Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Height 9/20/2004 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAYq SEPTEMBER-20, 2004 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, September 20, 2004, 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 Putnam, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a residential building with a height of 40 + feet (36 foot height limit) at 206 Eldridge Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46- 1 - 15 .46, Low Density Residential Zone . APPEAL of Heritage Park Town Homes, Owner, George Frantz, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct residential buildings with building heights of 43 + feet (36 foot height limit) at 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 46- 1 - 15 .27 and 46- 1 - 15 .28, Low Density Residential Zone. A request for variances from Article VIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62, and Section 280A of New York State Town Law, may also be requested, as construction may commence prior to the completion of Town approved roadways. APPEAL of Robert Champion, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IX, Sections 270-71 and 270-73 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280-A of New York State Town Law, to be able to construct a residence on a parcel of land that does not front on a Town, County, or State roadway, located on West Haven Road (near 140), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -28 . 1 , Medium Density Residential Zone . 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 : September 9, 2004 Published : September 13 , 2004 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2004- 045 : Richard Putnam , 206 Eldridge Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 46 -1 -15 .46 , Low Density Residential Zone MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ronald Krantz . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Richard Putnam , Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a residential building with an exterior height not to exceed 38 feet (where there is a 36 foot height limit) at 206 Eldridge Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 46 - 1 - 15 . 46 , Low Density Residential Zone . FINDINGS : The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied . CONDITIONS : None . The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Matthews NAYS : NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairperson Sigel — OK, you ' re all set. Mr. Putnam - Well if I do it again, I will be here before I build the house. I apologize to you guys . It just sort of worked out that way, and I thought I was doing the best job on the house . Thank you. Chairperson Sigel — Well, at least you came before you tried to get the owners in there . APPEAL of Heritage Park Town Homes, Owner, George Frantz, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct residential buildings with building heights of 43 + feet (36 foot height limit) at 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 46- 1 45.27 and 46- 145.28, Low Density 6 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Residential Zone. A request for variances from Article VIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62 , and Section 280A of New York State Town Law, may also be requested, as construction may commence prior to the completion of Town approved roadways. Mr. Matthews - Kirk, may I ask Mr. Barney a question? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah . Dick was concerned about a possible conflict, and I suggested he ask you when we started here . Mr. Matthews - OK, the developer, Mr. Ronsdale, who Mr. Frantz represents . I ' ve known him at least since he was in high school . I ' ve known his mother and father and his grandparents . I don ' t know if that qualifies me to recuse myself or not. Mr. Barney - Is the knowing in a sense of a close, personal friendship, or just a knowing of? Mr. Matthews - No, I wouldn ' t call it that, I guess you might call it a neighbors relationship. Mr. Barney - I think you have to make a decision in your own mind whether that relationship would affect your ability to vote impartially on an application . Whether you would feel in some respects uncomfortable rejecting an application you felt you might otherwise find to be the case, or feel a reason to grant an application that you would otherwise deny if it was someone you didn ' t know. But aside, I think that ' s internal with you. I don ' t think that the very fact that you know somebody disqualifies you . LI should probably announce that at one point we once represented Mr . . . . Heritage Homes folks . Mr. Matthews - And there ' s another piece to it too . I probably should have brought this up with the previous gentleman, Mr. Putnam. But the owner of the properties, and where the developments are taking place, is right across the street from my home, and for years I enjoyed the privilege of using that land for hunting. Mr. Quigley allowed me to use it over the years, and allowed me to post it and watch over it for him. Watch the water run, I suppose . And also I enjoyed firewood . They gave me firewood when they cut down the road and so forth. Would that be considered a conflict? Mr. Barney - The test of a conflict, the basic test is whether you get some remunerative, economic benefit to your vote one way or the other. And there, as I understand it I guess you probably wouldn ' t. Chairperson Sigel — The cutting down of everything is a done deed . Mr. Barney - Yeah, there ' s not. If you grant or deny this variance, is there some kind of pecuniary benefit to you that you would not otherwise have . And if the answer is no , then I don ' think you ' re right in the center of the conflict. But some people recuse themselves when they feel there ' s enough of a relationship if they ' re concerned about the appearance of a conflict even if there isn ' t an actual one . And that again is a more 7 ' TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES personal decision that you must make on your own, than one the law point to . From what you tell me, I don ' t think that legally I would say you must recuse yourself. Mr. Matthews - OK, I ' ll stay. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Good evening, Mr. Frantz. Hello . If you could give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Frantz - Good evening . OK, my name is George Frantz, I live at 604 Cliff Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 . Chairperson Sigel — And now, you are asking, are these variances only for the exterior height? Mr. Frantz - Actually interior and exterior, because the height of the two homes from the basement floor to the peak of roof is 42 feet 8 inches . Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Frost - George , is the interior height and exterior height the same? Mr. Frantz - Yes, as proposed with the rear walkouts . Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Ellsworth - Where is Old Gorge Road? Chairperson Sigel — It ' s in the new Southwoods development. Mr. Frantz - Old Gorge road, I guess we don ' t have a map of Southwoods . Mr. Ellsworth - I got out the Ithaca area map and it ' s not listed. Chairperson Sigel — It ' s actually shown on the back of our packet here. Mr. Ellsworth — Oh, I didn ' t go far enough. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, the Southwoods goes right off of King . Mr. Ellsworth - Oh, OK. Mr. Smith - It ' s no t actually a public road yet. Mr. Ellsworth - Oh, OK. 8 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frantz - It ' s under construction at this time. And again, we ' re dealing with the same topography on this site, it' s a 6- 10% slope . And the other issue of course is trying to build a contemporary home in the town of Ithaca today with the types of roof pitches that the market desires with the type of interior ceiling height (i .e . 8 or 9 feet) that the market desires, and that has resulted in two homes that are 42 feet 8 inches in height from the basement floor to the highest point of the roof. In addition, this is the one at 318 Old Gorge road. What we ' d like to do instead of having a porch on the back walking out to a patio, we would actually like to create a balcony and have a ground level patio coming out of the basement, and have windows going across the rear of the basement to create that recreational , family room with the basement of the house, directly walking out onto the patio . And we can actually do this without anybody from the street knowing that there is a walkout basement. Again we are utilizing terrain so that at the front of the house . . . in fact the house at 318 , because the topography is several feet below the grade of the street, or would be several feet below the grade of the street, we ' re keeping the terrain fairly flat and then dropping off at the side of the house . Here on the other side, this would be the right hand side if you were looking at the house from the street, again the garages and the like, actually we were hoping to have a three-car garage . That and this particular master bedroom suite, totally mask the view from the street of the right hand side . And then at the back, again this is the ground level, just dropping down to the walkout area, two and a half, three-foot retaining wall graded up . So, anybody over here, which would actually be the house at 320 Old Gorge Rd, really would not be perceiving this as being a walkout area. Mr. Matthews - What about the people in the back of the patio? Mr. Frantz - Looking straight at it from the back, this is 90 feet plus from . . . in fact, these windows, this window of the house is at lease 90 feet from the property line, and we ' re proposing to maintain the woodland behind the house . The walkout area itself is another ten or fifteen feet further, so there is over 100 feet of buffering between this and the rear property line of the lot to the north . And we ' re proposing to maintain as much of the woodland as . . . The house is, this is the side that ' s closest to the side yard, and we ' ve shoved the house in that direction, in the easterly direction, because we have this particular wing that again will mask the walkout area from any future neighbors on this side . Chairperson Sigel — It looks to me like, from your topography lines, at 318 you ' ve got maybe a 3 foot drop from the front to the back, and at 320, maybe only a 2 foot drop at best. Mr. Frantz - No . Okay, this point here, this is 318 front quarter is roughly level with this line, so you actually have 1 ,2 ,3 ,4, 5 , 6 feet of drop from the front of the house . Chairperson Sigel — You get six feet from the front to the walkout patio ? Mr. Frantz - Yes . This particular line right here, starting with that . 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — The one marked 107? Mr. Frantz - Yes, the line marked 107 , then it ' s 1 ,2 ,3 ,4, 5 , 6 feet drop from 107 . Chairperson Sigel — That would put you back, almost at the back property line according to your map . I mean, 101 is well beyond your 50-foot setback. Mr. Frantz - Well , what we ' re doing is creating a hollow in the back of the house . Chairperson Sigel — OK, I ' m talking about how far of a drop from the front of the house to the back edge of the house . It looks like only about 2 -3 feet. Mr. Frantz - OK, because there ' s a retaining wall extending upward from this corner of this house . Chairperson Sigel — I ' m not talking about in your plan as drawn, I ' m talking about the land as is existing. I mean, obviously from the front to the back, you ' re proposing a much larger drop because you ' re going to dig out. But existing it looks like it ' s only a 2 or 3 foot drop . Mr. Frantz - 2 to 3 feet, 2 . 5 to 3 feet. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. So you ' re digging out quite a bit of earth to create the walkout. Mr. Frantz - We ' re going to create . . . yeah, we ' re digging out to create the walkout, so it will be sunken below. Chairperson Sigel — In both cases, in both houses. Mr. Frantz - yes. Chairperson Sigel — I mean, typically when we get these kinds of requests from the exterior height variance, you know, it ' s a situation like the previous appeal where there ' s a natural slope where all or most of the drop is already existing on the lot and the person is looking to not add fill . Mr. Frantz - We ' re not adding fill . Chairperson Sigel — No, you ' re taking it away. Mr. Frantz - I haven ' t done the final calculations, but it will probably go to the front of both houses to sort of flatten out the front lawn areas . 10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20 , 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth - Does today' s market really require a 9 . 5 feet drop on 12 feet horizontal , rather than a 7 or 8 on 12 ? Previous guy had 12 on 12 , which is a 45 degree angle . I mean, how do you know what the public really needs ? Years ago it was 4 on 12 . Mr. Frantz - Right. This house is actually from the front, the same as the house on Eldridge circle that I understand got a height variance . The one that Joe Quigley built. The only difference actually between this house and that is that we have the master bedroom suite on the ground floor, and Mr. Quigley has it up here on this corner of the house . But, yeah, the market, people don' t need it of course, but this is the design that has become very desirable throughout the country. Mr. Ellsworth - 9 and a half on twelve, not eight . Do people actually come and tell you they need nine and a half on twelve? Mr. Frantz - Well, I guess just from the way these houses are selling throughout Tompkins County. Chairperson Sigel — I ' m guessing that people don ' t demand that ratio , but that people find this style desirable . Mr. Ellsworth - Well, but you know where I' m going here don ' t you? Chairperson Sigel — Well, yeah. Personally, I don ' t have as much of a problem with the interior height, which is necessitated by your floor heights and your roof height, but I am bothered a little bit more by what I see as going out of your way to create the exterior height problem . You know, the need for the exterior height variance . Mr. Frantz - Again, we have this design approach of attempting to utilize the basement, especially when the topography allows us to , but to utilize the basement of the home for something other than storage . Mr. Ellsworth - You really mean the walkout basement, rather than the storage . I mean lots of people utilize their basements without having walkout capabilities . Mr. Frantz - Right, but again what we ' re doing is replicating the windows . Mr. Ellsworth - Yeah, it' s an architectural feature . Mr. Frantz - Well , but again, it opens up the basement of the house and makes it an attractive living space, recreation space . Mr. Matthews - Can I ask a question? Chairperson Sigel — What was the intent and spirit for having a height requirement to a house? 11 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney - Mass . To keep the mass under control . Mr. Matthews - Pardon? Mr. Barney - To keep the mass of a building under control . Of course, the zoning ordinance was adopted initially in 1954 I think, when the houses that were the rage at that point were ranch style, fifteen foot houses . Over the years, the style of building houses has changed . I think we ' re at an era right now where the very steep pitched roofs are the architectural feature that seems to be the houses of the 2000s if I may call it that. Mr. Ellsworth - A few years ago , we raised this to 36 feet also, from 34 or whatever it was . Mr. Barney - But it' s really to keep a skyscraper from going up in a residential neighborhood . Mr. Ellsworth - And they have a lot of view problems with neighbors and so on and so forth. Mr. Barney - Shade and blocking . Mr. Ellsworth - We raised it to 36 at my request because we had lots of people coming before us at, whatever it was, 34 before . Mr. Matthews - I understand . And that' s a relatively recent change . Mr. Barney - Well , the 34 to 36 is . The definition is probably a ten year old definition of how we define height, the dimension I think changed a little bit, and even before that we had a height limitation, it just wasn ' t defined in quite this way. Mr. Frost - I think it ' s 5 , 6, 7 , 8 possible years since we changed it. Mr. Matthews - It ' s not an antiquated rule . Mr. Barney - No, there have been height limitations since day 1 in the zoning ordinance . Mr. Frost - But the current height has been around for more than five years, maybe 8 years . I would say just from listening to this conversation, when I think back over a lot of the houses I ' ve given permits for, over the last ten years, most of them are usually pretty steep, in general not 9 on 12 but they' re usually steep cathedral ceilings . We rarely will ever see a single story house unless it ' s a modular home . Mr. Frantz - Part, again, from the standpoint of the design profession what ' s happened is the Victorian era is very popular, has been popular in the last ten years . Mr. Ellsworth - It ' s back. 12 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20 , 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frantz - It ' s back, yeah. As well as, people may not be able to live in Cayuga Heights, but they would like to have a house that looks like a house in Cayuga Heights . We ' re getting the steep pitched roofs and houses on a hillside . Mr. Ellsworth - Well after last winter' s ice, I can appreciate the steeper roofs, but there ' re two sides to every story. Mr. Matthews - I don ' t want to get into questioning Mr. Frantz ' s veracity, but he ' s making statements that people want this and people want this, but we don ' t know that. There ' re no studies being quoted. He ' s saying it, and I have to trust him that he ' s, but he ' s also coming here pitching the product, so I ' m being very reluctant to accept what he ' s saying. Mr. Barney - My comment is not based on what Mr. Frantz is saying, not that I doubt his veracity, but it ' s just observation. You go around and look at Lakewatch and those areas in Lansing that are the more, higher, I guess upscale is the term these days . All of them are these monstrous houses that go up, thousands of feet. But very steep pitched roofs and a lot of little nooks and crannies and that sort of stuff. That seems to be what designers are designing in the way of new homes today to make them distinctive from my little ranch home that I ' ve had for 30 some-odd years now. Mr. Matthews - But again Ithaca saw this trend and five years, Andy says, it was changed. Mr. Frost - With the height. Mr. Matthews - And now the developer is suggesting that we have to increase it another 5 feet. There was a spirit of intent to raising it to 35 or 36 and I think that has to be considered here tonight. Mr. Smith - With the pitch of the roof, the exterior height, if you didn ' t excavate down 6 or 7 feet, the exterior height would still , with that pitch, work. It ' s because you ' re going down six or seven feet on the outside . The interior height would still be a problem, but the exterior, even with the steep pitch would work if you weren ' t excavating out 6 or 7 feet. Mr. Barney - But generally speaking, whenever you go to these pitched roofs, even the interior one would be a headache because there you ' re measuring from the basement floor to the top of the peak, and the peak is now like this instead of this, you ' ve now added 5 ,6, 8 feet depending on the span of the roof, to the height of the building . Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, well, John, I wanted to ask you to comment on actually the test that we ' re supposed to make for an area variance, and maybe I ' ll just begin by reading it, maybe for the other members ' benefit. "In making its determination, the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the 13 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES variance is granted as weighed against the detriment to the health safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant . " Now my question to John is, I assume that is the primary test, and that then the considerations that follow are just sort of suggestions as to what goes into that calculation. Mr. Barney - Correct, but those are in a sense the tests that you apply in reaching the conclusion that you are being asked to reach in terms of. . . Chairperson Sigel — Right, and then there are 5 suggested things to think about when considering that test : whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the area variance ; whether the requested area variance is substantial ; whether the proposed variance will have an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and whether the alleged difficulty was self created, which consideration shall be relevant, which shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance . Mr. Matthews - And I ' m glad you read that, because we ' re here representing people who aren' t here . Chairperson Sigel — Correct. Mr. Matthews -And they don ' t know, or they haven' t considered what ' s taking place tonight. Their houses aren ' t built yet across the street, they have no idea when they purchase that property that across the street from them is a house way up high. And I think we represent those folks . Mr. Barney - Well, let me backtrack. Number one, the people adjoining this property have been notified of the pending application, by mail , so they have an opportunity to be here . We also publish a notice, although I will be the first to admit that probably unless you are a devotee of the legal ads, you probably wouldn ' t see the notice . But there is actually a notice sent to those people adjoining the property. There is also supposed to be posted a sign on the property advising that there is an application pending with respect to that particular property which is designed to alert the general neighborhood or anyone in the vicinity that is interested, that there ' s something going on, when they' re out walking their dog they can pick up the information at no charge . So to say that nobody knows is not necessarily completely accurate, or that you represent those other people . You don' t really represent one side or the other, you ' re here to make a balance of the developer versus the public at large. Which, can be in a broad sense, the entire Town of Ithaca or in one aspect, it is clearly the neighborhood because that is what the criteria say . But, we have two different kinds of variances . The use variance, the requirements for obtaining that are pretty strict, and you really have to show, because you ' re changing a use that the legislature established, you really have to show that you can ' t get a reasonable return out of your property with any use that is authorized under the law. In which event, then, you are actually entitled to a use variance . So that ' s a fairly high standard, and the test says it ' s got to be administered by looking at actual financial data, grouped by dollars and 14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES sense. That ' s why use variances, I tend to talk to this board it ' s a fairly stiff test, if someone wants to come in here and put a gas station in a residential zone, they have to show that that piece of property can ' t yield a reasonable return as a resident. An area variance is a little different because there you ' re really taking the safety valve of the zoning ordinance . The zoning ordinance by necessity has to be written with lines drawn, but is there anything magical about 36 feet being a height limitation as opposed to 36 and a half or 37 feet or 35 feet? Probably not, that just happens to be the number that was chosen. And I don ' t think people are going to get overly excited if there ' s a variance upward or downward of that by some reasonable amount. Now, granted, if someone came in here and said I want a 72 foot house with a 36 foot variance, is certainly a different situation than when someone wants a 3 or 4 foot deviation. There you ' re balancing is, here you have a piece of property that basically in this round, I don ' t know what the status of the lot is other than the two Mr. Ronsdale has been working with. But if they are undeveloped at all , the next person that is going to come in is going to see what this house looks like, because it ' s going to be up there and standing when they make their purchase decision . I ' m not sure we should worry too much about the next door neighbor. Mr. Matthews - I am going to disagree with you a little bit, counsel . Mr. Barney - OK, it wouldn ' t be the first time . Mr. Matthews - You said, I ' ll paraphrase what you said, that people aren ' t going to get too upset if it' s a couple of feet up or a couple of feet down. But recently we had people up on top of the hill coming here and they were very upset that LI believe heritage was building a house next door and we denied them building that house higher than the residence on either side . And it wasn ' t that much that Heritage was asking for: I think it was 4 feet. So people do get upset when it goes above the height of their house or the houses next door, for whatever reason. So this time, there ' s a request for a considerable height variance, and again you say people have been notified, and I know that does happen, but the average home buyer doesn ' t recognize seven feet higher as meaningful until they get there . Mr. Barney - I guess, and I don ' t want to argue . . . these are your decisions to make, not mine . My role here is to try to respond to a legal question. In terms of the prior . . . I don ' t remember the details of them, but there you had an existing neighborhood presumably, as represented by people that are actually living there, and have their addresses there, and have their houses there, and they want other houses that are in the same character as the houses they had there . I ' m not sure that ' s what you have here . Here the character of the neighborhood is being established by what the applicant may be trying to request here . Mr. Matthews - That ' s correct. Mr. Barney - And don' t get me wrong, I ' m not lobbying for or against a particular application . But if people come in and say, or you have the applicant come in and say "I want to build a house a little bit larger", you look at the surrounding neighborhood, and 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20 , 2004 APPROVED MINUTES it ' s either virtually all unapproved lots, or it ' s lots that themselves have been granted variances for one or two or three or five or whatever the number of feet it. The question you have to ask yourself under these criteria, are you changing the character of a neighborhood in a way that is significantly adverse to the existing neighborhood, as opposed to what this applicant needs or feels he needs in order to build this house . Mr. Frost - If I can just throw in . . . and I ' m not trying to speak for or against either. I think the case up on Saunders road, which is what you are referring to , was somewhat unique. In most cases in my eighteen some-odd years with the town, usually height variances don ' t trigger that kind of emotional outburst as other requests for approvals from the zoning board do . But I do think the Saunders one, while might be a reasonable example on your part, is somewhat unique compared to the history of height variances that this board does grant. Mr. Krantz - Height variances of course concern one on the lake of course, but this is an entirely different setup . Chairperson Sigel — George? Mr. Frantz - Yeah, just some more details regarding the Saunders road issue . There what upset the neighborhood was the bringing in of fill onto the site . The board did grant us the variance for 6 Saunders road, provided the roof line did not exceed the roof line of I believe it was 4 Saunders Road . Because of bedrock conditions, we could not do that, so we had to re-design the house . OK? In this particular case, as far as the future residents living across Old Gorge road from either 318 or 320 — they ' re going to see homes that are 34 feet 35 feet in height, because the front of the house is going to be as shown in the illustration here . We ' re not changing the gradient at the front of the home, nor are we raising the home above the gradient much more than a foot or two to make clearance for the porches . So, I have been very careful to design these two houses in a manner that the walkout is not going to be visible from the street, that people from the street, from the future homes built across the street are going to be looking at, in the case of 320, this is what they' ll be seeing. Of course they' ll be looking through a lot of trees also . But this is what they ' ll be seeing. They' re not going to even know that this is back there . Chairperson Sigel — What is the height again, from the front and the sides? Mr. Frantz - I think 34 to 35 feet from the front, the view from the street . 34 ' 6", and again it ' s the same . This is 318 , 320 is the same . This is the front of the house with the hill sloping down to street level . This is the side which is going to be viewed through sixty feet or so of trees . Mr. Matthews - What' s the distance between the rear, where that walkout is , and that intended house next door? You say there ' s wood between . . . Mr. Ellsworth - That was front. 16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews - Will the people who build the house in the next lot down the road as it were, south, south of this house . They' re going to be looking at that walkout basement. Mr. Frantz - Yes . Mr. Matthews - OK. Mr. Frantz - Those people will be the owners of 318 . Mr. Matthews - What ' s the distance between that walkout patio to the lot line? Mr. Ellsworth - To the lot line? Mr. Frantz - The distance from this walkout patio to the side lot line is 50 feet. Mr. Matthews - And then those people will construct a house with we ' ve got to assume another 50 feet. Mr. Frantz - It will be roughly 45 feet. The house at 318 Saunders road, the front corner of the house is about 45 feet from the lot line . Mr. Matthews - That ' s the lot south of you? Mr. Frantz - Yes . Essentially the street curves around like so, and this is 320 and this is 318 right here . Mr. Matthews - Yes, I ' m very familiar with that. I know every tree there . Mr. Ellsworth - When you started the presentation, you talked about another project that passed the height. Was that Saunders road? You gave a name of the owner, and you said there house was a little different . Mr. Frost - He was referring to another parcel on Southwoods development. Mr. Ellsworth - What ' s that? Mr. Frost - Another parcel , another owner on Southwoods development. Mr. Ellsworth - Oh . It wasn ' t this case we were talking about that . . . Mr. Frantz - Another owner. My understanding from speaking to the contractor was that they also received a height variance . Mr. Frost - We have issued a few, I can ' t tell you how many. 17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth - I know, but they ' re all kind of different . Just because we ' re issuing a few, doesn ' t mean we ' re issuing them for everyone . Mr. Frost - No , and I agree with you . Mr. Frantz - The difference between this house and the one on Eldridge is that this one has a walkout . He required, the 42 ' 8 " interior height variance . Chairperson Sigel — So, I think I had missed this initially. The house, you said is going to be higher than the road? Mr. Barney - I had the same question on the other house George, it looks like it ' s sitting up on a knoll . Mr. Frantz - The house at 320 will be higher than the road, because . . . well, let me put it this way, the house is lower than the road here, at what ' s considered the . . . Chairperson Sigel — Lower than Old Gorge? Mr. Frantz - Yes, lower than Old Gorge . But Southwoods drive, I believe it is, actually the road drops fairly rapidly, so what happens is the house is actually lower than Old Gorge at this point, but because of it ' s length and the gradient . . . Chairperson Sigel — It becomes higher than Southwoods to it ' s northern end? Mr. Frantz - Yes . Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Frantz - And it' s not that much higher. In fact, the northern end of the house, it is really only a couple of feet I think higher than Southwoods drive . It' s a fairly gentle slope down from the front portion to the street. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Smith - I have to run to another meeting, but I just wanted to make one comment on the SEQR. The SEQR, because there are the two actions, the area variance and the road frontage . The SEQR refers more to the road frontage . But I did want to mention that I did put in there about the amount of excavation, and that both properties are located in a Unique Natural Area also, so, any sedimentation and erosion control will be important with the amount of excavation they are doing, plus being in the UNA . Chairperson Sigel — OK. Thank you. I guess we ' ll open the public hearing at this time . Chairperson Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 8: 00 p. m. I 18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20 , 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone wish to speak about either of these properties ? If not, we ' ll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel closes the Public Hearing at 8: 01 p. m. Chairperson Sigel — Well , gentlemen, I have to admit, I ' ve been a little conflicted in this case . I ' m inclined to think that it ' s a little unreasonable, and yet when I read the strict requirement for an area variance, I find it hard to conclude that the benefit to the applicant as weighed against the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood . Mr. Ellsworth - That ' s a little, some of the others are more . . . Mr. Krantz - I agree with you, but seven feet is just a lot. We ' ve raised . . . it ' s been raised from 34 to 36 , but on the other hand it doesn ' t seem like there are going to be any real. objections, it ' s not impeding a view again Chairperson Sigel — Part of that, I mean as Dick has mentioned, part of the reason is there are no other houses there, so we don ' t have the other houses to look at. Mr. Barney - Is that indeed the case, I wasn ' t sure? Mr. Ellsworth - It ' s a new road. Chairperson Sigel — Well none of the bordering properties have anything even started on them, right? Mr. Frantz - Right. The road is, I haven ' t bee up there this week, but it ' s close to being prepped for paving. The goal of the contractors have, well , they better have it paved this fall . Mr. Ellsworth - Before the end of October. Mr. Frantz - There are no other homes in the immediate vicinity. In fact, the nearest home is down on the other side of the circle, currently being finished off. Mr. Ellsworth - How many lots away? 4 or 5 lots away? Mr. Frantz - Well , 25 1 or 2 deep lots away. And actually I understand they also got a height variance because they have a walkout. Mr. Krantz - The other question is how are you going to turn down future applicants that want to build houses on that road? Chairperson Sigel — Well , this certainly establishes the tone, and then it would be hard to argue , certainly in the future, that another house of the same height would be detrimental to the neighborhood when the neighborhood is homes that are tall . 19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Krantz - And you have an ordinance which states 36 feet. Chairperson Sigel — Well, we ' re dealing with 2 heights . The interior height is allowed to be 38 , and so, the design of their floors and the pitch of their roof dictates that they have, what is it, 42 and a half from the basement floor up to the roof. And then the separate issue is the exterior height, which is created only by the sunken patio , by the walkout basement . So I think we have two issues, one, do we want the house to be the house that it is, as tall as it is . And then the second is to allow the walkout basement. And I ' m inclined to vote- for them because I just don ' t see the detriment to the neighborhood . Mr. Ellsworth - Well there are others that are more pertinent to this case . Chairperson Sigel — Criteria for the variance? Well , the things that are listed, and John correct me if I ' m wrong, are basically just things that you use . Mr. Barney - Well , they give you a laundry list of things you can consider, that you should consider, no one of which, do I think which is necessarily totally throwing. Chairperson Sigel — It ' s not like a use variance, where if you fail one test, you ' re out. Mr. Barney - The economic test. Chairperson Sigel — So in this case, one of the things to consider is whether the request for an area variance is substantial . That ' s a consideration. Whether you think it ' s substantial, doesn' t mean it' s necessarily disqualified . Mr. Barney - It comes back to the original sentence in the paragraph is really what you ' re balancing, it ' s the detriment to the applicant versus the detriment to the community as a whole . Mr. Krantz - invisible neighborhood . Mr. Barney - Well, but I think there is a point that there are people who will eventually come there too . Mr. Krantz - Is this at the high point? Mr. Barney - I ' m not in a position to say to you that three feet is probably not a significant detriment to the neighborhood but seven is . That ' s the role that you folks need to play. Mr. Krantz - Are these two properties, are either one of them the high point of the road? The new road? Chairperson Sigel — Well, across the street is higher. 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frantz - The gradient comes up, the gradient actually continues up across old Gorge road . Chairperson Sigel — So the homes across the street are going to be higher. Mr. Frantz - Yeah, they are going to be naturally higher, easily 4 or 5 feet higher than even Old Gorge road, and so probably six or seven feet higher than this house, but again also 60 foot front yard setback plus 60 foot road right of way plus 60 . . . inaudible Chairperson Sigel — The lots are all of similar size, presumably are going to attract homes of a similar nature . And personally, I ' m comfortable sort of setting this as an approximate limit for what we would grant for that area. Unless of course, there was a very unusual circumstance . Mr. Matthews - Does anyone else have a concern that Mr. Krantz mentioned that someone building a house on Eldridge circle, which is just west of where this house is being built, and then Mr. Putnam just came here and Mr. Frantz said that the people building a house north of him on a lower grade also got a height variance . Is anyone concerned here with the fact that the builders are driving the code? Up . And should we be concerned with that? Chairperson Sigel — Certainly I can ' t say it is not cause for concern. Mr. Matthews - Pardon? Chairperson Sigel — I can ' t say that it' s not cause for concern, but we have to evaluate it on a . . . Mr. Ellsworth - Case by case basis, isn ' t that right, John? Just because we ' ve approved a bunch of homes above the height, doesn ' t mean we ' re carte blanche approving homes above 36 foot. Each case is specific, even though George is . . . Mr. Matthews - I understand Harry, but it ' s hard to say no, once you ' ve said yes to four people . Mr. Ellsworth - Well , that ' s why I ' m riding the fence here because the next guy in the door is going to be pointing back, or in the neighborhood . And I ' m not just riding along with this . Chairperson Sigel — And I ' m certainly assuming , . . Mr. Ellsworth - We ' re seven feet above the ordinance . Chairperson Sigel — I certainly have thought about what you ' re bringing up and I am assuming that someone else who comes in with a similar lot in this neighborhood with a 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES similar situation, I would vote in favor of that same variance . I would, I mean if it is similar to this . Mr. Matthews - It ' s hard to say no , once you ' ve said yes five times . Chairperson Sigel — I agree, but an area variance . . . in the case of a use variance, one of the criteria is that the need for the variance is not, is unique to the neighborhood, is not, does not exist throughout the neighborhood, but that is not the case for an area variance . It is acceptable, I think, John, to give area variances that might occur throughout the neighborhood . Mr. Frost - You know, someone just said once you say yes, it ' s hard to say no . After that it seems to me that if you ' re saying yes, it ' s OK to say yes, and if you ' re going to make some decisions that are consistent, you ' ll probably say yes again, because you just don ' t see it as a detriment. In some ways a positive vote is an indication that it ' s not such a bad thing. Mr. Matthews - Next week it' s eight feet. Mr. Ellsworth - Yeah, next week they ' ll be in for 45 feet . Mr. Matthews - Then it' s a foot. Mr. Frost - That ' s where you have to draw the line . As Harry mentioned, each case is an individual case . Mr. Ellsworth - Let me explain one we approved several years ago , happened to be a surgeon, but nevertheless, up on the lake . He went, and you can ' t do it in this case because there are no neighbors, he went a mile up and down the road and got everyone ' s approval for what he was doing. And he was quite high and viewed very high from the lake — still does . But he went out and spent the time, he can ' t do this because there are no neighbors for a few lots . Mr. Matthews - The lots have been purchased by someone . Mr. Frost - My guess is your going to see similar houses because I think the designs up there are going to dictate similar designs down the road . Chairperson Sigel — What mitigates it for me is that from the front of the house it is within the legal height. Mr. Ellsworth - Well, George has been clever in laying this out. Chairperson Sigel — Well , they have designed it so that from the street it appears, as George said to be 34 to 35 feet. 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth - Well , yeah, I think he specifically worked it that way, but . . . Chairperson Sigel — And then, you know from the back, these are wooded lots, they ' re pretty good sized lots, and to me I just don ' t see enough, substantial enough detriment to the neighborhood in allowing a sunken patio to vote against it. Mr. Ellsworth - I can think of an environmental reason with a sunken patio, but that ' s their business . It ' s a great pool . A place to collect, especially . . . Mr. Barney - Ice . Mr. Ellsworth - if you slope it right it won ' t be, but we talked about this on the other one. Anyway, it ' s my ornery night. I ' m not for it. Chairperson Sigel — Are you not for all of it, or just the sunken patio ? Mr. Ellsworth - The height . Chairperson Sigel — The interior height? Mr. Ellsworth - Yeah, the 43 feet, because where do you stop? Mr. Barney - What variances have you granted in the past, do you know what the dimensions were? Mr. Frost - I would have to say 42 as an average and a guesstimate . Chairperson Sigel — I mean, we ' ve had , . . most of them have been in the range just a little over 41 , 42 , Mr. Frost - And the board is usually giving another 6 inches or so to round it off. Mr. Ellsworth - Which rounds off to what . . . 42 and a half? Mr. Frost - This might be on the threshold of biggest. Mr. Barney - Biggest. Mr. Ellsworth - This as far as I ' m concerned is a fence line, and you can fall off one way or the other. I ' ve told you which way I ' m falling . Mr. Frost - I advertised this as 43 but it ' s actually less than that, I usually give my advertisements another six inches . Chairperson Sigel - 42 and a half. 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20 , 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frantz - No , it' s 42 ' 81 , I think. Chairperson Sigel — Oh, 42 ' 8 ", I ' m sorry. Mr. Krantz - The question is simply, you ' ve got a six and a half foot height increase, which is pushing it, but you ' ve got three things which kind of balance it out some . There ' s a large amount of distance between houses in a heavily wooded lot . You ' ve got a higher elevation across the street, and the front of the house is more or less within limits, it' s just the back of the house . Is that enough to justify allowing an increase of 6 and a half or seven feet. Chairperson Sigel — That' s the question. Mr. Ellsworth - I ' ll give George credit for trying . Chairperson Sigel — The back of the house exceeds the exterior height and then the house itself exceeds the interior. Mr. Ellsworth - But when Dick walks out behind there to the woods or to hunt behind there, he ' ll see it. Mr. Matthews - I think the points been made that there ' s an ordinance and some people want to stick with the ordinance . Chairperson Sigel — How much lower could you go , George, and still . . . I ' m trying to infer what might get Harry to get off the fence . Mr. Frantz - I can see it in his eyes . Mr. Ellsworth - Eight on twelve, not 9 and a half on twelve . Mr. Frantz - Well, eight on twelve would save us . . . let me . Mr. Ellsworth - I ' m only one member of the board . Mr. Frantz - I ' m just trying to respond to . . . Mr. Matthews - You ' re one of two Harry . Mr. Ellsworth - Maybe it ' ll be a stalemate . Chairperson Sigel — Can you get it down to 42 ? Mr. Frantz - Well , I ' m sure if we went 9/ 12 , it would be down to . . . You ' re the engineer, Harry . 24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth - It ' s my night off. Every 12 feet you ' re picking up half a foot , . . Mr. Frantz - Half a foot and we ' re . . . Mr. Ellsworth - So multiply by increments of 12 . Chairperson Sigel — the house is more than 12 feet wide, so . . . Mr. Ellsworth - Well if it ' s 36, it ' s one and a half foot difference . You ' re picking up half a foot every twelve feet in width . Mr. Frantz - OK, the one at 320 is 37 feet, so 36 feet would be a foot . . . Mr. Ellsworth - So one and a half feet, a little more, 1 . 6 feet . Mr. Frantz - If we went with the 9/ 12 roof pitch . Comments inaudible Mr. Frantz - I cannot see any difference in going to a 9/ 12 pitch . It would actually be a nine inch difference, 36 divided by 2 is 18 feet. Mr. Ellsworth - You ' re picking up half a foot every twelve feet. If you ' re 36 feet wide, you ' re picking up a foot and a half. If you ' re 38 , you ' re picking up 1 . 6 or whatever it is . A little more than one and a half. So you can drive it down . . . Chairperson Sigel — your roof line only goes over half the house . Mr. Frantz - For every 12 feet, we ' re dropping half a foot in roof height. So we have 18 feet, 1 . 5 times one half is 9 inches . So this would bring the height of the house down to 41 feet . Mr. Frost - The irony is from the front of the road, you ' re still going to see the same thing. So, I can understand debating whether you ' re going to grant a height variance if the whole house is high. But in this case, the front of the house, and what most people see , you ' re still seeing a legally compliant house . Dropping the pitch to achieve another foot and a half is only going to affect the rear of the house, essentially. Mr. Ellsworth - I thought it was the front of the house . Mr. Frost - Maybe in the front a little bit, but the front is already in compliance, so is it going to make it more compliant? Mr. Ellsworth - Well , I ' m trying to stave off a landslide of people coming in here and keep driving this up . 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20 , 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney - Andy, I think Harry is saying there is a detriment to the neighborhood as a whole if we continue to go . . . Mr. Ellsworth - This direction in this neighborhood . Mr. Barney - unfettered. Mr. Frost - And I truly understand if the measuring point is if the whole house, including the front, is over the height. I think that ' s the point as me personally as a town resident as the building inspector, as the zoning officer for many years, I think that really starts to tread on good reason to allow variances that from the front . . . Mr. Barney - But you look at houses from four sides . Mr. Frost - I don ' t want to get into it, I ' m just suggesting what I think. I don' t vote, so it doesn ' t even matter. Mr. Ellsworth - This isn' t a problem for good architects, which I think the owner probably has . Mr. Barney - I think George is calculating correctly, Harry, though, I don ' t think it knocks it down a foot and a half. Mr. Ellsworth - We ' re below the 42 average we were talking about . Chairperson Sigel — It gets you just under 42 . Mr. Barney - It gets you just under 42 . Mr. Frantz - Without visibly changing the appearance of the house . Mr. Frost - Are these prepackaged? Mr. Frantz - No, we could make an adjustment like that, because we would be ordering the roof trusses . . . Mr. Frost - Yourself. Mr. Frantz - So at that point, we could go with the 9/ 12 roof pitch. Mr. Ellsworth - Dan can figure out a different roof truss . Dan can figure out a different roof truss . Chairperson Sigel — Harry would you vote for it at 42 feet. Mr. Ellsworth - Yeah . 26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Krantz - You said yes? Mr. Ellsworth - I said yes . Mr. Krantz - At 43 feet? Mr. Ellsworth - At 42 . Because Andy said the lot of what we approved is 42 . Chairperson Sigel — I would say that ' s a fair characterization that we ' ve gone as much as 42 . Mr. Krantz - I admit to being conflicted, but I guess I ' ll go along with 42 . Chairperson Sigel — George? Mr. Frantz - That' s something we can certainly handle, you know, going to a 9/ 12 pitch. Mr. Barney - Now that you ' ve gone that far, how about 8/ 12 ? Laughter Mr. Frantz - Then actually I get into real problems with the other peaks, I think. Chairperson Sigel — OK, give us a brief summary of your road situation then. Mr. Ellsworth - That ' s the second part. Mr. Frost - I sort of threw that in because the road, should he get a building permit, there is no road there right now, so we want to cover the bases . We had a case also up in Southwoods that was kind of a corner property and we had a completed road a portion of the road that was not complete, and I think the board in granting their approval had a caveat in there that you had to have a completed road . My only concern, and the concern of my department right at the moment, George, is when you drive in we have some pictures where there ' s mounds of dirt. And if a fire truck can get up to the parcel, they can' t get too far into the parcel because of these mounds of dirt, and however you consider this, I would just want to see there being a fairly level driveway up to the construction site meaning adjacent to the house, so if you had to get a fire truck in there we could get it in there . But in the final analysis, you may want to consider withholding a certificate of occupancy until the road is substantially completed . Mr. Frantz - That was sort of the notion that we have been operating under, the notion that we couldn ' t get a certificate of occupancy until the road was finished. As far as, I ' m not worried about fire truck access because we ' re going to have to get the truckloads of materials in there, so . . . 27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — So John, do we need to grant that variance then from 280A. Mr. Barney - Oh, the law says no building permits should be issues unless you ' re on a public road, so . I think the title papers are in my office, if we ' re looking at the title on it. But it ' s not physically constructed yet I gather from these pictures . Mr. Frantz - Again, I believe he has to — he was very close to putting down and doing the final grading, and then the plan is to yes, have it finished . . . Mr. Barney - Well before these houses would be eligible for occupancy. Mr. Frantz - Yes . Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Barney - I don ' t see a problem, if you choose to do so, with granting a 280A variance with the condition that no certificate of occupancy be issued until the road is completed to the satisfaction of the town highway superintendent. Chairperson Sigel — OK. OK, I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeals of Heritage Park Townhomes for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment form prepared by Mike Smith, dated September 8 , 2004 . Second? Mr. Ellsworth - I ' ll second . Chairperson Sigel — All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2004- 046 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Heritage Park Town Homes , Owner, George Frantz, Appellant, 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 46 -1 -15 . 27 and 46 -1 -15 . 28 , Low Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeals of Heritage Park Town Homes , Owner, George Frantz , Appellant , based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated September 8 , 2004 . The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz NAYS : Matthews The MOTION was declared to be carried . 28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — OK. I will move to grant the appeals of Heritage Park Townhomes, owner, George Frantz, appellant requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 270- 59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct residential buildings with interior and exterior heights not to exceed 42 feet (where 36 and 38 foot limits are in effect) at 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 46- 1 - 15 . 27 and 46- 1 - 15 . 28 , Low Density Residential Zone . In addition this motion grants variances from Article VIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62 , and Section 280A of New York State Town Law, to allow construction to commence prior to the completion of Town approved roadways . With the following findings : That the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied; that the home, while exceeding the permitted height in the interior height and in the rear, the homes do fall within the required height from the front of the house. And with the condition that the road must be accepted by the Town of Ithaca . . . Mr. Barney - I think it ought to be constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the town highway superintendent, and the town code enforcement officer, and I guess it probably ought to be accepted and dedicated to the town . Chairperson Sigel — OK. Prior to the issuing of a certificate? Mr. Barney - Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy of either house . Chairperson Sigel — OK, did I miss anything you can think of here? OK . Second? Mr. Ellsworth - Second . Chairperson Sigel — All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2004- 047 : Heritage Park Town Homes , Owner, George Frantz, Appellant, 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 46 -1 - 15 . 27 and 46 - 1 -15 . 28 , Low Density Residential Zone . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeals of Heritage Park Town Homes , Owner, George Frantz , Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct residential buildings with interior and exterior heights not to exceed 42 feet (36 foot height limit) at 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 46- 1 - 15 . 27 and 46- 1 - 15 . 28 , Low Density Residential Zone . In addition this motion grants variances from Article VIII , Sections 270-60 and 270-62 , and Section 280A of New York State Town Law, to allow construction to commence prior to the completion of Town approved roadways . 29 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES FINDINGS : 1 . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied . 2 . The homes , while exceeding the permitted height in the interior and in the rear, do fall within the required height when viewed from the front . CONDITIONS : 1 . The road must be constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent , Town Code enforcement officer, and must be accepted and dedicated to the Town prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy . The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz NAYS : Matthews The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairperson Sigel - OK, alright. Mr. Frantz - Thank you. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you . APPEAL of Robert Champion, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 280-A of New York State Town Law, to be able to construct a residence on a parcel of land that does not front on a Town, County, or State roadway, located on West Haven Road (near 140), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -28. 1 . Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Champion - Hi . My name is Robert Champion of 210 Rachel Carson Way. The address of this properly, which is a new address , is 144 West Haven Rd. Mr. Frost - We ' re not using that. Mr. Champion - We ' re not using that. Excuse me . Mr. Frost - We ' ll talk about that later. Mr. Champion - If possible, I wouldn ' t mind making a short statement that may be relevant? 30 FILE DATE ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2004- 046 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Heritage Park Town Homes , Owner, George Frantz , Appellant, 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 46 -1 - 15 . 27 and 46-1 -15 . 28 , Low Density Residential Zone . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeals of Heritage Park Town Homes , Owner , George Frantz , Appellant , based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated September 8 , 2004 . The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz NAYS : Matthews 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 September 2004 . puty Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2004- 047 : Heritage Park Town Homes , Owner, George Frantz, Appellant, 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 46 -1 - 15 . 27 and 46 -1 -15 . 28 , Low Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeals of Heritage Park Town Homes , Owner, George Frantz , Appellant , requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct residential buildings with interior and exterior heights not to exceed 42 feet ( 36 foot height limit) at 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 46- 1 - 15 . 27 and 46- 1 - 15 . 28 , Low Density Residential Zone . In addition this motion grants variances from Article VIII , Sections 270-60 and 270-62 , and Section 280A of New York State Town Law , to allow construction to commence prior to the completion of Town approved roadways . FINDINGS : 1 . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied . 2 . The homes , while exceeding the permitted height in the interior and in the rear, do fall within the required height when viewed from the front . CONDITIONS : 1 . The road must be constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent , Town Code enforcement officer, and must be accepted and dedicated to the Town prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy . The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz NAYS : Matthews 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 meetqn),g on the 20th day of September 2004 . Aw, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca � U rA Cd 0 Viz. rq en �. ti ` 3 � ♦J � I 320 Old Gorge Road 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 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 construct a single family residence at 320 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 46- 1 - 15 .28 . The Town has not yet accepted the Old Gorge Road , and therefore this property does not front on a public road . It is recommended that construction could begin but that no occupancy be allowed in this residence until the public road is completed and accepted as a public road . Since significant excavation and grading is required to create the walk out basement, erosion and sedimentation control will be very important during construction and to be maintained until vegetation is reestablished . C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : None Anticipated. 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 parcel is located with the Eldridge Preserve Unique Natural Area (UNA- 155 ). As much of the existing vegetation on the site should be maintained as possible. 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 parcel is designated "Suburban Residential " in the Town Comprehensive Plan, and it is zoned Low Density Residential . The proposal requires variances for the height of the structure and for not fronting on a public road . 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 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 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 : SignlUure of RespMsiblc Officer in Lead Agency v� 0FIr TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N . Tioga Street , ITHACA , N. Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 ENGINEERING 273 - 1747 PLANNING 273 - 1747 BUILDING AND ZONING 273- 1783 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273- 1656 FAX (607) 273 - 1704 Application for Appearance in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals For Office Use Only For office Use only Fee $ 100 Property is located within or adjacent to Date Received 4 „2 t0 � County Ag District CH K ALL THAT APPLY UNA Cash or Check No. V Area Variance CEA Zoning District Use Variance Forest Horne Historical District Special Approval Requesting an appearance to be allowed to C 0 4 , � r..4 � a a, ,� t , ,, f J� , Aitw,,. , V � 6k; %C. at 20 o (�s � —J own of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . . (�. - ) . / S, 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. ) S. C=C IIAZ X 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 Date : p &i Print Name Here �o✓� �rn nZ. Home Telephone Number Work Telephone Number 25'6! - q 3 NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will expire. Your attendance at the meeting is advised , Revised 05/26/04 George R . Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca , NY . 14850 - 2014 16071256 - 9310 e - mail. geoplan57 (laclarityconnect . com Mr. Andrew Frost Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Ithaca New York 14850 August 13, 2004 Dear Andy, Attached please find an application for a height variance for new single-family home to be built on Tax Parcel No. 46.- 1 .- 15.28, a.k.a. No. 320 Old Gorge Road. The home as designed will be a total of 42 ft. , 8 in . in height measured from the basement floor to the tallest point of the roof. It will be 42 ft. 8 in. from the lowest point of exterior grade, just outside a basement walkout door at the rear of the proposed structure, to the highest point of the roof It would thus exceed the maximum allowed height for structures within the Town of Ithaca R-30 zoning districts by 4 ft. 8 in . for interior height and 6 ft. 8 in . for the exterior height. Although it would exceed the maximum height limitations, the proposed House when viewed from Old Gorge Road or Southwoods Drive would have a height of approximately 34 feet from the lowest exterior grade to the peak of the main roof. Because of the slope of the land, the lowest exterior grade of the house at the basement walkout would be 4 feet to 6 feet below the surrounding grade and not be visible from adjoining properties on either side or from the street. There would be approximately 40 feet of woods between the proposed walkout area and the side property line shared with the lot at 318 Old Gorge Road, which is also owned by the applicant and upon which the applicant proposes to build a similar size home. The walkout area would be approximately 100 feet from the rear lot line and the undeveloped property to the north. We have considered the design option of 'reducing the roof pitch from the 9.5 : 12 pitch proposed by the original architect to 6: 12 in order to bring the house into compliance with the zoning district height limitation. While this is a feasible approach from a technical standpoint, reducing the pitch of the roof would detract considerably from the aesthetic quality of the house. We could of course bring the structure down to below the maximum allowed height of 36 feet from lowest exterior grade to the highest point of the roof by raising the exterior grade at the rear of the home, eliminating the proposed walkout and constructing a conventional, non-inhabitable basement. Doing so however would bar my client from fully utilizing the opportunity to create an attractive sunken outdoor patio afforded by the natural gradient of the land. The alternative would be to build a large above ground deck that would be up to seven feet above the natural grade and visually intrude upon the natural wooded character of the property. The cellar and deck alternative would also not eliminate the need for a variance from the maximum interior height limits. We would thus prefer to keep the walkout. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, George R. Frantz, A1CP Land Use Planning, Community Development , Park & Open Space Planning, Agricultural Land Protection Planning, Growth Management , State Environmental Quality Review PROJECT ID NUMBER 617.20 SEAR APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT / SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME G -e y el F� tit Z 320 0/ , l 3. PROJECT LOCATION : q6 - 1 - !S . % t Municipality 7�0wA p r 17u4� I County / 6 F'•1 P 4. PRECISE LOCATION : Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc - or provide map s G � 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION : ® New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification / alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Sf &9 A 51 AV le - 7"a ... l �✓ Lll0 is WIT /h oN qr��0 ✓e•�L fK �o�� ✓�) S ►oN ; O ✓1 01 .5 t/eelL LLL //LAT �y NM 41r/ Cooljrll#'. le* o1 /3 eeuul G tAc 5heeeT IS NKT/ oil S4e& A &I rt ha! .ask thee • AeGe4f'le d' 6y t-Ac Tw , Of fksre4 t-. ie, �ooleel hezks 11/0 n f Nq 4 On Lt /ado& G ✓•O R !/7 . 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially t d, $ p acres Ultimately t 0 . 90 acres & WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? F1 Yes ❑ No If no, describe briefly: 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) ❑X Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑Agriculture ® Park / Forest / Open Space ❑ Other (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local) Yes El No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: Tour 0 3 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ElYes P(INo If yes, list agency name and permit / approval : 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT / APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION ? ❑Yes Q No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Sponsor Name (O t Peg G }!' . Fia f Z Date: Signature__ J If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment S/OUTH/VVOOOIS DRIVE % ar 40 S LINE a / 4d FT. BACK LIN / / y DDo ::o Lo) —a ul � C') � z j c °zrr*, � I O En PROPOSED SITING FOR —I I� NEW HOME AT 320 OLD GORGE ROAD wm E ss a 3 kQw ■ LU U.j J2b1i LLJ } � Z ? $ § LL: ' I k ! LIJ % ° § , 64 4u / . Ak Q { d R k : & $ . § ' § s . � » S _ § on � N z = E o 0 .a. at/11 m . . . 0 I . , g : a w \ � . k � Property Description Report For SOUTHWOODS in Ithaca (Town ) Page I of I Property Description Report For SOUTHWOODS in Ithaca (Town ) Owner Information No Image Available SOUTHWOOD ASC 2377 N TRIPHAMMER RD ITHACA , NY 14850% RE MAX ASC Status Active Roll Section Taxable Swis 503089 Tax Map # : 46 . - 1 - 15 . 28 Zoning Code Site 1 Neighborhood 30020 Property Class Res Vac Lands Land Assessment $ 10 , 000 Total Assessment $ 10 , 000 Total Acreage 0 . 81 School District Ithaca Deed Book 645 Deed Page 221 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 None Sale Date N/A Water Supply None Sale Price N/A Utilities Gas/Elec Valid N/A Heat Type Unknown Arms Length N/A Fuel Type Unknown Prior Owner N/A Central Air No httD : //aSnlsda . tonlDklns -CO . OI'Q/Innate/r) rin table . asD ? 1 rna=httD : Has nlsd LT . torn t) k1ns -co . ora/Inlate/ 1rnaaes . . . 8/ 18/04 Donald A. Gardner Architects - The Elliot Page 1 of 2 Donald A. Gardner Architects, Inc. The Elliot Plan #: W-421 Specifications • Total living: 2,943 s.f. Style: Country First floor: 1,943 s.f. Farmhouse Second floor: 1,000 s.f. House: 79 X 51 Bonus room: 403 s.f. Great Room: 18 X 23 Bedrooms: 4 Master Bedroom: Baths: 2-112 15 X 14 r Wr r 1#. Foundation: Crawl Space Alternate Foundations: Basement c 1995 Donald A.Gardner Architect,Inc. PORCH r BRKFST. I MASTER 13-• • n-s FANKY 16-1 RM.R BED p-° 1 71-7 , • IS-6 [ 14-10 it ,..slu. Its i 2iti'O KIT. v,w . 13-4 a IFi WANG DING G FOYER" 11 . . » <. J_ ° —1 PORCH -- FW FLOOR PLAN wK [M.W A 4•s AiWn 1,,K Aw NQ 4w III LOFT/ B® RM. �•,• STL,OY 13-4 . n-10 •""•'""• ea . vto ------------ — •.1,• _--- .... M BONUS RM 0-0. N-0 BED RNL BED RM. 13-4 , u-e • SKOND FLCIOR N AN http://www.dongardner.com/plans/printdetails.asp?PlanID=421 7/21/04 0 U o O N _ J co W CL °' rn � C;) ° rn Z U) w > E � c 3 u O ° 3 - N a� r o °vi m c C a `n Q Q c o tY d (� CD o cv U ° ° Q U U 2 _ J J 2 z O d ® I o LO Lo 10 jr \ Y A., rte:<N' 10 o M C) s n z W W \` o \ � M .� cn L 1 J l l S W 1