Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2008-12-15 FILE DATE I Zoning Board of Appeals 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca , NY 14850 Monday , December 15 , 2008 7 : 00 PM Present Board Members : Kirk Sigel ( Chairperson ) , Harry Ellsworth , Ron Krantz , James Niefer , David Mountin , Susan Mann (alternate ) . Staff Members : Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk ; Susan Brock , Attorney for the Town ; Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement ; Christine Balestra , Planner. Excused Andrew Dixon , alternate . Others Linda Luciano , Brian DuPell , Larry Thomas , Matt Kluczauk , Andy Sciarabba , Kristin Gutenberger , Michael Pinnisi , George Brewhaus , Paul Timothy Adams , Mark Hartsukyer, Ernie Bayles . Call to Order Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p . m . He welcomed everyone to the December meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals and announced there were three appeals before the board . APPEAL of Paul Timothy Adams , Owner/Appellant, requesting area variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article IX , Section 270= 71 , Subsection B , to allow insufficient rear yard setback on a property located at 119 Salem Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 70 . = 10- 1 . 5 , a Medium Density Residential ( MDR ) Zone . Paul Timothy Adams introduced himself to the board and Chairperson Sigel asked if the variance was for the existing deck . Mr. Adams confirmed that it was and explained that the previous homeowners removed the deck before he purchased the house . He stated that he went through the process backwards and had built the deck prior to receiving a building permit . Ms . Rice , Senior Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed his application and explained to Mr. Adams that his lot was a corner lot and was considered to be fronting on Sycamore Drive . Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Bates if he knew why the house was considered to be fronting on Sycamore Drive . Mr. Bates thought that it was the only way the house could meet the requirements of the Code . If Sycamore Drive was not considered the front of the lot , then Mr. Adams would need to receive a front yard setback . Mr. Mountin asked how the front and side yards are determined on a corner lot . Mr. Bates thought it was an option of the homeowner because he did not find anything in Town Code that makes the determination for corner lots . Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final With no further questions or comments , Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 12 p . m . and invited the public to address the board . There being no one , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 12 p . m . Chairperson Sigel then made a motion to grant the appeal finding that all requirements of an area variance had been met , specifically listing how each criterion was satisfied , and with conditions that the rear yard setback be no less than 27 feet , the deck be built as shown on plans , and no further building take place within the setback . Mr. Niefer seconded . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-076: Area Variance, Paul Timothy Adams, 119 Salem Drive, Tax Parcel No. 70. 404 . 5 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Paul Timothy Adams, requesting an area variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270- 71 , Subsection B to allow insufficient rear yard setback on a property located at 119 Salem Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70. 40- 1 . 5, Medium Density Residential zone with the following: Conditions: 1 . That the rear yard setback be no less than 27 feet, 2. That the deck be built as indicated on the applicant's plans, and 3 . That no further encroachment within the rear yard setback take place . Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically: 1 . That the applicant cannot build a deck of this size on the back of the house through any other means feasible, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties, 3. That the request is not substantial given that it is approximately 10% of the setback, 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental affects, and 2 Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final 5. While the alleged difficulty is self-created, never-the-less, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin . NAY. None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL of Mark & Karen Hartsukyer, Owners , Ernie Bayles , Appellant/Agent , requesting area variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article VII , Section 270-47 Section ( B ) , to allow insufficient rear yard setback , and Chapter 270 , Article VII , Section 270-48 , to allow a building to exceed 10 % of the lot size on a property located at 819 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel #25 . -2-40 , a Lakefront Residential ( LR) Zone . Mark Hartsukyer and Ernie Bayles introduced themselves to the board and Chairperson Sigel noted that Mr. Hartsukyer submitted a substantially revised plan . Mr. Bayles gave a brief overview to the board highlighting the changes made to their plan . Chairperson Sigel solicited questions from the board and Mr. Mountin asked where parking would be located . Mr. Bayles responded that the parking area would remain as it currently was on the site . Chairperson Sigel stated he thought the new plan was much more reasonable than the plan previously submitted . He commended the applicant for reducing lot coverage to 13 % and addressing the rear yard setback . Chairperson Sigel directed everyone' s attention to the list of suggested conditions of approval in the board ' s packet and asked if the applicant had seen them . Mr. Bayles indicated that they had and many of the items listed were things they needed to do to obtain a building permit any way. He was unfamiliar with the developmental review permit and asked about its process . Ms . Balestra explained that the Town has a Flood Damage Prevention Law that deals with development in flood hazard zones . The law references a different kind of development review permit that is required in addition to the building permit . The Code Enforcement Office administers the permit and they would verify that development is above the base flood elevation line . She confirmed that the process entailed complying with the Flood Damage Prevention Law. In response to concerns about preserving vegetation along the access drive , Mr. Hartsukyer prepared a letter to the board stating his agreement with the condition . Mr. Hartsukyer' s letter was submitted to the board and included in the file for the appeal . Mr. Mountin asked if there was existing water and sewer service to the site . Mr. Bayles responded that they would need to bring the services to the site and Mr. Hartsukyer added that they want to bring services in at the shortest distance with the least 3 Zoning Board of .Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final disturbance from the environment . He wants to have the utilities buried to maintain the natural environment and the beauty of the area . Mr. Mountin followed up by asking if any mature trees would be removed . Mr. Bayles explained that they would need to remove a 14- inch diameter Black Walnut at the corner of the current house . He indicated that it was the only tree on the beach that would need to be removed . Mr. Mountin then asked if the drain pit and 8-inch culvert pipe were existing on the site . Mr. Bayles responded it was existing , but they were not sure if they would continue to run it under the building . Chairperson Sigel wondered if sprinklers would be required because of the small third floor area . Mr. Bayles explained that the third floor area was not considered a story since there was not inhabitable space . Mr. Niefer commented that the applicant had done a good job reconfiguring the building to meet the setback requirements and addressing issues discussed at the last Zoning Board meeting . Mr. Hartsukyer responded that he found the process helpful because it caused him and his wife to think carefully about the space they need . Mr. Mountin asked if there was an issue with the requirement that there be no parking within 100 feet of the shoreline . Chairperson Sigel stated the parking is an existing condition because it is not being changed . He also noted that the parking was located in the City and the Town could not regulate parking in the City. Ms . Mann expressed concern about the amount of development that would be occurring on the site and Ms . Balestra stated that staff was very concerned about preserving and maintaining the integrity of the shoreline and unique natural area . She added that the unique natural area and shoreline were located entirely within the City' s limits . It was explained that since the applicant is requesting area variances and there is not a formal environmental review staff did not include all comments to the board as they normally would consider making . Mr. Hartsukyer informed that board that he had contacted the City building department and explained his plan to them . He offered to submit plans to the City, but the City did not request that he submit plans to them . Ms . Balestra added that Town staff also contacted the City Planning and Building departments , but received no comment .. Ms . Brock explained that the board could look at the environmental affects of a project regardless of where they fall , but in terms of what the Town could require an applicant to do , the physical actions required would have to lie within the Town or the applicant would have to agree to requirements dealing with the area outside the Town . Mr. Niefer thought it was far reaching for the Town to impose restrictions on property that was not in the Town . Ms . Brock clarified that restrictions would have to be limited to the applicant' s actions within the Town . Chairperson Sigel added that board can consider an impact of something on a neighboring municipality. 4 Zoning Board of ,Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final Mr. Mountin expressed concern regarding the scale of the house and felt that it would have an impact on the neighborhood —meaning the unique natural area . He noted the concerns expressed in Ed Marx' s letter regarding the cumulative impact of homes of this scale on the shoreline . Ms . Brock responded that Mr. Marx was referring to the scale of the house in the original proposal ; the current proposal is not the same scale as the original proposal . Mr. Mountin felt that it was still inappropriate to have 13 % lot coverage when 10 % was allowed . Chairperson Sigel thought that the 13 % lot coverage was mitigated by the fact that the Town does not count the small amount of land located in the City because only land within the Town can be counted for purposes of determining lot coverage . Mr. Mountin and Mr. Bayles then discussed the scale of the current building on the lot compared to the proposed building . Mr. Krantz added that it was up to the board to compromise with applicants for reasonable projects . He felt that the applicant had gone out of their way to fit a large house into a small area without it being too offensive . Mr. Mountin normally would not have a problem , but typically there are not adverse environmental impacts . He expressed concern over the location of the lot combined with the scale of the house . Chairperson Sigel was comfortable with the smaller size of the house and the mechanisms the Town has in place , such as the Stormwater Protection law. He felt it was a reasonable balance between the desires of the applicant and the preservation of area and to the character of the Town . Ms . Mann was concerned that the Town had not completed SEQR review and fully addressed environmental impacts . Ms . Brock explained that the type of variance being requested is exempt from SEQR because it is considered a Type II action under SEQR regulations . She added that under the area variance criteria , the board does consider whether the variance would have adverse physical or environmental affects . It is in the board ' s purview to weigh and consider the affects and determine how the affects balance out against the other criteria being considered . Ms . Mann felt that the board did not have enough information to evaluate the environmental impacts . The board discussed Ms . Mann ' s environmental concerns and the aspects of the project that have a positive affect on the environment . Mr. Nie-fer thought that bringing public water and sewer to the site was a positive environmental impact over the current private well and septic on the site . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 41 p . m . and invited the public to address the board . There being no one , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 41 p . m . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal with the findings that all requirements of an area variance had been met , specifically listing how each criterion was satisfied , and with conditions that the rear yard setback be no less than 4 feet , the lot coverage not 5 Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final exceed 13 . 5 % , the house be built as shown on submitted plans , a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan be submitted to the Town , a development review permit be submitted to the Town , and vegetation along the driveway and shoreline be preserved . Mr. Ellsworth seconded . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-077: Area Variance, Mark and Karen Hartsukyer, 819 Taughannock Blvd, Tax Parcel No. 25. 440 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Mark and Karen Hartsukyer, requesting area variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47 Section (B) to allow insufficient rear yard setback and Chapter 270, Article Vll, Section 270-48 to allow a building to exceed 10% of the lot size on a property located at 819 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25. -2-40, Lakefront Residential Zone, with the following: Conditions: 1 . That the rear yard setback be no less than 4 feet, 2. That the lot coverage not exceed 13. 5%, 3. That the house be built as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this board, 4. That there be a submission for the entire project to the Town Stormwater Management Officer of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that complies with all requirements of the Town 's Stormwater Management Law and includes erosion and sedimentation control practices including locations of check dams and silt fences for the entire project along with detailed engineering drawings of the proposed 8-inch diameter steel culvert pipe to be located underneath the proposed home, 5. Submission to the Town Building Department of a Development Review Permit and compliance with all requirements of the Town of Ithaca Flood Damage Prevention Law, and 6. The preservation in its undisturbed natural state of existing vegetation along the access drive and along the shore . Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically: 6 Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, that of building a house of this approximate size cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, 2. That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that there are other homes nearby that are of similar or larger size, 3. That while the request is substantial being over 3 % greater than the 10%0 lot coverage and a rear yard setback of only approximately 4. 5 feet, that never- the-less the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and the deviations from the zoning ordinance are mitigated by the fact that the applicant owns adjacent property located within the City and that property is not being considered by the Town as it looks at compliance with lot coverage and setback coverage, 4. That there will not be adverse physical or environmental effects, given the conditions that this Zoning Board is imposing regarding preservation of vegetation in its natural undisturbed state along the access drive and the requirement for compliance with Stormwater Pollution control for the entire project, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created given that the applicant purchased this property knowing its limitations, that again the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES : Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NA Y., Mountin . The motion was declared to be carried. APPEAL of the South Hill Business Campus , Appellant, Kristin Gutenberger, Agent, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Chapter 271 , Section 271 - 13 ( B )( 15)( b) and Chapter 271 , Section 271 - 13 ( 1 ) ( 5) of the Town of Ithaca Code , to allow an expansion of a business that would have storage and/or handling of combustibles and hazardous materials and to be permitted to renovate a suite in the South Hill Business Campus located at 950 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels #39- 1 - 1 . 1 and - 1 .2 , Planned Development Zone #12 ( PDZ # 12 ). Kristin Gutenberger appeared before the board on behalf of South Hill Business Campus . She introduced herself, Andy Sciarabba , Linda Luciano , and George Brewhaus to the board . 7 Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final Ms . Gutenberger clarified that the applicant was seeking an interpretation of the Planned Development Zone language as it relates to the entire parcel . She then gave a brief summary of the applicant' s interpretation request . Mr. Brewhaus added an explanation of how hazardous materials are covered in the New York State Building and Eire Code . The code gives a chart that lists hazardous materials with specified quantities and as long as the quantities are not exceeded , the basic underlying occupancy of the building does not change . Discussion then turned to board member questions and comments . Mr. Ellsworth noted that the potential tenant was a development lab and not a manufacturing facility. 'To Mr. Ellsworth that meant the materials being used would change frequently and he wondered how that would be monitored . Ms . Gutenberger responded that research and development facilities are permitted by right , but the Code does not allow a manufacturing business to have storage of any type of hazardous materials . Mr. Brewhaus added that the quantity of hazardous materials should be taken into consideration with regard to the occupancy rating of the tenant . Mr. Bates explained that the tenants are subject to fire safety inspections and during the inspections the business is required to produce the MDS sheets . Code Enforcement Officers then verify the quantity of material on record . Chairperson Sigel interpreted section 15b to be prohibiting a use where the primary activity of the business was the manufacturing or storage of explosives and gas , oil and other flammables or petroleum products . He thought that was the argument being presented by Ms . Gutenberger and she agreed . An agent for Primet added that Primet is not in the business of storing hazardous or flammable material . He explained that Primet would have the storage and use of hazardous materials monitored . Mr. Bates noted that the materials discussed the use of Nanodust (? ) in Primet' s manufacturing process and he asked that the use and properties of the material be explained . Larry Thomas , Primet President , explained that Primet is a process technology company. The company manufactures fine particles to the nano-fine level . At that point the particles are entirely bound up in a liquid system that might be 10 % solids and 90 % by weight . In the manufacturing process , they do take particles that might be micron - sized and grind them down to a nano-fine level in a carrier solvent . Their finished product is typically in the carrier solvent . Mr. Bates asked if the end product was a stable product or if it was rated as a hazard . Mr. Thomas responded that typically the hazard category of their finished product form is governed by the solvent that it' s in . If their finished product is titanium dioxide and it is in isopropyl alcohol the MSDS will be primarily concerned with the properties of the alcohol . They would never have an amount on site that exceeded the allowable amounts under fire code . The board and Mr . Thomas continued to discuss aspects of Primet' s manufacturing process . Chairperson Sigel redirected the board ' s discussion back to Section 271 - 13 ( B ) ( 1 5 )( b ) of the Town Code . He was more comfortable making an interpretation where he adds a 8 Zoning Board of ,Appeals December 15, 2008 Minutes Final few words to 15b . He suggested adding , "a use where a primary activity is" to the beginning of the section noted . Chairperson Sigel thought this was more appropriate than trying to claim what the Town Board meant when they passed the law. He explained he was proposing that the board interpret the section to make it narrower such that it would only be a use where a primary activity is the manufacturing or storage of explosive , and gas , oil and other flammables or petroleum products . Then where the manufacturing or storage is an incidental part of the manufacturing process , the business would be allowed . He thought the Town Board did not want businesses such as a petroleum distributor or someone in the business of manufacturing flammable chemicals to occupy the building . Ms . Mann argued that isopropyl alcohol was not an incidental part of Primet' s manufacturing process ; it is a fundamental part of their process . Chairperson Sigel did not consider the production of isopropyl alcohol as a primary activity of Primet because they do not produce it ; they buy, they use it , and it might be used as a medium to deliver a product in . He suggested if the board made that determination , the board could then make a specific finding that Primet does not fall under the exemption . Ms . Gutenberger reiterated to the board that South Hill Business Campus was seeking an interpretation overall and not just in regard to Primet . Chairperson Sigel agreed ; the finding where the use a primary activity is that would apply to the Code—meaning it would apply to any future person or entity falling under the Code would be subject to the same condition . He hoped the interpretation would make it easier in the future for the Code Enforcement Officers to make determinations . Chairperson Sigel then brought up site plan review issue and he was not comfortable saying what the Town Board meant was that it should not apply to any hazardous substances that would be allowed in the current occupancies in the building because that would essentially do away with site plan review for anything in the building . He thought the Town Board wanted site plan review for something that involves the use of transport , storage , or disposal of hazardous substances ; he believed that the Town Board intended it to apply to something meaningful . Ms . Gutenberger commented she did not know what would trigger that review. Chairperson Sigel did not know either , but if he took a conservative approach it may apply to anything beyond a typical office use . He spoke with Jonathan Kanter earlier in the day and Mr. Kanter thought that the site plan review law was intended to give him the latitude to evaluate whether he thought it met a threshold that required site plan approval . Chairperson Sigel was unsure if the board would feel comfortable broadening the language as much as the applicant proposed . He explained that in the industrial zone , every change of use requires site plan approval . The manufacturing activities are essentially industrial zone uses . Chairperson Sigel noted that the applicant had not received a determination letter stating that Primet would need to go through the site plan review process . At this point , he was not inclined to make an interpretation with regard to that because a determination has not been made . 9 Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final The board discussed with the applicant the language in Section 271 - 13 ( 1 )( 5 ) . Ms . Gutenberger wondered at what step in the process the determination was made whether or not a potential tenant needed to go through the site plan review process . Mr. Bates was unsure of how the Town had handled it in the past , but generally he thought that it would need to go through the Planning Board process before a permit was issued . He was not sure if there was a procedure set as to what needs to be done in what order. Ms . Mann asked if Chairperson Sigel was uncomfortable making a similar interpretation to 15 as was made with B15 . Chairperson Sigel concurred because 15 is not in the! context of just manufacturing . The wording is also different ; it says , "the occupancy or use does not involve the on site transport , use , storage . . . " . He thought that up until now the Director of Planning had determined that things like office products are not hazardous substances . Chairperson Sigel suggested that the board wait and see how the site plan review determination is made and how that process goes . Mr. Pinnisi spoke to the board regarding the site plan review process and noted it would be a hardship to Primet because it has invested a lot of time , energy and money into the planning process to build an extremely safe facility. Discussion continued regarding establishing criteria for when a tenant needs to go through the site plan review process . Ms . Gutenberger suggested that the occupancy rating be used as a threshold and Mr. Brewhaus suggested that compatibility with other tenants be taken into consideration when determining whether or not site plan review is needed . Chairperson Sigel argued that there is a wide variety of tenants at South Hill Business Campus and it would be difficult for Town staff to determine what businesses are compatible or similar to existing tenants . He explained that the Zoning Board determines compatibility on a case by case basis when it reviews variances ; the responsibility is not delegated to Town staff. Ms . Mann made comparisons between 15 and B15 and noted that there is not language included in the Code that portrays intent of the Town Board . Chairperson Sigel thought it was important to keep in mind that there is a difference between determining whether or not something is allowed and determining whether or not the tenant needs to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval . Ms . Mann stated that Section I was reading that the Town does not want to have to give site plan approval every time there is just a change in tenant ; it is either the same use or from a use of right to a use of right . Ms . Brock added that is true unless 1 ( 5 ) applies . Ms . Mann agreed , but does it mean 5 incidental , 5 primary, or 5 anything . She understood that Chairperson Sigel was saying that 15b was a different context of discussion , but she thought it was consistent because of the choice of words . In general , they are not trying to go after the incidental—the small incidental stuff that: will be governed by fire protection codes anyway . 10 Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final Chairperson Sigel did not think it was unreasonable to read it that way ; he just was not comfortable with reading it in that way . Ms . Mann agreed that they may still need to go through site plan approval because they cannot argue that some parts of it are incidental or that other ones where there is a use of right would not have an incidental use . Mr. Mountin added that the pragmatic side for him was that if class occupancy rating changes would trigger site plan review. It is important to him if it is a class change . Ms . Brock asked why the Town Board did not say that then . Mr. Mountirl responded that they probably did not know about it . Mr. Bates stated how he can interpret this when you read what it says is that if it meets the requirement of the Planned Development Zone it does not need to go before the Planning Board , but then except if it meets that requirement and the applicant meets that requirement . He asked if it meant that everything must go before the Planning Board ; it does under his interpretation . Chairperson Sigel asked how many tenants have occupied the building since the Planned Development Zone was approved . Ms . Luciano answered that they currently have 34 tenants and they had approximately 10 tenants when the PDZ was enacted . Chairperson Sigel then asked how many of those tenants had come before the Planning Board for site plan review and Ms . Luciano responded none . Chairperson Sigel then commented that the current language in the Code must be working to the applicant' s favor if none of the 24 new tenants have needed to come before the Planning Board for site plan review. He had to assume that all applications were checked to see if they needed to go through site plan review. Mr. Sciarabba thought it would be a good compromise to use an increase in the occupancy rating as a trigger to going to the Planning Board for site plan approval . Chairperson Sigel explained that the Planning Board is obligated to grant site plan approval for applicants meeting the criteria . He pointed out that as a Zoning Board member he has to assume that the Town has been enforcing the law up until now and if the enforcement of the law has resulted in zero trips to the Planning Board then he! is hesitant to fix something that doesn 't appear broken . Chairperson Sigel was more comfortable interpreting the section of law more narrowly than the applicant was looking for. Ms . Gutenberger responded that using an increase in the occupancy rating under the New York State Fire and Building Code would also then allow for review of tenants that don 't need building permits . There are certain tenants where if the space is already built and they can come in , they don 't even need to go through the building permit applicant process . Mr. Bates explained that a change in use would trigger a permit: . Ms . Gutenberger responded that if it is a permitted of right use to another permitted of right use they wouldn 't need to go through site plan . Mr. Bates added that they would still need to apply for a building permit for a change of use because the Town would still need to conduct Fire Safety Inspections in the space . Ms . Gutenberger reiterated that a change in occupancy rating should be the trigger for site plan review. Mr. Bates explained that the language the applicant used was as permitted right ; in other words , 11 Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final there are different occupancies permitted in the building , but just because it is an allowed use under the zoning , the applicant would still need to apply for a building permit if it is a different tenant that is not the same occupancy that is there . He added that if the tenant is rated B and another tenant occupies the space with a B rating then there is not a problem . If the current tenant is rated B and an F rated tenant occupies the space , then it is a problem . Ms . Mann suggesting adding "increase" to the language in H2 and 15 . That means if the occupancy rating is increased , the tenant would need to go through site plan review process . Chairperson Sigel asked if Ms . Mann thought that was what the Town Board meant . More discussion occurred regarding what the Town Board meant when they wrote the language . Mr. Ellsworth stated that since QPK was involved with Primet he needed to recuse himself because his son was an architect for QPK. Chairperson Sigel noted that Ms . Mann would be voting on the resolution in place of Mr. Ellsworth . Chairperson Sigel asked for the opinions of other board members . Ms . Brock thought that by using incidentals as a threshold , the Zoning Board would not be making assumptions about what the Town Board was thinking . Incidental seems more consistent in general with the language . Ms . Gutenberger supported that interpretation . In response to an inaudible comment , Ms . Brock responded that it is the Zoning Board ' s jurisdiction to review the determination , interpretation , or decision of an official . If there is not one , she questioned the board ' s ability to review something that was not there . She noted that the Director of Planning had not made a determination as to whether or not site plan review would be required . Mr. Pinnisi argued that site plan review should not be required for this tenant just as there has not been site plan review for other tenants in the building . Referring to Mr. Bates' s letter to the applicant , Chairperson Sigel noted that he did not see a determination regarding site plan approval and whether or not it was required . Chairperson Sigel reiterated that the Director of Planning had not made the necessary determination . Ms . Mann understood that that meant the board could not make a determination because there was not a decision . Ms . Brock concurred . Ms . Mann went on to say that once 15b is addressed , 15 and H2 would go away. Ms . Brock explained that if the board decides it is a permitted use , the board still needs to know whether site plan approval is needed . If the board decides it is not a permitted use , then the board does not need to worry about site plan . Chairperson Sigel stated that if for some reason Mr. Kanter decides site plan approval is needed , the applicant could appeal the decision to the Zoning Board . He did not think the board could make an interpretation absent a determination having been made . The board further discussed Mr. Bates Is letter to the applicant . Chairperson Sigel explained that there are times when Town staff tries to point out the next step in a process to an applicant . He apologized that a decision wasn 't forwarded so a 12 Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final determination could have been made in time for the meeting . Ms . Gutenberger confirmed that the next step was to wait for Mr. Kanter to make his decision and then possibly come back to the board for the same discussion . She then asked what the order would be for seeking a determination . Would they submit a building permit application and have that forwarded to the Planning Department? Mr. Bates did riot think there was a procedure set as to which comes first . Sometimes an applicant goes to the Planning Board first and then obtains a building permit ; sometimes an applicant applies for a building permit and then is referred to the Planning Board . Mr. Bates stated that he has been working on establishing a procedure since he started with the Town . He thought at this point it would need to go to Mr. Kanter for his review and determination . Ms . Brock added that the review could immediately go to Mr. Kanter without having to apply for a building permit first . With no further questions or comments , Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 23 p . m . and invited the public to address the board . There being no one , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 23 p . m . Chairperson Sigel moved that the boards make the determination that Chapter 271 , Section 271 - 13 ( B )( 1 5 )( b ) be interpreted to mean a use where a primary activity is the manufacturing or storage of explosives and gas , oil , and other flammables or petroleum products ; and that the board makes the determination that Primet Materials does riot fall under the exemption and that their use of the manufacturing and or storage of any explosives and gas , oil , and other flammables or petroleum products is not a primary activity of their business and therefore Primet is an allowed manufacturing activity in the zone . Mr. Mountin seconded . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-078 : Request for Interpretation, South Hill Business Campus, 950 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 39. - 1 - 1 . 1 and 39. 44 . 2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dave Mountin . RESOLVED, that this board makes the determination that Chapter 271 , Section 271 - 13 (B) ( 1 5) (b) be interpreted to mean a use where a primary activity is the manufacturing or storage of explosives and gas, oil, and other flammables or petroleum products, and be it further RESOLVED, that this board makes the determination that the particular applicant before the board, Primet Materials, does not fall under that exemption and that their use of the manufacturing and or storage of any explosives and gas, oil, and other flammables or petroleum products is not a primary activity of their business and therefore they are an allowed manufacturing activity in this zone . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin, Mann . NA Y.0 None . 13 Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Other Business — 2009 Meeting Schedule and Chair Nomination Mr. Krantz moved that the 2009 meeting schedule be adopted and that the Zoning Board recommend Kirk Sigel as Chair for 2009 . Mr. Mountin seconded . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-079: Town of Ithaca Zonin_g Board of Appeals, Schedule of Meetings for the Year 2009 MOTION made by Ron Krantz, seconded by Dave Mountin . BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca adopts the following schedule of meetings for the Zoning Board for 2009. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals will meet at 7:00 p . m . on the third Nlonday of the month in the Town Board Room in Town of Ithaca Town Hall, unless otherwise noted. The first Monday of the month will be reserved as an optional meeting date on an as needed basis only. THE PROPOSED 2009 SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS: January 26, 2009 (Third Monday is Martin Luther King Day) February 23, 2009 (Third Monday is President 's Day) March 16, 2009 April 20, 2009 May 18, 2009 June 15, 2009 July 20, 2009 August 17, 2009 September 21 , 2009 October 19, 2009 * November 16, 2009 * December 21 , 2009 *Tentative dates, subject to change depending on the dates of Town Board Budget meetings . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: 14 Zoning Board of Appeals December 15 , 2008 Minutes Final AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin . NAY: None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-080: 2009 Zonin_g Board Chair, Recommendation To Town Board MOTION made by Ron Krantz, seconded by Dave Mountin . RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals recommends to the Town Board that Kirk Sigel, be appointed as Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2009. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin . NAY.- None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Adjournment Upon motion , Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9 : 28 p . m . KirSigel , Chairperson Carrie Coates Mitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 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, December 15 , 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 Paul Timothy Adams, Owner/Appellant, requesting area variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270- 71 , Subsection B, to allow insufficient rear yard setback on a property located at 119 Salem Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 70 . - 10- 1 . 5 , a Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone. APPEAL of Mark & Karen Hartsukyer, Owners, Ernie Bayles, Appellant/Agent, requesting area variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47 Section (B), to allow insufficient rear yard setback, and Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-48 , to allow a building to exceed 10% of the lot size on a property located at 819 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel #25 . -2 -40, a Lakefront Residential (LR) Zone. APPEAL of the South Hill Business Campus, Appellant, Kristin Gutenberger, Agent, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Chapter 271 , Section 271 - 13 ( 13)( 15 )(b) and Chapter 271 , Section 271 - 13 (I)(5 ) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to allow an expansion of a business that would have storage and/or handling of combustibles and hazardous materials and to be permitted to renovate a suite in the South Hill Business Campus located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels #39- 1 - 1 . 1 and - 1 . 2 , Planned Development Zone # 12 (PDZ # 12) . 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 hearings. Bruce W. Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273 - 1783 Dated: December 5 , 2008 Published: December 8 , 2008 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7 : 00 p.m., Monday, December 15 , 2008 AGENDA 1 . 119 Salem Drive - Area variance (passed ) 2 . 819 Taughannock Boulevard — Area variance (passed) 3 . 950 Danby Road — Interpretation (passed with condition to go to Planning) 4 . Discussion of 180 Calkins Road — Director of Codes Letter — determination withdrawn ) 5 . Consideration of approval of 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting schedule ( approved ) 6 . Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals for 2009 ( Kirk Sigel ) 7 . Adjournment �N TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7 : 00 p.m., Monday, December 15, 2008 AGENDA 1 . 119 Salem Drive - Area variance 2 . 819 Taughannock Boulevard — Area variance 3 . 950 Danby Road — Interpretation 4 . Discussion of 180 Calkins Road — Director of Codes Letter — determination 5 . Consideration of approval of 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting schedule 6 . Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals for 2009 7 . Adjournment r TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 'b NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 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, December 15 , 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 Paul Timothy Adams, Owner/Appellant, requesting area variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270- 71 , Subsection B , to allow insufficient rear yard setback on a property located at 119 Salem Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 70 . - 10- 1 . 5 , a Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone. ("a"te J Z APPEAL of Mark & Karen Hartsukyer, Owners, Ernie Bayles, Appellant/Agent, requesting area variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII , Section 270-47 Section (B), to allow insufficient rear yard setback, and Chapter 270, Article VII , Section 270-48 , to allow a building to exceed 10% of the lot size on a property located at 819 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel #25 . -2 -40, a Lakefront Residential (LR) Zone. 6ran -i-:eJ 3 APPEAL of the South Hill Business Campus, Appellant , Kristin Gutenberger, Agent, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Chapter 271 , Section 271 - 13 (13)( 15 )(b) and Chapter 271 , Section 271 - 13 (I )(5) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to allow an expansion of a business that would have storage and/or handling of combustibles and hazardous materials and to be permitted to renovate a suite in the South Hill Business Campus located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels #39- 1 - 1 . 1 and - 1 . 2, Planned Development Zone # 12 (PDZ # 12). C� c� ve � VI -� 2Y7Yz � G�1' u ^- 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 hearings. Bruce W. Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607 -273 - 1783 Dated : December 5 , 2008 Published : December 8 , 2008 Monday, December 8, 2008 1 THE ITHACA JOURNAL TOWN OF ITHACA i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2008 7:00 P.M. IBy direction of the Chair- man of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Ap- peals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, December 150 2008, in Town Hall, f 215 North Tioga Street, ` Tiogo Street Entrance, Itha- ca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the fol- lowing matters: APPEAL of Paul Timothy 'Adams, Owner/Appellant, requesting area variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article . IX, Section 270-71 , Subsec- tion B. to allow insufficient rear yard setback on a properly located at 119 Salem Drive, .Town of Itha- ca Tax Parcel # 70:10- f 1 .5, a Medium Density ` Residential (MDR) Zone. APPEAL of Mark & Karen Hartsukyer, Owners, Ernie Bayles, Appellant/Agent, requesting . area variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, f Section 270.47 Section { (B), to allow insufficient I rear yard setback, and Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-48, to allow a building to exceed .10% of the lot size on a property located at 819 t Taughannock Boulevard, ' Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel , #25.-2-40a Lakefront Residential (LR) Zone. APPEAL of the ,South Hill Business Cam s, Appel- lant, Kristin Gutenberger, j Agent, requesting an inter- pretation of the require- f ments of Chapter 271 Section 271 - 13 (BI( 15)(b� and Chapter 271 , $Section 271 -13 (i) (5) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to allow an expansion' of a busi- ness that would have stor- age and/or handling of combustibles and hazard- ous materials and to be permitted to renovate a suite in the South Hill Busi- ness Campus located at 950 •Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels #39-1 - 1 . 1 and - 1 . 2, Planned De velo ment Zone # 12 (PDZ # 12 . Sai Zoning Board of Ap- I peals will at said time 7:00 p. m., and sail place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Per- sons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other spe- cial needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assis- tance, as necessary upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hoursprior .to the time of the public hearings. Bruce W. Bates Director of Code 1Enforcement 607-273.1783 ` Dated: December 5, 2008 Published: December 8, 2008 FILE _ 2d DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2008-076 Area Variance Paul Timothy Adams 119 Salem Drive Tax Parcel No . 70 . - 10- 1 . 5 December 15 , 2008 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Paul Timothy Adams , requesting an area variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article IX, Section 270-71 , Subsection B to allow insufficient rear yard setback on a property located at 119 Salem Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70 . - 10- 1 . 5 , Medium Density Residential zone with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the rear yard setback be no less than 27 feet, 2 . That the deck be built as indicated on the applicant' s plans , and 3 . That no further encroachment within the rear yard setback take place . Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety , and welfare of the community . Specifically: 1 . That the applicant cannot build a deck of this size on the back of the house through any other means feasible , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties , 3 . That the request is not substantial given that it is approximately 10 % of the setback , 4 . That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental affects , and 5 . While the alleged difficulty is self-created , never-the- less , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community. t ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2008-076 PAGE 2 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Mountin . NAY : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 15th day of December 2008 . lah First Deputy` - n Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2008w077 Area Variance Mark and Karen Hartsukyer 819 Taughannock Blvd Tax Parcel No . 25 . -2-40 December 15, 2008 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Mark and Karen Hartsukyer, requesting area variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article VII , Section 270-47 Section ( B ) to allow insufficient rear yard setback and Chapter 270 , Article VII , Section 270-48 to allow a building to exceed 10 % of the lot size on a property located at 819 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 25 . -2-40 , Lakefront Residential Zone , with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the rear yard setback be no less than 4 feet, 2 . That the lot coverage not exceed 13 . 5 % , 3 . That the house be built as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this board , 4 . That there be a submission for the entire project to the Town Stormwater Management Officer of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that complies with all requirements of the Town ' s Stormwater Management Law and includes erosion and sedimentation control practices including locations of check dams and silt fences for the entire project along with detailed engineering drawings of the proposed 8-inch diameter steel culvert pipe to be located underneath the proposed home , 5 . Submission to the Town Building Department of a Development Review Permit and compliance with all requirements of the Town of Ithaca Flood Damage Prevention Law, and 6 . The preservation in its undisturbed natural state of existing vegetation along the access drive and along the shore . Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety , and welfare of the community. Specifically : ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2008-077 PAGE 2 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve , that of building a house of this approximate size cannot be achieved by any other means feasible , 2 . That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that there are other homes nearby that are of similar or larger size , 3 . That while the request is substantial being over 3 % greater than the 10 % lot coverage and a rear yard setback of only approximately 4 . 5 feet , that never- the- less the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community , and the deviations from the zoning ordinance are mitigated by the fact that the applicant owns adjacent property located within the City and that property is not being considered by the Town as it looks at compliance with lot coverage and setback coverage , 4 . That there will not be adverse physical or environmental effects , given the conditions that this Zoning Board is imposing regarding preservation of vegetation in its natural undisturbed state along the access drive and the requirement for compliance with Stormwater Pollution control for the entire project, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created given that the applicant purchased this property knowing its limitations , that again the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer. NAY: Mountin . The motion was declared to be carried . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 15th day of December 2008 . First Deputy To A Clerk Town of Ithaca ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2008-078 Request for Interpretation South Hill Business Campus 950 Danby Rd Tax Parcel No . 39 . - 1 -1 . 1 and 39 . - 1 - 1 . 2 December 15 , 2008 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Dave Mountin . RESOLVED , that this board makes the determination that Chapter 271 , Section 271 - 13 ( B )( 1 5 )( b ) be interpreted to mean a use where a primary activity is the manufacturing or storage of explosives and gas , oil , and other flammables or petroleum products , and be it further RESOLVED , that this board makes the determination that the particular applicant before the board , Primet Materials , does not fall under that exemption and that their use of the manufacturing and or storage of any explosives and gas , oil , and other flammables or petroleum products is not a primary activity of their business and therefore they are an allowed manufacturing activity in this zone . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Niefer, Mountin , Mann , NAY : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 15th day of December 2008 . First Deputy 7fdwn Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE ' DATE _ 1� ADOPTED RESOLUTION : ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2008=079 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Schedule of Meetings for the Year 2009 December 15 , 2008 MOTION made by Ron Krantz, seconded by Dave Mountin . BE IT RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca adopts the following schedule of meetings for the Zoning Board for 2009 . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals will meet at 7 : 00 p . m . on the third MondEry of the month in the Town Board Room in Town of Ithaca Town Hall , unless otherwise noted . The first Monday of the month will be reserved as an optional meeting date on an as needed basis only . THE PROPOSED 2009 SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS : January 26 , 2009 (Third Monday is Martin Luther King Day ) February 23 , 2009 (Third Monday is President's Day ) March 16 , 2009 April 20 , 2009 May 18 , 2009 June 15 , 2009 July 20 , 2009 August 17 , 2009 September 21 , 2009 October 19 , 2009" November 16 , 2009* December 21 , 2009 *Tentative dates , subject to change depending on the dates of Town Board Budget meetings . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Mountin . NAY : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 15th day of December 2008 , ` First Deputy T6Wn Clerk Town of Ithaca DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION : ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2008-080 2009 Zoning Board Chair Recommendation To Town Board December 15 , 2008 MOTION made by Ron Krantz , seconded by Dave Mountin . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals recommends to the Town Board that Kirk Sigel , be appointed as Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2009 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Mountin . NAY : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 15th day of December 2008 , First Deputylo n Clerk Town of Ithaca