Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (16) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 28.-1-26.222 Rachel Carson Way EcoVillage Tax Parcels involved, with address if known Rachel Carson Way 28.-1-26.222 with subdivisions. Previous tax parcel number 28.-1-26.2.2 History: 2012- Area Variance for excavation and grading in stream setback – Adjourned sent to planning board and encouraged to compromise with neighbors. Appeal withdrawn. 2005 – Area Variance for bus shelter in 50 foot right of way - Approved 2003 – Height Variance for deer fence - Approved 1996 – Sprinkler Variance for Common House – Approved 1996 – Area Variance for pump house setback - Approved 1994 – Modification of Height Variance to extend the time in which a 70 foot tall wind testing instrument can be installed from 1/1/95 to 8/1/95 - Approved 1993 – Special Approval for the installation of a 70 foot tall wind testing instrument. – Approved for 1/1/94 to 1/31/95. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday September 17 , 2012 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P . M . Appeal of Brian Francis , agent for Gary & Rita Carlson , owners , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270-233 and Section 270- 71 C "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 . 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 . 41 - 1 -3 . 21 , 41 - 1 -15 & 41 - 1 -3 . 6 , Low Density and Medium Density Residential . Said addition exceeds the allowable height limitations . 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 . 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 : September 5 , 2012 Published : September 7 , 2012 ZBA 9/ 17/2012 Page 5 of 12 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 6of12 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 longer 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 snowing 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 Kirk Sigel, Chair Submitted by Lori Kofoid, Deputy Town Clerk OWN OF ITMACA 215 N . Tioga Street, ITHACA, N. Y . 14850 AUG 2012 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 PLANNING 273-1747 CODE ENFORCENT & ZONIN 273- 1783 7OM4 Of: PUBLIC WORKS (Engineering, Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273-1 E6 G�ll� E EP� t 7 s ` t; r iY f FAX (607) 273- 1704 — - ------! Zoning Board of Appeals Application Form : Submit this -Application ONLY after: ( 1 ) applying for a buildvig/"sign permit for which you received a determination /denial from Code Enforcement Staff or (2) referral from the Planning Board based upon a site plan or subdivision review. ZBA A earance Fee: $ 100 For Office Use Only For Office U e• Only 1 .;Property'ts located within, or adjacent to Plea a check all that apply . " z � flDate Received 30 PP Y � Area Variance �' ounty Ag District J� �r+ 2 3 Cash orCheck Noy Use Variance u1vA Zoning Distnct D�z t1 _ Sign Variance CEA Apphcabl� Sections) of Town Code i Sprinkler Variance Forest Home H�storrc Dts'trtct s ' s_ I I ecial Approval State Park/another.. municipality 7 �� 2 E The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form requesting an appearance to be allowed to at l O k go..t,.e Coe on Town of Ithac ax Parcel No. , �l �.� `, a-a• 2r!` . -- ( _ 2 :;)- as shown on the attached supporting documents. description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary ship and/or the Special Approval authorization request is as follows (attach any additional sheets as necessary): Ca fir, By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town Staff to enter my property for any inspection(s) in connection with my application. Print Name Here : _"TC; F FtREY A _ Cr4 uel o v? L Signature of Owner/Appellant: r Date: . Signature of Appellant/Agent: n\ j �trt� D�D� Home/Cell Telephone Number: C*jLb AkOO 4�0"S Work Telephone Number : LEA} �j Email Address 4 > 4,\( NOTE: A Granted Variance expires 18 months from the date of its riling. Construction work associated with any variance(s) must commence within 18 months of filing. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised. Revised 11/9/2010 c Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Application AREA VARIANCE CRITERIA FORM The Applicant alleges that strict observance of the Town of Ithaca Stream Setback Law Zone 1 would require the construction of the farm pond outside the flow of the Cliff Park Brook, where it would no longer be filled by the Brook and thus no longer be a feasible project . This would impose a significant practical difficulty to being able to use the adjacent 10 acres of agricultural land for farming and agricultural training purposes, according to its current zoning . The Applicant alleges that the benefit to the Applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically : 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the applicant's desire to make up approximately 600, 000 additional gallons of water available for agricultural use on the EcoVillage property for both the Groundswell Incubator Program and West Haven Farm . Reasons : - In order to expand the pond , it is necessary to ensure that the flow of water will actually connect from the outlet of the culvert to the inflow of the pond . Without creating a permanent channel that can consistently direct water into the pond, which will then spillover back into the normal course of the stream , the point of inflow would likely be affected by erosion during major rain events, and sedimentation . This alternative would require regular excavation of the channel to maintain the stream inflow, and this would not only be unfeasible, but would have a negative impact on the streambed . 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby Properties that outweighs the benefits to the Applicant, given that the location of the project site already lies within several agricultural zones, and is not visually accessible from anywhere but on the Applicant's property . Furthermore the project is closely aligned with the needs of the neighboring agricultural enterprise, West Haven Farm . 3 . That while the request is not substantial given the location of the project is largely outside of the designated Stream Setback Zones, the only point of intrusion is necessary for maintaining an effective inflow to the pond, and 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 effects The Cliff Park Brook is a seasonal creek that fills up the farm pond, and overflows back down into its normal course of flow . This project would increase the amount of time it would take to fill at the beginning of the year and recharge after a drought—but essentially 1of2 the Brook would retain the same pattern of flow and seasonality . The excavators who would being contracted to do this work have done an extensive amount of work at EcoVillage in the past and have a good familiarity how to mitigate issues with erosion and sedimentation . 5 . That the alleged difficulty is self-created , however the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community . 2of2 '�i'!-,•L�'1 Ld, );I' ll 'r.:r iI ! poll • riw;,r � � r \� �— _ 1p D X 'Z.:! 1�dVijt `{II �yT +/yam SEP 17 2012 !lI fl �� t' �4 'iiJr4lj 1tG;' NIN 4YN OF 1THACA► 1~21s ' Cov Stre PLANNING / ENGINEERING et 1 a c , 11 ' lth ,�ca,'Ne�r Xork ;114$1 0 Edward l C 1arx 41CP s w , `V'�, 1. rll� lu1i�1iTIWy .''� rI Commissioner 4 •\'M - u- Arul� .i:. rl' ss onCr of Planning Telephone (607) 274-5560 and Community Sustainability 74-5578 Fax- 74-5578 " (607) 2 September 17, 2012 Ms - Christine Balestra, Planner Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1 , -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action_ Special Permit and Area Variance for the proposed Groundswell Incubator Farnx Pond project located at EcoVillage at Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 28.-1-26.22, Planned Development Zone No. 8, EcoVillage at Ithaca, Inc., Owner; Devon Van Noble, Incubator Coordinator, Applicant; David Herrick, Agent. Dear Ms . Balestra- This letter aelmowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 =1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it may have negative inter-com.munity, or county-wide impacts as described below. We recommend modification of the proposal. If the Board does not incorporate the recommendations, such approval will require a vote of a supermajority (meaning a majority plus one) of all members of the decision-making body. Recommended Modifications e 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 ecological impacts that could result. Mitigation measures should be considered if warranted . Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, lee � ` . Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning & Community Sustainability Inc(usion through Vmernty 0000000 Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A plicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Applicant/Sponsor 2. rProject Name scc V 3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map :) It �°� C o-F'�� V� o �'� 0�01� �� CC be�w-e�l -��� ec�-�sQ•n W G -�'crcw� k cV-�llS �oc) Tag Parcel Number: 4. Is proposed action: NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION ? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): C "V � (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected : Initiall (0-5 rs) Acres 6- 10 rs) >10 rs) ` Acres 7. How is land zoned presently? 0 =-6 8. Wi 1 roposed action comply with exis ing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes N0 If no, describe conflict briefly: bu l ��, �@6A q0A \ 0XNk- Z - _ � C 9. l proposed action lead to a quest for new: Public Road ? YES NO Public Water? YES NO Public Sewer? YES NO 10. What is the present land use ip the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other Please Describe: LS ��U \ t�� �` � �� 1 ��ti�. V� C 11. Does proposed action mvolXq a permit, approval„p( ff n ng, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local?) YES NO �,p g - �.�y� tag �cp�(1 L'uk(' If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: _ ��a x�n' �e , • kv^\� aeon� R • ��-reu. �,ge, 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a urrently valid permit or approval? YE NO U&xk lot If yes, list agency name and permittapproval. Also, state whether it will require modification. 1 �\^ v - b�-c�n 4`�1cR c I CERTEWS THAT INFORMATIO ROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): 7TL ( C_ftLJ A . 611i'et O12, G Signature and Date: 6 101 RacheLCason way / PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT To be completed by the Town; Use attachments as necessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X If no a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if an . C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: ( Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: Possible — but if the current variance request is granted this project will help to mitigate these potential problems . C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or Neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None anticipated — the use of this section of the property will not change. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: Possible — but if the current variance request is granted this project will help to mitigate these potential problems . C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: None anticipated —Current use will not change. This project is to benefit the current agricultural use. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: None anticipated — this should continue as agricultural use. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl-059 Explain briefly: None anticipated. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly: None anticipated. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART III = DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material. Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. _Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency eparer' s Signature(If different from Responsible Officer) Kirk Sigel Chairperson _ Name & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE: Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency 9/7/ 12 E ! L E s . ?d l� DAi! E is PB Resolution -No . 2012-065 : Pi-elimii ary and Fiiial'Siie Plan Approval, Special Permit Montessori School Addition and Alterations Tax Parcel No .'s- 434o:3 . 5 , 43- 1-3 . 21 , 434 -3 . 6 120 & 122 East King Road Town of Ithaca Planning Board, September 4, 2012 Moved by Hollis Erb ; seconded by Ellen Baer WHEREAS : 1 . This action involves the consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Elizabeth Ann Clore Montessori School project , located at 120 and 122 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 43- 1-3 . 5 , 43- 1 -3 . 21 , and 43- 1 -3 . 6 , Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones . The proposal involves constructing a new two-story building that will connect the existing elementary and middle school buildings and will include office space , classrooms , and a new community room . The project also involves interior renovations to the existing elementary school building . Site improvements for this project include a parent drop-off area , 10 additional parking spaces , associated walkways , landscaping, stormwater facilities , and outdoor lighting . Elizabeth Ann Clone Montessori School of Ithaca , Owner/Applicant; Lisa R . Smith , Executive Director , Agent; and 2 . This is in Unlisted Action , for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board acting in an uncoordinated environmental review, has , on September 4 , 2012 , made a negative determination of environmental significance , after reviewing and accepting as adequate a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part 1 , submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and other application materials ; and 3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing held on September 4, 2012 , has reviewed and accepted as adequate , plans prepared by T. G . Miller, P . C . , dated August 3 , 2012 , entitled " EAC Montessori School Addition and Alterations , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York, Preliminary/ Final Site Plan Approval , " with Sheet 0100 titled " Existing Conditions Plan , " Sheet C 101 titled " Demolition , Erosion & Sediment Control Plan , " Sheet C102 titled " Layout Plan , " Sheet C103 titled " Grading And Drainage Plan , " Sheet C104 "titled " Utility Plan , " Sheets 0200 and 0201 titled " Details , " Sheet A-01 titled "Plan LVL 1 , " Sheet A-02 titled " Plan LVL 2 , " Sheets 11 and A- 12 titled " Elevations , " and Sheet L 01 titled. " Planting Plan , " and other application materials ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED : That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the Elizabeth Ann Clone Montessori School proposed addition and alterations , pursuant to Town Code Section 270- 127 . 1 , finding that the standards of Article XXIV, Section 270- 200 , Subsections A - L, of the Town of Ithaca Code , have been met; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board hereby authorizes parking in the required front yard for the project, pursuant to Section 270-227 . B (3) , finding that: a . The particular use , nature , or location of the proposed project requires that parking be located in the front yard ; b . It is not practicable to limit "parking t6 �at6as outside the front yard for the proposal ; Y c . Parking in the front yard will not significantly adversely affect adjacent properties or the character of the neighborhood , and will be softened by the addition of landscaping; and d . No parking shall occur in any buffer areas ; and 2 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School addition and alterations located at 120 and 122 East King Road , Town of Ithaca . Tax Parcel No . ' s 43- 1 -3 . 5 , 43403 . 2 1 , and 43- 1 -3 . 6, as described in the sot of site plan drawings noted in Whereas # 3 above , subject to the following conditions : a . Obtaining any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , prior to the issuance of any building permits ; and b . 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 c . Submission " operation ,of a stormwater 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 stormwater easement with the Tompkins County Clerk, prior to the issuance of any building permits ; and d . Submission to and approval by the Department of Public Works of a truck route plan for the haLilinG of excavated materiels off site , prior to application for a building permit. Vote : Ayes - Erb , Coll ' is , Conaienzan , Baer, Val derMaas hereby certify that the above is a i copy .- resol tior� adopted by the jy � c of the Town of Ithaca; To kips" ;;ou qty, i}tf w York ; n the , t�- day (SEAL) Of � 2 Date Town Clerk uty Town- Ark Page 2 of 2 iw f� Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A plicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Applicant/Sponsor 2. Project Name 3 . Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map : ) Tax Parcel Number: 4. Is proposed action : NEW? EXPANSION ? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION ? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items) : (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected : Initial) (0-5 rs) Acres (640 rs) (> 10 rs ) ` Acres 7. How is land zoned presently? loA ftit ** S . Wi I proposed action comply with exis ing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? Yes NO If no, describe conflict briefly : ?c 0 r-. \10� ;r„ncs� 2;:gA b e. ) CA ctc* 9. Will proposed action lead to a quest for new: Public Road ? YES NO .T Public Water? YES NO Public Sewer? YES NO x 10. What is the present land use ip the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential S Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other Please Describe : Ifs C� G`� lr�v �\L•Qc4�Yv2 Yi �t ' �'1 11 . Does proposed action invol a permit, approval fun ng, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local ?) YES NO 15 F" olj ufy% a� � ��0 �q1 &V � - ik- If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: J '� 2 C —I; \'0A �� a 7 �V� 1k, Ck IS-V" N4%kS.9 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a urrently valid permit or approval ? YE NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification. I CERT THAT E INFORMATIO ROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : S'G F f f i EL/ A . (r l lM a �' G Signature and Date : 6 Groundswell Incubator Farm Pond PART_ II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be;;;com ' leted :by the Town) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 61742 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES _ . NO, _ X - , If es, coordinate the reyipw process and use. the full EAF:., _, B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in , 6 NYCRR Part 617.6 YES . z NQ _ X . If no, a np ative declaratiop ma . be su erseded b another involved a enc , if an . C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Cl . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater. quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . The project involves the removal of approximately 3 , 600+/- cubic yards of soil in order to expand an existing irrigation pond that will serve •the new Groundswell Incubator Farm and the existing West Haven Farn . The project also involves the creation of an embankment around the north side of the faun pond , installation of a temporary diversion swale, and associated grading, erosion and sedimentation controls, seeding and mulching . "Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans" (sheet C102 ) have been prepared for the project, which show the erosion and sediment control measures to be used during construction along with the final layout and 'permanent protection measures . The Town ' s Engineering Department ( Public Works Department) has reviewed -the proposed project and are cot;forta'ble. .with the proposed plans . C2 . Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or - Neighborhood character? Explain briefly : Norte Anticipated . The existing pond is currently used by West Haven Farm for irrigation. The pond will be expanded to create a larger water supply which will also be used by the Groundswell Incubator Farm . The current and expanded pond use will support the various agricultural uses on the property. The EcoVillage property, including the pond area, is located within the Tompkins County Agricultural District No . 2 . The area involved in this project is located within a conservation easement held by the Finger Lakes Land Trust (July 1997) . It appears the pond expansion is consistent with the easement and supports the various agricultural uses allowed . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish , or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands,_ or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . The area to be disturbed currently consists of a mix of open field and low brush, including several areas of cattails . There are a couple larger trees (mostly willow) on the site, and it appears from the plans that only one will be removed . There is a small existing stream that currently feeds the pond , which will be modified to divert additional water to the expanded pond . The National Wetland Inventory (NWI ) identifies the existing pond as Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom , Pennanently Flooded , and Diked/Impounded ( PUBHh) and the area to the north and west of the pond as Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded (PEM 1 Q . A map and additional information regarding the NWI codes are attached . According to a letter dated August 6 , 2012 from Julie Rimbault, Department of the Army, the US Army Corps of Engineers does not regulate the construction or maintenance of farm ponds , and will not require any permit for this project . C4. The Town ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (Anticipated Land Use Patterns Map) designates the site as "Agricultural " , and it is zoned Planned Development Zone No . 8 as part of EcoVillage property. This project requires a Special Permit from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , following the review and recommendation of the Town ' s Director of Public Works , since it involves the removal of-more than 25;0 cubic yards of fill (Section 270=217 dithe'•Town Code) . The project will also- require a yariance(s) from the : Town 'ofTthaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Section 270-219 . 5 ( Stream Setback) of the Town Code . The'�propos.al involves "regrading the "strdam channel just below= the culvertunder Rachel Carson'Way; which is •a prohibited activity within the 35 foot stream setback area (zones 1 and 2) . C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities 'likely to be. induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: None Anticipated . C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05 ? Explain briefly :a . None Anticipated . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)' 'EXplain briefly : None Anticipated. . - . . . D . Is there; `or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly : E. Comments of staff CB other attached . (Check a`"s a l,cable.) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above, deterinine whether it is substantial, large, iiinpirlant, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting ( i .e. urban or rural ); ( b ) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and ( f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference suppbrting material. Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse - impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. _\_Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination . Town of Ithaca Planning Board Name of Lead Agency Preparer' s Si nature( lf different from Responsi le Officer) Fred Wilcox, Chairman Name & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE : Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Groundswell Incubator Pond Photos for 9/17/12 Zoning Board of Appeals AA , r � K 1 F;XIStIn� ('�anncl [,eadina t�► Pnnd Groundswell Incubator P• • • • for 1/17/12 Zoning Board • Appeals - 4 ('hanncl Entering.I�;xistin�r Pond Y f Existing Pond from Channel (north side of pond) °��I.Iwi.W: '•pry f i'r' , '1 I. ,..� ' Jr. . � ��, t 01-1 it I'�' II. .�. '� .tL il. LM1 I;w 1 if DEP it I 1 y� 1 Il 'I lf . , r; 1, I 1i ;;1 0,11 Cou ;Street(1:I 1 �f, i 1..4 oiIJA1!'�� I Ir Ilk Ithaca,•l±f Edward C. Marx AICP `;'t'ork ,'14$SO ] u ' 1, r Yi 1 rl, Commissioner of Planning _ 11 jIf $ ;, .. yr Telephone (607) 274-5560 y:_ and Community Sustainability Fax (607) 274-5578 September 17, 2012 Ms_ Christine Bai.estra, planner 'own of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1 , -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Special Permit and Area Variance for the proposed Groundswell Incubator Farni Pond project located at EcoVi]Uage at Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 284-1 -2612, Planned Development Zone No. 8, EcoVillage at Ithaca, Inc., Owner; Devon Van Noble, Incubator Coordinator, Applicant; David Herrick, Agent, Dear Ms . Balestra: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 =1 and -m of the New York State General :Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it may have negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts as described below. We recommend modification of the proposal . If the Board does not incorporate the recommendations, such approval will require a vote of a supermajority (meaning a majority plus one) of all members of the decision-making body. Recommended Modifications • We recommend that the applicant be required to provide a specific estimate of bow the proposal will change the flow of Cliff Brook and describe any adverse downstream ecological impacts that could result. Mitigation measures should be considered if warranted . Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning &, Cominunity Sustainability IncCusion through Vverilty OF ITS > TOWN OF ITHACA 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 �� � � ��` www . town . ithaca . ny . us CODE ENFORCEMENT = BRUCE W. BATES , DIRECTOR Phone (607 ) 273- 1783 Fax (607 ) 273- 1704 August 29 , 2012 David Herrick TG Miller P . 0 203 N Aurora St Ithaca , NY 14850 RE : Stream Setback Regulation Dear Mr. Herrick : This letter is confirmation of our meeting on today' s date concerning that the proposed plan to enlarge the irrigation pond at EcoVillage at 101 Rachel Carson Way would involve work within the stream that currently feeds and flows around the current pond . This work is not allowed per the Town of Ithaca ' s Stream Setback regulation and therefore you are not allowed to proceed . However, your clients have a right to pursue a variance from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . This letter may act as the denial thus leading their way to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals . Sincerely, Bruce W . Bates Director, Code Enforcement TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005 7 : 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, June 20, 2005 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P .M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of Coddington Road Community Center, Appellant, Anne Morrissette, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a pavilion without the installation of a required sprinkler system at 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47- 1 - 11 . 3 , Low Density Residential Zone . APPEAL of Rocco Lucente, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 270-71 of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow an existing residence to maintain a 10 foot north side yard setback ( 15 feet required) at 125 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 -7 . 5 , Medium Density Residential Zone . APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Joseph Bennett, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of-Section 270=59-of the-Town of-Ithaca-Code , to-allow-a-pavilion- to be-constructed - in excess of a 15 foot height limitation, located adjacent to the McConville Barn on 770 Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 65 - 1 -5 .2 , Low Density Residential Zone . A variance from Section 270-60 may also be requested, as the pavilion is not in the rear yard . APPEAL of EcoVillage at Ithaca, Appellant, Francis Vanek, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 271 -9, Special Land Use District #9 of the Town of It Code, to be permitted to place a bus shelter within the required 50 foot buffer at the " intersection of Rachel Carson Way and NYS Route 79, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -26 .22 . APPEAL of Thomas Farrell , Appellant, Orlando Iacovelli, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 270-62 of the Town of Ithaca Code to create by subdivision a parcel of land with a lot width at the maximum front yard setback of approximately 130 feet ( 150 foot width required) at 923 and 925 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47-2-5 , Low Density Residential Zone . A variance from Section 270-60 is also required, as an existing house located on the land being subdivided, will have a new north side yard setback of 15 + feet (40 feet required) . A variance from Section 270-54 may also be requested to be allowed to maintain two existing sheds at 923 Coddington Road . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 :00 p .m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 607-273 - 1783 Dated : June 10 . 2005 Published : June 1 3 . 2005 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 20, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES APPEAL of EcoVillage at Ithaca, Appellant, Francis Vanek, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 271 -9, Special Land Use District #9 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to place a bus shelter within the required 50 foot buffer at the intersection of Rachel Carson Way and NYS Route 79, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 284 -26.22 . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — Would you give your name and address and tell us briefly about the appeal ? Mr. Vanek - Sure, my name is Francis Vanek, I ' m at 223 Rachel Carson Way, and I ' m acting as the agent for EcoVillage at Ithaca. The request for the variances is based on the . fact that the bus shelter really needs to be close enough to the road that people waiting for the bus can first, see the bus coming and then walk out to the road and then catch the bus. And in fact, if it were more than 50 feet back, they wouldn' t have a good enough vantage on the road in order to see it in time . I ' m sure you ' re all familiar with bus shelters needing to be close to the road, or any other one you see around Ithaca. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — Has this been reviewed with the bus system? Mr. Vanek - Yes, we ' ve been in communication with TCAT, and they ' ve actually seen the plan and seen that the bus shelter should be close enough to the road that people can easily catch the bus from it. Mr. Matthews — Why don' t they built it? Why doesn ' t TCAT built it? Why are you folks building it? 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 20 , 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Vanek - We designed a passive solar bus shelter that' s not a stock bus shelter, rather we ' re going to built it ourselves in a certain way . In part, to make it a entry-way to EcoVillage to kind of demonstrate some interesting architecture . So , that was the basis for this project. Mr. Matthews — Does this have to have a sprinkler system? Ms . Rice - We looked . It doesn' t. But we did look. Mr. Matthews — OK. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — Any further questions from the board? OK, we ' ll open the public hearing. Does anyone wish to speak on this appeal? We ' ll close the public hearing. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth opens the public hearing at 7: 52 p. m. and closes the public hearing at 7: 53 p. m. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — Any other comments, Chris., on the environmental assessment. Ms . Balestra — No, no environmental concerns . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — OK, can I get a motion on the environmental assessment? Mr. Krantz — I would vote that we favor a negative determination of environmental assessment on EcoVillage ' s appeal to be permitted to place a bus shelter within the required 50 foot buffer at the intersection of Rachel Carson Way and Route 79 . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — Second? All those in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2005 - 034 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant, Francis Vanek, Agent, Rachel Carson Way and NYS Route 79 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28Am 26 . 22 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz , seconded by Dick Matthews . RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant , Francis Vanek , Agent , to be permitted to place a bus shelter within the required 50 foot buffer at the intersection of Rachel Carson Way and NYS Route 79 . The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 20, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Matthews NAYS : None The MOTION was declared to be carried . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — All right, can I get a motion on the appeal? Mr. Barney — Could I , I was just slightly puzzled about where it is in the special land use district that it authorizes these . . . Ms . Balestra — It restricts the location of buildings other than structures within 50 feet of the boundary of a special land use district. Mr. Barney — But where does it say you can build a bus shelter? Accessory buildings, . such as doghouses, storage sheds, carports, gazebos or other small structures clearly ancillary [inaudible] to dwelling units . Is that the section that allows it that we are basing it on? Ms . Rice - It ' s probably under other small structures . . . Mr. Barney — OK. Ms . Balestra — I don' t remember where I found it, but it' s in here . This went to the planning board . [inaudible] Mr. Matthews — Harry, do you know why, what ' s the reason for the requirement of the 50 foot buffer? Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — No , I don 't. Mr. Matthews — There must be a reason behind it for something . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — I guess just so structures don ' t get pushed up too close to the road . Mr. Matthews — But the buses are coming . . . John, my question is, what ' s the reason for the 50 foot buffer? Mr. Barney — to provide distance between the buildings and structures on this property from any adjoining owned, any property adjoining that is owned by a different party. This was part of an overall development of. . . how many acres? I don ' t know. 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 20, 2005 y APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Vanek - 175 . Mr. Barney — 175 acres . And when you get that frequently, the Planning Board or the Town Board, in this case it' s done by the Town Board as part of the Local Law, basically puts a, to ensure the development when you have that much area, stays somewhat away from the property line, imposes a buffer requirement. And that ' s what the 50 foot buffer is here . It makes less sense, quite frankly, along the road frontage, because there you ' re not worried about it, so again, what you ' re looking at tonight doesn' t strike me as being out of. . . Mr. Matthews — So the 50 feet is to the next property line? Mr. Barney — 50 foot is the buffer around the perimeter of the whole property, including the perimeter that is along the road frontage. Mr. Matthews — So now they are imposing on, within the 50 feet, on someone else ' s property. Mr. Barney — No, on their own property, but they ' re doing it at an area where the next piece of property is the state highway that runs by, rather than your house or my house adjacent on one side or the other. Mr. Matthews — So it ' s 50 feet to the state highway . To the centerline of the state highway? Mr. Barney — No , we ' d go to the edge . Mr. Matthews — Edge of state highway . Do what harm is being done if they come closer than 50 feet in this particular case? Mr. Barney — That ' s for you to determine, but if you were to determine that there were very little or no harm at all, I certainly wouldn ' t be opposed to trying to sustain that if you were sued . Mr. Matthews — Could anyone give me some ideas of what possible harm would be done? Ms . Rice - No , but I can tell you that when the special land use district was originally created with the buffer zone, it was only the rear portion of the property, and they cam in later and extended the boundaries of the property and at that point, it came up to the road . So, the 50 foot buffer was initially for the rear portion where it was surrounded on all sides by adjoining land and not the public road. Mr. Matthews — So in this particular case , it ' s imposing on the space between it and the road. 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 205 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney — Right. Mr. Matthews — So, looking into our crystal ball in the great future, what happens in that 50 feet, that the state widens the road or something? Mr. Barney — I think it' s an anomaly with the way the program progressed here with respect to EcoVillage . Mr. Matthews — Right now there ' s no harm . Mr. Barney — I think you ' re probably right. Mr. Vanek - If I can just add, it looks like the nearest property up the road is probably about 140 feet up the road to the property boundary . Mr. Matthews — The bus company doesn' t have any problems with it being that far or that close or anything like that . The fire department has no problem . There ' s no safety issue. Thank you. Mr. Barney — The other question that I would have , I notice we ' re dealing with two landowners here, and the building is actually going to be on EcoVillage of Ithaca' s property, but it looks like the driveway the provides access to it is on EcoVillage Association' s property, am I reading that right? Mr. Vanek - Yes, you would have to walk a little bit from Rachel Carson Way over across the boundary from the Village Association land onto the EcoVillage land to enter the bus shelter, that ' s right. Mr. Barney — And how does the Village Association feel about this? Mr. Vanek - They also have consented on, they agreed to this bus shelter, so . . . both bodies, both the Village Association and the Board of the EcoVillage at Ithaca Inc, have approved that the bus shelter would go forward . Mr. Barney — I didn' t notice, the application is signed just by, well , it' s unclear as to which property owner is signing it. The SEQR form is for EcoVillage at Ithaca. It wouldn' t be difficult I assume, to get some sort of document that' s certified from both boards that they are in favor of this sort of question. Mr. Vanek - Yeah, yes we can do that. OK. Mr. Barney — OK, I think that might be the way to handle this . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — Can I get a motion on the appeal of EcoVillage? 24 v TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 20 , 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — Again, I make a motion to approve the request of the EcoVillage to build a bus station, waiting station, I suppose you would call it? Mr. Barney — Bus shelter. Mr. Matthews — On the property within 50 feet of the zoning requirement. Is that OK? Mr. -Barney — Well, I think you want to add, substantially as shown on the plans submitted with the application and subject to the condition that we receive a letter or certified resolution or other document indicating that both EcoVillage at Ithaca and EcoVillage Association join in the request for the variance . Mr. Matthews — Do you have that, John? John, have you gotten that? Have you gotten that. Thank you, I couldn ' t possibly equate those fine words . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — And this is located at the intersection of Rachel Carson Way and NYS route 79 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 . - 1 -26 .22 Mr. Vanek - Can I just ask a question, so if I have two letters, one from each organization signed by the officers . . . Mr. Barney — The president, either one. Or a joint letter, either way, but signed, EcoVillage at Ithaca by , whoever the president is, and also EcoVillage association, by whoever the president of that one is . Mr. Vanek - OK, great. Mr. Barney — And probably John, the resolution should recite that that should be in hand before the issuance of a building permit. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — Second on the motion? Mr. Niefer — Second. Vice Chairperson Ellsworth — All those in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NOv 2005 - 035 • EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant, Francis Vanek, Agent, Rachel Carson Way and NYS Route 79 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 -1 -26 . 22 . MOTION made by Dick Matthews , seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant, Francis Vanek , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 271 -9 , Special Land Use District #9 of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 20, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES to place a bus shelter within the required 50 foot buffer at the intersection of Rachel Carson Way and NYS Route 79 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1.- 26 . 22 . FINDINGS : None CONDITIONS : 1 . Construction shall be substantially as shown on plans submitted with the application . 2 . The Town of Ithaca shall receive a latter or certified resolution or other document indicating that both EcoVillage at Ithaca and the EcoVillage Association join in the request for the variance before the issuance of. any building permit . The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Matthews NAYS : NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried . Mr. Vanek - Thank you very much. 26 Q D 2005 T()`,%1%i i OF FM P',%,A i EcoVillage at Ithaca 100 Rachel Carson Way Ithaca, NY 14850 July 11, 2005 To Whom It May Concern, We, the undersigned, hereby confirm that the members of our respective boards (the EcoVillage at Ithaca Village Association and the Board of EcoVillage at Ithaca, Incorporated) have approved the building of a bus shelter at the corner of Rachel Carson Way and Route 79 West, Signed, 'Steve Gaarder President, EcoVillage at Ithaca Village Association ohn Schroeder President, Board of Directors, EcoVillage at Ithaca, Inc, FILE DATE ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2005 - 035 : EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant, Francis Vanek, Agent, Rachel Carson Way and NYS Route 79 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -26 . 22 . MOTION made by Dick Matthews , seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant, Francis Vanek , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 271 -9 , Special Land Use District #9 of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to place a bus shelter within the required 50 foot buffer at the intersection of Rachel Carson Way and NYS Route 79 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 26 . 22 . FINDINGS : None CONDITIONS : 1 . Construction shall be substantially as shown on plans submitted with the application . 2 . The Town of Ithaca shall receive a latter or certified resolution or other document indicating that both EcoVillage at Ithaca and the EcoVillage Association join in the request for the variance before the issuance of any building permit . The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Matthews NAYS : NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I John Coakley , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached 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 20th day of June 2005 . De6uty Town erk Town of Ithaca FILE DATES ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2005- 034 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant, Francis Vanek , Agent, Rachel Carson Way and NYS Route 79 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 -1 -26 . 22 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz , seconded by Dick Matthews . RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant , Francis Vanek , Agent , to be permitted to place a bus shelter within the required 50 foot buffer at the intersection of Rachel Carson Way and NYS Route 79 . The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer , Matthews NAYS : None The MOTION was declared to be carried . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , John Coakley , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached 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 20th day of June 2005 . puty Town erk Town of Itha a FILE DATE Z TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 209 2005 7 : 00 P.M. PRESENT : Harry Ellsworth, Vice Chairperson; Jim Niefer, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member (7 : 06 p .m.) ; Kristie Rice, Assistant Director of Building/Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner, ABSENT . Kirk Sigel , Chairperson OTHERS PRESENT : Joseph Bennett, Baker Institute, Cornell University; Larry Fabbroni , 127 Warren Rd ; Bill Goodhew, 674 Coddington Rd; Anne Morrissette, 920 Coddington Rd ; Merry Jo Bauer, 921 Coddington Rd; Doug Antczak, Baker Institute, Cornell University ; Eva Hoffmann, 4 Sugarbush Lane . Vice Chairperson Ellsworth opens the meeting at 7: 05 p. m. I � s O � � ct V J ct a� r� a a� ° c ° cz PART 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) Cl . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . Proposal includes the construction of a bus shelter for Ecovillage residents (Mecklenburg Road) who utilize the TCAT bus system . TCAT officials reviewed and approved the proposed shelter location . The placement of a bus shelter in the proposed location is not expected to alter or affect existing traffic patterns or otherwise cause negative traffic impacts. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or Neighborhood character? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . Proposal is in character with surrounding community. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish , or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly : None Anticipated. C4. The Town ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : None Anticipated. The Ecovillage property lies within a Planned Development Zone (formerly known as Special Land Use District), which specifically restricts the location of "buildings or other structures within 50 feet of the boundary of the Special Land Use District." Therefore, the applicant must obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the bus shelter within the 50- foot buffer. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . C6. Long term , short term , cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly : None Anticipated. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff , CB , other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART 111 - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial , large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i . e. urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude . If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material . Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and Adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration . _X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Anneals Name of Lead Agency Preparer' s Signature( If different from Responsible Officer) Kirk Sigel, Chairman Name & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE : b A2 �0 5 Sign4fuiew6f R p ible WKicK in Lead Age cy CjC' 1y OF I T� �9 T® V►TN OF ITHACA 215 N . Tioga Street, ITHACA, N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 BUILDING AND ZON HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273- 1656 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Application for Appearance in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals Fee $ 100 For ic a �,or O,ff ce�Use�,Only �. U� On1Y CH K ALL THAT APPLY property is ocated within or ad�acent:to Date;;Recell Area Variance unty AgDlstrit jJ Cash�or GheckeN0 Use Variance CEA Sign Variance zoninDtstrie �°""°'" Sprinkler Variance �_ __ - gEnestnTome IIistorlcal IDlstrlct= �__ Special Approval ° p / . Requesting an appearance to be allowed to (�1 .� S l rut, IF, C t�7uy 5 &4e l at C ( tL'Z �,h`!L Ss�Y li✓ , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. Z'u - f - Z� 2 Z , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, under Article(s) , Section(s) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form. A description of the practical difficulties and unnessary hardship and/or the Special Approval authorization request is as follows : (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary .) 40r .� sd ' AT eD POCT il/i 5 . izZe ?i /W c,2 Oef, M By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application. Signature of Owner/Appellant: f4� Date : 2 e. r Signature of Appellant/Age ( 4'z'l e Date : Print Name Here 2AN6l S VAN9-te, Home Telephone Number (a 67 - Z- Z - 19 T' Work Telephone Number `Z 7 2 - 6 3 31� NOTE : If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will gxpiu. Your attendance at the meeting is advised. Revised 11 /03/04 Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273 - 1747 AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT In accordance with Section 283 -a of the New York State Town Law, the Town of Ithaca will use the data in this statement to assist in evaluating the impacts of proposed development projects on farm operations in Agricultural Districts . �" F Of /�C&1O 1 . Name of Applicant: Foe-4&c 5 V11V6W 6N /3�f.�1 G .'fK 'f% /771/t('f Address : 2 2. 3 44-C Hez C44 s &V 2 . Project Name/Location : fJUS S !-c ECTzJA C dX A)C-07� X✓9 (fHe- L d/V tt 44k 3 . Description of proposed project. /2 ' ILI 7 � Tr i�' ,rte 4 . Tax Parcel Numbers 5 . Number of total acres involved with project : A'e' L 6 . Number of total acres presently in Tax Parcel___ _/4:TS 7 . How much of the site is currently farmed ? ti / O Acres 8 . Please identify who is farming the site . OP-�>T- f� ei P r/t7/L X, 9 . Please indicate what your intentions are for use of the remainder of the property, over: Five years : C �� .L Ten years : Twenty years : 10 . Who will maintain the remainder of the property not being used for this development? C60 7 ,Z" Revised 11 /03/04 page I of 2 11 . Please indicate crop(s) or vegetational cover for the site 5 Kivu . 12 . Are there any drainage ways or underground tile systems located on the site? Will this project alter existing drainage patterns? ,l(le _If yes, please describe 13 . Is the parcel included in a farm plan prepared by the Tompkins County Soil and Water District of the USDA Soil Conservation Service? Are federally funded cost sharing practices in place for the parcel? Name of program(s) . 14 . Is the parcel currently granted an agricultural tax exemption? Yes No Signature of Applicant : �..—�-+ .� '� Date : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FOR TOWN USE O Y : NOTE : This form and a map of the parcel(s) should be mailed to County Planning as part of the GML m and n referral. It should also be mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary along with the Notice of Public Hearing (Attach list of property owners within 500 feet). Name of Staff Person - Date Referred to County Planning - Page 2 of 2 Revised 11 /03/04 1 r: 11 it i�f V 1 v � 1 O is - =V IOtt- :15 pp lz if If t I 1 ; . I � I ; I b il . I � Ln ids vj W v W A tQ I t I _ � K - - 0 w ~ I -+ 1 La 1 - - �.-- ..�, .._. •. � �___ . _.- , ,>� . ` --- -- _: . - ..__�-_?i✓/ 'fcC1'� 0 39b� 77 �� 073 I II c . I � �l W J a 60 w �� .► ` I W H uj I . J crmo p o a I Lu m Z vi V) 6�; m V a J z W Q Q F� a m n Z tu o V1 1 I` L . 02 LM #t J W ZS w � 1 j LLJ w z 5 °i LJ.J p >- w �9 Q Z O o3 I o j LL a a DC 1 $ u � Q CL J m Ln v00 Q � � CO LL �L LL; VI «+ m d in O O i V) OC J z W cn z ! i D v'1 U ~ � ; m Z in o V) I'lu a j I 14) I 1 r x c _ rm �- . V 3 J v p j w W zr- z z - 1 J N N 11 v LM M LU • u CL X � U i ! vi 0 to Z V Q O Oce w w O ` ) p a . Z , x V 2 . O � O N O G ' a p � p U _ _ m ° g � w uj 0 J = V) ���yyy]]] Q vi Z F- 0 Q W W -I .' . . CL p U w � � zU 00 � LL — F- V) Z X V) p 0 m ~ � w U o: } Q u, Z O z 2 j Z W m Y m Q w Q = 2 _. u g � o ZQ o ° Z g v1 o a - U. zo - } �= ,�, z S zQ p iV pm Uz ^ O _.. . . dY w w w Jx m � oZ _. D: H U N J U W rn CL M W .-. — V1 un QQ OD @J J -- -- -- — W Z 0 Z LL. w O p OU co J 0 r Q Q Q X O N X M W 2 CL o Z O wU Z U z Z OvQi 3Oo°o 0 r � - o J L ' V �7 4� U J 00 O Z W ° Z_ w w L W Z I x . a p 2 w O N M w I � I- u � z � Z W w m I � O " o CL F- x `Y o4A � ool oo zoWz � W � oo W v� o: w 3 V) t w 3 @� p Ala s w� rF I W N . I I - 1 0 3 W 0 1 481 LM � L1J u i W ro e and w L S u� i J. Ln W Lu u Q a a1 f� 0 LM o W s V ` J o Z UJ---- _ ---- __._: rn Q m W uj a .LI J N7N� _ t -- W1 V I � I c - t � I ! 11 LA �!, f LM W Q w � . ib w n 1� O Zt U j � Q v ice ` ICI � z u Q li S W LLJ u w • I � I � I l r �, ! I J �, M UJ M Q (U V, Z ` -- i ._..__...-- - w 4 -- - -- -- CJ O I„ to 0� Z LU IL ,+► CA � N 1 . � � �,\� \ . � W Z O � rj •. N M rU J `� 2. v g rl J o l (i Zt l y ° } OL LU. [A\ O a o 1_ NJ o � \iq f P � N e a o0 1 N ` z • ; I V � w h F ter. 1 f S / A O V) - � - a t N LLI J \ N 6 v1 J o LL. V W Q Q w ' Q J N LL o V) z z S o w w u ■ J Z H OC z N Q / O 3 W W J T LLJ ° Q z 33W ZZZNW Lm z o Doug i z Q ° zN � =z °zQ � - -- e I.i. G1 Z J = Z g N c. � LLJ s 0 ce UJ O o Q ° w W b W z Q � � ce QQOX 0 N � i N O O W J z z Q 0 J ' 0 LLJ 5 z ?� 3 0 V1 N N >. LLJ w _ U 00 CL Lu m z JdN > V) d ?, 00V) O j N � 19 Y � n � (OW S I„• CIO(oQ IIQ 0 ° 00 vPPP 0 rn V� pwa O � N `4. 000N 0O oo M a .`V0 � N3 .AVH 1S3M a N z NN CL M 3184'499 N N o .04'4£ }1L£'94l M JJ0lOC l 3„ lC , . lOS — T_G � G I ,49' 61 ` o I O I o u4 O' to C4 w Uz rn n I W m LLI W r U a 3 z CN co i� 00 c�0 � �p N I 00 � \ t \ o ° \W \ \� \ ' N 0 I •- O d I� \ M (n z I }100 ' 00 \ \ \ \ \\ \ \(l� \ Z I N N \ \ \ \ \ X I I i ow C2 o W \ n N �o N w it j < opJmr- ++ N rtf 6x 0 Q I W � O4+ � n Al n ° co � 0 I �p w \/ �� � NMt v o � o I I \\ \\ NN � w r ) z a �n \ a� � a®I II = m z 00 cyf -I 101 11094 LZL o 2 \ z I 9 \ \ \ \ \ r owo m old _ \ \ \ � \ \ Z \ \ I \ Z\ \ \ \ \ ZD LLJ 11 z � E E � I z N N ° l�f101 ��OS' L8 l M„9* , ratJON Pt � CO � 'n — — \ z w I a ., .+ ,r � 00 tr) J wv-. w \ � C �l I rpi � M � ONt00 a00L01� r7 et 0 � to I� OO � r7 `F L� �p UP) NOM Uj I U) N OIO � d � xz O � 10NIna00 000N C9 N o .� � Xz Q I=I � W ( a o "� c�io � (ri z0� fn Q it U L:J U0_ q � P :� qt . N .. U� Z Q N 11 11 g � . 0 3Q 2 p` � z Lo v_ O N O 0 (n _ . N � wo M 0: (DW U Q N ` W ^ N WO 0 (D 00 0- 0 } L1 N ZOO Z � UQ N Q (, pp OZ zN � z � U � NYa znom 00 W Z Z N 0 p J\Q w � x w (D U � m U p (O � W Ool w ° �- � n a FMC N Wmj o w z m ; r W o w Q - JL MCD 10211N00 SdD Z661 ps84L AN >103yi1I M W '00 SNINdW01 aid 29 GVN pupa sa 1 7? 3 018 94£ L nnivO 31VNIQN000 I H1210N 3n211 ( oa) Nnssve VN94�L�£LSIaeMOal ' � a313d r 00 < 1 '£b- 1 -9Z 'ON 1308'dd dVYI X`dl � Z N LL r z - - ac CL Green Building Rob Licht Design Considerations Place Based Site specific Addresses local cuture of users, local geography, history , and resources. Incorporates Bioregional principles. Resource Based Best choice based upon sustainable extraction Sustainable extraction Renewable resource Least use of energy and materials Environment Based Considers overall impact to to ecological systems Locally Globally Sink limits- pollution, waste Health Based Priorities based upon health effects to users and workers Materials manufactering process Construction process User long term exposure to materials Effects of waste and pollution Consideration of sensitivity level of users- to chemicals, etc. Social Purpose Design based upon environmental ethics Social impact Educational value Changing patterns of users Nature as Model Biomimicry (animal shelters as example) Regenerative properties Flexible (organic) desig Responsive toseasonal , environmental and climate change Local material sourcing Symbiotic relationships . Aesthetics Aesthetics to balance all of above with personal design choice Social integration (homogeniety) vs . unique design Visual impact on Environment- viewsheds Emblematic Structures EcoVillage BusShelter Project Materials and Costs Summary . Important Materials used. Lumber: Approximately 500 board feet of local harvested and milled rough cut eastern hemock will be needed for this project. At a cost of between 50 and 55 cents per board feet, the total cost for lumber should be no more than $300 Impact By using local wood and millers, this project will support local businesses. Wood products are a renewable resource. With appropriate techniques and at the appropriate scale, forestry can be sustainable. Plywood Nine 4* 8 sheets of 3/4 inch thick plywood will be used as roofing At a cost of $20-25 per sheet, the total cost for plywood will be about $250. Impact: Plywood is an efficient way to utilize fast growing trees, and requires less toxic glues then particle board. Windows . The majority of the windows used in this shelter will be salvaged from deconstruction projects at Cornell University and the Ithaca Community By using predominately salvaged windows; we hope to spend less than $250 on new windows Impact : Glass is an energy intensive product to manufacture . Using predominately salvaged window allows us to significantly reduce the ecological footprint of the bus shelter. Insulation : The bus shelter will be insulated with cellulose insulation. We expect to spend less than $40 on insulation. Impact: All insulation has significantly negative "life-cycle energy costs. " — that is, the amount of energy saved by the use of the product significantly outweighs the amount of energy used to manufacture the product. Cellulose insulation is made of nontoxic, recycled wood products . Unlike fiberglass insulation , cellulose is not a potential carcinogen — and is therefore safer to install. Siding The bus shelter will use hemlock and tin siding salvaged from construction projects at EcoVillage . Impact : By using salvaged siding materials, no additional ecological costs will be accrued. Landscaping The site will be landscape with a combination of deciduous and coniferous .trees. At a cost of $ 150-$200 for a mature, nursery grown tree , we expect to spend over $ 1200 on landscaping costs. Impact: Trees will be bought from a local tree nursery , helping to support a local business . The trees will help passively heat and cool the shelter by help block cold winter winds and provide shaded spaces for passengers during the summer. The carbon dioxide sequestered by these trees as they grow will more than offset the carbon dioxide released by construction machinery during this project. 1 Bus Shelter Living Roof Specs. Roof Specs: 18* 13 , 20 degree slope xwMr." AIEIMOW. H117L vI'IN r� rt.t:Sr.Zl7C �� C�FSOPI1�tE ! W.GIiCIt 1 L _ 13 20' ca- 4 I 18 ' ROOF LAYERING LAG S=C% � 4°_tSLAYER 1) Rafters poor ot'01K R,.rr= f • 14 (2* 12)9999 - INTERIOR • Spaced 16" on center 2) 18 rn OSB layer • Framed with 2*12s (See diagram) 3) V Protection Layer: • Building Paper 4) Waterproof Membrane Layer • Butyl Liner — available from JD Farrell Roofing Company 5) 2•' Protection Layer • Corregated Cardboard or old carpets 6) Filter fabric • Terram or similar. Adjacent sheets lapped 100mm 7) Soil stablizing trelliswork: • constructed out of two laters of timber battens (25 *50 at 600 c/s): First layer laid across the slope, the second layer laid up the slope w/ similar centers • Staple garden netting to the trelliswork for greater soil stability 8) Soil • Use fairly poor quality, in terms of humus content — add sand if neccessary • 75 mm of soil 9) Drainage CLwmel • At lower end of roof, with the base lower than the main part of the roof • Consists of 50-75 mm bored pipe buried in gravel 10) Plants • Sandy soil grasses and wildflower mixtures • Sow in spring or fall 11)Maintenance • First season: Cut in spring and fall • All other seasons: Cut with sycthe once a year Y ew • - y ry : g „ y �gc9 1 ; s +' :.,s ..-tz -..rn�..�^'• � �� � s. e r�i�,�. � �a��. a^:'s?'.^�g;�g� : � �^7tt'�°F�*-a z4*��;r�' .. i >. v Ar WWA N �. ,s- Ar -u ' !'Y. '".7j?`.;°i'a } '?'. -:r`R t�.5 ;° .�... .+.w.,d,.� �..+R, cs `"•'ya.R ^i''�'.k-'} _ .r..xg. +EA i� �x 4,t`�°.�.'f - ,�:�.'� ��tt-���`4°s',,��.a�.x+-• ;'$�Yt��.��.'u "f;„� r�r'>t.y �'t�?� < "�.1�r``..'!4- ,s��-t�,e f t c� ` 's•. "�^-r a .s�amr� s. '�'�►,ate''.. }}���r-�a ti .q� ,r..afi>�.�, r ^�,k.",�.> - a. u�h.,4,�:3..+W�,�'� �`ir •i.sF �y:r3' r� �'"C�-c - .-- r L 0 0 N (V w U c °- o Q Z I C: Z M a� cn C a C i 3 N LL Q �I m w m 3 Z O O U 0 _ U d LL D U 4 Q U U 2 _ J J J J Z O d > 01 ® N c�o IIN ON i I p?, is prp u� m ca n Lo. m n 47 Kj O F it Y eft+ LS C O C4 M � - Fan I r--rr s ti � ti U J W 3�V IIAC)03 Lo O U � ° CD N L O X W I Q 0 W Property Description Report For MECKLENBURG RD in Ithaca(Town) Page 1 of 2 Property Description Report For MECKLENBURG RD in Ithaca (Town) Owner Information ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA INC CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA NY 14853 ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA INC ANABEL TAYLOR HALL Status Active Roll Section Taxable Swis 503089 Tax Map#: 28.-1-26.22 Zoning Code Site 1 Neighborhood 30020 Property Class Res Vac w/Improvements Land Assessment $163,500 Total Assessment $175,000 Total Acreage 146.84 School District Ithaca Deed Book 758 Deed Page 272 Structure Area Building Style 0 - Unknown Living Area 0 sqft Bathrooms 0 First Story Area 0 sqft Bedrooms 0 Second Story Area 0 sqft Kitchens 0 Half Story Area 0 sqft Fireplaces 0 Additional Story Area 0 sqft Overall Condition Unknown 3/4 Story Area 0 sqft Overall Grade Unknown Finished Basement 0 sqft Porch Type Unknown Number of Stories 0 Porch Area 0 sqft Year Built Basement Type Unknown Basement Garage Cap 0 Attached Garage Cap 0 Utilities Last Sale Sewer Type Comm/Public Sale Date N/A Water Supply Comm/Public Sale Price N/A Utilities Electric Valid N/A Heat Type Unknown Arms Length N/A Fuel Type Unknown Prior Owner N/A Central Air No Improvements Structure: BARN, POLE Grade: Average Condition: Normal Size: 24 x 36 Year: 1997 Land Types Land Type: Primary http://asmsdg.tompkins-co.org/imate/printable.asp?img=http://asmsdg.tompkins-co.org/im... 4/29/2005 Property Description Report For MECKLENBURG RD in Ithaca (Town) Page 2 of 2 Acreage : 1 . 00 Size : 0 x 0 Land Type : Residual Acreage: 145 . 84 Size : 0 x 0 Special Districts Code Description Units Percent Type Value ITHACA FIRE PROT WEST HAVEN LIGHT ITHACA WATER 1 ITHACA SEWER 1 Exemptions No Exemptions http ://asmsdg .tompkins-co . org/imate/printable . asp?img=http ://asmsdg .tompkins-co . org/im. . . 4/29/2005 v , Y .r a r qm lb � yr '� -• o +* r 1� � 1 May 09 05 03 : 0 1`1 2p ITCTC / TCPD G07 - 274 - 5578 p . 2 R •it 1 °' b Fw C 1 'om��in� Gbucny i DE NING t4rlld'41 11 . 1.4 94 ? 1 •� 1 Bas� ,C¢q`uStr�eett Ithaca, Ne<st .drk � 48S0 Edward C. Marx, AICP 's;ry ,t „ ^ ' .. ._ �¢' Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (60 7) 274-5578 April 27, 2005 Mr. Michael. Smith, Environmental Planner Town of Ithaca -215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to § 239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Site Plan and Variance Approval, bus shelter at the entrance to EcoVillage, Rachel Carson Way, Tax Parcel No. 28 .4 -26.22 Dear Mr. Smith : This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JULY 214 2003 7 : 00 P.M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, July 21 , 2003 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of Richard Leonardo, Appellant, requesting variances from Article IV, Sections 14 and 16 and Section 280A of New York State Town Law to create building lots, by subdivision that does not have direct lot frontage on a Town, County, or State highway off of Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 37- 1 -20.5 , -20.6, and 20.7, Residence District R- 15 . Access to said lots will be provided for by a 60-foot right-of-way. APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Peter Paradise, Agent, requesting a special approval and variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Sections 18 .3 and 18 . 10 to be permitted to construct university athletic fields with accessory structures, along with light poles 80 feet tall (30 foot height limit) on Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 62-2-3 , 4, -5, and -6, Residence District R-30. APPEAL of EcoVillage, Appellant, Robert Champion, Agent, requesting a variance from Article XIII, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place an 8 foot high deer fence (6 foot height limit) on land along West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -26.22, Residence District R- 15 and R-30. APPEAL of Mark Mecenas, Appellant, requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 and 16 and Section 280A of New York State Town Law to create two building lots, by subdivision without having the required road frontage along a Town, County, or State highway on the Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29-6- 13 . 1 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 : 00 p.m., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : July 11 , 2003 Published : July 14 , 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21 , 2003 permitted to construct light poles not to exceed 81 feet tall at the University Athletic Fields to be built on Game Farm Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 62-2-3 , -41 -51 and -6 , Residence District R-30 . FINDINGS : a . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied . CONDITIONS : a . The poles be constructed as indicated on the applicant' s submitted plans . b . The applicant is allowed to construct no more than six poles . The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Dixon NAYS : NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairperson Sigel — Okay . Thank you . APPEAL : EcoVillage , Appellant, Robert Champion , Agent, requesting a variance from Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to place an 8 foot high deer fence ( 6 foot height limit) on land along West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 -1 -26 . 22 , Residence District R-15 and R -30 . Chairperson Sigel — Please come to the microphone . Mr. Frost — If you 'd be more comfortable , you could also sit on the end of the table . Chairperson Sigel — For the record , state your name and address . This is an appeal being brought by EcoVillage ? Robert Champion , 232 Rachel Carson Way — Yes it is . Chairperson Sigel — It's EcoVillage that owns all the land ? Mr. Champion — That's right . I have a special interest in it because I ' m the one who is sort of the burning soul on the orchard idea . Chairperson Sigel — If you could just give us a quick overview of what you want to do . 15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21 , 2003 Mr. Champion — Sure . It's a relatively square block of our land that boarders Mecklenburg Road and West Haven Road . It . should be the northeast corner of our property , adjacent to City Lights on the west side , City Lights Antiques . So , it is close to 3 , 000 lineal feet , around approximately ten acres square that boarders on the south side which is the West Haven Farm . So , they have a wonderful eight foot fence that has made their farm possible , whereas before they were chasing out deer all the time . So , with this project of developing an orchard over a number of years , we realize that it wouldn 't really make sense to invest in project without first protecting it from deer. So , that' s it . A wire fence , which they call a tight lock fence , where you have a narrow gage wire that might be similar to a pencil lead or something like that. It's a very small diameter, maybe eighth of an inch diameter, every twelve inches . You may notice on the pictures that I ' m assuming you have . We took a picture and actually I got a call from Kristi in the office and she said "Well , you need to show what the fence would look like . " And I said "well , look at the picture a little more closely" . You ' ll notice that the fence itself is more or less transparent from any distance because the wires are so increasingly spaced and so small . So , basically the idea is that if we can have an eight foot fence where we ' d ordinarily have a six foot fence , instead of having to move it back because a six foot fence would not do anything for deer, even an eight foot fence is boarder line . If we can have an eight foot fence out where the six foot fence would ordinarily go , we could pick up nearly an acre of that land that would otherwise be on the wrong side of the fence if you understand what I am saying . That's the purpose of the appeal for the variance . We ' d still use the eight foot fence , but we ' d put it back at the required setback , which I think is 30 feet , in general , 25 on one side and 30 on the other. BY the way , I should say that Colleen Shur, who owns City Lights Antiques said that she 'd like to write something for me to bring and share that she 's total in support of this . She called tonight and said that she couldn 't get it written , but she wanted me to tell you that she totally supports it on her side . Mr. Barney — Is this fence electrified ? Mr . Champion — No . Mr. Dixon — Well , the deer are getting taller every year. Mr. Krantz — They' re also adopting to their environment so much better than we are . Six feet is our rule , but it's no longer their rule . This is the second time that we 've had someone request and eight foot fence . Maybe there should be a way of changing that. Chairperson Sigel — Well , I think the concern is that if everyone was putting up eight foot fences , we ' d have a lot of eight foot fences . Mr. Champion — I think what Mr . Krantz is getting at , maybe is that who puts up a six foot fence in an agricultural area any more . I ' m not sure because I ' m not really involved in it , but clearly , if you ' re trying to keep out deer , there would be no purpose . 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21 , 2003 Chairperson Sigel — That might be a good idea , but I think we clearly want to have specifications as to the type of fence . You don 't want a lot of eight foot solid wooden fences . Then it looks like you ' re living in an area where no one wants to see or talk to anyone else . Mr. Niefer — In this request for variance , would you have any objection to a stipulation that should this parcel of land no longer be used for agricultural purposes , that the fence would be removed . The reason for the fence disappears , but the fence stays there and then it gets into disrepair . If it falls down , then the deer might jump in it and the deer might get hurt — poor deer. But , it just makes for an untidy appearance to have a fallen woven wire fence around the parcel of land that no longer is used for agricultural purposes . The one question that I would raise is there any objection on your part . Mr. Champion — There is the remains of an old fence in the hedgerow that goes along Mecklenburg Road . No , I would have no objection to that. Chairperson Sigel — How would we do the wording for this , John ? Would we make it so that the actual approval expired if there were no agricultural functions for a year or two and then the fence would become illegal ? Mr. Frost — The appeal is going to be granted in the name of EcoVillage ? Mr. Barney — The variance goes with the land , actually I was going to raise the question is EcoVillage of Ithaca Inc . the owner? Mr. Champion — Yes . Mr. Barney — Not EcoVillage Associates? Mr . Champion — No , EVI . Mr. Barney — It's EVI . You could make it either as a condition that the variance continues only so long as the property enclosed by the fence is used for agricultural purposes . Chairperson Sigel — I assume you wouldn 't object to giving them some leeway in defining continuous use . Mr. Niefer — Certainly , during that time of continuous use , the fence is all right , but when the continuous use ends , the fence would be removed . Mr . Frost — I would suggest a year' s time after. Chairperson Sigel — That could be hard to establish . If you 've got apple trees there and they keep growing and you just go pick a couple of appeals every year . 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21 , 2003 Mr. Champion — My impression would be as a resident up there in a growing neighborhood or village , is that once things get started there , it just continues . So , that part of the resolution is no problem because I don 't , in my lifetime , see that happening . Chairperson Sigel — As long as it gets started . Mr. Champion — Once it gets started , it will continue . Chairperson Sigel — Someone will go pick the apples , presumably . Mr . Dixon — If you plant the trees , the deer will come . Chairperson Sigel — That's right , and the fence will stay . Mr. Niefer — And it should be maintained . You don 't want half of it falling down and then they' re still planting things out there . Mr. Champion — By the way , the posts that are going in are , I think , six inch diameter , pressure treated pine , which will go three feet into the ground . We will have someone come out and they' ll excavate the holes . So , it will be a sturdy fence . Chairperson Sigel — Any other questions or comments . Mike , anything to say about the Environmental Assessment. Mr. Smith — Nothing significant was identified . It's an open fence and the location of the EcoVillage property is in the Tompkins County agricultural district so this should help to promote the agriculture on the property . Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 8 : 10 p . m . With no person present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 11 p . m . Chairperson Sigel — Would someone like to make a motion on the Environmental Assessment? ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2003 - 044 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : EcoVillage , West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 -1 -26 . 22 , Residence District R - 15 and R-30 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Andrew Dixon . RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of EcoVillage, Appellant, Robert Champion, Agent, requesting a variance from Article Xlll, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place an 8 foot high deer fence on land along West Haven and 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21 , 2003 Mecklenburg Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 284 -26. 22, Residence District R- 15 and R-30, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated July 2, 2003. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2003 - 045 : EcoVillage , West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 -1 -26 . 22 , Residence District R-15 and R - 30 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Eco Village, Appellant, Robert Champion, Agent, requesting a variance from Article XIII, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place an 8 foot high deer fence on land along West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -26. 22, Residence District R- 15 and R-30. FINDINGS: a . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a . As long as the fence remains, that it be maintained in a good and workman like manner. b. This variance will expire if there are no agricultural activities taking place within the area enclosed by the fence for a period of one year. The vote on the a MOTION resulted" as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 19 FILE W DATE - 2 ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 044 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EcoVillage , West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -26 . 22 , Residence District R- 15 and R-30 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Andrew Dixon . RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of EcoVillage , Appellant , Robert Champion , Agent , requesting a variance from Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to place an 8 foot high deer fence on land along West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -26 . 22 , Residence District R- 15 and R-30 , based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated July 2 , 2003 . The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Dixon NAYS : None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Lori Love , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached 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 21 st day of July 2003 . Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca zk�ML� 2 C) L ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 045 : EcoVillage, West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -26 . 22 , Residence District R-15 and R-30 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of EcoVillage , Appellant , Robert Champion , Agent , requesting a variance from Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to place an 8 foot high deer fence on land along West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -26 . 22 , Residence District R- 15 and R-30 . FINDINGS : a . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied . CONDITIONS : a . As long as the fence remains , that it be maintained in a good and workmanlike manner. b . This variance will expire if there are no agricultural activities taking place within the area enclosed by the fence for a period of one year. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Dixon NAYS : NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA : I Lori Love , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached 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 Y of Jul 2003 . Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 7 i c • TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $80000 215 North Tioga Street RECEIVED: 03 Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 2734783 CASH - ( fJ ) APPEAL CHECK - ( ) to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ZONING: and the Zoning Board of Appeals For Office Use Only of the Town of Ithhaca, New York Having been denied permission to: y v� av� �S ' � e' e R r � JSe t - lnyt / +ham l` h7 D �A� h P� � � � �m� � �'`Jest�t✓M rRd � . a at C � U S , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 2 , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation o£ Article(s) _, Section(s) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the Appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) 15 -e je Ox C dt �t .o 4 S 0 ev o5- �Cee• c -�Q- By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection my application. Signature of Owner/Appellant: U Date: Signature of Appellant/Agent: .0 107 Print Name Here : 2 Home Telephone Number: �c, (i 2� �� � `� Work Telephone Number: z7(q 3 J NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will Your attendance at the meeting is advised. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A plicant or Project Sponsor) 1. Appticant/Sponsor 2. Project Name r4 peer F'eeir-e' Qe o U- A(9 9 e 3 . Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:) n 1 fee N\aP , (� vnn , 75v ` Sow` a � Wes4 moue^. -Croce UL `T �79 2J •�� � �� 7.5D ' !�lesfi a�. � ori5 f� k'� �1� --�ro � � eS-�- �t �e,� �Z�� , Tax Parcel Number: 4. Is proposed action: NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION ? 5. Describe project briefly : (include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): - i 5 1l QC t-C_ S{ C I o� o \ ( Oo 5` d PS4I K -eet 4-o b-C. GoYN-L an O rc aid /v ) ^-t +r C e� l� C V,l e n e eo� a. Cie Q r' -�' � e.�t- ) P,--v e ° a� lli,��'--fi�.v. er r1 a (.v vvgtz-V � sc r , I t o n O v\ eZ -�a� S , (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected : Initiall (0-5 rs) Acres (6-10 rs) >10 s Acres 7. Aow is land zoned presently? 8. Wi ,y proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Ye5A. NO If no, describe conflict briefly : 9. Will proposed action lead t a ;equest for new: Public Road? YES NO X Public Water? YES NO X— Public Sewer? YES NO 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other Please Describe: nn r� ��u��I2SIGCQn , 1 � 11 . Does proposed action involve a per it, pproval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local ?) YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approvat/funding : 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): 0 ,,l r-ft 10 Signature and Date : 3v 0j PART 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary) A . Does proposed action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Cl . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . The proposal is to install an 8 foot high wire deer fence around 11 +/- acres of EcoVillage lands for a orchard and vineyard, located at the intersection of West Haven Road and Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -26 . 22 , Special Land Use District No. 8 . C2. Aesthetic, agricultural , archaeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . The style of fence proposed is an open wire design and does not appear that it will negatively impact any aesthetic resources and is very similar to the fence at the neighboring Westhaven farm . The property is located within the Tompkins County Agricultural District #2 and the fence should help to enhance the agricultural production on the property. C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly : None Anticipated, C4. The Town ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : None Anticipated, C5. Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . C6. Long term, short term , cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl -05? Explain briefly : None Anticipated . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly : None Anticipated . D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly : E. Comments of staff CB., other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial , large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i .e. urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and ( f) magnitude . If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material . Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration . X_Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 71 u 3 Name of Lead Agency Preparer' s �rgnature ( If different from Responsible Officer) Kirk Sigel, Chairman Name & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE : Si ature of Res on%ble Officer in Lead Agency o � o 0 6 � `� 3 0 0 V08 N3 k —}— 110 L T l 3„ l£,9*.l OS — x x r x 00 N W I C � r CID A � N 1p�0 (� t0 C to 40 3 Z �y m W ^ U xr� a O a v a W � O W W ` '_~ 0) 1 � r Q M M� O N41) r r i } p 00 r- bo Ln F- bo°' i-Qj Q `` o 000 00N O �L °M 3N W� �v►b f^ Z 60 ZN to a Z Z �w W� i > Q �o I U00'00£ r° W o — z oo J�v N �Q= c� r` F' MOm n 0V' r. �~ wNQJ2 x p\p N� vU, `Cr " Z �"'UwQ OO M� T- O O� O w �`f O ar,W MoON � O m 00 to cq� r-O� F, Na g-� Uco A � ( � ° dW L,°N �N � � � II L) Z z ca Q U V J !— , Q 101 1109' LZL ca 3„l£,9t.LOS VW z v — --� J Y xE _ —xE Q.N. ELECTRIC 1(W1S1d6S10N LINE L O Oi N p) 4 14101 l;09'l9Z l 9t'M AON 00 M I Q1(� 00 00 r - v0Q 5 w } MYZCs' _ a.�y ` I i S7 14e d, A/ e k 16v1' �k, woc� o r S� o � c loemw � Icb, Printer Friendly Report Page 1 of 1 Property Description Report Ithaca (Town ) Owner : ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA INC Status : Active Roll Section : Taxable CORNELL UNIVERSITY Swis : 503089 Tax Map# 281 -1 -26 . 22 ITHACA NY 14853 Location : MECKLENBURG RD ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA INC Zoning Code : Site : 1 ANABEL TAYLOR HALL Neighborhood : 30020 Property Class : Res Vac w/Improvements Last Sale : Land Type : Primary Sale Date : N /A Size : 0 x 0 Sale Price : N/A Land Assessment : $ 164, 500 . 00 Total Assessment : $ 175 , 000 . 00 Valid : N/A Arms Length : N/A Total Acreage : 148 , 52 Deed Book : 758 Deed Page : 272 School District : Ithaca 2002 Prior Owner : N/A Structure - Building Style : 0 - Unknown Utilities - Sewer Type Comm/Public Number of Baths : 0 Water Supply Comm/Public Number of Bedrooms 0 Number of Kitchens 0 Utilities Electric Number of Fireplaces 0 Heat Type Unknown Overall Condition Unknown Fuel Type Unknown Central Air Overall Grade Unknown Porch Type Unknown Improvements - Porch Area 0 . 00 sq/ft Year Built Structure : BARN , POLE Basement Type Unknown Grade : Average Basement Garage Cap . 0 Condition : Normal Attached Garage Cap . 0 Size : 24 x 36 Area - Year: 1997 Living Area : 0 . 00 sq/ft Tax Information - First Story Area : 0 . 00 sq/ft Second Story Area : 0 . 00 sq/ft Taxes may not reflect exemptions or changes in Half Story Area : 0 , 00 sq/ft assessment ! Additional Story Area : 0 . 00 sq/ft Three-Quarter Story 000 s County Year Tax : N/A Area : . q/ft County Year : N/A Finished Basement 0 . 00 sq/ft School Year Tax : N/A Number of Stories 0 School Year: N/A Exemptions - No Exemptions http : //asmsdg. tompkins-co . org/imate/printabie . asp 7/2/03 I Robert Champion, a resident and member of the Co-op Ecovillage at Ithaca I am in the planing stages of developing an organic orchard/vineyard on part of the 11 acres of Eco village land that boarders Mecklenburg and Westhaven roads The reason for this request for a variance to Article XIII Section 65 is the need to protect this proposed agricultural project from heavy deer pressure . Although I' d prefer not to have to build one at all, having learned from Westhaven farm' s previous troubles with deer and seen the effectiveness of their new 8 ' wire deer fence, (see photos) I have decided that installing an 8 ' fence around this project is imperative . Frankly, I will be investing thousands of dollars in fruit trees and labor in the coming years of developing this project and reducing risk is paramount. The fence I will be installing will cost around $ 5 , 000 . This is a huge investment. An investment I hope to earn back producing organic fruit over the coming years . However, if I am required to move the fence 30 ' back from property lines at the right of way along Mecklenburg and Westhaven roads, I stand to lose as much as an acre of farmland to the wrong side of the fence . This could mean as many as 600 hundred fruit trees or vines cannot protected from deer and thus never be planted. Considering that the high cost of the Deer Fence doesn't appreciably go down by moving it back 30 ' from the right of way, losing as much as 10% of the farming space to this 30 ' setback feels like an unnecessary hardship that compounds this already financially risky project. Further, It is my opinion that this fence will be relatively inconspicuous . As the included photos show, The wire part of this type of fence is quite open and the support poles are infrequently spaced . (Requiring a 6 "wide 8 ' tall pole only every 65 ' and a single 2 " steel pole between them-- See picture 1 . ) In addition, along 79 where folks are driving 50 mph, the property and projected fence line is almost completely blocked by a hedgerow that runs the entire length of the property line . ( See picture 2) . . ' In my opinion, Seeing the fence at all from 79 will be a challenge . Finally, I should point out that for sake of convenience and ease of installation it is likely that I would install the fence not just inside the right of way rather closer to 5 ' to 8 ' back from the right of way. Thank you for your consideration, Robert Champion 232 Rachel Carson way J a_ 4 Big Photo Page I of I . ,,' yh{- 14 �4i�. '�l�i'� +.,_'•Q. �a - is �• i �.`I�� � r r.• _ ��". ` _. _. http://asmsdg.tompkins-co.org/imateibigphoto.asp?ref=http://asmsdg.tompkins-co.org/imateim... ch 0 U N O N _ J W U � d Q W z 3 z m O N O O p 'p C LO O > m E C l)C7 lf') � O O O Q Q U U o W — J af w w 0 I o I N � I 0 M W M W 0 Q J J_ O W m 0 N L L O co Q K U — L Q � N W 7 S4 kTompkins xCounty DEPARTMENTOF PLANNING 5 ,121 EastCurt Streetf 'hthaca,rNewYork; 14850 Edward C. Marx, AICP _ ' F i. Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5578 . � July 7, 2003 V is h Mr. Andy Frost, Building/Zoning Officer 9 M Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street TOWN OF ITHACA Ithaca, NY 14850 WILDING/ZONING Re : Review Pursuant to §239 -1, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Variance, Robert Champion, Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No . 28 . - 1 -26 . 8 Dear Mr. Frost: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Departments pursuant to §239 -1 , -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts . Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C . Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning s . ... �' .f ... >. X r: � ,`', •,'.ti,. '� ,�.• � � ,��-' �_ ,. i � ., 7 S` � �' � / -- ', '�` j'�i ` '�� _'4 �,. --� fix.. � ;_„ � � � � �,, .�,. 3 �� � � •;. �v��t: ... � `. aQ �+, ���� ... 11:,i � �� � ��' :. t 4 +�•�: i 4',�� �b ... `i ^ � W ''.•�� 1} r � Y •,•'� O ,�� t.,1rl li � �. � � 1f. � �� �. � ` ��' m � (�_ � ` �. �\W�j �T � V j �� '�i � . . _ � �,Y. i a..i ,� l \ Y ,� ` `W TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14 JULY 109 1996 covenant to that effect be submitted for review and approval by the Town Attorney . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, King , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. The last appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL - Continuation of EcoVif/►age Cohousing Cooperative at 1323 Mecklenburg Road regarding installation of a sprinkler system. Chairman Stotz said he would like to express to EcoVillage for their appreciation for the willingness to come up with the figures and to come back a second time. Chairman Stotz said he knows sometimes the machinations of Town regulations and boards could be very frustrating , especially when they are trying to go ahead to do the kind of project they are doing . Chairman Stotz said the board has received the materials on the different estimates , and asked for EcoVillage to go over the estimates briefly with the board . Liz Walker of 117 East York Street and a member of EcoVillage , said from the last meeting with the Zoning Board , EcoVillage residents were requested to come back with figures for the whole building sprinklered with a commercial application and with a residential system , and also a partial system under both residential and commercial systems . Ms . Walker said the total cost for a residential system (without pump and reservoir) which includes the main floor, attic , and the basement would be $12,933 .00. Ms. Walker said the commercial system for the main floor, attic , and the basement would be a total of $30, 177 .00. Ms. Walker said if they did the partial system , which would be the main floor and the basement under the residential system , that would be $4 , 026 . 00 , and under the commercial system for the main floor and basement , that would be $9 , 394 . 00 . Ms . Walker said EcoVillage residents had mentioned at the previous meeting , that they felt even without the sprinklers , that the Common House would be quite safe in terms of the number of exits and the number of people that would be around . Ms . Walker said the residents are hoping that this board would at least consider the least expensive option, and agree with the residents that it will make the Common House safe and good for fire safety. Chairman Stctz said at the previous meeting , the board had discussed some specific areas with the residents. Chairman Stotz asked if the main floor meant the entire main floor or does it mean the areas that were spoken about. Ms . Walker said the map of the main floor shows where the sprinklers are, and if everyone is talking about the whole system then it would be the entire main floor. Chairman TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 JULY 10 , 1996 Stotz asked if the dashed lines on the map show where the water would sprinkle . Ms . Walker said that was correct . Mr. Krantz asked Ms . Walker if EcoVillage residents anticipate any plans for the attic . Ms . Walker said the attic would be covered if the whole building is covered , but under the partial system . They are just looking at the main floor and the basement . Mr. 'Krantz asked Ms . Walker if the attic would be used for any thing . Ms . Walker said the attic is not designated for any kind of use at this point . Mr. Frost asked if there are trusses in the attic . Jerry Weisburd of House Craft Builders , said that the attic space is structural trusses , and there would be recycled cellulose insulation , which is highly unsuitable for using for storage because it is quite messy. Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Weisburd if there is a floor in the attic space . Mr. Weisburd responded , no, that there might be some planks so the people who would be blowing in the insulation could walk around. Mr. Ellsnrorth asked if the attic space would be used for storage . Mr . Weisburd responded, no , the building would be air tight and the connection into the attic space would be sealed with a gasket. Mr. Weisburd said the attic space would not be an easy space to access . Mr . Ellsworth said he is involved in the sprinkler systems , so if there is any storage in the attic then it would require sprinklers in the attic . Ms . Walker said the residents are not interested in storing things in the attic as they were told by the Weisburd's that the attic could not be used , so they are not intending to use it as storage . Mr. Krantz said if someone puts insulation in the attic and there is a trap door , they are not to open that trap door because theoretically the insulation comes shooting out into the house . Ms . Walker said that they would take his advise . Mr. Ellsworth said at the last meeting there were also some other areas added , such as the laundry room and other rooms . Chairman Stotz said the mechanical room was talked about , too , and that is not included on Drawing No . CH-2 P2 . Ms . Walker said that was a mistake , that the hallway in the basement should not sprinklered , it. should be the mechanical room , which was the intention . Attorney Bamey asked on Drawing No . CH-2 W3 for the whole building , how can they sprinkler a pipe chase . Mr. Frost said it depends on what way the chase is running on the shaft . Chairman Stotz asked if the lines just went through the pipe chase . Mr. Weisburd said usually the sprinklers would cover concealed spaces as well as accessible spaces . Attorney Barney asked if the pipe chase is opened from the basement to the attic . Mr . Weisburd said the pipe chase would be sealed at the attic level, so it would mostly be for the ducts . Mr . Frost asked if the pipe chase was a vertical shaft . Mr. Weisburd responded , yes . Mr. Frost said for a full building sprinkler it should be to the top of the shaft . Mr . Frost said this would become a real significant issue because it is giving the residents a vertical communication between floors to spread fumes and smoke . Mr. Frost said it is spraying a two- TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 JULY 10 , 1996 story building , he is not sure it is real critical . Mr. Scala asked what residents are proposing is shown in the partial drawings and the other drawings are for comparison in terms of cost and technical . Ms . Walker said that was correct . Mr. Scala asked who determines if the EcoVillage resident' s plan is adequate . Mr. Frost said in terms of location, there are a few particulars were slightly different than how this building is proposed , what the building would require , among other things , would be the area of code of assembly be sprinklered , which is the dung area . Mr . Frost said in some cases , they have exit ways sprinkled . Mr . Frost said under New York State Building Code the requirement would be a partial installation other than the dining area and the exit ways . Mr . Frost said if this board is asking if this proposal is adequate , it is in One with what building code would require . Mr. Frost said the Town ordinance for sprinklers goes well beyond that system for the whole building . Mr. Ellsworth said the local fire chief has the final say over the building code or anything else as to what is to be done . Mr . Frost responded , no . Mr. Ellsworth said this is different than the City . Mr . Frost said that is correct , because the fire department in the City has code enforcement responses other than the Town . Mr . Frost said the fire department in the Town , the sole responsibility of the contract is to fight the fires . Mr. King said since he was not at the previous meeting , could someone clarify to him if these four proposals include water in the system to sprinkle if there is a fire . Ms . Walker said that her understanding is that these proposals would be for installing sprinklers , but the water would not be there until there is water on West Hill that is easily accessible . Attorney Barney said the understanding was that the initial cost , which was quite high , included a reservoir and pumps , because the supply of water pressure at that level at that part of West Hill was not adequate to supply directly to a sprinkler head. Attorney Barney said the cost would have been $40 , 000 . 00 to $ 60 , 000 . 00 , so this board asked the residents to go back and come back with some proposals that would not include the pumps or reservoirs . Attorney Barney said one system being a complete sprinkler using a residential system , which is not as costly as a commercial system . Attorney Barney said the other proposals were residential for partial and commercial for partial . Attorney Barney said his understanding was there would be water in the system , but it would not be pressurized to the pressure level that would normally be required for any normal system . Ms . Walker said she meant to say was that there would not be any pump or reservoir. Attorney Barney said the sprinklers would go off, but not a strong force of water . Mr. Weisburd said part of the problem here is that the residents of EcoVillage also had to put in quite a bit of money to improve the water system because it was not adequate even for domestic water. Mr . Weisburd said there is a duplex pump station in about 3 , 000 feet of private water main serving the neighborhood , which the residents are paying for even though they have to pay for full water taxes. Mr. Weisburd said that system will supply domestic water, but under a full fire load it will not deliver as much water as might be required . Mr. Weisburd said the system works with two alternating pumps where if there was a high demand then both pumps would go on , so then it would supply more water than just the domestic load , but it is still not what a fire pump or reservoir would be . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 17 JULY 10, 1996 Mr. King asked if the residential system proposals would be connected in with the water supply. Mr. Weisburd responded, yes. Mr. King asked if the existing water supply would be more affected on a residential system than a commercial system . Mr . Weisburd said probably , because the amount of water per head is probably less than that . Mr . Frost said it would be less . Chairman Stotz asked if that was the fundamental difference between a residential and commercial system . Mr. Ellsworth said the residential has quick response heads also . Chairman Stotz asked if there would be a greater volume of water through a commercial . Mr. Ellsworth responded , yes . Mr. Weisburd said the pipe in a residential system , is typically plastic riveted , as where in commercial it is metal . Mr. Krantz asked if this system would function better with a minimum of water pressure that they have , if they had a residential rather than a commercial system . Mr. Weisburd said that he believes that is the case . Mr. Scala said what the board is looking at is a proposal to put in a partial system with the understanding that the system would eventually be connected to available water. Attorney Barney said the water could be connected at Phase I with City water , it is just that there is not a lot of pressure there that is normally required by engineering standards . Mr. Scala asked if there is some future rectification on this. Mr. Frost said it is possible with a development that is proposed for the other side of the road, Saddlewood . Mr. Weisburd said that EcoVillage has also put in , from the main that they have nun , water piping to the building and within the building that is fully up to the regulations of the Town inspectors. Mr. Weisburd said if a Town main were there , they could automatically switch over. Mr. King asked if the Common House would be at the south end of the neighborhood . Mr. Weisburd said that would be the west end . Mr . King asked if the houses would be on the south side of the Common House , what are the other 27 spaces for. Mr . Weisburd said that those spaces are carports and outside storage . Mr. King asked if they would be residential spaces . Mr . Weisburd responded , no . Mr. King asked if there would be any expansion of the 30 houses . Mr. Weisburd responded , no , that this is a complete neighborhood . Mr . Weisburd said there is an intention eventually to have other neighborhoods , but that would have to come up before the Town for the regular review process before that happens . Mr . King asked if this would be the same thing this neighborhood is . Mr. Weisburd said it would be similar , but there would be different architects , builders , and people involved . Mr . King asked if such additional neighborhoods would use this Common House or have their own . Mr . Weisburd said that is not the intention at this point . Mr . Weisburd said the intention for this Common House is for this neighborhood only . Chairman Stotz said one of the items discussed by this board after the previous meeting , was that the proximity of the Common House to the other houses , and that if there was a major fire where the Common House went up quickly , that it could be large enough to set fire to the adjoining houses . Chairman Stotz said there is. a concern , not just for that building , there is also a concern for the TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 18 JULY 10, 1996 buildings that are close to the Common House because they are all connected . Mr. Weisburd said although the SLUD allowed for the houses to be closer than the Town ' s requirements , which is 15 feet in an RA 5, that the SLU D allows the houses to be closer than that , although they need to conform to the State code , which they do . Mr. Weisburd said however, they did not use that separation requirement or separation allowance between the Common House and the houses , so the Common House is well over the Town' s requirement for separation of buildings . Mr . King asked if the Common House was approximately 25 feet from unit one and approximately 40 feet from unit 30 . Mr . Weisburd said that is about right , and obviously there is a strong wind that could jump that , but it is quite a bit bigger than the normal Town separation requirement. Mr. King asked how far apart the duplex units are from each other. Mr . Weisburd said they average about eight or nine feet , but because of the angles the average is approximately eight feet . Mr. King asked if EcoVillage residents thought about the fire insurance rates if the Common House was sprinklered . Mr . Weisburd said the problem is that the community is innovative , and they are really biting off a lot of really new things , all of which are wonderful , but piece by piece really add up to a numerous expense . Mr. Weisburd said the idea of sprinklering the building is a good idea , but after adding it to all of the other expenses they would have to include the very expensive water system , it just becomes a large sum of money . Mr . King said he has read the draft minutes of the last meeting , and he is not totally unaware of the discussion , but from his own point of view , cost is not a factor. Mr. King said excessive cost is yes , and he agrees with the idea of mitigating in the hopes that the Town might improve the water flow to West Hill by other means . Mr. King said his feeling is that , he knows everybody says this is just an extension of their living room and their kitchen , but it is not , it is a collection point for some 30 , 40 , or 50 people at a time , therefore , safety should be the primary concern . Mr. King said the Chairman pointed out that a $ 15 , 000 . 00 cost amounts to $5 . 00 or $6 . 00 per loan unit over 20 years , which is not much money. Mr. King said he has seen a situation where in planning a building it comes down to where people could only afford so much money , so they do not do this and they do not do that , and then ten years laterthey wished they did do that while they were planning the building . Mr. King said the same thing applies to the running water pipes for the sprinklers through the building , and think that they could get them installed relatively cheap in the figures . Mr. Weisburd said he believes that most of the people agree that safety is the prime concern , and one of things that was presented at the last meeting , was that they showed how the building is laid out as far as exiting the building . Mr. Weisburd said for example , under the State code , they are allowed to go 150 feet from any point in the building to an exit before they are required to have sprinklers. Mr. Weisburd said in this situation , there is no point in a building that is more than 40 feet from an exit, so this building is far safer than the State threshold . Mr . Weisburd said he believes this building is very safe , that there are alarms in every single space and it is almost inconceivable because of how many exits there are and how many windows there are , that even if there were a fire that it could be dangerous . Mr . King said that Mr . Weisburd is assuming that everyone is evenly TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 19 JULY 10 , 1996 spread out through the density of the building . Mr. King said what happens in a fire if there is a bunch of people in the dancing area and they use the same exit , they would end up trampling each other. Mr. Weisburd said that area has seven doors right from that area . Mr. Frost said that he does not agree with Mr. Weisburd' s statement , in all due respect , that the area of public assembly given everything else the same , at a capacity of 100 or more people , that the State building code would require sprinklers . Mr. Weisburd said that is true , but EcoVillage does not have that capacity and there are other things that kick in . Mr . , Weisburd said in terms of the exits , the requirement kicks in at 150 feet, and every single space has detectors in them and there is an alarm inside and outside of the building for people to hear. Mr. Weisburd said there are people in the neighborhood all the time , it is not like people leave the building and it would sit overnight where nobody would notice a fire starting . Mr. Weisburd said this is 30 people who live in the same neighborhood , so what they have tried to show is that the Common House would be a safe building without a sprinkler system . Mr. Weisburd said he thinks that the board should consider the particulars , this board room he believes is safe even though it does not have a sprinkler system , because everyone could run out the windows orthe two exit doors . Mr . Weisburd said he believes this is the same situation the residents have in the dining room of the Common House , where the outside is right there . Mr. Frost said that he is not sure he entirely agrees with that , but as an example , a fire alarm system would be required in this building in areas of public assembly and in the means of egress . Mr. Frost said if the residents are providing a fire alarm system , it may be a full building fire alarm system , at least a partial fire alarm would be required by the building code any how. Mr. Frost said the building code requires multiple safety items in the building besides sprinklers . Mr . Frost said this building is being provided with a fire alarm system , but they are code required . Mr . Krantz asked if the Common House is going to have a multiple amount of cooking and doing laundry, that would increase the fire hazard . Mr . Weisburd said he does not think the laundry would so much. Mr. Krantz said laundry does , the dryers do not get vented properly . Mr . Krantz said that there has been a lot of house fires from lint in the dryers . Mr. Frost said some of Mr. Weisburd' s points are valid in some instances , such as the Common House would have travel distance of 100 foot to the exit doors , but they are saying 40 - foot . Mr. Frost said there are some aspects for one person to try to determine how much safer one building is to another, that he thinks there is something valid about the fact that there are multiple lengthy doors within 40 foot travel distances , but there are other components to give out which would be plain building code requirements . Mr. King said if a fire department truck went to the Common House to put out a fire and if the pumper had to use the pond , could the fire department get to it . Mr. Weisburd responded , yes , that they are putting in a dry hydrant for the pumper to hook up to . Mr . King asked if the pumper could come between the hydrant and the pond . Mr . Weisburd said the hydrant would need to be located fairly close to the water level , because the pumper suction is limited to short distances . Mr. Weisburd said the pumper itself and the hydrant would need to be close to the pond , and from that point they could go a few hundred feet , that is not a problem . Mr. King said the pond is approximately 80 feet TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 20 JULY 105 1996 from the Common House . Mr. Weisburd said it is a lot closer because it was expanded closer to the Common House . Mr. Kng asked where the fire station is located for the West Hill area . Mr . Frost said the West Hill station is on Route 96, Mr. Frost said that fire station had to cut back where it is not maned during the daytime , but it is maned at night . Chairman Stotz asked what is the potential for expanding a residential system opposed to the commercial system . Chairman Stotz asked if they did a partial residential system or a partial commercial system , would they be difficult to expand . Mr. Weisburd said he expects a residential system would be easier, because new branches could be run at a less expensive cost , where a commercial system might need to be sized to handle the expansion , where a residential uses more of a conservative , less expensive pipe . Mr . Weisburd said putting in a whole new system would run parallel to the initial system and would be easier . Mr . Frost said in some cases , one they consider a residential system is not as good as a commercial system , because a residential system is dealing with an occupancy where people are sleeping. Mr. Frost said that residential systems are limited to and allowed a certain number of people before they would have to install a commercial system . Mr . Frost said apparently if there is a building where people are sleeping , there would be a greater risk factor than if the building is sprinkled or not . Mr. Frost said he does not think it is a significant compromise by allowing residential system standards without being much different , particularly giving what is really a single- story building with a basement . Mr. Ellsworth asked what system would be required for less than 100 people . Mr . Frost said if they were over 100 people , the code would require the a standard sprinkler system . Mr . Frost said this board has some leeway because this is a local regulation requiring it . Mr . Frost said he does not want to see this board varying State regulations which they should not be doing . Mr: Ellsworth asked how does this board limit the residents to less than 100 people and maintain that . Mr . Frost said he could issue a certificate of occupancy , which EcoVillage needs to consider if they have more than 100 people there, that there is a problem. Mr . Ellsworth said the last time this board heard that there would only be 87 people , but that does not include visitors and holidays . Mr. Frost said an occupancy permanently given could say that they cannot do that . Mr . Weisburd said there would not be 87 people in the Common House at one time . Ms . Walker said the 87 people includes approximately 20 children , so if there was a big meeting , there would be a separate place for the children to play . Ms. Walker said she does not believe that they would get that type of gathering in the Common House , Chairman Stotz asked if there were additional neighborhoods built , would they have their own Common House . Ms . Walker said part of co-housing is that each neighborhood builds their own Common House . Chairman Stotz asked if there would be a chance where neighborhoods would get together for special occasions . Ms . Walker said the Village Green , the park area between the neighborhoods , could be used for that . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 21 JULY 10, 1996 Mr. Krantz asked Mr. Frost if the attic needed to be sprinklered . Mr. Frost said in some cases , code would require the attic to be . sprinklered without storage . Mr. Krantz said if the attic is full of insulation , that he does not see any point in having the attic sprinklered . Attorney Barney said if the attic is sealed shut , then it should be vented or opened to the mderior. Mr. Weisburd said it would be vented on the cold side , not on the warm side . Mr. King asked Mr. Weisburd what he meant . Mr . Weisburd said there would be no ventilation between the interior space and the attic space , it would be sealed . Mr. Weisburd said above the insulation , air comes in the eves and goes out at the ridge . Mr. Frost said there is a commercial building and again he does not deal with this often nor has he researched this , where the trusses had to have an intermesh paint applied to the trusses to avoid installing a sprinkler in the attic . Chairman Stotz said he would be going through the different scenarios one by one , and ask this board if there is anyone who would like to speak on that particular option and it will include no sprinkler system at all . Chairman Stotz said the first option would be the whole building with a residential system , and asked if any board member would like to speak in favor of a residential system covering the entire building . Mr. King said he would speak in favor of that for the reasons that have been stated already . Mr . King said he could see hazards here , that could be a catastrophe , and a sprinkler system would do well to alert someone since there would be a long response time before any Ire apparatus could arrive from the fire department . Mr . Krantz said he would speak in favor of that , but he would eliminate the necessity for having the sprinklers in the attic . Mr. Krantz said he would speak in favor of having a residential system of the whole main floor and the whole basement . Mr. King asked Mr. Krantz if he thought a fire could start in the attic and spread throughout the building . Mr. Krantz said not if there is a couple feet of insulation on the floor. Mr . Scala said there would be electrical stuff. Mr. Frost said in some cases , that could be mitigated by putting a heat detector in the attic . Mr . Frost said the primary thing is early warning to get the occupants out of the building . Mr. Weisburd said there would be no wiring in the attic . Mr. Weisburd said the way they seal a building , is that they use an air vapor barrier on the bottom of the trusses , and then they would put wood purlins below that where the wiring would be going through . Mr. Weisburd said that is done this way, so the wire does not penetrate the air vapor barrier to make holes in it , so at the end there are no wires in the attic at all . Mr. Weisburd said most older buildings have a gable vent , newer constructions usually has continuous vent and a continuous ridge vent , and then the air would go through the attic to stay much cooler. Attorney Barney asked if the purlins are in the ceiling , second floor, are they not . Mr. Weisburd said that was correct . Attorney Barney asked if the sprinkler head goes off on the second floor it would not hit the electrical system . Mr . Weisburd said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked if anyone wants to speak . Mr. Ellsworth said he would like to speak in favor of the residential system . Mr . Ellsworth said if he were to approve this , these would be the conditions : 1 ) . Less than 100 people ; 2 ) . Each new neighborhood have their own Common House ; 3) . There be no storage in the attic and the attic be locked ; 4 ) . That this Common House meet New York State Building Code; 6) . That this Common House meet the Town 's Sprinkler Code ; 6 ) . Meet the TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 22 JULY 10, 1996 fire detection. Attorney Barney said there is not a code for fire protection in the Town . Mr. Ellsworth said there is a New York Building Code . Mr . Frost asked Mr. Ellsworth what he is looking for, because if this board allows a residential system , which the State Building Code would not allow , there would be a contradiction there . Attorney Barney said that this board would be accepting the possibility that it will not even meet the NFPA standard because of the lack of pressure . Mr. Scala said he would speak in favor of the whole building with a residential system , and that the difference of the system to consider , that as a percentage of the total investment is pathetically small. Mr. Scala said the safest way is the best way to go , which is the residential system for the whole building with the attic , as it is written . Chairman Stolz said there seems to be consensus on the whole building with residential system , but there still is discussion about the attic whether or not it should be sprinklered . Mr. Weisburd said one of the problems with the attic is that , they cannot have water in those pipes . Mr. Weisburd said that adds a whole level of complications to the system that this board does not have . Mr. Weisburd said the attic would be cold space , then the water would freeze . Mr . Frost said with a dry system , they could not have a commercial type building , and they would not be able to have plastic pipes with a dry system in a commercial building . Mr. Frost said in some ways , he feels a little uncomfortable for allowing plastic pipe as a dry system in the attic . Mr. Scala said his thoughts are that the attic is part of the system and it cannot be ignored . Mr. Scala said there are all kinds of problems with lightning , rodents , and the potential build of higher temperatures , and they cannot ignore the fact that the attic would be closed off and not visible to inspect . Mr. Scala said the attic is part of the total complex , and it should be protected . Chairman Stotz asked if the system would be a dry one. Mr. Frost said a trade off of omitting sprinkler heads and allowing intumescent paints on the tresses etc . , intumescent paint on the trusses which significantly cuts down the spread of flame on wood is permitted . Mr. Scala said all that does is delay the time . Mr. Frost said that is correct , but it is a legal force if standards permit and this is an occupied space . Attorney Barney said the dry system is triggered when the head goes off, and asked what happens for a brief period of time, air comes out . Mr. Weisburd said that was correct . Attorney Barney asked if ultimately water would end upcoming out of the head . Mr . Weisburd said that was correct . Mr. Frost said that would be two separate setups , wet system or dry system . Attorney Barney said the cost would change with the system . Mr. Weisburd said they used an averaged out cost for these systems, so the attic would be more expensive than the warm spaces . Mr . Weisburd said this does present some technical problems with the dry system that the wet system would not have . Chairman Stolz asked if the residential system for the whole building would be over the average cost stated on the estimate sheet . Mr . Weisburd responded , yes , because he is not familiar with dry systems . Mr . Frost said he was not sure an occupied , unused space would be needing any direct life safety benefit to the occupant , as long as there is early warning to alert people in the building to get TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 23 JULY 10 , 1996 out of the building . Mr. Ellsworth said he has done sprinkler designs for apartment buildings in the City. There is no storage in the attic and they are locked , so they would not be sprinklered . Mr. Frost said those are buildings that are used for people sleeping in them . Mr. Ellsworth said he is not saying the building is not sprinklered he said the attic is not sprinklered . Attorney Barney said what Mr. Frost is saying is that the building the City is dealing with is at higher risk in the sense that people are spending the night there . Mr. Ellsworth said that was correct . Mr. King said sleep or awake , fire is fire . Attorney Barney said he acts a little quicker when he is awake than while he is asleep . Mr. King asked Mr. Weisburd if he was considering any kind of particular type of pipe for a system. Mr. Weisburd said he was considering plastic for the residential . Mr . Frost said that PVC is allowed in a lot of commercial systems . Mr. Weisburd asked if on any system PVC could be used . Mr. Frost said for commercial , not sure about the residential system . Mr . King asked if the dry hydrant would be built regardless . Mr. Weisburd responded , yes , because that was part of the site plan approval , and they already have the fitting for the hydrant . Mr. King asked where the approximate location would be . Mr. Weisburd said they changed the configuration of the pond a little , and originally it was going to be at the east end , but they need to revisit that to see if it needs to be moved closer to the Common House , Mr. King asked if the hydrant would be incLded with the Common House construction . Mr. Weisburd responded , yes , and he does not think anyone would have a problem with having the attic ' locked and inaccessible . MOTION By Mr , Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED, that this board grants a variance from the sprinkler system requirements of the Local Law requiring a system that would normally be required , allowing a residential system to provide sprinkler heads to sprinkle the basement , main floor , and attic , with the added features : having a maximum number of 100 people and that this Common House only deals with current EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative residents . That all other requirements are met as far as a dry system connecting to the present water system and the expectation of a future , more adequate water system , which applies to the EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative at Mecklenburg Road referring to the whole building , residential system as outlined in the estimate and as shown in the floor plans for the main floor , attic , and basement . Mr. King asked what residential system means , does that define the number of sprinklers in the spacing of those sprinkler heads . Mr . Weisburd said it is defined in the terms of being built to residential standards , so it would be the spacing for residential standards and to get a sprinkler head TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 24 JULY 109 1996 for residential standards . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , Scala . NAYS - Stotz, King , Krantz. The motion was not carried . MOTION By Mr . Ronald Krantz, seconded by Mr. Ed King : RESOLVED, that this board grants a variance from the sprinkler system requirements of the Local Law requiring a system that would normally be required , allowing a residential system to provide sprinkler heads to sprinkle the basement and main floor, with the attic having heat detectors , with the added features : 1 ) . Having a maximum number of 100 people ; 2 ) . That this Common House only deal with the current EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative residents at 1323 Mecklenburg Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -26 . 2 ; 3 ) . That all other requirements are met as far as dry system connecting to the present water system and the expectation of future , more adequate water system , which applies to EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative at 1323 Mecklenburg Road referring to the partial building , residential system as outlined in the estimate and as shown in the floor plans for the main floor and basement , with the attic having heat detectors being tied into the total building requirements . 4) . That the dry hydrant be constructed and finished and in place before the building is occupied . Attorney Barney said with the accordance with all the requirements , except that the flow requirements are not being met , even for the residential system , referring to the lack of pressure . Mr. Scala said that would be anticipated to be correct . Attorney Barney said if or when the Town or somebody builds a tank on West Hill would be corrected by the additional pressure , but at the present time , the standards are for residential construction exclusive of the normal flow requirements . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, King , Krantz. NAYS - Ellsworth , Scala . The motion was carried . Chairman Stotz adjourned the meeting at 9 : 03 p . m . TOWN OF ITHACA 26 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 10, 1996 (.Yi - Deborah Ann Kelley Keyboard Specialist/ Minutes Recorder David St( tz, hai a DRAFTED : 7115196 BY DAK i TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , JUNE 26 , 1996 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , June 26 , 1996 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of Ithaca College , Appellant , Bruce Hatch , Agent , requesting a Special Approval under Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to locate a 66 ' x 84 ' modular building for a period of two years at Ithaca College , 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said structure , located by Dillingham Center , will be utilized for two classrooms . APPEAL of J . M . Blakely , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to replace an existing garage with a new larger structure on a nonconforming lot located at 332 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3- 5 , Residence District R- 15 . The parcel of land is non conforming with regard to lot width , lot area , and front yard setback . A variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 is also being requested , as the proposed garage will have a west side yard building setback of 9 ' ( 10 ' required ) . APPEAL of EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative , Appellant , Elizabeth Walker , Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Town of Ithaca Local Law #7 , as amended , " Requiring Sprinkler Systems to be installed in buildings , " to be permitted to construct a " common house " without a sprinkler system installation , at 1323 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 26 . 2 , Special Land Use District #8 . Said common house will serve as an area of assembly for cooperative members and their guests . APPEAL of Alfred Eddy , Appellant , Stephen Eddy , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V . Section 18 , Paragraph 7 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to maintain a wholesale and retail produce business at 827 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 . Said ordinance limits such a use to a roadside stand or other structure for the display and sale of farm products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the owners of the land . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs , as appropriate , will be provided with assistance , as necessary , upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : June 19 , 1996 Publish : June 21 , 1996 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7 JUNE 26, 9996 Attorney Barney said that he does not want Mr. Blakely to move his building over just because the board is giving him a latitude . Mr. Scala responded , for the record , that there has been some people that had to take footings out because they were six inches off. Attorney Barney said if the board grants the variances , that they should be careful on what people are asking for, and when it is being built they should be very careful . Mr. Blakely said the distance that is on the architect plans is 8. 65 feet, so if the board grants a variance for 8 feet, that would be acceptable . Mr. Scala said that would be correct. Attorney Barney said the neighbor only said within 9 feet in his letter, not 8 feet. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Blakely if the neighbors would object if he moves it a foot closer. Mr. Blakely responded , no . Mr. Ellsworth asked Attorney Barney if he was still bothered that this started at 9 feet and now it is down to 8 feet. Attorney Barney responded , no , that it is this board' s decision . Mr. Scala said the requirement is 8. 65 feet and the board would be rounding it out to 8 feet. MOTION By Mr. . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala : RESOLVED, that this board grant a special approval for the property at 332 Forest Home Drive from Article V, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the owner, Jack Blakely, to remove an existing garage and install a new garage which will be no closer than 8 feet to the west lot line with the following findings and conditions: 1 ). The said garage needs to blend in architecturally with the house , and that it be built in accordance with the sketch entitled ° Proposed Structure" that was submitted with the appeal ; 2 ) . The the benefit of the proposed construction to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining landowners; 3) . That the proposal complies with Articles XIV, Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraphs a-h . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard was the following : APPEAL of EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative, Appellant, Elizabeth Walker, Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Town of Ithaca Local Law TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8 JUNE 26, 1996 #7, as amended, "Requiring Sprinkler Systems to be installed in buildings, " to be permitted to construct a "common house " without a sprinkler system installation, at 1323 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 284-26. 2, Special Land Use District #8. Said common house will serve as an area of assembly for cooperative members and their guests. Elizabeth Walker of 117 East York Street, a member of the EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative and soon to be a homeowner in the cooperative, and said the EcoVillage residents are involved in building a co-housing project, and the whole idea behind the project is to create a sense of neighborliness and for a small town feel . Ms. Walker said EcoVillage residents want to get know the neighbors well and interact with them . Ms . Walker said as the people , who bought the land , designed the neighborhood , and who have paid all the cost, that they have designed their houses to be a little bit smaller than the average house to use the extra money to build a community center such as the " Common House" . Ms. Walker said there would be 30 housing units that are arranged around a pedestrian street, and the common house would be located at the end for everyone' s convenience. Ms. Walker said the one acre pond is located next to the common house . Ms . Walker said the common house was initially designed to be an extension of their living area . Ms . Walker said the common house would be a place where people could go and read a book quietly in the library or sitting area . Ms. Walker said there would be a play space for the children with toys , and a sound proof teen room . Ms. Walker said there would be a dining room where people could share meals together, and there would be a study space for people who want it. Ms . Walker said the common house is really the heart of the community, and it is why they designed this neighborhood the way they did and she is looking forward to living there . Ms . Walker said it is important to them that this common house would be a safe and healthy environment, and they know the New York State Code does not require a building of this sort to be sprinklered . Ms . Walker said the residents of EcoVillage feel that to put in sprinklers would pose great practical difficulties to them . Ms . Walker said this would serve as a severe financial hardship for the people in their group , and they do not feel that it is necessary. Steve Gaarder of Durfey Hill Road , and part of the cooperative as a developer and a future homeowner in the project, said that sprinklers use water, and use a lot of water at high pressure far more than the pumps they have to supply the neighborhood with water would provide . Mr. Gaarder said this would be a diesel powered pump that sits in its own building that would need to be tested once a week, which it would take more fuel to test the pump than heat one of the houses . Mr. Gaarder said even that would not do it, because when the engineers looked at the situation they determined that there was not enough water in the main. Mr. Gaarder said that they could hook the pump up, but that it would not do much good because it would suck the main dry. Mr. Gaarder said this leaves us with a reservoir, which should hold about 10 , 000 gallons or so with . a tank the size of a room which would be a lot of water for it to draw from . Mr. Gaarder said then on top of that, they would need to design the building to accommodate this reservoir to put into the sprinklers . Mr. Gaarder said the whole thing adds up to a very large , additional cost on top of the building , which TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 JUNE 26, 1996 for an outfit such as EcoVillage that does not have deep pockets it, would be a real obstacle . Pamela Carson of 520 North Tioga Street, said that she has been involved with the development of EcoVillage since the first meeting five years ago . Ms . Carson said from the beginning , affordability has been a really important part of their mission . Ms . Carson said at the beginning, there has been a number of people who joined them and worked on the project who had to drop out because the economical reality hit. Ms . Carson said that EcoVillage is at that point again . Ms. Carson said EcoVillage has far exceeded the starting budget of the estimated budget for the lowest houses , which many of them are making great sacrifices to highly mortgage what they already have. Ms. Carson said that they are overly collateralized , and this is something that could push a number of people over the edge. Ms. Carson said she would like to give a few examples of who EcoVillage residents are and how this affects everyone . Ms . Carson said there is a young couple in the group that are farmers , that have really struggled to come up with a down payment for the smallest house possibly, and at the beginning and as it progress, it was estimated that the smallest house will be no more than $85, 000 which included their portion of the infrastructure and the common house . Ms . Carson said at $85 , 000, they just qualified for mortgage , which was right on the edge . Ms . Carson said they are now up to $90, 000 which is without these additional costs , and their participation is in jeopardy if there is a further assessment of this size, and it would be a shame to loose farmers who are the core of their project and their mission because they made it unaffordable for the farmers . Ms. Carson said there is a single father in his thirties who is a business owner. Ms . Carson said he was with EcoVillage in the beginning , but had to drop out a few years ago because his finances did not allow it. Ms . Carson said he was able come back to the group about a year ago . Ms. Carson said he can now afford the down payment, but he is afraid in any increases and also the carrying cost because as EcoVillage borrows more it will cost more each month . Ms . Carson said that he has taken no options on any changes in his house , where a change order for EcoVillage costs $75. 00 each plus the prices of the option . Ms . Carson said that a number of them are very, tempting and some of them are very necessary to them . Ms . Carson said this gentleman has said $75. 00 means too much for him , and how could he afford an assessment that could run into the high hundreds or the thousands . Ms. Carson said there are two woman in their forties with their own families , who have just; completed school . Ms . Carson said that both women have just completed schooling for the health i care field. Ms. Carson said that both women are struggling to pay back their school bills, and they% were also right on the line of whether they could join the community or not. Ms . Carson said it would be a while before their new profession will get them up and running in a somewhat comfortable place, but this could further jeopardize them . Ms . Carson said she could go on case after case . Ms . Carson said that there is a family that has lived in a trailer for more than 20 years , and TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 JUNE 26, 1996 they do not know how they could bear any more cost. Ms . Carson said there is a couple who has a modest house with two young children who have never had a debt outside their house mortgage , but now they have a debt much of it from a credit card of $7 , 000, and they say it is extremely stressful for their family . Ms. Carson said that she asks the board when they consider this decision to please think of the human elements and to think of the residents as regular folks who cannot afford the extra expense , and who do not think it is necessary. Ms . Carson said that one of the reasons the expenses went up is because of the requirements from the Town of Ithaca to build a bigger road than they planned and also a sizable access road . Ms. Carson said this added about $50, 000 to the bill . Ms . Carson said that it was something that EcoVillage residents had not planned on and were surprised when this was required for their relatively small neighborhood . Ms. Carson said the other thing that has happened is getting a proper water system that cost an additional $25, 000 . Ms. Carson said if the board would look into $75, 000 that was not anticipated , and then look into a sprinkler bill that could run that high . Ms . Carson said all the residents are very concerned about this, and hope that the board would look at this compassionately. Jay Jacobson of 24 Dove Drive, a member of the cooperative who is acting as the developer of EcoVillage, and he is a homeowner in the residents group . Mr. Jacobson said as a person who will live in EcoVillage, who intends to use that as an extension of his home that everyone calls the common house, he is concerned about safety. Mr. Jacobson said when he is having dinner in the common house, that he would otherwise normally have at home, he would want to be and feel safe. Mr. Jacobson said when he is reading or chatting in the sitting room in the common house instead of in his home, he wants to be safe. Mr. Jacobson said when he is in the laundry room because he does not have laundry facilities in his home , he wants to feel safe . Mr. Jacobson said that he has looked carefully at the situation to determine whether this extension of his house , the common house, would be a safe place. Mr. Jacobson said the first point is to reiterate what Ms . Walker had mentioned before, and that is, this building meets the New York State Fire Code for fire safety requirements. Mr. Jacobson said that it is . not required to have sprinklers under the State code , but under the local ordinance. Mr. Jacobson said that his concern is , perhaps the State code is too loose, so he has looked further at the plans that have been provided by the builder for the common house . Mr. Jacobson said he has concluded that this is an inheritantly safe building without sprinklers. Mr. Jacobson said there are three reasons he has come to that conclusion with the first having to do with fire detection and safety. Mr. Jacobson said there would be a smoke curtain above the kitchen, which is a common place where fires could occur. Mr. Jacobson said the curtain will trap smoke , should there be a fire , and prevent the smoke from spreading . Mr. Jacobson said the common house will have approved hard wired smoke detectors in every enclosed space of the building . Mr. Jacobson said that these detectors are going to be wired to an alarm that would be external to the building . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 11 JUNE 26, 1996 Mr. Jacobson said EcoVillage had deliberately clustered their buildings to save open space, where the common house is immediately adjacent to all the buildings . Mr. Jacobson said the whole village will be able to hear the external alarm as well as the common house is within sight of the houses. Mr. Jacobson said that the building will be under surveillance , because this building is not located in a non-residential area where people are not living night and day throughout the year, it is located in a residential area with 30 families . Mr. Jacobson said there would also be someone there to hear and to see if there is an emergency . Mr. Jacobson said that EcoVillage will have excellent fire safety and protection capability. Mr. Jacobson said concerning egress from the building, that on the basement floor there are two exits . Mr. Jacobson said there are windows , most of which can be used for people to exit in case of emergency, which open out. Mr. Jacobson said on the main floor, there are eight exits , so that would be a total of ten exits for a building that is approximately 5, 000 square feet. Mr. Jacobson said the doors will have panic hardware, so if a lot of people are trying to get out of a door at once , the doors will not jam. Mr. Jacobson said every point within the building , is within 40 feet or less of an exit, and that is about one-fourth of the required distance according to New York State Code for an unsprinklered building . Mr. Jacobson said EcoVillage residents plan to have fire drills for adults and children , so that everyone would know how to exit both the houses and the common house quickly and safely. Mr. Jacobson said an emergency egress from this building is excellent, so that would make excellent fire safety and detection capability. Mr. Jacobson said concerning fire fighting capabilities , which there would be approved extinguishers in the building , and the common house coordinator' s responsibility would be to see that these fire extinguishers are maintained properly. Mr. Jacobson said for water to fight fires, there is an one acre pond that was built last fall . Mr. Jacobson said there would be a dry hydrant which would allow a hose connection from a fire engine . . Mr. Jacobson said there would be ready access to an ample water supply that is right on site , so he believes there is excellent fire fighting capability. Mr. Jacobson said the common house is a special category of building that will be used as an extension of the resident' s homes. It would be an inheritantly safe building that meets and exceeds the safety requirements of the New York State Fire Code. This special kind of building was not anticipated when the local ordinance was pronulgated. The building is designed to have excellent fire detection capability , and it is designed for rapid and safe building egress. There is already ample fire detection on site and an accessible water supply. With these reasons, he believes a variance from the Local Law 17 requiring sprinklers is entirely inappropriate. Mr. Scala asked when this building was designed , what brings it under the ordinance that requires it to be sprinkled . Mr. Frost said there are two things . Mr. Frost said it would be a place for assembly with the local ordinance , and it would be defined as an area of local assembly by the local building code . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Weisburd why he did not make this a sprinkler building . Mr. Weisburd TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 12 JUNE 26, 1996 said he did make it a sprinkler building , and EcoVillage is asking for a variance to make it an unsprinklered building . Mr. Ellsworth asked what is the latest State building code for the reason of change , because this place is for assembly. Mr. Frost said among other things , for example, if they had occupancy of 100 people in the area for assembly, that would be labeled for an all purpose room , and it would be required to have sprinklers . Mr. Frost said based on the square footage and the tables that calculate the maximum occupancy would be under 100 people in the multi purpose room , so sprinklers would not be required . Mr. Frost said draft curving is a requirement, but it is there to mitigate the fact that the kitchen is open to the assembly area of the multi purpose room . Mr. Frost said the sprinkler system would not be required under some of the particulars that are part of this project, with one of those being less than 100 people of occupancy. Mr. Scala asked if there could be any restrictions that could be put on this variance to allow this building to be unsprinkled. Mr. Frost said the State code would not require it to have a sprinkler system , but the local ordinance , as an assembly hall , would require this new building to have a sprinkler design . Mr. Scala asked if there were less than 100 people in the building, that the building would not need to be sprinkled . Attorney Barney said if there was more than 100 people in the building , the State Code would require this building have a sprinkler system . Attorney Barney said if there was less than 100 people, the State Code would not require it, but the local ordinance requires any area in assembly regardless of number. Mr. Scala said the estimated cost was $365 , 000. Mr. Scala asked Mr. Weisburd if that was his estimate. Mr. Weisburd said that was correct. Mr. Scala asked Mr. Weisburd if the estimate was based on a no sprinkler system . Mr. Weisburd said that was correct. Mr. Scala asked Mr. Weisburd why he did that, because if he designed it to be sprinklered , then he should have estimated it. Mr. Weisburd said he gave both estimates for the building , sprinklered and unsprinklered . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Weisburd what would be the added cost. Mr. Weisburd said he believes it would be between $30 , 000 to $60, 000 depending on the particulars. Mr. Scala said the letter that was submitted to the Zoning Department comes to more than that. Mr. Weisburd said it could depend on the different levels of sprinkler systems. Mr. Weisburd said if EcoVillage gets into fire pumps and the reservoir it could be more than that. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 13 JUNE 26, 1996 Mr. Scala said the cost of installing the reservoir and associated pumps with the sprinkler system , would be approximately $50 , 000 to $60 , 000 . Mr. Weisburd said that was correct. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Weisburd if EcoVillage residents install the sprinkler system in the common house, it would be $30, 000 to $60, 000 plus ample money for pumping . Mr. Weisburd said if EcoVillage residents just put sprinklers in and did not have to put in a reservoir or any sort of pump, then it could probably be in the $20 , 000 or $30 , 000 neighborhood . Mr. Weisburd said once people get into pumps and_ a reservoir, depending on the particulars, the cost could go up to $60, 000 or more. Mr. Weisburd said that those are some of the engineering questions that have not been ironed out yet, so it is hard to figure it out exactly. Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Weisburd how many gallons are in the pond on the site at a normal level . Mr. Weisburd said over a million or so gallons. Mr. Ellsworth said that could be the reservoir. Mr. Weisburd said EcoVillage could use that with approval , but even if they did use the pond they would need the pump and the sprinkler system. Mr. Weisburd said the cost would really depend on what is required to be installed . Chairman Stotz said that one of the comments made was if the sprinkler system went off, it would drain the main dry. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Weisburd if he knew how long it would take. Mr. Weisburd said that a professional engineer looked at it, and his conclusion was if there was a fire pump in the pump house, which is located on West Haven Road where the main is, and the fire pump was sufficiently sized to supply enough water through the head , that there would not be enough water supply in the main to support that, so it would create a suction in the main with the existing water supply. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Weisburd if the professional engineer based the fire flow for a hydrant or fire flow for a sprinkler system . Mr. Weisburd said that it was just for sprinklering the building . Mr. Frost said if one sprinkler head goes off, it would use approximately 18 gallons per minute. Mr. Frost said when the sprinklers go off usually , only one head goes off unless there is a big fire then others would go off. Mr. Weisburd said that might have been the assumption they made in order to provide this data . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Weisburd where the engineer' s paperwork is with the seal on it. Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Weisburd if he had a statement from the engineer for his calculations . Mr. Weisburd said most of the information the engineer has received came from the Town' s engineer in terms of the water supply. Mr. Ellsworth asked if the engineer did a calculation to determine what the flow would require . Mr. Scala asked if there was an engineering drawing for the sprinkler system. Mr. Weisburd responded , no , and that there is a note with the drawings that said that the building would be sprinklered , and EcoVillage residents would be waiting pending the outcome of TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14 JUNE 26, 1996 the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Weisburd what the plans were of increasing the volume of pressure. Mr. Weisburd said eventually, there would be water mains on the site , but that the Town had been planning to improve the water supply on West Hill in general. Mr. Weisburd said the Town Engineer said that there should be a report on recommendations for improving the water pressure , but the entire West Hill is not well served with Town water at this point. Mr. Weisburd said for anything else to happen , the whole district would need to be improved . Mr. Frost said he had to agree that West Hill does not have the best water supply. Mr. Frost said the proposed Saddlewood Project if approved , has suggested that they would create some prudence in supply. Attorney Barney said the Saddlewood Project is moving forward , but there is a lot that needs to be done . Attorney Barney said part of that project is improvement of the water and pressure grid for throughout that area. Mr. Scala said that this board had to contend with the problem of hardship versus sprinkler requirements before. Mr. Scala said that the sprinkler system is a safety requirement established by the best judgement of the powers to be. Mr. Scala said the sprinkler system should have been budgeted in the beginning as a requirement. Mr. Scala said that it has happened before they came in with the lowest bid in order to achieve progress, but it is a serious facility. Mr. Scala said if this was a commercial operation and they were leasing the building , that there would be no questions that they would want it sprinklered. Mr. Scala said what the board should ask for is a more complete description of the system , so they could come up with a real cost. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Scala how is knowing the exact cost of the sprinkler system going to help him measure the hardship . Mr. Scala said if it turns out that they could do the system for $30, 000, maybe they could swing it. Chairman Stotz said the measure of hardship could be a self-imposed hardship because they really do not have to live at EcoVillage , because the people are making the choice on their own . Chairman Stotz said that the building is not built yet, so the sprinkler system does not need to be retrofitted . Attorney Barney said that in the past, this board has . granted variances where there is no public water available. There has been circumstances where this board has required less than the full magic number of pumps for gallons per hour on a head where there is an expectation to maintain the level that would be required for a reservoir but the providing of public water was fairly laminate, and that would take care of some of the pressure problems . Jen Bokaer-Smith of 120 East York Street said in the terms of whether EcoVillage budgeted it earlier or not , she and her husband would not be part , of the group , so in a way it has been TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 15 JUNE 26, 1996 beneficial to them . Ms. Bokaer-Smith said it has allowed them to keep cost as low as possible , it has allowed them to remain in the group , and if costs go up they would be one of the people Ms . Carson was talking about. Ms . Bokaer-Smith said if costs do go up they will no longer qualify for a mortgage. Ms. Bokaer-Smith said in terms of whether or not that is a self-imposed hardship , she and her husband farm the land at EcoVillage where he runs a truck farm there. Ms . Bokaer-Smith said her husband makes his entire living there, and she works with him part time . Ms . Bokaer-Smith said that is within the comprehensive plan for the Town to have that piece of land in West Hill as agricultural . Ms. Bokaer-Smith said if they cannot live there , the land would not be farmed for a while. Ms. Bokaer-Smith said it would be in the Town' s best interest to figure out how to keep the farmers as part of the group , and the only way that would happen at this point, is to keep cost absolutely down . Ms . Bokaer-Smith said her husband and her have been saving their money and working hard to afford the down payment, and if the cost goes up they would not be able to make it. Mary Webber of 424 East Seneca Street, said the issue is the nature of the building when she hears people talking about it as a commercial building . Ms . Webber said if someone built a 5, 000 square foot house, and they occasionally gave benefit parties in their home with 100 people in it, they would not be required to have a sprinkler system . Ms . Webber said this is not a concept that has been done here before , and so therefore , it is new. Ms . Webber said the common house would be an extension of their living room , and it would not be commercial space . Ms . Webber said by consolidating some of the services that is needed , they are trying to do things in a different way . Ms. Webber said to compare this building with a commercial building , when it is just families coming and going from space that is just an extension of their home , it really puts it in a different classification . Mr. Scala asked if the common house would be used by people to eat in , cook in , and partially live in . Ms . Webber said no one would be living in the common house . Ms . Webber said they would be doing their laundry there , eat dinner there , and the children can play there. Mr. Scala asked if they could do these in their homes also . Ms . Webber said that they could do it their homes because they have full kitchens and bathrooms , but they do not have laundries . Mr . Scala asked if the residents could move into the community without having a common house . Ms . Webber said then it would not be co-housing . Ms . Webber said that the residents designed very, very small homes because it depends on the other space that these other amenities are in . Mr. Scala said it is needed and part of the plan . Ms . Webber stated that was correct. Mr . Frost asked what is the square footage of each home . Ms . Webber said they are approximately 900 to 1 , 500 square feet. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 JUNE 26, 1996 Chairman Stotz asked if there would be any kind of day care at the common house . Ms . Webber responded , no , that there would be child care space . Ms. Webber said what we will do would probably be cooperative with them , but they would need to make major changes if they ever wanted to do a formal day care . Chairman Stotz asked if the children' s room will just be a place where children could go and play or hangout. Ms . Webber responded , yes , and the statistics for most co-housing communities are that only about half of the community eats in the common house at any one time. Chairman Stotz asked how many would that be . Ms . Webber said that the total population of the community would be approximately 87 people ( including children ) in the 30 households . Chairman Stotz asked if the community would get bigger in the future . Ms. Webber said that she would not be sure of that, but at this point it would not be getting any bigger than 87 people . Mr. Frost asked if there would be any day care provisions in the children's room . Ms . Webber said that everyone would be watching each other' s children in the common house . Mr. Frost asked if there would be any other adults taking care of the children while their parents are away. Ms . Webber said people will have small houses and there would be no place for the children to play, so the children could play at the common house . Mr. Scala said he thought the proposal said that there would be a day care in the common house . Ms . Webber said no . Ms . Webber said the children' s room is right across the dining hall , so parents could keep an eye on them while they are eating . Mr. Frost asked if five years from now, if there was about 15 children under the age of five, would there be any plans for a day care then . Ms . Webber said that would probably be the next neighborhood . Mr. Frost asked if there would be events where there would be guests occupying the common house, would approach occupants totalling 100 people or more, or an event where the multipurpose room will have guests as well as residents approaching 100 or more occupants . Ms. Webber said that everyone could have guests , but that it would be a family at a time . Chairman Stotz asked if the area for the craft room would have some storage for flammable substances . Ms . Webber said in this community , there will not be any volatile materials. Ms . Webber said this is an environmental community that would not have any paint thinner, and they would not have it inside the building . Chairman Stotz asked what the teen room would be for. Ms . Webber said that teenagers need a place to hangout away from their parents. Ms. Webber said it would be their space , and they TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 17 JUNE 26, 1996 would make of it what they want. Chairman Stotz asked if the private studies would be used for people that just want to get away. Ms. Webber responded , yes . Mr. Scala asked Attorney Barney if it would be feasible that the sprinkler system could be installed with piping and valves, but unconnected pending the availability of water. Attorney Barney said that was a question he was going to ask Mr. Weisburd . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Weisburd if the $20 , 000 to $30, 000 figure is based on , if he were to just install the pipes and heads, but no pumps or reservoir to connect to the current system . Mr. Weisburd said it is more complicated than , a residential system because every concealed space has to have sprinklers , ' and that means the attic space, which is unheated , would need to have sprinklers . Mr. Weisburd said the attic space would have to have to have dry sprinklers because they cannot hold water when the house is activated , so it would need to have a remote system involving water flow into those spaces when they are activated . Mr. Weisburd said this would be considerably more expensive than what is allowed for residential sprinklers . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Weisburd if he was just talking about the attic or the general system . Mr. Weisburd responded , no, the whole system is more expensive than a residential sprinkler system per square foot. Mr. Scala asked Mr. Weisburd if the system could be done for $30, 000 . Mr. Weisburd , responded , yes , if it was not connected to anything . Attorney Barney said the $50 , 000 to $60 , 000 sprinkler system included a reservoir and associated pumps. Mr. Scala said it would be illegal to have the common house without a sprinkler ; system . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Weisburd what would be the lowest cost he could install for the ; system . Mr. Weisburd said he was not sure , and he thought that the residents made a very good] case that the building would be safe. Attorney Barney said the Town ' s ordinance covers a whole bunch of things that people; consider are safe . Attorney Barney said for example, storage buildings are required to be sprinklered . He said there were three purposes to adopting the sprinkler law ten years ago .' Attorney Barney said he would not address the first two , but the third one was the concern of the' Town ' s cost of fire fighting was getting out of sight, and they did not require retrofitting in these] What the hope was - when a new building came on line that they would be sprinklered . Attorney Barney said that would act really as an appellant to the development of any kind of a major fireI Attorney Barney said he was dubious about the whole thing until the firemen came with a truck and demonstrated it. Attorney Barney said Mr. Frost and I stood inside a room with a fire and started to sweat, but the sprinkler went off and the fire was out. Attorney Barney said that is one of thy; major reasons it is not only life safety, but also the protection of property. Attorney Barney said p TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 18 JUNE 26, 1996 lot of buildings could be made safe such as a dance hall , but under the ordinance it is required to have a sprinkler system . Attorney Barney said that anybody that is building a building in the Town of Ithaca has a cost factor. Attorney Barney said that would be a problem that there is no question that sprinklers cost money , but the thought was that the cost at the time the building was built, is far less than going back and redoing it. Attorney Barney said that these people are having a cost concern , but that would be a concern of anybody that comes in to build in the Town of Ithaca . Attorney Barney said the question is, is there a way the Town could address at least some minimal protection . Attorney Barney said he recognizes the reservoir and so forth are expensive. Attorney Barney said what he would like to hear, in terms of making any comments to the board , is truly what is the cost of just the sprinkler heads , piping , and so forth, that could be put in and installed now. Attorney Barney said it would be quite a bit cheaper and quite a bit more easier to install , than once the building is up and constructed instead of going back in to consider some sort of retro phase. Attorney Barney said that he suggests a design of a system that maybe less , because the nature of what the residents would want to do with it, might be a residential type of system opposed to a full scale commercial system . Mr. Ellsworth said that they need to follow the building code . Mr. Frost said the code does not require the system , so this board for example in the past, has allowed systems that provide a sprinkler system , but that might not be of standard . Chairman Stotz asked if it would be possible to sprinkler certain areas of the building. Mr. Frost said that the code has a bunch of different types of equations where stairways or a multipurpose room might be sprinklered in small areas . Mr. Frost said there would be different scenarios based on height , storage , square footage , and etc. , so code in fact does set forth standards that would have limited areas . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Weisburd what would it take to get specific dollars for this proposal . Mr. Weisburd said that they know they are in the $25 , 000 range if it was a commercial system . Mr. Weisburd said Mr. Frost is saying that the State code does not require it for this building and because the local code does not have specifics . . . Attorney Barney said EcoVillage will install with accordance with the standards , but the scenario that he is visioning here is that EcoVillage is coming in here asking for a variance to eliminate it all together. Attorney Barney said the alternative variance would be not to eliminate it all together, but to install less than what normally would be required in a commercial system , that would be some considerable amount less . Mr. Weisburd said if this was a commercial system without any of the pumps and reservoir that the cost would be in the $25 , 000 neighborhood . Mr. Weisburd said he believes if the same building were allowed to have a residential system also without pumps and reservoir it would probably cost half of that or less . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 19 JUNE 26, 1996 Mr. Ellsworth said that there would be other possibilities by running the mains for the system' s main assembly area , and then leave stubs for other areas to be done in the future which could be sized . Mr. Scala said that he believes if the sprinkler system had been included in the same way he included the plumbing and electrical , that the design might have been affected differently by the sprinkler system cost and suitability. Mr. Scala said it seems that they would need a drawing , just as there is a drawing for the plumbing and electrical , for the sprinkler system , and in turn , that leads to the proper estimated cost to see what the minimum is that they could get away with to meet the requirements and to be safe. Mr. Scala said he would like to suggest something , on the first page in the letter to the zoning board , on the bottom of the page , which states "The cost of providing a reliable sprinkler system under these circumstances is prohibited . " Mr. Scala said he would suggest that they change that, that the cost of not providing a reliable sprinkler system is prohibited because the cost would be enormous in law suits down the road . Mr. Weisburd said with all fairness, many buildings with public assembly are not sprinklered , we are standing in one. Mr. Weisburd said that a lot of people have not said that this is not safe and that the Town faces many law suits because it is not a sprinklered building . Mr. Weisburd said at the same time , he has not heard people talk about how unsafe it was . Mr. Weisburd said that a very good case was made in terms of how the common house is different than a commercial building , and how there is only one-quarter of the distance to exit that is required on the State code for an unsprinklered building . Mr. Weisburd said that the resident's homes are small , so that they could have one big house, and if it was one big house instead of a common house then it would not be required to have any sprinklers at all . Mr. Weisburd said that he understands the ordinance , but he thinks that this is a safe situation even if it is not sprinklered . Mr. Weisburd said there would be people in the common house all the time , and there would be a sensor in every single space including fire extinguishers and a pond for the pumper to hook up to. Mr. Weisburd said it is unfair to compare the common house to a large assembly hall , and say that they have a situation here which really requires sprinklers for safety. Mr. Weisburd said that they were asking this board that common sense would be used rather than arbitrarily staying with the ordinance which says anything other than a single family house has to i have sprinklers. Mr. Weisburd said the code is what it is, but they were hoping that the board would see that they would have a safe situation . Mr. Frost said he would like to add, a statistic from a conference he went to , that in 1994 , 500 people died in fires with fire extinguishers in their hands . Mr. Frost said that there is a lot of debate among people in the fire service that there is nothing magical about the fire extinguishers , and in fact people could die with those in their hands . Mr. Frost said in some cases fire departments would rather not see them , and have people just exit the building rather than messing around with the fire extinguishers. Mr. Frost said he does not disagree with everything that is being said , but that he just wanted to clarify that there is nothing special about fire extinguishers . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Weisburd if he would know how much it would cost to install a TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 20 JUNE 26, 1996 sprinkler system everywhere except the private studies and the attic for commercial standards. Mr. Weisburd said it would be approximately $ 15 , 000 without hooking it up to pumps or anything . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Weisburd if the commercial figures were based on steel pipe or plastic pipes . Mr. Weisburd said steel . Mr. Frost said he believes that people could use PVC . Mr. Ellsworth said that there is some pros and cons of PVC , but copper could be used too. Mr. Scala said that this appeal should be made with the added information with respect to the minimal requirements for a sprinkler system in the common house. Mr. Scala said that Mr. Weisburd may or may not change the design to bring the price down , with the objective of meeting the legal requirements , meeting the minimal safety requirements at minimal cost, and recognizing the possibility that some people get squeezed out, but he does not know that this board has any other options. Mr. Scala said that this board cannot change the law for the requirements , except that they meet those requirements and that the law is satisfied . Chairman Stotz said that this board could make an exception , because that is why they are here. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing to anyone that is not associated with EcoVillage such as neighbors or anyone in the community, and asked if anyone would like to speak. With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . Sara Pines of Frontenac Road and a member of EcoVillage, said she recognized Mr. Ellsworth' s concerns about opening up what is known as a "deep well" , and not knowing where it will go so other people will be coming screaming through the door. Ms . Pines said there are not a lot of EcoVillages being built, and there are not a lot of common houses being built. Ms . Pines said this is probably one in ten in the whole United States, Ms. Pines said this is a very unique situation , and that the common house is an extension of her living room . Ms . Pines said she has never lived in such a tiny house as she would be living in at EcoVillage. Ms . Pines said she cannot have a washer or dryer because it would be in the common house . Ms . Pines said the common house would be the extension of the laundry room . Ms. Pines said she would not have a study in her house , so the common house would be the extension for her study . Ms . Pines said her kitchen is minuscule , so if she wants to cook or do something , she would have to go to the common house because it would be the extension of her kitchen. Ms . Pines said if someone comes to visit her and they have children , then they would go to the common house because there would not be enough space in her house for them . Ms. Pines said she would like to ask this board, with much experience , to consider that this is not a public space . Ms . Pines said no one could walk in the common house unless they are invited . Ms . Pines said this is an extension of her house, and given the measures that have been taken to secure her safety , which Mr. Jacobson spoke about, that she feels comfortable that she could not be safer anywhere than in the common house . Ms. Pines said that it is a very unique place, a very new concept, and hopefully people will follow their model , that is one of the reasons she joined EcoVillage . Ms . Pines said she did not join TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 21 JUNE 26, 1996 EcoVillage to live in a small house with a common house. Ms . Pines said she joined EcoVillage because she believes that this is a very healthy way to live in every sense of the word , and it is an excellent model to follow for substantial living for the future of their children and their grandchildren . Ms. Pines said if this is happening to them over the last five years with costs continually rising and surprises coming in , so what do they say to other people who are trying to live in a way that enhances the growth of healthy cities and healthy towns . Ms . Pines said they would be saying to them , " Hey folks, if you want to build something unique, you will pay through your nose. You will be going through five years of problems and you are not going be able to do it, and 25% of the people will have to drop out within five years because a new expense has been added . " Ms . Pines said EcoVillage does not want to lose those 25% to 30% of people who cannot afford the extra $500 , but mostly she begs this board to look at two points that have been made over and over again . Ms . Pines said this is not a public place and it is an extension of their homes . Ms. Pines said it is a new concept, which is very scary and very frightening to many people to think of something totally different. Ms . Pines said it is very unique in America . Ms . Pines said in Denmark, there are 160 of these now, and they do not have sprinkler systems because they could not afford them. Ms. Pines said if the members of EcoVillage had to have a sprinkler system , most of the members would not be able to afford it even at $ 12 , 000 to $ 15 , 000 . Ms . Pines said there are a lot of young couples , a lot of senior citizens, and there are a lot of people who are lower middle class economically. Ms. Pines said that $500, which may be added , would drop a lot of people out. Ms . Pines said they have been working hard for the past five years under the concept that the ! common house would be an extension of their living room . Ms . Pines said if people think of they common house as something new and maybe give a little bit, the State does not require it. Ms . ' Pines said this is very unique to the City or the Town ordinance, and she begs this board to consider, this proposal . Chairman Stotz said there seems to be a number of alternatives that could be looked at. i Chairman Stotz said one would be to table this appeal pending more cost of data . Mr. Ellsworth' said they should have a professional estimate . Chairman Stotz said the second one would be a complete commercial system with pumps and, everything that goes along with the sprinkler system . Chairman Stotz said the third would be a complete commercial system that would not be hooked up . Chairman Stotz said the fourth one would be a partial system that would be covering just some of the areas . Mr. Ellsworth asked if there are Town laws and ordinances that the planning groups have not included in their plans , such as the highways and different things that have been in the ordinance for a long time. Attorney Barney said he has looked at the location and the waiver on a lot of stuff, and there has been an awful lot of effort of the Town to make this as affordable as possible!. Attorney Barney said the sprinklers are there as an ordinance that the Town had passed about teal years ago , and it is not a new thing . Attorney Barney said whether there is waiver driven and i TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 22 JUNE 26, 1996 whether it is visible to do or not is , up to this board , but the Town is not bringing something new to the EcoVillage members now. Chairman Stotz said he just went through some quick calculations on the $ 15 , 000 additional cost , it would indeed be $500 per household . Chairman Stotz asked if that was the money that becomes part of the collective mortgage everyone would have to pay into every month to pay the common house mortgage. Mr. Weisburd said the common house would not have a mortgage of it' s own , so it would get rolled into the house prices . Chairman Stotz said what the members of EcoVillage are talking about , on a 20-year , mortgage for putting in a minimal sprinkler system at $ 15 , 000, would be an additional mortgage assessment of $5. 00 or $6 . 00 per month per household . Mr. Scala said he would think that would be the information that would come out on an adequate set of drawings and estimates , and that they would be able to establish an affordable amount . Mr. Weisburd said he thinks if this board would allow the residents to put in a sprinkler system to residential standards in the dining room , children' s room , and the sitting room , without a reservoir and without an additional pump, but by hooking up to the existing water supply it would be better. Mr. Weisburd said he thinks that even though it would be a regrettable impact, but it would be greatly minimal compared to what could be if it was a full commercial with all the pumps . Mr. Weisburd said he would think something would be more manageable than the other suggestions . Mr. Weisburd said engineering work does cost a lot of money, especially if there are many different variables in terms of plugging into the equation and having people study it, because it also involves studying the water flow down the main and many different aspects to it. Mr. Ellsworth said in other words , Mr. Weisburd should come back with a compromised proposal . Mr. Weisburd said this is a compromised proposal . Mr. Scala said the point is, that Mr. Weisburd has to have the plans technically corrected , and it has to be discussed with the zoning officer before they come back for an appeal again . Mr. Weisburd said the engineer' s standards , are that the sprinkler' s should be hooked up in the dining room , children's room, and the sitting room. Mr. Weisburd said these drawings should be submitted to the building officer for his satisfaction, it would not be necessary to come back to the board again . Mr. Scala said he would suggest another drawing that includes the sprinkler system , and the sprinkler system be whatever compromise EcoVillage may arrive at between the professionals and the building office. Mr. Weisburd said that this proposal would entail doing a drawing, but not coming back to the board . Chairman Stotz said that Mr. Weisburd should add the mechanical room and the kitchen for sprinklers . Mr. Weisburd responded , yes . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 23 JUNE 26, 1996 Mr. Frost said in regard to conversations that he and Mr. Weisburd have had in terms of the handicap accessibility and other issues , that it would be an idea for sprinklers to be installed in the stairways as an issue of a bargaining point, so that there may be some benefit there. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Weisburd what the difference would be between commercial and residential systems for covering the multipurpose room , kitchen , children's room , hallways , craft room , and the mechanical room . Chairman Stotz further asked if Mr. Weisburd could provide the board with a cost estimate and a specification for a commercial system and residential system for those areas , and would he be able to do that without encoring a lot of additional costs . Mr. Weisburd responded , no , that he is not qualified to do it because it would take an engineer to do that . Chairman Stotz said he is very sympathetic to what the EcoVillage residents are saying in terms of cost, their lifestyles, and what they hope to get out of this community, but on the other hand , he is equally concerned about the fact that there is an ordinance whether anyone likes it or not, it does exist. Chairman Stotz said if there were ever an incident where there is a fire and someone is hurt or killed because this Town and this board neglected to mandate the common house to have a sprinkler system , it would not be the right thing to do . Chairman Stotz said that his feelings are perhaps the full-blown system or full-blown commercial system , would clearly be a severe financial hardship for all the participants , but something less than that where we are talking about an equal cost of $5. 00 to $ 10. 00 per month per mortgage for 20 years , that would be an unusual financial hardship for some people , but worth it for safety . Mr. Scala said that he had listened to the presentations of EcoVillage residents , and that he thinks it is very admirable, it is past due, and this board will be seeing more of them . Mr. Scala said unfortunately, there are many engineering features that they are paying for that are not visible as the sprinkler heads . Mr. Scala said that he could go on and on with respect to building requirements. Mr. Scala said people do not see the break down of different things because they are built into the cost of the building , and this happens to be the one that was not covered because it was not included in the original drawings , but that it cannot be ignored . Mr. Weisburd said he had originally told the group of residents that the common house would require a sprinkler system under the Town of Ithaca ordinance. Mr. Weisburd said the residents felt that the building was safe and that a variance could be applied for, and they understood that applying for a variance carries the risk that the board would not be sympathetic. Mr. Weisburd said that the residents did not ignore the sprinkler system . Mr. Scala said the only thing that is lacking now are the real numbers . Mr. Weisburd said the only problem is that EcoVillage residents do not have a system . Mr. Weisburd said if the residents were allowed a residential system , then he could work up real numbers , but to go through and do real numbers for all the different senerios at $75 . 00 per hour for an engineer is also a lot of money. TOWN OF 1THACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 24 JUNE 26, 1996 Mr. Scala said that Mr. Weisburd could work out the minimal requirements with Mr. Frost, and EcoVillage could appeal again by keeping it to a minimum as compared to trying to exclude the system . Chairman Stotz said the idea of not having the sprinkler system is not a viable alternative, but a compromise might be available . Chairman Stotz said to reach the compromise , it might be best for a representative from EcoVillage to speak in technical terms with Mr. Frost to try and come up with something , and then come to another board meeting for further consideration . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Weisburd if that would be a possibility, and what is EcoVillage' s time frame for breaking ground. Mr. Frost said that there are other building code issues that are unresolved , so they would need to be straightened out first. Chairman Stotz said a compromise is certainly something that could be discussed , whether it is a commercial system or a residential system , and that it covers certain critical areas in the common house and be adequate to put a fire out. Attorney Barney said an engineer would not need to lay this out very much . Attorney Barney said the engineers do these things per head , per foot, and a ball park estimate. Attorney Barney said they would not be looking for someone to come in with a . design with a complete system . Attorney Barney said see what will happen if the whole building was done in residential standards or what will it do in commercial standards without the pumps , and then what the difference would be to do certain limited areas. Attorney Barney said that would be a way to see what is feasible for the residents , and that this board would try to work with them . Mr. Weisburd said that what he heard earlier was where is the engineer' s work, where are the stamps, and where are the calculations, so that is very different than going to source books and saying that these are generic square foot costs that the industry uses for estimating . Mr. Scala said that the residents could go to Sears to get this stuff. Mr. Scala said that he recommends that the appeal be tabled and resubmitted . Mr. Scala said they should get the sense of what the board is looking, where it is allowing them to progress within legal limits , and that this appeal be post-poned . Attorney Barney said that Mr. Weisburd had a legitimate question on what level of specification this board is looking for. Attorney Barney asked if EcoVillage residents would be allowed to use generic specifications and generic numbers out of a source book, or does this board want engineers specifications . Mr. Scala responded , no . Mr. Scala asked the final acceptance of this design is up to whom . Attorney Barney said it would be up to an engineer. Mr. Scala asked Mr. Weisburd if he understands what this board is asking him to have for the next meeting. Attorney Barney said that it is up to this board to determine the grammar of what he would want to require from the engineer. Attorney Barney said that Mr. Weisburd needs to get the information for the parameters this board is asking for. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 25 JUNE 26, 1996 Mr. Scala said that he would like the information on what the specific cost would be and to tell this board what rooms the sprinkler system would be covering in the sketch . Chairman Stotz said he could give four different senerios , at generic costs . Mr. Weisburd asked if the residents should not assume any promise in the reservoir, because that is the part that is very hard to calculate. Mr. Frost said he does not know why the pond cannot be equalized for the reservoir. Mr. Ellsworth said that would be the source for the water right there . Mr. Weisburd said the system would still need a pump . Chairman Stotz asked if the board would like to concur with the following four senerios : 1 ) . Commercial system without the hook up and without the necessary pumps that covers the entire building ; 2 ) . A residential system that covers the entire building without the hook up and pumps; 3) . A commercial system that would cover every area except the private studies, the music room , the teen room , the laundry room , and the mechanical room ; and 4 ) . A residential system that covers every area except the private studies , the music room , the teen room , the laundry room , and the mechanism room . Chairman Stotz said the residential system with specified rooms would probably be the cheapest alternative , but all without the necessity to hook up pumps for the water supply. Chairman Stotz asked if this was acceptable to the board . All the board members were an agreement . Chairman Stotz said if Mr: Weisburd could work with Mr. Frost and arrange to come to this board for the next meeting , so this board could review the progress. Mr. Frost said that July 101 1996, is pretty full . Ms. Bokaer-Smith said in terms of the time schedule on this appeal , that the residents do not have their final house prices until they get the common house price. Ms . Bokaer-Smith said that her ' and her husband' s house will be ready to move into at the beginning of October, but they still needed to apply for the mortgage officially because they do not know the total cost of everything yet. ; Ms . Bokaer-Smith said the sooner they know the outcome of this appeal , the better position everyone would be in . Chairman Stotz asked if August would be a good time . Ms . Bokaer-Smith , said that would be really late. Mr. Weisburd said that getting the data would not be a problem to et together for this board if 9 9 P 9 9 but it is a question about getting on the agenda . Mr. Frost said he would see what he could do for the meeting on July 10 , 1996 . M T/ N By Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED, that this board table the request for appeal for a variance by the EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative , requesting the variance for the sprinkler system required by the Town of Ithaca Local Law #7 , and that this board adjourns this appeal a TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 26 JUNE 26, 1996 assuming, the information would be available to the earliest available date the Zoning Enforcement Officer could arrive at, hopefully July 10 , 1996 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The last appeal to be heard was the following : APPEAL of Alfred Eddy, Appellant, Stephen Eddy, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 7 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to maintain a wholesale and retail produce business at 827 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35- 1-10. 1, Residence District R40. Said ordinance limits such a use to a roadside stand or other structure for the display and sale of farm products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the owners of the land. Stephen Eddy of 16 East Enfield Center Road, said the Eddy family runs wholesale and retail produce business . Mr. Eddy said they raise their own crops plus they sell other crops . Mr. Eddy said they deliver produce to different restaurants and different stores . Mr. Eddy said they have a retail business , and in the past they had a variance to sell soda pop in the 1980' s . Mr. Eddy said they would like to build an office at their business . Mr. Eddy said under a R-30 zone, the Eddy' s hands are tied because there is not much they could do there besides selling retail produce . Mr. Eddy said the way the business is, right now, they would not be able to get a building permit. Mr. Eddy said they would like to build on the back of the produce stand to grade produce they raise and have more room to work. Mr. Eddy said they could not get a building permit, so they came to this board . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Eddy if their intentions were to add onto the building to increase the number of items they market. Mr. Eddy responded , no . Mr. Frost said the Eddy' s have from time to time over the last few years , asked for building permits , which have been denied on the basis that, in the zoning and building department the operation of Eddydale is no longer within what the zoning ordinance requires . Mr. Frost said the zoning ordinance specifies that Eddydale is a roadside stand that is operated as a seasonal convenience to the farmer. Mr. Frost said he feels the operation of Eddydale fairly exceeds the intent of the ordinance , and therefore , the property is in violation . ( Mr. Frost referred to his memo of May 31 , 1996 to the Zoning Board of Appeals Members . ) Mr. Frost said the zoning department Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / : G Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART i — Project information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant / Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : . 'Pro V , 11agvCoNot ,s Cc fu �ive Ta �G . I IFCoV , I e. 6,) 4vvs ; C47C7 prat-r e 3 . Precise Location ( Street Accress and Road inter. ections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map ) : 1323 f`lecl�lec „� 2oc�cl Tax Parcel Number : �,�, ak G1 s . Is Proposed Action : i .1c' ! cXPrANSiCN X MOD IFiCA71CN / AL T =R A7 ON ' Descr' be Project Briefly ( Inc * uce project purpose , present land use , current and future construction plans , and othqtr reievant items ) : C�:> � 5 �-t-�G� o;-, �- Co rr, m .�. rt � � Ce„i le.r �c-t✓ E C.o U Y � last � Co Nv v3 ,.� �� o �l..a-{--t.�se -�.,� u.S.0 _ I' � YJ ) T1 OUT e`Z�) vll STE A UZ —7 ( Attach separate sheet( S ) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project . ) 0 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially ( 0 - S yrs ) )COST- ¢s ( 5 - 10 yrs) e� Acres ( > 10 yrs ) _ ? cras 7 . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 5 � 0 S . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES 7 NO if no , desc,;be conflict brie `;y \ I ° . Will proposed action lead to a recuest for new : i Public Road ? YES NC Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES C NO I i 10 . What is the present land use -n the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residentiai L7 Commercial F7 Industrial Agri cuiture Park /Forest /Open Space Other Please describe : 1 1 . Does proposed action involve a permit , acoroval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local ) ? YES C NO � If yes , list agency name and permit / approval /funding : ! I 1 2 . Does anu aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . Pla , row S, �k a.Pp aJ TowY. ✓} vu.oc6{,' c0'J% ',,, I I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROYIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE I Applicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : F, co (/e ` CC CokoUS / e'A VC, i Signature : uC� i Date : X89 U66 2[o 117ip PART If - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary,) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes , coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 6? YES NO X If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any. C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : (Answers may be handwritten , if legible) C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality, noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly: See Attached C2. Aesthetic, agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : See Attached C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish , or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly : See Attached C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as oriciaily adcoted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly : See Attached C5 . Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : See Attached Co . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other = ffects not identified in C1 - C57 Explain briefly: See Attached C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? Explain briefly: See Attached D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO X If yes , explain briefly : E . Comments of staff X C B other attached .. ( Check as applicable . ) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse effect Identified above , determine whether it is substandal , large , important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie. urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude. It necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check here if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Zoning Board of Appeals ` Name of Lead Agency Prep r is Signature ( I rent from Responsible Officer) David Stotz ame/\& Title o Re pensible Officer in Lead Agency Sign e o - Contributing Preparer Date : r Sig natur of jespo ible Officer in Lead Acencv PART II - Environmental Assessment EcoVillage Cohousing Cooperative 1323 Mecklenburg Road Construction of a Common House without a Sprinkler System Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 26, 1996 A. Action is Unlisted B . Action will not receive coordinated review C. Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the following : Cl , Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? No adverse impacts to air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems are anticipated. The proposed action is the request for a variance from the requirements of Town of Ithaca Local Law #7 of the Year 1988 , as amended, "Requiring Sprinkler Systems to be installed in Buildings in the Town of Ithaca," (hereafter referred to as Local Law #7) to be permitted to construct a "common house" without a sprinkler system installation, at 1323 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 - 1 -26.2, Special Land Use District #8 . Said common house will serve as an area of assembly for cooperative members and their guests. In addition, the Common House, according to Drawing No. CH- 1 , dated 29 October 1995 , and with revisions dates of 29 April, 1996 and 21 May, 1996, shows a two story structure which includes a commercial type kitchen, offices, study rooms, storage facilities, a 390± square foot room for children, a mechanical room , a laundry room , and a craft room among other uses. C2 . Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? None anticipated . C4. A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? In accordance with Town of Ithaca Local Law #7, Section 3 . New Buildings required to have sprinkler systems, the following is a partial list of new buildings which are required to have sprinkler systems : Office Buildings, (8 private studies shown), Administrative Buildings, (Coop Office shown) , Storage Buildings, Assembly Halls, Clubrooms, Recreation Centers, Restaurants, and Day-care Centers . These building uses are indicated on Drawing CH- 1 , entitled " Common House, Main, Floor Plan" . Since this is a multiuse building encompassing all of the above uses, it may be contrary to Local Law #7 not to install a sprinkler system . EcoVillage Cohousing Cooperative Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 26, 1996 C5 . Growth subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? None anticipated. C6. Long term short term cumulative or other effects not identified in C1 - 05? The entrance road to the area where the Common House is to be built is approximately 3 ,000 linear feet long with an emergency access road of approximately 2,000 linear feet. Consideration should be given to emergency response time for fire fighting equipment. Additionally, if a variance is granted and should it be determined at some future date that this building needs a sprinkler system, the cost of retrofitting the building for the system should be compared to the cost of installing the system at the initial time of construction. A possibility is to design for and install the system to allow for a future hookup should a new water pressure tank be built. CT Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None anticipated . D. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated . However, this variance should be considered as a life safety issue. PART III - Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed . However, staff recommends the issue of life safety be addressed by the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: JoAnn Cornish, Planner Review Date: June 21 , 1996 JEROLD WEISBURD , ARCHITECT 167- 1 CALKINS RD . ITHACA, N .Y . 14850 ECOVILLAGE COHOUSING COOPERATIVE 1323 MECKLENBURG RD . ITHACA, N .Y . 14850 2-Jul-96 ESTIMATE SPRINKLER SYSTEM FOR COMMOM HOUSE DRAWING AREA COST/ TOTAL # SQ. FT. SQ. FT. COST WHOLE BUILDING RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM (no pump or reservoir) MAIN FLOOR CH- 1 - W1 3327 $ 1 . 50 $ 41991 ATTIC CH- 1 - W2 3327 $ 1 . 50 $ 41991 BASEMENT CH-2- W3 1968 $ 1 . 501 $ 21952 GRAND TOTAL = $ 12,933 COMMERCIAL SYSTEM MAIN FLOOR CH- 1 - W1 3327 $ 3 . 50 $ 11 , 645 ATTIC CH- 1 - W2 3327 $ 3 . 50 $ 11 ,645 BASEMENT CH-2- W3 1968 $ 3 . 50 $ 61888 GRAND TOTAL = $ 30 , 177 PARTIAL BUILDING (no pump or reservoir) RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM MAIN FLOOR CH- 1 - P1 2310 $ 1 . 50 $ 31465 BASEMENT CH-2- P2 374 $ 1 . 501 $ 561 GRAND TOTAL = $ 49026 COMMERCIAL SYSTEM MAIN FLOOR CH- 1 - P1 2310 $ 3 . 50 $ 81085 BASEMENT CH-2- P2 374 $ 3 . 50 $ 19309 GRAND TOTAL = $ 9 , 394 SPRINK1 .XLS 5801 'AN b'OVH11 8 SNIN�IVO 1 - L91 ONI S If18 ijvuo JsnOH o CD ' peoU GaaquajjoaW z 3 II Ou < FLJI ° ] A11b' H ] d003 SNIS (10H0O ISb' T1IAO � � WWZ ;j z of 1p U Q 0 2 1.1 W W I cnpoaaaa c � \ .1M W \ W` \ \ \ F\ \ ,\ 7� \Z,� �\ \ \�` \ ♦ Ok \ N \ ♦ \ \ \ \ \ ., \ ♦ ♦ \ a ., \ \ \ W \ \ \ \ ` ,III ` , \ r \ \ \ ♦ ` \. R'...\.,........ .� \......,.. \ \ K \ \ , \ \ \ , \ \ ' \ U \ ♦ \ \ \ \ \ ♦ \ ♦ \ ` ♦ \ ♦' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ d ♦ ♦ \ \ \ ♦ \ \ ♦ \ ♦ \ \ ♦ ♦ \ ♦ B ' 0 \ O LL IL \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ ♦ ` \ \ \ h \ \ \ \ ♦ \ \ \ \ ♦ \ p \ \ ?9619 \£1 u , ` , °ui ul. \ , Q ♦ , � ` \ � \ isju ♦ \ \ ` �nogp canjayc a8o`Ja19 ` , \ ♦ ` ♦ ♦ \ \ \ ♦ ♦ i \ ♦ ` \ ` \ \ \ ` ♦ w ValaaJ J17Y/�qO !. \ ♦ I � I \ \ \ i \ .o. \ \ � ` \ I ` c \ \ \ \ \ ♦ \ \ ♦ \ \ \ to b \ a pl \ p (7JO I�Q �c�Qqu o\ o , 2�: � \ \ C \ \ ♦ \ ♦ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ ♦ \ \ \ C \ ♦ ` \ \ \ \ ♦ \ M .. \ ly t 69 49111 rk \ \ \ \ \ ♦ \ ♦ \ \ \L ♦ \ \ \ ' \ \ N\ \ \ ♦ ♦ ♦ \ ♦ \ ♦ ♦ ♦ \ ♦ \ ♦ ` \ \ \ \ ♦ \ ♦ ` ♦ \ a O \ II � \ ♦ ` \ ♦ ` \ ♦ ♦ \ ` yl \ \ a , ` ♦ ♦ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ♦ ♦ ♦ \ \ ` \ ♦ ♦ \ \ \ U v v v I 0-.71 .O-.LE V : i S8W 'Ak N 'VOVHII 8 SNI4 _1VO I - L91 'ON] S8 inu 1JV8o JsnoH cn \ j ' peod fiaaqual �loeV CDz 3 Z< i no co° lAliVHId003 DNisnOH03 ISVTIIA03I ZGj z ,- �' WL 3j V) > � al- a ¢ > rs+ > I (A 00M O� (Y Ir Y .O-M .O-.LE - d 3 � \ \ o \ � \ LLk \ , \ I I I \ N ♦ \ \ \ \ \ \ d \ \ \ \ •�/,� l-.OI` \ 5-.61 ♦ ` \ , ` \ \ \ ` \ , ` ♦ \ ` \ , ` \ ` , ` \ ON \ \ \ \ \ uJ NO Ilk in El ` v go \ v \ v u , \ \ \ \ \ \ u 061 \ ` \O \ ` \ ` \ \ \ W IN 4 \ \ ` ` anogp unjagr oBaJO,74 j , ` \ ` \ \ J uro Nil N \ \ \ \ va7uroai \ \in \ Valaal Jai U43 , ' I j\ \ ._._\........ ...... .\._ ._.._.` ----- n ` Is Do 461a CL0 N�;\ \ � � \ ` \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 2s dN in ul .. of Lu r a l • .6 e b \ \ \ II n I*Nit 1 I ,ITVV" OVHlI OVOH OFI S NINIVO %k- L91 ' -inn 1 ji�a NnOH \ ° rn rn ' N ' eOeHll ' Peo � 6aaqualloaW o zQ 3 lAliVHId000 ONIS (1OH00 ] Ob -llA001 � ¢ cc ¢ N » z f \ \ \ 1 cnoodmrr ¢ N \ 11 � U \ la \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 Lli \ \ o \ \ o\ \ \(L \ in \ \ \ \ \ O \ \W ` \ •J \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ co r 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` LU \ co cc \ \ \ 3 v W \ \ \ \ \ \ \ — \ \ a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ae \ \ a a si do \ \ I \ I \ a N i � ICI •.. O- £ \ .L-.L ' �. i i i io \ V 11 \ \ V IN \ -- - -- - - ----- - --- - -- - - -- - - -- --- - -- - - - - -- -= -- - ---- - - \ \ \ \ \ \ w - - - - - - - - - - - - I of .o-M 1 1 \ o-.e If I l XC If i � it S8bl WN 'VOVHil XONI SNI) -IVO 1 -L91 �If19 1JVNO 3SNOH � )\ IN ' eaeHll ' Pend EaaquallooV . z] Ali ' d ] d003 ONIS (IOHOO 3DVTllAO3 ] w ANN Q Q < > �, > u < a� m ww Q .O-JI .O-.CE {ry O F N W m d a Q II W n 1\ O \ \ \ I \ W - oQ a \ \ ` \ \ ` \ \ ♦ ` \ \ \ ` \ \ ♦ \ ♦ \ \ \ .L/1 L -.OI \ .OI-'f\ .L/I O-.CI � \ \ M- 61 \ \ \ \ \ r Cy in LU \ ♦ r , ♦ ♦ O \ \ \ \ O O \ \ ♦ \ \ \ IL \ ♦ LLI\ n ` ♦ ` \ \ r All Lij LL U � ` \ \ ♦ \ \ ` O - c ♦ \ \ \ \ . mg \QI'' uadQ \ ♦ \ \ = ark ` \ � ` \ \ \ \ ` , \ \ m` \ - > - \ z ♦ \ I \ \ c _ 07 III m SMHSI4 O 6 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ♦ ` \ \ \ \ \ ♦ ♦ ` \ \ \ ♦ . in m P atJO yaup gaanqu ° ° a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` \ \ \ ♦ \ ♦ ♦ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ tu a \ ♦ ♦ \ \ \ v D lk of w y. I OV09 8 OU SNIXIVO Jk- L91 ` \ pine i �Va� noH \ \ v co m m ' � ,� N ' e e P e o o z � ° } ULCO Ln ED ° ' ,AAIlVH ] JO03 eNIS (IOHOO ] SVT11A031 Q < CCQ » > z U ¢ 0 T W W W / ` 1 \ � � ooa � � � ` v \ 11 , 1 11 T T in Q r m p Q o ,{ N W " H Q 1 K a Q m o _- O m Q p Q a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ O O W \ \ 1 ul E-.11 W ., lu N \ \ Q f I I Q \ \ O U W \ \ = O � � 0 � \ \ /1 I r \ \ \ �Lr D ' « \l \ \ u N \ \ \ E a L o \ \\ f�\CW% m \ ` \ \ \ •1 i \ \ \ \ O \ \ \ \ \ W 1 tin O \ \ \ \ \ 1 ' r � \ \ \ \ O \ Oj m Ln m \ \ \ \ \ Q I W \ \ \ \ Q \ m \ \ \ \ \ w 1 \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ tn rc I Q J 1 O � � 1 , W O U i r � u F 1 O ' O ry \ 1 1 O O II F- 7 iv LL 1 q U r t• 1 ; 1 I 1 I - ---- - -- - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- --- - --- -- -1 ' I I I I W IU N I I Q I I I I 1,-.1,1 .o / .O-.LL 1p / 11 � � OS8b1 • J. N ' `dOVHII C � � m S �NI -1 J. ld � dOdd MSIA\ H IL OVOd SNN � VO 1 - 191 Nb W Ob' OH OISIADU z ONI SHiO �If19 1 dddO ]SfIOH o } a o w m Ln Cc w N Z W N N M �AIldN3dO03 ONisnOHOO 30d - �IAOOA a < 3 c » > rn �rI rI I� M n I (1 (J I LJ U ai0Ma ¢ ¢ ii WU � U �S � ® 9EU � IUII—I—I ....._.....•- - • II � I / L. - 11 _.....___- ----- ..........._..._..._...... I t - \ - . { III /, /G �- � --_.._--'! • 111 .�' j 1..... . / \.. - -`- . ...... I It fit - \ _--- /Q/ n}, !i, } V OL a , if - r � �.•:' ' .` ...... i 1 ' � ` 1` -- �.� ' �� �\ III \ , �`•. \• \ __ o �� �......��. Q� � �� �`-.'______ - \ \ �\ •, viii � �'� '\ ';'\ �. \. ED O Y } i ;' LJ o N 't 47 a.e'�t•Y tool 4 ' --'- ! 058b;1 :C N ' V34VHll III1J� N1dON It - - -- I o - ONI S � a�ln9 1��,bd � � SnON \ �..- ---- __. ._.•_ ©' w ]AIlda �d000. JNisn0H0b-`3Jd � �IA00� c LL l � , . ..NI It Bpi % _.-` It It 1 / _ _ •-\\ IN I- -\ 0601 �^ NI NNIN el i i J Y % O .\ / Q / i YU .♦ i \/ Z Z i \� \ / O _ U ii - a a_ '/ _ _ _ _' IN ..._..._ __._._.....__a .- / -- — M yoil P, III. 0, D \ _ Z � a go Its IN got it , ;' 06 rl (n IN It III IN g 01, Y i IIN it i _ \\` _o. \Its, INN, r i '\ q IN \_ \ \ \ _ If ittI -�---� ' �,1,`.3Y(c 1�1 11' '1� I \ N Z ``♦ _ �G N ` ,IW of Is +1 it $ I f 1 It It to it te is 01 Il I It \ I , if z IN le ilth it 00, I it IN 1 0 1 PI It 0 0. It test I lIt steel go 00 ` tested , , 1 3 too ¢ \\Not, J 7 N / .\ \�' ; \ y01 1 \ 1�1' i . ,/, _ n to /%Itt,` \ ;+^ tip\ Pa�\aG, '' z '� m to of P . 1 r.,, a It I It tol It's cis +_J 1 It to/ \ ♦ Hb AA 1e I /''Is IF I o tol le III / p$pg sIt 0 goose J \ 6 ' tool 0. \ \ 1 Z N\ INN *00 NN IN Is is It t r \, l%%I i l co z a , \ \ \ / 1 1 ' 4 b \ '` , '', \ 1p \\ Pa ,, \ '� U n iy IN is rr IN so ✓�J _ a \ y % / , i \ i Iii\, \ N ,ell ```\` ' I IN got U $.�- i vy '' .: '' !"♦....._-+Ip ._ Lb , _.._ ,`,`, I emps. go 11 g_ - __tiz 1 _ ® . , - ��:`, "vim ' • IN, Ill\ \♦ - - :yu-_ ,t,' l;ie: 014 ` ) ' ..:)F Q E ' I ( r 101. 1 N do It 00 g It tot IF Is / %_____ ____ ____ \ ' Pic PF ^� It it I do If IF IF It `, \ ( i 1 1 1 , p�Lpp Is k N, to _ te till f It Is I still `.� j 4 — �F ` / �, _ It Itl IN 1 \ l:—� may _t__`c_:c .: `` \ ` \ ` �\ ..uxa ®�WI�III�III�II T. 1 i • j ` `, q' __ •- _ �``+ \\ '�4, - i It Al INN i O _8 \ ` .� ` ` -- --- ---- __-- - _ ___Itt NNIN 'l It III It, NI j 1 \. �`% z.. . 1 It I 9601 "\ — ItIN IN IN IN t K'ON 61 'A N 'V0V} LLI SNIA-lV3 I - L91 l,ns u 1. JVt10 JsnoH 11J , 1 ' eoey } l ' peod q ° ° 3 K } ' - aQ Ali- VH ] d003 ONisnOHOO ISV � 1A031 � � O U < Q q » > I U (r ZLJ Lil IaI � • rrr $A O Q. it lY of CD T . - �V�l // + cu iu IL i it O IU) w — > _ O Q q > m IL - .L/I L-.OI -OI-B tu M � I 9 in O O � O O O 1 L B — r tu - - ' F ' e •.L-.0 n •.a-.c it p u Is B. w •' 'a in d � w .. . ._. . • -- . Q — 5 O -- - - - m -- - - _ Q 8 uJ � _- uJ w Ell LL O n Uq u iJ.[Ia e! do °j - - - --- -- - --- -- — - I °ul iv 1 N - 1 - - 94aaa el ywa o Z - - — � — U — w - - - - - - - - - .O-.B LI •noga [an!ay1 aBaJO)S — 47Jd ZVI �- PSl©® Jaluro] 4 I 3: u • t [anjbyg ja y . Iv ZL/I B-.f .OI-. in S 4 _ .b-.I b ' s3HS!0 t u — o $ N !a [Ua yna canyu aU: r, M Q � L O • O ` W = in Q Q - Q a i L7 0' 2 1- 1- j O W Is U w ; u a 4 i I GVOH SNINIV 4,- C91 , \ I '2Nt-S -Ilnu 1dV�� -Nnoi-1 , eoey � l pL' oH Eaaqualloo N mu ) 3Qa o \ \AAliVH . d000 eNIS � OHOO :] eV /� OO � LOQIZ I" Ij z \ \ , c4 F qr M a m - M lu LO C1 Vi 1- > u► 4 I r N O 0Q I � CL CL 4 b i- ' N O w ^ 1- o L.L a t tr i Q J LOCI < F U N = W - < / O 1 U LU w El � 0 0 4 co� a d F < w IL o O • m a EI do — — Y u Y 4 m � a N � O w > O O nz < w � m a _ m — < J _ N .B .b fie < ..1 O _.1 ' III U O o O _ w F IV iv LL U iv 1 IV 111 FI 111 tO I 1 I I 1 i \ All 4" � . . cV Q i N : O .. 1 . (� *4 A0 . r a in s V 400 4WD / � am OM IN M 0 I lzo I O. O . ♦. � �p �, o fir, v7 � � . O� c , > Ow 0 00P ap d .' LL dA Ow ' Q W D: M V . U6Z' .r a -J fl ,. o Oil � ` o, o � m N � � vr $ i 1 - ;98 °� 18 p , a Ir CLN% 3f CL G 06 ° ^ tiJ F iD v o t5 N cv � ,g r If v C Vr IIt 495! 000L — — — — E $ a mj, ,CIL t ADN 8 c o •, ac E 72 It Z Ix 4 xrsS V r House Craft Builders PO Box 640 Ithaca , NY 14851 May 29 , 1996 Mr. A. Frost RECEIVED Building Inspector Town of Ithaca Town Hall MAY 2 91996 Ithaca , NY 14850 TOWN Or 1 1iACA Dear Mr. Frost: BUILDING/ZONING am writing on behalf of EcoVillage CoHousing Cooperative , concerning the plans submitted on May 24 , 1996 , in application for a building permit for the Common House . The plans submitted indicate installation of a sprinkler system in accordance with the local law which requires sprinklers for all but one- and two- family dwellings . As we discussed earlier, I do not believe that the law was intended for this kind of use , which more closely resembles a large house held in common , than a public assembly space . It is not , as you know, open to the public, to be rented to the public, or for use by anyone other than the members of the community and their guests . Requiring EcoVillage to sprinkler this building would cause a severe hardship . The water supply to the site is private , with pumps moving water from the main at West Haven to the residences . It is highly questionable whether the West Haven main has enough water to meet a sprinkler demand . The cost of installing a reservoir system , or special pumps to meet fire demands , is prohibitive , and would completely prevent the group from building their Common House . Of course , safety precautions have not be ignored . As you know from the plans , there are eight ( 8 ) exit doors from the main floor, and two from the basement level . The maximum distance from any point in the building to an exit Js, 40% which is one-quarter of the maximum allowed by State code for an unsprinklered building . A smoke curtain has been designed above the kitchen area . Every enclosed space has a smoke detector, and the alarm will be wired to an exterior siren . A large pond provides a reservoir just below the building , which a pump truck can hook up to a ' dry' hydrant . Most important is that the building is within view of the residences , and is used on a daily basis by the owner/residents . Accordingly, we are asking to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals , for an appeal requesting waiving the sprinkler requirement for this building . We would be grateful if you could let us know at your earliest convenience when this item can be placed on the BZA agenda . As you might imagine , the group is very eager to resolve this issue . Thank you for your help . Sincerely , )7CC4/� Jerry Weisburd , for House Craft Builders , Inc. xc: E . Walker, EVCC PLOT PLAN INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN : 1 . Dimensions of lot . 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structure ( s ) or 2 . Distance of structures from : or addition ( s ) . a . Road , 5 . Names of neighbors who bound lot . b . Both side lot lines , 6 . Setback of neighbors . c . Rear of lot . 7 . Street name and number . 3 . North arrow . 8 . Show existing structures in contrasting lines . 2. A01 2� � 1a 5 : Shows s � �e ok EcoV� lla�� CcNovs�� cooPe wr4 �w la"As t✓cotil Ilaq� at 1 ac.� r �-tecklc.. bw� � i2d J a � � Comm'*^ "OVS-0, (2 � ArPIA , L123196 F, &4* S% to, Place ; sVlowS loCa� ev. , � Cavnonon uouse ' n l ¢,,C,� ov+ -�o road aovN6l aC.Ce ss Covv► VK&0 4ouse rnaL ;. f-toor 11444 , Sb10W .S ei vc.et. St &nsJ �G.�owC (14 C,H - 2 , Ll I 'kq ' 96 60'""Y' 400 sew bc�-vro nt �a (an , skews d� +�� ev� sc o+� s . k_ r (5 ) Survey EVGG , Q,ot havWA �/,� a.djocncrj Prp 1 nwri.vo4 Signature of Owner/Appellant : _ I ott Cedvs ,( L. Date : Signature of Appellant / Agent : Dale : /J/­ 96 3 TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 80000 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : W Q Ithaca , New York 14850 CASH ( 607 ) 273 - 1783 CHECK - ( � � ) A P P E A L ZONING : to the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer For Office Use Only and- the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been required to install an automatic sprinkler system under Town of Ithaca Local Law # 7 , 1988 at RXVkL.lA1jE ssss6OR com WovSE Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ,)or� a^^ ✓L a8 . - ( - a (o . Z , and with the attached supporting documents , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal for a variance as specified by Section 9 of said law , affirms that strict observance of the law would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : ( Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) Please, Seel LL-bE'a. cln.el By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application . Signature of Owner /Appellant : Date : 3 zi G Signature of Appellant / Agent : ! u/ IL 601'0v'51 Date : CQ �3 / 9� Print Name Here : Home Telephone Number : a a 9 Work Telephone Number : Z - 2 To the BZA : The EcoVillage CoHousing Cooperative includes a community center to be used solely by members of the community and their guests , for various recreational purposes . The building is part of the site plan that was approved by the Planning Board in July , 1995 . We would like to proceed with the construction of the community center (which we call a ` Common House ' ) this season , since it is an integral part of our neighborhood . The estimated cost of the building is $ 365 , 000 - we , the thirty ( 30) families of the neighborhood , are putting up all the money for the building , ourselves . We have also spent approximately $400 , 000 for the infrastructure to serve our neighborhood . We are , therefore , stretched to our limit as far as expenditures . The final cost of the Common House is thus critical to our decision to proceed . Installing a sprinkler system would make the cost of the project prohibitive , and also , given the safety precautions we have taken , we feel it is unnecessary . The practical difficulties in installing the system are as follows : The water supply system to the EcoVillage residences is private , with pumps on West Haven Road pumping water from the main on West Haven through a private distribution system to the residences . We have been advised that the water supply in the West Haven main is insufficient to reliably meet a sprinkler `demand . • To meet the demand , we would need to construct a 5000 - 10 , 000 gallon reservoir within the community center building . • The cost of installing a reservoir and associated pumps and sprinkler system is approximately $ 50 , 000 - $60 , 000 . • The cost of redesigning the building to accommodate such a system is approximately $ 6000 . • Installing booster pumps at West Haven to meet the sprinkler load is not practical if insufficient water is present in the main . Booster pumps and the associated system would cost approximately $ 30 , 000 - $ 60 , 000 . The cost of providing a reliable sprinkler system under these circumstances is prohibitive , and would prevent us from proceeding with construction of the building . We also believe that the hardship that would be imposed is unnecessary , as we have built in to the design stringent safety measures , including : • Eight ( 8) exit doors from the main floor ( 3300 SF) • Two exit door from the basement level (2000 SF) • Maximum distance from any point in the building to an exit is 40 is one-quarter of the 160 ' to an exit allowed under State Code for an unsprinklered building . • Smoke curtain above kitchen area . • Smoke detector in every enclosed space . • Wiring of smoke detectors to exterior alarm . • Large pond directly south of building (within 70 feet) , which a pump truck can hook up to a dry hydrant . • Building is in full view of residences , providing ongoing surveillance of the building by community members . Given both the practical difficulties and the unnecessary hardship that would be caused by requiring strict observance of the law , we hope you will grant a variance from Local Law #7 , and not require us to install a sprinkler system in this building . - I N ce V0VH1l _ _d0 111 1 VOVHlI .4 NMOl 4 J y s w a a � A CD L y O V V F t N Z ! i N , egg i_ 1 1N� l Otl N if M ��L 7 01 CD t �! 1 !�y A' •w1i7M ••' yWj — L� gglVOAO t l b p J IN 1 .wN UGNTINGe 1 I 1 1 N sw ,. 1 ♦— LD '; 1 O us u Old N� ♦ e ' w � `" Y t a I w. / � t � ijlill J � II1111 d Y • ' " � ,p; y � C � C •y � � w N w � a • a ♦ co 1 s N ! w � � Y N w RY e � a tl . O ' • � N v Y n ! i cm � zY � JUN-26- 1996 15 : 55 TOPIPK. INS PLANNINIJ/ 1TCTC 607 274 5578 P . 02 :d 1. t,�ns .'C6untX 3)EPA1 'T1 PIN. T. Off' PLANNING In Rio, ConA straot L Ahacs; lk w..Yvrk-* 1.4W Junes W. Hmson, Jr. Telephone (07) 2745560 Commissioner of Plonning FAX (607) 274.5378 June 26, 1996 Mr. Andy Trost Town of Ithaca ME. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: EcoVillage CoHousing Coup - Sprinkit:r Variance This letter acknowledges your refer l of the proposal idendned above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 4 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are fte to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, es Hanson, Jr. o=mssioner of Planning �.�i.1 Rr._vclydpape, TOTAL P . 02 V FINAL FILED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date G _ WEDNESDAY , HARCH 13 , 1996 ` r E The following appeals were heard by the board on March 13 , 1996 : APPEAL of EcoVillage Cooperative , Appellant , Jerold Weisburd , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 4 , to be allowed maintain a public water supply pump house with a front yard building setback of 18 feet ( twenty- five foot setback required ) , on West Haven Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , Residence District R - 15 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of J . H . Blakely , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article %II , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a non - conforming building on a non - conforming parcel of land at 332 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3 - 5 , Residence District R - 15 . The enlargement consists of a room addition that will have an east side lot line building setback of 6 feet ( 15 foot setback required ) . Said lot has width of 78 feet ( 100 foot width required ) , a lot area of . 18 acres ( . 34 acres required ) and said building has a front yard building setback of 18 + feet ( 25 foot setback required ) . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , Scott Whitham , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirement of Article VI , Section 26 and 27 , to be permitted to convert multiple residence buildings to University related non - residential offices and maintenance services at Pleasant Grove Apartments , Buildings # 1 , 2 , 12 , and 14 , Pleasant Grove Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 67 - 1 - 1 . 1 and - 3 . 2 , Hultiple Residence Zone . Said Ordinance permits only residential uses in said zone . , GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS -z i J FILED FINAL , TOWN OF ITHACA Date —H N � TOWN OF ITHACA C!erki �^ � ca f ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 MARCH 13 , 1996 PRESENT : Chairman David Stotz , Harry Ellsworth , Edward King , Pete Scala , Planner II JoAnn Cornish , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost , Town Attorney John . C . Barney . OTHERS : Dana Smith , Karen Smith , Lois King , Mary Webber ; Sarah Pines , Garcia Ostrander , Mark Morse , Michele Morse , Allan Lentini , Jim Pung , Monty Berman , Jared Jones , Liz Walker , Yvonne LaMontagne , Scott Whitman , Jean Geader , Bill Webber , Ray Gasser , Samson Frankel , Joan Bokaer , James Geerdin , Jay Jacobson , Susan WeLeig , Steven Gaarder , Karen Knedson , Dan Fox , Judy Green , Peter Hess , Bill Jacob . Chairman David Stotz called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 P . M . , stating that all posting , publication , and notification of public hearings had been completed and the same were in order . The first appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of EcoVillage Cooperative , Appellant , Jerold Weisburd , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 4 , to be allowed maintain a public water supply pump house with a front yard building setback of 18 feet ( twenty- five foot setback required ) , on West Haven Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , Residence District R - 15 . Mr . Frost , Zoning Officer , reiterated why this case was before the board , stating the pump house was part of the approved site plan from the Planning Board . An oversight on the Town ' s part , overlooked Article IV , Section II Paragraph 4 requirements from , building setbacks . Mr . Frost further stated there was a question as to whether or not . this pump house was truly a substation as stated in the zoning ordinance , and therefore , . truly regulated with building setbacks . Jerold Weisburd , House .Craft Builders , Inc . in Ithaca , stated we are the designers and builders for EcoVillage in Ithaca . The developers are the EcoVillage Co - Housing Cooperative , Inc . This is a group of people who organizes themselves and who are funding and driving the whole project . Many of them are here this evening . Essentially , Andy Frost covered most of it , I believe . We did indicate the location of the building in the site plan that was approved by the Town last July . We got a permit , about two months ago , when we constructed the building . We found that it was difficult to maneuver the machinery that would be coming into the building so we decided to move it back and turn it sideways , so we can get at the building more easily . I did take some photographs if people would like to see them . Mr . Frost said he also had some photos to pass around . Mr . Weisburd said he would like to remind the board of one more issue . Pump houses traditionally need to be near water mains . The idea Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 2 March 13 , 1996 is that pumps do not work efficiently if you have to suck the water up any great distance . It is for that reason that the engineers have located it as close as they had , and if it was pointed out at the time that we needed a variance , we would have asked the board for it at that time . I think I have covered most of it , unless anyone has any questions . Mr . King asked Mr . Weisburd why it was so tall . Mr . Weisburd said it was twelve feet . The pump itself is nine and a half feet tall , and it has to be put in with a large fork lift , so we needed the large barn doors . The building itself is 12 x 16 feet , which is somewhat smaller than a one car garage and probably less tall than a typical one car . garage . . Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Weisburd if the pump , in essence , provides pressure for EcoVillage . Mr . Weisburd said yes . The pipes goes up the hill for 3 , 000 feet where the neighborhood is located , and there is not enough water pressure in that main to have provided that . This will be a privately owned and maintained pump house to boost the pressure necessary for the neighborhood . Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Weisburd is there any plans for screening the pump house in any way . Mr . Weisburd said no , but there are quite a few trees and bushes along the road . Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Weisburd if he is not going to put any landscaping or bushes on the roadside . Mr . Weisburd said we do not have any plans other than what was there . Mr . Ellsworth asked Mr . Weisburd if this was going to take care of your future needs , in other words as your community grows , are you going to add any additional pumps and expand this . Mr . Weisburd said well there is room for some expansion , but our engineers have told us that there really is not enough water in the main , and the condition of the water in the main in terms of pressure isn ' t there even to pump it . The idea is that the whole West Hill really needs to have it ' s water system improved , and this is something that would just serve the first neighborhood at this point . Mr . Ellsworth asked Mr . Weisburd if you are not anticipating expanding this . Mr . Weisburd said if they wanted to expand this in terms of getting more power , there is room for additional pumping in the building . There are no plans to expand the building . Mr . King asked Mr . Weisburd how close is the building to Mr . Hesson ' s house . Just north of the building . Mr . Weisburd said the side yard is 24 feet , that was on the plan that we submitted . You can see there is a 24 foot dimension there . His house is located just off the map . He showed the board the location on the map . .O .y Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 3 March 13 , 1996 Mr . Scala asked Mr . Weisburd if Hesson ' s house is just to the west of this . Does he have any buildings in this area toward the road . Mr . Weisburd said no . Mark Morris , 161 West Haven Road , stated he lives directly across from the pump house . I have more questions than statements because I do not know a lot about the pump house except that it obviously far too close to the road . It seems to be a very nice looking and well constructed building , but it ' s very prominent . I certainly talk for myself , and I am not very happy it is that close to the road . It seems to be much larger than necessary . I am under the opinion that part of the pump is in the basement of the pump house . Mr . Weisburd said to Mr . Morris no , it is all above ground . Mr . Morris said it is also a pump house / storage and it was built a little bigger for a storage facility , which we are not sure what that storage purpose would be . And would like it to be considered to be moved back to it ' s proper place and in a smaller building with some sort of bushes or trees , something to hide the building . There is nothing along the road to hide the building . It is close enough to the Hesson ' s . property that during the construction caused an awful lot of flooding in their driveway , which basically converted their driveway into an ice rink , and they were unable to use their driveway much of the winter because of the run off from the construction . So we would like to ask the Planning Board to give some real consideration to this matter . Mr . King asked Mr . Morris to take a look at the photograph of the pump house , just beyond the building and look where the car is . Mr . Morris said yes that is the Hesson ' s driveway and now it is under new ownership . Mr . King asked Mr . Morris the automobile is parked in the Hesson ' s driveway . Mr . Morris said yes and the automobile can not make it up the driveway because of the water that flowed into the driveway from the construction of the pump house . Chairman Stotz told Mr . Morris this is not the Planning Board . This is the Zoning Board . Mr . Morris said right . Chairman Stotz said we jumped ahead a little bit there . We are still in the process of hearing from the people who are bringing this appeal . So I have not yet opened the public hearing on this issue , so I want to back track for second and asked if there is any one else here who is speaking on behalf of the people who are bringing this appeal other than interested parties . i I 1 r Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 4 March 13 , 1996 Mary Webber , 424 East Seneca Street and a member of the community to bebuilt at EcoVillage . We are in the process . of getting the figures on our homes . To move the pump house , I think it be would be about a $ 10 , 000 expense for the community . Our only appeal is that for seven feet of difference to ask us to pay that kind of money , for a mistake we did not make , the mistake was made in the process , it ' s kind of punitive . Chairman Stotz said it is kind of hard to distinguish between interested parties because I assume you are all part of EcoVillage . We will open the hearing to the public . Sarah Pines , one of thirty families for EcoVillage , went up to look at the pump house . It is a beautiful structure . It is very solid . It ' s a tiny little structure , and it ' s not as big as a one car garage as stated . The property was to have 150 houses on it , so an old big house or two houses would have occupied that particular piece of property . All we are putting on it is a structure 12 x 16 feet , and in time , I presume , we will put bushes in front of it . For us to pay $ 10 , 000 to $ 20 , 000 to move it seven feet , is absolutely prohibitive because approximately 70 % of the people that are going into EcoVillage don ' t have that kind of disposable income . Every penny of disposable income has gone into creating the most attractive site , the most energy efficient site , so that we can model a sustainable lifestyle , and especially to preserve the best land for agricultural use , trees , flowers , and other natural phenomena , and we took the very worst land which has increased our expenses by about $ 400 , 0009 In other words , we have paid $ 400 , 000 to be on the worst land possible , and we have no disposable income . Most of us are senior citizens or young and starting out . We don ' t have $ 800 to $ 2 , 000 to simply move something seven feet because we put into the most meaningful things , sustainable living , a beautiful creation of a not natural phenomena which is open to people . I ask you to consider us from an economic point of view from the model that we are proposing to offer to the world , and to the Town and City of Ithaca . Judy Green , member of EcoVillage , missed some of the earlier comments , but I came in to catch the tail end of the gentleman ' s comment about the ice . I am not sure about how big of factor it is in the discussion . My husband , Arthur Gold , and I did visit the house that did have the ice problem several days or during the build up of the ice , to see if we could figure out the source of the ice or help them out in some way . It was quite clear that the source of the ice was a general long standing run off pattern that had , from what we could tell , nothing or very little to do with the construction of the pump house . you could see quite clearly the run off coming off from the field into a long standing drainage pattern behind the house , thirty feet removed from the construction , flowing around . behind the house coming to a drainage pattern where it was inadequate and was funneling water into the driveway . There is a slight chance some of the construction could have contributed to a little bit of the problem down by the driveway . I think 90 % of the problem had nothing to do with it . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 5 March 13 , 1996 Jared Jones , 117 East York also an EcoVillage member , is concerned about the relative expense of moving or tearing down this pump house and moving it seven feet back at the cost of $ 10 , 000 to $ 20 , 000 . The closest house , I believe , is approximately 50 to . 100 feet from the pump house . I am wondering is that change of seven back from a structure 100 feet away going to make enough difference to cause us to pay an additional $ 15 , 000 to $ 20 , 000 , and the same applies to the people across the street . It does not seem to be quite fair . If we are to move it ,150 feet , then it would make sense , but to move it seven feet does not seem fair . Peter Hess , 131 West Haven Road , did . not realize when the pump house was being constructed that it was part of EcoVillage , but as it was going up I thought they were doing a nice job with the structure with nice siding and an attractive building for an utility building . I drive by there everyday , and asking people to move the building seven feet is not going to contribute to the aesthetics very much . I do not think it will effect the rental problem very much . I do not know how much the run off problem has been discussed in the case , but there has always been a run off problem in that driveway since I have been living on West Haven Road . Our driveway was washed out this past January in the flooding . I can not imagine that this little structure is going to have a sufficient effect on that , and I am hoping as a neighbor of EcoVillage , we are going to have a positive effect by putting in a pond , road , housing , and some gardening may help soak up some of that run off on West Haven Road . I am not real optimistic that it would make a big difference because the enormous amount of water that comes off that 100 acres or so . As a neighbor, I do not find the building objectionable . Lois King , West Haven Road , delighted to have EcoVillage be my neighbor . I know the values that they spring from are the kind of values that I trust all of us find to be important in terms of considering the neighborhood , environment , and the fiscal part of the land . When I consider what might have been and could have been and almost was on that property with a hugh number of houses all facing the road , may be they would have been setback a few more feet than that little structure that looks like a small one car garage . When I consider the alternatives , it is a no issue . I do not know all the parts that you have to do for pumping up the water and how much that takes , etc . . . . but I trust that they made the decision to do it and they are operating from a consideration that they have taking from the beginning which was not only what was good for them , but what was good for the neighborhood . From the very beginning when they sought to buy the land , they were concerned enough to contact all of us as neighbors and to solicit our input to talk about moving driveways , entrance into the land that would less impact us on West Haven Road , and the structure is fine . Mr . Weisburd said the Town Highway Superintendent , Fred Noteboom , came up to talk about the drainage on the adjacent property . He went over it and agreed pretty much with what you heard that the drainage is coming from behind the house and that the drainage along side the house has been I Y Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 6 March 13 , 1996 filled in during the past few years . He asked us if we would cut a swale above the house when we are finished with the EcoVillage property , and I agreed to that . But his general opinion was that we had not contributed to this by building the pump house . Another clarification , there has never been any intention to store anything in the building , just the pump and related equipment . Just to remind the board , the location in question is one of only seven feet . It is not one , can we move it back 100 feet , the seven feet is the distance to make it fully comply if that . is the issue . Chairman Stotz said the hearing is closed to the public . Any discussion from the board . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Frost to repeat again what was said at the beginning of the meeting with the respect on what we are calling it .. Mr . Frost said the ordinance would require a substation as part of a utility to be a placed within the requirements of building setbacks . My discussion with the Town Attorney was not absolutely clear that this would qualify as a substation . I suppose one takes from the ordinance then if you have a structure that was necessary for maintenance and utility services , but that if it was not a substation or a simple structure , it may not be subject to any setbacks . Mr . King asked Mr . Frost if we have a definition in the ordinance of a substation . Attorney Barney said no , but it is not limited to substations . It ' s substations or similar structures . Mr . King asked Attorney Barney what is similar to a substation . Attorney Barney said this might qualify as a similar structure . Any small building related to an utility building . Chairman Stotz asked Attorney Barney this if would be not be a setback . Attorney Barney said yes this would be a setback for a more conservative approach . Mr . Scala said that the word substation does not appear on the map or in the appeals . Attorney Barney said no it ' s not , it is not maintained as a substation . The ordinance says any municipal or public utility purpose necessary to the maintenance of utility services permitted in the zone , except that substations and similar structures shall be located within the setback requirements of other buildings . The question is , is this structure similar to a substation . Mr . Scala asked Attorney Barney was this issued because you decided it was a substation . Attorney Barney said no , . it was a structure similar to a substation . Mr . King asked Mr . Weisburd the height of the pump . Mr . Weisburd said it is about nine feet , the machinery itself . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 7 March 13 , 1996 Mr . King asked Mr . Weisburd is part of that machinery underground . Mr . Weisburd said no , there are pipes in a small basement space where the pipes go in and out of it , but then they go off into the main level where the pumps are situated . Chairman Stotz asked is there was any inexpensive way in which the pump house could be screened ? It seems to me the kind of structure that is somewhat incongruent with a residential neighborhood especially that close to the road . Can you think of any way you could put some bushes in front of it or screen it in some way to hide it from the neighbors and the view from the road ? Mr . Scala said there is a recommended procedure for landscaping the structure . It ' s on the books , it ' s not an ordinance , it ' s just a recommendation , but it ' s pretty well written out as to what you have to do with the structure . Attorney Barney said there are certain requirements related to commercial developments . Jay Jacobson , resident of EcoVillage and a member of the landscape committee , said we have a committee of people who are not only interested , but also have experience with vegetation . I can not obligate us to anything at this time , but I can tell you that I will be very happy to present to the landscape committee the proposal that we plant bushes around this structure that will grow up to be approximately the same height of this structure , so this way it will screen the structure from the houses on West Haven Road . This would entail some expense , finish tape , and the landscape committee would have to approve this . I would make this suggestion to you . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Cornish if there was an environmental impact statement on this . Ms . Cornish said no , but I did take a look at the pump house today , and I have to agree that moving the pump house back seven feet would in fact not mitigate , it is a large structure and is some what imposing on that site , but certainly moving it back seven feet will not have a hugh effect on the visual . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the board grant the variance for the request of the EcoVillage Cooperative ; Inc . , with respect for the West Haven pump house Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , and that we allow it to remain and give it a variance of seven feet , with the following conditions : 1 ) That they would do something to put some landscaping up . 2 ) That there be no further construction or storage , other than pump related , in that building . 3 ) The setback be no less than 17 feet . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 8 March 13 , 1996 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz , King , Scala , Ellsworth . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Frost asked would you want to have the proposed landscaping approved by the Town Planning Department ? Attorney Barney said that is not necessary in this case . If there was a house sitting back 50 feet from that road , somebody could build a garage which would resemble this structure or even larger garage putting it seven feet closer to the road . They have their desire to put landscaping in . The second appeal to be heard was the following : . APPEAL of J . M . Blakely , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article %II , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a non - conforming building on a non - conforming parcel of land at 332 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3 - 5 , Residence District R - 15 . . The enlargement consists of a room addition that will have an east side lot line building setback of 6 feet ( 15 foot setback required ) . Said lot has width of 78 feet f 10 foot width required ) , a lot area of . 18 acres ( . 34 acres required ) . and said building has a front yard building setback of 18 ± feet ( 25 foot setback required ) . Jack Blakely , said this a request to extend a private dwelling . The area , as you well know , Forest Home is one area where it is very difficult to find a house that conforms to the proper zoning . Basically we would like to add an area which would allow some bedroom and kitchen space on the first floor of the house . The lot next door , 336 Forest Home Drive , Rebecca Proctor has mailed a letter in , and we have shown her the place and told her what we want to do . She has viewed what it is going to do to her view , which is actually nothing . It would improve her privacy because . it will close off some of our yard from her view so we are not looking at each other . The only real problem is that it comes six feet of the lot line . The current structures consist of the current deck and stone porch come within ten feet of the lot line . I guess that does not count the stairway . We would be extending four feet beyond the lot line . The piece would be finished in the same design as the current house . We do not want to look like a garage stuck on the side of it , it will be very similar to the current finishing , which is cedar shingling . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Blakely would you see much of the addition from the front of the street . Mr . Blakely said from the street , basically no . People talk about the stone houses on Forest Home Drive , and . this is one of them . There is no intention to change any of the stoneware . r4J - ,` r W7 TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $80600 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Ithaca , New York 14850 CASH ( 607 ) 273- 1783 CHECK - A P P E A L ZONING : Cko to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer For Office Use Only and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been denied permission to : Govus " c t 47 l 2 u l (o .hU,yK b 1120 SX, at kle'S E, 1 Aave40N tzo (E4 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . Z(o • Z , as shown on the accompanying application and / or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of : Article ( s ) y , Section ( s ) 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and , in support of the Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/ or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : ( Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) Men -c.v. See Q4ac. n & cl PlOCl� r1 . 'PS �O✓ dPaf1YM owyie A 614 H • veU Pw�GnU � ��Le\t. P Cc000Si LA Cc0Mcs.; " Tan r . ►'�12SSt .�- 1 � (-� PlsSeyl Ct� Ll4�n� �n�-iGUU `WV��r 1 F� Q.C�a � By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application . Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : Signature of Appellant/Agent :k _ Date : Print Name Here : Jern /d Wt.isburs 44� i-f use But lAs, 1„c Home Telephone Number : oZ � N 5� Work Telephone Number : ,2 7 3 O / 3 S' NQT6 : If constraction of wort in accordance with any variances given does not coaience within 18 nonths , the variance will ML ire . Strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship as follows : 1 . The set back requirement is that a building be 25' from the road right-of-way . 2 . On July 18 , 1995 , the Town Planning Board approved the final site plan and engineering plans for the EcoVillage CoHousing Cooperative , which showed on a map prepared by T. G . Miller, Engineers , the pump house located at 24' from the edge of the pavement ( 9' from the right-of-way) .. 3 . Based on such approval , a building permit was applied fora The permit was issued . 4 . Subsequent to the issuance of the permit, the foundation and framing proceeded , located at an actual , as-built distance of 18' from the road right of way. 5 . The building is , therefore , 7 ' closer to the road right-of-way than permitted by the zoning ordinance . 6 . Moving the building 7 ' would present practical difficulties and hardships as follows : ( a ) the building would need to be torn down , and the foundation destroyed , at considerable expense . ( b ) the delay to the project would cause financial hardship by delaying the installation of the necessary infrastructure , and slowing progress of the housing construction . ( c) the water pressure at the main on West Haven is such that the water pumps would not operate efficiently if the building were moved further back and further uphill from the main . . , 79 STATE ROUTE 175 ri h I SO 371 6 547 404 70 2 $4 1S3M 7T J 2 °AC I m 11 5 s" 24 \� 26 . 6 ^ m N 13 m Z i 75U I s 7. 6 AC. 6. 4 AC ° ( � 12= 23 . 2 r N N 11 J Ii I5 . ? 4 C 56 O - Y• N 10 I � Dl z � � r 2 0 . 3 55?. 44 N��� t75 5_-Z�0 I I �O FVGL N N N 79 9 ~�J o 6 . 1 125 LL 2 400 O 2 6 . 2 m 3005 1 6 . 2. J f I75 . 1 :. 2f .4 . . . ---- o26 .3 n v. Fn cn 3 . 4 1224AC . 5 AC CAL IA . CAL w 7 ' FLALIK 3 I „ _ N 1:1 6 . 22 O — 190 " 1 .26 ACp . 27 O 275 " 0 — 360S 137. 5 — L10e 6 28J J [ 340 co) 28 . 6 o SEE MAP 29 1 . 56A ° N " 340 � AL w 161 . 4 X28. �, J m � m I O 157 E V cG -- 1�iC. �,i=IS 321 5cALF g 28 . 7 28. 2 B . 3 2 .9 4:C ID 31 � 33. 45 AC . CAL . 1 1 323 �° 28 . 9 ION `V I . 26 AC ° r 20b . 3 r , DRIV I ` 02 I Warning 40 LF 1 CM P WITH GALV. LARED END S€GDNS ALTERATIONS To THIS MAP NOT CONFORMING TO SECTION 7209, jL/ \71E SUBDIVISION 29 NEW YORK STATE H. UTSUBDIVISION EDUCATION LAW. ru LY KO P BY LAW ALL CERTIFICATIONS LI N6 M B HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP - N - AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY IF SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE _ IMPRESSION SEAL OF THE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WHOSE PUMP TATION BRAS" w CON ECTION T EXISTING TOWN MAIN SIGNATURE APPEARS HEREON. 1 2x8 TA PING SLEEVE AND HOC TION 8 ,►� _ A D ALVE WITH BOX FRANK L. SANTELU, P. E. FFE = 83 . 2 1 CON RETE THRUST BLOCK N .Y. S. LICENSE No. 068931 24' �r SIGNATURE DATE L4 I \ PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER co o • /jam t J.,J r . . p r • � t�i �(.s. I / 1. Ln- 4 BUILDING DRAIN 1 . . 8 D . I . WATE PIPE TO PUMP STATION ;:•, 'o 79. 6 PRO LDE INIMUM 4. 5 COVER THROUGHOUT 10' WIDE RAVEL D VE PER I TYP CAL PARK NG LOT - \ \ S z CRO S SECTION DETAIL SHEET TITLE \ / EXIST ] G 12 D . I . \ II,, %\ TOWN WATER AIN PUMP STA L . w W SITE PLAN U 0 AND z Z D ETAI LS I 1 IX x DATE JOB No. 6/ 16/95 SCALE: E93 - 19 AS SHOWN SITE PLAN DRAWN BY: SHEET SEP SCAT F; 1 " _ � ()� CH cCKcD•n � u DO 4 i5 D w r w r � , � y ti N 2' -0 I T I n o 0 r o . B -O- w i 0 0 1 In rn I 1- I r T A iN D - I i 10 N O i = . i m o - O ID � m IA I O n 1 I I I I w i O 11' - 9 31/ 37- — i O n O II'-P 1 -+n r E a IO 2D ' A Z nn A Cn m < 0 ;u An n mri - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 i E N v I I z I ` OPEN TO BELOW i -------- I I O � I O I- DIn -0 1 p 3 0 z m 3' - 3 I/7" 5' _O" 3. _ O" rn I ; O n ' _I In O -U I A A 1 r T i n A u O a n ; I n r-• ' i In D V r -1 In U 0 i I A >In Z rn r O u 1 r D T I I 1 Z lr;ozf 1 N D o m I -0 > o ° ; I N oI > m A N n .Z A f ; O O p -1 ; 1 D 1 A 3 O m i OZ m m 1 T D I I A O I I !p I z 0 A > i A I_ y 1 A O C O I I < D In n 1 D V I _ ' m A r I I \ I p D R ...._..-. A rn n m 1 3 C i 3' - II' E B 5'- 9' D n 9� T O n ! r xl O r _ _ m I I r — —7c— ; _r O � A m I` R'�....� ., A In 2D ; p 0 1 i I I A .` I m..... ..........._...._............_ .-..:z.-"p mm I m 1 .\ p -i X I O In i I D I ° C : \ -1 ' D IZ o I ' I -1 I i I O I I y O I I I 1 I W 1 O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � I I I O CI I I _ 1 1 1 rn 1 I V g Z mmmIx > 0 > ECOVILLAGE COHOUSING COOPERATIVE SON? mZmr - lul I O T j > \ O � Mecklenberg Road , Ithaca , N . Y , HOUSE 6 - CALKINSI INC. ROAD ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOP PLATE 1/I14 OSB SHEATHING O P,T.3x8 TRACK BEAK W/ BARN DOOR TRACK TAI ? WOO U) O 0 < 3x10 RAFTER cow�J .J ¢ v TOP PLATE W 19' FG INSL. m ? I— YZ 2UQ LAP U 56"1161 U _ Q O Win = WALL FRAMING 2x4 • 24- OOF - W/ 3x3 STRAFING 2 IL' OC —_ 2 W/ I/2 WATER PROOF DRYWALL x 1 T ) P YW L' WOOD O ofW1 B' FG INSL. COMPOSITE O LAP SIDING mom ° m — m W TOP OF SLAB 2" REMOVABLE RIGID INSULATION TOP OF SLAB BA N DOOR / STRUCTURAL I CONCRETE J 1' Q`�� ` 2"RIGID INSU W/ cAR BD. .1 STEEL REIN..: C ER /SHORING Ir I . . 21 BAR REIN. y. . ST UCTURAL Lu _ T 31" x EACH I WAY 5 CO CRETE Ia., _ O FOOTING BOTTOM I.' ,. . - - - - - - - - - - I " � . FLOOR DRAIN LINE FOOTING 9077 M I .i, 1 . _ FOOTING OTTOM . ri�'J__ }_._•_r � T � 7• Y _ {_•�y1 _ JT.... L _ y_ SOUTH ELEVATION U WEST ELEVATION m CROSS SECTION z C!� v FIBERGLASS REINFORCED SHINGLE WO STAINED O �J ROOFING WOOD D FASCIA - T TOP PLATE O TOP PLATE _ 0 wvvu U o W (D m J � J Q TOP OF 5L B > I II II I III IIII I I O � I 'Im I I I w I m I I SCALE: 3/16"=I'-0" DATE: 8-AUG-95 DAWN BY: Jw PHASE: FINAL. FOOTING El OTTOM I - - - - - - - - - - REV.r. — — — — — REV. 2: REV. 3: I NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION WATER PUMP HOUSE Drawing No. : SECTION & ELEVATIONS PH - 2 , «a FILED TOWN CF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA 3 I y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Dsta WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 8 , 1993 �— Clerk vo ? The following appeals were heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 8 , 1993 . APPEAL of Tompkins County EOC Headstart , Appellant , Eileen Zimmer , Agent , requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to operate a day care center at the Church of the Latter Day Saints , located on 114 Burleigh Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 72 - 1 - 1 . 170 , Residence District R- 15 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL of John Lango , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non- conforming building / lot at 926 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18 - 2 - 4 , Residence District R- 15 . The proposed extension involves the construction of a 6 ' x 26 ' unenclosed porch on the south side of an existing single - family residence . Said building is located 4+ / - feet from the north side property line ( 15 ' sideyard building setback required ) and a front yard building setback from the road right- of -way line of 0+ / - feet ( 25 ' setback required ) . The lot depth is 60+ / - feet , whereas 150 ' depth is required . GRANTED . APPEAL of Fred Carrere , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non-conforming building / lot at 1065 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2 - 12 , Residence District R- 15 . The extension involved the addition of a second floor to an existing single story building without enlargement of the existing building footprint . Said lot is non- conform- ing with .a 50+ / - foot lot width ( 100 ' lot width required ) and the building is located at the south side property line , whereas a 50 foot sideyard building setback is required , DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE . APPEAL of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant , Monty Berman , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 , 19 , and 20 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 70- foot tall wind testing instrument at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , located on West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , 163+ / - acres , Residence District R- 30 . Said tower is not expressly permitted as a use in the zone and any primary structures are limited to a height of 30 feet , with accessory structures limited to a height of 15 feet . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL of John Lamb , Appellant , Richard Jump , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single - family residence with a building height of 51 + / - feet ( 30 feet maximum height allowed ) at 901 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 41 , Residence District R- 15 , ADJOURNED FOR A DECISION TO DECEMBER 15 , 19930 Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals August 10 , 1994 MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the variance on the freestanding sign of 75 square feet , as supplied by Citgo , for the appellant , Bob Andree , 1000 Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 - 2 - 1 . 13 , with the following findings and condi - tion : 1 ) Based on the fact that there really aren ' t any options for anyone contracting on this Citgo product . 2 ) The appellant couldn ' t get a smaller sign or modify in any profitable way . 3 ) The burden on the owner is undetermined at this stage . 4 ) It ' s a neat sign , well placed , -and proportional to the size of the property . 5 ) There are 2 signs marked auto fuel which could be interpreted as wall signs , but which could be interpreted as equipment or product identification signs . It is suggested for the purpose of this business that they be interpreted as equipment signs . As long as they don ' t carry any other message for the customer , we propose that this be allowed and accepted as a product of equipment identification sign for both of the canopy signs for the proposed filling station . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Austen , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard by the board was the following : Appeal of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant , Joan Bokaer , Agent , requesting a modification to a previously granted variance ( from December 8 , 1993 ) to maintain a 70 foot tall wind testing instrument at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1- 26 . 2 , located on West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , 163 + acres , Residence District R-30 . The modification requested is to extend the expiration date of the previously granted variance from January 31 , 1995 to August 1 , 19950 Chairman Austen asked why the time extension was needed . Mr . Jeremy Snyder said because he expected as soon as the tower went up , putting the data logger on the tower would be a very simple and quick process . The data logger is the small specialized computer . He expected that to go right on . It turns out that the data logger that they shipped us originally was not working correctly and it took us months to figure that out and get the new logger on there . Mr . Frost handed pictures around to the board and said when he took the pictures , he could barely see the tower from Mecklenburg Road . He said there ' s not a visual impact from the road . Mr . Ellsworth asked when this went into operation to get visible data . Mr . Snyder said quite recently , a week or two ago . They put a chip in and took it out and sent it back to the company to find out that it actually was working and once we Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals August 10 , 1994 found that out , I put a chip in for the long haul that stays in for a couple of months . Mr . Ellsworth said you need to get through the winter . Mr . Snyder said through the winter and through the spring . Mr . Scala asked if there was a propeller up there now . Mr . Snyder said no , it ' s not a real propeller , it ' s a small instrument . It ' s called an annenometer . Mr . Scala said there is no power being generated there now . Mr . Snyder said , technical- ly, a very small amount , just to send out a signal . Mr . Scala asked if that was permitted in the permit to put in a power source propeller or generator . Mr . Frost said the original proposal was to put up the tower and it exceeded the 30 ' height limitation by our ordinance . It was decided by the Zoning Board to give them a deadline of January 31 , 1995 . The only thing they are asking for is to extend what was previously granted by this board to keep it up beyond January 31 . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Since no one appeared to address the board , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen read from the environmental assessment form prepared by Town Planner , Jonathan Kanter . He also referred to the letter from the Commissioner of Planning , James Hanson . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the board grant an extension to EcoVillage of Ithaca for their 70 ' tall wind testing instrument and tower , located at the corner of Mecklenburg and West , Haven Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , extending the date for gathering data until August 30 , 1995 , with the following findings : 1 ) Based on the technical difficulties suffered by the appellant and not getting any data until recently . 2 ) The tower is not visible from Mecklenburg Road . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Scala , King , Ellsworth , Austen . NAYS - None . The last appeal to be heard by the board was the following : Appeal of Francis E . Egan , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single family residence with a building height of 40 + feet ( 30 foot maximum height permitted ) at 954 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25- 1- 1 , Residence District R-15 . Chairman Austen stated there are no houses on this side of the road yet . Mr . Gossa Tsegye identified himself and stated that Mr . Egan could not be present but that Mr . Tsegye could answer any questions as he is very familiar with the property . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Tsegye if he was an architect , to which Mr . Tsegye answered no . Mr . Tsegye said they are asking for 8 ' in excess height . Mr . Frost explained that when he advertises in the Ithaca Journal , he has a tendency to add 6 or more inches to the building to give the appellant a little room for error . He said there is a slight discrepancy on the building permit application and on the front page of the blueprints , they show . 38 ' 9 " in height . Zvi _�o i w OF IT� TOWN OF ITHACA 21 O¢�' 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 M MORANDUM TO : File DATE : November 9 , 1995 FROM : Dani L . Holford , Building and Zoning Depart- ment Secretary RE : EcoVillage , West Haven Road Joan Bokoar called me on November 8 , 1995 after I sent her a copy of the resolution with a note from the August , 10 , 1994 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting . A deadline of August 30 , 1995 was set for the wind testing tower to be removed . She explained that it had been removed . Town Assigned Project 10 Number Rev . 16 /9c Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART i — Project information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 , Applicant/Sponsor: Board of Directors , EcoVillage at Ithaca 2. Project Name : S• Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections Tower-pole to measure wind ( 70ft . x3 . 5incl�les ) Prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : See attached application with survey map -- attached as Exhibit 3 . Tax Parcel Number : 503089 28 - 1 -26 . 2 I 4 . is Proposed Action : Q NE'al EXPANSION MOD FTC AT1ON / ALTERATION Describe Project Brietly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : See attached application with exhibits . I i ( Attach separate sheets) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) Amount of Land Affected : Initially �0y�shS088 Acres (6- 10 rs) • y Acres W0 yrs) Acres • How is the Land Zoned Presently ? R 30 Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES ❑ NO []x If na , describe conflict briefly : The tower- pole is 70f t . high . Th article V , Section 18 ( 10 ) restricting structures to 30ft , g us it violates I \ I Will p ropos*d action lead to a request for new : t i Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES NO What is the present land use in the vicinity of the prop d project ? Residential Commercial Q Industrial DAgriculture Q Park /Forest/oospeen I Space QOther Please describe : Hay I Does proposed action involve a Permit , aeoroval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES Q NO Q if yes , list agency name and permit/approval/funding : Does anu asoect of the Proposed action have a currentlu valid permit ar aPProval ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit/approval . Also state whether that permit/approval will require modfficatian . I I I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE iS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE I Aicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : Monty Berman - Chairperson , EcoVillage at Ithaca I I nature Date : PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary.) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO < If yes , coordinate the review orocess and use the full EA F. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 6? YES NO Jt If no . a negative declaraton may be _ suoerseded by another involved agency,, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: (Answers may be handwritten, It legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels. existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly: See attached . C2 Aesthetic, agricultural , archaeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : See attached . C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish , or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands, or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly: See attached . C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly: See attached . CS. Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : See attached . C6. Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - CS ? Explain briefly: See attached . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? Explain briefly: See attached . D. Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly: See attached . E. Comments of staff X , CAC other attached. (Check as applicable. ) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect Identified above, determine whether It Is substantial, large, Important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed In connection with Its (a) setting (le, urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. It necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse Impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check here if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Towrn of Ithaca Zoninq Board of Appeals dG�� git�l Name of Lead Agency P eparer's Signature (If different from Responsible Officer Edward Austen , Cha mi n Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency PART II - Environmental Assessment - Modification to a previously granted variance to maintain a 70 foot tall wind testing instrument at EcoVillage property, West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1-26.2. A. Action is Unlisted. B . Action will not receive coordinated review. C. Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the following , C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? No significant adverse impacts with regard to air quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problem are anticipated as a result of this action. Proposed action is the extension of the expiration date of the previously granted variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals, from January 31 , 1995 to August 1 , 1995 , to maintain a 70 foot tall tower pole for the purpose of measuring wind patterns on the EcoVillage site. Said tower is not expressly permitted as a use in the R-30 Residence District, and any primary structures are limited to a height of 30 feet, with accessory structures limited to a height of 15 feet. The metal pole is stabilized with guy wires, and an anemometer system is placed at the top of the pole. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated. No aesthetic , archaeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources are known to exist on the site or otherwise expected to be impacted by the proposed action . The site immediately surrounding the tower pole consists of former agricultural fields. The physical impact of the tower pole is limited to the immediate area at the base and guy wires. Since the tower pole is a temporary structure, no permanent impacts are anticipated. No adverse impacts to community or neighborhood character are expected as a result of the proposed action. The tower pole is topographically situated so that it is not visible from surrounding areas, with the exception of a minor view of the tower pole from Mecklenburg Road at the entrance to the EcoVillage site. The distance of the tower pole from this viewing area renders the visual impact insignificant. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? None anticipated. No significant or endangered vegetation or wildlife species, or significant habitats , are known to exist in the immediate vicinity of the tower pole, or expected to be otherwise affected. C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? None anticipated. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? None anticipated. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1= C5 ? None anticipated. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None anticipated. D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No . PART III Recommendation Given the nature and scale of the proposed action, the location and characteristics of the site and surrounding area, and the information given above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals Reviewer: Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner Review Date: August 4, 1994 ,._. TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $80900 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Ithaca , New York 14850 - ( ) ( 607 ) 273 - 1783 CASH CHECK A P P E A L ZONING : to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer For Office Use Only and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been denied permission to : extend the time period for gathering information about wind patterns at West Haven and Mecklenburg Rds . + 163 Town , of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 503089 28- 1 26 . 2 as shown on the accompanying application and/ or plans or other supporting documents , for tht stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of : Article ( s ) V Wool 18 ( 10 ) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , tht UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and , in support of the Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTI& and/ or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : ( Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) See attached application and exhibits A through E By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Boarc of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application . Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : Signature of Appellant/Agent : Date : Home Telephone Number : 2 .—r Z �`� �� Work Telephone Number : NOTE : If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within, 18 months , the variance will a ire . APPLICATION OF ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IN WHICH TO USE A WIND TOWER-POLE TO COLLECT WIND DATA ON THE ECOVILLAGE AT ITHAC LAND On December 8 , 1993, EcoVillage at Ithaca ( EVI ) , a New York Not-for- Profit Corporation , sought and received a use variance from the Town of Ithaca permitting it to erect a 70' tower pole for the purpose of measuring wind patterns on the EcoVillage site . (See exhibit A : Use Variance from BZA) . The Tower pole was raised on January 23, 1994 inspite of sub-freezing temperatures . (See exhibit B : Map of Location , and Exhibit C : EVI newsletter with photographs describing experience of raising tower pole . ) The wind is measured by an anemometer mounted on top of the tower pole . The anemometer is attached by two electrical wires to a data logger at the base . The job of collecting and recording the data was given to Jeremy Snyder, a senior (now a graduate student) at Cornell University in Mechanical Engineering . During the month of February Mr. Snyder made five trips over knee-high snow in freezing weather to collect the wind data . Over a six-week period the chips upon which the data is recorded were sent to NRG Systems who provided the loan of equipment to EVI . At first NRG thought that there was a problem with the chips because they were recording insufficient data , but after several trials with new chips , it appeared that the logger itself was defective . On April 2 , 1994 , the data logger was removed from the tower pole and returned to NRG Systems . (See exhibit D : letter from Jeremy Snyder to NRG Systems) . NRG Systems sent a letter to EVI agreeing to extend the ' loan of equipment through August, 1995 . (See exhibit E : letter from NRG) . NRG shipped the repaired logger on May 17, 1994 (See exhibit F : Invoice from NRG) . Mr. Snyder was away on summer vacation until June 23 at which time he installed the repaired logger. Along with the Energy Committee of EVI , Mr. Snyder has determined that the logger is accurately collecting data . The EVI Energy Committee met on July 2 , 1994 to establish the final parameters necessary for the complete examination of the wind study . EVI requests an extension of the tower pole on its property so that it can collect data on wind patterns for one entire year. The extension is requested through August .1 , 1995 , eight months beyond the original time period . This extension is needed for two reasons : 1 ) A full year of data is essential to the calculation of the wind micro-climate of the West Haven - Mecklenberg Road area. 2) The removal of the tower pole would be much safer in summer when a truck can be driven to the field where it is located . In January , when the pole was raised , it was necessary to have twelve people carry the 400 pounds of equipment more than three-quarters of a mile over three feet of snow. They used toboggans and snow shoes or skis to make the trip . Members of the crew spent the entire day in sub-freezing weather dealing with a complex set of wires , bolts , and screws . They risked frost-bite and hypothermia . Removal of the tower pole in winter could present a health hazard to those involved . Re ectfully submitt edf , J an Bokaer, CoDirector, EcoVillage at Ithaca .,.Tom of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals December S . 1993 MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by tfr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that in view of the fact that there is current litigation on the matter of this building , which is the subject of this application for an extension of a nonconforming use at 1065 Taughannock Boulevard , that this Board deny the application to expand that nonconforming building but the denial being without prejudice to another application being brought after the determination of the Supreme Court action , with the following findings : 1 ) That this motion is based upon the presently pending action of the Supreme Court , one of the issues of which is whether this property should remain or be de - stroyed . ^-. ) That it makes no sense for this Board to take action in approving something that may be removed . 3 ) That another survey has been requested by the Estate of Libby Leonard and is not yet before the Board . 4 ) That , based upon the Miller survey upon which everyone appears to. agree , the house encroaches up to 5 . 8 feet cn the property to the south . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion was denied without prejudice . Chairman Austen told Mr . Carrere that when he gets the new survey and the Supreme Court makes its decision , this application can be looked at again . The fourth Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant , Monty Berman , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 , 19 , and 20 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 70- foot tall wind testing instrument at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1-26 . 2 , located on West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , 163+ / - acres , Residence District R-30 . Said tower is not expressly permitted as a use in the zone and any primary struc- tures are limited to a height of 30 feet , with accessory strictures limited to a height of 15 feet . Jeremy Snyder introduced himself as being in charge of the project as technical advisor and that he was asked to represent EcoVillage . He stated that Monty Berman is the Chairperson of the Board of Directors at EcoVillage in Ithaca . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Snyder if the tower instrument which is to be erected is for limited period of 13 months and if Mr . Snyder proposed that he could get all the information needed in that period of time , to which Mr . Snyder replied that was correct . Mr . Snyder said that one year is generally the period that wind character- istics are measured on any one site . Chairman Austen asked what is the material of the tower , and Mr . Snyder said . it is more of a pole with guy wires on it . Mr . Snyder Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals December S . 1993 said the metal pole is 3 - 1 / 2 inches in diameter which is a mass - produced pole produced by Energy systems of Vermcnt and that Energy will donate the pole and the wind anemometer system to EcoVillage for the year . According to Mr . Snyder , when the pole is erected , the wind anemometer is placed on the top and it spins in the wind and produces an electrical signal , :which goes down the pole to the recording instrument mounted to the bottom of the pole . The information is then sent to Energy Systems in Vermont for interpretation and Energy sends a report based on the data gathered back to EcoVillage . Mr . King inquired as to the amount of information gathered from a one - year test , and Mr . Snyder stated that wind generally varies in a decade . However , he continued , a period of ten years is too long a period of time to do anything . What people do generally is measure the wind for one year , look at that wind information from the National Weather , Service , correlate the data gathered for the year with the profes- sional weather service ' s :wind data for the year , and then , the data can be correlated for the other ten years , resulting in accurate data . Mr . Snyder told Mr . Ellsworth that the pole is 70 feet in height and it is not on the highest point on the property . Mr . Frost asked if there are no more than 4 support cables as shown on the sketch . Mr . Snyder said the sketch is a cross - section . Mr . Frost asked what the distance is from the center of the pole to the outermost support cable , and Mr . Snyder said the radius is about 35 feet . Therefore , Mr . Frost concluded that the diameter would be 70 feet across . Mr . Snyder said that he believes the way the guy wires are set up is that the 4 guy wires extend in four . different directions and that the guy wires in each direction go *down to one anchor . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Snyder if they have to deal with the FAA , and Mr . Snyder said they have talked with a Federal Aviation Agent who decided that the pole was too low to worry about and that it was not a problem . Mr . King said that being a 3 - inch diameter pole , he imagined that most planes could survive hitting it . Chairman Austen said there are quite a lot of woods in that area , and Mr . Snyder said that he believes the trees in that area are in the range of , or taller than , the 70 feet , but he tried to get the pole as far from the trees as possible . Attorney Barney asked about the location of the nearby airport , and he was told that it was about 2 - 1 / 2 miles west of the site . Attorney Barney told the Board that one of the training things pilots do is to take student- pilots up in an airplane and kill the engine , throttle it back , and tell the students to fly an emergency landing . A discussion followed as to the size of the field . Mr . Frost said it is more open to the north side of Route 79 , Mr . Frost said he has a picture in his office which gives a view of the pole with the cables . Mr . Ellsworth inquired if there was a double set of cables ( a high set and a low set ) and Mr . Snyder said that he believed there was and that the cables attach to the tower at three different points . Chairman Austen asked if this particular piece of property was now being farmed . Mr . Snyder answered that although it was farm land , it was not being farmed now . Mr . Scala commented that it probably was anticipated to have a wind farm there . Mr . Snyder said he would not like to speculate on what could be done at the site . He continued that he is just trying to evaluate what resources it has at this site . For example , they are looking at how much solar radiation hits the land . Mr . Snyder said that all they are doing is trying to figure out what the wind characteristics are at the land . He said that , until that is done , there is no way to speculate on what might be done . Mr . King asked if any consideration is being given to locating the tower from there over nearer the fields where trees are indicated , and Mr . Snyder answered that the prevailing winds are from the northwest and southeast and that this site is very open to the southeast . He said the other sites were closer to the trees and not as open to the wind . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals Cecember ° , 1992 Mr . Scala restated that the intention would be to have' . it in operation for 13 months and then take it down . 11r . Snyder said they have use of the tower from January 1 , 1994 to January 1 , 19950 Chairman Austen opened the public hearing , asking if anyone would like to speak on this matter . Peter Trowbridge of 1345 Mecklenburg Road asked for additional clarification regarding the pole ' s location and the topographic elevation . He said that , as an abutter , he was interested in understanding where the base of the tower sits topographically , how that might be seen , and the relative visibility of the tower to the abutters . 11r . Trowbridge said he was trying to make some determination as to whether the abutters ; could have visibility of the tower and if there was a location where they knew it was going to sit at a topographic elevation like 1117 so they could begin to speculate as to the visibility of the tower from residential proper- ties along Mecklenburg Road . Mr . Trowbridge said that it might be worthwhile having some sort of a visual assessment of what the impact would be . He said he understood that it is relatively small , but it would be helpful from the abutters ' perspective , to understand what the significance of 70 feet is in that location . Chairman Austen pointed out the anemometer is what would be on the . top . Mr . Snyder said there would also be a wind direction indicator , approximately the same size as the anemometer . Mr . Trowbridge said it is just the matter of understanding how the tower would reside topographically . Mr . Trowbridge said that the only other issue would be the Board ' s ability to determine its dismantling . He wondered , realizing it is a definitive period of time , what the Board ' s ability is to determine a finite date of installa- tion . Mr . Trowbridge said he was trying to understand what the Town ' s prerogative is relative to the request for a span of 13 months . He said that often times one asks for the ability to install something , but it is unusual that the Town would also have some limitation where that would need to be taken dorm . He wanted to know what the recourse would be if the pole was not taken down and that it was decided that more electronic information was needed- - thus adding more equipment to the pole . Mr . Trowbridge wanted to know if there was a guarantee that this is all that would be seen and what guarantee would there be that it would be dismantled , other than it has been donated for 12 months and assuming that the owner of the equipment would want it back in January of 1995 . Attorney Barney said that he would assume what is being asked for is the term use , and , if the tower remains beyond the term , the Town could go to court getting an injunction directing its removal . Attorney Barney said that , in addition to that , it would be a misdemeanor for failing to comply with the zoning ordinance each week and is subject to a weekly fine of $ 500 . 00 . Mr . Trowbridge asked what sense Mr . Snyder has about adding any additional equipment , would there be other apparatus added to the pole . Mr . Trowbridge said that since it is only a height limitation and if it is defined with some limitation , can equipment be added to the pole . Attorney Barney told Mr . Trowbridge that this could not happen without getting this Board ' s approval again . Attorney Barney informed Mr . . Trowbridge that the appeal is for a use variance , coupled with a height variance . Attorney Barney said that if the Board chose to grant the variance , it is for a use variance for a finite period of time , ending on the specific date of December 31 , 19954 Joan Bokaer , of EcoVillage and co - director of the project , said that she apolo- gized because she had not spoken to Mr . Trowbridge ahead of time . She said they purposely picked a field that was not near any neighbors . She said she had not done anything like this before because they were not developers . Its . Bokaer said they were concerned about the neighbors on West Haven Road because they may be the only ones with a little view of the very top of the pole , and that the pole is quite a bit lower than Mr . Trowbridge ' s land and at the opposite end of the field . She said she Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals December 8 , 1993 did not come to Mr . Trowbridge because she did not think he could see it and it would not affect him . Relative to Mr . Trowbridge ' s question about additional equipment , Mr . Snyder stated that any other measurements such as temperature and humidity are not important . Mr . Snyder said the only thing of importance is wind speed over a period of time . Mr . Snyder continued that because they have the instruments , they are going to measure the wind direction . Regarding the dismantling of the pole , Mr . Snyder explained the equipment sells for over $ 2 , 900 . 00 , indicating the company wants it back . Ms . Bokaer also said a contract has been signed with the company , and , regarding dismantling , plans are made to take it down the same way it went up . Mr . Snyder said they went around the neighborhood , and he stated that the only house that would be able to see the tower would be Dr . Flacco at 150 West Haven Road . Mr . Snyder showed that Dr . Flacco ' s name appeared on the petition as being in support of the project . Mr . Snyder again stated that there are trees on the property that are higher than the tower will be . Attorney Barney asked if Cornell University has this kind of information available . Mr . Snyder said Cornell measures the winds at Game Farm Road , about a meter above the ground . Mr . Snyder said the buzz word in wind power is " microclimates " . Mr . Snyder said that , while in solar radiation you can take one measurement and can basically know what it is , the wind measurement will be different than that on Game Farm Road , due to the location on top of a hill , the effects of the lake , and the height of the pole , as opposed to one meter off the ground . Attorney Barney asked if measurements were taken on top of Bradfield Hall . Mr . Ellsworth said it was weather radar , and Attorney Barney asked if there was no wind direction or wind speed measured . Mr . Ellsworth said NYSEG did a very intensive wind study for the Milliken area about 20 years ago . Mr . Frantz produced the USG map and told the Board and audience that the base of4 the pole would be between 1080- 1090 feet and the top of the pole would be 1150 - 1160 feet . Mr . Frantz told Mr . Trowbridge that his elevation is about 1110 feet . David Warden of 1343 Mecklenburg Road said he was a neighbor of Mr . Trowbridge . Robin Trowbridge is his wife , and they are on the adjoining parcel next to Mr . Trowbridge . Mr . Warden discussed the 20 foot drop in elevation and said that he was not concerned about the visibility . He said he was in support of testing such things as wind generators , and he told the Board that his name could be added to the petition in support of the project . Ms . Bokaer addressed the power line which bisects their line , explained she did not know how tall the poles ( of 10- inch in diameter ) are . She compared the 10- inch poles to the 8- inch tower . With no one else wanting to speak , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen stated that this was reviewed on December 2 , 1993 by Mr . Frantz who is present and therefore if there are any questions , they may be directed to him . Chairman Austen said this is an unlisted action and there are no agencies involved as far as a coordinated review is concerned . Chairman Austen read Part II , Sections C . 1 , C . 2 . and C . 4 . and Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . • Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals December S . 1993 RESOLVED , that the Board accept the negative determination of environmental signifi- cance for the EcoVillage at Ithaca property 'located at West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Tom of Ithaca Ta:t Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , as reviewed by George Frant= , Assistant Town Planner of the Tom of Ithaca , cn December 2 , 1993 . A vote on the :notion resulted as fellows : AYES - Ellsworth , Scala , King , Austen . NAYS - acne . The motion carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a limited variance to the Appellant , EcoVillage at Ithaca for the erection and maintenance of a 110 - foot tall tower or pole at West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Tom of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , for a period of 13 months for the sole purpose of gathering :wind data information at the property for a period of up to 12 months as explained in the application , with the following findings and conditions : 1 ) That there would be a hardship for the Appellant not to erect the pole , even though it exceeds the height limitation by some 40 feet , but being a temporary structure for limited testing purposes , it is the only feasible way for the appellant to obtain the necessary data for 12 consecutive months . 2 ) That the neighboring property owners generally are not going to be effected by the pole on the location , as indicated , with a number of the neighbors having signed a petition in favor of the application . 3 ) That the variance would be limited to a period from January 1 , 1994 through January 31 , 1995 with the understanding that the Appellant will see to the removal of the pole by the 31st of January , 1995 . 4 ) That the information that will be produced by this devise is not readily avail- able by any other sources . 5 ) That no equipment other than the anemometer , the weather vane , and the data gathering / recording devise at the base of the pole ( as depicted in the drawings submitted ) , can be added to the pole without special approval of this Board . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . The fifth Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL of John Lamb , Appellant , Richard Jump , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single- family residence with a building height of 51+/ - feet ( 30 feet maximum height allowed ) at 901 Taughan- nock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel. No . 25- 2- 41 , Residence District R- 15 . AF'F'— I_ ' '�-< 10l : =6 FROM BFLO STATE WEIGEL HLTH TO 916072776224 F' 103 AF'R-29- 1994 10 : '26 FROM BFLO STATE WEIGEL HLTH TO 916072776224 F' • 04 ate- BLS ROUTS t NJ team 8 • . -• i •.\ L• •I - i I . - J�-I� • a •ar� L Polish LOC AT ION • .• / r••rr0Wfair.• mama r WIT r. r /G• fOI./SO/ ' rL. aM. M may` - 1 u 2 r ' POLE—TOWER �- w �' .* .T � . ; �'•rMe w. f Pr•ry le/rarr••wr/' a et" Mir/. /y,• '•1 '•° M •� SM •w••• A•rI twMrao M 6, .C•, r Icegr . 1lbarrr t 1 rrC► RaMI• a 3• 8 :. 1/•a w_ i ! /L SfI,P IOSa/ a w7 .� 0•s6Y LCRE / e As Cw•wr/r. a L If Idrssa r. 1•NrM y L. 117• {T j[• !� y0f.06' : tA.00a Mraf k� ?O.lAO Ar • t n ! a•r046 sfssg • 1. r .Z eer 4443 50 Ij ACRES ru y, r►ae. 4 . r .Y,� M +•M/Pr�. ; Nar01 .Y 'w rau .rr' Q ` /G ,ux .!/eel • � `, r bI « •rare r ufae w re+eraal ' - /LfOf.//rlf -% 4w - { 1I r JAI Ildlim •' 1Vr aT W[ M. •ft.fY RRN lf1M' pOYli agAl 'W i i L t M•Or f 72 .\le4r* ll rperle �N07•fY ••s.. x •s• xz ao"x • i � xxa.ee' li � rea`Yta 'r .� to e•.•• / all '. `f1"'r a b - iN•Irr �. f Fnrmw•� nrrs•w' ' w IN.w' 10.1/ I fir fOJ, /SfI/ �e'*11 eh 'S '�T.•S� 3ea•a7Is Jos f1. 71 Ism r f.3 . _as /< f.I, .laFSl p 1 ``rCr••MYM M r•w[ i ( ` I Now aims . •row• f /rrr v , I R . d�4?sI 1319767 ACRES SCALE • 1,I o 400 , i �... ~ 1 r •[T • fT• iY kw[ � IA Ta •1 ! rrllr.� I "`• F'+s1.[s ffr �• a•• 2Y f0" r ... r."a I J•� ••,7� rf.l•tl 1 ».•a' I IS11•' IM.•0' HT �N3x• or ss . ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE y .n W. 9t?• 1153a'�• i .os ' 5 orre /L SIOJ M/ . r ` , Posso I Y 1 .1 •8 S • c Jrn, IN l!: oe as •• • 10fE f•' t0 _' • + _N .,• �s e• •°" i LOCATION OF NEW POLE TOWER . ' 1 ' SITEb BY S. WHITHAM, LAND USE PLANNER « •,� 8 ookm rM1inod by v I rJ E63Y H411 Inc alp 110 rras bld N•1.1r M1�— ti '�� - . east • 31v14*N OF LA245 BE•14 CONVEYED TO rmaa . !L. lrO,r"k / •..o.. w tr • : rr ' •r••[7 L3 EcoYfiiage at Ithaca • , 110 / [ >••rS : >. !»a I.awr t••1r ewa w.M •• •r•^L M ••P•rllr .•ri r••r•P M Mra w 0414,. '"" LoearED AT ' a• 1• •.••..� MECKLENBURG ROAD S WEST HAVEN ROAD MAR. td it jVa[ 20 , MAN TOWN O° ITHACa TOMAKIN$ CaONTY xf - I . xa,2 New TORT, 'e •. t : ., e OENNIS J . WIELAND * L • S . Process Number: EcoVillage at Ithaca 318 Anabel Taylor Hall Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 April 18, 1994 Rick Technical Support Department NRG Systems, Inc. 110 Commerce Street Hinesburg, Vermont 05461 Dear Rick. Enclosed is the Data Logger that you asked me to send back to NRG because it is not working correctly. You also asked me to list the problems that I have been having with it. Problems. • In mode P7, the logger thinks that the battery voltage is 0, even with fresh batteries. • The fresh batteries I installed in the data logger were dead within 40 days. (I do not know when they died within those 40 days.) I bought the batteries at a large store, the batteries had a far distant expiration date, and I tested the batteries with the battery tester on the battery package, so I believe that the batteries I used were good. The data logger manual says that the-batteries should last about 6 months. • The data logger recently began to record data only every 5 minutes, no matter what . position the two switches under the data chip are in. I repeatedly changed the positions of the switches in the program mode. I also took the batteries out, changed the switches, and replaced the batteries, but the recording interval did not change. • When I unscrewed the data logger from the shelter box (to return it to you) , the top right screw threading broke away from the plastic it was set in. I am enclosing the screw threading with the data logger. Please note that I did not use excessive force when unscrewing the screw. In fact, the screw did not offer a greater amount of resistance than a normal screw, and I was very surprised to see what had happened. (I think that a store bought epoxy should solve the problem easily, but I'd rather have you decide that.) I also have a question. Both the anemometer and direction sensor have grounding wires. Should these both be connected to the same ground terminal on the bottom of the logger, or should they both be connected to grounding stud on the side of the logger? I am also enclosing the chip that I installed on February 20, 1994 and removed April 2. (The batteries died some time before April 2 .) The recording interval was set on 60 minutes. Thank you very much for your help, for replacing/repairing the data logger, and for analyzing the data chip for us. It is all greatly appreciated. If I can be of any help, please call me at (607)-273-0485 (my home number, not EcoVillage at Ithaca's) . Sincerely, Jeremy Snyder Energy Committee EcoVillage at Ithaca 110 Commerce Street, Hinesburg , VT 05461 USA • ( 802 ) 482 - 2255 • FAX ( 802 ) 482 - 2272 • TELEX 650-313 - 4621 MCI UW May 17 , 1994 Joan Bokaer ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA Anabel Taylor Hall Cornell University Ithaca , NY 14853 Dear Joan , We have agreed to extend the . loan of NRG wind measurement equipment through August of 1995 . I hope that this will help to provide you with a more complete picture of the available wind resource . I wish you the best of luck and hope that the project is proceeding smoothly . Happy Spring ! Best Regards , J ' a M . Austin Sales 27 411 1 �. s.• . -_. 3 14 16. 1 IS. 2 16 17 19 �M n. • MI `f TAP n 11.2 ' 121 1 I •� -�- �• �i1 » IRA 3Ac 4 IK. 125:1 193K 1 2 ' 3 4 S AC ' 1 r-' ' - x 6.301 CAL -=°� 24 26. 6 i• 26 . 6•» K L6 Ac 7. 26 K. C. 1 10. 53 AC I's CAI . I 6 21 23.2 20.2 1594 AC CAL » 0. 42 107.51 K CAl A 10 _ 6 302 c cal. = + 49. 56 AC CAL AMR& PRO 28 I -26.2 12.7 A 163. 76 AC CAL 26.4 0263 6 21 22.7 AC 1.4 .- I U4Ar 5 K CAL CA- CAL •' t 6 1 y 7A[ Id 33 AC CAL . all O290 101 - - - - - 28. 33 2�B 6 SEE 6uP 10.412 �•" 10.413 43.14 AC 26 6 AC CAL i2 .D AC CAI 6 ., , 20. 52 28. 7 2.12 Ac g 9 69 K 1 30 nu ' 4 C. CAI , • 26. 51 , 28.4 ., ., ' . 26 .7 - • 9.43 K 19 AC CAL 1 262 2t K .. , f ; \.- + s 3145 AC CAL ' 52 .4 1 4 sf ♦ 60 1 116 K 37. 4 K. CAI A C 32 .2 • .� _ "" , ' 29 21 . 3 AC CAL \ •• • 29 1• I 320 - 1 - 12 AC. 1AO 323 12AC am RECEVED Tompkins C604 AUG 8 199 r DEPARITMENfJ10FTL ANNING TOWN OF ITHACk ` Yt East Court street A BUILDING/ZONING, Ithaca, Ni* Vork 14856 ` James W. Hanson, Jr. Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning FAX (607) 274-5578 August 4, 1994 Mr. Andy Frost Town of Ithaca 126 E . Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: EcoVillage - Extension for Height Variance Dear Mr. Frost: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, 4 /7T James Hanson, Jr. Commissioner of Planning � � Recycled paper TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 8 , 1993 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals , NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , December 81 1993 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on .the following matters . APPEAL � of Tompkins County EOC Headstart , Appellant , Eileen Zimmer , Agent , requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town `of Ithaca Zoning ordinance to operate a day care center at the Church of the Latter Day Saints , located on 114 Burleigh .Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 72 - 1 - 1 . 170 , Residence District R - ; 5 . APPEAL of John Lango , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non - conforming building / lot at 926 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18 - 2 - 4 , Residence District R - 15 . The proposed extension involves the construction of 6 ' x 26 ' unenclosed porch on the south side of an existing single - family residence . Said building is located 4 + / - feet from the north side property line ( 15 ' sideyard building setback required ) and a front yard building setback from the road right - of - way line of 0 + / - feet ( 25 ' setback required ) . The lot depth . is 60 + / - feet , whereas 150 ' depth is required . APPEAL of Fred Carrere , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance , to be permitted to extend a , non - conforming building / lot at 1065 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2 - 12 , Residence District R - 15 . The extension involved the addition of a second floor to an existing single story building without enlargement of the existing building footprint . Said lot is non = conforming with a 50 + / - foot lot width ( 100 ' lot width required ) and the building is located at the south side property line ,• whereas a 15 foot sideyard building setback is required . APPEAL of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant , Monty Berman , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V . Section 18 , 19 , and 20 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 70 - foot tall wind testing instrument at Town of Ithaca Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , located on West Haven and Mecklenberg Roads , 163 + / - acres , Residence District R - 30 . Said tower is not expressly permitted as a use in the zone and any primary structures are limited to a height of 30 feet , with accessory structures limited to a height of 15 feet . APPEAL of John Lamb , Appellant ; Richard Jump , Agent , requesting a var ance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single - family residence with a building height of 51 + / - feet ( 30 feet maximum height allowed ) at 901 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 41 , Residence District R - 15 , Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters . or objections . thereto . Persons may appear by `agent or in person , Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1783 Dated : November 30 , 1993 Publish : December 3 , 1993 S . � Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals December 8 , 1993 MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that in view of the fact that there is current litigation on the matter of this building , which is the subject of this application for an extension of a nonconforming use at 1065 Taughannock Boulevard , that this Board deny the application to expand that nonconforming building but the denial being without prejudice to another application being brought after the determination of the Supreme Court action , with the following findings : 1 ) That this motion is based . upon the presently pending action of the Supreme Court , one of the issues of which is whether this property should remain or be de - stroyed . ^_ ) That it makes no sense for this Board to take action in approving something that may be removed . 3 ) That another survey has been requested by the Estate of Libby Leonard and is not yet before the Board . 4 ) That , based upon the Miller survey upon which everyone appears to agree , the house encroaches up to 5 . 8 feet on the property to the south . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion was denied without prejudice . Chairman Austen told Mr . Carrere that when he gets the new survey and the Supreme Court makes its decision , this application can be looked at again . The fourth Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL of EcoVillage at Ithaca , Appellant , Monty Berman , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 , 19 , and 20 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 70- foot tall wind testing instrument at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 26 . 2 , located on West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , 163+ / - acres , Residence District R- 30 . Said tower is not expressly permitted as a use in the zone and any primary struc- tures are limited to a height of 30 feet , with accessory structures limited to a height of 15 feet . Jeremy Snyder introduced himself as being in charge of the project as technical advisor and that he was asked to represent EcoVillage . He stated that Monty Berman is the Chairperson of the Board of Directors at EcoVillage in Ithaca . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Snyder if the tower instrument which is to be erected is for a limited period of 13 months and if Mr . Snyder proposed that he could get all the information needed in that period of time , to which Mr . Snyder replied that was correct . Mr . Snyder said that one year is generally the period that wind character- istics are measured on any one site . Chairman Austen asked what is the material of the tower , and Mr . Snyder said it is more of a pole with guy wires on it . Mr . Snyder � A Town of Ithaca yi Zoning Board of Appeals December 8 , 1993 said the metal pole is 3 - 1 / 2 inches in diameter which is a mass - produced pole produced by Energy systems of Vermont and that Energy will donate the pole and the wind anemometer system to EcoVillage for the year . According to Mr . Snyder , when the pole is erected , the wind anemometer is placed on the top and it spins in the wind and produces an electrical signal , which goes down the pole to the recording instrument mounted to the bottom of the pole . The , -information is then sent to Energy Systems in Vermont for interpretation and Energy sends a report based on the data gathered back to EcoVillage . Mr . King inquired as to the amount of information gathered from a one- year test , and Mr . Snyder stated that wind generally varies in a decade . However , he continued , a period of ten years is too long a period of time to do anything . What people do generally is measure the wind for one year , look at that wind information from the National Weather. Service , correlate the data gathered for the year with the profes- sional weather service ' s wind data for the year , and then , the data can be correlated for the other ten years , resulting in accurate data . Mr . Snyder told Mr . Ellsworth that the pole is 70 feet in height and it is not on the highest point on the property . Mr . Frost asked if there are no more than 4 support cables as shown on the sketch . Mr . Snyder said the sketch is a cross - section . Mr . Frost asked what the distance is from the center of the pole to the outermost support cable , and Mr . Snyder said the radius is about 35 feet . Therefore , Mr . Frost concluded that the diameter would be 70 feet across . Mr . Snyder said that he believes the way the guy wires are set up is that the 4 guy wires extend in four . different directions and that the guy wires in each direction go down to one anchor . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Snyder if they have to deal with the FAA , and Mr . Snyder said they have talked with a Federal Aviation Agent who decided that the pole was too low to worry about and that it was not a problem . Mr . King said that being a 3- inch diameter pole , he imagined that most planes could survive hitting it . Chairman Austen said there are quite a lot of woods in that area , and Mr . Snyder said that he believes the trees in that area are in the range of , or taller than , the 70 feet , but he tried to get the pole as far from the trees as possible . Attorney Barney asked about the location of the nearby airport , and he was told that it was about 2 - 1 / 2 miles west of the site . Attorney Barney told the Board that one of the training things pilots do is to take student- pilots up in an airplane and kill the engine , throttle it back , and tell the students to fly an emergency landing . A discussion followed as to the size of the field . Mr . Frost said it is more open to the north side of Route 79 . Mr . Frost said he has a picture in his office which gives a view of the pole with the cables . Mr . Ellsworth inquired if there was a double set of cables ( a high set and a low set ) and Mr . Snyder said that he believed there was and that the cables attach to the tower at three different points . Chairman Austen asked if this particular piece of property was now being farmed . Mr . Snyder answered that although it was farm land , it was not being farmed now . Mr . Scala commented that it probably was anticipated to have a wind farm there . Mr . Snyder said he would not like to speculate on what could be done at the site . He continued that he is just trying to evaluate what resources it has at this site . For example , they are looking at how much solar radiation hits the land . Mr . Snyder said that all they are doing is trying to figure out what the wind characteristics are at the land . He said that , until that is done , there is no way to speculate on what might be done . Mr . King asked if any consideration is being given to locating the tower from there over nearer the fields where trees are indicated , and Mr . Snyder answered that the prevailing winds are from the northwest and southeast and that this site is very open to the southeast . He said the other sites were closer to the trees and not as open to the wind . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals December S . 1993 Mr . Scala restated that the intention would be to have it in operation for 13 months and then take it down . tir . Snyder said they have use of the tower from January 1 , 1994 to January 1 , 19950 Chairman Austen opened the public hearing , asking if anyone would like to speak on this matter . Peter Trowbridge of 1345 Mecklenburg Road asked for additional clarification regarding the pole ' s location and the topographic elevation . He said that , as an abutter , he was interested in understanding where the base of the tower sits topographically , how that might be seen , and the relative visibility of the tower to the abutters . Air . Trowbridge said he was trying to make some determination as to whether the abutters would have visibility of the tower and if there was a location where they knew it was going to sit at a topographic elevation like 1117 so they could begin to speculate as to the visibility of the tower from residential proper- ties along Mecklenburg Road , Air . Trowbridge said that it might be worthwhile having some sort of a visual assessment of what the impact would be . He said he understood that it is relatively small , but it would be helpful from the abutters ' perspective , to understand what the significance of 70 feet is in that location . Chairman Austen pointed out the anemometer is what would be on the top . Air . Snyder said there would also be a wind direction indicator , approximately the same size as the anemometer . Mr . Trowbridge said it is just the matter of understanding how the tower would reside topographically . Mr . Trowbridge said that the only other issue would be the Board 's ability to determine its dismantling . He wondered , realizing it is a definitive period of time , what the Board ' s ability is to determine a finite date of installa- tion . Mr . Trowbridge said he was trying to understand what the Town ' s prerogative is relative to the request for a span of 13 months . He said that often times one asks for the ability to install something , but it is unusual that the Town would also have some limitation where that would need to be taken down . He wanted to know what the recourse would be if the pole was not taken down and that it was decided that more electronic information was needed- - thus adding more equipment to the pole . Air . Trowbridge wanted to know if there was a guarantee that this is all that would be seen and what guarantee would there be that it would be dismantled , other than it has been donated for 12 months and assuming that the owner of the equipment would want it back in January of 1995 . Attorney Barney said that he would assume what is being asked for is the term use , and , if the tower remains beyond the term , the Town could go to court getting an injunction directing its removal . Attorney Barney said that , in addition to that , it would be a misdemeanor for failing to comply with the zoning ordinance each week and is subject to a weekly fine of $ 500 . 00 . Mr . Trowbridge asked what sense Mr . Snyder has about adding any additional equipment , would there be other apparatus added to the pole . Air . Trowbridge said that since it is only a height limitation and if it is defined with some limitation , can equipment be added to the pole . Attorney Barney told Air . Trowbridge that this could not happen without getting this Board ' s approval again . Attorney Barney informed Mr . Trowbridge that the appeal is for a use variance , coupled with a height variance . Attorney Barney said that if the Board chose to grant the variance , it is for a use variance for a finite period of time , ending on the specific date of December 31 , 1995 . Joan Bokaer , of EcoVillage and co - director of the project , said that she apolo - gized because she had not spoken to Mr . Trowbridge ahead of time . She said they purposely picked a field that was not near any neighbors . She said she had not done anything like this before because they were not developers . Ms . Bokaer said they were concerned about the neighbors on West Haven Road because they may be the only ones with a little view of the very top of the pole , and that the pole is quite a bit lower than Mr . Trowbridge ' s land and at the opposite end of the field . She said she Town of Ithaca 1'3 Zoning Board of Appeals December 8 , 1993 did not come to Mr . Trowbridge because she did not think he could see it and it would not affect him . Relative to Mr . Trowbridge ' s question about additional equipment , Mr . Snyder stated that any other measurements such as temperature and humidity are not important . Mr . Snyder said the only thing of importance is wind speed over a period of time . Mr . Snyder continued that because they have the instruments , they are going to measure the wind direction . Regarding the dismantling of the pole , Mr . Snyder explained the equipment sells for over $ 2 , 900 . 00 , indicating the company wants it back . Ms . Bokaer also said a contract has been signed with the company , and , regarding dismantling , plans are made to take it down the same way it went up . Mr . Snyder said they went around the neighborhood , and he stated that the only house that would be able to see the tower would be Dr . Flacco at 150 West Haven Road . Mr . Snyder showed that Dr . Flacco ' s name appeared on the petition as being in support of the project . Mr . Snyder again stated that there are trees on the property that are higher than the tower will be . Attorney Barney asked if Cornell University has this kind of information available . Mr . Snyder said Cornell measures the winds at Game Farm Road , about a meter above the ground . Mr . Snyder said the buzz word in wind power is if microclimates " . Mr . Snyder said that , while in solar radiation you can take one measurement and can basically know what it is , the wind measurement will be different than that on Game Farm Road , due to the location on top of a hill , the effects of the lake , and the height of the pole , as opposed to one meter off the ground . Attorney Barney asked if measurements were taken on top of Bradfield Hall . Mr . Ellsworth said it was weather radar , and Attorney Barney asked if there was no wind direction or wind speed measured. Mr . Ellsworth said NYSEG did a very intensive wind study for the Milliken area about 20 years ago . Mr . Frantz produced the USG map and told the Board and audience that the base of the pole would be between 1080- 1090 feet and the top of the pole would be 1150- 1160 feet . Mr . Frantz told Mr . Trowbridge that his elevation is about 1110 feet . David Warden of 1343 Mecklenburg Road said he was a neighbor of Mr . Trowbridge . Robin Trowbridge is his wife , and they are on the adjoining parcel next to Mr . Trowbridge . Mr . Warden discussed the 20 foot drop in elevation and said that he was not concerned about the visibility . He said he was in support of testing such things as wind generators , and he told the Board that his name could be added to the petition in support of the project . Ms . Bokaer addressed the power line which bisects their line , explained she did not know how tall the poles ( of 10- inch in diameter ) are . She compared the 10- inch poles to the 8- inch tower . With no one else wanting to speak ; Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen stated that this was reviewed on December 2 , 1993 by Mr . Frantz who is present and therefore if there are any questions , they may be directed to him . Chairman Austen said this is an unlisted action and there are no agencies involved as far as a coordinated review is concerned . Chairman Austen read Part II , Sections C . 1 , C . 2 . and C . 4 . and Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . • \Yi Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals December S . 1993 RESOLVED , that the Board accept the negative determination " of environmental signifi - cance for the EcoVillage at Ithaca property located at West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Town of Ithaca Tart Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , as reviewed by George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner of the Town of Ithaca , on December 2 , 19936 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , Scala , King , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a limited variance to the Appellant , EcoVillage at Ithaca for the erection and maintenance of a 70- foot tall tower or pole at West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads , Tom of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , for a period of 13 months for the sole purpose of gathering wind data information at the property for a period of up to 12 months as explained in the application , with the following findings and conditions : 1 ) That there would be a hardship for the Appellant not to erect the pole , even though it exceeds the height limitation by some 40 feet , but being a temporary structure for limited testing purposes , it is the only feasible way for the appellant to obtain the necessary data for 12 consecutive months . 2 ) That the neighboring property owners generally are not going to be effected by the pole on the location , as indicated , with 'a number of the neighbors having signed a petition in favor of the application . 3 ) That the variance would be limited to a period from January 1 , 1994 through January 31 , 1995 with the understanding that the Appellant will see to the removal of the pole by the 31st of January , 1995 , 4 ) That the information that will be produced by this devise is not readily avail - able by any other sources . 5 ) That no equipment other than the anemometer , the weather vane , and the data gathering / recording devise at the base of the pole ( as depicted in the drawings submitted ) , can be added to the pole without special approval of this Board . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried' unanimously . The fifth Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL of John Lamb , Appellant , Richard ' Jump , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single- family residence with a building height of 51+/ - feet ( 30 feet maximum height allowed ) at 901 Taughan- nock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25- 2 - 41 , Residence District R- 15 . Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 1 d / SC Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART 1 — Project information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) F.Board /Sponsor :Directors , EcoVillage at Ithaca 2. ProJeetNama : ocation (Street Address and Road Intersections Tower-pole to measure wind ( 70ft . x3 . 5incies ) prominent landmarks , ate. or provide map) : tached application with survey map -- attached as Exhibit 30 Tax Parcel Number : 503089 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 I 4 . Is Proposed Action : IENew E}(PANSiON MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : See attached application with exhibits . ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately 11 artJ describe the proposed project .) � . Amount of Land Affected : Initially 0 5 ors h . 088 y y � Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres ( > 10 yrs) Acres : t . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? ' R 30 Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES f7 NO [x] If no , describe conflict briefT o _ article V , Section 18 ( 10 ) restrictingstructuressto030fthigh . Thus it violates I \ I Will proposed action lead to a request for now : i Public Road ? YES ❑ NO Q Public Water ? YES [] NO � Pvbiic Sewer ? YES [] NO 1 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the propod project ? Residential LJ Commercial F1 Q Agriculture Park Space Other I Please describe : Hay I Does proposed action involve a permit, approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES ❑ NO Q If yes , list agency name and permit/approval/funding : Does an14 aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit/approval . Also state whether that permit/approval will require modification . I I 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE plicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : Monty Berman - Chairperson , EcoVillage at Ithaca I (nature : I Date : 111/0 AF ot7 I -Jam.✓ .. . .. �_ _ _ _ _ Yom _. PART If - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary. ) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO If yes , coordinate Othe review process and use the full EAF. B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 6? YES NO If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : (Answers may be handwritten, If legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly: See attached . C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : See attached . C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish , or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly: See attached . C4 . The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly: See attached . C5. Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : See attached . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly: See attached . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? Explain briefly : See attached . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO If yes , explain briefly: See attached . E. Comments of staff CAC , other attached. (Check as applicable . ) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse effect Identified above, determine whether it Is substantial, large, Important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (le. urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration ; (d) Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed . Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check here if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency Prep arer's ignature ( If dill from Responsible Officer Edward Austen , Chairman gam a of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date :ure of Res onsible Officer in Lead Agency PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A. Does Action exceed any TYPE I threshold in 6 NYCRR, PART 617. 12? Yes No Action is UNLISTED.X. B . Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for UNLISTED Actions in 6 NYCRR, PART 617. 6? Yes No_X_ Involved Agency(ies) : C. Could Action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: None anticipated . The proposed action is the granting of a variance to allow the erection of a 70 ft. tall temporary pole for the purpose of gathering wind data on the property of EcoVillage of Ithaca, Inc. No significant adverse impacts to existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: No significant adverse impacts to aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Although the pole will be erected in a field now or recently used for agricultural purposes, it is intended to be temporary, and no permanent loss of agricultural resources is expected. The location of the pole in relation to surrounding properties and homes is such that no significant adverse impacts to community or neighborhood character are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or other natural resources? Explain briefly: None anticipated. No rare or endangered vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or other natural resources are known to exist on the site, or are otherwise expected to be impacted by the proposed action. C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or in of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: Given the size of the proposed pole and its scale in relation to the site, its temporary nature, and the character of the surrounding area, no significant adverse impacts to the community' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. None anticipated . C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-05? Explain briefly. None anticipated . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? Explain briefly. None anticipated . D . Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Yes No_X_ If Yes, explain briefly PART III or DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Based on the scale and character of the proposed project, its temporary nature, and the character of its site and the surrounding land uses, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for this action Lead Agency: Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: George R. Frantz, Asst. Town Planner Review Date : December 2, 1993 -top Ad 0� r v .... vv ya . aray.rs CQQ : #?QW • VM 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : c. •.. . Ithaca , New York 14850 CASH ( 607 ) 273- 1783 CHECK A P P E A L ZONING : to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer For Office Use Only and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been denied permission to : raise a tower- pole that is 70 ft , high and 3 inchps in diameter to measure the wind for a period of thirteen months . at West Haven and M kl nhPrg u � 1ti � ± acTafn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 503089 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 as shown on the accompanying application and / or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of : Article ( s ) y Section ( s ) 18 ( 10 ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and , in support of the Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/ or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : ( Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) See attached application with exhibits By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application . Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : 11111aAP Mo ty Berm , Ch it of Board of Directors , EcoVillage at Ithaca Signature of Appellant/Agent : Date : Home Telephone Number : ( 315 ) 474 - 0824 Work Telephone Number .* ( 315 ) 474 - 0824 NOTE : If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months , the variance will exp ire , APPLICATION OF ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA A NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION FOR A THIRTEEN MONTH " USE VARIANCE " TO ERECT A 70 ' WIND MEASURING TOWER POLE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND ZONED R 30 BASED UPON HARDSHIP This application for a " use variance " to erect a 70 ' wind measuring tower - pole on the basis of hardship , is made by EcoVillage at Ithaca ( EVI ) . EcoVillage at Ithaca is a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) , non - profit corporation , incorporated under the laws of the State of New York . The purposes and objectives of EVI are : A . To establish and promote for the general public : the preservation and conservation of open space ; the development of scientific methods to implement ecologically and socially sustainable high density community living , the teaching of successful methods to the broader public . ' In pursuit of that goal , in the summer of 1992 , EVI purchased 163 + or - acres of land bordering on Mecklenburg and Westhaven Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 503089 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , with the intent of using that parcel to help it devise the strategies and technologies necessary to the development of scientifically and socially sustainable communities . ' The goals and objectives which EVI believes are necessary for the development of sustainable communities have been articulated in the Guidelines for Development : EcoVillage at Ithaca , adopted October 71 1993 . 3 Among them are energy considerations : 1 . ) To demonstrate a comprehensive approach to more sustainable energy use ; 2 . ) To use the most environmentally benign sources , particularly renewable , including solar , wind and biomass ; 3 . ) Pursue village -wide energy projects ; possible options include . . . wind generation . . . . ( Emphasis supplied . ) Consultations with architects and other technical specialists involved with the preparation of the plans for sustainable development of the EVI land have determined that there is little information from which scientifically based conclusions can be drawn as to the availability of wind resources . Thus if EVI is to ' A copy of the Statement of Purposes from the EcoVillage at Ithaca Certificate of Incorporation is attached as Exhibit 1 . ' See photograph of EVI land parcel - borders designated in back outline - attached as Exhibit 2 , and Survey Map attached as Exhibit 3 . 3 Guidelines for Development : EcoVillage at Ithaca , adopted October 7 , 1993 , attached as Exhibit 4 , and hereinafter designated EVI Guidelines . 1 carry out its purpose of assisting with the development of an environmentally friendly community , EVI needs to obtain this data . To obtain adequate scientific information as to the availability of wind resources on Westhill , the EVI Board of Directors has made arrangements with Cornell University for assistance in the preparation of a study and report on the availability of wind resources . On the Cornell side , the study will be assisted by Professor Peter Auer of the Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and implemented with the assistance of his student , Jeremy Snyder . ' Daryl Anderson , a wind specialist working with EVI , will supervise and coordinate the study on behalf of the EVI Board of Directors . The wind measurements are to be taken by an eight inch diameter wind anemometer with an attached wind direction sensor sitting at the apex of a seventy foot high , 3 . 5 inches in diameter tower-pole . 5 No wind turbine is involved . The tower- pole inserts into a tower base tube which sits on a baseplate made of four curved pieces of 1 / 8 inch galvanized steel which are bolted together to form a firm foot for the tower - pole . These curved base plates are pressed into the ground by the weight of the tower-pole . The plates may , in addition , be held firmly on the ground by two four foot long ground rods which are driven into the earth . Three sets of four 1 / 8 " diameter guy wires are then attached to guy rings at the 201 , 401 and 60 ' levels on the tower-pole to complete the structure . The sixteen wires extend from the pole to four anchorages at a radius of distance from the tower -pole . The entire tower - pole occupies 0 . 088 acres of land . The tower - pole , the logger system , and the computer analysis of the data for the development of the wind energy profile , have been generously donated to EVI by NRG Systems , Inc . 6 The tower - pole is to be raised in the Southwest field of the Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 503089 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 as soon as permission is granted . The spot chosen is one which will provide significant data to EVI on the availability of wind resources on Westhill . The placement of the tower - pole is illustrated on the See Letter of Professor Peter Auer attached as Exhibit 50 � 5 See relevant excerpts from NRG LOGGER MANUAL , NRG Systems , Inc . , P . O . Box 509 , 110 Commerce Street , Hinesburg , VT 05461 , attached as Exhibit 6 , pgs . 1 - 4 . The complete manual will be made available upon request . 6 See relevant excerpts from TALLTOWER MANUAL 701 , 3 . 5 " DIAMETER , NRG Systems , Inc . , P . O . Box 509 , 110 Commerce Street , Hinesburg , VT 05461 attached as Exhibit 7 , pgs . 1 - 8 . The entire manual will be made available upon request . 2 . . Survey Map attached as Exhibit 3 . ' The location is on a field several thousand feet from both Mecklenberg and Westhaven roads , behind numbers of hedge rows . Therefore only the tip of the pole is likely to be visible to a person who is not located directly on the field immediately adjacent to the tower- pole . 8 To develop a complete wind profile , EVI has been advised that the wind measurements should be evaluated for a one year cycle . Pursuant to the terms of NRG Systems ' agreement with EVI , the tower- pole and ancillary equipment must be returned to NRG Systems within one year ' s time . 9 However , EVI is requesting a thirteen month variance to begin on a date certain to be agreed upon by the parties , in order to allow EVI ' s personnel additional time to set up and remove the tower - pole . Recognizing that the raising of the tower -pole might create concerns with EVI ' s abutting neighbors , EVI has attempted , where possible , to reach out to their concerns . As a result , numbers of EVI ' s neighbors have signed a petition stating that they have no objection to the raising of the tower - pole . ` Using the tower-pole instruments , scientists will monitor the wind patterns on the EVI land and make this information available to both EVI and the other citizens of the Town of Ithaca interested in utilizing or otherwise familiarizing themselves with this renewable resource . The illustration of the tower-pole ' s location was prepared by Scott Whitham after an on site visit . It is deemed correct to an error of 50 ' . Mr . Whitham is a land use planner presently employed by Cornell University . ( See Exhibit 3 . ) ' Members of the Board are invited to view the placement of the stake marking the anticipated location of the tower- pole if they desire . Appointments can be made by contacting the EVI office at : EcoVillage at Ithaca , Anabel Taylor Hall , Cornell University , Ithaca , New York 14853 / ( 607 ) 255 - 82760 9 See NRG Systems , Inc . - EVI contract attached as Exhibit 8 . 1O See petition attached as Exhibit 9 . 3 For these reasons EcoVillage at Ithaca requests that the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals grant it a hardship waiver of the thirty foot structural height limitation imposed by TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE AND CERTAIN RELATED LOCAL LAWS , as of January 27 , 1993 , Article V , Section 18 , subsection 10 , and permit the raising of the 701 tower - pole on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 503089 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 . It is submitted that the requested " use variance " is in keeping with the goals and objectives of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan which provides under Chapter III , Goals . Objectives , and Recommended Actions , Section A Conservation , Open Space & Environmental Protection , subsection 7 , Increased Conservation of Water and Energy , that the Town should 11 ( m ) anage development in ways that minimize the use of water and energy . " ( Emphasis supplied . ) Dated . Respectfully submitted , Monty Berman Chairperson of the Board of Directors 4 PLOT PLAN Ims INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN : 1 : Dimensions of lot . 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structure(s) or 2 . Distance of structures from : or addition(s) . a . Road, 1 5 . Nanes of neighbors who bound lot . b . Both side lot lines, 6 . Setback of neighbors . C . . Rear of lot . 7 . Street name and number . 3 . North arrow . 8 . Show existing structures in contrasting lines . See attached Application and illustrated Survey Maps attached as Exhibit 3 . Signature of Owner/Appellant : - Date : �� /�� 3 Signature of Appel last /Agent ; Mont.y B.e an - C rperson , . co i a &Date I aca CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA 4 Under Section 402 of the Not - For- Profit Corporation Law of the State of New York IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT : The undersigned , all of whom are citizens of the United States , desiring to form a Not - for - Profit Corporation under the laws of the State of New York , do hereby certify . NAME : ( 1 ) The name of the proposed corporation is . ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA TYPE . ( 2 ) The corporation is a corporation as defined in Section 102 subparagraph ( a ) ( 5 ) of the Not - For - Profit Corporation Law of the State of New York . The corporation is a Type B Corporation . PURPOSES : ' ( 3 ) The purposes and objectives of the corporation are . A . To establish and promote for the general public . the preservation and conservation of open space ; the development of scientific methods to implement ecologically and socially sustainable high density community living ; the teaching of successful methods to the broader public . 1 E�rh� O�if � - .r ..y 7.".`.•�-♦"ad�•..ts"Ir�i,I�/: .• .-.-t.:' rro•a+.r;-u it---"`y �,' " -" �, . a . - j - r- -r II,t, ,i5 it } c r i 1., q `:^i r t "ti ( iIr} '{ yyy' u� x �. '7i S7 x'N7� .y 1, �`Ta t�To .. III To, L ') r 1. 3 t• .. sa" iS y,: r } lI y :} 1i �:..1`rt �a'S ' )i `t F e �:� )Y.r� t � +^'J' R.f�„fa•l/.a v To FE ! fr N n Rt a I FIT r�, IF e t J y ) i '•' ) n x K �, 2 �f yryq {ZfJy�t .Q i r ,r e ) :.4• •v^ t X, ! l I t , 11 .. r y " r..z y ' ,•�'- },. ¢ tfj 'W �-�' m, f , �o!f.S : , y t ' � 1•r,z q ^ •� }t w.T „` (Z r c * y'f• t jt'CL•�^To r� hiyr.I;* 4`? ' '> j � y � .� . . v, 2 tq1 "r r `, r L t -1 d, f jxll < , :r_.� ! y ){t.^}.�., �i }l1 fl.` �7;f _ ,F� 47•t l ., , -� 'i ;kI ! : R. . -l./ Ar 'J1 yr '.,}r �r { .?� �, rs�+.,,/ I ' w I# '�.•i • (;`J .�' I r a L ..7.� . ) jr$ J.� :Y l � �yRu ry Ll I / I'�ri r I go °'I" r Y �Iq K, ♦ } . -A T III I . J f� 4 � ✓f"+ c y M4 / ' E- . r 1` �, r r b( II �.Ti � � ' 'Tf ;T'-+'Alt y � 'y } r�I IS 17 I TV, FIT I) t I- f.,t $1 11 fL . .i : Ss , t 1 �t , Try [.. iM ` L� -`1(J'� FIT l' � _ t _ i ,. III 1 o A ' T,k 'T,it f j 4r 't1 ` •' ��� r r y y/� �'Gr.+n+•J`•``Y fT�f f�i' FF y`Ii r >r Mt r.I yt"or r IF 4,4 rt ..t: 1 4I Fr Si t / t ! � f x�..) r" t a 0. l:'�� s-^' f t r hti-. ,a t 1 CV ' r r o } (y. Fm� ,F I iC ` , : v t ! , Pl 5 IF,"' ��,..- ,fi^b�(I a. k�,•'i!.. rst IF 4, �(� j 1 r6' ). c go k�'f ' , Firm,. i o ' ) to!{}ry�p r tT V'� Floor Puy T u f'..J'i " 5 , > ! t ' tL / I J i L - r f tiA r 1, '+. ' ' tr 4 - • •.t �p t 1-0 i .°II ri� , l r` i rl .y+ 4 l,rt:. I . t ; L ♦ . rl L ( .. " , � . ]'1� SM t i` '71 )' r .`! , ^Y~ a a _ wj�F� > t yyt� tt 3 r W 'YI `♦ i"or F J +tta'o + .+"J'' » s t s t 'G `- x J ; s aq�x t a ' " !'11 + < '''f� ,� f t^ ra+) <'"-•.. 1 { , • ,.t , } J , is r 'H- f rl .rA 1. t i ! I ,^... ..•t4""•!,f I 1' r --1 A C . !n1 , I. � 1} ,• ,. '. , t _ .{j. IIF L r J; < : , t J r ro - Z Lrw ) t 1. �+l ' r. J F r .,4., ,;t4? „10 b U !c$� (` r In ""!Y'1' Fri 't S' i , � � 1A ` 1 a I , n • r ,ma y}k} d A.1 �• � j i ,,,, ' � , c tr .,,r''''•? a 'I t Q�f„y' '`• t..•� 'Id l x ti" �' l yt rv' �. i' ': a71 r * , ' ? I I F i`t n 11.FJI " Q(,�y,,� � yTt'°'✓"y-i.' %i ,r, C S {+.�t w5 ,? t 'r 'i r�11 dl r` ' I 444:vv,�/ r 'fityM•'11 r ., '? 1 1 7- ... ��e1•/'�+ r♦ \. t, ¢!ft •µ_l,} ? f, 12er '.`�iF• aay < , y F_ �1 ;f}�a,C R ab J e • , /�,C1 •3 rd, rs'f �' ' �'� '• L(��� .. G ^ t,L'i -" F ,I" ' tlp'"� y,� rF ' ':•3" et.: l,« J l a o J(( Jy; '�j! ([ '� : 'or,(. �/ ✓^ ' '� t . ." Bid ,, l is 1'• i " r^' i r � 1 � � y t r .k 'P"I °I �t «Ad I I or,1 J ��fi.� //--O+a r]� :, t '. ` n fi .A -S° -J c t `(?fir t ' i . F� r! .:f J y ' V f�� T ♦r . �Ill I, I�r rr�•"-"i > CJ`` r' J tyf` r . 4 •11 .t"♦. . t (yx' ui t ij�`s r✓ ^' .2 j •(y - '!' t:✓ ,-t ♦ t r , '"'7 Lz1 R / - '� . ' t' .. ,, n� , c"W F Ut . i�,}.�F{t�"��rr t. w {4 ' „ l - :� s . . : t ( l rr 't ',me -I ,. ^x .1 • ? n 5 < -J,Si rSj ri♦a. :•7' tiF'R 'Fx 7n I .. J , a (� $•. /I w ¢• ,� old "'4"' '�J � ' c ti _,� i ,. yr,�jj. JC ' , 43. .. , of F �1f l tiy)� , o t-1' is' � - " 4 � "` ..) 1 S ! -.> r Y E l `4;'{YS -y . .tI ;>1 :. 'MF `.� ,F.`r, !6 �� t ? I �`' 3 1 tr y f �uJ, > a `, •, J `" �: , eq . .r y n x.'3� •Jl w^11✓IT t ♦- Jt v `t x r a �'s3i., l�q,IF ' N ' ` ' � .^ C t Mf+Id, '1 'w h n . I^. •y SY 'Y.r f rY�r 'C ♦r '. '+y: a A A , M.•�^.'ta 1 t ,"'t Y i + r 1' {1 R 'ai' ! - Z h 1 , •S �' .n f .+ . 1J + c > i. P. J � Y It w v 1� (G,� J . y 4 r a y _i• > a , j.ITT S f . . . ' u + " f ;r� . �`�?, f9• �'1 r+ �5 'Ct� `a'- r•r fur,^} 'a of sS�I dk .i ' r , t i I� - i . 41 •} l Ul` \ � (( {i f ✓ �'T t 1 yrtr SwtiPt s ' ; III. 4 �♦To I. t f , 1 "a r J^l.(r tyy ~♦ `.'+' }' �.^'' 4*, ...,k.i� {�, I,, yi a --� ♦ rid ac II .:, _\ t i • i \' I ) _ Rr`y> '4 5 s ,t cA 4 s L r- ,[y+�yy , > . ° tr T l 4 a.To�� L ` tr Y b j' 3a } a,� '.. 4 , ,...yJ .+'} w It . , ` lj .+xa r \ omm o 1.J 4 yi£ •, r H t-)b< •w a a •' L l 4 '1 u'� is r ,F r ( r Tt} r„n r• 'C: r ✓ 4 ( ,� A >.'I I'ha 4 +, y . ,J ^ "1! i,1T�s.y fi• 'S7't[,. r -,•,'j fir,'. Y . 'S'e, , �' ^` ,I 't �rki ck, T, ♦. `'?`� , t i. rJ �LYS y ,Jrt't �'.,j'�(�yo�, ""�V "` .. i ^�7t`;t��' r.,l)t.^+ . . y� '` • r :.,,I II.T.'i _ tr r + c M t r hr a' te\ r� i�Ya' i \ `V v� .p v :. = it"'�`��{ ;2.4 I 7 r` ..''� 7( PIT r , ' room, ( i 4 tt� a nr�'1 ff�1,` � Ja rrl `< 1 �' . �, T � S '(mil\iQ' Jr ` n. t �v,.?.l.• y �{i {� is I IF. { 1 '• =� i , I , , � FH r q 4 '. 1 1 . V . mt..r F' .�� ax' r .,' i ,rJ. T F 4 1 I , .j. "6F.. + {//g,% 7 , r i ! rat ✓t _ v '� t , h4' [L2 t^ � r 1Y f. - :7td.� roof r) 1 1 •"' r }:^^ l L '.A'.r; !' .r ♦ emu! 1 y s - f G _ f.y t '�1 •,. 1 +T \ l t 'N. ••9h .7' 1 I, f For 4 \1 ' k l.� • 1 .ti ^ A i f i �l ,�4 , I Y �Te I t For} �,,- To . ...` rt ,t ,*t c'y! r 9 1 r,ti « r 1. .,' Z •itw .1 i1•^""'' C t 1r hi "-y fy wI.' •� Frpt „mr: �' +,, d , n �\ t ( t ,rt+�jyt �+ ,� 7"a ± . . ;} 1 � , \ 1 : _" '2 -� y 11 "'4 > , , 1 r _ '..* + >`.r i"L."Y711c r 1I) t f -x ? t 't .i.do.- f4 T L / J , ,1 , (F� ' ,t ..;'} *-� rr. I- m ' .I l i o Tt+ 4 :;J¢� •, , . " r r Zv y ' _ r t 1 I O C rt';�>Y, I. 1 J . did a#f` �• Uw J �r » . IT •7 , \71; y.3 I J'v - § $ { ' ,t t �i r `t' i �ar•,�,`g{ t }.`, a a-lad I .1 I'�_ n Tom ` ~ ' r� ' i 1 } a. . Y a ,^ A2 �� , 1. ` T 4 I .` " •!Ih F'' S1`x^? � t a # a rt Too ' r Jr�- H Wit- , �. , } l;, ' A ' v r f J 1 1ft fl} i. tt! w rod R-h � . , t + i ` l .gjey,T,11 I f 1 - . .rL a♦' 4 i••4"`1 t 1..^,'x'1 ,� .,J- e \ 1 r K . :+. rt rn• r^ 3•X, t p., £door I t4 r ' 1� c r`v t^ t. 5i z t ,.. +i`.1. + - _ I t t I . ' T,•,-w-� K r s, �. ` t r r It `t } - ' S . f I •"`trV;v r "rl , +( ,m .1 y t . . C� , ' J � - , " s T, ,,..]] ' «tt��, -r'K , T. j r r ( r a t ar' > '} , c y1„s c - ri_ 1r r l o :, ♦� ^ i /'v4- t i + '. IF \<:, , rr} v 9 r r t I%a� b • rt t .t-. n 1. • .. i :1 la. ♦ ''.w r ,good. ti7ti"1 4 �'1S /, 1 Fromm t 1 ?' .+ •t �T "} ' 'may r I 'T •, .�y .Tµ"f,. T .... , I L,IF.' t � TV a c/ . ,. `i r „ k r} i r :�.-;1 � "l f (( t 3� t'�' !>4I ' 'S u o i .k {$ s;.IF` . � 1 tat ,All y., t y '.-1 !\ - S f {�' O •� 6 r "s. r x T P'§ . �Y"idsp �' i wi` � j�..,:IF' >F °r 4 -- t Y- a�i I . S' i 1 `r 1 "" It, 31 y r !k° J { r��tr S 7y ,. 1 n Y r ` �1 , r,.` ' a�`7,F t i a ' "• �y w� L R '� `r ` t �1t4.1 Z J "ord ii [1 * \ 't Jj . ���itv I. Form od- w r ��n t r♦l} Y�'4 +u4 x .3•b 0' ",t- ^ 1`'-J,L /5 • ',: 1 V -., 1Y \ r �S-C v, 1.tt J'.1y •+ �.r.�. ` 'R•• ..r [f ry'� 1 It I or . , r V ✓ s Y"T .1 JC .� a t Y - +� Nd! y 1#� �A.21r,1t' }, �T^T�• J.. �}_ u :ik t mor mr,i yy•- 'tr4 tr. �,>i`, " L � :.� `�, 71` la r rt47 � .� .,. a Fi `�+ll r , s .rt�Sl r e fg' i4f ,, II :old t } � ' �l\ It V r l ". .J. }, L , ,t t 4j . y tr J t+ �.,1�) '�, r ay. ' , r �.,Z �/IF I. } 3 ry do - a ^' �' r J - f ^ F� - z• n 1 ` + ¢ ?4 ..f ti'S' 1 + rti1• o � ` t % t ?'` Y ,rg,- r ?rose '"M'>."f,t r 1r 9hr srw ae;. �J/5 IF 4 . i .. t t ' I , t V 1 . 4.y r . � '1i. F- _. r% .. it+.,myy�'.r.,.J a s I Id .rA`''RL ' 4 t ¢ C ; a �t i `a-, + .. .� ; f ,� I t i•�, �yrV 'm,< .} 7. ,t. .t„ ^3"y .,r, 3.y�}I ,I ;L - xy L� a : F n p_ 1 : ° t r , t A � i 4, { l�"s 4i ///} a °j t {+• t , '` t �a',,,�,,�• • .a773yyrq 5"'r iii 11 1'A I t _ 1 r , R ♦ > p '+ t ' ` ! ' II , q •r �.• « Yom++'' +.. . `L2f r 1��4.t.; r.. a 'a ' i • ' { 1. ^ t t 'r .+" 1W f1 . , tiL w.1 l t 4 'm%I y. . r'I c t . e • G , ` Q t '•, - a.1 r, ,V 4.p ^l. �:fir/J�`r�`1�{ •, � "r,. 1.,� A -k 4 , r.1 �y^. IY r I Tlyo c .. III 0.4 J` I t4 t, ]. p � '[ ," ,? °: 'rb 4. r• r • y'4.+4rJ�S� °CE -t *'d>-4,� iF1" �j, .t V.♦ + u i '} r• 1r r q,, . yi , * x �' a t `y ) of ^} ; J t t ':� � �' � Y'''.�� ly l,4,t'V5 ! I . ` V !. r } K r c. y#':c J . f 1 It > J . 7 ry 1 Ik ' 1Z p1 , SR'�', :r '•S.y.P ' ?.. L y mow: -. n ^ • .+''j� rt t "'V} '� 1 k r ♦ r a • -�{i�' •1 +�.7_i•`.+_{S xt'9Yt � .4 , •1r . � '♦, •, a bHf C r N u f �1. . r,.-', WW rt .` 5 1 K 4V > . . r '" �>4 ' A' s .L T, I •� . . -,1 X tr r i b F ♦ • V .. , s , N , y : r 5 '•♦ . t r mt I f Y d - a/G �a �I y . t g S .mr To -� 4 � i a ,- t1 ' Q rL r i ` , iy j .: Tu Ji . :. ti , ♦ r+}a�I. 11 . Yg, r 1F `s ' aki .rod A y { r ft 4 f Hr It `t -.'?Y 1J' • ^N > t '�. 2"ra. a L ir���•r, IF Te t ,..2 t � - t.,f� t ;f , % L rir• ^ , Flo ` r 4; .in'1 „ ry ,t7•;--+.. k ` a :jrK T�'Flood 1.1 •.♦"``rIi a , e . t -:' .) t,\ 2 ✓ y T J Vie: 't q, t, a J i t� :ls . . S" .. { od, " +�. -. {f F.4 y,y r '11 • � x +T ., �q . . `ra , ' F . - 1 5 ' ,a 1 ,+ 5" .y ♦ TtT1o,S". . IFI r.N ;It. f 'Yc Ir To woor ol I ri u ,.+ .Z [ � , • ,, .7. 1' t lr , ' t'S'*its t 4 } y 1 •' Cn " ; - d rtiF J +� .{�i ,"L.v y Q�••r '. ?'..IT .i ♦ -- . 'a"$e+�)`.CS..~. y 5i 'Z.2 i.. 0 .� . "�' r'}C�ty1 •�.+F` q' *J �� ♦ \ {' •h (. i 1. ,, , 'a . , 'r ,n lea,( t�♦ �ty>,S��..skia�_ ' q.r� -1 ' r. t ✓ 1 Iry ♦ 'at��"u} f�,` i, ^n.Tt ' , V�n. .rod( , ,J V Y r`' 'rr t f aY�'�"`Y .. ^5.,tky'S`S +J f•i* ;�'W t `• r . ,!' Li '4 .. we "} •a M t .,IF NA- Z •K I t ! J ,. 4"`f'' dh y^" . Oy..y Oa yry�t '�9' r• a+e1 .,vSF£i" \ . ':lb i• ''bl L,, 6iJ' . . >r. +_• �c +t1'4. T rod c t i s S4g"o - a y/f G,s •f''41.,1�r sA a.a ^re y... 1.°t. iJe y;` R r ,, t. n I, ,[ � ,atrs . IN w- w JS` . { , x� ) �1 f $ r �iy �T 9 L444 - - dot ♦ < - olu �A• r l For I } L.X Ar•♦ .r -r T f` t� Y^ wn.. , �, '{ r� J` C �1I`at a.•µ y+•, .! V" 11 I. .t s _t-a•h. A II - •. usM, Y :. \ 1yT+ � v ♦a�1. AT J. yI11 4- ^ y.g'` tfJ''y,iL'"ryyi 1 h1 : ttB 51 7. / l ~ r { 5;�� � Mr�• -C." j ;y ' . - 4 •� d Q i ::III: 4 .,~ l rd .+.:•. '♦ a t(s�li t ,,rE' � . a -h .tea. w p t +a C` `5? ' p�>'� t� 5 {:°• ry` �} a i�r:t. �v ;t« 4^'�i N ,o - old Form \ r .(. E ' E a. 1J t • .. COI Idol,' ; )h ,,or IF.�L 1 ;_.•�' rC•'4n'ri ' w `�..• a' r^. �,tr�'r�+ v ° 1 r .i lfi t r'+.1. .'hom y � r. }'9 p r " i , f IN r �i Z' './+v .. !w is ,.�•t�y,, 2 v5'r'A �Zt�ry' �t.7°< ` � w .�Y 1 't i�'1� r C} �4 .•.r.1r I I{ ^q4, r.1 .I 11 a I � 3 . . ", �,+, L•� i'[ rd TtY �',,, y `,,,12"L•e4s4 ,Fr. tj ` '� ,>, h" a't`,y�•'71ny-i�' ry-Fp4i 5� K+t L ; j... e ,'t + y'ii`7' ! r` 'JIP I F%_ k� - t l �R ;, ;�r � y} ��� tv`��f• �' `�b''I'SI, -�,' .h " ' '�tia �']rl+'`�hlV�" ' �J1•+n{,� M1^•A, ` a*L�,., .... t�"xLt {�"'_ ,ri\ i •♦ 't` . "4 Wr6m ry ^"ATY ~Gr ar(': _ h. I r, , f#' I a. y L om W e4 a j4 r `7. �• .. '(1�:' 5�, 'er P1PP�, vw(w _ .+. ,yo��%�2. •• t� . . . f - r } . - 4 �'^ „ a � .p )'D�r L•.�. . ..A} {�t.�i tr' . .iS t'�P , '� + ,( !J 1 J+ ,1 t' r..�..+:.Y °1'`` � -', '.. ' A ntt�xYY •�� y HG�.>•.+n�' ,5 ,- "*'`�tt, Xgt�J � �1 rftt • , i t. Vii` 'wi' y �. t.. {14,i '- 1 , t ac •. 'n "lN /\_ '�•, \.,� +i ,1 t�, `.f �E'2+V t Swt ' t k ."♦� yy�] ��� 5 ., ?,� �t> $}�.yt �•{ {tLiyr_�ml 1 . .�yr . . a • -1,1,4' y rlr `f ril.•�i, �T•` "V 'J ry"r'1-VN`r - y w {'11 \ S. .... .�i iA. 'F 1f + h �vr') ., ty1 ^ � r1S r* (y-5 Y .od, J; + ' ti Z.c:.. ,�) r C-t to 4*'i < art ` +1}k� i r ca �'p:l1..",4'• is'�f �'7 F}�t, t+� "`�fw" 'i ` � ' 4 .4S1 ) . ., L �yS.• 1, �,x� , .ri? ^ � c .�,} `!�J-tL ', ' . � p+ .:21 `xb r 11.. T. ?�, Y �4 dom III�� v J old ap,^ { '` r •v,� d !_•TTyyy �b5{ n `� �i t4c+ '"I 6� tar Flo 1k4j ca C-� 1<.,fi,ir r ••'1.. } .� >e ¢ir. �'K "'ii°yr `R'Yt + �` 5''>� ' `;6 'L4 4 S`,�tiocoV �n. �• 6 sff'��� 'i °"it >i • . "„� `I ,� J t C• �. - , r +r1 ✓ �. 4 a r �-�-I I.. c, r ,\. t .. r �t 'A irk 1 A !i r -•c `,`-�^"`�,a�y�iat .T '�-* > J ' J t .{4, r a' L h ��"'tl, tY .9% c 7 z �wl` '` �. t, i ♦.tisS' �a " Si v•r , Ti fitigt i 4 n,ek' dJ•' 'f`I 'j� { } r� of - t 1„mok p.t S �.2, a l_ a , 1kt to t r. rV. tt +c -..'- ,�, ' �. 7 ' 7. 3� I�J''� lib 1 1.� jY)•'.! t � ' , y r aTo. . \\- I I . MECKLE BU - ROAD N.Y- S ROUTE Is — _ - 69e•o:6e`c — trreds.-t � ssras'a'c - TION R/F • 8 $ .oa � .w PROPOSED LOCA R�P •°"'�•' 'K" �.` • ° .. "t «...« O • ~ I r �-M 9r Ir 23- M NEW POLE TOWER �•w ° ;'ea' FOR N - 04"), _ M,F . .blepl R. I Jdiwwenli� - C e A*r "i//, Iea. � •• tfelen IS«4row /L. JJ7, R!!/ e °^•vim bwd ronGVd b C- �64, Ph, x7601 1 7aaamer [ f jaws r nvmm 3 0; 8 „ J6I,R 1050/ f =1 c o x, - 0,661 ACRE ... _ it 0 _ yl,Pole ;p .b..,l [ f J.rt. r. « Irrytl 9 971 {r 2a- 2- I 14.000 Acres k 30.360 Arne [e 404.00' c + l I 9tT x96. 06' 30 ` [ + v. 1 Z 0 44.350 fir: ACRES � ;• W a — N se° oe sa"r 16x. .77' _ N/f N Tiveer/f9e• / (. 59e,P ell ' 1 71w 6bf«I/• « 'reK'R N Ilae°I 9nd rrNMr 0etwy` n 1.9 1.°. 1.4 I 1 ft•G ,1� �� e0f.99• f01111D H►ef• vo1M0 tN,11' r 110 —MSr{7.9D'ti6 wrN or 032 . f66• tt• eOYA + 697.4 a 60. 22' 40'E was— �.od I t n•.ar 740' I � °2210`9' le �- wag 1 . s« F 6 « _D -N°M.. A. f fli/antra lwlsm ��• IN.N' N.1! I /L 605, P564 / I N 49.70204`9' 4• { + 22�.0� l 119 .79 47.4 367°IT 25 NS OZ 9' « Is 117.]] 9 roa.o C ; g N9e°01! 1f �{TWW j « 16000 O I 106.21 iti i I 1 a w x o = � r.4 ar ' $ ar = Q x ° a 112. 0Y �p n7A'>' r t n - Omer F f fliroae/• J aval% . « x N x w _• -jlT;215 W P1.{v e, /[. els, PmlJ1 w � 1 I 2°zrb or " _ 9 Is ° I / N Fran* f Res. K Fla[ro • • - 131.787 � ACRES 1 SCALE : 1" = 400' 1e rrj`- It.e.4 -1•te.l 9t7 66rs7. 64-6 • 763.11' J,t•'•f/ • n •1•• 121 .69' OCT — 66. 22' {O` 9' 1.•xa [r[•/ 61.76' roatlo n9.a' nr.7i Flu - Ip1` • •] fit �N69. OI' 33` • . ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE W. 90° 1530'-0" I / : 4v. Pule M.191f «. oet.rr / I r 1 r O M/F /,• 0 w/ C. lIO, R /JI t9 / LOCATION OF NEW POLE TOWER .a:e SITED BY S. WHITHAM, LAND USE PLANNER � « I 9.690 ACRES -1 °o ' . 8 89N1, nteined by • Eddy Hill , Inc. 8 - :-s- tlY99 • ° Mt tlr wrwl ttl , 0.. tN,t tt tl r01•I10 Io11.t7' O« t•e ��� _ 20T 2.73'x._ — �_ Trw w. � _ •tN �_ aw N4 _ _. � t1L ._ _— 1 e Tw. ..- 2Tia• r .—' - _ - , ' . DIVISION OF LANDS BEING CONVEYED TO Q ( Lnj�A EcoVillage at Ithaca `L .nprar« reaPerefm, /wr -.,.e. M 1 /O, !_ 'J ':.t ' e«E 23, I»? L«e W M tlf N xW fql t«r r•.«rA « 6Ne �iji°'" •... `�" LOCATED AT °t.laco MECKLENEURO ROAD 6 WEST HAVEN ROAD Mon. loon n E26 , 1966 TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY u [o tt • ..a •1 . �� � � •� � L720. P 70 2e - 1 - 24.2 NEW YORK b -, ,[ , : ,, [ DENNIS J . WIELANO, L . S . . mtac ..o. t:•.r•°• Guidelines for Development* EcoVillage at Ithaca Contents . Residential Neighborhood Guidelines . . . . .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. ... . . 1 Village Center Complex Guidelines . .. . . .. . . . .... .. . . .. .. . .. .: .. . . ... .. .. . . ... .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .... ... 2 AgriculturalGuidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Transportation and Circulation Guidelines ... .. .. . . . .. . . ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. . . . .. .. ... .. 4 Natural Resources and Recreation Guidelines . . .. .. ... .. ... . . .. ... . . ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. 5 Water and Wastewater Guidelines, . some me 00 * 408 mean smomm some * 86040mom sea base * * memo 00 5 SolidWaste Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 EnergyGuidelines . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. ... . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. . . . . . 6 Building Materials Guidelines . . . .. . . . . .. ... .. .. .. .. . . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. . . . . . 7 SocialGuidelines. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Residential Neighborhood Guidelines Goals • To foster the formation of a sense of community, both within neighborhoods and within the Village as a whole, while maintaining residents' privacy. • To support sustainable relationships among residents. • To establish a sustainable relationship between human habitation on the land and the living matrix of plant and animal fife. • To encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation , and to restrict vehicle access into residential areas. • To maximize open space. Objectives • Five neighborhoods will be built in the residential area, with construction phased over a period of ten to fifteen years. • One additional neighborhood may be included in the Village Center Complex. • Total site residential population will be about 500 people. • Housing will be clustered, with a maximum area of two and a half to three and a half acres per neighborhood , including Common House and buffer areas. • Neighborhoods will fit into a design framework specified by the Comprehensive Plan . *NOTE: The substance of this document was developed over the course of nine months and involved the input of over a hundred people. EcoVillage at Ithaca held four Land Use Planning Forums from September '92 to March '93 in which future residents, architects, landscape architects, students, professors, planners, ecologists and energy experts met in task groups , This document is a compilation of what emerged from the Planning Forums. These are meant to be taken as guidelines rather than rigid requirements. The EcoVillage Board of Directors approved this document on October 7, 19930 1 • Neighborhoods will surround an open , vehicle-free village green . • The neighborhoods will be tied together by a continuous pedestrian loop that passes through the central part of each neighborhood. • Each neighborhood will accommodate 25 to 35 households , plus a Common House. • The Common House will include facilities for community dining , laundry, and other neighborhood-wide activities . • Household dwelling units will be self-contained, but access to Common House facilities will tend to reduce the individual unit's size and cost. • Neighborhoods will have a pedestrian emphasis, and motor vehicles will be excluded from the neighborhood proper; limited access will be provided for emergency and service vehicles. • Limited residential parking will be provided on the periphery of the neighborhoods. • Neighborhoods will be designed to allow for the possibility of home occupations and cottage industries. Design Process • Within the constraints and spirit of the Comprehensive Plan , future residents have the freedom to plan their neighborhood's housing, exterior spaces, and amenities according to their own desires and needs. • Future residents will choose the professional assistance they wish to engage on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. Co -Housing Model • Danish Style Co-Housing provides a proven residential community model consistent with EcoVillage's goals, and will be the basis for the first neighborhood(s) . • Other housing models may be considered , if they provide at least as much basis for community as co-housing. Special Needs • Design will support the needs of children , the elderly, and the differently abled. • To the extent possible make buildings and other facilities wheelchair accessible. Village Center Complex Guidelines Village Commons Commercial Center Goals • To reduce vehicle travel by establishing an on -site commercial center. • To create a gateway to the village (together with the water elements) which will create a memorable impression for all visitors. To Develop on -site employment opportunities for village residents • To create a dynamic, village atmosphere through activity, people and movement. 2 Objectives • A small lake will provide recreation and beauty, and will include pathways to connect the Village Center with the Education and Research Center. • Open space incorporating a fountain , sculpture, water, playground, bandstand , amphitheater, plantings, gardens. • Commercial buildings including environmentally oriented shops and cottage industries, offices, bed and breakfast inn , restaurant, post office. • Second-story residential units may be included. Visitor ' s Center Goals • To provide an introduction to EcoVillage for casual visitors. • To provide a low-key social space for residents and employees. • To create a hospitable, aesthetic, and calming mood. Objectives • Includes informational materials, EV model , videos. • Probably includes a cafe. EcoVillage Education and Research Center Goals • To serve as a focal point for teaching about sustainability in all its aspects. • To provide a source of inspiration for people who would like to replicate the model of EcoVillage. • To support educational programs, including continuing work with Comell classes, international conferences, week-long workshops, summer apprenticeships, Elder Hostel programs, an alternative elementary school, etc. • To support research activities such as permaculture applications, aquaculture, bioshelter design , building materials, etc. • Facilities will be built in phases as resources become available. Objectives • Educational activities will include initial programs which do not require construction , such as a community garden project with local school children or apprenticeships in organic agriculture. • A demonstration Eco-House will double as an EVI Design Studio and meeting place. • The EVER Center will include a Reception area, EV office space, and large dining hall serving organic produce on site. • Classrooms and auditorium space will be added later. • The EVER Center may include some dormitory rooms. • Laboratory space will be built in increments as resources are available. 3 Agricultural Guidelines Goals • To produce a substantial part of the food for EcoVillage on-site, including a diverse range of fruits, nuts, and vegetables with the possibility of some eggs and dairy products (such as goat milk) • To develop, demonstrate, and teach sustainable technologies . and methods, including organic farming, minimal use of fossil fuels,and building long term fertility. • To foster economic vitality and affordability 'by providing livelihood for people and by providing affordable food. • To foster native natural systems and species. • To encourage community involvement by being a focal point of community activities and by raising people's awareness of their ties to the land. Objectives • The agricultural systems will be based on permaculture. • The use of animals will be limited by the carrying capacity of the land in order to form a sustainable permaculture system . • Fish will be farmed in aquaculture ponds designed for that purpose. • West Haven Community Farm will include educational programs, a community farming project, community supported agriculture, a farm stand, an apprentice program , and seasonal celebrations. • A cooperative food cannery will include a commercial kitchen and winter storage • An EcoVillage Community Garden will be established. • The West Haven Institute: Center for Earthkeeping Research will include cooperative research with Comell as well as possible internships. Transportation and Circulation Guidelines Goals • To encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation . • To reduce the impact of motor vehicles. Objectives • The site road infrastructure will be kept to a minimum , consistent with safety and minimum convenience requirements. • A network of pedestrian and bicycle paths will be designed and built to provide a primary circulation system . • A pedestrian loop will circle through and tie together the neighborhoods. • The pedestrian loop will provide primary emergency vehicle access to the residential neighborhoods. • Reduce vehicle impact through mass transit, a computerized ride-sharing system , vehicle sharing, bicycle support, an initiative for high-efficiency, renewably fueled vehicles, and a general policy that encourages on-site work, shopping, and recreation. • Neighborhood vehicle access will be restricted to the periphery of the residential neighborhood area. 4 • Neighborhood peripheral roads will be low-speed, low-cost roadways, designed to handle trucks delivering food to the common houses, but not heavier emergency vehicles. • Other alternatives to vehicles, such as a small electric rail system , will be explored . Natural Resources and Recreation Guidelines Goals • To preserve, restore, and create natural areas to the greatest extent practical, including wetlands and woods. • To foster non-human life and vitality and diversity. • To provide a rich interface for pedestrian interaction with the natural areas through an extensive trail system . • To set aside wildlife habitat preserves. • To regenerate the forest through extensive plantings in certain areas. • To provide playing fields and playgrounds near residential areas. • To create an ongoing Earthkeeping process of cultivation and monitoring. • To design the site to allow West Hill community recreational access to EcoVillage land, while ensuring some level of privacy for residents. • To create a Natural Resources Archive to gather information about natural areas as they are named and developed historically. Water and Wastewater Guidelines Goals • To match a diversity of supplies with appropriate uses. • To create systems in which as much water as possible will be recycled on- site. • To minimize water use through strict conservation practices, allowing water to be supplied in sustainable quantities. • To design water systems for this relatively wet climate. Objectives • Municipal water will be the primary source of water for most dwellings. As groundwater resources are developed, this can begin to be replaced • Water systems should be designed with the flexibility to adapt to future innovative technologies. • Rainwater collection to be used (as quantities permit) fortoilet-flushing, laundry, showers, and/or gardens. • Greywater systems should be used unless costs and permit requirements outweigh the benefits. Greywater plumbing will be separated at construction , to allow for hook up at a later date. • Sewage (blackwater and unusable greywater) will initially go to the municipal sewer. As financial resources are found and the regulatory hurdles passed , a biological wastewater facility will be built on site. This treatment system will produce methane and remove excess nutrients from the water. The effluent from this system (if approved by authorities) 5 will be used to recharge the groundwater, for aquaculture, and for watering fields; thus , the water and nutrient loop will be closed. • Agricultural water will be supplied by rainwater and surface water, with the possibility of eventually tapping groundwater. Surface water will be collected and treated through developing a series of marshes and ponds to cleanse the water and to provide a lovely setting for wildlife and recreation . Solid Waste Guidelines Goals • To reduce the amount of solid waste generated on-site. • To promote re-use, recycling and composting. Objectives • Support village-wide bulk-buying programs. • Institute on-site trash tag system . • Provide convenient facilities for source separation and composting. • Provide for re- use of unwanted goods and materials. • Explore feasibility of on-site material processing and recovery facility, and develop markets for recovered materials. Energy Guidelines Goals • To demonstrate a comprehensive approach to more sustainable energy use. • To reduce energy use through efficient transportation systems. • To use strict conservation practices to minimize energy use. • To use the most environmentally benign sources, particularly renewables including solar, wind and biomass. • To provide for a smooth transition to renewable energy sources. • To maintain an acceptable level of comfort and convenience. Objectives • Provide education and technical support on conservation and renewables to residents and the community at large, including demonstration of energy- efficient , passive solar housing and renewable energy systems. • Pursue village-wide energy projects; possible options include methane recovery from sewage, wind generation , a cogeneration plant to provide heat and electricity, and forming our own on-site energy utility. • Seek funding for energy features, including grants, private investment, and utility incentives. • Establish a series of residential energy standards. Residential standards are based on commercially available state-of-the-art technology. We recognize that energy features increase the initial cost of a housing unit, and that this is inevitable given EcoVillage's mission . However, these 6 standards are not intended to be financially prohibitive, and if they can be so shown they will be re-negotiated. Summary of proposed energy standards: 1 . Thermal performance standard: residential heating load shall be less than 1 btu/square foot/degree day. This is much better than State requirements, but not exceptional fora well-constructed, superinsulated house. 2. Electrical conservation standard: design shall include daylighting, task lighting, high efficiency lighting; appliances shall be commercially available state-of4he-art . 3. Renewable energy standard: design shall be sun-oriented; primary water heating source is solar. 4. Renewable transition standard: space and water heating systems shall allow multiple renewable inputs; utility systems shall be readily accessible for modification ; suitable south-facing roof surface shall be provided for future solar collectors. Building Materials Guidelines Goals • To select materials which are environmentally sound while not prohibitive in cost. Objectives Building materials selection criteria include (not necessarily in this order) : • Health effects, including toxic adhesives and finishes • Embedded energy, including transportation to site • Other environmental impacts of manufacture or demolition • Energy properties: storage or insulating, depending on use Social Guidelines Cultural /Ethnic Diversity Goals • To create a living and working community that reflects the diversity of the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County. • To include groups seeking to maintain or create a distinct cultural identity. Objectives • Identify groups that would contribute to diversity, and set goals for participation • Conduct outreach and community involvement programs (Community Farming Project, Yoff return visit, Tibetan Resettlement Project) . • Build understanding and connection through workshops on multicultural issues and racism . • Lower barriers to residency through lower-commitment housing (rental or rent-to-own) and subsidized low-cost housing 7 Cornell University '"'" "° Sibley School of Peter L. Auer, Ph.D. Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering .8 Upson and Grumman Halls Professor Ithaca, New York 14853-7501 (607) 255 -4366 Zoning Board Town of Ithaca Ithaca , NY 14850 November 9 , 1993 Re : EcoVillage at Ithaca Dear Sir or Madam : Please be informed that I have agreed to serve as an advisor to EcoVillage at Ithaca while my student Jeremy Snyder coordinates a variety of energy projects for EVI . Among his projects will be the erection of a 70 foot tall tower to support a wind anemometer that will be used to monitor wind speeds on EVI land . Sincerely , P .L. Auer NRG LOGGER #9200 MANUAL NRG Systems , Inc. P . O. Box 509 110 Commerce Street Hinesburg , VT 05461 U . S .A. Tel : 802482-2255 FAX: 802482-2272 TELEX: 650 313 4621 MCIUW pig 16d# i INSTRUCTION MANUAL. NRG LOGGER #9200 A SERIAL REAL-TIME DIRECTION / VELOCITY DATA LOGGER FOR 2 LEVEL WIND MEASUREMENT MAY 1990 NRG SYSTEMS INC . 110 Commerce Street Hinesburg , Vermont 05461 USA ( 802 ) 482 - 2255 TELEX : 650 313 4621 MCI UW FAX : ( 802 ) 482 - 2272 ,SITl�l1G ?)/ AGRAM p /�lit/EMOME?L�R a' 40 S�,t/SCR MASTS CLAtipS - -- WWD . 3)I R6CT 0A1 SE.USOR X200 P _ SEA)S'OR CABGES - GUY CA?GFS a SrCE"C 4FAIC CSU96 (orwTioNAL) TM AIRG t oGC 9200 oo� 000 -Gf�bUAllb WIRE 3A.SE f'l.�9T�' e GUY oP9NCHChQ G'RO1AoZD1A) r P0D � 3 Figure 2 SENSOR MOUNTING INSTRUCTIONS ( Wind Direction Sensor and Anemometer ) Step 1 i Align holes in lower housing of sensor with hole in stub mast and insert cotter pin . Bend cotter pin ears back against the housing one ear one way and one the other . o Screw the set screw firmly down onto the stub mast . 1 Step 2 Using only the tape recommend- ed , * tape the sensor to the stub mast firmly . Tape over the cotter pin and a short distance down the mast . Put at least 3 full , tight wraps over the junction between the lower housing and the mast . Step 3 Tape sensor leads to stub mast . Use no fewer than 4 tight wraps of the high quali - ty tape recommended . /ATV <Z6A4CR Step 4 Seal the terminals and exposed portions of insulated leads with a non - corrosive RTV silicone sealer . O * Tape : Scotch Super 88 ( 3M Electrical tape ) TALLTOWER MANUAL 701 , 395 " DIAMETER NRG SYSTEMS , INC . P . O . BOX 509 110 COMMERCE ST . HINESBURG , VT 05461 USA TEL : 802 - 482 - 2255 FAX : 802 - 482 - 2272 TELEX : 650 313 4621 MCIUW TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Page # Anchors and Base Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Tower Assembly . . . . . . . . 5 Tower Tilt-Up 16 Tower Lowering . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Slack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Tower Lift Crew 17 Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Anchor Guidelines 19 Soil Classification Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Shipping Parts List 26 Complete Parts List 27 Figures page # TallTower Layout 2 TallTower Baseplate Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TallTower Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Ginpole Anchor Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 TallTower Ginpole , Safety Wire Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Tower Tilt-Up Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 & 12 Screw In Anchors 20 Arrow Head Anchors 21 •11. 60&# 0 A 700 90 , TOWE2 GAYoyT PQK iawER UpM ILL CVM&Y TYNaOfrR Guy D i AGONAC I AA/C Kok NG107W- /ZADIus a� srAw,cE I .3) t AGo&4vA C 0 23 t :32 94 90 " 46 � � � GS � gAst •�• PLRrC SIDE - Gay 4octlOrz jgAJGHOrz 24 Cry i2ADi u5 CUTA/G H I ANCHOR I I I AAICHOIC 1110 I • o RATE -- -- - --- '(22CQD Z itJoTE USF OVISIIG H04,0 5 1AJ U44SS MATES - A/Hc'N Ahw' `l &LIN(r o�w;ig Ft. jT6 TOP ill,CgW 4WI7i4 ovr Tr aslZ 4444D t�ivT�t7l� � NOwti� UNs1.SGD_ . HOW - -- o : /3 x 5 - - --- - - -- - - - - - - � � v a�vE r-b.z THE 'T�u✓EK 7oGuE K � , - i: LT r -� 70 ' (zoo,) �c�-,a�usa Assewacy t j 4 0 60& LN6L 20 - ce�ec 3yA. 6vy w�a cooP.a +qao li�+uoa •v� � s�ewro wrr« C (v�Af gorl CNPJ . � — /O SLC7)Ow/S Ou/ MAJS u ao..T ftOrMW OP w,ru GON -.3S Ca,P 'rb CAMP 00 Ake Aver Saan*.i or Guyrwsl . 8093S FMW ZOK046 Awr. 7UuAaas d"Aocm o$vcAv4 G Nn/ cMOR �v � 0 HMi M/I w/tr iYy M�/' 77 MK.o1. - fit* F�WLL QTIP P� � 3 . 5 " Diameter 70 ' TallTower Parts List Complete i ITEM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION Base Tube 1 3 . 5 " diameter X 10 fte long , flared one end , 1 / 2 " diameter thru hole for bolt , galvanized steel . Tube : 6 3 . 511 diameter X 10 ft . long , flared one end , galvanized steel . Base Plate 1 1 / 811 thick galvanized steel 4 piece . Guy Rings 3 3 . 5 " inside diameter . Wire : 1 / 8 " diameter 7 X 7 galvanized steel . Lifter / Guy Wire Sets : 4 guy wires swaged to one guy ring . 1 20 ' Guy Level Height 1 40 ' Guy Level Height ! 1 60 ' Guy Level Height Anchor 5 6 " diameter X 48 " long helical type . Hardware : Bolts : Base Plate E 6 3 / 8 " - 16 X 1 " and nuts i Bolt : Tower Base Tube 1 1 / 2 " - 13 X 5 " and nut ' a Wire Rope Clips 24 1 / 8 " diameter wire rope clip ( 5 / 1611 nut ) Ginpole ( 251 ) : 2 10 ' long , 3 . 5 " diameter galvanized tube 1 5 ' long , 3 . 5 " diameter galvanized tube with top drilled for ginpole rocker bracket 2 rocker bracket halves 2 851 yellow polypropylene rope ( ginpole guys ) 2 1 / 2 " - 13 X 5 bolts with nuts ( base and rocker ) 2 shackles 2 snap links 1 ginpole safety wire ( 251 ) E { ! 27 M • 'O 3 . 5 " Diameter 70 ' TallTower Parts List Shipping Box Qty Labeled Size Description 1 B 10 " triangle 1 - 101 , 3 . 5 " diameter galvan - X 124 " long ized steel base tube . 3 . 1 ft ( Drilled to accept base bolt ) . 95 pounds 2 - 101 , 3 . 5 " diameter galvan- ized steel tube . 2 2T 10 " traingle 2 - 10 ' , 3 . 5 " diameter galvan- X 124 " long . ized steel tube . 3 . 1 ft3 66 pounds 1 Guysets ll " X13 1IX14 " 4 - piece base plate assembly . 1 . 2 ft3 1 - box of tower hardware . . 58 pounds 3 - spools of cable guy sets . 1 5 - 6 " 6 1OX1311 54 " 5 - 6 " diameter screw in anchors . Screw in 2 . 5 ft 39 pounds If Ginpole Ordered : i 1 GP 10 " triangle Ginpole Kit - 251 , 3 . 5 " steel tubes X 124 " long with hardware . 3 . 1 ft3 83 pounds 26 6M INVOICE NUMBER: 005991L INVOICE DATE: 10 / 08 / 93 P .O. Box 509, 110 Commerce Street Hinesburg , VT 05461 USA PAGE: 2 (802) 482-2255 • FAX (802) 482-2272 SHIP TOLD ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA TO: ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA ANABEL TAYLOR HALL ANABEL TAYLOR HALL CORNELL UNIVERSITY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA , NY ITHACA , NY 14853 14853 COST. I .D. : ECOV I L SHIP VIA: UPS & APA TRUCK P.O. NUMBER: VERBAL SHIP DATE: 10 / 08 / 93 P.O. DATE: 10 / 06 / 93 > DUE DATE: 10 / 08 / 93 OUR ORDER NO. : 100604 TERMS: * * PREPAID * * SALESPERSON : J MA ITEM I . D. / DESCRIPTION ORDERED SHIPPED .UNIT" PRICE. NET TAX 11 t FREIGHT TO SHIP TOWER ( APA TRUCK ) 75 . 00 E * * * Equipment loaned by NRG Sys ems , Inc . foi period of one ( 1 ) year at no charge , Equipment to a returned in working condition , free of dama a other than normal wear and tear by January 1 , 1995 al he expense of Ecovillage at Ithaca . If equipment is 1 Jpurc se; 2 ) damaged beyond repair ; or 3 ) not returned by Nr 1 , 1994 , Ecovill ge at Ithaca will be responsible for paying the value of the a uipment ( $ 1202 . 50 ) to NRG Systems , Inc . by January 1 , 1995 . If equipment requires repair , due to misuse or rough iandling , to ! estore it to works g condition , Ecovillage at Ithaca will bear th3 cost of required parts + labor ( $ 40 . 00 per hr ) . NRG Systems agrees to process 12 months of w nd data for Ecovil age at Ithaca at no charge . Si ned , f fo Ecovillage at Ithaca f r NAG gystems , Ihj . Joan Bokaer , Director Ju is M . Austin SUBTOTAL 7 5 . O O TERMS: Customers with approved credit 2%/10, net 30, from date of invoice. TAX 0000 1 . 5% per mo. over 30 days from invoice date. PAYMENTS 0000 TOTAL T5 . 00 Each � b�� 8 lJ 27 i - - -- __ sraic - �• Mr r• r11. •. A 110 425 10. 9. 1 ^• 11.2 ? 121 13 14 15- 115.2 16 1718 \ 173 AC I 6.)JI 3K 1AC. 123:1 a • . S6 ..• .. ., . . .y 2 74 t - - 24 26. 6 i ' 26 . 3 ��` I ! - : " s 7�_ CAL 6.99 K 7.6 AC. • 7.26 K. C. 1 10. 53 AC 0 12! 1 621 23. 2 LL) 0 ; 15.94 K CAL I Z 2 2 414 20.2 10 s 107.31 K CAL • _ 1 i O 14 6 302 f- IN 10. 32 e6. 56 AC CAL LL 40.19 AC CAI. 1 r.• \ �. ' I .. 6. 4 2 6 00 A J 2 ;w 7a O Z Y � \ 26I I • ` � 3 F 1 I _. ° - 621 us 7e Ac. cAL 264 i 3,3 I u4 i 6 I ~ u sops ).411 5 K CAL CA. CAL W � 33 At CAL. r 2.7 AC 6 I 6 2 . . r. •r' r � � I rn.r 26.1 O286 = SEE MAP sl I � N ' 26.53 �, ,.. , i . • ••, 10.413 43 .14 AC. 22 .5 AC CAL t .`. 26. 52 5 23 .7 , . "' • 2.12 AC. $ " 9.69 K nr 1 30 ' AC. CAL •' •; � 26. 51 23 .4 t 26 .7 i 19 AC CAL 1 25 nr `��• • 21K K as 9.43 II !! A 45 AC CAL ' f^ ur r. r� 289 . 2 9 32 .4 A 60 LM K 32.3 1 4 4 mm I 1 31p. 4 AC. CAL AC 32.2 \ .. . 29 y. YL ) AC CAL 12 AC. 1 2 AC AC (� - RECEU VE a DEC �� Toinpkiris County ®� B���CA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TC ®IB C/ZONING 121 East Court Street Ithaca, .New York' 14850 James W. Hanson, Jr. Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning FAX (607) 274-5578 December 2, 1993 Mr. Andy Frost, Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca 126 E . Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Height variance: Eco Village tower-pole Dear Mr. Frost: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the recGrd. Sincerely, James W. Hanson Commissioner .of Planning I� � � Recycled paper e Executive Director n' Joan Bokser EcoVillaQ�e at Ithaca A Model for Land Conservation Assaiate Director v and Sustainable Neighborhood Development Iiz Walker Staff Associate Tim Allen, Brethren Vohunteer Service Boatel of Directors Andy Frost Lourdes Beturia, Professor, Town Hall City & Regional PLwudngl 126 E. Seneca Wo ten'sSatdier, Cornell Ithaca NY 14850 Edward Finegan, Natural Resources Cauultau Jon Razz, Systeno Generalist Michael ss October 26 1993 Business Manager 26, 1993 Meador. Educator Harrison Rue, Dear Andy, Construction Managed Planning Consultant Lee Ten4ge, Architect Thanks for taking a look at the photograph of the Committees and wind pole. It will be 70 ft. tall and 3. 5 indles in diameter. Gonvenors Afierdability I have enclosed an aerial photograph of our land with Linda Scbade, Graduate an orange x that shows where we want to put up the StudmA City & Regional tem ors of e. As you can se we picked a of away Phannir,& Co»ncll P l'Y P Y � Pi sP Y from neighbors' houses and probably out-of-site. Agriculture Jennifer Bokaer I appreciate your consideration. Communications Mignon Beloagie, Yours, Electrical Engineering, Connell University Finances area PersOnnel Joan Bokaer Sam Ecolov Pines, Ph.D., Hunan CoDlrecor, EaoVillage at Ithaca Lecture Series / Conferences Mary Jeanette Ebanhack, Ph.D. Divinity, Director, E.coJustice Network r Newsletter Charles DeMotte-Grow, Journalist /Historian Planning Don Ellis, Architect/Planner Process Pam June, Therapist Sister Village Serigne M. Diene, Ministry of Health, Senegal Anabel Taylor Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14953 / (607 ) 255-8276 NIRG Systems Shown above is a test model of the 70' TallTower"m undergoing field testing at the summit of Mount Washington,N.H.in the fall of 1983.Despite winds exceeding hurricane force and rime ice buildup (visible on the guy wires in this photo),the TallTowerTM'stood its ground.NRG suppfieraiulHine-of special-heavy duty — mast systems for such extreme conditions. I . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL: •Tubular tower,guyed in 4 directions,tilt-t •Galvanized steel tower tubes,3m(101 se •Galvanized aircraft cable guywires •Guywires are precut,rolled on spools an •Max.design windspeed:55 m/s(120 mph •Baseplate,guy rings and hardware hot-d •Detachable ginpole for erecting •Screw-in earth anchors for"normal"soil •Complete kit,ready to install—with ginpol hardware and instructions •Heavy Duty TallTowersTm available for se guywires and hardware available for ma •Non-standard heights also available •Arrowhead and rock anchors are option; *Aircraft warning colors(orange/white)p 10 TO 20 METER,30'TO 90'TALLTOWERST •Tower tubes of 89mm(3.5")diameter,15 c •Guywire is 3.2mm(0.125')diameter •All with 7.6m(25')ginpole(nj ginpole ne( •Screw-in anchors(set of 5) II •Erected heights:30m=30 m ers;2 m= 70'=68 feet;90'=87 feet II 30 TO 40 METER,110'TO 140' LLT ER! *Tower tubes of 114mm(4.5') i met 14 •Guywire is 4.8 m(0.188')di eter � •All with 9m(30' ginpole •Screw-i q anch rs with 15c ( ')p a e,12 •Erected height 30m=30 et rs; m=L ORDERIN INF MATION at No. 30'Ta1IT erT — omplete OTT 50'Tall v�erT —Comp lete 50�C 70'Talll erT — omplete 70 TC 90'Tall werT — omp to 90 TCj 100'Tall erT — omp to 100 C 1 10'Tall o erT — om I to 110 TC 140'Tall o erT — om I to 140 C 10 Tall ow r M—dom lel e 101U1T N 20 Tall ow r M—Cbm le a 20M T 0 30 allow r M_C� mplet 30M Z 4 m al ow r C plet 40M T Z 11 T ll owe�we TM a omp to with gin o e w ulti It Tall r instal ations mays N i eig band v lume pr TallTowersTm witlhbt Z Ginpo� for 20m,50-�O' GI Gin p Ole for 30m-40n4,110'-140' GP445 IJ o SPECIFICATIONS MAY CHANGE WITHOUT MO7 t r 1 _�+5�� k ��� ! ill"r R f•s... / .R - _ '• �f L 1 g F� a t", � Y.y ••d k as t{ � f, r.. p�jgn c i. 5 ,i - y �j$TXs�eacRa� s l ti, ;ic1 rrr^^^ S • . 4 sR• die -R- 1Y.C S _�. f _ t -. §.,y+.�` 4 to