Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2009-08-25 FILE DATE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 25 , 2009 215 N TIOGA ST, ITHACA Present : Kirk Sigel , Chair ; Members — Harry Ellsworth , Ron Krantz , David Mountin and Susan Mann , Alternate Excused : Jim Niefer Staff: Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Meeting opened at 7 : 06 p . m . Affidavit of posting of public hearings accepted by the Chair. It was noted that a corrected public hearing notice was re - published and re - mailed to all affected parties . Chair noted that Ms . Mann would be a voting member in Mr. Niefer' s absence . Others : Meghan and Richard Holgate ; Kristin Gutenberger, Mark Farchione , Patrick Deptula and Michelle Palmer; Jarred Lusk and Donn Carroll APPEAL of IQS Construction , Owner ; Alexander Holgate, Agent, requesting ® an Area Variance & possible Use Variance from Chapters 270=26 Principal Uses , 270-60(A)(C) Primary Dwellings and 270=57( B) 3959 & 6 to allow the construction of an addition to a 2nd existing house located at 326 '/z Stone Quarry Rd , TP# 38 .=3-5 , Low Density Residential ( LDR) Meghan Holgate , Applicant and Richard Holgate , were present to answer questions from the Board . Mr. Bates noted that there was a typographical error in the public hearing notice , referencing Chapter 270-26 when it should have said Chapter 270 -226 . There was also some question regarding whether the NYS Office of Parks and Recreation were contacted and after some discussion , it was determined that they were mailed the public hearing notices , both the first and the corrected versions . The Town Attorney deemed the typographical error not significant enough to postpone the appeal . Chairman Sigel started the questions asking whether the main house was two- stories or one . Mr. Holgate answered that it is one story with a full basement . Discussion followed to decide the square footage of the primary and secondary dwellings . Further discussion followed regarding whether the garage that is attached to the secondary dwelling is used by either the primary or the secondary dwelling . This is a factor in the variances . It was decided that the basement of the primary dwelling is not habitable so therefore would not be added to its ZB A August 25 , 2009 square footage and that the garage was used by the primary dwelling , so its square footage would be added to the primary dwelling even though it is attached to the secondary dwelling . Therefore , the proposed addition brings the total square footage of the secondary dwelling to approximately 1200 square feet which is almost the same size , or 100% of the primary dwelling' s size where Town Code only permits 50% . The actual calculations were done with questions regarding the garage , the definition of dwelling and other factors . The proposed addition alone is 600 square feet which is 50% of the primary house' s square footage . Mr. Holgate did note that the addition would not be seen from the road given the topography . The Board agreed and Mr. Holgate added that the park land behind the property is very inaccessible and he had never seen a human being on it. The next property up the hill is a cemetery . Ron Krantz summarized the discussion by saying that the Board was being asked to consider the garage as part of the primary dwelling and approve a variance so that the second dwelling could be 100% the size of the first dwelling and encroach on the side yard setback . The Board agreed . The Board continued discussion focusing on the size of the secondary dwelling . Dave Mountin noted that the proposal does not include a kitchen or bathroom and therefore is not changing the plumbing at all . He thought it was simple and non -detrimental to the neighborhood . Although it is substantial , the impact is negligible . He noted that if the proposal was in the front yard he would think the impact was large . Susan Mann asked what "substantial" means and Ms . Brock responded that it is up to the Board' s discretion . The Board should look at the magnitude of the deviation . Kirk Sigel added that substantial variances can be given if the impacts are not large . Dave Mountin stated that he felt it was a major remodeling and he was sympathetic to the hardship of needing more room for the impending birth of their child . Susan Mann thought an applicant could plead hardship all the time . Some Board Members were worried about setting precedent and Ms . Brock stated that the Board should think about whether they could differentiate between this appeal and others who might try the same . Different options for bringing it closer to compliance were discussed ; ranging from moving to reducing the addition by 50% etc . The lot is very long and narrow which precluded subdivision and the addition is not that large so that reducing it negates the benefit to the applicant . Chairman Sigel opened the public hearing . There was no one wishing to address the Board and he closed the public hearing . He then polled the Board . Chairman Sigel moved the motion of Environmental Assessment. 2 ZB A August 25 , 2009 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2009 — 035 Environmental Assessment Special Approval and Area Variance Alexander Holgate 326 '/2 Stone Quarry Rd Tax Parcel No. 38 .-3-5 August 25 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that in the regard to the appeal of IQS Construction , this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form prepared by staff . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin NAYS : None Abstention : Mann Motion was carried . Second motion was made . ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2009 — 036 Area Variances & Special Permit IQS Construction 326 Y2 Stone Quarry Rd TP # 38 .-3-5 August 25, 2009 ® MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of IQS Construction , requesting Area Variances and Special Approval from Chapter 270-57 and 270-60 to allow the construction of an addition to a 2nd dwelling unit located at 326 1/2 Stone Quarry Rd , TP# 38 . -3-5 , Low Density Residential zone with the following CONDITIONS : 1 . That the proposed addition be built as indicated on plans submitted by the applicant to this Board , and 2 . That those plans be revised as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the NYS Uniform Building Code , and 3 . That the addition be no closer to either side lot line than 40 feet , and 4 . That the existing portion of the second dwelling be no closer to the side lot line than 25 feet , and 5 . That the total square footage of the second dwelling after the addition be ® no greater than 1 , 200 square feet , without counting the garage , and 3 ZBA August 25 , 2009 ® 6 . That the garage be used by and for the benefit of the occupants of the primary house to maintain the condition that this is an accessory building . FINDINGS : In the case of the Area Variances for the second dwelling unit setback and the floor area percentage , 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 that the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of expanding the second dwelling unit , can not be achieved by any other means feasible , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change to neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this present structure appears to have been in place for many years and that further, the neighbors do not object to its enlargement. Further, the second dwelling unit is partially hidden from the primary house , it is set well back from the road , and the addition to the second dwelling unit is entirely behind the current structure and will not be visible from the road , and 3 . That this Board finds that the request is substantial allowing a second dwelling unit to be almost 100% the size of the primary dwelling unit. But, nevertheless , this Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community , and 4 . This Board finds that the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given that it is a modest addition to an existing structure , and 5 . This Board finds that the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant purchased the property knowing that the secondary dwelling was too small for their needs , but nevertheless the benefit to them does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community , and 6 . That this Board further finds that a mitigating circumstance in this appeal is that the primary house is small , less than 1 , 300 square feet , and therefore 50% of that, approximately 650 square feet , is a very small allowance for a second dwelling unit. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , and Mountin NAYS : Mann and Ellsworth ® Motion was carried 3 to 2 . 4 ZBA August 25 , 2009 ® APPEAL of Lakeside Nursing Home, Inc, requesting Use and Area Variances from Chapter 270 — 66 " Permitted Uses" , to operate a 90-bed Assisted Living Program/Adult Home and from Chapter 270=68 (G ) , " Adult Daycare more than 4 Persons" located at 1229= 1231 Trumansburg Rd , TP # 26 .-446. 1 , Medium Density Residential ( MDR) Kristin Gutenberger, Agent ; Michelle Palmer, TG Miller ; Mark Farccione, Peregrine Health Manager and Pat Deptula, Administrator were all present to answer any questions the Board had . Ms . Gutenberger gave a brief overview stating that Lakeside was constructed in 1965 and received a Special Permit and Use Variance from the Town . At that time it staddled two zones which have since been changed to all medium density zone . It started smaller and has been added onto and is now a 260 bed nursing home facility . In the late 90' s it fell into disrepair and there are now only 160 beds being used with part of the building not usable . Lakeside went into bankruptcy and receivership . In 2006 the State Department stated that the facility had to be closed but also stated that Tompkins County needs a 100 bed nursing home and 80 beds of assisted living and 25 person adult day care . That is what Peregrine is hoping to do . Enlarge the uses to cover some of these slots . They are not proposing any new construction or changes to the outside except for the relocation of a loading dock . Construction ® will be done to the interior. Of note it that the plan includes 55 Medicaid beds which Tompkins County has none of and this would be a big benefit to the County . Letters were submitted from the County Department of Social Services , Assemblywoman and State Senator as well as other health organizations in the Community . The area variance is to increase the 4- person adult daycare to a 25 - person and the other is to tidy- up the use approvals from the past use variances when they straddled different zones . They would like a use variance for a 100- bed nursing home . She added that under the Department of Health definition , an adult day care is one component of a skilled nursing facility , not a separate use . The Town Code separates them . Adult day care can only be present in a skilled nursing facility. The facility is under financial hardship , going from a $ 1 . 9 million a year loss to $ 150 , 000 loss but they are in arrears on property taxes for close to $ 1 million which will be paid once the transfer goes through with these variances . Board Members Mountin and Krantz stated that it seems straight forward and reasonable with Board Member Krantz adding that the Board would just be using the State ' s recommendations and allowing the beds to be used where needed . Board Member Mann added that it would be preserving the use of an existing ® building and meet the community' s needs . 5 ZBA August 25 , 2009 ® Chairman Sigel opened the public hearing . There was no one wishing to address the Board on this matter. Motion made and seconded with minor changes to the Environmental Assessment Form Part I . ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2009 — 037 Environmental Assessment Use and Area Variances Lakeside Nursing Home, Inc. 1229= 1231 Trumansburg Rd TP # 26 .-4-46 . 1 , August 25 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that in the regard to the appeal of Lakeside Nursing Home , this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form prepared by Town staff with modifications to Part I . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin and Mann NAYS : None Motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Sigel asked Ms . Brock if the Board could use the criteria set out by Ms . Gutenberger in her Narrative . He thought they were excellent and covered everything he would propose . Ms . Brock thought the Board should add the phrase "and other proposed uses" where appropriate to make it clear that the Board was assessing and looking at all the uses together and their impact on the community . The phrase was added . ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION NO . 2009 — 038 Use & Area Variances Lakeside Nursing Home , Inc. 1229=1231 Trumansburq Rd TP # 26. -4-46 . 1 , August 25, 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Lakeside Nursing Home , Inc , requesting Use and Area Variances from Chapter 270 — 66 " Permitted Uses" , to operate a 100- bed Nursing Home and 90-bed Assisted Living Program/Adult Home and from Chapter 270-68 ( G ) , "Adult Daycare more than 4 Persons" located at 1229- 1231 Trumansburg Rd , TP # 26 . -4-46 . 1 , Medium Density Residential ( MDR ) with the following : 6 ZB A August 25 , 2009 ® CONDITIONS . 1 . That the facility be built as indicated on the plans submitted as they may be modified to meet Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval from the Planning Board and as necessary to meet State Building Code . With the following FINDINGS : In regard to the area variance for the Adult Day Care , that this Board makes the findings listed on page 4 in the applicants Narrative , numbers 1 -5 ( Inserted here ) With respect to the specific requirements for an Area Variance, balancing the benefit of an increase in the Adult Day-Care from 4 to 25 slots against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood: ( 1) The proposed increase in the number of Adult Day-Care slots will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties as the facility is currently in existence and no significant change of the exterior of the facility will be necessary for the Area Variance requested. In fact, the facility will be closed without the granting of the variance, leaving an enormous vacant and deteriorating building which will undoubtedly require a variance of some sort in order to make it useful and/or productive. The impact of closing the facility would certainly have at least a temporary undesirable impact on the neighborhood, creating an unsafe environment while also inviting criminal mischief. (2) The benefit sought by Lakeside can not be achieved by other feasible means as the State has ordered the closure of the existing facility and determined that Tompkins County is in need of a 25 slot Adult Day-Care. (3) The requested Area Variance is not substantial as the facility has ample space for a 25 slot Adult Day-Care and there will be no significant impact on the exterior of the building. Again, under DOH guidelines, an Adult Day-Care is considered to be one component of a Nursing Home which is already an approved use of the property. (4) The proposed Area Variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The exterior of the building will remain ® essentially the same. In fact, the neighborhood will be enhanced 7 ZBA August 25 , 2009 by the granting of the Variance due to the aesthetic renovations ® and landscaping maintenance that will result as a consequence. The exterior will be maintained at a level exceeding years past, dramatically improving the physical environment. DOH requires the facility to provide transportation for Adult Day-Care clients. One bus will transport clients to the facility and return them to their homes each day, so it is anticipated that the actual traffic to and from the facility for twenty-five clients would not exceed the traffic generated for four clients. There will be one vehicle entering the property in the morning and one vehicle leaving the property each day regardless of the number of clients in the vehicle. (5) The alleged hardship is not self-created as the DOH has ordered the closure of the current Nursing Home facility and stated that Tompkins County is in need of this type of service. Specifically, Tompkins County is in need of a facility large enough to accommodate 25 Adult Day-Care clients and this building has more than sufficient space to satisfy the demand. With regard to the Use Variance for the 100 - Bed Nursing Home , that this Board makes the Findings indicated on the applicants Narrative on pg 6 numbers 1 -4 ( Inserted here ) and that the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship for the following reasons : ® Use Variance Modification/ rantin of a new Use Variance for a 100 bed Nursing 9 9 9 Home : A Use Variance may be granted if the applicant can demonstrate an Aunnecessary hardship@ . Specifically, Lakeside can demonstrate : ( 1) That as a 260 bed Nursing Home, it cannot realize a reasonable return based on the attached financial data and the fact that the facility is in arrears of property taxes in excess of one million dollars, that the facility has had such financial difficulties over the past decade, that the property is currently in bankruptcy, and that even as a 160 bed Nursing Home, it is operating at a loss of over $ 150, 000 a year. (2) The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to the neighborhood as a whole considering that this is the only Nursing Home in the immediate vicinity and the surrounding properties contain mostly single-family homes. (3) The requested variance, if granted, plus other proposed uses, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in that the building is already built and approved for a more intensive use than requested herein in terms of traffic and amount of Nursing Home ® beds. Applicant anticipates making minor aesthetic exterior 8 ZB A August 25 , 2009 ® renovations and landscaping maintenance that will actually improve the overall appearance of the building and the property, thereby enhancing the essential character of the neighborhood. (4) The alleged hardship is not self-created as evidenced by the DOH's demand for closure of the current 260 bed facility and their recommendation that Tompkins County is in need of a 100 bed Nursing Home to accommodate the current residents. In regard to the Use Variance for the 90- bed Assisted Living Program , this Board makes the findings on the applicant's Narrative on pages 7 & 8 numbers 1 -4 ( Inserted here ) with the modifications made by the Board tonight , which is to include the phrase "plus other proposed uses" in section 3 of the use variances and that the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship for the following reasons : As stated above, a Use Variance may be granted if the applicant can demonstrate an Aunnecessary hardship@ . Specifically, Lakeside can demonstrate that: ( 1) As a 260 bed Nursing Home, the property could not realize a reasonable return. Based on the size and configuration of the building, the only viable use of the space other than in some form of senior health or housing facility would be commercial offices. The cost of conversion to commercial office space would likely equal or exceed $20 million dollars after inclusion of parking construction, a cost that would not be supported economically in the local 'rental market for that type of office space. (2) The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to the neighborhood as a whole considering that this is the only building of its size and use in the vicinity. Further, the DOH has ordered the facility closed, a situation unique to the property. (3) The requested variance, if granted, plus other proposed uses, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in that the building is already built and approved for a more intensive use than requested herein. Lakeside is seeking a use that is less intensive than its current use in terms of traffic and amount of staff. The number of employees needed for an ALP/Adult Home is significantly less than that required for a Nursing Home since the residents are more independent and require less supervision. Additionally, Lakeside is anticipating minor aesthetic exterior renovations and landscaping maintenance to improve the overall appearance of the building, thereby enhancing the essential character of the neighborhood. Without the requested Variance, 9 ZB A August 25 , 2009 the building will most likely remain vacant and continue to deteriorate, leaving an eyesore in the local community. (4) The alleged hardship is not self-created as evidenced by the DOH=s direction of closure of the current 260 bed facility and their recommendation that Tompkins County is in need of an ALP/Adult Home to accommodate the current residents, in addition to other elderly residents of Tompkins County. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin and Mann NAYS : None Motion was carried unanimously . APPEAL of Verizon , Inc ; Jarred Lusk, Agent, requesting a Height Variance from Chapter 270=59, " Height" & Chapter 270=219( F) " Fall Area " , to allow the construction of a telecommunications tower located at 651 Five Mile Dr, TP# 31 . =2-25. 2 , Low Density Residential ( LDR) . Jared Lusk, Attorney for the Applicant was present to answer the Board' s questions . Mr. Lusk gave background on the project and the approvals it has received thus far. The height is 125 feet and they are looking for a height variance and the fall zone . He stated that the tower sits 110 feet from one property and 108 from the other. He noted that the tower will be designed to fall within itself with the weak point placed in the middle of the tower which will make the fall zone half of its height and well within the boundaries . The poles are built to withstand 90mph wind and 45 with 3/a inch ice on it which is above the standard now in place . Mr . Lusk noted that the Town hired an independent consultant to review the height requirements and he quoted from the report : "as claimed by Verizon ' s representative , the proposed site at 125 feet is at or near the minimum height requirement to overcome the terrain and ground clutter effects to achieve the desired RF coverage . " Board Member Ellsworth asked how many towers are engineered and in place right now that fall within themselves . Mr. Lusk stated that it was very common and added that they could be designed to fall within a third or a quarter of their height. He guessed that 50% are designed to collapse on the half mark . It is a norm for them to fall onto themselves as opposed to falling like a tree . 10 ZB A August 25 , 2009 Chairman Sigel asked if the tower stayed attached and sort of swung down and ® Mr. Lusk stated that in his experience , although he has never seen a tower that fell , but based on the design , it would be connected but down . Board Member Mountin asked if the protection from wind etc extended to the antennae and Mr . Lusk responded that they are designed to the same safety level as the tower itself . Board Member Krantz noted that the height variance asked for is a little more than 400 times what is allowed . It is equivalent to a 12 -story building . The Board discussed existing buildings and towers around the County right now . Board Member Mann asked for a summary of why the tower was needed and at that height , which Mr. Lusk gave and was included in an extensive packet to the Board . He added that other telecommunication companies would be allowed to co- locate on this tower . The Board asked about multiple , shorter antennas and Ms . Brock summarized the process and directed the Board to the packet. Chairman Sigel asked Mr. Lusk if the easement for the additional land needed for the fall zone had been received and Mr . Lusk stated that they are in the process for it and they will not receive Final Site Plan approval without it . Chairman Sigel noted that that would almost cover the needed fall zone itself . Chairman Sigel opened the public hearing and then closed it because there was no one present . Board Member Krantz made the following statement for the record : "Although the Zoning Board tries to stay within the boundaries of its rules and regulations and not of public opinion , I think it should be noted that not . a single member of the public came to this hearing . " Chairman Sigel and Ms . Brock noted that many came to the Planning Board meetings . Staff recited the minor changes made to the EAF Part I and the Board agreed to incorporate those . Motion made and seconded . ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2009 — 039 Environmental Assessment Verizon , Inc. 651 Five Mile Drive TP# 31 .=2-25. 2, Auqust 25 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel ; seconded by Harry Ellsworth . 11 ZB A August 25 , 2009 RESOLVED , that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the Part I prepared by the applicant and for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II prepared by Town Staff . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Mountin and Mann NAYS : None Absent : Neifer Motion was carried 4 to 1 . During the dictation of the motion , Mr. Lusk stated for the record that "the applicable legal standard for the public utilities is a little different than the typical area variance standards as we outlined in Exhibit C . I think . . . If you want to go through the standards that are required for typical area variances , so be it , but, I think, the Rosenberg Standard is the appropriate standard and therefore the typical area variances wouldn 't necessarily be standard . So , in case we were to be challenged , I just wanted it to be on the record that the Rosenberg Standard is the applicable standard for granting variances with regard to the public utility . Ms . Brock responded "that standard is applicable for use variances , that Rosenberg and ConEd cases were all use variance cases . In fact, I have a third department case which had a Zoning Board looking at setback variances , area variances , and the applicant said no , the diminished standard applicable to public utilities should apply and the third department said no , the regular area variance standard applies . Mr. Lusk just wanted it on the record and Ms . Brock also . Board Member Mann asked which was the stricter of the Standards and Ms . Brock responded that they are just different, not necessarily less strict , although she felt Mr. Lusk probably thought they were . ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2009 — 040 Height & Area Variances Verizon , Inc. 651 Five Mile Dr. TP# 31 . -2-25 . 2, August 25, 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Verizon , Inc . , requesting a height variance from Chapter 270-59 and a Fall Zone Variance from Chapter 12 ZB A August 25 , 2009 270-219 (f) to allow the construction of a telecommunications tower located at 651 Five Mile Dr, TP# 31 . -2 -25 . 2 , Low Density Residential Zone with the following : CONDITIONS : 1 . That the tower not exceed 126 feet tall , and 2 . That the fall zone be no less than a 107 foot radius circle located with the center at the base of the tower with the applicant having ownership , lease , easement or other control over that area . Any such lease , easement or other control other than ownership to be acceptable to the Attorney for the Town in form and substance , and 3 . That the tower must be designed to collapse on itself such that no components' of the tower will fall outside the designated fall zone , With the following : FINDINGS — Height Variance 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 achieved by any other means feasible as supported by both the applicant' s submitted materials and the independent verification by the Town ' s consultants , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given the extensive screening of the tower by surrounding trees , plus the additional trees that are being required by the Planning Board . The upper portion of the tower is necessarily above tree level to achieve the applicant' s goal and it is therefore visible to a number of nearby locations , but nevertheless , the benefit to the applicant and the community does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , and 3 . That while the request is substantial , being approximately 125 feet where 30 feet is allowed , nevertheless , the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , and 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons given in the Environmental Assessment Form , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self created , again , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community . FINDINGS : Area Variance - Fall Zone That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , specifically: 13 ZB A August 25 , 2009 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve could , in this case , be met by other feasible means , which would be to enter into some type of agreement with the two neighbors to achieve the full fall zone , but that given that the applicant' s tower will be designed to fall within , at most , half of its height , that size of a fall zone is unnecessary , and 2 . That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not happen , given that it is a smaller fall zone , and 3 . That the request is not substantial given that the tower is designed to fall within half of its height , and 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects , again , given that it is designed to fall within half its height , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self created , 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 , Mountin and Mann NAYS : None Absent : Neifer Motion was carried 4 to 1 . Other Business There was no other official business . Meeting adjourned at 9 : 22 p . m . Kirk Sigel , ChaIr 14 FILE �ti1 DATE J ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2009 = 035 Environmental Assessment Special Approval and Area Variance Alexander Holgate 326 '/2 Stone Quarry Rd Tax Parcel No. 38 .=3=5 August 25, 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that in regard to the appeal of IQS Construction , this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form prepared by staff . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin NAYS : None Abstention : Mann Motion was carried . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Paulette Terwilliger , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a ;eputy lar etin on the 25th day of August , 2009 . Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE KM 3 DATE � �� jS r� ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2009 - 036 ® Area Variances & Special Permit IQS Construction 326 '/2 Stone Quarry Rd Tax Parcel # 38.-3-5 August 25 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of IQS Construction , requesting Area Variances and Special Approval from Chapter 270-57 and 270-60 to allow the construction of an addition to a 2nd dwelling unit located at 326 1/2Stone Quarry Rd , TP# 38 . -3-5 , Low Density Residential zone with the following CONDITIONS : 1 . That the proposed addition be built as indicated on plans submitted by the applicant to this Board , and 2 . That those plans be revised as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the NYS Uniform Building Code , and 3 . That the addition be no closer to either side lot line than 40 feet, and ® 4 . That the existing portion of the second dwelling be no closer to the side lot line than 25 feet , and 5 . That the total square footage of the second dwelling after the addition be no greater than 1 , 200 square feet, without counting the garage , and 6 . That the garage be used by and for the benefit of the occupants of the primary house to maintain the condition that this is an accessory building . FINDINGS : In the case of the Area Variances for the second dwelling unit setback and the floor area percentage , 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 that the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of expanding the second dwelling unit, can not be achieved by any other means feasible , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change to neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this present structure appears to have been in place for many years and that further, the neighbors do not object to its ® enlargement . Further, the second dwelling unit is partially hidden by the primary house , it is set well back from the road , and the addition to the second dwelling unit is entirely behind the current structure and will not be visible from the road , and 3 . That this Board finds that the request is substantial allowing a second dwelling unit to be almost 100% the size of the primary dwelling unit . But, nevertheless , this Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , and 4 . This Board finds that the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given that it is a modest addition to an existing structure , and 5 . This Board finds that the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant purchased the property knowing that the secondary dwelling was too small for their needs , but nevertheless the benefit to them does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , and 6 . That this Board further finds that a mitigating circumstance in this appeal is that the primary house is small , less than 1 , 300 square feet , and therefore 50% of that, approximately 650 square feet , is a very small allowance for a second dwelling unit . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , and Mountin NAYS : Mann and Ellsworth Motion was carried 3 to 2 . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular a ting on the 25th day of August , 2009 , Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE o a ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2009 = 037 Environmental Assessment Use and Area Variances Lakeside Nursing Home, Inc. 1229- 1231 Trumansburg Rd TP # 26 .-4-46 . 1 , August 25 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that in regard to the appeal of Lakeside Nursing Home , this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form prepared by Town staff with modifications to Part I . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin and Mann NAYS : None Motion was carried unanimously. ® STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) S $ : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of t e same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular a tingon the 25th day of August , 2009 , Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FI LE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2009 = 038 ® Use and Area Variances Lakeside Nursing Home, Inc. 1229= 1231 Trumansburg Rd TP # 26.-4-46. 1 , August 25, 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Lakeside Nursing Home , Inc , requesting Use and Area Variances from Chapter 270 — 66 " Permitted Uses" , to operate a 100-bed Nursing Home and 90- bed Assisted Living Program/Adult Home and from Chapter 270-68 (G ) , "Adult Daycare more than 4 Persons" located at 1229- 1231 Trumansburg Rd , TP # 26 . -4-46 . 1 , Medium Density Residential ( MDR ) with the following : CONDITIONS . 1 . That the facility be built as indicated on the plans submitted as they may be modified to meet Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval from the Planning Board and as necessary to meet State Building Code . With the following ® FINDINGS , In regard to the area variance for the Adult Day Care , that this Board makes the findings listed on page 4 in the applicants Narrative , numbers 1 -5 ( Inserted here ) With respect to the specific requirements for an Area Variance, balancing the benefit of an increase in the Adult Day-Care from 4 to 25 slots against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. ( 1) The proposed increase in the number of Adult Day-Care slots will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties as the facility is currently in existence and no significant change of the exterior of the facility will be necessary for the Area Variance requested. In fact, the facility will be closed without the granting of the variance, leaving an enormous vacant and deteriorating building which will undoubtedly require a variance of some sort in order to make it useful and/or productive. The impact of closing the facility would certainly have at least a temporary undesirable impact on the neighborhood, creating an unsafe environment while also inviting criminal mischief. 1 e (2) The benefit sought by Lakeside can not be achieved by other feasible means as the State _has ordered the closure of the existing facility and determined that Tompkins County is in need of a 25 slot Adult Day-Care. (3) The requested Area Variance is not substantial as the facility has ample space for a 25 slot Adult Day-Care and there will be no significant impact on the exterior of the building. Again, under DOH guidelines, an Adult Day-Care is considered to be one component of a Nursing Home which is already an approved use of the property. (4) The proposed Area Variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The exterior of the building will remain essentially the same. In fact, the neighborhood will be enhanced by the granting of the Variance due to the aesthetic renovations and landscaping maintenance that will result as a consequence. The exterior will be maintained at a level exceeding years past, dramatically improving the physical environment. DOH requires the facility to provide transportation for Adult Day-Care clients. One bus will transport clients to the facility and return them to their homes each day, so it is anticipated that the actual traffic to and from the facility for twenty-five clients would not exceed the traffic generated for four clients. There will be one vehicle entering the property in the morning and one vehicle leaving the property each day regardless of the number of clients in the vehicle. ( ) The alleged ed hardship is not self-created as the DOH has - ordered the closure of the current Nursing Home facility and _stated that Tompkins County is in need of this type of service. Specifically, Tompkins County is in need of a facility large enough to accommodate 25 Adult Day-Care clients and this building has more than sufficient space to satisfy the demand. With regard to the Use Variance for the 100- Bed Nursing Home , that this Board makes the Findings indicated in the applicant' s Narrative on pg 6 numbers 1 -4 ( Inserted here ) and that the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship for the following reasons : Use Variance Modification/granting of a new Use Variance for a 100 bed Nursing Home : A Use Variance may be granted if the applicant can demonstrate an unnecessary hardship. Specifically, Lakeside can demonstrate : ( 1) That as a 260 bed Nursing Home, it cannot realize a reasonable return based on the attached financial data and the fact that the facility is in arrears of property taxes in excess of one million dollars, that the facility has had such financial difficulties over the past decade, that the property 2 is currently in bankruptcy, and that even as a 160 bed Nursing Home, it is operating at a loss of over $ 150, 000 a year. ( ) The alleged ed hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to the neighborhood as a whole considering that this is the only Nursing Home in the immediate vicinity and the surrounding properties contain mostly single -family homes. (3) The requested variance, if granted, plus other proposed uses, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in that the building is already built and approved for a more intensive use than requested herein in terms of traffic and amount of Nursing Home beds. Applicant anticipates making minor aesthetic exterior renovations and landscaping maintenance that will actually improve the overall appearance of the building and the property, thereby enhancing the essential character of the neighborhood. (4) The alleged hardship is not self-created as evidenced by the DOH's demand for closure of the current 260 bed facility and their recommendation that Tompkins County is in need of a 100 bed Nursing Home to accommodate the current residents. In regard to the Use Variance for the 90- bed Assisted Living Program , this Board makes the findings in the applicant' s Narrative on pages 7 & 8 numbers 1 -4 ( Inserted here) with the modifications made by the Board tonight, which is to include the phrase "plus other ® proposed uses" in section 3 of the use variances and that the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship for the following reasons : As stated above, a Use Variance may be granted if the applicant can demonstrate an unnecessary hardship. Specifically, Lakeside can demonstrate that: ( 1) As a 260 bed Nursing Home, the property could not realize a reasonable return. Based on the size and configuration of the building, the only viable use of the space other than in some form of senior health or housing facility would be commercial offices. The cost of conversion to commercial office space would likely equal or exceed $20 million dollars after inclusion of parking construction, a cost that would not be supported economically in the local rental market for that type of office space. (2) The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to the neighborhood as a whole considering that this is the only building of its size and use in the vicinity. Further, the DOH has ordered the facility closed, a situation unique to the property. `� 3 (3) The requested variance, if granted, plus other proposed uses, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in that the building is already built and approved for a more intensive use than requested herein. Lakeside is seeking a use that is less intensive than its current use in terms of traffic and amount of staff. The number of employees needed for an ALP/Adult Home is significantly less than that required for a Nursing Home since the residents are more independent and require less supervision. Additionally, Lakeside is anticipating minor aesthetic exterior renovations and landscaping maintenance to improve the overall appearance of the building, thereby enhancing the essential character of the neighborhood. Without the requested Variance, the building will most likely remain vacant and continue to deteriorate, leaving an eyesore in the local community. (4) The alleged hardship is not self-created as evidenced by the DOH's direction of closure of the current 260 bed facility and their recommendation that Tompkins County is in need of an ALP/Adult Home to accommodate the current residents, in addition to other elderly residents of Tompkins County. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin and Mann NAYS : None Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular m t' g on the 25th day of August , 2009 . -- Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 4 FILE DATE 2 04 d ,V ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2009 - 039 Environmental Assessment Verizon , Inc . 651 Five Mile Drive TP# 31 . -2-25. 2, August 25 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the Part I prepared by the applicant and for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II prepared by Town Staff . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Mountin and Mann NAYS : Krantz Absent : Neifer Motion was carried 4 to 1 . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular nWoting on the 25th day of August , 2009 , Deputy Town ferk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE L' L ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2009 = 040 Height and Area Variances Verizon , Inc . 651 Five Mile Drive TP# 31 . -2-25. 2 , August 25 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Verizon , Inc . , requesting a height variance from Chapter 270-59 and a Fall Zone Variance from Chapter 270-219(f) to allow the construction of a telecommunications tower located at 651 Five Mile Dr, TP# 31 . -2-25 . 2 , Low Density Residential Zone with the following : CONDITIONS : 1 . That the tower not exceed 126 feet tall , and 2 . That the fall zone be no less than a 107 foot radius circle located with the center at the base of the tower with the applicant having ownership , lease , easement or other control over that area . Any such lease , easement or other control other than ownership to be acceptable to the Attorney for the Town in form and substance , and 3 . That the tower must be designed to collapse on itself such that no components of the tower will fall outside the designated fall zone , With the following : FINDINGS — Height Variance 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 achieved by any other means feasible as supported by both the applicant' s submitted materials and the independent verification by the Town ' s consultants , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given the extensive screening of the tower by surrounding trees , plus the additional trees that are being required by the Planning Board . The upper portion of the tower is necessarily above tree level to achieve the applicant' s goal and it is therefore visible to a number of nearby locations , but nevertheless , the benefit to the applicant and the community does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , and 3 . That while the request is substantial , being approximately 125 feet where 30 feet is allowed , nevertheless , the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , and 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons given in the Environmental Assessment Form , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self created , again , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community. FINDINGS : Area Variance - Fall Zone 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 could , in this case , be met by other feasible means , which would be to enter into some type of agreement with the two neighbors to achieve the full fall zone , but that given that the applicant' s tower will be designed to fall within , at most, halfof its height , that size of a fall zone is unnecessary , and 2 . That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not happen , given that it is a smaller fall zone , and 3 . That the request is not substantial given that the tower is designed to fall within half of its height , and 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects , again , given that it is designed to fall within half its height , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self created , 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 , Mountin and Mann NAYS : Krantz Absent : Neifer Motion was carried 4 to 1 . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular a ing on the 25th day of August, 2009 , Deputy Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca