Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2012-02-27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday, February 27, 2012 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P. M . Appeal of Trish Schaap , owner, requesting special approval per the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-3013 "Accessory Buildings and Uses Authorized by Special Approval Only" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain a second dwelling unit in an accessory building on the property located at 181 Iradell Rd , Tax - - — - Parcel=-.No:=24:- 1 -2 , Agriculture District-. - Appeal of Richard and Janet Krizek, owners , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-60 "Yard Regulations" and Section 270-62C "Size and Area of Lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain a garage in the front yard , insufficient yard setbacks , and insufficient lot width at the setback line located at 128 and 134 Poole Rd , Tax Parcel Nos . 28 . - 1 -34 . 9 and 28 . - 1 -34 . 19 , Low Density .Residential . Appeal of Richard Furnas , owner requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter, 270 , Section 270-219 . 1 B ( 1 ) and Section 270-219 . 1 B (5) "Solar Collectors and ® Installations" and Chapter 270 , Section 270-71 "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct 2 pole mounted solar array panels in the front yard and within the front yard setback located at 111 Clover Ln , Tax Parcel No . 59 . -2- 13 , Medium Density Residential . Appeal of Walter and Joyce Wiggins , owners , Scott Wiggins , applicantlagent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 -6B(2) (b) and Section 221 -613(2) ( b) (3) " Regulated Signs" , Section 221 -7C (4) and Section 221 -7D(6) " Business and Industrial District Signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain two freestanding signs and three awning signs at 1150- 1154 Danby Rd , Tax Parcel No . 36 . - 1 -4 . 5 , Planned Development Zone 1 . 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 Director of Code Enforcement 607-273- 1783 Dated : February 15 , 2012 Published : February 17 , 2012 FILE DAT is Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Monday, February 27, 2012 7 : 00 p. m . Board Members Present: Kirk Sigel , Chairman ; Ron Krantz, Dave Mountin, and Rob Rosen Excused : Bill King . Staff Present: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. Others: Trish Schaap, Anthony Browne, Richard Krizek, Richard Furnas, Scott Wiggins, Gloria Howell , Regina Lennox, Barbara Goehner, Cort Bassett, Sarah Wilson, Liz O'Sullivan, Choda and Uri Possen, Rachel Possen, Joe Sliker, Rick, Donna and Matty Kuhar. Call to Order Called to order at 7 : 10 p . m . AA£e9 of Trish Schaap, owner, requesting special approval per the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270m3OB '"Accessory Buildings and Uses Authorized by Special Approval Only" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain a second dwelling unit in an accessory building on the property located at 181 Iradell Rd, Tax Parcel No. 24. 4- 2, Agriculture District. AJ Browne and Trish Schaap appeared before the Board . Chairperson Sigel recapped that the issue was discovered during the building permit process for a current project that does not require any variances . Mr. Browne added that special approval was originally required for the second dwelling unit, but the owner did not obtain it at that time . Chairperson Sigel solicited questions from the board . Mr. Mountin asked why special approval wasn 't obtained when the second dwelling unit was originally built. Ms. Schaap explained that the space was initially intended for her late husband, who was a writer. Unfortunately around the time when they intended to go for special approval before the board, he passed away suddenly and it fell off her radar screen . Chairperson Sigel asked if it was currently being used as an apartment. Ms. Schaap responded that it really wasn't. She has a friend staying there for a short period of time . Chairperson Sigel stated that it is a use that is allowed by the zoning ordinance, but requires special approval . He felt that the applicant did a good job of addressing all of the criteria . Attorney Brock clarified that the applicant addressed the general criteria that apply to all special approvals, but the zoning ordinance also has specific criteria that apply to second dwelling units ® in accessory buildings. She did not see those criteria addressed in the materials she had . The board will need to separately address those criteria as well . Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 Final Mr. Browne explained that at the time of application it wasn't clear that Ms . Schaap was seeking approval for a second dwelling ; he was under the impression that it was going to be considered an elder cottage . Mr. Bates stated that an elder cottage is based on a family member living there . An elder cottage is more restrictive than a second dwelling unit because once the relative moves, everything has to be removed from the elder cottage . Chairperson Sigel agreed that it would not be to the applicant's benefit to determine that the second dwelling unit is an elder cottage given the town 's definition . Mr. Browne explained that the main intention of use for the second dwelling unit is as a guest house . Ms . Schaap has family that lives abroad that stays for several weeks at a time . The second dwelling unit would accommodate them . Chairperson Sigel asked for the setback dimensions of the structure from the property line. Mr. Browne responded that it was hard for him to scale off the survey. He thought it was well beyond the setback requirements and added that it is a large piece of property. Chairperson Sigel agreed that it was a large parcel . Attorney Brock stated that a 40 foot setback was required for the side yard setback. Chairperson Sigel thought that the structure appeared to be well over 40 feet from the side lot line . Chairperson Sigel solicited further questions from the board . There being none, he opened the public hearing . PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 17 p . m . With no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing at 7 : 17 p . m . Chairperson Sigel stated that he agreed with the criteria given by the applicant in their application materials . SEQR Attorney Brock suggested changes to Part 1 of the environmental assessment form . Question 8 was changed to "yes". Question 11 was changed to "Yes, building permit". Attorney Brock suggested changes to Part 2 of the environmental assessment form . Question C2 : the word "variances" was changed to "special approval". Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the Part I environmental assessment form and for the reasons stated in the Part II environmental assessment form . Seconded by Ron Krantz. Vote carried unanimously. Page 2 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 ® Final ZB RESOLUTION 2012-010; Environmenta/Assessment Trish S ftM 181 Trade// Rd, Tax Parcel No. 24. -1 -Z Motion made by Kirk Sig% seconded by Ron Kranz Res .Alved that in regards to the appeal of Trish Schaap, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the Part I environmental assessment form and for the reasons stated in the Part II environmental assessment form. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and Rosen. NA YS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel asked about the floor area of the accessory unit compared to the floor area of the house. Mr. Browne thought that the accessory unit was approximately 25% of the floor area of the principle unit. Chairperson Sigel suggested that the board could find based on applicant testimony that it is under 50% subject to verification by the Code Enforcement ® Officer. Attorney Brock thought that the board could make verification a condition of approval . She explained that the size of the accessory unit could not exceed 50% of the floor area of the primary unit. Mr. Browne wondered if there was information in the building permit application that might indicate the floor area . Staff researched the square footage of the principle dwelling unit on the County website and found the living area to be 2,668 square feet. Chairperson Sigel stated that the requirement is for 50% of the floor area of the primary dwelling . Attorney Brock stated that the Code defines floor area as inclusive of all floors for the second dwelling unit so she thought the same would be done for the primary dwelling . Chairperson Sigel agreed . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Trish Schaap to be permitted to maintain a second dwelling unit in an accessory building at 181 Iradell Rd, Tax Parcel No . 24 . - 1 -2, with the condition that the accessory building is not enlarged, and finding that the criteria for special approval had been satisfied, specifically listing how each criterion was met. Seconded by Dave Mountin . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2012-011: Svecia/ Aavrova/, Trish Scha 181 Trade// Rd, Tax Parcel No. 24a ".1 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dave Mountin. Page 3 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 ® Final Resolved. that this board grants the appeal of Trish Schaap, owner, requesting special approval from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-30B 'Accessory Buildings and Uses Authorized by Special Approval Only" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain a second dwelling unit in an accessory building on the properly located at 181 Irade/l Rd, Tax Parcel No. 24. -1 -2, Agriculture District, based on the following: Findings: 1. The findings required under Section 270-30B to be as such that for subsection 1, all of the general criteria, that this board makes the findings as listed by the applicant in their application materials listed a-1, 2. That the location of the second dwelling and the building in which it is located does not adversely impact in any significant manner the adjoining neighbors given the large distance between the structure and the side lot line as well as the large size of the lot that it is on, 3. That the building containing such second dwelling unit is at least 40 feet from any side boundary and is not constructed in any required front yard, 4. That there is adequate off-street parking for the proposed number of occupants including occupants of both the principle building and the dwelling unit for which special approval is sought, ® 5. That the floor area of the second dwelling, inclusive of the floor area on all floors dedicated to such dwelling, does not exceed 50% of the floor area of the primary dwelling on the lot, 6. The second dwelling is located in a building that is accessory to the principle dwelling, 7. The building containing the primary dwelling does not contain more than one dwelling, and 8. There are no buildings on the lot containing dwellings other than the buildings containing the primary dwelling and the building for which special approval is sought. Condition: 1. That the building that the accessory dwelling is in not be enlarged without further approval from this board. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and Rosen. NA YS: None. Motion was carried unanimous/y. ABseal of Richard and Janet Krizek, owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-60 ""Yard Regulations" and Section 270= Page 4 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 Final 62C "Size and Area of Lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain a garage in the front yard, insufficient yard setbacks, and insufficient lot width at the setback line located at 128 and 134 Poole Rd, Tax Parcel Nos. 28 , 4= 34.9 and 28 .44 34. 19, Low Density Residential. Mr. Krizek appeared before the board . Chairperson Sigel stated that Mr. Krizek was looking to hold onto his garage . Mr. Krizek responded yes and explained that he stores special Olympic equipment in the garage. He wanted to keep the garage with his house and sell the apartment complex next door. Chairperson Sigel noted that the Planning Board granted subdivision approval . Attorney Brock clarified that the subdivision approval moved lot lines; it did not create additional lots . Mr. Bates stated that at the time the Planning Board reviewed the project, there was a lot of discussion regarding the garage setback. He explained that he made an error when looking at the width of lot at the setback. He looked at the 59 foot dimension and thought that they met the requirement because he was using the right-of-way as a road . Chairperson Sigel noted that lot width at the setback is required to be 150 feet and the width of the new lot is 129 feet. The only variance needed for parcel b is for lot width at the setback line . Parcel a needs side yard setback variances for the garage . Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Krizek if he considered keeping the garage with 134 Poole Road and building a garage for his own property. Mr. Krizek said that he has thought about that and it is still a possibility. He might have to come back in front of the board if someone wants to buy the property with the garage . Chairperson Sigel stated that when he drove by the property it struck him that the garage really does go with 134 Poole Road . Mr. Krizek explained that he has owned the properties for 30 years and no one has ever rented the garage . PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 41 p. m . and invited the public to address the board . With no one interested in speaking, he closed the public hearing at 7 : 41 p . m . SEQR Attorney Brock explained that environmental review was not needed for this appeal since it is a Type II action . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Richard and Janet Krizek to be permitted to maintain a garage in the front, insufficient yard setbacks and insufficient lot width and the setback line at 128 and 134 Poole Road, Tax Parcel Nos . 28 . - 1 -34 . 9 and 28 . - 1 -34. 19 with conditions on property width at the setback line, side yard setback of the garage, and no further construction within the setbacks of either property, and finding that all criteria of an area variance had been satisfied, specifically listing how each criterion as met. ® Seconded by Mr. Krantz. Vote—carried unanimously. Page 5 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 ® Final ZB RESOLUTION 2012-012; Area Variance, Richard and Janet Krizek, 128 and 134 Poole Rd, Tax Parcel Nos, 284 4 =34, 9 and 28, =1 -34. 19 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz Res /ve that this board grants the appeal of Richard and Janet Krizek, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-60 "Yard Regulations"and Section 270-62C "Size and Area of Lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain a garage in the front yard with insufficient yard setbacks and insufficient lot width at the setback line located at 128 and 134 Poole Rd, Tax Parcel Nos. 28. -l -34. 9 and 28. -1-34. 19, Low Density Residential Zone, with the following: Findings: That the benefit to the applicant outweighs 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 the applicants desire to sell his rental property, but maintain control of the garage, ® 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given the fact that this request involves no new construction or change to the physical nature of the lot, just a movement of a lot line, 3. That while the requested variance for the garage setback is substantial, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community, A That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects given that no new construction will occur, and 5. 777at while the alleged d/ffIculty is self-created, nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, Conditions: 1. That the width of the property at 134 Poole Rd at the required setback line be no less than 125 feet, 2. That the setback of the garage on the property at 128 Poole Road be no less than 5 feet, and 3. That no further construction take place within the required setbacks on either lot. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: ® A YES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and Rosen. NA YS: None. Page 6 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 ® Final Motion was carried unanimously. Appeal of Richard Furnas, owner requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter, 270, Section 270= 219 . 18( 1) and Section 270- 219 . 16(5) "Solar Collectors and Installations" and Chapter 270, Section 270=71 "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct 2 pole mounted solar array panels in the front yard and within the front yard setback located at 111 Clover Ln, Tax Parcel No. 59. - 243, Medium Density Residential, Richard Furnas and Joe Sliker, with Renovus Energy, appeared before the board . Chairperson Sigel directed the board's attention to the materials provided to the board at the beginning of the meeting . The board took a few moments to review the letters before them . Chairperson Sigel recapped that Mr. Furnas was proposing to install two solar arrays in his front yard, which would require variances for location and distance from the front lot line. He asked Mr. Furnas if he had anything he wanted to add other than what was submitted to the board . Mr. Furnas stated that it has been a dream of his for decades to be in a position to have solar panels . He firmly believes in them as an important part of the country's energy strategy . He recognized that currently the economics of solar panels can be marginal, but he is very interested in supporting efforts to have solar panels become something that is more realistic . Mr. Furnas was hopeful that the notions of aesthetics associated with them, positive or negative, can be shifted in the positive direction . Chairperson Sigel solicited questions and comments from the board . Mr. Krantz stated that it was straightforward . This was something that was beneficial to the whole nation and the whole world on one hand, but in the eyes of most of the neighbors an eye sore . He felt that that summed it all up and that there was nothing more to say except to decide which one was worse . Mr. Mountin asked Mr. Furnas if he had considered cutting down trees . Mr. Furnas responded that in the course of other work he had done on the house he also had tree work done that trimmed back one the trees. He did not believe, though, cutting down trees would allow for positioning in the side yard . Mr. Mountin asked if it was west/east access on the peak. Mr. Sliker replied that the roof faces east and west. He went on to say that even if they took out all the trees in the side yard there would not be enough room because it is so close . Renovus looked at all other possible locations on the property and did not find another location that would receive adequate sunlight. Chairperson Sigel expressed concern about the location of the arrays in the front yard . He said that given the size of the lot, the size of the panels, and the proximity to the street, it was hard for him to imagine granting approval for a similarly sized structure that was not a solar panel . He went on to say that solar panels have a very compelling benefit, but that aesthetics were a concern . It would seem that the panels would occlude a view of the house from the road . Page 7 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 ® Final Mr. Sliker responded that the panels would be at profile to the road ; they would not be facing the road . Chairperson Sigel agreed and stated that the panels would be facing south . He added that it would still be a substantial structure . Mr. Rosen agreed with Chairperson Sigel . He added that the board was not provided with a rendering of what the panels would look like from the street. He thought that the panels would be as big as the house given that they are 15' x 15' in size . Mr. Rosen stated that the installation of the panels would be a major visual impact. Chairperson Sigel added that the scale in relation to the house would be a substantial change . He then solicited further comment from the board . There were none. SEQR Attorney Brock stated that environmental review was not needed because it was construction or placement of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, satellite dishes, fences, barns, storage sheds or other buildings not changing land use or density. She thought that the solar panels would be an accessory structure; it doesn't change land use or density in terms of occupancy of persons. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 58 p . m . and invited the public to address the board . ® Uri Posen appeared before the board and stated that he was an economist and very much in favor of alternative energy sources . He read through the Town's regulations on solar collections and found it to be reasonable and quite progressive . The regulations permit collectors on the roof, sides of the house and in the back yard . These locations allow solar panels to be placed in an unobtrusive way and he would have no objections. Unfortunately, the proposal on the table does not comply with the Town's regulations and its implications were anything but subtle . Mr. Posen went on to say that the solar panels would become the focal point of the front yard and as far as he could tell they would be an eye sore, lower property values, and change the nature of the residential community enjoyed on Clover Lane . He stated that the proposal under consideration, if approved, would lead to a street resembling one in a commercial neighborhood . The solar panels would be what caught someone's eye walking or driving down the street. He said that he was not much of a deer person, but that he would rather see deer on the street than have to look at proposed panels 15' x 15'. Mr. Posen explained that 111 Clover Lane was the smallest house on the street and that the proposed panels were huge for such a small house . He said that Clover Lane, a quiet residential area, was one of the Town's secret jewels. It's a dead end street, uncommonly flat, and the home of a community of neighbors that have cooperated for the common good including banning together to successfully seek lighting and no parking signs for everyone's safety. Some neighbors have sought variances from the Zoning Board in the past for projects that add value to the property without impinging on the property value of others . It seemed to him that this proposal had been brought forward without any thought given to the sensitivity to Page 8 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 ® Final the neighbors . He respectfully requested that the Zoning Board carefully consider the neighbors' concerns regarding retaining property values and retaining the lovely residential nature of the street. Rick Kuhar appeared before the board and stated that he lives at the house directly across the street from Mr. Furnas . He has lived there for 12 years with his family. He stated that he was against the variance on the grounds that the installation of the solar panels will be an eye sore, extremely damaging to the aesthetics of the neighborhood and would be damaging to property values . Mr. Kuhar went on to thank the board for the opportunity to address his opposition to the proposal . He thought that it was important for the size and scope of the proposal to be considered . Mr. Kuhar stated that the solar panels would change the serene look and feel of the neighborhood to some sort of industrial look. He said that they would be obtrusive and completely out of character for the neighborhood and felt that they would stand out like a sore thumb . He noted while reviewing the environmental assessment that the inspector agreed that the proposed action could impact community and neighborhood character by being located in the ® front yard . Mr. Kuhar also read through the area variance criteria form completed by Mr. Furnas. He reviewed the findings in the application and offered arguments against the findings made . Mr. Kuhar stated that his family moved to this neighborhood for several reasons. The neighborhood was quiet and serene when they first moved into their house with trees, shrubbery, flowers, plenty of green spaces and room to play. They loved seeing the deer roaming around the neighborhood . It was a dead end street with little traffic and it was attractive to them because they had small children and pets. The neighbors were wonderful and they got to meet them even before they moved in . He felt that Mr. Furnas's proposal would substantially change that. Gloria Howell appeared before the board and stated that she has lived on Clover Lane for over 50 years . When they built their home in 1954, there were 23 children living on the street because everyone had a big family. Children were able to play sports in the road because it was a dead end . Ms . Howell felt that if she sold her home to someone with small children, the children would not be able to play on the street because the bottom of the 15 foot structure was only 4 feet and 7 inches from the ground . She was also concerned about the construction of the solar panels and thought it would be dangerous for young people . Ms . Howell asked the board to think of the neighborhood when making their decision . Matty Kuhar appeared before the board and expressed concern regarding the location of the solar panels in the front yard . She commented that she plays basketball with her younger ® brother in their front yard and she was worried about a loose ball hitting one of the solar panels . She said that her allowance would not cover damage that might be done to the panels. Page 9 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 ® Final With no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 10 p. m . Mr. Krantz said that if there is a drought, a water tank cannot be put in front yard . If there is a famine, livestock cannot be kept in the front yard . If there is a fuel shortage, an oil derrick cannot be put in the front yard . He was not sure if this was any different. The Town has laws and rules and he did not see where this was logical . Mr. Mountin thought the system was way too big for the size of his house . He has a system that is 4kw and with a house that was 3 times as large as Mr. Furnas's, Mr. Mountin also agreed with the neighbors that the large arrays would be a detriment to the environment and character of the neighborhood . He felt strongly that the size of the proposed arrays was ridiculous . Mr. Sliker explained that the proposed size does meet the usage . Mr. Rosen stated that he was hearing the neighbors . The project requires a variance and the neighbors do not want a variance, which said a lot to him . Attorney Brock clarified that Mr. Rosen needed to exercise his own judgment and that the area variance criteria do include things that the neighbors had been speaking about in terms of changes to neighborhood character and to nearby properties. She reiterated that he needed to make his own decision on that. Mr. Rosen agreed and stated that the neighbors were in close proximity and it was not as if the proposal was on a 30 acre lot. It was a small lot with the neighbors right on top of it and ® he thought that made a big difference. Chairperson Sigel agreed and thought that it was a good point. He said that anything you do on a small lot was much more likely to impact the neighbors . Chairperson Sigel went on to say that he was opposed to the variance and thought that the impact on the front yard was too large, too close to the street, and that the size of the panels was out of character. He thought that it may be the case given the lot size and the configuration of vegetation and such that there may not be a suitable location for solar panels. They might be able to work on the roof of the house or in the side yard, but was unsure . He did not think that there was a guaranteed right for every lot in the Town to be able to install solar panels in some location . In this case, the location identified was the most suitable, but was also the most unsuitable from the aesthetic viewpoint and the impact on the community . Chairperson Sigel stated that the applicant had two options . He could request an adjournment of the appeal if he wanted to come back with a different plan that was significantly different than the proposal before the board or the board could formally deny the variance . Mr. Furnas stated that he would like to adjourn his appeal . He felt as though there were some misunderstandings about how fragile the solar panels were. He realized the main issue was the size . Chairperson Sigel did not think that board members were considering the fragility of the solar panels as a factor. He said that the board was concerned with the size and location of the ® panels in the front yard . Page 10 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 Final Mr. Furnas stated that the size was a curious thing because it wasn't 15' x 15' x 15'. Chairperson Sigel argued that it presented a very large face and the nature of the beast was that not a lot of energy is collected if there's not a lot of surface area . Mr. Furnas stated that it might have been helpful to have simulations from various locations . Chairperson Sigel responded that the board was familiar with solar arrays and has seen them installed . They have a good idea of what they look like and can imagine what they would look like in the front yard . Chairperson Sigel moved to adjourn the appeal of Mr. Furnas per his request until such time that he requests to be put back on the agenda with a modified application . Mr. Krantz seconded . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2012-013: Adjournment Richard Furnas. 111 C/over Ln, Tax Pane/ No. 59. -2-13 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz Re ve that at the request of the applicant, this board adjourns the appeal of Richard Furnas, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 170, Section 270-219. 18(1) and ® Section 270-219. 18(5) "Solar Collectors and Installations/land Chapter 270, Section 270-71 "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct 2 pole mounted solar array panels in the front yard and within the front yard setback located at 111 Clover Ln, Tax Parcel No. 59. -2-13, Medium Density Residential, until such time as the applicant wishes to have it put back on the agenda with a modified plan. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES.• Sigel, Krantz, Mountie and Rosen. NA YS.• None. Motion was carried unanimously. ARReall of Walter and 3oyce Wiggins, owners, Scott Wiggins, applicant/ agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 2214B( 2)( b) and Section 221-6B( 2)(b)(3) " Regulated Signs", Section 221=7C(4) and Section 221- 7D(6) " Business and Industrial District Signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain two freestanding signs and three awning signs at 1150- 1154 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 36. 44. 5, Planned Development Zone 1 . Scott Wiggins appeared before the board as the Managing Director of La Tourelle Resort and Spa . He explained that there were two issues—one being the signs and the other the awnings . Mr. Wiggins stated that there were three awnings on the site—one on the front of John Thomas ® Steakhouse, one at the front entrance of La Tourelle Resort and Spa, and one at the front entrance of August Moon Spa . La Tourelle and August Moon Spa are in the same building, but Page 11 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 Fina/ have separate entrances . Once the awnings had letter put on them they became signs and he unknowingly had the awnings made with letters longer than permitted by Town Code . He explained that it was a directional issue for them because of the different businesses operating from the site . The request was to keep the awnings with the current lettering rather than have to replace the awnings with correct sized lettering . Chairperson Sigel asked the board if they had any questions regarding the awnings . He thought that they seemed minor and commented that they could not really be seen from the road . He agreed that they functioned as an interior informational service. Mr. Wiggins went on to explain that there were currently three signs on the property . He described the large concrete sign with gold lettering and two sign boxes sitting on concrete pillars, which do not have a sign permit. The two concrete pillars originally held a large lighted ball each . The light balls were replaced with signs some time in the past 8 to 10 years. He explained said that the signs were internally lit. Mr. Wiggins understood the issue to be that there were a total of three freestanding signs on the property and they only had a sign permit for one freestanding sign on the property. He added that the pillars were located within the required setback from the road . Chairperson Sigel confirmed that the nearest edge of the sign face to the road was approximately 121/2 feet instead of 15 feet. He said that variances would be needed for the ® insufficient distance as well as the fact that they were two additional signs where only one freestanding sign was allowed . Mr. Wiggins thought that the Code allowed two signs at the front entrance, but acknowledged that three were not permitted . Mr. Krantz asked Mr. Bates if only one sign was allowed for a site with multiple businesses. Mr. Bates explained that it was considered one property because it was all on the same tax parcel number. He added that they have on- premises signs on the property. Mr. Wiggins explained that the John Thomas Steakhouse has a small sign in front of it, which consists of its logo on a stake . La Tourelle has a small copper plaque on the front of the building . Mr. Wiggins recognized that there were a lot of functioning businesses on the site and thought that the signs were tasteful . He added that they've never had a complaint from neighbors or anyone else . Mr. Rosen thought that there was a complaint, which prompted the appearance before the board . Ms . Whitmore clarified that it was an internal complaint from Town staff; it was not a complaint from a neighbor. Attorney Brock explained that La Tourelle was the first Planned Development Zone, formally referred to as a Special Land Use District. The current PDZs have wording to allow more than sign . She went on to say that the Codes and Ordinances Committee would be revising the sign ordinance during 2012 . Page 12 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 Final ® Mr. Rosen thought that the number and size of signs on site was relatively small and tasteful given the number of businesses on site . Chairperson Sigel agreed and thought it seemed reasonable . Chairperson Sigel asked if the concrete La Tourelle sign would remain unlit. Mr. Wiggins responded that they disconnected the flood lights on the sign because they did not meet the Town's outdoor lighting law . He had not thought through whether or not lighting would be allowed on the sign . He was prepared to have no lighting on the sign, other than the fact that it was the largest sign and that it would be beneficial to the businesses at night. Mr. Wiggins would pursue with his Code Enforcement Officer any ,opportunities for lighting of the sign . Attorney Brock explained that that issue was that the light shown up and under the Town's lighting law, lights cannot do that. She said that it would be acceptable to have a downward facing light mounted on the top of the sign . Mr. Rosen thought that it would be a benefit to the public to have the sign lit because it was a safety hazard at night to have the sign dark. Chairperson Sigel agreed . PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened at 8 : 32 p . m . and invited the public to address the board . There being no one, he closed the public hearing at 8 : 32 p . m . SEQR Chairperson Sigel asked if the action was exempt under SEQR. Attorney Brock reviewed the SEQR regulations and determined that the board needed to make an environmental determination . Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the Part I environmental assessment form and for the reasons stated in the Part II environmental assessment form . Mr. Mountin seconded . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUMN 2012-014; Environmental Assessment Walter Wigains, 1150-1154 Danby Rd. Tax Parcel No. 36. -1 -4,5 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dave Mountin. R e in regards to the appeal of Walter Wiggins, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the Part I environmental assessment form and for the reasons stated in the Part II environmental assessment form. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and Rosen. ® NA Me None. Page 13 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 Final ® Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Walter Wiggins requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221-6B(2) (b) and Section 221-6B(2) (b)(3) " Regulated Signs", Section 221-7C(4) and Section 221 -7D(6) " Business and Industrial District Signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain two freestanding signs and three awnings at 1150- 1154 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No . 36 . - 1-4 . 5 with conditions on setbacks of the freestanding signs, modifications to all signs, and compliance with the outdoor lighting law, and finding that all criteria of an area variance had been satisfied, specifically listing how each criterion was met. Mr. Mountin seconded . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2012-015; Sign Variance, Walter H66gg ns, 1150-1154 Danby Rd, Tax Parce/ No, 3&, 1 -4,5 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dave Mountin. Res / ethat this board grants the appeal of Walter Wiggins, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221 -0(2)(b) and Section 221 -68(2)(b)(3) "Regulated Signed" Section 221 -7C(4) and Section 221 -70(6) "Business and Industrial District Signs" of the Town oflthaca Code to be permitted to maintain two free standing signs and three awning signs at 1150-1154 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 36. -1 -4. 5, Planned Development Zone 1, based upon the following: Findings: That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically.• 1. That while the benefit to the applicant, which is labeling their business may be achieved by other means feasible which would involve fewer signs, that the signs that they have already installed are reasonable and in keeping with the neighborhood and do benefit the applicant more than any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the signs have existed for many years and that they are not large signs, 3. That while the request is substantial, being for three freestanding signs where only one is allowed, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment, to the health, safety and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects given that no new construction is involved, and ® 5. That while the alleged difficulty was self-created, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Page 14 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 Final Conditions: 1. That the two freestanding signs be no less than 12 feet from the pavement, 2. That for all signs, no modifications be made that would be more out of compliance than what the signs are currently, and 3. That all three freestanding signs maybe lit in compliance with the Town s Outdoor Lighting Law. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Kranz, Mountin and Rosen. NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Agenda Item—Cancellation of March 2012 meeting Mr. Bates reported that there were no applications for the board to consider at the March 19, 2012 meeting . Chairperson Sigel moved to cancel the March 19, 2012 meeting . Mr. Rosen seconded . Vote— carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION Na 2012-016: Cance//ation of March fR 2012 meeting Motion made by Kirk Sig% Seconded by Rob Rosen. Resolved, that this board cancels its March 19, 2012 meeting due to there being no applications for appearance before the board. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and Rosen. NA Y5,# None. Motion was carried unanimously. Agenda Item—Appointment of 2012 Vice Chairperson Chairperson Sigel moved to Ks moved to appoint Dave Mountin as vice chair. Mr. Rosen seconded . Vote—carried . ZB RESOLUTION 2012-017; Nomination of Vice-Chair for 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Rob Rosen, Page 15 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 27, 2012 Final ® Resolved, that this Board appoints Dave Mountin as Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2012. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Krantz, and Rosen. NA YS.ff None. ABSTAIN: Mountin Motion was carried. Other Business Mr. Bates announced that the NYS Planning Federation Conference was being held in April 2012 in Saratoga Springs. He was planning to attend and asked if any board member was interested in going . Any interested member should contact Ms . Whitmore by March 5th Mr. Mountin asked for an update on the number of training hours he has. Adjournment With no further business, Chairperson Sigel adjourned the February 27, 2012 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 8 : 47 p . m . Kirk` Sigel, Chair rson � �t I�L �Ubd V ,e: Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk Page 16 of 16 ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOAR ® OF APPEALS SI&WIN SHEET BATE : February 27 , 2012 (PL EASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) - -- . PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTA1) ORES SIA FFILIATION oolu C ssE ri c, OA scwco\ w ,�Sc � G , tcCZ 4 Llt 0 •J � � V � V� C . S UCLA- J`r . -may 14 �e S s r� c e LJ J �' LA-iJe7 C�� 1 � � 5 S � t• � ( ( C_�, o '�' �,Z LA- vNiC i 1� h os er Dover L c, V� 22 k C c w ^ r) F ! L E DATE _s��-- ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012=010 Environmental Assessment Trish Schaap 181 Iradell Rd Tax Parcel No. 24.-1 =2 February 27, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz. Resolved , that in regards to the appeal of Trish Schaap , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the Part I environmental assessment form and for the reasons stated - in -the- Part- II- - - - - environmental assessment form . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Mountin and Rosen . 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 27th day of February 2012 . 0 Deputy Tow; r`t Jerk Town of Ithaca F ! LE DATE ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-011 Special Approval Trish Schaap 181 Iradell Rd Tax Parcel No. 24.-1 =2 February 27, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Dave Mountin . Resolved , that this board grants the appeal of Trish Schaap , owner, requesting special approval from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-306 "Accessory Buildings - and-Uses Authorized by Special Approval Only"-of the Town-of-Ithaca- Code-to be -- permitted to maintain a second dwelling unit in an accessory building on the property located at 181 Iradell Rd , Tax Parcel No , 24 . - 1 -2 , Agriculture District, based on the following : Findings : 1 . The findings required under Section 270-30B to be as such that for subsection 1 , all of the general criteria , that this board makes the findings as listed by the applicant in their application materials listed awl , ® 2 . That the location of the second dwelling and the building in which it is located does not adversely impact in any significant manner the adjoining neighbors given the large distance between the structure and the side lot line as well as the large size of the lot that it is on , 3 . That the building containing such second dwelling unit is at least 40 feet from any side boundary and is not constructed in any required front yard , 4 . That there is adequate off-street parking for the proposed number of occupants including occupants of both the principle building and the dwelling unit for which special approval is sought, 5 . That the floor area of the second dwelling , inclusive of the floor area on all floors dedicated to such dwelling , does not exceed 50% of the floor area of the primary dwelling on the lot, 6 . The second dwelling is located in a building that is accessory to the principle dwelling , 7 . The building containing the primary dwelling does not contain more than one dwelling , and 8 . There are no buildings on the lot containing dwellings other than the buildings containing the primary dwelling and the building for which special approval is sought. ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2012-011 Page 2 of 2 Condition : 1 . That the building that the accessory dwelling is in not be enlarged without further approval from this board . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Mountin and Rosen . NAYS : None . -- - ---Motion- was-car-rled 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 AMIL Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 27th day of February 2012 . Deputy Town Jerk Town of Ithaca F ! LE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-012 DATE Area Variance Richard and Janet Krizek 128 and 134 Poole Rd Tax Parcel Nos. 28 .-1 -34.9 and 28.-1 -34. 19 February 27, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . Resolved , that this board grants the appeal of Richard and Janet Krizek, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-60 "Yard Regulations" - - and-Section--270-62C-"Size and-Area of Lot" of the Town of Ithaca- Cod e4o=be-permitted - — - to maintain a garage in the front yard with insufficient yard setbacks and insufficient lot width at the setback line located at 128 and 134 Poole Rd , Tax Parcel Nos . 28 . - 1 -34. 9 and 28 . - 1 -34. 19 , Low Density Residential Zone , with the following : Findings : That the benefit to the applicant outweighs 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 the applicant's desire to sell his rental property, but maintain control of the garage , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given the fact that this request involves no new construction or change to the physical nature of the lot, just a movement of a lot line , 3 . That while the requested variance for the garage setback is substantial , nevertheless , the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community, 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects given that no new construction will occur, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community. Conditions: 1 . That the width of the property at 134 Poole Rd at the required setback line be no less than 125 feet, ZB RESOLUTION NO , 2012-012 Page 2 of 2 2 . That the setback of the garage on the property at 128 Poole Road be no less than 5 feet, and 3 . That no further construction take place within the required setbacks on either lot. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Mountin and Rosen . 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 27th day of February 2012 . Deputy To Clerk Town of Ithaca l FILE D i1T E ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-013 Adjournment Richard Furnas 111 Clover Ln Tax Parcel No. 59.=2-13 February 27, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . Resolved , that at the request of the applicant, this board adjourns the appeal of Richard Furnas , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270- - - 21-9:1 B( 1 ) and Section=270-219 .-1-6 (5) - "Solar.- Collectors - and- Installations" =and-Chapter 270 , Section 270-71 "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct 2 pole mounted solar array panels in the front yard and within the front yard setback located at 111 Clover Ln , Tax Parcel No . 59 . -2- 13 , Medium Density Residential , until such time as the applicant wishes to have it put back on the agenda with a modified plan . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Mountin and Rosen . 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 27th day of February 2012 . A Deputy Tow - lerk Town of Ithaca FILE L DFS.FE ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012=014 Environmental Assessment Walter Wiggins 11 50=1 154 Danby Rd Tax Parcel No. 36.-1 -4. 5 February 27, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Dave Mountin . Resolved , in regards to the appeal of Walter Wiggins , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the Part I y - - — - -environr-nental-assessment form and for-the-reasons-stated an-the-Pa4# environrnental — - assessment form . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Mountin and Rosen . 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 27th day of February 2012 . /2. Deputy To Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE GATE ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012=015 Sign Variance Walter Wiggins 1150-1154 Danby Rd Tax Parcel No. 36 .=1 -4. 5 February 27, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Dave Mountin . Resolved , that this board grants the appeal of Walter Wiggins , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 -6B (2) ( b) and Section 221 - - -- - — 13(2)(b}(3)"Regulated Signe - eetion-22a -7C (4).and -Section-221-�7D(6) "Business =�and Industrial District Signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain two free standing signs and three awning signs at 1150- 1154 Danby Rd , Tax Parcel No . 36 . - 1 -4 . 5 , Planned Development Zone 1 , based upon the following : Findings : That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That while the benefit to the applicant, which is labeling their business may be achieved by other means feasible which would involve fewer signs , that the signs that they have already installed are reasonable and in keeping with the neighborhood and do benefit the applicant more than any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the signs have existed for many years and that they are not large signs , 3 . That while the request is substantial , being for three freestanding signs where only one is allowed , that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects given that no new construction is involved , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty was self-created , that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community . Conditions: ® 1 . That the two freestanding signs be no less than 12 feet from the pavement, ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2012-015 Page 2 of 2 ® 2 . That for all signs , no modifications be made that would be more out of compliance than what the signs are currently, and 3 . That all three freestanding signs may be lit in compliance with the Town ' s Outdoor Lighting Law. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Mountin and Rosen . 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 27th day of February 2012 . Deputy To n- Jerk Town of Ithaca FILE `J DATE ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2012=016 Cancellation of March 19, 2012 meeting February 27, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Rob Rosen . Resolved , that this board cancels its March 19 , 2012 meeting due to there being no applications for appearance before the board . - --A-vote - on the motion-resulted -as--follows : - -- - _ � - - - - - AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Mountin and Rosen . 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 27th day of February 2012 . Deputy Town- Jerk Town of Ithaca F111 kTL ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-017 Nomination of Vice-Chair for 2012 February 27 , 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Rob Rosen . Resolved , that this Board appoints Dave Mountin as Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2012 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , and Rosen . NAYS : None . ABSTAIN : Mountin Motion was carried . 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 27th day of February 2012 . Deputy Towf Jerk Town of Ithaca ♦ i AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL S OF NEW YORK ) SS . : CO Y 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 17`'' day of February 2012, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers : *** 181 Iradell Rd BOODLEY, NANCY K OAKES, BRETT SCHAAP, RICHARD 8 LOWELL PL 199 IRADELL RD SCHAAP, TRISH ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 20 WEST 86TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10024 BOWERS, HAROLD C MIGNOT, LORI O HEISE, ALICE KARMA BOWERS, SOLENA 165 IRADELL RD CUDDEBACK, KEVIN JOHN 163 IRADELL RD ITHACA, NY 14850 145 IRADELL RD ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ***111 Clover Ln CORTLAND BASSETT BLACK OAK LN HOMEOWNERS ANNE CARSON 10JI& OVER LN 511 W SENECA ST 811 MITCHELL ST ITA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 CITY OF ITHACA CORNELL UNVERSITY LOUISE FURNAS 108 E GREEN ST PO BOX DH 113 CLOVER LN ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 RICHARD FURNAS JAMES HOGG GLORIA HOWELL. 111 CLOVER LN 921 MITCHELL ST 120 CLOVER LN ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT LAURIE JOHNSTON CAROL KALAFATIC 400 LAKE ST 119 CLOVER LN 815 MITCHELL ST ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 RICHARD KUHAR ETHEL LONGEST HAROLD MIX 108 CLOVER LN 401 E STATE ST, SUITE 500 690 RINGWOOD RD ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 RUTH MORGAN CHARLES PETTIT URI POSSEN 114 CLOVER LN 3677 BATES RD 117 CLOVER LN ITHACA, NY 14850 MEDINA, NY 14103 ITHACA, NY 14850 EDNA RINKCAS JAMIE RUBENSTEIN PAUL RUBIN 110 CLOVER LN 806 MITCHELL ST PO BOX 313 ITWA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14852 Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 3 Meeting of February 27, 2012 JOHN RUDDEN WARREN SCHLESINGER DAVID SHAPIRO 817 MITCHELL ST 981 DANBY RD 807 MITCHELL ST ITA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 KA SHIPMAN 116 CLOVER LN ITHACA, NY 14850 ***1150-1154 Danby Rd BESSOU, KAETHE WIGGINS, WALTER J BARNES, BYRON BESSOU, NATHALIE WIGGINS, JOYCE BARNES , AMY 1391 ELLIS HOLLOW RD 308 N TIOGA ST 33 FRUI PLACE ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 VALLEJO, CA 94590 HENDRICKSON, DAVID DERRAUGH, DOUGLAS ,LONGPATRICIA A HI HENDRICKSON, DORIS DERRAUGH, LOUISE 1143 DANBY RD 6 SCCKEL RD SHA E D 1L RD ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA,4 LONG, HAO, YUE EZERGAILIS , ANDREW GUAN, HONGWEI EZERGAELIS , INTA KRATIL, EDWARD W 1151 DANNY RD 2 SCHICKEL RD 1157 DANBY RD ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14851) 2*VIEW PARTNERS , LLC YENGO, LILLIAN JANE HALLADY, LESLIE A UTTERMILK LN 1147 DANNY RD KOUTSOURELAKIS, PHAEDON S ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 101 LARISA LN ITHACA, NY 14850 LEONARDO, CLARA MAYU, CLARENCE N NAMGYAL MONASTERY INST 1134 DANBY RD MAYU, TERRIE 412 ITHACA, NY 14850 103 SESAME ST N AURORA ST IT ITHACA, NY 14850 ITHACA, NY 14850 r '0 Carie Coates Wht more, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca Sworpeto before me this 17'hday of February 2012. NotaryPublic = /� DEBORAWKELLEY wary No .-.01,KE6025073ot New York' Qualified in Schuyler ujousty t �= Commission Exp Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 3 Meeting of February 27, 2012 ® 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 27 , 2012 7 : 00 P . M . Date of Publication : Friday, February 17 , 2012 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 15 , 2012 6W ( L'�a n Carrie Coats Wf-itmore Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 17th day of February 2012 . 4 NotaryPublic _ DEBORAH KELLEY INo'ary Public, State- of=New.-yb k No . 01 KE6025073 - Oualified in Schuyler -,Cou'nty' I ® Oommission Expires May, 17;' 20 .L theithacajournal.com I Friday, February 17, 2012 Legals TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC 1 HEARINGS . } , Monday, 1 February 27; 2012 215 North Tioga Street,dthaca I 7:00 P.M. ' , Appeal of Trish Schaap„I ;owner, requesting special ` approval per the , require- ments of Chapter 270, Section 270-30B 'Accesso- ry Buildings, and, Uses Au- I thorized by Special Appro-: val Only' of the Town of Ithaca Code to be "permit- ` ted to maintain a second dwelling unit in an accesso-. ry building on the 'property located at 181 Iradell Rd, Tax Parcel No. 24.4 -2; Ag- i l riculture District. IAppeal of Richard and Ja- net Krizek, owners, re- questing variances from the requirements . of.' "Chapter ., 270, Section" 270-60 'Yard i Regulations" and Section 270-62C 'Size and Area of Lot' of the Town of Ithaca 1 Code to be permitted to maintain a .garage in the front yard, insufficient yard i setbacks, and insufficient lot width at the setback line , located at 128 and 134 . Poole Rd, Tax Parcel Nos. 28.-1 -34.9 and 28.-1 -34. 19, r Low Density Residential. Appeal of Richard Fumas, owner requesting variances from the requirements of i 1 Chapter, 270, Section 270- 219. 1130 ) and Section 270-219. 1133). 'Solar Col- lectors and Installations' and Chapter 270, Section 270-71 'Yard Regulations" I of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to con- struct 2 pole mounted solar t array panels in the front ' ' yard and within the front , lyard setback located at 1 1 11 Clover Ln,. Tax Parcel 1 No. 59.-2- 13, Medium Den- , sity Residential.. - ( Appeal ” of Waller and ! Joyce Wiggins, owners, i Scott Wiggins, applicant/ 4 = agent, requesting variances i from the requirements of I Chapter 221 , Section 221 - - 6B(2)(b) and Section 221 - . 6B(2)(b)(3) 'Regulated ' Signs*, Section 221 -7C(4) , :and Section 221 -7D(6) ' "Business and Industrial =;District Signs" of the Town .; hof Ithaca Code to be per.,j �mitted to maintain two free- f standing signs Land three I }awning signs at 1150- 1. 154 , Denby Rd: Tax Parcel No. - .� 36.-1 -4.5, -Planned Devel- opment Zone 1 . - tt Assistance will be provided for individuals with special JI needs, upon request. Re= quests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings. Bruce W. Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273- 1783 Dated: February 15, 2012 2/17/2012