Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2024-02-27Town, of Ithaca Zoning tsoard of,Appealss February 27, 2024 Present: Board.me mtiers David Squires, Chair; Chris Jung, Stuart.Friedman, Connor Terry, Kim Ritter and Matthew Minnig Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Ashley Colbert, Deputy Town Clerk.; and Susan. Brock, Attorney far the Town, Mr. Squires, opened the meeting at 6:00p.m. Item 1, ZBA.A.-24-1 Appeal of Cornell Unl*versity, owner of 361 Pme Tree Rd., CCZ, TIC 011 61-2-1.121.,* Michael Kuo, applicant agent, seeking retief from Town. of Ithaca Code sections 270-223 (Fences and walls; retaining walls) to install an. 8' tall. fence, where no taller than 6" is allowed. Introduct,ion Mr. Kuo said he would answer any questions the boardmight have. Pubtic Hearing M.T. Squires, ope'ned the ublic hearin there was no ane wishing to speak., and the ng heariwas p 91 closed. Dliscuss�i.�o�n,/Dete�r�ml*.�nat�*ion Mr. Squires, noted that the plans presented to the board Provided adequate detail and mem.bers, of the board had no other comments or questions. Z,BA. Resolulion,Z13AA-24-1. Area Variance — Height requirements 3,61. PiRe TreeRd TP# 62.-2-1.121. CCU Resolved that th,l.s board, grants the appeal of Cornell University,, owner of 361 Pine Tree RC Ithacal NY, 14850,; Michael, Kuo, applicant agyegut fm Town, of Ithaca, Code section secttons 270-223 (Fences and, wall &P reta,iring walls) to Install an, 8' fence, where only a 6' fence is a1lowed,to be Installed is requested,1 with the following:, Conditions . I . That the fence be built as, submitted to the board,. 2. Not to exceed 8, feet in hght Findings That thebenefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and, welfare of the community,,, specifically'': ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. I 1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the emergency backup generator for the communications center provides the power to the communications facility and requires, larger diesel. generators; and 2. That there wil] not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this facility already exists, the new fence installation will match substantially the same; and 3. That the request is not substantial giventhat thzre is au . existi:ng''7 foot fence, and the upgraded generator is larger and requires an. 8 foot fence to screen. and protect the equipment,, and 4. The request will, not have adverse physical,. or environmental effects as evi.dence by the fact that 'SQE.R is not required since it is replacement in kind on the same site-�I and ,5. That whi.le the alleged difficulty is not se1.47'created in- that the New York State variance and the National Electrical Code requires a large enough. generator to run. the facility for 72 hours, which, would require an, 8-foot h,eigh. fence Therefore, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Stuart Frei.dman. Vote: ayes - Squires, Jung, Freidman, Ritter & Terry Item 2 ZBAA-23-31 Appeall of EZC Carofi[nas PLC, 4 Schickel Rd, LDR, TP 36.-244- seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-61 (Building area to build a 26'x,28' detached garage in. the rear yard resulting in 15.,6% tot coverage where the maximum is 10%. futroduction Mr. Squires, stated that thts, appeal was adjourned from the last meeting, and the board was :not convInced to grant a request based upon storage needs but there was the possibility of a, decrease in the size if the shed that is, currently e�l. litigated Is settled. He added that he did not see an,Y new informatmn in, the i-naterials submit�ted for th,is, i-n-teting. Mr. Martmek responded that he had included. ptctures of the foliage shielding the view of the proposed garage froin the neighbor, and the structure was now being l,led a garage versus an accessory building which changes the maximum. allowed square footage of the structure. As to the 'litigation,, the judge has called, for an, all parties meeting on, March, 1. 1 th because he, 'wants the case settled; the expectation pis that it will be done at thattime. ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. 2 Mr., Moseley added that the diff&ren. ce from the last appearance is that wfth. the removal, of the shed from, the total. calculation. of building area or lot coverage,, the rematning variance being requested is lot coverage or total. building, area. He added that the roof I,tne 1.s where tbem.easurement is derived not the sides of the structure. With the removal of the shed the lot coverage is down by about 200 square fe%et. ffi .a # scuss�ton Mr., Squiresed that he still had concerns about the increase in lot coverage and questions the justification of such a large garage. Mr.Martinek responded that his ctients, have sold the house in North Carolin,a and have 11.1oved here, an the inlent is, to use the ga�rage to store cars, an. al.l.-terrain vehicle, the usual. lawn m.aintenance epipment and also have a little work.shop in the back to tinker in. He added that his clients decided to, stay with. th:est for a, little over the 10% pernlifted lot coverage. They would like to keep the garage the size that they wanted now that it has been determined it rneets the definition of "garage' and the shed is going to be removed. Mr., Moseley stated that it would be over the 1. 0% but under 15 %, lot coverage once the litigated shed is rernoved. Discussion followed with Board mernbers saying that they did not feel, there were unique hardships; th,ere is a two -car garage existing pow and addi.ng yet another garage would change the character of the neighborhood. Mr., Moseley noted that his,.prevwus numbers were incorrect. The lot size 1.s, a pre-exist'tng non- conforming size, being srnaller than what is currently allowed under the Code. Therefore, the current residence atrendy exceeds, the maxtm= lot coverage, which was granted by a prev�'ious variancel., even without the addition of the detached garage and the subtraction of the shed beiiig removed. Mr. Squires, suggested the matter should be adj* I I I ou�med until there is written proof the litigation has resulted in the removal of the shed, and a revised proposat for a smaller garage., Mr., Martinek was confused, askmg why he was not told the lot coverage was already over the allowed percentage. He surd he would be willing to work with. Mr. Moseley on the sizing of the garagrequested, but that it would be hard to do, not knowing what the Board was willing to really consider in a percentageof an in.crease iin lot coverage above the existing overage. The Board stated that they were focus e�d on the size of the structure and whether it was classified as a garage or accessory structure and dWn't realize the existing non -con form, ity. Mr., Moseley added t1lat lie would like time to verIfy i-neasurernents as the building permit lists d�imensi.ons that do r t match. th,.e infori-nation, given and that Makes a difference. ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. 3 The Bnoted that it cannot give a guarantee or guideli. ,es for designs. I t Motion maae oy Mr. Squires, seconded by Mr. Terry to adjourn tie tnatter to the next meeting to allow time for accurate measurements and a.possible change in, plans; un.anim.ous. Item 3 ZBAU'-24-'l Appeal. Cedar Rock Une., Owner, 602 Elmira Rd4 Light Industrial Zone and Inlet Valley Center Overlay Distri,et TP 31.-3-4, seeking relief from a conditi.on of ZBAU-23-2, a use variance, which allowed for, a, 24.,700 square foot self- storage faci.hty to be constructed and operated within. the In.let Valley Center overlay zone with. the condition that "the buildin.g be built substantially as subt-nifted, including the number of buildings and overall square footage, except to the extent that if a deviation, is, necessary from. the design,. as shown, the deviation. must comp,ly with. the O�verlay District Design Standards and Guru delis " .esarid the appl.icant is requesting to remove or use the condition to allow for a deviation from the Inlet Vally Overl.ay.Dst t'Desig,Standards and Guidelines to request certain area vaiances. Introd'uction M'ichael Las,sell and Josh, Best, agents,, were present for questions. ems. Brosk. explained that the : equest is to modify or remove the condition and Mr. Moseley explained that there is case law to allow the Board to modify or remove a condition. The condition was placed on. the Use Variance based upon a sketch plan. rather than, final drawings. The Use Variance must be modified to al,low this Board to hear the requests for the variances. Discussion followed on the intent of the Town Board when ado.pting the IVOD and which of the variances being urequested apply to th,e'fVOD. The distance betweeii buildings and the stream ej setback. are not associated with the 1VOD design criferia,, the :rest are. Mr.,'Best added that the design. submitted didn"t change from when this, Board granted the use variancethe overall design and site placetnent remain the same and we worked hard to, make this a nice site. The design has been enhanced and made mcer than a, typical. storage facility. The existing condition. on the Use Variance stating that ill deviations must meet the Inlet Valley Overlay District (1VOD) is, nearly 11-npossible to :m,eet because some of the 1VOD cannot be met due to the use of the bulldin.gs. For exarnple, the IVOD requireinent regarding a Prtrnary entrance for each. buil.ding, and these are storage units, so tb.ere are no prtrnary entrances. As we got ln.to t1i.e full construction detail,s, these types of issues arose. Mr. Moseley added that there were a few changesone building was rernoved and one bullding was split n,to two and a, few other things that di,dn,"t change the overall intent or imp resswn. of the design. ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. 4 Mr. Lassel.l. went through. a, s1ide show of the final, design., noting that some of the buildings were shifted a, but to meet setbacks and the roof Iines, were changed to meet the IVOD. Mr. -Friedman. asked about signage. Mr., Lassel.1 showed a depiction of the signage on, one of the buildings, adding that the Planning Sta,ff specifitcally told them.not to show signage as that is a, different process, Mr. Squires, suggested changing the conditi,on. to built substantia.1.1y as sup brnitted at this meefing and that any deviations, from. the IVODmust recei.ve a, variance from. this Board. Rub1ic Hearing Mr. Squires, opened the public hearing; there was one wishing to speak., and the bearing was closed. Changes to the original SEQR were made to indicate the requests for the modified Use Variance and the �requested area, variances. ZRA Resolution,ZBAU-24-1 S!'EQR - Use ariance o I u�,Icafion 602' Imirand. Cedar Rock Inc. TP 31,-3-4 Light Industrial Zone & Inlet Valley Overlay District Resolved that this Roard 'makes a negative determination of significant envtronmenfal irn.pacts associated with. t/ requested modification of th,.e existing use variance and the equested area variances., based upon the information. in Parts 1. & 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3. Moved: David Squires Seconded.- Stuart Friedman Vote.- ayes — Squires, Terry, Jung, Friedman and Rtter Determination, The Board went through, the revised site.plan and requested area. variances. Z13A.Resolution,ZBAU-24-1 Use Variance Modification 602 El.miira, Rd. Cedar Rock Inc. TP 31,-3-4 Light Industrial. Zone & InIet Valley Overlay District R,eso'lved that this Board grants the appeal, of Cedar Rock Inc. to amend the condition listed in. ZBA. Resolution ZBAU2023-2, Ifically, n ti u 1. is revised to state that the project must be completed substant�lally as shu wn,. on the plans subm.�Itted to this Board for thetr tn.eeti.n.g on ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. 5 February 27, 2024, and the app,ticant must obtain,. any necessary area variances from. this Board prior to the issuance of any building permits. Findng that th,e.August 21, 2023,,meeting had submitted a sketch, plan and now the applicant has submitted a final. site plan that the Planning Board has approved, with conditions, at their February 2, 20,24 meeting and the fimal site plan, contanis, modified site plan, details that fit the design criteria, and intent of the IVOD and necessitated this modification and this Board finds that those changes do, not change the original. findings of this Board. Moved:, David Squires Seconded: Stuart Friedman Vote: ayes — Squires, Jung, Friedman, Terry, and Ritter Item 4 ZBA.A.-23-30 Appeal. Cedar Rock, Inc., Owner, 602 Elmira Rd4 Light Industrial Zone and Inlet Valley Overlay District, TP 3L-3-4 seeking relief from.: 1. Town of Ithaca Code section 270- 171.61)(1. 2)(a)[2] (Window and door area) where a 10% - 40% window or door glazing area on interior side elevations (fake windows, can substitute for up to 50% of the required transparent areas) is required, where the applicant is.proposing to utilize fake windows and doors instead. 2. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-171.61)(14) (Building entrance orientation and design), which requires a principal building to incorporate a specific design clew ent and requires the public entry of a principal build.ing , with street frontage, to face the busiest street, where located at an. intersection., where the applicant is propos'Ing to not incorporate design elements for bui1dings,2,3,4,5 & 6 and where buildings 2, 3, & 6 are not fronting the busiest street. 3. Town off` Ithaca Code section 270-1.71.61F(2)(a) (Parking lot siting), which equit-es off street park,ung areas, fronting El.inira Road, to be in, the rear or side yard, where the app,ticant is proposing to locate parking �in, the front yard. 4. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-171.6F(5)(b) (access 'Managernent), which reqw.res a corner lot to locate the vehwle access from the secondary street, not the principal street, where the alp licantis propo&ing to have vehicle access on Etrnira Road, (NYS-R.oute 1. 3)�, which, �,s the priLuc i.pal, street. 5. Town of Ithaca Code section. 2'70-1.71.6G(1)(a) (Pedestrian and bicycle facilities), cal icIn requires a pruncipal, buildIng to have a minimum 5' paved walkway connecting, the m.ain. entrance to the Public right of way, where the applicant ts proposing to not have a in.inim.um. 5' paved pedestrIan. walkway connecting bu�]Idin.gs 2,3,4,5 & 6 to the Public right of wayl. 6. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-226 (More than one buildtng on a loth, which. a,ll,ows for multiple prin.ci. a], buddJngs to be located on. a lot, in. a non-residential wnebut requires that the p space between such principal, bufldings be at least equal to the sum, of the side yards or the suni, of th.e re!ar and front yards to be calculated as if each building were located on its own induval. lot, where the applicant isProposmg to have multiple principal. buildings on a smgrle lot that ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. 6 woulmeet the front,side, or rear yards as calculated based on the current use where the buildings are to be located. 7. Town of Ithaca Code section 2'70-21.9.5E (Prohibited activities in Stream Setback. Zone 2) which. Prohi.bils construction or installation of a, parki.ng lot, parking space, or im.pervi.ous surface in. stream setback zone 2. where the applicant is proposing to construct an. impervious area, located wilhi.n a portion of stream. setback zon.e 2. DiSCUSSIM Mr. Squires :read the public hearing notice and asked about the findings in the'use Variance that he thought met the needs of the requested aea variances excePt for the one regardi.ng whether the request bstantial or not. Mr.-Meley noZoning ted that the Board orange notice was not posted. The Planning Board orange sign was, but not this Roard"s notice He also stated that during the Planning Board Process, there was mention of phasing and this Board might be interested i,n that. Public Rearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing, there was no one present, and the hearing was closed. D�*i,.scuss�i.�o�n/Dete�r�m�l*.nat�*ion'I Mr. ,as sell. addressed the transparency of the phasing, noting that the concept is that the storage buil&ngs in the back wfl.1 be consti' -ucted first and �if they are �not filled, plantin .gs will be exteed ed i.n front of tun con strub cted uildings to buffer the site wi,thin the 1.8 month. period to construct the: project with -in the active approval period of the Planning Board and Zontng Board of Appeals approvals. Essenhally, there may be a, small pause in the full budd out of the project of a, couple of months depending on th..luin ofthe storage units and basical,ly a financial consideration. Mr. Best showed both, renderings of the start of constructwn, the middle which may consist of the back. afldtngs only, and the final build out. Trees that are n the State'ROW and evergreen planfings by the appiwant wfll. buffer the view from the road i.n either scenario. He added that there is no intent to phase th.�is project, the delay between the buildings being constructed was in the tnterest oft ransparency, but the own.er of the project stated that this ful,l. project will be buflt out withIn 1, 8, months or sooner, not the 36 permitted under the timelines of the approvals of ftnal site plan. and the beg�,inntng of con.struction.. The Board discussed the changes to the site plan and. the requested variances, fin.ding that they were acceptable and made the project u i.cer tri many aspects and closer to meet�In.g, the IVOD sinus qui.remen.ts. ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. 7 All of the buildi:ngthe detai1s, materials, plantings, etc. meet the IVOD other than,. the variances being requested. The applicants added that this is, a si-nall storage unif prqject compared to the typical size of storage un.i.t places and they have no concem.s regarding the build out within 18 m on.ths. The Board went through each of the requests,, compiling a resolution grantin.g each with a new dete�rrninatio,n on the question. of whether, the request was substantial: Mr. Best explained that all. the windows facing the road are fake windows but framed out and there are real windows on the office building. The fake wi.n.dows help meet the break in fapde ,. , I materials as requD, ired by the IVO�, but there is no open:ing 1 n t - ne wall. The Board discussed the use variance,'noting that the use was permitted when. this proJect began. to take fortn. prior to COVID and the enactment of the IVOD regulations and they appreciated the work the applicant had put in to make tie use as attractive and infirne with, the IVOD as possible. A. Windows — Board hao concerns and understood the need for security. B. Entrances — Applicant explained the second major building does not have a front -facing *I entrance other than onra e loading access mp, WIth the public entrance on the backside where the other exact building does have a public entry facing the road. The Board felt that fit the overall. look and intent of the structure. C. Parking — for understood the geed to keep people out of the interior of the lot for security reasons. The gate is controlled by a security system where only those ustrig a unit'. which. are prim arily accessed at, night and weekends, will have a code to enter. The applicants uoted that a charging station will be avairlable to, the neighborhood during office hours and the plantings will shield it. D. Access — The Board agreed that itmakesmore sense to have the access away frorn the intersection and the NYS DO�T has fi,nal say on, the location proposed. Access from. Rout Da has stackmg issues as wll an.d the busier, :road is. more conducive to the proposed access. E. Walkway — The Board agreed that there is no use for pedestrian access to pomts that do not have access to the public and the ditch. and guide ral.l. block. any pedestrian access. F. Spacing — The Board agreed the spwi.ng is ap ro ri , ate for the use. 'If each, buildin.gneeded a p p 20"Toot setback frorn, each other,, that would mean, a minimuni, of 40' feet between buil.dings. G. Stream Setback — The Board agreed wth. the Planning Board's findings that this Proposat's mIrfigation planm,eet true mitigation. requirements to 'Intfi.gate encroach, r�, ent into the zoned setbacks. ZBA'Resolui*on,ZB,A.A.-23-30 area Va�riiances 602 Eltniira R.d. Light Industrial. Zone nlet Valley Oveflay Dis&iict ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. 8 Tax Parcel, 31.-3-4 Resolved that th.is'Board grants the appeal. of Cedar Rock Inc., Owner of 602 Elmira R.d. seeking retief from the following Town, of.1thaca, Code Chapters - ,A. Town of Ithaca Code section 270471.61D(12[.21 (Window and door area) where a 10% - 0 window or door glazing area on. interior side elevations (fake wil.n.dows, can substitute for up to 50% oft . uired transparent areas) is required, where the applicant is, proposing to utilize fake windows and doors instead, with the fol.towing W71TITIN "M 1. The project must be completed substantially as shown. on the plans subni.itted to this Board for their meeting on. February 27, 2,024, and witl . the folJowing IF'rings That the ben.efit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health',safety, and well. being of the community, specifically L That the benefit thwplicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by ay other means feasible given that ths a, storage facility and requiring glass windows would not meet the needs for security of a storage facility, and 2. That there will got be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby by Pro.perties given that neighborhood consists of other commercial ProPerti.es a�nd the applicants have designed an attractive prQject u&tng fdke windows, to meet the effect of real wflows for aesthetic value and real windows are used on the street side of the building where appropri.ate tmeet intent of the IVOD while ensuring security, and 3. That the :request is substantial given that no more than 50% can. be fake and the request if for all. in facing windows to be fake, and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or envi it ,nmental effects as evidenced by the A negative SEQR determination., alILI 5. That the alleged difficult ' y is, not self-created in, that the owner bouh gt the property in, 201.8, before the use was not perinitted and prior to the IVOD emg enacted. Moved: David Squires, Seconded: Connor Terry Vote.- ayes —Squires, Terry, Ritter, Jung and Friedman B. Town of Ithaca Code sectlion, 270�-171.6D(1,.4) (Building entrance orlentati.on and design), which, requires a pruncipal building to incorporate a specfflc design eteinent and requires the public entry of a principal building , with street frontage, to face the busiest street, where located at an. 'intersection., where the applicant ts ppro posIng to not incorporate de&Ign eletnents for, buil&ngs,2,3,4,5 & 6 and where bulldings 2, 3, & 6 are not fronting the busiest street, with, the follow�tng,: ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. 9 J" a Uonditions I I 1. The project must be comPteted substantially as shown. on the plans submitted to this Bfor their meeting on, February 27, 2024, au d. with, the foll.owing 2. In the event building six is not constructed within 36 months from the final. site plan, approval of the Planning Board as idenlified in, phase two of the plans, submitted to this Board on February 27, 2023 meeting', the project is required to install fence and landscaping 'tn accordance with. the fence and landscaping:plan as approved by the Planni:ng Board which shall. determine the fence location,' fence material,, fence length and the anl,ount and type of deciduous and con.iferopus trees and bushes to be used, and with the following.- F'pings That the ben.efit to the appficant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and well. being of the community, specifical1y I That the benefit the app1icant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given. that there buildings, 2-5, due to their nature of containing individual storage units, there is no purpose for an entry andit would be physical.1y impossible to design a single entrance, and building 6 would not be as useful hav'ung a main entrance facing the road because it would not keeP people in the secure envelope of the site and there are topography challenges, and building 6 is used to screenthe rest of the project from street view, and 2. That there will not be an. undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to ne!ar . by properties given that neighborhood consists of the commercial pro erties and the p applicants have designed this to make it appear that there is a, main entrance on, bufl.ding 6 and buildings, 2-5 are not highly visible from the road, and 3. That the :request is substantial given, almost al.] the bulldings do not courp,ly with the requirements, for main entrance features, and 4. Trequest m1l not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the A negative SEAR. determination, and 5. That the alleged difficulty not self-created In that the owner bought the property In 201.8, before the use was not peri-nitted and prior to the IVOD being ena,cted. Moved: Stuart Friedinan, Seconded: David Squires Vote: ayes —Squires, Terry, Ritter, Jinn ,g and Friedman. C. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-171AF(2)(a) (Parking lot siting), which requires off street parking areas, fronting Elmtra Road, to bin, the rear or side yard, where the appticant is proposing to locate parking in, the front yard, with, the following: ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. .1. 0 UJ" a onditions I I 1. The project must be completed substantially as shown. on the plans subni.i.tted to this Board for their meeting on, February 27, 2024, and 2. The applicants wil.l. f6flow the landscaping plan as approved by the Plann�ing Board which shall determine the amount and type of deciduous arid con.i.ferous trees and bushes to be used, and with. the folJowing Fm.dings That the ben.efit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health., safety, and well, being of the co�mmunity, specifically 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given. that this the rnain entrances required on this prrnc�ipal building to be facing the main treet nd so.parking and makes sense i.ear the m.ai:n builAing and the rest of the facifity,is behind a security gate, and parking in the rear, could obstruct or hinder rn,ergency vehicle access and maneuverability, and 2. That there will not be, an undesirable change in,. the neighborhood character or to inearby Properties given. that there is a minimal amount of parking spaces and the view is m.iti.gated by plantings, and 3. That the request is substantial given that parking is :got allowed in the front, and 4. The request will not have adverse physical,. or environmental, effects as evidenced by the negative SEQR determ.ination, and 5. That the all"Ieged difficully is, not self-created in, that the owner bought the Property In 201.8, before the use was snot permitted and prior to the IVOD in ena,cted. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Connor Terry Vote.- ayes —Squires, Terry, Ritter, Jun,g and FrIed:ram an D. Town, of Itha,ca Code section 270-171.6F(5)(b) (access Manage�ment),, which. requires a comer lot to loca,te the vehicle access frorn, the secondary street,. not the prtnc�ipal, street, where the applicant is propo&,ing to have vehicle access off 'Elmira, Road (NYS-Route 1, 3), which is the i pry rug , pal, street. Conditions 1. The project must be wmpleted substantially as shown on. the plans subrnilted to tl .s Board for their uneeting on February 27, 2024, and ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. .1. 1 F ik 1.n.dings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and well. being of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that sigh1lines are obstructed by the guard,rails, the potential for traffic heading north on. Five Mile Dr could stack back. onto, Route 1, 3, which could include emergency Vehicles, and avoids, any potential. encroachment into the stream, setback and the size of the NYS ROW limiting the location of access sited off the secondary �road, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in,. the neighborhood character or to nearby pro.pertie s given that a lot of businesses fronting on out 13 have access fro: t and this option is safer and more practical n. the movement of traffic rather than. the secondary street and the way the vehicles stack., and the only other c� ner lot cotnrnercial building has access frown. both the primary and secondary roads, and 3. That the requests substantial given that access from the secondary road is required where tie main road is Proposed,, and 4. The equest will not have adverse physical or environmental. effects, as evidenced by the negative SEE R detenininaton, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is, not self-created in, that the owner bought the property in 2018, before the use was not permitted and prior to the I'VOD being enacted. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Connor Terry Vote: ayes —Squires, Terry, Ritter, Jung, and Friedman E. 'Town of Ithaca Code section. 270-171.6G(1)(a) (Pedestrian and bicycle fachit ies), which. requires a Princ�tpal, builAIng to have a minimurn 5' paved walkway connecting the un.aiu . entrance to the public right of way, where the applicant is PropOsing to not have a tnintrnum 5' paved pedestrian. walkway connecting build�tngs 2,,3,4,5 & 6 to the public rlgh.t of way. Condition's L The project must be completed substantially as sh.own on the plans subi-nItted to th�ls Board for their rneeting on February 27, 2024, and 2. The applicants will follow the landscaping plan as approved by the Plan:u in.g, Board which. shall deterrnlne the ainount and type of deciduous and con1ferous trees and bushes to be used, and with. the following F' 0 1.ndings That the benefif to the appticant outweighs any detriment to the health,, safety, and well, being of the coni�munity, specifically ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. .1. 2 1. That the benefit the applicant wi.sh.es to achieve can.not be ac41eved by any other means feasibl.e given that layout of the buildings, with building 2-5 being behind the main buil.dings and it is not practicable to provide a walkway along the expanse of the NYS R.OW'and pedestrians would have to cross a, ditch. and a, guardrail to access the property, and 2. That there will. got be an un.desirabl.e change in, the neighborhood character or to near . by properties given that and it woul-d be exceedingly rare for a pedestrian to aWroach this type of use on,. foot or bicycle, and 3. That the request is substantial given that a paved walkway is required, and 4. The �request wil.1 not have adverse physical,. or environmental. effects, as evidenced by the SEQR detemination, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is, not self-created in. that the own.er bought the pro.perty in. 2018, before the use was :got perunitted and prior to the 1VOD being ena,cted. Moved: David Squires Seconded:, Connor Terry Vote: ayes —Squires, Terry, Ritter, Jung, and Friedman F Town of Ithaca Code section 270-226, (more than,. one building on a tot), which allows for multiple pr�tn. cipal. buil.dings to be located on a lot to a non-resi , dential zone but requires that the space between, such princi.pal, buildings be at least equal to the sum, of the side yards or the su�, of the rear and frot yards to be calculated as if each,. building were located on its own inlug vial lot., where the applicant s proposing to have multiple principal buildings on. a single lot that would not meet the frontl side., oeyards as calculated based on the current zone where the buildings are to be located. Con .Altion,s 1. The project : ust be com.pleted substantially as shown on the plans submitted to this Board for their i"neeting on February 27., 2024, and Findings That the ben.efit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health,, safety, and well, being of the com�munify, specifi,cally 1. That the benefit the apPlicant wshes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other me�ans I I feasible given that each. setback is essentially doubled as measured from each builcuung and the �n,umber of buildings would be si gni fi cant], y decreased and combintng all buildings into one massive building would make it not as aesthetically pleastng and not cornpliant with the IVOD, and 2. That there will, not be an undesirable change in, the neighborhood character or to nearby properties gi.ven that the bufldings being close to each other but not visible fro�ixi the street, and 3. That tl quest is not substantial, given niany of the buildings are 25-30 feet apart where 40 feet j.s requir,ed, and ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. .1. 3 4. The equest will not have any significant adverse Physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the S'EQR determination, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created in. that the owner bou9 ht the property in 201.8, before the use was got permitted and prior to the IVOD being enacted. Moved:, David Squires Seconded:, Connor Terry Vote: ayes —Squires, Terry, Ritter, Jung,, and Friedman G. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-21,9.5E (Prohibited activities in. Stream. Setback Zone,2) which .prohibits construction or instal laton of a arking lot,.park,.�tng space or tm.pervi.ous surface p in stream. setback. zone 2 where -the apPlicant is. P roposon rang to con i t an. :mperv�io,us area, located within a.portion. of stream setback zone 2. Conti iti.ons 1. The prqject must be completed substantially as shown on the lans. suni b.ilted to this Board for p their meeting on. February 27, 2024, withno further encroachment into the setback. zones, and 2. The applicant wi.11 fol.l.ow the Planning Board approved planting plan for plantings behind building 51 which will identify the amount and type of plantings for stream. setback. mitigation efforts with. respect to requiring" an. updated Sheet C1.01., and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any det'riment to the health, safety, and wellbeing of the community, specifically L That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other can feasible given the number of buildings proposed and the steep topography of the site above tine h e stream inereases te! size of the bupar ffer area and the king area above the stream,. setback,. is needed for emergency access and maneuverability throughout the site, and 2. That to willnot be au . undesirable chars in, the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this eneroachment into the stream. setback zones is, m�inimal and not visible to t1le''neighbors, and " 0' 3. That the request is substantial given that they are pt-opostng activities not allowed iu . the buffer zones, and 4. Trequest will not have si I gynificant adverse physical or eiivirorust ental effects as evidenced by the SEQR, determinatton and the mitlgatn plan, submitted for stormwater maintenance, and 5., That the, alleged, difficulty is self-created but that is miti.gated, by the improved emergency 'ded, access provi. Moved: David, Squires Seconded.- Connor Terry ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. .1. 4 Vote: ayes —Squir es, Terry, Ritter, Jun,.g,, and Friedman .Item 5 Z.B.A.S-23-1. Appeal. Cedar.Rock Inc, Owne�r of 602 Elmira.]Rd.,.Michael Lasell, ApplicantAgent; seeking retief from Town. of 1thaca, Code section. 2,,25-3 (New buildings required to have sprtnkler systems) for a proposal to construct storage buildings without a s.prin.kler system. where certain types of newly constructed buildi.ngs are required to have a, sPrtnkler system. installed, and the proposal. is to :got have a sprinkler system. installed in buildings,2,3,4 & 5. Int�roduction ems. Brock gave an, overview of the sprinkl.er State law and the Town's more stringent requirements, dating back. to a fatal. fire in. Ithaca ,r campus. Mr. Lassel.1 noted that the request is for the rear building's to meet NYS law, but not the Town's lawl but they will. be installing hardwi.red heat sensors and smoke detectors monitored by an off - site company and the buildings have use walls between them. and are made of metl, studs, all. of which. is, above the States requirements, There will be sPinkler systems in, the clirnate controlled buildings which also has the office buildings that would ty.pically have people in them.. Discusslo�n, Mr. Squires, added that Co�uefl. has received one for a, storage building that bad overhead doors and made of metal. Mr. Lassell. stated that there are no fights in the storage units and the only electricity is for the alart'n. system. They did got have a quote on a system as they are typiequired so he did not have any experwnce Pricing one out., but he knew it would be significant. Mr. Minnig asked about the charige indicated in 2012 and ems. Brock thought it was an increase in the size of a storage unit needing a sprinkler system. I Public "Rearing Mr. Squires, opened the! public hearing, there wan,o oneffwent, and the hearing, was closed. Detergnat ion, ZBA.des olution,ZBAS-234 Sinklu Variance 602 Elmi,ra, Rd. Light 'I:ma trial. and Inlet Valley Ovulay, District Zones Tax ft,rcel, 31.-3-4 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal. of Cedar RockInc., seeking fro m, Town of Ithaca Code sectoo n. 225-3 (New buildings required to have sprinkler systems) for a Proposal. to construct storage butidings. w1thout a, sprinkler systetn, where certain types of newly constructed ZBA 2024-02-27(Fifed 5/7), Pg. .1. 5 buildtngs,pure reqUIred to have a sprin,,kler systei,11, installede they are required,111 wilh the following 0 A Condi I tions 1. The in,stallation ofan addressable fire alarm, systems and, the bu,11clIngs, designed an,d installed. in, accolrdance wfth FDA 72, and, 2. Con,stnict the s,to,ra's as Type M constructwti, in accordance with NYS, BuIldtlig Code, and Findings, That the benclittothe, applicant outweighs any deIrtm.ent, to the health, safety, a�n'd well.beingof the community, specifically 1. 'That the strict appli,cation ot. % the Town. Code Chapter',225 does create practwal difficulties, or un-neccssary- hardship, given that, there, is, no water in the bm"Idings Or' electricity in CaCh of the non-elunate controllecibuildire gs, and the Whuni-an. lifie given that bui.Utngs, 3- 2. ThatoiIs n..sion ofa, eY sprinklr sstem. iz , n willot.jeoparde 1 1 ,51 will not be occupiied most ofthe titne except en people are Iiii and, out in to and, in aMi'tion, the appticant is installing an, addressable srnoke detectorand heat detectionsystem and a constructi,on as a 2B type, building and with fire walls between un.its', all, ofwhtch, is, above the NHS requirenient's. M I oved.- Daviid Sqwres Seconded.- Connor J, I erry, I n Vote q es — Squires, Terry, Ritter, Fr*edma., , and Terry. Y The meeting was adjourned, upon a, rnotIon and a second, unan-i'molus. Submit- d,by Paulette RoSai "I"awn Clerk ZBA. 20124-02-27014"Iled 5/7), Pg. 1, 6,