Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2012-05-21 FILE l DATEa ® Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Monday, May 21, 2012 7 : 00 p. m . Board Members Present: Kirk Sigel, Chairman; Ron Krantz, Bill King, Rob Rosen, Dave Mountin, Andrew Dixon, alternate ; Yvonne Fogarty, alternate . Staff Present: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town ; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk, Others: Steve Dayton, Gennady Yashchenko, Robin Masson, Evan Monkemeyer. Call to Order Called to order at 7 : 06 p . m . Appeal of Ithaca College, owner, Rick Couture, applicant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221=4A(7) " Prohibited Signs", Sections 221 =6A( 1) and 221=6A( 2) " Regulated Signs", and Sections 221=8A( 2), 221-8A(6), and 221 -8BCDE "Sign Illumination" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install a new scoreboard at Carp Wood Field, located on the Ithaca College Campus, 130 Flora Brown Dr, Tax Parcel No. 41. 4 -30. 2, Medium Density Residential , Steve Dayton appeared before the Board and explained that the college would like to replace the existing scoreboard with a new one . It is similar to the other new scoreboards on campus . The sign has LED lighting and is much larger than the existing sign . It is located in the corner of Carp Wood Field . The existing sign , is outdated and very small for the soccer field . The proposed sign is approximately 174 square feet. Chairperson Sigel stated that he had a question about the ad space. He thought that on past Ithaca College scoreboards that there was proposed ad space, which then was removed by the Planning Board, possibly. Mr. Dayton recalled an issue with the football field scoreboard, but did not remember what happened with the sign . Chairperson Sigel asked Attorney Brock or Mr. Bates if they remember. He asked if there was any discussion about it at the Planning Board . Mr. Bates did not remember any discussion about ad space on the existing sign, but in the past the college has withdrawn the ad space request. Chairperson Sigel thought that is what happened and recalled the Planning Board having objections to the ad space on the previous scoreboard . He thought the college willingly withdrew the proposed ad space . Chairperson Sigel went on to explain that ad space on the scoreboard would make it an off-premise sign, which is not an allowed use in the town . Mr. Dayton said that he has never noticed it on previous scoreboards. He knew that Kostrinsky Field showed approximately the same layout and nothing ever happened with that one. He ® thought that may be the one Chairperson Sigel was thinking about. Mr. Dayton believed the layout of the Kostrinsky Field scoreboard showed ad space and nothing was ever put up there. 0 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 ® Final Chairperson Sigel asked Attorney Brock is she thought an off-premise sign would require a use variance . Attorney Brock responded no; it would be the same type of variances that are granted for the other issues with the proposed scoreboard . She did not think allowance of off- premise signage was advertised in the public hearing notice . Chairperson Sigel confirmed that none of the sections in the advertisement dealt with off- premise signs. He went on to say that the board has determined in the past that advertising a business that does not exist on the parcel is off-premise signage . He said that since it was not included in the public hearing notice, the board would not be able to consider the ad space on the scoreboard . Mr. Dayton could choose to eliminate it from the design or come back for another appearance . Mr. Dayton stated that the ad space could be eliminated at this point. Chairperson Sigel recalled the previous scoreboard had donor name space and the board determined that that would not make it an off-premise sign since it was not advertising a separate business. Mr. Dayton agreed . Chairperson Sigel solicited questions and comments from the board . There were none . Chairperson Sigel noted that the scoreboard is well -screened from the neighboring properties and did not think it could be seen from the road . Mr. Dayton commented that he visited the site earlier in the day and noted that it couldn't be seen from other houses. SEQR Attorney Brock confirmed that SEQR was needed . Chairperson Sigel commented that Part II was filled out straightforwardly. He asked Attorney Brock if she had any additions or modifications. Attorney Brock stated that the Part I form was missing some information . Question 6 asks for amount of land affected and it was left blank. She thought it would be less than . 10 acres and board and Mr. Dayton agreed . Part I was modified to read < . 10 acres for each time period under question 6 . Attorney Brock stated that question 12 was not answered and thought " no" should be marked . Board agreed and " no" was checked . Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in Part I and the reasons stated in Part II of the environmental assessment form . Mr. Krantz seconded . Motion carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2012-021: Env/ronmenta/ Assessment S/an Variance, Ithaca C LW& 130 Flora Brown Dr. Tax Parcel No. 41, -1 -30,2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Ron Krantz RESOL VED, that in the appeal of Ithaca College, this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the environmental assessment form Part I and for the reasons stated in Part 11 Page 2 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin, King and Rosen. NA Y5: None. Motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing and invited the public to address the board . There being no one interested in speaking, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Ithaca College to be permitted to install a new scoreboard at Carp Wood Field located at 130 Flora Brown Dr with the conditions that the scoreboard be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted to the board, but with the modification that there be no ad space or off-premise signage, and finding that all requirements for a sign variance had been satisfied, specifically listing how each criterion was met. Mr. Krantz seconded . Motion carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2012-022; S/gn Variance, Ithaca C &g& 130 Flom Brown Dr, Tax Parte/ No. 41. -1-30,2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Ron Krantz RESOL VED, that this board grants the appeal of Ithaca College, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221 -4A(7) "Prohibited Signs ; Sections 221 -6A(1) and 221 -6A(2) "Regulated Signs ; and Sections 221-8A(2), 221 -8A(6), and 22188CDE "Sign Illumination " of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install a new scoreboard at Carp . Wood Field, located on the Ithaca College Campus, 130 Flora Brown Dr, Tax Parcel No. 41. -1- 30. 2, Medium Density Residential, with the following: Conditions: 1. That the scoreboard be built as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant with the exception that there be no advertising space on the sign other than indication of college name and donor name, and 2. That there be no off-premise business advertising. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. That while the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, which is that of replacing the scoreboard, could probably be done with a smaller scoreboard, nevertheless what the Page 3 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21 , 2012 Final applicant has proposed is reasonable and is not visible from neighboring properties or public roads, Z. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties for the same reasons, 3. That while the request is substantial, nevertheless, the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, 4. There will be no physical or environmental effects, and S. That while the alleged dl>fculty is self-created, that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the healthy, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin, King and Rosen. NA YS.• None. Motion was carried unanimously. ApRea1 of Richard Durst, owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=34B and Section 270=34C "Size and Area of Lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to change the orientation of the lot from Vera Circle to Max's Drive located at Vera Circle, Tax Parcel No. 28.= 1-3 .62, Agricultural District. Robin Masson appeared before the board on behalf of Mr. Durst. Chairperson Sigel stated that Mr. Durst was a good friend of his and he recused himself from the appeal . He appointed Andrew Dixon to vote on the appeal . Mr. Mountin took over as chair for the appeal and asked Ms. Masson to briefly describe the appeal . Ms . Masson explained that the lot was a big lot. It fronts on Vera Circle, but shortly after the road there is a huge gorge. A substantial bridge would need to be built over the gorge in order to build on the lot with Vera Circle as the access point. The bridge would have to be large enough to support emergency service vehicles; this would be prohibitively expensive . She went on to say that many years ago there was subdivision approval granted to annex a 40- foot wide strip to this lot for access from Max's Drive . The subdivision was approved four owners prior to the current owner of the property. The current owner is selling the property and the potential buyers were advised by their attorney to condition the contract on receiving certification from Mr. Bates that it was a buildable lot. When Mr. Bates was asked for that certification, Pandora's box was opened and they realized that simply granting of the ® subdivision approval was not sufficient and a variance was needed because there is only 40 feet Page 4 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 ® Final of frontage on Max's Drive where 60 feet's required . The request entails changing the orientation of the lot from Vera Circle to Max's Drive . Ms. Masson said that the lot is located in a residential neighborhood and that there should be no adverse impact. She described the proposed action as cleaning up details that should have been taken care of years ago . Mr. Mountin thought that the appeal seemed straightforward . He read the information in the packet and commented that the board is looking at variances for lot width at the street and lot width at the front yard setback. Mr. Bates explained that the main reason for the request was so that the owner did not have to build a bridge to cross the gorge . The variance would allow the lot to be oriented to Max's Drive, which would permit Mr. Bates to assign the property a 911 address of Max's Drive . Mr. Mountin stated that he visited the site and it was located at the end of a dead end road . He commented that it was a wooded area and that he did not have any questions. Mr. Krantz agreed and stated that it was utterly reasonable. Mr. Mountin asked Mr. Bates if he had any other concerns . Mr. Bates did not. The board did not have any questions . PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Mountin opened the public hearing and invited the public to address the board . There being no one interested in speaking, he closed the public hearing . Mr. Bates recommended that the board include a condition that no further subdivision of the parcel is allowed without approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. He thought that would prevent the property from being subdivided and someone building a bridge over the gorge for access from Vera Circle, The Board agreed . Ms . Fogarty asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals determines the 911 address . Mr. Bates explained that authorization to assign 911 addressing was given to the Director of Code Enforcement by the Town Board . The County has established the criteria by which to assign addresses. Ms . Fogarty confirmed that Mr. Bates would change the address once the board granted the appeal . Mr. Mountin moved to grant the appeal of Richard Durst to be permitted to change the orientation of the lot from Vera Circle to Max's Drive located at Vera Circle, Tax Parcel No . 28 .- 1-3 . 62, Agricultural District, with conditions on lot with and further subdivision , and finding that all requirements for an area variance had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was met. Mr. King seconded . Motion carried unanimously. ® ZB RESOLUTION 2012-023; Area Variance, Richard Durst Vera Circle. Tax Parcel No, 28, -1 -3, 62 Page 5 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final MOTION made by Dave Mountin, Seconded by Bill King. RESOL VED, that this board grant the appeal of Richard Durst, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-348 and Section 270-34C "size and Area of Lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to change the orientation of the lot from Vera Circle to Max s Drive located at Vera Circle, Tax Parcel No. 28. -1 -3. 62, Agricultural District, with the following: Conditions: 1. That the lot width at the street line be no less than 38 feet, 2. That the lot width at the maximum required front yard setback line, which is 60 feet from the street line, shall be no less than 38 feet, and 3. That the property cannot be subdivided again unless they come back before the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. That the benefit could possibly be achieved by other means, but not necessarily feasible due to costs and the impracticality of putting a bridge over a gorge, 2. That there is no undesirable change to neighborhood character or to nearby properties as this is a buildable lot and can be developed pursuant to the regulations of the agricultural zone even if the applicant were to develop the lot off Vera Circle, 3. That while the request is substantial, nonetheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, that in fact the building of a bridge across a gorge could create environmental concerns that will be avoided by granting the applicant's request, and 5. That it may be construed that the alleged difficulty is self-created, but in fact it is more practical and economical to change the site location and grant the appeal for the variance, so the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES.• Krantz, Mountin, King, Rosen and Dixon. NA YS: None. Page 6 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 ® Final Motion was carried unanimous/y. Attorney Brock stated for the record that the board did not need to do SEQR review because it was a type II action—the granting of individual lot line variances . Anneal of Valentina Yashchenko, owner, Gennady Yashchenko, agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=54 " Permitted Principal Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to use two sheds as the primary building on the lot until a home is constructed located at 120 Drew Rd, Tax Parcel No. 28. - 1 -34.30, Low Density Residential . Gennady Yashchenko appeared before the board . Chairperson Sigel stated that he had discussions with Attorney Brock earlier in the day with regard to the current state of the lot at 120 Drew Rd . He asked when the current foundation work had been poured . Mr. Yashchenko thought it had been poured two weeks ago . He went on to say that he is on the fourth layer of the foundation wall . Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Bates to bring the board up to date with what has been occurring with the property and if the foundation work impacts the case . Mr. Bates explained that the case is not impacted until the house is built. He went on to say that the applicant filed an application for a building permit approximately 18 months ago . It took a while to issue a permit ® because more information was needed in order to do so . In the meantime, the applicant started clearing the land and when the Code Enforcement Officer conducted a preliminary site inspection it was discovered that two sheds had been constructed and a camping trailer was on site . The sheds were being used for storage and sheds are not a principle use according to Town Code. The camper was not registered . The applicant was issued orders to remedy to resolve the situations part of the remedy was to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance for the sheds and the camper is no longer an issue because he registered it with the NYSDMV. The building permit has been issued to continue building the house . Chairperson Sigel clarified that a building permit has been issued for construction of a house on the property . Mr. Krantz summed up that the only question was the storage sheds on the property because the camper was not the Town's problem . Mr. Bates added that the property remains in violation because the principle use is not the residence yet, the current principle use was storage of material while building a house . He thought that in the past the board has granted conditions where a set of plans have come in with a shed to allow the construction of the shed prior to building the home . The board has denied requests when there have not been plans presented . Mr. Bates reiterated that since the variance application was filed, Mr. Yashchenko was in compliance with a permit to construct a house on the property, but was not in compliance with the principle use of the property . Mr. Yashchenko stated that he has interpreted that a principle structure was livable, habitable space . The sheds on the property would be considered accessory structure . He said that Town ® Code, Section B, clearly stated that a dwelling must exist in order for him to build a pool or a tennis court, which were also accessory structures. He thought that Section C permitted up to Page 7 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final 3 structures that did not exceed 600 square feet. Mr. Yashchenko went on to say that the IRS considers a principle structure for tax purposes as the primary residence of where one lives; there can only be one . Chairperson Sigel responded that the board was not disputing the fact that a house would be a principle use on the property . The issue at this point was that it was not a house yet. Mr. Yashchenko agreed and said that the only difference was that the sheds were being seen as principle structures and that was not the way he saw it. Chairperson Sigel explained that the Town sees the sheds as not an allowed principle use . If only sheds were constructed on the lot, then that by definition would be the principle use of the lot as storage and that was not an allowed principle use . Mr. Yashchenko stated that in order for a building to be considered a principle unit it has to have a faucet, window and be livable; a shed would not . be livable space . Chairperson Sigel agreed and stated that it was not an allowed principle use . It was only an allowed accessory use and accessory uses can only exist when they were accessory to an allowed principle use . There has to be an allowed principle use, such as a house. Mr. Yashchenko did not think it said that in the Code. Attorney Brock stated that it was addressed in the Code and they had to look at the definition of accessory . Mr. Yashchenko reiterated that point C permits up to 3 buildings . Attorney Brock clarified that the Code states accessory buildings. The Code uses the word "accessory" so they have to think about what accessory means . Mr. Yashchenko argued that point B clearly stated that a dwelling must be present in order to have a swimming pool or a tennis court. Attorney Brock stated that B did not apply because they were not talking about a swimming pool or tennis court. Mr. Yashchenko stated that the term were ambiguous in the Code book. Chairperson Sigel explained that the reason that B says where the principle use is a one or two family dwelling is to differentiate that from the other principle allowed uses. A pool would not be allowed for the other principle uses; it is only an accessory use when associated with a one or two family dwelling . He explained that accessory buildings can be associated with any permitted principle use. Mr. Rosen asked if a variance was still needed since there was a valid building permit and the house was under construction . Chairperson Sigel thought that that was a legitimate question . He explained that it was Mr. Bates's contention that the principle use does not come into existence until the house is complete and has a Certificate of Occupancy. He said that the board could find that in its opinion that was not correct. The board could somehow find that a principle dwelling comes into existence when the foundation is started or any other stage. Chairperson Sigel stated that the board has not been presented with this exact set of circumstances before, but they have reviewed similar circumstances where they decided that a detached garage (an accessory building) is not allowed to be built before a house is built. Mr. Krantz commented that as the rules stand now, the building materials that are being used to build a house cannot be stored under cover on the property. Mr. Bates explained that in the past the board has allowed the construction of accessory buildings first when they have been presented with plans for a house and an established timeline for construction . He remembered that in the last similar case before the board the owner wanted to build a shed on the property ® but did not know when he would start the construction of the houses the board did not approve that request. ' Mr. Yashchenko stated that he was already building a house . Page 8 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21 , 2012 ® Final Chairperson Sigel asked what happens when a person comes in with plans to build a house and a detached garage and plans to build the garage first. Mr. Bates would require a variance because the garage is not a principle structure . Chairperson Sigel stated that it is not all or nothing ; there is a gray area . Mr. Bates explained that a separate building permit is required for a detached garage even if it is under construction at the same time as the house. The building permit for the garage would not be issued until there is a principle structure on the lot. Mr. Dixon asked if the sheds were on foundations and if they could be considered temporary structures. Mr. Bates did not think there was such a thing as a temporary accessory structure, other than a tent, under the Code . He went on to say that the sheds were under the square footage of requiring a building permit. The only thing that was requiring the appeal was Town zoning . It had nothing to do with the actual building permit. Mr. Bates reiterated that the sheds would not be an issue if the house was built other than making sure they met setback requirements. Chairperson Sigel explained that storage was not permitted as a principle use because then anyone would be able to buy a lot and put up storage buildings on vacant lots. The Town Board has decided that that use is not compatible with residential districts. ® Ms. Fogarty commented that she drove by the property and the storage sheds are quite small, located in the back corner of the lot. She asked if living in the trailer meant that the storage sheds could be accessory to the trailer. Mr. Bates explained that the trailer was licensed under NYSDMV and it was not considered a permanent structure on the property. Town Codes does not allow manufactured homes outside of a mobile home zone . It would technically be a violation of the Code . Chairperson Sigel stated that it was not a permitted principle use to live in a trailer on the lot. Mr. Bates explained that there are provisions in the Code that allow that to be done during construction, but he would have to file the proper applications to do so . He said that the easiest way to deal with the camper was to get is registered with NYSDMV. Chairperson Sigel commented that when contractors build a house, they typically come in with rather large storage trailers that they store tools and materials in . He assumed that that was allowed during construction . Mr. Bates added that the trailers are usually licensed with DMV. Chairperson Sigel pointed out that the net affect of that was somewhat similar to a sheds the difference being it is a licensed trailer so it is not regulated by zoning . Mr. Bates stated that the property would be in compliance if everything was stored in the trailer and the sheds removed . Chairperson Sigel summarized that the board has been discussing whether or not the sheds were allowed by right or not. He was convinced by Mr. Bates's argument and the Code that it's not allowed by right. He asked if the board agreed with that. Board indicated that they agreed . Page 9 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Yashchenko when he anticipated completing construction of the house . Mr. Yashchenko thought it would be completed next year. Mr. Mountin commented that the sheds cannot be seen from the road and he did not think that the neighbors were present to complain about them either. He was not concerned with the issue of time . Mr. Bates explained that the Town has received a written complaint about the sheds on the property. The complaint was received before the foundation was started . Mr. Mountin stated that there are a lot of construction sites that bring in metal containers on job sites during construction and they sit there for months. He did not think they were any better looking than the 100 square foot sheds on Ms. Yashchenko's property. He did not see the difference . Mr. Bates explained that the key problem was there was not construction occurring and the sheds were on the property; one was ahead of the other. Mr. Mountin stated that he was looking at it from today's standpoint. He saw that the applicant was in construction of a home and there were two sheds on the property. The variance was for using the two sheds for storage during construction . AdMbL Chairperson Sigel thought Mr. Bates's point was also valid . It may be the case that this process has helped move the situation along to the point where it is. He felt that it might be helpful to encourage the process to move along given that a neighbor has complained about the conditions . He said that he was not particularly impressed with the condition of the site when he went to visit it. He noticed trash and beer bottles all over the property; he didn 't feel that was how a construction site should look. Mr. Mountin did not think the site next door looked that much better. Mr. Dixon asked if it could be a condition to have the property kept neat and orderly. Chairperson Sigel was not sure if they could and thought that they might have difficulty relating that to the variance. He was in favor of a one-year allowance. He thought it was reasonable to complete the house within a year. Mr. Yashchenko thought that that was reasonable and commented that even if the house is not complete, he will at least have the shell of the house constructed . He would then be able to move all of the construction material inside the house. Mr. Rosen wondered if one year was enough time to build a house. He thought Mr. Yashchenko should be given the time on this permit and the time on a building permit extension . Chairperson Sigel explained that permits can be renewed indefinitely . Mr. Bates preferred that the board establish a time limit. He was concerned that the sheds would still be on the property if the construction of the house stops for some reason . Mr. Rosen asked if the variance could be granted for as long as there is a valid building permit. He didn 't want Mr. Yashchenko to have to come back before the board in a year to renew the variance. Chairperson Sigel stated that the applicant had stated that a year was a reasonable time period . ® Mr. Yashchenko agreed . Mr. Dixon stated that the sheds would be removed once the shell of the house was constructed if it was still deemed a violation . Page 10 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final Chairperson Sigel asked if the property would be compliant when the Certificate of Occupancy was issued or if it was at some point prior to that. Mr. Bates responded that technically it Would be at the point the Certificate of Occupancy was issued . Chairperson Sigel commented that it was a use variance before the board, which has substantial hurdles to overcome . Attorney Brock added that SEQR review was also needed . Mr. Bates stated he thought it was an area variance that was needed . Chairperson Sigel stated that to be honest, the use variance criteria would be hard to meet in this case. He reviewed the use variance criteria with the board and applicant. Mr. Krantz asked how a house could be built without having building materials on site . Chairperson Sigel thought that the board could consider the sheds as a substitute for a construction trailer. Mr. Dixon said that he was leaning in that direction when he asked about the temporary nature of the structure . Chairperson Sigel summarized that the sheds could be considered functionally equivalent to something that would be allowed . Mr. Dixon stated that the sheds were not sitting on foundation so there was no implied intent that the sheds will remain on site forever. ® Attorney Brock asked if Mr. Yashchenko constructed the sheds . Mr. Yashchenko responded that he did and they are sitting on pallets . Attorney Brock stated that Mr. Yashchenko constructed structures that are not allowed and that seemed to be a self-created hardship . She asked the board to think about the precedent that would be set if they said it was not. Mr. Mountin stated that every builder has storage on site; Mr. Yashchenko just didn't know he was supposed to receive approval first. Attorney Brock stated that ignorance to the law has nothing to do with the criteria . Owners are presumed to know the zoning laws and other people have been held very strictly to that when they've come before the board . She said that other builders store their materials in trailers and the sheds are not trailers. She added that trailers are allowed so there was another way for him to build his house that did not violate the Code. Attorney Brock just wanted to caution the board because use variances are hard to get and if the board starts to interpret the criteria in a certain way, it could set precedence . Mr. Mountin wanted to be really pragmatic and stated that regardless of what the law was saying, it was two small sheds off the street. One neighbor may be complaining about them, but overall he thought the practicality of the situation was to carve a way to make it happen so that the applicant could get his house built. The little sheds could be used for storage and then be taken down within the timeframe . He was of the opinion to move the application forward for whatever it is because it seemed simple . Mr. Mountin stated that it is not a large barn that is storing a lot of materials that could be construed as something more than that. Attorney Brock argued that a very small trailer would accomplish the same thing legally. She asked why he shouldn't be held to that and comply with the law . Mr. Mountin responded that ® he built a house 5 years ago with a shed . The shed stored the construction materials during construction and he was allowed to do it. Attorney Brock stated that now Mr. Mountin is a Page 11 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final member of the Zoning Board and he is suppose to apply the law . Mr. Mountin argued that he is also allowed on his judgment to give a variance and the board can determine an alleged hardship . Attorney Brock reiterated that the applicant has to show that he has met all the criteria of a use variance; if the applicant cannot meet one of the criteria then he is not entitled to a variance . She said that it is different with area variances because the applicant does not have to meet all the criteria . Ms. Fogarty asked if it could be considered a hardship if he was not able to store his materials on site and as a result of that had to hire a contractor, which would be more expensive . Attorney Brock responded that they have not been provided with that evidence . Chairperson Sigel added that Mr. Yashchenko could purchase his own storage trailer. He doesn't have to hire a contractor in order to utilize that type of technique . Mr. Mountin asked about the metal storage containers. Mr. Bates said that technically it would not be legal . Mr. Mountin commented that he had one of those on site . Chairperson Sigel said he was sympathetic to Mr. Mountin's viewpoint and that if it were an area variance he did not think it would be an issue because it was just a balancing test. ® Mr. Mountin asked if Mr. Yashchenko could be issued a permit to put up a storage container on the site . Mr. Bates reiterated that there was not a principle structure on the property so a permit could not be issued for an accessory structure . Mr. Krantz stated that it was safe to assume that if the board does not permit the sheds that the applicant would not be able to build his house and that would be a financial hardship. Attorney Brock asked Mr. Krantz to wait because they have not heard any evidence of a financial hardship . They have heard nothing and the board needs competent financial evidence in front of them to make that conclusion . Assumptions cannot be made by the board ; the applicant has to provide evidence. Mr. Mountin asked Mr. Yashchenko if he wanted to go back and get his story together. Mr. Yashchenko responded that he is building the house out of his own pocket and he doesn't have a loan . Mr. Mountin asked Mr. Yashchenko if he understood that there are four criteria he needs to meet and if he was willing to come back to the board with evidence that he met the criteria . He added that otherwise it did not look like he was going to receive a variance . Mr. Yashchenko agreed . Chairperson Sigel thought that that was reasonable . The board could adjourn the appeal and the applicant could gather as much evidence as he can to support a use variance or could decide to go in a different route that would be compliant. Mr. Rosen asked if storing the materials under a tarp would be legal . Mr. Bates said that that was legal . Mr. Rosen thought that that might be the way to go . Mr. Yashchenko stated that ® wasn 't the way to go for him because he has to remove everything and destroy it. Page 12 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final Chairperson Sigel commented that to some extent it was unfortunate that the way the zoning ordinance is written that it does not allow a lot of flexibility when it comes to building a home as far as having a shed or garage built first. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing and invited the public to address the board . There being no one interested in speaking, he closed the public hearing . Chairperson Sigel moved to adjourn the appeal until such time the applicant asks to be put on the agenda and has provided evidence that he meets the four use variance criteria . Mr. Bates recommended that Chairperson Sigel change the motion to a definite time because otherwise the violation on the property remains until Mr. Yashchenko decides to come back before the board . Attorney Brock suggested that the motion be amended to include the language " but in any case no later than July 6, 2012". Mr. Mountin seconded . Mr. Krantz voted against the motion ; all others in favor. Motion carried . ZB RESOLUTION 2012-024; Use Variance, Valentina Yashchenko, 120 Drew Rd, Tax Parcel No. 28. -Y -34,30 MOTION made by Kirk Sig% Seconded by Dave Mountin. ® RESOL VED, that this board adjourns the appeal of Mr. Yashchenko, requesting a variance from the requirements Chapter 270, Section 270-54 "Permitted Principle Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to use two sheds as the primary building on a lot until a home is constructed, located at 120 Drew Rd, Tax Parcel No. 28. -1-34. 30, Low Density Residential Zone until such time as the applicant requests to be put on the Zoning Board agenda and has submitted evidence to support the four use variance criteria, but in any case no later than July 6, 2012, which is the submission deadline for the August meeting. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Mountin, King and Rosen. NAYS: Krantz Motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Krantz stated that he felt that he was on a tribunal that was grossly unfair. He thought it was absurd and he objected . He cannot understand how you can build a building and not have room to store the materials, especially if it is innocuous and in the back of the parcel . Appeal of College Crossings, LLC, owner, Evan Monkemeyer, agent, requesting the extension of variances from the requirements of Section 270- 116 " Height Limitations", Section 270417A( 2)(3) "Yard Regulations", Section 270- 122C "Additional Special Requirements", Section 270- 127C " Principal Uses", and Section 270- 128 " Maximum Building Size" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to ® construct a 19,828 + / - sq ft commercial building for the College Crossings development located at 1061 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 43 . 4 -3. 23, Neighborhood Page 13 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 ® Final Commercial . The proposed building exceeds the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the maximum height limit from the lowest exterior grade. The proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the drive-thru canopy and support on the north side will encroach into the 50400t required buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides. Evan Monkemeyer appeared before the board . Chairperson Sigel asked if the request was entirely identical to the one granted 18 months ago . Mr. Monkemeyer believed that it was and stated that it was the same proposal that dates back to the first plan in 2007 . The revised plan was created in 2010 to meet the changing of the needs of the market place . He scaled back the project after the crash of 2008 and created a single rectangular style building instead of t-shape style building . Mr. Bates added that Mr. Monkemeyer previously received variances on two separation occasions; the application before the board is to renew. all variances for the project. Mr. Monkemeyer went on to give a quick update on the status of the project. He has a bank committed to becoming a tenant and financing the project. The bank has required that 12, 000 square feet be pre-leased before they will release funds to start construction on the project. He currently has a local bakery and fitness center interested in leasing ; this brings the total to 8, 500 square feet of space lease . Mr. Monkemeyer has been working over the past several months to bring a restaurant into the space . He explained that this was difficult because the ® national chains are not interested because of the location and the local restaurants are shied away because of the initial costs up front. Mr. Monkemeyer went on to say that he is in the process of talking with Susan Ritter about taking the second floor of the structure and changing it from an office space use into residential use, which would create a mixed use development. The second floor has approximately 4500 square feet and that would put him in the " magic number" range for the prelease requirement by the bank. Ms . Ritter was looking into it and would be getting back to Mr. Monkemeyer. He was confident that once the project was started and the building was up, the open spaces would be easier to fill . Attorney Brock reiterated that the residential , mixed use idea was not part of the proposal before the board . She explained that the board was still approving the project as it was presented to the board 18 months ago when it received approval . Chairperson Sigel asked if the second approval for the project modified the first project approval . Ms. Whitmore clarified that the 2011 variances were for rear and side yard setbacks, the 2010 variances were for area variances and special approval required for the overall project. Mr. Rosen wondered why special approval was needed . Mr. Monkemeyer explained that the size of the building exceeds the maximum allowed and the approval was to allow a larger building than permitted by Code. Mr. Rosen recapped that the variances have expired and the building has not been built. Chairperson Sigel explained that construction has to be started on a project within 18 months of approval or the variance expires. Mr. Rosen was surprised by the number of variances needed Page 14 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 ® Final for the project, especially given that they were starting with an empty canvass . He didn't understand why the project could not be built within the rules . Chairperson Sigel explained that the project was largely shaped by the Planning Board . He didn 't quite remember the details, but he recalled that in order to be more compliant with the neighborhood commercial zone, Mr. Monkemeyer would have had to build more buildings . Mr. Monkemeyer further explained that he would have had to build three separate buildings in order to have the same amount of square footage. He added that 1/3 of an acre is dedicated to stormwater management of the site . The parking areas also needed to be maximized to meet the requirements of the Codes, which is why the parking is wrapped around the building . The Code also considers parking lots as structures so there are certain setbacks that have to be met. Chairperson Sigel agreed that on the face of the project it seemed to be a lot of variances that appear substantial, but the project did receive a fair amount of Planning Board scrutiny and he believed that the Planning Board felt that it was a beneficial change even thought it wasn't allowed by Code because it would reduce the amount of impervious surface on the property. Mr. Rosen commented that the lot seemed almost covered by building and pavement as it is; he did not see how much more it could have been covered . Mr. Monkemeyer directed the board's attention to their packet and explained that it contained a ® drawing of the building when it was first proposed as being all on one level . He then showed the current plan . Mr. Rosen did not understand why the zoning code was so impractical that in order to build a building the owner needs to get all these variances . He commented that it seemed the Code was faulty. Mr. Dixon stated that the Code was not perfect, which was why there's a Zoning Board of Appeals. The Code cannot answer every circumstance that may come up . Mr. Rosen stated that he was surprised, but will accept the explanation and that this is the way it should be . Chairperson Sigel thought that Mr. Rosen made a good point. He said that he did not scrutinize the project again because the proposal is identical to what it was . He remembered that when he did scrutinize it, it seemed that what the Planning Board had done was reasonable and they had their motivations for seeking this type of building design . Chairperson Sigel believed that the amount of interior square footage of the project would be allowed in separate buildings. Mr. Monkemeyer thought that was correct. Chairperson Sigel went on to say that the Planning Board was faced with having Mr. Monkemeyer achieve the office and retail space legally by building three separate buildings. The Planning Board thought that it would be better for the site to put all the square footage in one building, but that really wasn't allowed in the neighborhood commercial zone . Ms . Fogarty commented that there is an entrance/exit on King Rd E where there's a school zones she didn't feel that was practical . Mr. Monkemeyer reviewed the exits with the board and ® stated that the curb cut onto the Danby Road received approval from the State and the curb cut onto King Rd E received approval from the County. Page 15 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 ® Final Chairperson Sigel thought there was a fair distance between the entrance/exit to the Montessori School . Mr. Bates added that one of the variances for the project was for the setback requirements between the neighborhood commercial zone and the residential zone, which the school is located in . He thought that the Planning Board's intent was to design a project that was commercial in nature to fit the site . Mr. Bates reiterated that Mr. Monkemeyer needed approvals from the State and County for his curb cuts. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that both have been presented with the plans and have made comments regarding design ; he just needs to file his permits . Chairperson Sigel turned the board's attention to the second variance that was granted for the project in March 2011 for rear and side yard setbacks . He asked Attorney Brock if she thought it was reasonable to re-move the exact text from the two separate variances and keep them as separate two separate motions. Attorney Brock thought that the two motions could be moved as one resolution so that all variances are considered together so that the findings that are being made are for all of them as opposed to breaking them apart. She felt that it would be easy for someone to say that the impact was being minimized by keeping the motions separate . Chairperson Sigel asked if the board had any other comments or questions. Mr. Rosen commented that he liked the pond in the front of the building . He asked if there was a bridge over the pond . Mr. Monkemeyer explained that there are two sections stormwater—the four bay, which is a smaller pond and in this design there is a rock cluster between the sections. The water has to pass through the rocks to dislodge impurities . Mr. Rosen stated that he didn't mean to malign Mr. Monkemeyer's building . Mr. Monkemeyer understood and said that he thought that some of the planning initiative was to prevent some of the big box stores from coming into the neighborhood zones so they created the smaller size building requirements. Mr. Rosen commented that they cut themselves in the foot because it is too small . Mr. Monkemeyer added that the hotel couldn't exist without a variance for square footage. Chairperson Sigel thought that was a good point; he said that the commercial zones in the Town are not large zones . The Town Board tried to create a zoning ordinance to cover a few fairly different zones and it is hard to write something that fits everything . Mr. Rosen understood and said that it is like setting a low bar and adjusting it as needed . Mr. Krantz stated that the project is located at a busy intersection and he felt that the State should approve a crosswalk, however, the State won 't put one in and the Town can't put one in . He reiterated that its a busy intersection and that it is going to have a lot of action with a lot of people . Mr. Rosen confirmed that there is a traffic light at the intersection . Mr. Monkemeyer commented that it is expensive to put crosswalks in that meet today's codes . He has suggested in the past that the Town conduct their own independent study and create a special assessment district for each commercial zone so that the design and construction of the crosswalk could be passed on to the property owners directly affected . Page 16 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 ® Final Mr. Krantz stated that it was felt that the Town could not require a crosswalk on a State route . Mr. Monkemeyer responded that if there was a plan and a financing mechanism the State might go along with it. He thought that the State probably did not want to get stuck with something they didn 't want to pay for. Chairperson Sigel stated that he was looking at the two previous resolutions and the findings were different. He asked if it was reasonable to combine the two resolutions, but keep the findings separate . He thought it would be easier to keep the findings for the setbacks separate from the other findings. Attorney Brock agreed . SEQR Attorney Brock explained that for the original set of variances the Zoning .Board did not conduct SEQR review because the Planning Board had done a coordinated review for the site plan and special permit that they issued, which covered the subsequent actions by other agencies including the ZBA. Then when the project received subdivision approval , the Planning Board conducted another SEQR review because subdivision was not considered during the project's original approval, but it was not a coordinated review . The Zoning Board then conducted SEQR review for the subdivision variances. Attorney Brock stated that the board could decide whether or not it was necessary to reopen SEQR review. Chairperson Sigel moved to find that the coordinated review conducted by the Planning Board in the fall of 2010 and this board's negative declaration of environmental significance conducted for the March 2011 variance is still applicable given that the application has not changed, and therefore, the SEQR determinations will not be reopened . Mr. Rosen seconded . Motion carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION 1011-015: Environmental Assessment 1061 Danby Rd, Tax Pane/ No. 43, -1 -3,13 MOTION made by Kirk Sig% seconded by Rob Rosen. Resolved" that this board finds that the coordinated review conducted by the Planning Board in the fall of 2010 and this boards negative declaration of environmental significance conducted for the March 1011 variance is still applicable given that the application has not changed, and therefore, the SEQR determinations will not be reopened. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YESSigel, Krantz, Mountin, King, and Rosen. NA KS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing . There being no one present to speak, he closed ® the public hearing . Page 17 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 ® Final Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Evan Monkemeyer to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, approximately a 19, 828 sq ft building that will accommodate retail, commercial, and/or office tenants, associated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities and to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east of the property with all the previous conditions and findings made from the 2010 and 2011 board approvals . Mr. King seconded . Carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2012-026; Area Variances, 1061 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No, 43, -1 - 3 23 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Bill King. Resolved, that this Board grants the appeal of College Crossings, LLC, owner, Evan Monkemeyer, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 128, Section 270-116, Section 270-122C, Section 270-127C, and Section 270-117A(2)(3) "Yard Regulations " to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, approximately a 19, 828 sq ft building that will accommodate retail, commercial, and/or office tenants, associated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities and to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east of the property. The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road and King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43. - 1 -3. 23, Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposed building, at 40 feet tall will exceed the largest permitted height, which is 36 feet. The proposal includes three (3) drive-through lanes where only two are permitted. In addition, the proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive- through canopy and support on the north side will encroach on the 50-foot buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides, with the following: Conditions: 1. That the total interior square footage of the building not exceed 20, 000-square feet, 2. That the height not exceed 40. 5 feet, 3 That the encroachment into the buffers required by the Town Code be no greater than what is indicated on the plans submitted to this Board at its November 15, 2010 meeting, 4. That the entire project be constructed as indicated on the applicants plans submitted to this Board at its November 15, 2010 meeting, 5. That no single tenant be allowed to occupy more than 10, 000 square feet of the building, and 6. That the north and east side setbacks be no less than I foot less than what is indicated ® on the plan submitted by the applicant to this board on March 21, 2011. Page 18 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final Findings for variances from Chapter 270, Section 270-128, Section 270-116, Section 270-122C, Section 270-127C.• That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That while the benefit to be achieved by the applicant can be done by other means possible, namely, building two or three separate buildings, that the one that the applicant proposed is also reasonable and is a better fit for the site that the applicant has, and 2. That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that this is an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the total square footage of the project would be allowed, just not in one single building, and 3. That the requests are not substantial, the height being just four and a half feet above what is allowed and the total square footage being permitted on the site in separate buildings, and 4. That there will be no adverse physical and environmental effects for the reasons stated in the negative determination of environmental significance, and ® S. The alleged d/ffIculty is not self-created, this is the portion of the applicant's property that is in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and they are required to fit the development within those constraints, and 6. For these reasons, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. Findings for variances from Chapter 270, Section 270-117A(2)(3): That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by the applicant by any other means feasible given the applicant's desire to have a central single building for the commercial use surrounded by the parking and driveway navigation around the perimeter of the site, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property to the north is also neighborhood commercial zone and the property to the east, while low density residential zone, is also owned by the applicant and therefore will only be impacting the applicants own property, 3. That while the requested setback variances are substantial, 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 for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form, Page 19 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final 5. That while the alleged d/fficu/ty is self-created given the applicant's recent subdivision of this lot, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sig% KranL, Mountin, King, and Rosen. NA YS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Other Business There was no other business discussed by the board . Adjournment With no further business, Chairperson Sigel adjourned the May 21, 2012 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 9 : 03 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chairperson Carrie Coates`Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk Page 20 of 20 ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARb OF APPEALS SIGN - IN SHEET DATE : May 21 , 2012 (PL EASEPRINT TO ENSUREEACCURACYIN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTA0ORES SIA FFILIATION ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday, May 21, 2012 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P. M . Appeal of Ithaca College, owner, Rick Couture, applicant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 -4A(7) "Prohibited Signs", Sections 221 -6A( 1) and 221-6A(2) " Regulated Signs", and Sections 221 -8A(2), 221 -8A(6), and 221-8BCDE "Sign Illumination" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install a new scoreboard at Carp Wood Field, located on the Ithaca College Campus, 130 Flora Brown Dr, Tax Parcel No . 41 . - 1- 30 . 2, Medium Density Residential . A8Reall of Richard Durst, owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-34B and Section 270-34C "Size and Area of Lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to change the orientation of the lot from Vera Circle to Max's Drive located at Vera Circle, Tax Parcel No. 28 .- 1 -3 . 62, Agricultural District. AA,ggall of Valentina Yashchenko, owner, Gennady Yashchenko, agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-54 " Permitted Principal Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to use two sheds as the primary building on the lot until a home ® is constructed located at 120 Drew Rd, Tax Parcel No. 28 . - 1-34. 30, Low Density Residential . Anneal of College Crossings, LLC, owner, Evan Monkemeyer, agent, requesting the extension of variances from the requirements of Section 270- 116 " Height Limitations", Section 270- 117A(2)(3) "Yard Regulations", Section 270- 122C "Additional Special Requirements", Section 270- 127C " Principal Uses", and Section 270428 " Maximum Building Size" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a 19, 828 +/- sq ft commercial building for the College Crossings development located at 1061 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No . 43 . - 1 -3 . 23, Neighborhood Commercial . The proposed building exceeds the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the maximum height limit from the lowest exterior grade. The proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the driveAhru canopy and support on the north side will encroach into the 50-foot required buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides . 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 : May 9, 2012 ® Published : May 11, 2012 FILE DATE ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012=021 Environmental Assessment Sign Variance Ithaca College 130 Flora Brown Dr Tax Parcel No. 41 .-1 -30. 2 May 21 , 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that in the appeal of Ithaca College , this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the environmental assessment form Part I and for the reasons stated in Part II . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Mountin , King 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 21St day of May, 2012 . Jan JIJA Deputy To Jerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE �y ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012=022 Sign Variance Ithaca College 130 Flora Brown Dr Tax Parcel No. 41 .-1 =30. 2 May 21 , 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Ithaca College , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 -4A(7) " Prohibited Signs" , Sections 221 -6A( 1 ) and 221 -6A(2) " Regulated Signs" , and Sections 221 -8A(2) , 221 -8A(6) , and 2218BCDE "Sign Illumination" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install a new scoreboard at Carp Wood Field , located on the Ithaca College Campus , 130 Flora Brown Dr, Tax Parcel No . 41 . - 1 -30 . 2 , Medium Density Residential , with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the scoreboard be built as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant with the exception that there be no advertising space on the sign other than indication of college name and donor name , and ® 2 . That there be no off=premise business advertising . Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That while the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of replacing the scoreboard , could probably be done with a smaller scoreboard , nevertheless what the applicant has proposed is reasonable and is not visible from neighboring properties or public roads , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties for the same reasons , 3 . That while the request is substantial , nevertheless , the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , 4 . There will be no physical or environmental effects , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the healthy, safety and welfare of the community. ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2012-022 Page 2of2 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Mountin , King 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 21St day of May, 2012 . I ) Deputy f666 blerk Town of Ithaca FILE '40 ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-023 Area Variance Richard Durst Vera Circle Tax Parcel No. 28.=1 -3 .62 May 21 , 2012 MOTION made by Dave Mountin , Seconded by Bill King . RESOLVED , that this board grant the appeal of Richard Durst, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-34B and Section 270-34C "Size and Area of Lot' of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to change the orientation of the lot from Vera Circle to Max' s Drive located at Vera Circle , Tax Parcel No . 28 . - 1 -3 . 62 , Agricultural District, with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the lot width at the street line be no less than 38 feet, 2 . That the lot width at the maximum required front yard setback line , which is 60 feet from the street line , shall be no less than 38 feet, and 3 . That the property cannot be subdivided again unless they come back before the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval . Findings : That the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit could possibly be achieved by other means, but not necessarily feasible due to costs and the impracticality of putting a bridge over a gorge , 2 . That there is no undesirable change to neighborhood character or to nearby properties as this is a buildable lot and can be developed pursuant to the regulations of the agricultural zone even if the applicant were to develop the lot off Vera Circle , 3 . That while the request is substantial , nonetheless , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects , that in fact the building of a bridge across a gorge could create environmental concerns that will be avoided by granting the applicant's request, and ® 5 . That it may be construed that the alleged difficulty is self-created , but in fact it is more practical and economical to change the site location and grant the appeal for ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-023 Page 2 of 2 ® the variance , so the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Krantz , Mountin , King , Rosen and Dixon . 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 21St day of May, 2012 . dl Deputy T n lerk ® Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-024 Use Variance Valentina Yashchenko 120 Drew Rd Tax Parcel No. 28.-1 -34. 30 May 21 , 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Dave Mountin , RESOLVED , that this board adjourns the appeal of Mr. Yashchenko , requesting a variance from the requirements Chapter 270 , Section 270-54 " Permitted Principle Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to use two sheds as the primary building on a lot until a home is constructed , located at 120 Drew Rd , Tax Parcel No . 28 . - 1 -34. 30 , Low Density Residential Zone until such time as the applicant requests to be put on the Zoning Board agenda and has submitted evidence to support the four use variance criteria , but in any case no later than July 6 , 2012 , which is the submission deadline for the August meeting . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Mountin , King and Rosen . NAYS : Krantz. ® 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 21St day of May, 2012 . Deputy T6 lerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE` - ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-025 Environmental Assessment 1061 Danby Rd Tax Parcel No. 43.-1 -3. 23 May 21 , 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Rob Rosen . Resolved , that this board finds that the coordinated review conducted by the Planning Board in the fall of 2010 and this board 's negative declaration of environmental significance conducted for the March 2011 variance is still applicable given that the application has not changed , and therefore, the SEQR determinations will not be reopened . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Mountin , King , 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 21St day of May, 2012 . v Aa 7i Deputy T6v Olerk Town of Ithaca F11-E 0PJE7*0 ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-026 Area Variances 1061 Danby Rd Tax Parcel No. 43.=1 -3. 23 May 21 , 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Bill King . Resolved , that this Board grants the appeal of College Crossings , LLC , owner, Evan Monkemeyer, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270- 128 , Section 270- 116 , Section 270- 122C , Section 270- 127C , and Section 270- 117A(2) (3) "Yard Regulations" to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development , approximately a 19 , 828 sq ft building that will accommodate retail , commercial , and/or office tenants , associated parking , landscaping , sidewalks , and stormwater facilities and to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east of the property. The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road and King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 . - 1 -3 .23 , Neighborhood Commercial . The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone . The proposed building , at 40 feet tall will exceed the largest permitted height, which is 36 feet. The proposal includes three (3) drive-through lanes where only two are permitted . In addition , the proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of ® the site and a portion of the bank drive-through canopy and support on the north side will encroach on the 50400t buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides, with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the total interior square footage of the building not exceed 20 , 000-square feet, 2 . That the height not exceed 40 . 5 feet, 3 . That the encroachment into the buffers required by the Town Code be no greater than what is indicated on the plans submitted to this Board at its November 15 , 2010 meeting , 4 . That the entire project be constructed as indicated on the applicant' s plans submitted to this Board at its November 15 , 2010 meeting , 5 . That no single tenant be allowed to occupy more than 10 , 000 square feet of the building , and 6 . That the north and east side setbacks be no less than 1 foot less than what is ® indicated on the plan submitted by the applicant to this board on March 21 , 2011 . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2012-026 Page 2 of 3 ® Findings for variances from Chapter 270 , Section 270- 128 , Section 270- 116 , Section 270- 122C , Section 270- 127C : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That while the benefit to be achieved by the applicant can be done by other means possible , namely, building two or three separate buildings , that the one that the applicant proposed is also reasonable and is a better fit for the site that the applicant has , and 2 . That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that this is an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the total square footage of the project would be allowed , just not in one single building , and 3 . That the requests are not substantial , the height being just four and a half feet above what is allowed and the total square footage being permitted on the site in separate buildings , and 4 . That there will be no adverse physical and environmental effects for the reasons stated in the negative determination of environmental significance , and ® 5 . The alleged difficulty is not self-created , this is the portion of the applicant's property that is in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and they are required to fit the development within those constraints , and 6 . For these reasons , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. Findings for variances from Chapter 270 , Section 270- 117A(2) (3) : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit cannot be achieved by the applicant by any other means feasible given the applicant's desire to have a central single building for the commercial use surrounded by the parking and driveway navigation around the perimeter of the site , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property to the north is also neighborhood commercial zone and the property to the east, while low density residential zone , is also owned by the applicant and therefore will only be impacting the applicant's ® own property, ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2012-026 Page 3of3 3 . That while the requested setback variances are substantial , 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 for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form , 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created given the applicant' s recent subdivision of this lot, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES . Sigel , Krantz, Mountin , King , 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 21St day of May, 2012 . Deputy TovgjC rk Town of Ithaca ® 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 , May 21 , 2012 7 : 00 P . M . Date of Publication : Friday, May 11 , 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, May 9 , 2012 Carrie Coateslfflhitmore Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th dayof May 92 . 7x\ Notary Public PAULETTiE TERMLLIGER NOWY FOR% Stale of New Vb* No. OITE0156M ifhacajournat:com Friday, May 11 ,' 2012 TOWN-OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD . I OF APPEALS gppeal `of College Cross- NOTICE OF PUBLIC ings, LLC, owner, Evan - HEARINGS _ Monkemeyer, agent, re- 'Monday, May 21 , 2012 - questing the extension of j215 North Tioga Street, •� variances from the require- . Ithaca 7:00 P.M. ' .ments �of Section .270- 116 Appeal of Ithaca College, 'Height Limitations",. Sec- owner, Rick Couture, appli- { tion 270- 117A(2)(3) 'Yard cant, requesting variances . Regulations', Section270- from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 - i Requi122Crements', "Additional Special 4A(7) 'Prohibited Signs', : Requirementsi Section lSections 221 -6A( l ) and ( and Section Uses', 221 6A(2) I and Section 270-128 "Max i I "Regulated I imum Building Size" of the I A Signs", and Sections 221 . 1 ; Town of Ithaca Code to be j 8A(2), 221 -8A(6)_and221 - i permitted to construct a j of 86COE 'Sign Illumination' l 19,828 +/- sq It commer- + the Town of-Ithaca Code i tial building for. the College to be permitted to install a ' Crossings development lo- new scoreboard, at Carpi � cated at 1061 Danby Rd, Wood Field, located on the Tax Parcel No. 43.- 1 .3.23, j Ithaca College Campus, Neighborhood Commercial. > 130 Flora Brown Dr; Tax ' The proposed building ex- Parcel No. 41 .. 1 -30.2, Me- ceeds Ilia maximum permit- _ ; dium Density Residential. ted size of an individual Appeal of Richard Durst. building in a Neighborhood owner, requesting a var- Commercial Zone and thee, iance from • the require- maximum height limit from merits of Chapter' 270, the lowest exterior grade. ' Section 270-34B and Sec- ! The proposed access drive- tion 270-34C "Size 'and ways on the north and east Area of Lot' of the Town of , sides of the site and a por- ' Ithaca Code to be permit- , tion of the drive-thru cano- ted to change the orienta- -' pyand support on the north tion of the lot from Vera side will encroach into the (Circle to_Max's Drive local. ' 50-foot required buffer Be- fed at Vera -Circle,' Tax Par- tween the Neighborhood cel No. 28.- 1 -3'62,`Agricul- l Commercial Zone and adja- lural District. cent Residential Zones on Appeal of. Valentina } those sides. I i Yashchenko. owner, Assistance will be provided Gennady - Yashchenko, [ for individuals with special agent, .requesting a . var- : needs, upon request. Re- iance from the require- quest's should be made not ments of Chapter 270, } less than 48 hours prior to Section 270-54 'Permitted ' the public hearings. Principal Uses' of the Town ` Bruce W. Bates 7 of Ithaca Code to be per- Director of Code mitted to use two sheds as l Enforcement the primary building on the , , 607-273-1783 lot until a home is 4i strutted located at 120 5/11 /2012D1Dated: 9,.2012 Drew Rd, Tax P arbel No. 28.-1 -34.30,. Low Density Residential. - M@ . w; %.' V 1 . t771AY $a�.i4 i �!. ,fit}i�.[i �yd'�»i4a v!'7 �'�s'YY1. _. _ . . '. ✓ Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 05/21 /2012 Prague 4, LLC Rick Couture PO Box 545 Associate Vice President of Facilities Skaneatles, NY 13152 Ithaca College 103 Farm Pond Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Vera Circle, Area Variance Robert Drake Robert and Paula Smith William Breen 354 Sheffield Rd 123 Vera Cir 125 Vera Cir Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Daniel Buck Karl Niklas & Edward Cobb I T Harbor Enterprises 112 Vera Cir 115 Vera Cir PO Box 249 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14851 Donald & Jenny Tindall Richard Durst & Antje Baeumner Laurie Robinson 6j7 Vera Cir 1040 Cayuga Heights Rd 118 Vera Cir aca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Stan Walton Robin Abrahamson Masson, ESQ 116 N Aurora St 120 E Buffalo St, Suite 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 120 Drew Rd, Area Variance Bertha Harden Russell & Patricia Bennett David Cedarbaum 303 Sheffield Rd 311 Sheffield Rd Barbara Mitchell Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 108 Woodgate Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Peter & Sharon Cappiello Patricia Merkel & Mark Utter Brian DiLuzio 119 Drew Rd 115 Drew Rd 305 Sheffield Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Jenny Dore and Matthew Miller Christopher Ecklund & Ariel Bullion Russell Traunstein 315 Sheffield Rd 301 Sheffield Rd 108 Drew Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Melissa Anthony & Todd Roswech Beth Guthrie Valentina Yashchenko 4630 Old Sachems Head Rd 111 Drew Rd 58 Owego St ilford, CT 06437 Ithaca, NY 14850 Cortland, NY 13045 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. Jib 111)�Obsj) Carrie-Coates- rt re; Deputy Town Clerk - Town of Ithaca Sworn to b6 re me this 11 `s day of May 2012. h /*X i 9 izl � �Irl te 7z� o Pu lic PAULETTE TERWILUGER Notary Public. State of New York No. O1TE6156W9 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 4. 201 22 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE 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 11 `h day of May 2012, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers: College Crossings, 1061 Danby Rd, Extension of Area Variances Rick Couture Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School College Crossings, LLC Associate Vice President of Facilities 120 King Rd E 123 King Rd E Ithaca College Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 103 Farm Pond Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 ,aivid Auble Leslie and Karen Black Samual and Joanne Bonanni RKing Rd W 107 Kings Way 134 King Rd E aca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert Chamberlain, Jr Gary Cleveland Travis and Kathy Cleveland 70 Gunderman Rd PMB522 PO Box 2428 721 Hudson St Ithaca, NY 14850 Pensacola, FL 32513 Ithaca, NY 14850 Pablo and Angela Cohen Jacob Crawford Jason Dorvee 133 King Rd E 111 Kings Way 1032 Danby Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert Farley Mark and Wendy Fonder Garuda Hotels Inc 1845 Richmond Ave 126 King Rd E 2303 N Triphammer Rd Bethlehem, PA 18018 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ira Goldstein and Tess Flores Sherri Gross Pauline and Bruce Layton 154 Compton Rd 113 Kings Way 1029 Danby Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Manley' s Mighty Mart LLC J and Thomas McCollum Jill Moreland 1249 Front St 1046 Danby Rd 114 King Rd W Binghamton, NY 13905 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 0 k Nelson Jacqueline Nelson Larry Nivison Hector St, Apt 10 106 King Rd W 136 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Current Resident David Richards Maria Salino 1083 Danby Rd 1058 Danby Rd 484 Troy Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Eric- Schneider T Rene and Melissa Sylvester Tompkins-County-IDA - - - 124 King Rd E 138 King Rd E PO Box 4860 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14852 Peter Torchia Donna Updike 110 King Rd W 130 King Rd E Oaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 thaca College Carp Wood Field, 130 Flora Brown Dr, Sign Variance Ayman Abbad Savino Ferrara Ithaca College 370 Prospect Rd 979 Danby Rd 953 Danby Rd, PRW 322 Chester, NY 10918 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 William Larsen Deborah Sue Martin Gina Parker 1801 East Kays Creek Dr 983 Danby Rd PO Box 4524 Layton, UT 84040 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14852