Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2012-09-17 ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday September 17, 2012 Minutes 1 Present : Kirk Sigel , Chair; Ron Krantz, Rob Rosen, Alternates : Yvonne Fogarty and Andrew Dixon Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, and Lori Kofoid , Deputy Town Clerk Chairman Sigel opened the meeting at 7 : 06pm . Appeal of Brian Francis, agent for Gary & Rita Carlson, owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270-233 and Section 270-71C "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a deck addition that encroach into the side yard setback located at 2 Saunders Dr, Tax Parcel No . 44 .2-2- 1 , Medium Density Residential. Mr. Carlson explained that 9 years ago they applied for a variance to move the house 9 feet back from the front to allow for more space between their house and garage and their neighbors as well as away from a waterline in the front of the property. The variance was granted and he thought they also received a variance for the side-yard setback since the moving of the house at ® that time also encroached on the side yard setback. He went on to explain that when they applied for a building permit to extend their deck, they found out that they did not get the side yard setback at that time and need it now . He noted that the new addition is going to be on the main part of the deck so it will not increase the encroachment, but the existing encroachment needs a variance. Mr. Bates explained that the variance being requested is for the existing deck that does not match the documents on file with the Town and encroaches into the setback so they need a variance to make the property compliant . The proposed addition does not require a variance ; a building permit can not be issued for the addition until the non-conformity is approved . Mr. Francis stated that the deck has been there for 9 years and submitted additional pictures to the Board . He added that there have been no complaints in all those years and in fact, the neighbors thought the Carlson ' s had received a variance long ago . Ms . Brock stated that this was Type II so there was not a need for an environmental review. Mr. Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 12pm . There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed . ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 2 of 12 ® ZBA Resolution No. 2012-049, Area Variance, 2 Saunders Rd, TP# 44.2-2- 1 , September 17, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded Rob Rosen That this Board grants the appeal of Brian Francis , agent for Gary & Rita Carlson, owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270-233 and Section 270-71C "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a deck addition that encroach into the side yard setback located at 2 Saunders Dr, Tax Parcel No . 44 . 2 -2- 1 , Medium Density Residential . with the following : Conditions 1 . That the setback be no less than ten feet and that the portion of the deck located within the required setback remain in its present location and not be expanded any and with the following : Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of ® the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, which is to maintain their existing deck, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the deck has existed without complaint for approximately the last nine years , 3 . That the request is substantial , encroaching into a third of the required setback, but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to health, safety and welfare of the community, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects given that there is no new construction involved with this deck, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created that again, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community. Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Krantz, Dixon, Fogarty and Rosen. Nays — None Motion passed . ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 3 of 12 ® Appeal of EAC Montessori School of Ithaca, owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct an addition to the already existing buildings located at 120- 122 King Rd E, Tax Parcel No . 43 .- 1 -3 .219 43 .- 1 -3 .5 & 43 .- 1 -3 .6, Low Density and Medium Density Residential. Said addition exceeds the allowable height limitations . Ernie Bales, architect and Lane Chambliss, agent for the EAC Montessori School gave an overview of the proposal with the aid of poster boards . The existing campus includes the main building, the house next door that is being converted into the middle school , the Field of Dreams and the elementary school across the street . The proposal is to build an additional community room/gymnasium between the main building and the middle school and connect them by enclosed corridors to make one continuous building. The issue is a difference in the foundation heights and topography. The new building is needed for program changes at the school including additional music and community spaces and a gymnasium . The gymnasium needs to be taller to accommodate a regulation basketball court and the engineering involved in supporting that . The best way to accommodate the program changes without increasing the footprint was to stack the buildings and incorporate walk-out basements and the gym . The actual foundation differences between the 3 buildings is 17feet and although the gym will be higher than allowed from the foundation level , the appearance from the road will be all three buildings at the same level and within the required height. The hardship is accommodating the ® height needed for the basketball court and the aesthetics of keeping the three building roofs similar is height and style. It was noted that this property is currently two separate parcels, one low density residential and the other medium density residential . The properties will be so the property line will disappear, but the zoning differences will not . Mr. Rosen stated that the height issue seems to be a minor technicality and the project is doing something very nice . He believes this is completely reasonable and the project is going to be a benefit to the community. The Board agreed . The SEQR form was discussed and Ms. Brock had changes to Part 1 number 12, which should be yes and the Planning Board Site Plan Approval and Special Permit added. No changes to Part II. ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 4 of 12 ® ZBA Resolution No . 2012-050, SEOR Determination, Area Variance, EAC Montessori, 120- 122 King Rd E, TP# 43 .- 1-3 .21413 .5 & 3 .6, September 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz That this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in Part I and for the reasons stated in Part II of the environmental assessment form . Vote : Ayes — Sigel , Rosen, Dixon, Fogarty, Krantz Nayes — none Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing open at 7 : 28pm . There was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed . ZBA Resolution No . 2012-050, Area Variance, 120422 King Rd E, TP 43 .4 -3 .21 , 43 .- 1 -3 .5 & 43 .- 1 -3 .6, September 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz That this Board grants the appeal of EAC Montessori School of Ithaca, owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270- 59 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to ® construct an addition to the already existing buildings located at 120- 122 King Rd E, Tax Parcel No . 43 . - 1 -3 . 21 , 43 . - 1 -3 . 5 & 43 . - 1 - 3 . 6 , Low Density and Medium Density Residential . Said addition exceeds the allowable height limitations . with the following : Conditions 1 . That the height of the building not exceed 39 ' exterior, and 2 . That the building be built substantially as indicated by the plans submitted to this board tonight, and 3 . That Planning Board conditions from PB Resolution No 2012 — 065 are included in this variance as conditions . They are : a. Within six months of this approval , consolidation of Tax Parcel No . ' s 43 - 1 -3 . 5 , 43 - 1 -3 . 21 , and 43 - 1 -3 . 6 , and submission of a copy of the consolidation request to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department; and b. Submission of a storm water "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, and filing of the agreement and associated storm water easement with the Tompkins County Clerk, prior to the issuance of any building permits ; and ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 5of12 ® c. Submission to and approval by the Department of Public Works of a truck route plan for the hauling of excavated materials off site, prior to application for a building permit . with the following : Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, while possibly feasible with a flatter roof , is a reasonable plan submitted by the applicant and achieves their goal of maintaining a consistent roof pitch with other parts of the building and achieving the desired height for a gymnasium , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this addition is within the existing compound of the Montessori School and does not get any closer to any of the lot lines than their buildings already do, and 3 . That the request is not substantial , being only a few feet higher than what would be allowed and additionally it will not appear to be higher than what is allowed from the road, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects for the ® reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment form , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community. Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Krantz, Dixon, Fogarty and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed Appeal of Ecovillage at Ithaca, owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-219 .5 E & F of the Town of Ithaca Code, prohibited activities in Stream Setback zones 1 & 2 to be permitted to perform excavation and grading to expand the current farm pond located at 101 Rachel Carson Way, Tax Parcel No. 28 .-26-22, Planned Development Zone #8. Joanna Greene, Director Groundswell Center for Local Food and Farming affiliated through Ecovillage ' s Educational non-profit called The Ecovillage Center for Sustainability Education , Ms . Greene explained the importance of the project noting that they are the educational arm, focusing on food and agriculture education. They started in 2010 and have trained 180 aspiring and beginning farmers, mostly from the local and regional area. The programs aim to provide hands on training to new farmers that haven ' t grown up on a farm and don ' t have the business management and marketing training needed to be successful . The project is based in area farms, specifically Westhaven Farm and 6 other farms to provide the training. This current project at Ecovillage directly supports a whole new endeavor which is called the Groundswell Incubator ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 6 of 12 ® Farm . The project will provide technical , mentoring and infrastructure support for small businesses clustered together at a lower cost that will reduce start up costs . The farm enterprise incubator is doing the same service for new farmers . They come in for up to a 3 year period , launch their own business on a very small scale to get their production and management experience to eventually move onto their own site or to purchase their own farm . EcoVillage has designated 10 acres of land for this purpose. They are already receiving applications although they haven ' t opened up the application process . They are focusing first on new farms and immigrants that have limited resources . Ms . Green used the poster boards showing the ponds on the property. One of the limiting infrastructure problems is the limited availability of water at EcoVillage. The small pond used by Westhaven Farm was maxed out and they had to use municipal water this season and they are expanding their farm so Groundswell does not have access to that pond . Since they are already over capacity, the solution is to expand the farm pond for use by Groundswell and Westhaven farm . Irrigation for Groundswell can ' t be done without the expansion. A neighboring farm did try to drill a well in the past year but they were not successful even after a couple of thousand feet . The expansion of this pond will meet Westhaven Farms and Groundswell ' s needs . David Herrick, of TG Miller Engineering and Surveyors presented the technical side of this variance request . He explained that the stream is encumbered by the 35 ft setback on each side of the stream center line, continues past Rachel Carson Way to the northwest after crossing through a culvert at Rachel Carson Way and continues through Westhaven farm property and meanders all the way down to Westhaven Rd where it goes through a culvert and eventually into ® the inlet . The water that runs off that goes through the culvert at Rachel Carson Way ends up at the pond . It is not the pond itself that needs the variance ; it is the small footprint of the disturbance that they are asking for right at the outlet of the existing culvert just off Rachel Carson way. Recommendation was to have the positive means of maintaining flow into the pond . In order for this to be accomplished we had the small amount of grading and temporary vegetation disturbance within the 35ft stream setback. Technically, the expansion would double the size of the pond and would create an outlet structure that would accommodate most of the storm events that we are accustomed to , up to the 5 year event, which would actually flow through the pond through the outlet structure and flow down the Cliff Brook tributary as it always has . It would take more rainfall runoff to fill up the pond and there would be less flow during drought conditions and in the summer further down the way. However, he stated that it would not be unlike what is happening currently. He noted that pictures submitted to the Board show the creek nearly dry and that would continue with or without the proposed channel work. Mr. Sigel asked if this would be diverting all of the water that would be coming down the stream to the pond and Mr. Herrick said that is what happens now . When the pond gets to a certain level , the water backs up and runs around the outside of the pond and down to the stream . He noted that he kept the water levels the same so that will still happen . At elevation 1040 the water ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 7of12 will spill out and continue down the tributary but the volume will be increased so it will take islonger to fill the pond to that level . Mr. Rosen questioned the stream setback not including the pond and felt that the way Mr. Herrick is describing it, the pond is a part of the stream . He is not really seeing the stream going through the pond as described . Mr. Herrick clarified that the issue is that in expanding the pond, he wanted to make sure the water got into and out of the pond without erosion keeping the flow from going into the pond or without having engineered water over flows where a large storm could actually breach the embankments of the pond . He wanted a sustainable pond structure. Mr. Herrick showed the corridor of the stream as shown on their plans and under many rainfall events , that corridor will be active . In a 5 year return frequency event, all that water will go out through the primary spill way which is the big catch basin. For storms that exceed the 5 year occurrence event you will have over flow over a grass channel and back into the current drain way. Mr. Krantz requested specific information on the amount of water being discussed . Mr. Herrick stated that the pond currently holds 400 , 000 gallons and its capacity would be increased by 600, 000 to hold 1 million gallons when the grading is done . Ms . Fogarty asked what the water is used for downstream . Mr. Herrick did not know . He did state that it eventually runs down into the inlet of the lake . He did not know what the frequency is of times when there is no flow in the stream . This year, there is no water in the pond and no ® flow . Mr. Sigel asked Mr. Herrick if he knew of any other uses for the water down the hill and Mr. Herrick said he did not know, clarifying that he did not know of any other similar enterprises using the water down the hill . Mr. Rosen agreed, stating that he did not believe there were any other sites using it for irrigation and that it comes down quite steeply down west hill and becomes a waterfall by the old octopus and drops under a culvert under the road into the flood control channel . Discussion turned to the SEQR form with Ms . Brock explaining her discussion earlier in the day with Ms . Ritter, Director of Planning regarding the SEQR and her subsequent research about the setback situation. Ms . Brock believes that project is exempt under the Agricultural Farm Management Practice exemption in SEQR, the definition of which is "Clearing a field to plant crops, construction maintenance and repair of farm buildings and structures, building of dikes, ditching or installing drainage piping would not require SEQR review . " She then reviewed case law and found only one reported case that dealt with a farm that got a grant from a state agency to build hog manure handling facilities . Court said this is part of farm practices management and therefore exempt from SEQR . Therefore, although the project seems significant enough to warrant SEQR, the DEC has determined , by putting it on the Type 11 list, that it is exempt due to the State ' s strong defense of agriculture. After some discussion, Ms . Brock stated that it is a reasonable interpretation that what they are proposing is an agricultural management project. Mr. Sigel read the County' s GML recommendation : "We recommend that the applicant be required to provide a specific estimate of how the ® proposal will change the flow of Cliff Brook and describe any adverse downstream ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 8 of 12 ® ecological impacts that could result . Mitigation measures should be considered if warranted . " Mr. Sigel asked Mr. Herrick to respond to the recommendation . Mr. Herrick stated that when the pond is at its full elevation as it functions today, in equals out. When reduced flow conditions such as summer conditions, when irrigation is a necessity, and with rain flow that is more normal , there is little or no flow . Not all of the watershed that flows through Cliff Brook tributary is from the Ecovillage pond . There are other lands below this pond that contributes to the tributary. It is less acreage than what flows through the pond but nonetheless is a contributor. So, in droughty conditions there will be less base flow in the stream which would be consistent with the king of low- or no-flow conditions that have been experienced of late. Mr. Sigel agreed that the change seems to be pretty straightforward ; when there isn ' t enough flow to keep the pond full , the upstream water is not going into the down stream but into the pond and having a bigger pond that can happen for a longer period of time . Mr. Sigel asked Ms . Brock if the Board would have to do more than simply discuss the fact that what would happen is obviously that a larger pond can contain more water and halt the flow of water downstream for a longer period of time to meet the County' s recommendation. Ms . Brock thought that the Board should also address some of the issues that came in an email addressed to the Planning Board . (Attachment # 1 ) Ms . Brock read the allegations : ® 1 . Designated a Natural Features Focus area on the Tompkins County Conservation Plan . 2 . It is obviously governed by the recently passed Stream setback code which was put into effect to prevent this sort of negative impact to the watershed . 3 . The land is part of a conservation easement governed by the Finger Lakes Land Trust (FLLT) with special restrictions . 4 . It has historically been a wetland with vernal pools . 5 . It is part of a riparian corridor and by withdrawing water it is degrading the downstream habitat and biodiversity. 6 . Lies within an area designated by the state to contain endangered and threatened species . "And on a personal note this stream "Cliff Park Brook" runs 1000 ft through my property, by damming this stream they deny me the right of enjoyment of my property and according to the conservation plan, decrease the value of my property. " Ms . Brock thought that if the board discussed some of these issues , the board could say that the recommendation would be met . What they are saying is get information, and then consider mitigations if applicable . Mr. Sigel responded that it is an intermittent stream so it would be debatable to what extent extending that period of time of no-flow is harm to downstream neighbors . It is not as if it is flowing all the time and expanding this pond has the potential of stopping it for all time. Mr. Rosen thought it was hard to respond to an email like that without knowing where the stream ® was on the property and having time to research whether the allegations are true. ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 9 of 12 ® Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 07pm . Robert Mitchell , author of the email and neighbor to EcoVillage, spoke regarding the information in his email that had been referenced . He stated that this proposal expands this pond into a wetland and through this irrigation pond they will withdraw over 1 million gallons of water from the stream and move 3600 cubic yards of soil , much of it in a wetland. The pond is an old farm pond that is spring fed which empties into the stream Cliff Park Brook which arises across the street on Mecklenburg Rd then flows through a wetland to a culvert under Rachel Carson Drive. Historically it meandered through streamside wetlands and picks up outflows from the pond and together they augment the flow and exit EcoVillage property along the streambed down Westhill . It enters the inlet at a waterfall at Hector St and Elm St . He added that by historically, he means when he was a child , but more recently, EcoVillage has diverted that stream and channelized it so that as it exits the culvert on Rachel Carson Rd it flows in reverse. It now flows into the outflow of the pond . The pond was designed as a spring fed pond that never had a stream running into it. Mr. Mitchell had pictures showing the stream running into the pond . Instead of the pond adding water to the stream it is actually extracting it before it ever gets to the stream . The water once it ' s impounded is then pumped several hundred feet, some of it outside this watershed to Westhaven Farm . The diminished flow of this stream runs almost 2 ,000 ft through his property on Westhaven Rd and they draw this water at the crucial time of summer and allow very little if any water to exit the property. Enough used to get by the earthen damn to make it ® almost tolerable but that was when it was a small farm but now it is over 10 acres, greenhouses and a proposed addition of 10 acres and this would have a significant impact . It is Mr. Mitchell ' s fear that with this proposed dam and expansion they would impound even more water impairing the riparian community downstream that ' s always existed along this stream and it would be starved of water and die . It is his opinion that Ecovillage doesn ' t own the water. Running water is not by its nature private property. It can be used in a reasonable manner but cannot be denied those living downstream . Common Law on which riparian rights are based, holds to the principal that water flows and ought to flow as it is customary to flow so that all those that through the land that it runs can enjoy the privilege of its use. He also believes this plan will degrade the riparian corridor, which as important ecologic feature and depends on at least a small water flow on a regular basis . This stream doesn ' t always flow, but there are pools that are always there with enough to support a diverse biological community. As EcoVillage has withdrawn more and more water, the wildlife and ecosystem has diminished . Mr. Mitchell also felt that EcoVillage has shown disregard for the wetland by what they have already done, they have started to mow down the cattails and move some earth , and this seemed especially egregious since cattails are an indication of wetlands to the Army Corp of Engineers . His property value is decreased with the water decrease according to the Tompkins County Conservation Plan and protecting the enjoyment of streams is one of the stated goals of the newly adopted Stream Setback law. He stated that he has been enjoying this stream since the 1950 ' s as has his family. ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 10 of 12 ® Mr. Mitchell doesn ' t believe the applicants have provided a mitigation plan as required by the Stream Setback Law . He believes that any action that would degrade the environment should be under closer scrutiny. He also is not alone but has a letter from another neighbor, Rose Platco whose property abuts Ecovillage and whose property the Cliff Park Brook also runs on . Although he believes their reasons for wanting the water are laudable, they are not sufficient to degrade the stream and associated ecosystems . He believes there are other alternatives such as existing or new wells and there is another larger pond further up the property, along with using municipal water. He added that these are commercial enterprise with several thousand dollars of revenue every year that could be spent on this issue of needed irrigation . Mr. Mitchell thought they could also mitigate this by building a different kind of dam that would not impound all the water in the summer but they have chosen not to . Mr. Mitchell discussed the sketch provided by applicant . He pointed out where they show the stream setback, and thought it was a little hard to understand how on some of the pictures the whole area is considered a wetland and according to the pictures in the stream setback law, the stream side wetland is considered part of the stream and the setback doesn ' t start until outside of that stream side wetland . So the pond would actually be a part of the wetland . He also thought it was hard to understand how on the applicant ' s diagrams, the stream is in two different places and the water is running into the pond . He felt that it is only running into the pond because they made a berm (pointed to it) here to make it run into the pond . They basically channeled the stream in two places to make it fill the pond . ® Mr. Mitchell also commented on the Environmental Assessment Form in which the word "quantity" was left out which seemed to indicate that they knew they were doing something wrong. Mr. Bates pointed out that he was using the ` proposed ' form by DEC which they have not removed from their website, not the one that is actually being used . Mr. Herrick confirmed that over time there has been modification of the connection between the outlets of that culvert and the inlet side of the pond . In reality there is the original stream corridor and the ditching done as part of a farm practice. They modified the ditch in order to keep the pond at some point in the past. The Board discussed the comments and concerns raised by Mr. Mitchell . Mr. Rosen thought that Mr. Mitchell ' s comments explained his questions about the maps because he couldn ' t see where the stream fed the pond without diversion . Mr. Sigel noted that the current condition of the pond is that it is fed by the stream in addition to the spring. That was done at some point in the past but that is the current form . Mr. Rosen did not think that was shown on the maps exhibited by the applicant. Mr. Herrick responded that the Town has a map that shows the location of the streams that are covered by the stream set back ordinance and that is what is reflected on the displayed maps . He agreed that there is physical evidence by topography that that corridor is there but there has been modification via ditching to feed the pond . ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 11 of 12 ® Mr. Sigel was concerned that if any of the area around the pond being was a wetland that would extend the setback. It is possible the setback for this stream is short enough that it may be that the set back is achieved before you hit a wetland . Mr. Herrick was asked if he knew if any of this was wetland and he responded that there is evidence of cattails growing, other cattails that do grow down toward the north end of the pond and that by Army Corp standards there would be evidence in or around the pond that there are wetlands . The process of reviewing that and determining any issues with the Army Corp was vetted out between the applicant and the Corp and the Corp provided a letter stating that this purpose of constructing the expanded pond for purposes of agricultural was not an activity that required any mitigation or delineation of wetland impact . Mr. Mitchell commented that in recent weeks some of the cattails around the pond had been mowed down. He presented some pictures showing this . (Attachment #2) Mr. Mitchell also stated that the aerial picture that is a part of the Planning Dept packet shows the wetland areas . Ms . Brock added that this is going in front of the Planning Board tomorrow for a fill permit because they are going to move more than 250 cubic yards of fill and the Zoning Board did not get all of the same materials . Mr. Herrick pointed out that the wetland mowing could have been partly done by the Town as the means for keeping the easement cleared and he would check with Public Works tomorrow . Mr. Sigel was concerned because our Stream Setback Law ( SSL) is designed to protect stream banks and these issues of taking or retaining water from the stream don ' t seem to be directly ® related to stream bank quality or downstream water quality. Their intrusion into the setback area is small for the diversion area and while he was sympathetic to the issues downstream , he didn ' t know if that is what the SSL was designed to address . Ms . Brock said the law has its purposes in it and she began to look for it . Mr. Krantz commented that to him , this clearly violates the SSL. He thought this would require regular maintenance which would disturb the banks and sedimentation and this would clearly affect the ecology downstream . He felt that there were alternatives that should be used . Mr. Sigel did not disagree with the impacts , but did not know how the Board could relate how those impacts could be related to the banks or setback area that the SSL is protecting. Ms . Fogarty was concerned about the excavation that will be needed in the wetlands . Mr. Sigel discussed the option of adjourning the appeal to get an opinion from the Planning Board because he felt the Planning Board might have more experience dealing with these types of issues ; stormwater, drainage, wetland stability if water is damned or more water taken from the area, and riparian rights . Ms . Brock also noted the question about whether the stream setback Zones are properly shown and whether there are stream- side wetlands, then you do not count the wetlands in the setback area, you start the setback area at the edge of the outside of the wetlands . Mr. Sigel thought that staff should review that and provide recommendations . Ms . Brock added that although there are questions about where the stream is , the SSL states that the town staff prepares a map and they have. The map may need to be amended , but that is the map that the applicant needs to use . ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 12 of 12 ® Mr. Rosen asked for figures on water-flow and recharge rates for the pond . Mr. Herrick responded that he could bring some figures but weather controls the overflow and the intermittence of the existing stream . Ms . Greene thanked the board and Mr. Mitchell for the information and felt they need time to think about these concerns that they hadn ' t thought about . Mr. Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 43pm . Mr. Sigel moved to adjourn the appeal of the EcoVillage until the October meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, both after the request by the applicants that they be given time to supply additional materials, specifically indicating wetlands and how that may impact the stream setback ; and also so that this board may request Planning Board recommendation under Chapter 270-275 subsection H . Seconded by Mr. Dixon Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Dixon, Fogarty and Rosen . Nays — Krantz Motion passed Meeting adjourned 8 : 44pm 7vu_��� Kirk igel , Chair ® Submitted by Lori Kofoid, Deputy Tow Cler ® TOWN OF ITHACA (� AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Lori Kofoid , 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, September 17 , 2012 7 : 00 P . M . Date of Publication : Thursday, September 6 , 2012 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Hall Lobby Public Notices Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : Friday, September 6 , 2012 f Lori Kofoid Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of September 2012 . Nota�ublic Debra DeAugis± ine Notary Public - State of New York No. 01DE6148085 Qualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 19, 20 -JO C S ` ITHACAJOURNA L . CO-M • : 7B '. I t f k3 n { a �f v`- = r i gram x ar t - Legals05Q Legals T 05Q _ Legals0 t _ TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ' Monday' , •' September 17,12012 f - 215 North Toga Street, Ithaca , f 7:00 P:M. (Appeal . of Brian Francis. , agent for Gary & Rita Car - son, owners, requesting .variances from ,the require- ments of. Chapter 270-233, and Section 270-71C 'Yardl Regulations" of the Town of� Ithaca Code to be permit- ted to construct deck ad- dition that ' encroach . into the side yard setback locat- ed at 2 Saunders Dr, •Tax , Parcel No. '44.2.2-1 , , Medi um Density Residential. . Appeal of EAC o ere- ( School of Ithaca,, ownner,r, re- questing a , variance from the requirements of Chap- ter 270-59 of the Town of •, .Ithaca Code to be permit- ted to construct an addition I to the already - existing 'buildings located at 120- - 122 King Rd E, Tax Parcel! No. 43.- 1 -3.21 , 43.- 1 -3.5 & � 143.-1 -3.6, Low Density andl Medium Density . Residen-tial. Said addition exceeds - the allowable. height limita tions. Appeal of Ecovillage at Itha- da. , owner, requesting a variancefrom the require- ments of Chapter 270-i I' 219.5E & Fofthe Town of Ithaca Code, prohibited ac- tiviiies in Stream Setback I zones 1. &.2 to be permitted � to perform excavation and I grading to, expand the cur- t rent' farm pond locatedat 101 Rachel Carson Way, 'Tax Parcel No. 28.26.22,' Planned Development Zone #8. Assistance will be provided for individuals with special ,needs, upon 'request. Re- quests should be made not less than 48 hours prior the public hearings. Bruce W. Bates . Director of Code I jEnforcement -607-273. 1783 _ , ! Dated: Septembers, 2012 _ 19/7/2012 A . of AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL WATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) 1, Lori Kofoid, 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 7`h day of September 2012 , deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers : 2 Saunders Rd, Area Variance Robert P Barker Brenda Bear Jason Bennett 6 Chase Ln 4 Chase Ln 183 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Richard Benson William Block Gary Carlson 8 Chase Ln 7 Saunders Rd 2 Saunders Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 James V Ciaschi III Joseph R Citro William Courtney 7 Chase Ln 177 King Rd E 19 Saunders Rd haca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Eric Cronise Michael Dorf Jennifer Driscoll 5 Saunders Rd 189 King Rd E 14 Saunders Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Mark Fiore James Garbarino Yuval Grossman 165 King Rd E PO Box 7074 8 Saunders Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14851 Ithaca, NY 14850 Kevin Hallock Kevin Haverlock Brandon Hencey 6 Saunders Rd 5 Chase Ln 181 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Kenneth Hodges Hospicare Foundation, Inc Kevin Howe 16 Saunders Rd 172 King Rd E 173 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Michael Massicci Peter Massicci Cheryl Mitchell 12 Saunders Rd 18 Saunders Rd 10 Saunders Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Paul Muscente Richard Newhart John Peterson 20 Saunders Rd 171 King Rd E 34 Crosstie Court �haca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Palm Coast, FL 32137 Christopher Petrillose Ronald Provus William Rady 179 King Rd E 3 Chase Ln 10 Chase Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 ffidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 09/ 17/2012 49 Joseph Scaffido James Scarpulla Brian Smith 4 Saunders Rd 185 King Rd E 175 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Arthur Stern William Whitten 9 Chase Ln 191 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 120- 122 King Rd E, Area Variance Leslie Black Robert Chamberlain College Crossing LLC 107 Kings Way 70 Gunderman Rd 123 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14853 Jacob Crawford Rachel Cullenen Mark Fonder 111 Kings Way 1111 Danby Rd 126 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Manley ' s Mighty Mart Montessori Elem Sch of Ithaca Theresa Peck 1249 Front St 120 King Rd E 113 Kings Way Binghamton, NY 13905 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Oed Oak Cayuga Properties, LLC Samuel Peter Trust Eric Schneider PO Box 737 1083 Danby Rd 124 King Rd E Trumansburg, NY 14886 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Donna Updike 130 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 101 Rachel Carson Way, Area Variance Mossaad Abdel-Ghany Franziska Bedzyk Robin Botie 162 Westhaven Rd 1343 Mecklenburg Rd 1341 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert Champion Ecovillage at Ithaca, Inc Ecovillage at Ithaca, Inc 24 Helen ' s Way 200 Rachel Carson Way 100 Rachel Carson Way Ithaca, NY 14851 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Rose Flacco Revocable Trust Brent Katzmann Abbe Lyons 150 Westhaven Rd 1335 Mecklenburg Rd 154 Westhaven Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 ® 2 0kffidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 09/ 17/2012 Robert Mitchell Leon Newhart Joshua Peluso 153 Westhaven Rd 155 Westhaven Rd 140 Westhaven Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 11210 Ithaca, NY 14850 Steven Pond Stanley Renkas Colleen Shuler 142 Westhaven Rd 164 Westhaven Rd 1319 Mecklenburg Rd #5 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert & Mary Swansbrough Leo Teeter & Ann Lillie Yunis Realty Inc 15 Piper Rd 214 Wood St 214 E Church St Newfield, NY 14867 Ithaca, NY 14850 Elmira, NY 14901 Jeffrey Gilmore Devon Van Noble Peter Trowbridge Ecovillage at Ithaca, Inc PO Box 6679 1345 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14851 Ithaca, NY 14850 By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the St New York. i ,ori Kofoid, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca Sworn to f e me this 7"' day of September 2012 . 01/1 WA Aft 04d Notary Publ PAULETTE TERMWOER Nctory Pubfic, State of Hew Yak No. OITE6156809 C Wi ied to Vmipkim ooh+ / Comn�ion Ewkw Oeoernber 4, 20*/ ® 3 ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SIGN - IN SHEET DATE : September 17 , 2012 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE A CCURA CY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS / AFFILIATION vv � 4 �