantly adverse consequences, deposit and removal of sediment and
that the Plan addresses drainage so that there would not be adverse
drainage, erosion, or other adverse impacts, visual or other adverse impacts,
and
2. For the reasons stated in the Part 11 Environmental Assessment Form
prepared by Town Staff.
That the conditions for approval under 270- 200 are met. Specifically:
1 . That the health, safety, morals, and general welfare community in harmony
with the general purpose of this chapter are being promoted for the reasons
stated in the Part 11 Environmental Assessment Form,
2. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or
neighborhood character in an amount sufficient to devalue a neighboring
property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants for the stated in
the Part 11 Environment Assessment Form,
3. That natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance
with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town
local law or ordinance, and
4. Existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects
other properties for the reasons stated in the Part 11 Environmental
Assessment Form and for the reasons stated in testimony by the Town
Engineer at this meeting.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Mountin .
NAYS: None .
ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Page 18 of 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
9..,5 Februanl 41; 2008
Final Minutes
Adjournment
With no other official business before the Board , Chairperson Sigel adjourned the
meeting at 8 : 58 p . m .
Kirk Sigel ,
Chairperson
Carrie Coates Whitmore ,
First Deputy Town Clerk
Page 19 of 19
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2008
7 : 00 P.M .
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, February 25 , 2008 , in Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street
Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P. M., on the following matters:
APPEAL of the Ithaca Community Childcare Center, Owner/Appellant; Sherri Koski, Agent, requesting a variance from
the requirements of Chapter 221 , Sections 221 -6(A)( 1 ) [a] and 221 -6(A)(2) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the
placement of a new 7+/- foot tall, 10+/- square foot non-illuminated freestanding sign for the Ithaca Community Childcare
Center, located at 579 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 73 - 1 - 1 . 4, Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR).
The proposed sign exceeds the four square foot maximum sign area and the six foot maximum sign height permitted for
regulated signs in residential districts .
APPEAL of Cornell University, Owner/Appellant; Tim Peer, Agent, requesting height variances from the requirements of
Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270 -59 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to erect a transformer A- frame and
lightning arrestor/light fixture mounting masts at the Maple Avenue Substation facilities located at 651 Dryden Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 - 1 -5 , Low Density Residential Zone (LDR). The proposed transformer and lightning
masts exceed the 30 -foot maximum permitted height for structures other than buildings in the LDR Zone. The appellant
may also require variances from Chapter 173 , the Town of Ithaca Outdoor Lighting Law, for the proposed floodlights on
the lightning masts .
APPEAL of Robert and Paula Wedemeyer, Owners/Appellants ; Peter Trowbridge, Agent, requesting an interpretation, or
alternately, a use variance, from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article VI, Section 270-26 of the Town of Ithaca Code,
to be permitted to construct and operate an equestrian center that includes an ancillary residential apartment within the
arena of the equestrian center, located at 1458 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 1 - 19 . 12,
Agricultural Zone. The equestrian center is an allowable use in the Agricultural Zone, and received Planning Board Site
Plan Approval on December 18 , 2007 . However, it is unclear whether the proposed residential use is allowed within the
equestrian facility. Therefore, an interpretation is being requested as to whether ancillary residential uses are a "typical
function" of an equestrian center. Otherwise a use variance is being requested to allow the residential use in the
equestrian facility. The appellant also seeks a variance or interpretation from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the
Town Code, to be permitted to construct the 18 , 000+/- square foot arena building (including main arena area, 2, 160
square foot observation area , jump storage area , bathrooms, and office) without the installation of a Town required
sprinkler system. Sprinkler voQ� "Ovice �h � eY� r afiov� lt �ci � Ihl � vif' ��avl � �
-e &ktS v ,,LA o pe✓ut�� �f
APPEAL of C . George Wiedmaier, Owner/Appellant ; Frank Santelli of T . G . Miller, Agent, requesting Special Approval
per the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVI, Section 270-217 , to be permitted to move in excess of 2, 500 cubic
yards of fill in the Wiedmaier Court 5 -Lot Subdivision, located off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 's 56-4- 1 . 22, 56-4- 1 . 23, 56-4- 1 . 24, 56-4- 1 . 25 , and 56-4- 1 . 26, Medium Density Residential and Conservation
Zone. The appellant performed extensive earthwork and clearing of the site without obtaining Town approval and that did
not conform to a previous subdivision approval of the property. The deposit, extraction or movement of more than 2, 500
cubic yards of fill material requires a recommendation from the Planning Board and Special Approval from the Zoning
Board of Appeals . The Planning Board made a recommendation regarding the proposal at their February 5, 2008
Planning Board meeting. The proposed action includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and reclamation
plan to stabilize and re-vegetate the site.
C�
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.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
607 -273 - 1747
Dated : February 15 , 2008
Published : February 18 , 2008
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS . :
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Dani L . Holford, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over
21 years of age and resides at 3482 Potter Road, Interlaken, NY 14847 .
That the 14`h day of February, 2008 , deponent served the within Notice upon :
73 . - 1 - 1 .4 Sherri Koski, IC3 579 Warren Rd Ithaca NY 14850
73 .- 1 - 1 . 22 Cornell University PO Box DH Ithaca NY 14853
73 .- 1 - 1 . 1 Moore, Kent T & Mafalda R 9 Arrowwood Dr Ithaca NY 14850
72 .- 1 -2 . 11 Inverness Properties Co PO Box 4860 Ithaca NY 14852
73 .- 1 - 1 . 31 BOCES 555 Warren Rd Ithaca NY 14850
72 .- 1 -2 . 2 Ithaca City School Dist 400 Lake St Ithaca NY 14850
Village of Lansing 2405 North Triphammer Road Ithaca NY 14850
63 .- 1 -5 Peer, Timothy, PE 130 Humphreys Service Building Ithaca NY 14853
63 .-2-9 East Lawn Cemetery Assoc 934 Mitchell St Ithaca NY 14850
63 .-2- 10 . 2 Cornell University PO Box DH Ithaca NY 14853
62 .- 1 - 1 1093 Group LLC, 295 Main St Buffalo NY 14203
63 .-2-7 . 1 Ithaca Elm Maple Houses, 150 W Village PI Ithaca NY 14850
63 .-2- 15 City Of Ithaca 108 E Green St Ithaca NY 14850
63 .-2- 5 Mitchell , Eugenia 217 Maple Ave Ithaca NY 14850
24.- 1 - 19. 12 Wedemeyer, Ruff & Paula 1120 W Moonlight P1 Tucson AZ 85737
Trowbridge, Peter 1001 W Seneca St, Ste 101 Ithaca NY 14850
23 .- 1 -26 Akers, Allen E &Laura A 1469 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850
Alling, Neil 111 Woolf Ln Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 -33 . 2 Alpha, Christopher G & Simmons, Carrie A
260 Hayts Rd Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 - 14 . 22 Amici, Ronald & Margaret 1476 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 -42 .42 Bennett, Michael R & Nadine M 645 Sheffield Rd Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 - 15 Bickford, Mark-Rev & Rhonda-Trt 1466 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850
Boodley, Nancy 8 Lowell PI Ithaca NY 14850
24 . - 1 - 19 . 2 Bosak, Jon & Schroeder, Bethany 1448 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850
24 . - 1 -4 .2 Bowers, Harold C & Solena 163 Iradell Rd Ithaca NY 14850
Hillenbrand-Rosin, Sarah 1457 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850
Fisk, Terrance & Pamela 657 Sheffield Rd Ithaca NY 1485,0
23 . - 1 -21 Gibbs, Bardwell F & Rose E 107 Woolf Ln Ithaca NY 14850 '
24 . - 1 -20 Gombas, Zoltan M & Joan 1452 Trumansburg Rd ' Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 - 13 Grover, William & Athena 1486 Truman sburg;Rd . .. . Ithaca NY • 14850=
24.- 1 -23 Jackman, Robert Alexander 1016 N Cayuga St Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 -7 .31 Jones, Harris K & Benedict-Jones, Michelle
135 Iradell Rd Ithaca NY 14850 _
24 .- 1 - 17 . 12 Joseph , Thomas R 1460 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850 F>
23 . - 1 -25 Koziel, Deborah L 1471 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 148,50 '
-
24 . - 1 - 19 . 11 Lucatelli, Anthony 1456 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14° 50. x'
24. - 1 -7 . 2 Lupo, Lorie A & Michael 123 Iradell Rd Ithaca NY 14850
24.- 1 -8 McCutcheon, Brian & Susan 6 Windmill Rd Pittsford NJ 1453,4 . _
Mignot, Lori 165 Iradell Rd Ithaca NY 14850 . x .
23 .- 1 -28 Noonan , Deborah 1453 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY . 1:14850
24 .- 1 -6 Pipitsa Zaharis Trust 145 Iradell Rd Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 -34 . 2 Pokorney, Douglas J 282 Hayts Rd Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 -3 Schaap, Richard & Trish 20 West 86th St New York NY 10024
Scott, Karen 1416 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850
Sibley, Roger & Carole 109 Woolf Ln Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 -41 . 92 Suwinski, Susan J 451 Sheffield Rd Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 - 12 Mildred, Taylor D 1488 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850
24 . - 1 - 14 . 21 Torrant, Steven & Marcy 1474 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850
2
24 .- 1 -42 . 2 Verberg, Rolf 680 Sheffield Rd Ithaca NY 14850
24 .- 1 - 14 . 1 Vignaux, George J & Louise O 1470 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850
23 .- 1 - 7 Wheeler, Mark B & Ellen R 102 Woolf Ln Ithaca NY 14850
24 . - 1 -7 .4 Yule, Douglas 9315 NE 180th St Bothell WA 98011
23 . - 1 -24 Zimmer, Dorothy 101 Woolf Ln Ithaca NY 14850
56. 4- 1 . 22 Wiedmaier, Clare George 12419 Shelter Ln Bowie MD 20715
56.-2-9 Saatman, Raymond R & Grace A 1585 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850
56.-3 - 14 .2 Foote, Eleanor 1598 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850
56.-3 - 14 . 1 Singleton , Terry L 648 Amsterdam Ave Apt 2B New York NY 10025
56.-2-7 . 1 Benedict, Christopher A 1571 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850
56.4- 1 . 3 Hamilton, James & Florini, Diane 1603 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850
56. 4- 1 . 21 Somma, Victor & Marion 120 Burns Rd Ithaca NY 14850
56. -2- 11 Gillis, Alpert P & Sue Ellen 112 Burns Rd Ithaca NY 14850
56. 4-2 Rightmyer, Florence & Bruce 155 Poole Rd Ithaca NY 14850
55 .- 1 - 1 City of Ithaca 108 E Green St Ithaca NY 14850
Edward C. Marx Commissioner of Planning Tompkins County Dept of Planning
121 E . Court Street Ithaca NY 14850
Mike Levy Tompkins Weekly PO Box 6404 Ithaca NY 14850
Paul Billings Cornell PDC 102 Humphreys Svc Bldg Ithaca NY 14853
By depositing same enclosed in a post-paid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care
and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York,
Dani L. Holford
Sworn to before me this 14th day of February 2008 .
a
Notary Public
CARRIE WHITMORE
Notary Public, State of New York
No . 01 WH6052877
Tioga County
Commission Expires December 26,
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Dani L. Holford , being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Senior Typist,
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 the Town of Ithaca Town Hall,
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on January 28, 2008, commencing at 7 :00 PM, as per attached.
Location of sign board used for posting : Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of posting : February 14, 2008
Date of publication : February 18, 2008
I P ,
Dani L. Holford, Senior Typist, Tot
o of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . :
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of February 2008 .
Notary Public
CARME WHITMORE
Notary Public, State of New York
No . 01 WH6052877
Tioga County
Commission Expires December 26,.
Town of IthacaSign-In Sheet
Sheet
Meeting Date :
Please Print your information to ensure accuracy in the meeting minutes
Print Name f / (Print Address e-mail
C11 f
� W t/L ^� / Z �C 1 S A i ( ,r o 7k"
r
77
/DD / bP� 4:5;47Lt t / /
Alex TokA50v, 146 sfz /)er loll ijo1AtA50LA aC61d144OLP /000u.
f�Sl� l�� Im � vYe j �2� � as4- ShbY OYIu`�