Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2011-02-28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P. M . Appeal of Verizon Wireless, applicant, Cornell University, Owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-59 " Height Limitations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install fifteen ( 15) wireless telecommunications antennas on the roof of Riley Robb Hall , with an overall height of 4 feet above the existing roofline , located at 111 Wing Drive , Tax Parcel No. 67 . - 1 - 13. 2 , Low Density Residential . Appeal of Jonathan Russell-Anelli and Katherine McComas , owners/applicants , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-46 C "Yard Regulations" and Section 270-208 B " Dwellings on Nonconforming Lots" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a wrap around deck located at 1134 East Shore. Dr, Tax Parcel No . 19 . -2-2 , Lakefront Residential . Appeal of Ofer and Gilly Leshed , owners/applicants , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Sections 270-71 C and 270-71 E "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing shed located in the side yard setback on the north side of the property located at 210 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No . 70 . - 1 -8 , Medium Density Residential . Appeal of Barbara Alden and Ellen Baer, owners/applicants , requesting Special Approval and variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-57 B (6) "Accessory Buildings and Uses Authorized by Special Approval Only" , Section 270-220 " Building Floor Area" and Section 270-226 "More than One Building on a Lot' of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to expand an existing apartment in a detached garaged located at 247 Dubois Rd , Tax Parcel No . 22 . -2- 1 . 31 , Low Density Residential , The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance February 11 , 1987 to allow the partial use of the detached garage for an apartment. Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs , upon request; requests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings . Bruce W . Bates a Director of Code Enforcement 607-273- 1783 Dated : February 16 , 2011 Published : February 18 , 2011 1p TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SIGN - IN SHEET DATE : February 28 , 2011 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS / AFFILIATION o aFran uSse ' - � Ct� st N C U CL S . Kai ev e� HZcGrn & s t 3 `( Eu -6ef- 5bovv- Dr . FILE DATE 1 ANIL ZONING BOARD of APPEALS Monday, February 28 , 2011 7 : 00 p . m . Board Members Present : Kirk Sigel , Chair; Ron Krantz , James Niefer, Dave Mountin , and Bill King , Staff Present : Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town ; Carrie Coates Whitmore ; Deputy Town Clerk. Others : Robert Burgdorf, Kathy Pomponio , Sara Dean , Gregg Handly , Jonathan Russell -Anelli , Katherine McComas , Ofer and Gilly Leshed , Ellen Baer, Barbara Allen , Charles and Peggy House . Call to Order Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 06 p . m . Appeal of Verizon Wireless, applicant, Cornell University, Owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=59 " Height Limitations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install fifteen (15) wireless telecommunications antennas on the roof of Riley Robb Hall , with an overall height of 4 feet above the existing roof line, located at 111 Wing Drive, Tax Parcel No. 67.=1 -13 .2, Low Density Residential , Robert Burgdorf appeared before the board and introduced his team—Kathy Pomponio , Sara Dean , and Gregg Handly, Mr. Burgdorf gave a brief overview of the appeal stating that Verizon Wireless is a public utility licensed and regulated by the Federal Communication Commission . It is responsible for providing wireless communication services throughout the United States . There is currently inadequate service at the Cornell University "Ag cell site" . The service deficiencies and the geographic boundaries of the site are described in Exhibit G of the Board ' s packet. The only remedy to the situation is to have antennas located at a particular height and at a particular location so that it fits within the entire grid or cellular network. Verizon tries to avoid constructing new towers when possible . Mr. Burgdorf explained that the proposed location is on the roof of Riley Robb Hall and the antenna array has been described to the Board in the packet. He felt that the only effect of the antennas was to the internal Cornell campus . The proposal required special permit and site plan approval from the Planning Board , which Verizon received on February 22"d . He said that Verizon is seeking an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals because the proposed antennas will be four feet above the height of Riley Robb Hall . Town Code requires a variance be granted for any structure that is higher than the building . Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 ® Mr. Burgdorf then solicited comments from the Board . Attorney Brock explained that there was not a coordinated SEOR review so the Zoning Board of Appeals will need to do its own environmental review . Chairperson Sigel commented that the appeal seems straightforward and stated that the proposed antennas are not much higher than the existing building . He asked Board members if they had any comments or questions and there were none . Chairperson Sigel noted that the visual renderings showed a modest impact. Mr. Mountin asked if the antennas would be lit and. Mr. Burgdorf responded no . Environmental Assessment Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance with regard to the appeal of Verizon wireless based upon the information in Part I and for the reasons stated in Part II of the full environmental assessment form . Mr. Krantz seconded . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -008: Environmental Assessment, Cornell University, 111 Wing Dr, Tax Parcel No. 37. = 1 - 13.2 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in regards to the appeal of Verizon Wireless, requesting permission to be able to install 15 wireless telecommunication antennae and associated telecommunication facilities on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, Cornell University, based upon the information in Part 1 of the full environmental assessment form and for the reasons stated in Part 11 of the full environmental assessment form. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Public Hearing Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 12 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one interested in speaking , he closed the public hearing at 7 : 12 p . m . Page 2 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Verizon Wireless , applicant, Cornell University, owner, to be permitted to install 15 wireless telecommunications antennas on the roof of Riley Robb Hall with an overall height of approximately 4 feet above the existing roof line with the condition that the antennas not extend any higher than the existing roof line than 4 . 5 feet and finding that all criteria of an area variance had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was met . Mr. Niefer seconded . Vote—carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -009: Area Variance, Cornell University, 111 Wing Dr. Tax Parcel No. 67. 4 - 13.2 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Verizon Wireless, applicant, Cornell University, owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=59 "Height Limitations " of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install 15 wireless telecommunication antennas on the roof of Riley Robb Hall with an overall height of approximately 4 feet above the existing roof line, located at 111 Wing Drive, Tax Parcel No. 67. = 1 - 13. 2, Low Density Residential Zone with the following: Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That based on the information presented by the applicant, that the benefit cannot be achieve by any other means feasible 2. By keeping the modest visual impact as represented by the applicant's visual simulation photos, that there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties, 3. That the request is not substantial even though the overall height of the building and the antennae are well above what is allowed in the Town in this zone. The building is already much higher than allowed and the antennae will not stick up much above that, 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental affects, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the applicant needs to fill gaps in coverage and this is apparently the least impactful site that the applicant may have chosen. Condition: Page 3 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 ® 1 . That the antennas not extend any higher above the existing roof line than 4. 5 feet. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Appeal of Jonathan Russell-Anelli and Katherine McComas, owners/applicants, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=46 C " Yard Regulations" and Section 270=208 B " Dwellings on Nonconforming Lots" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a wrap around deck located at 1134 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-2 , Lakefront Residential . Jonathan Russell -Anelli appeared before the Board and provided pictures for the board to review (see file) . Mr. Russell -Anelli spoke to how the proposal would maintain the character of neighborhood and how it fits the intent of the Lakefront Residential zoning . He argued that they were not only improving the character of the house , but improving and enhancing the character of the neighborhood . The house was built in 1925 and an addition was constructed in 1995 . Mr. Russell -Anelli gave the following reasons for the proposed porch : 1 . He ' s always wanted a wrap-around since he was a kid ; 2 . The wrap-around porch would soften the depth of the building and return it to its original 1925 roots ; 3 . It would enhance the nature of the viewshed from lake itself; and 4 . It softens the edges of the existing structure . Mr. Russell -Anelli noted that the age of the house contributes to its nonconformity; it puts the house within the setback itself. He referred to the pictures and stated that constructing the porch will enhance the space and maintain the character of the neighborhood , maintain the viewshed from the lake while not destroying the view of others , and making the view a lot more interesting . He noted that the nature of the side yard is out of context with the house and the addition of the porch would increase the connectivity of the house to the yard . Mr. Russell -Anelli went on to describe the porch and stated that the porch itself is within the outmost edges of the house ' s edges (other than the lake side of the house) , even though the footprint of the house would be increased . Mr. Russell -Anelli offered to answer any questions the Board may have . Chairperson Sigel clarified that the deck would be serving the second floor of the house . Mr. Russell-Anelli explained that the house is located on a slope . The house has a main floor, a second floor, and the basement. The addition was pushed forward toward the lake and constructed on stilts ; it extended the first floor and basement out. The Page 4 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 main floor is actually on the second level . The porch is proposed for the middle floor, or main floor. Mr. Niefer asked if the deck shown in the pictures will remain . Mr. Russell -Anelli confirmed that it would—the proposed deck would be one level above the existing deck . Mr. Krantz asked when the deck was constructed . Mr. Russell -Anelli was not sure because there is no permit on file with the town for its construction . He thought that it may have been constructed in 1995 because it has the same pilings as the addition that was constructed in 1995 . Chairperson Sigel asked how the Code Enforcement Department determines what counts and does not count towards lot coverage with regard to decks . Mr. Bates explained that they take into account if the deck is above or below living areas . For this property, the previous owner enclosed the area under the existing deck with lattice and created a storage area . The area under the deck is then limited in use and is considered a living space . Since then , the lattice has been removed and the area under the deck is open columns so under the definition of the code , it is a deck or porch area. The proposal of the existing deck area does not involve any extra columns because it is going to be attached to the existing home . Mr. Bates stated that the only question would be the area of the deck within the required setback; the applicant would be able to do everything else except for the area of the deck within the required setback area . He explained that the house is pre -existing , non-conforming—meaning the non- ® conformity of the building cannot be increased . Chairperson Sigel noted that the applicant included lot coverage figures in the packet. He asked Mr. Bates if the proposed deck was adding to the percent of lot coverage . Mr. Bates said that it was not; the deck does not have a roof over it and it is not blocking off an area below it. Chairperson Sigel gave the scenario of the deck being built over the patio . He asked if the deck would be treated as a roof over the patio and if so , would it then be calculated in the percent of lot coverage . Mr. Bates responded yes . Chairperson Sigel confirmed that the deck would not be considered in lot coverage calculations if the area under the deck was grass . Chairperson Sigel then asked Mr. Russell -Anelli about the reference to a pergola above the deck on the plans submitted . Mr. Russell-Anelli explained that a pergola is planned for the west side of the deck. Chairperson Sigel asked if the pergola would be counted as the deck being covered . Mr. Bates responded that it was questionable , but he didn 't think it would be counted at this point. He went on to say that even if it were counted , he thought that the applicant would still be within the allowable lot coverage . Chairperson Sigel stated that the property already exceeds the allowable limits because it is over 10% . He was concerned because the new deck is over the existing deck and thought that it might increase the lot coverage . Chairperson Sigel thought it was important to determine what "is covering" . Mr. Bates said that he has not ruled on it. ® He did not think it was a problem and has not looked at it. Page 5 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 Chairperson Sigel turned to the calculations provided in the packet and started to review them . He reviewed the areas listed as being covered in the calculations sheet with the applicant and the Board . Chairperson Sigel asked if Parcel B has been incorporated as part of the main parcel . Mr. Russell-Anelli said that it was . Chairperson Sigel noted that he checked the tax maps and it didn't appear that Parcel B was part of the main parcel . Mr. Russell -Anelli explained that the previous owner transferred it to their property and then they bought the property. He was not sure where it was on the tax maps . Ms . Whitmore asked if Parcel A and Parcel B were consolidated . Mr. Russell -Anelli did not think the parcels were consolidated , but said that the parcels will be consolidated . Mr. Bates asked if Mr. Russell -Anelli received two deeds when he purchased the property. Mr. Russell -Anelli said that they received one deed and he did not know if the parcels were consolidated . Chairperson Sigel noted that it was possible for the parcels to have been consolidated by the previous owner. He commented that whether or not the parcels were consolidated would impact the percentage of lot coverage calculation and possibly the setbacks of the property. Chairperson Sigel asked if a deck of this nature would affect setback requirements . Mr. Bates explained that setbacks would not be affected if the deck did not have a roof . Chairperson Sigel summarized that if the deck does not have a roof, then it can be within the setback requirement. Mr. Bates was not sure and said he would have to research it in the Code . Chairperson Sigel thought that it was important to determine whether or not Parcel B was part of Parcel A because it affects the setbacks . He went on to review the setback requirements for the property . Chairperson Sigel and Attorney Brock continued to question whether Parcel A and Parcel B were consolidated . Chairperson Sigel noted that sometimes noncontiguous parcels are considered one parcel (one tax map number) and the parcels are shown on the map with a link or notation . They went on to look at the tax map of the property on the County website , but were still unable to determine if the properties were consolidated . Attorney Brock asked when Mr. Russell -Anelli bought the property and he indicated that they purchased the property in November. Attorney Brock noted that the survey dated in December 2010 says that Parcel B is to be conveyed to Hider . Mr. Russell-Anelli clarified that they bought the property from the Hiders . Chairperson Sigel went on to review the property lines and related setbacks . He stated that if the deck on the west side was subject to the setback requirements , then it was important for the Board to know whether Parcel B has been consolidated or not. If it is not all one lot , then the setback would be quite deficient . Mr. Russell-Anelli thought that the parcel was consolidated , but if it was not, they would be sure to consolidate it. Page 6 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 Chairperson Sigel thought that before the Board could proceed , they needed to see evidence one way or another that the parcels were one parcel . Attorney Brock suggested that the Board could place a condition on approval that the parcels need to be consolidated within a certain amount of time . She explained that the Planning Board often has that condition for various projects . Attorney Brock went on to say that with the parcels consolidated , the rear yard is adjacent to the shore line and needs to be not less than 25 feet in depth from the ordinary high water line . She noted that the ordinary high water line is on someone else's property and not theirs . The regulation is assuming a situation other than this situation , but she was not worried about it. Attorney Brock did not think there was a rear setback issue , but that a . variance would be needed for the side yard setback on the southern side of the property. Chairperson Sigel noted that there was still the issue of lot coverage . Attorney Brock stated that a variance for lot coverage was not advertised in the public hearing notice so the Board could not address that this evening if there was an issue . She did not think Mr. Bates had made a determination with regard to lot coverage anyway. Chairperson Sigel asked if the Board had any questions or comments . Mr. Krantz asked if the Board could proceed on the assumption that the parcels were consolidated . Chairperson Sigel said that the Board could because Mr. Bates could verify consolidation before a building permit was issued . He went on to say that there may be an issue of lot coverage that the Board could not deal with this evening because it was not advertised . The Board could vote on the requested variance if it chose to do so . Public Hearinq Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 :49 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . Charles House appeared before the Board and asked to see the photos submitted because he was concerned about the proposed deck impeding his view. His main concern was protecting his view and his own interests . Mr. House has lived on the property for 35 years and said that he could probably answer any questions about the house and property lines . Chairperson Sigel asked how far out the proposed deck is from the house . Mr. Russell- Anelli said that that maximum depth of the deck is 8 feet. Mr. House asked about the appearance of the deck. He wondered if a roof would be added to it later on .. Mr. Russell -Anelli explained the design of the proposed deck and assured Mr. House that the deck would not be enclosed . The deck would have spindle rails and a pergola . Mr. House did not have a problem with the proposal as long as it did not obstruct his view. Chairperson Sigel stated that he wanted to make it clear that the Board was not going to guarantee to Mr. House that his view would not be obstructed . Mr. House needed to make that determination and then comment appropriately . Chairperson Sigel explained that if the Board approved the variance , ® they wouldn 't be approving it with the guarantee that the view would not be obstructed . Mr. House said he would not be happy if his view is obstructed . Chairperson Sigel Page 7 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 ® restated that the Board could not guarantee that the view would not be obstructed . He noted that the deck was going to stick out from the house so he was sure that there would be a location on Mr. House ' s property where he could stand and see the deck. Mr. House stated that he is taxed for view and felt that he should not be taxed on a view that is taken away from him . Chairperson Sigel understood his concern , but wanted to be sure that Mr. House knew that he would be able to see the deck from his property; it is subjective opinion as to whether or not it is a meaningful view . Mr. House thought that Mr. Russell -Anelli was guaranteeing that the view would not be obstructed . Mr. Russell -Anelli restated that the deck would not have a roof over it. Mr. House indicated that he was satisfied with the proposed design of the deck. With no one else wishing to speak on the matter, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 58 p . m . Chairperson Sigel stated that the request before the Board was a variance for the south side setback. He asked Mr. Bates if he had thought a little more about whether or not the applicant would need a variance for lot coverage as well . Mr. Bates said that it does appear that a variance would be needed for lot coverage and that he missed that issue while reviewing the application . Ms . Brenner did provide lot coverage calculations as part of the application . ® Chairperson Sigel said that if Mr. Bates was confident that the property would need additional variances , then he would prefer to adjourn the matter. Mr. Russell -Anelli wondered what the issue was . Chairperson Sigel explained that the issue is lot coverage . The Lakefront Residential zone allows 10% lot coverage and the property , as it is currently, exceeds the permitted lot coverage . Any additional lot coverage for the property requires a variance . The issue was not addressed by the Code Enforcement Department and therefore not included in the public hearing notice . Chairperson Sigel said that unfortunately it meant that Mr. Russell-Anelli would need to come back before the Board . The Board needs to review information with regard to how much over the allowed lot coverage the proposal entails . Chairperson Sigel said that the Board would prefer to consider all variances as a package . Ms . McComas asked if it was unclear from the documents submitted what the lot coverage was . Chairperson Sigel responded that was correct. He said that it is not entirely clear what should be included as part of the lot coverage calculations from the documents submitted by the architect. The Code Enforcement Department needs to verify lot coverage calculations. Mr. Bates added that the failure to advertise for a lot coverage variance meant that the Board could not address it. Ms . McComas thought that the deck would not add to lot coverage . Chairperson Sigel explained that there are some areas that are being created as covered . He gave the ® example of the proposal consisting of a deck being built over and existing deck ; the deck above is a cover for the deck below and it becomes covered space . Mr. Bates Page 8 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 ® further explained that the existing home already appears to be over the allowable lot coverage . He said that he needs to review it in further detail because he remembers reading something in previous minutes in regard to 20% lot coverage , but now it is 10% lot coverage . Mr. Bates added that the property previously may have been compliant, but now may not be . Chairperson Sigel explained that this zone is unusual with having only 10% allowable lot coverage ; most residential zones in the Town permit 20% lot coverage . Mr. Russell -Anelli asked if any properties in the zone were in compliance . Chairperson Sigel explained that any property over the 10% lot coverage would need to receive a variance . Ms . McComas asked if there was a likelihood that they would receive a variance at the next meeting provided the Board had the information that they needed . She further asked if the Board needed any additional information to make its decision . She wondered if they needed to rethink their plan . Attorney Brock responded that it would not be appropriate for the Board to comment on the likelihood of them granting a variance . She explained that the Board would need to hold another public hearing and that there may be additional information that comes in . It would not be appropriate for the Board to speculate given they do not have all the information needed to make a decision . ® Chairperson Sigel added that the Board does not know how much coverage the proposal adds to the total lot coverage of the property. He apologized for not being able to provide more guidance . Mr. Russell -Anelli asked if the Board could provide guidance with regard to previous variances granted . He was concerned about having to come back before the Board a third time if they do not provide all necessary information at the next meeting . Chairperson Sigel commented that every case is unique and he did not recall what percentages other properties involved . Mr. Russell-Anelli asked what information he needed to provide to make sure that the appeal would be on the next agenda . Mr. Bates responded that currently everything that has been submitted gives the information that is needed ; he needs to know the totals of the current percent of lot coverage and the total proposed percent of lot coverage . He thought that the information was included in application materials , but needed to be picked out. The Town would then need to advertise for the variance . Chairperson Sigel added that it may be the case that Mr. Russell-Anelli does not need to submit anything new. Mr. Krantz commented that it is important for neighbors to get together and talk. He thought it would be appropriate to share proposed plans with neighbors . Chairperson Sigel stated that for the next meeting the Board would like to see evidence that the lots have been consolidated , the percent of lot coverage , and any other setback Page 9 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 ® issues beside the south side . Mr. Bates thought that most of the information was provided , but would need to call Ms . Brenner to help define the calculations . Chairperson Sigel moved to adjourn the appeal until the March 21St meeting . Mr. Krantz seconded . Vote--carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -010: Adiournment of Area Variance, Jonathan Russell= Anelli and Katherine McComas, 1034 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No. 19. =2=2 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board adjourns the appeal of Jonathan Russell-Ane/li and Katherine McComas until the March 2011 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals so that further calculations can be made by the Building Department as to the lot coverage of the parcel and so that a public hearing notice can be advertised for such. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Mountin and King NAYS: None. ® Motion was carried unanimously. Appeal of Ofer and Gilly Leshed , ownerstapplicants, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Sections 270=71 C and 270=71 E "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing shed located in the side yard setback on the north side of the property located at 210 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70.-1 -8, Medium Density Residential . Ofer and Gilly Leshed appeared before the board and gave an overview of the appeal . Mr. Leshed explained that he submitted a building permit application for a bathroom renovation . During the review process for the building permit, it was discovered that the shed on the property was located in the side yard . Mr. and Mrs . Leshed purchased the property in 2006 with the shed in the side yard . Mr. Leshed went on to say that the shed was mentioned in a 1987 survey. The neighbor, Kim Millen , at 206 Muriel Street sent Mr. Leshed an email stating that he had lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years and that the shed had been present in its current location for as long as he can remember. Mr. Bates stated that he reviewed the Code in affect for 1987 and the requirements were the same as they are today. He noted that the shed is not big enough to require a building permit and it is only a zoning issue being addressed by the Board . 0 Page 10 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 ® Mr. Leshed added that the shed is at the basement level of their property. The property slopes towards the backyard so the shed is not really noticeable from the street. Chairperson Sigel solicited questions and comments from the Board . There were none . Public Hearing Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 15 p . m , and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one , he closed the public hearing . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal Ofer and Gilly Leshed to be permitted to maintain an existing shed located in the side yard setback on the north side of the property with the conditions on the shed location and finding that all requirements of an area variance had been satisfying , specifically listing how each criterion had been met. Mr. Niefer seconded . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -011 : Area Variance, Ofer and Gilly Leshed, 210 Muriel St. Tax Parcel No. 70. 44 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Ofer and Gilly Leshed, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 71 C and Section 270- 71 E "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing shed located in the side yard setback on the north side of the property, located at 210 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70. - 1 -8, Medium Density Residential Zone, based upon the following: Conditions: 1 . That the shed be no closer to the side lot line than 3 feet, and 2. That the shed remain in its present location unless it is at some point moved to a legal location in the rear yard. Findings: 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 given that the applicant has indicated that they do not know if they could successfully move the shed without damaging it, ® 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the shed has existed here for many years, Page 11 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 3. That the request is not substantial given that the setback would be allowed if the shed was moved slightly back on the property so that it was within the rear yard, 4. That there will be no adverse physical or environmental affects, and 5. That the alleged difficulty was not self-created given that the shed was in place when the current owners purchased the property. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Appeal of Barbara Alden and Ellen Baer, owners/applicants, requesting Special Approval and variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270=57 B(6) " Accessory Buildings and Uses Authorized by Special Approval Only" , Section 270=220 " Building Floor Area" and Section 270=226 " More than One Building on a Lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to expand an existing apartment in a detached garaged located at 247 Dubois Rd , Tax Parcel No. 22.-2-1 .31 , Low Density Residential . The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance February 11 , 1987 to allow the partial use of the detached garage for an apartment. Barbara Alden and Ellen Baer came before the board . Ms . Alden referred to her application materials and explained that the request is for extending the existing apartment into the garage . The previous owner of the property received a variance to put in the apartment. She said that her tenant benefits by receiving increased living area . Chairperson Sigel asked if the garage has been for tenant or owner use . Ms . Alden responded that it has been for their use . Chairperson Sigel then asked if the apartment had been rented continuously over the years . Ms . Alden answered that she has lived there for three years and has had three or four tenants , but that the apartment had not been rented absolutely continuously. Chairperson Sigel confirmed that the use as an apartment had not lapsed for a year. Chairperson Sigel stated that he talked with Attorney Brock about the case several times over the day. He stated that if the garage space is eliminated , then the building ceases to be an accessory building ; it would become a second principal building on the lot. The Town does not permit two principal buildings on one lot. The building would not qualify as an accessory building . Page 12 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 Ms . Alden asked if the building would be accessory if she still used a portion of it for storage . Chairperson Sigel thought it was possible , but it would be an interpretation that the board would have to make . The building would still need to be an accessory use to the main dwelling on the property . He stated that he does not know of anything that states what percentage must be used for apartment or storage in order to make it an accessory building . Mr. Bates explained that he would determine the use of the structure by the biggest percentage of use of the building . If the property owner did not agree with his determination , then he or she could appeal the decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairperson Sigel noted that currently half the garage area is being used as an apartment , so with the expansion more than half of the building would be used as an apartment . Ms . Alden referred to Section 270-57 and said that she thought she was following that section . Chairperson Sigel explained that the problem is criteria number six; the second dwelling is located in a building that is accessory to the principle dwelling . Ms . Alden confirmed that all eight criteria would need to be satisfied . Chairperson Sigel explained that some of the criteria can be varied by an area variance , but if the Board determines that the building is not an accessory use to the principle dwelling then it no longer meets the criteria and would have to be dealt with under the use variance criteria . The use variance has more stringent criteria . He went on to say that if the building is no longer an accessory building , then the applicant is essentially asking for two principle dwelling units on one lot. Chairperson Sigel stated that Ms . Alden could apply for a use variance , but they are rarely granted because the criteria are difficult to meet. Mr. Bates read the Code 's definition of accessory building . Attorney Brock added that once the accessory building no longer serves the principle building , then it would not be considered accessory to the original house . Chairperson Sigel was not sure if having a storage area in the building accessible from the outside would make it an accessory building . Ms . Alden asked how that would be determined . Chairperson Sigel stated that the Board would have to make that determination . The Board would not make the determination at this time because it was not requested by the applicant and advertised . Chairperson Sigel added that the Board would also want to see a proposal from Ms . Alden . He went on to say that ironically, if Ms . Alden was expanding the building and clearly maintaining the garage use then she would possibly more easily fall within the requirements of Section 270-57 , Ms . Alden questioned that if she added a garage then it would allow the existing garage to be opened up as the apartment. Chairperson Sigel explained that if the garage functionality was maintained for Ms . Alden Is use , then she may meet the requirements . He clarified that the problem is that the garage use is being taken over by the apartment. Chairperson Sigel went on to say that Ms . Alden could request an adjournment and come back before the Board . Ms . Alden asked for a few more moments of the Board ' s Page 13 of 17 s • Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 time . She said that she had thought of a plan similar to the closet idea ; the area would be accessible from the outside . Mr. Bates explained that Ms . Alden would first need to submit her plans to him and he would have to rule on the submission . Once he made his determination , Ms . Alden could appeal to the Board if it were not in her favor. Ms . Alden then asked about expanding the building and maintaining the garage in some way. She wondered if it would require a variance or if it could be handled by the Code Enforcement Department. Mr. Bates responded that it would depend upon what Ms . Alden submitted . If the plan met all the zoning requirements , then she might not have to come back before the Board . Attorney Brock wondered if Ms . Alden would still need a Special Approval . Chairperson Sigel added that the accessory apartment is permitted by Special Approval so expanding the living area would require a Special Approval . Ms . Alden confirmed that she would have to come back before the Board if she chose to expand the building to create more square footage for the apartment. Chairperson Sigel explained that the requirements of Section 270-57 are in addition to the Special Approval requirements. Attorney Brock gave Ms . Alden an overview of the Special Approval requirements , Section 270-200 . She explained that Ms . Alden would have to meet all eight requirements of Section 270-57 and the Special Approval criteria of Section 270-200 , but it would be considered one request. Ms . Alden then requested to adjourn the appeal . Attorney Brock stated that there is a provision in the Code that states there can only be one principle building on a lot, but she has yet to determine if it would be a use or area variance . She was pretty sure that it would be a use variance , but would want to research it before hand . Ms . Alden stated that she would be more inclined to try for an area variance than a use variance . Chairperson Sigel asked if the Board should adjourn to research the issue and give feedback to the applicant. Attorney Brock agreed . Chairperson Sigel moved to adjourn the appeal at the request of the applicant. Mr. Niefer seconded . Vote—carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -012: Area Variance, Barbara Alden and Ellen Baer, 247 Dubois Rd, Tax Parcel No. 22. 44 . 31 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Niefer. RESOLVED, that at the request of the applicant, this Board adjourns the appeal of Barbara Allen and Ellen Baer until a later undetermined meeting so that legal counsel can research the issues further and provide feedback to the applicant. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Page 14 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Election of Vice -Chair ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -013: Nomination of Vice-Chair for 2011 MOTION made by Mr. Krantz, Seconded by Chairperson Sigel. Resolved, that this Board appoints Dave Mountin as Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2011 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Other Business Minutes Mr. Bates brought up that there has been some question about what is in the minutes and the final resolution . He asked the Board if they would like to review the minutes and vote on them . Currently Chairperson Sigel reviews the minutes after they are prepared and then signs them at the following meeting . Mr. Bates explained that he is going to start reviewing the minutes before they are given to Chairperson Sigel because there has been some questions of whether or not the minutes reflect what occurred at the meeting and if the minutes need more detail . He said at times the minutes do not reflect the exact discussion and sometimes things get lost in translation . He thought that this would be a way to make sure that everyone heard the same thing that was being discussed . Mr. Bates wanted to leave it up to the Board as to how they handled the minutes . Chairperson Sigel asked the Board if they would like to see the minutes for approval . He noted that the minutes could be mailed to them . Mr. Krantz expressed that he trusted Kirk' s judgment and did not need to review the minutes . Mr. Niefer asked if it was a formal requirement that boards review and approve minutes . Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Bates if he wanted to review the minutes before or after him . Mr. Bates stated that he would be reviewing them before they went to Kirk because there have been questions about what was said or what wasn't said or what was recorded . He went on to say that it has to do with needing information for Page 15 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 documentation and then there is nothing there . Mr. Bates asked if the meeting was still being recorded and Ms . Whitmore confirmed that it was . Mr. Bates then asked Attorney Brock if he could use an example and Attorney Brock suggested that he use a hypothetical situation . Mr. Bates gave the example of someone coming in for a variance , but he or she also needed a State variance . When this person went before the Review Board for the State variance , he gave different information than what he provided to the Town . The Town ' s minutes did not completely record the information completely; they just said that he was here and that there was discussion . The person was telling the State one thing and the Town another and Mr. Bates did not have anything to go back upon . Mr. Bates went on to say that he was not saying that Kirk was not capable ; it would just allow the opportunity for someone else to look at them . Mr. Mountin asked if the minutes are approved the following month . Chairperson Sigel explained that Ms . Whitmore sends him the minutes after the meeting . He skims through the minutes and reads through all the motions very carefully . He noted that there are usually very few changes . He then emails them back to Ms . Whitmore and she prints them for signing at the next meeting . Mr. Niefer did not want to read the minutes , but if there was a formality that required him to vote on the minutes then he would . Attorney Brock did not think that there was a requirement for the Board to approve the minutes . The law requires that minutes be taken and made available to the public within 2 weeks , but there is nothing in the Open Meetings Law that requires a Board to approve its minutes . Mr. Mountin asked Chairperson Sigel how he felt about the Board reviewing what he had already reviewed . Chairperson Sigel felt that it was a public document and the Board should be able to read them at any time . He was fine with Board members receiving them at the same time he received them or after he reviewed them . Mr. Mountin thought that reading the minutes would provide him with reminders of how motions are written and presented . Ms . Whitmore explained that the Planning Board approves its minutes . Copies of the minutes are mailed to them in their Board packets and then the minutes are voted upon at the meeting . Attorney Brock asked if any of the Board members would read the minutes if the Board were to start to approve them . Chairperson Sigel and Mr. Mountin responded yes ; Mr. King responded sometimes ; and Mr. Krantz and Mr. Niefer responded no . Mr. Bates asked the Board if they wanted to try it for a couple of meetings to see how it goes . Chairperson Sigel offered to forward the minutes to other Board members after he has reviewed them . It was decided that the minutes would be forwarded to Mr. King and Mr. Mountin for their review and comments . Mr. Niefer asked if it would be another step in someone' s work. Mr. Bates responded that it does , but it is no different than if Chairperson Sigel makes changes . Meeting Schedule Page 16 of 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 28, 2011 Mr. Bates noted that the agenda for the March meeting would be full , but with relatively non-complicated items . He was hoping to be able to cancel the April meeting . Adiournment Chairperson Sigel adjourned the February 28 , 2011 meeting at 8 : 51 p . m . 1 Kirk Sigel , Chairperson /Llao / iiG Carrie oatesVNhitmore , , Deputy Town Clerk Page 17 of 17 FILE DATE �3 a ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =008 Environmental Assessment Cornell University 111 Wing Dr Tax Parcel No. 67.=1 -13 . 2 February 28, 2011 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel , Seconded by Mr. Krantz . RESOLVED , that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in regards to the appeal of Verizon Wireless , requesting permission to be able to install 15 wireless telecommunication antennae and associated telecommunication facilities on the roof of Riley Robb Hall , Cornell University, based upon the information in Part I of the full environmental assessment form and for the reasons stated in Part II of the full environmental assessment form . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , 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 meeting on the 28th day of February , 2011 . Deputy Td; vn Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE L ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =009 Area Variance Cornell University 111 Wing Dr Tax Parcel No. 67 .-1 -13. 2 February 28, 2011 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel , Seconded by Mr. Niefer. RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Verizon Wireless , applicant, Cornell University, owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-59 " Height Limitations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install 15 wireless telecommunication antennas on the roof of Riley Robb Hall with an overall height of approximately 4 feet above the existing roof line , located at 111 Wing Drive , Tax Parcel No , 67 . - 1 - 13 . 2 , Low Density Residential Zone with the following : Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That based on the information presented by the applicant, that the benefit cannot be ® achieve by any other means feasible 2 . By keeping the modest visual impact as represented by the applicant' s visual simulation photos , that there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties , 3 . That the request is not substantial even though the overall height of the building and the antennae are well above what is allowed in the Town in this zone . The building is already much higher than allowed and the antennae will not stick up much above that, 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental affects , and 5 . That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the applicant needs to fill gaps in coverage and this is apparently the least impactful site that the applicant may have chosen . Condition : 1 . That the antennas not extend any higher above the existing roof line than 4 . 5 feet. - ZB Resolution No. 2011 -009 Page 2 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , 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 meeting on the 28th day of February, 2011 . Deputy Town 6I'erk Town of Ithaca • FILE DATE . ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -010 Adjournment of Area Variance Jonathan Russell=Anelli and Katherine McComas 1034 East Shore Dr Tax Parcel No. 19.=2=2 February 28, 2011 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel , Seconded by Mr. Krantz . RESOLVED , that this Board adjourns the appeal of Jonathan Russell -Anelli and Katherin McComas until the March 2011 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals so that further calculations can be made by the Building Department as to the lot coverage of the parcel and so that a public hearing notice can be advertised for such . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Ellsworth , Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , 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 meeting on the 28th day of February , 2011 . ,rT/lr Deputy Town-Clerk Town of Ithaca DATE L ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -011 Area Variance Ofer and Gilly Leshed 210 Muriel St Tax Parcel No. 70.-1 =8 February 28, 2011 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel , Seconded by Mr. Niefer. RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Ofer and Gilly Leshed , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-71 C and Section 270-71 E "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing shed located in the side yard setback on the north side of the property, located at 210 Muriel St , Tax Parcel No . 70 . - 1 -8 , Medium Density Residential Zone , based upon the following : Conditions : 1 . That the shed be no closer to the side lot line than 3 feet, and 2 . That the shed remain in its present location unless it is at some point moved to a legal location in the rear yard . Findings : 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 given that the applicant has indicated that they do not know if they could successfully move the shed without damaging it, 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the shed has existed here for many years , 3 . That the request is not substantial given that the setback would be allowed if the shed was moved slightly back on the property so that it was within the rear yard , 4 . That there will be no adverse physical or environmental affects , and 5 . That the alleged difficulty was not self-created given that the shed was in place when the current owners purchased the property . ZB Resolution No. 2011 -011 Page 2 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , 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 meeting on the 28th day of February, 2011 . ALI ja///// Deputy Town-Clerk Town of Ithaca i • FILE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =012 Area Variance Barbara Alden and Ellen Baer 247 Dubois Rd Tax Parcel No. 22.=1 =1 . 31 February 28 , 2011 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel , Seconded by Mr. Niefer. RESOLVED , that at the request of the applicant , this Board adjourns the appeal of Barbara Allen and Ellen Baer until a later undetermined meeting so that legal counsel can research the issues further and provide feedback to the applicant. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , 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 meeting on the 28th day of February , 2011 . Deputy Town Cl4rk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE 3 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =013 Nomination of Vice-Chair for 2011 February 28 , 2011 MOTION made by Mr. Krantz , Seconded by Chairperson Sigel . Resolved , that this Board appoints Dave Mountin as Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2011 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Ellsworth , Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , 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 meeting on the 28th day of February , 2011 . Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL S x RTE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) I, Carrie Coates Whitmore, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York. That on the 18`h day of February 2011 , deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers : 1134 East Shore Dr, Area Variance Marie Taylor Lian Shao Han Don Cho 1120 East Shore Dr Binhong Chen Alice Cho Ithaca, NY 14850 1111 East Shore Dr 310 Winthrop Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Risa Lieberwitz James Gardner Joseph Russo & Paula Winner 1137 East Shore Dr 407 W Seneca St 1113 East Shore Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Marilyn & James Hider Jason Sokoloff Pennsylvania Lines, LLC 60 Sw 2"d Ave 1126 East Shore Dr 110 Franklin Rd SE a Coral, FL 33914-7114 Ithaca, NY 14850 Roanoke, VA 24042-0028 Charles House Jonathan Russell-Anelli & Katherine McComas 1132 East Shore Dr 814 N Cayuga St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 210 Muriel St, Area Variance Norman & Rosemary Adelewitz Charles & Madalyn Alridge Stephen & Beryl Barr 134 Muriel St 211 Muriel St 517 Warren Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Bernard & Jessica Best Benedetto & Giuliana Campagnola Brian & Tracie Corbin 545 Warren Rd 1209 Hanshaw Rd 205 Muriel St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Erwei Dong & Hye-Ji Kim Marne Einarson & David Caldwell Charles Ewoh 401 Lakeview Dr 202 Muriel St 57 Stornway Dr Mobile, AL 36695 Ithaca, NY 14850 Jackson, TN 38305 Maria Fernandez Rina Fernandez Tanya Garger Simon Graeme Penny 304 Tareyton Dr 547 Warren Rd i6Tareyton Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 a, NY 14850 Francoise Gebhart Daniel Gurvich & Deborah Lifton Wesley Hochachka & Maiken Winter 214 Tareyton Dr 209 Muriel St 212 Tareyton Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ofer & Gilly Leshed Yanping Li & Yun Wang June Locke 210 Muriel St 918 Taylor St 215 Muriel St Ithaca, NY 14850 Albany, CA 94706 Ithaca, NY 14850 Rocco Lucente Stephen Lucente Sergey & Alla Lukina 120 Briarwood Dr 959 Dryden Rd 535 Warren Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 fin & Chengfu McNeal Gene & Martha Milliman E Kimball & Kay Milling 306 Muriel St 133 Muriel St 206 Muriel St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Rebecca Mitchell & Edith Mans Linda Mittel Manfred Mueller 213 Muriel St 539 Warren Rd 238 Line Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Malvern, PA 19355 Qfiavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 02/28/2011 Michael & Lois Ocello Bradford Ordway Michael & Nancy Pan 519 Warren Rd 304 Muriel St 302 Muriel St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Timothy Perry Anthony Petitti Ruth Pond 520 Warren Rd 204 Muriel St 529 Warren Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Joe & Carrie Regenstein Louis & Marilynn Reycroft Michael Ryan & Julie Glanville 301 Muriel St 541 Warren Rd 208 Muriel St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Barbara Sayles Richard Schmidt Elizabeth Ann Shumate 214 Muriel St 201 Muriel St 231 #3 Strawberry Hill Cir Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Roger & Cynthia Slothower Darry & Susan Sragow Mark & Sandy Studin 208 Tareyton Dr 1701 San Ysidro Dr 537 Warren Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Ithaca, NY 14850 Heather Swift William & Deborah Taylor Todd & Jill Vannelli 222 Tareyton Dr 216 Muriel St 110 Purchase St *a, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Milford, MA 01757 Gene & Jeannette Wilcox Dennis & Page Wille 302 Tareyton Dr 212 Muriel St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 247 Dubois Rd, Special Approval Edward & Gayleen Austen Donald & Marion Ball Richard & Jamie Churchill 255 Dubois Rd 134 Woolf Ln 244 Dubois Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Timothy & Julia Dietrich Timothy P & Leslie Dietrich Gust & Virginia Freeman 221 Dubois Rd 24 Thurston Ave 258 Dubois Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Wilmington, MA 01887 Ithaca, NY 14850 Stephen & Rachael Gardner Raymond & Eleanor Glauer Barbara Alden Guttridge & Ellen Baer 4106 Lowell Dr 217 Dubois Rd 247 Dubois Rd Baltimore, MD 21208 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Patricia Heslop Nancy Howland Lawrence & Ann Jordan 175 Woolf Ln 6 Evergreen Ln 238 Dubois Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 NKethevan George & Linda Kobas Bruce & Lingayen Rich 250 Dubois Rd 2 Evergreen Ln 253 Dubois Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Melissa Shames Antoinette Smith Anna Stalter 219 Dubois Rd 242 Dubois Rd 249 Dubois Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Nicholas & Joanne Sturgeon Town of Ithaca Paul Wu 240 Dubois Rd 215 N Tioga St 4 Evergreen Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 2 _davit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 02/28/2011 111 Wing Dr, Area Variance Calum Carmichael Cornell University Edwin Oyer Living Trust 109 McIntyre PI PO Box DH 117B McIntyre PI Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14853 Ithaca, NY 14850 Herbert & Ruth Mahr NYS Housing Finance Agency Abraham & Laure Stroock 103 Judd Falls Rd 107 Humphreys Service Bldg 115 McIntyre Pl Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14853 Ithaca, NY 14850 By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York. J11j4k) /I 1� Carrie Coates-Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca Sworn to before me this 18`h day of February 2011 . � r Notary PublicV., Debra DeAuglstine Notary Public - State o of Sew York H0, 01Quatified in Tompkins county My Commission Expires June 18, 20 qW 3 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , being duly sworn , say that I a Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT : PUBLIC HEARING TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday, February 28 , 2011 7 : 00 P . M . Date of Publication : Friday, February 18 , 2011 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Hall Lobby Public Notices Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : Wednesday, February 16 , 2011 Carrie Coates Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of February, 2011 atary Pub is Debra DeAugistine ti Notary Public - State of New Yok No. O1DE6148036 Qualified in Tompkins Courcy _ _ - My Commission Expires June 18, 20 Friday, February 18, 2011 The Ithaca Journal ! : I •' '- I TOWN OF ITHACA \" ZONING BOARD 18g8t5 �g0`. OF APPEALS ii I tions" and Section 270-208 NOTICE OF PUBLIC, I i6 'Dwellings on Noncon- HEARINGS ! forming Lots' of the Town k MONDAY, - I ' of Ithaca Code to be per- I FEBRUARY 28, 2011 mitted to construct a wrap 1, 215 North Tioga I 1 around deck . located at i Street, Ithaca 1134 East Shore Dr. Tax 1 7:00 P.M. Parcel) No. 19.-2-2, 1 Appeal of Verizon Wire- Lakefront Residential. I I less, applicant, Cornell Uni- Appeal of Ofer and Gilly versify, Owner, requesting Lashed, owners/applicants. I �a variance from the require- ! requesting Gariances from mentis. of Chapter 270, the requirements of Chap- Section , 270-59 'Height ter 270, Sections 270-71 C Limitations' of the Town of I i and 270-71 E 'Yard Regula- Ithaca Code to be permit. I tions' of the Town of Ithaca ted to install fifteen. (15) { Code to be permitted to !wireless maintain an existing shed telecommunications amen- located in the side yard set. nas on the roof of Riley I back on the north side of Robb Hall, with an overall I the property located at 210 !height of 4 feet above the ' Muriel St, Tax Parcel No: 1existing roofline, located at j 70.- 1 -8, Medium Density 111 Wing Drive, Tax Parcell Residential. NO. 67.- 1 . 13.2. Low Densi-t I Appeal. of Barbara Alden (ty Residential. 1 and Ellen Baer, A p p e a I of Jonathan ! 4 `Russell-Anelli and Kalher- owners/applicants, re- , f questing Special. Approval . ime McComas. owners/ ap-f I and variances from the re- iplicants, requesting varian- i quirements of Chapter 270, +ces from the requirements ( Section 270-57 B(6) 'Ac- of Chapter 270, Section cessory Buildings and Uses 270-46 C 'Yard Regula-� Authorized by Special Ap- proval Only*. Section 270- 220 'Building Floor Area' and Section 270-226 'More 1than One Building c a Lot' I of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to expand I an existing apartment in a l detached garaged located at 247 Dubois Rd, Tax Par- i 1 cel No. 22.-2-1 .31 , Lowj Density Residential. The'! Zoning Board of 'Appeals I granted a variance Febru- ary ) 1 . 1987 to allow the partial use of the detached garage for an apartment. Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs, upon request; re- i quests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings. f Bruce W. Bates I Director of Code Enforcement 607-273-1783 Dated: February 16, 2011 12/18/2011 { )hdv wat i to n'st': - sildu' voln,w ! 0 .OIS y4wo3 .nirtrfrr, . ,l• ni hrn*r fp, io �,,,,,,,� " :3i t3ftf3''w e��S;gic=l RCI2uft'tfrt+4� �r4,�