The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2007-03-19 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2007 7:00 PM PRESENT: Harry E. Ellsworth, Vice Chairperson; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; Eric Levine, Alternate; Dave Mountin, Alternate; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk; Christine Balestra, Planner. EXCUSED: Kirk Sigel, Chairman; James Niefer, Board Member. OTHERS: Scott Tobey, 903 Wyckoff Rd; Tenzin Thutop, 412 N Aurora St; A. M. Chambliss, 14 Middaugh Rd; Ngawang Dhondup, 412 N Aurora St; Andrea Riddle, Montessori School; Lisa Smith, Montessori School; Ernie Bayles, 209 Utica St. Vice Chair Ellsworth opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Vice Chairman Ellsworth - ...we have a quorum on the board here, with 3. So in case there is any controversy. Eric, why don't you work with us on the first appeal? This is the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeal March 19th meeting. We have two appeals tonight. The appeal of Namgyal Monastery, Scott Tobey, Agent, requesting a height variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a 1,500 square foot Shrine Hall building that exceeds the maximum permitted height. And the other part of it is a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the Town Code, to be permitted to construct the Shrine Hall along with an 800+/- square foot Bath House without the installation of a Town required sprinkler system. The second appeal is of the Montessori School, Appellant, Ernie Bayles, requesting the modification of a condition of a previously approved Special Approval to be permitted to increase the enrollment of the Montessori Middle School in conjunction with a physical expansion of the Middle School building. We will go ahead with the first appeal. Move up to the desk so we can get you on the tape. Appeal #1 Namgyal Monastery Scott Tobey I am Scott Tobey. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Give me your address, too, please. Mr. Toby— 903 Wyckoff Road in the City of Ithaca. Alan Chambliss Alan Chambliss. I am the architect for the project. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.2 Vice Chairman Ellsworth — You want to...I know we've got a lot of material on this, but do you want to briefly explain what the appeal is? Mr. Chambliss — Would you like us to do...well, starting with the height one first, I guess. Should we do the height and then have a discussion about it or should we go through everything first? Vice Chairman Ellsworth —What's the...are we going to do these separately? Ms. Brock — Well, we'll vote on them separately, but it's really at your pleasure as to how you want to hear them. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —Why don't you go all through the height first? Mr. Chambliss — In fact, there maybe, technically, may not actually have the variance any more. I'm sure the building department... (not audible)...for a variance. During the process of talking with them and going through the whole thing, we were also...figuring out how it was just organized in terms of code and in the process of doing that we ended up putting a firewall right here. So that now, technically by definition the shrine room is a separate building from the rest of the complex whereas when we first opened discussions with the Town, the building department rather, we were thinking of the whole front part of the complex as being one building. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — How does that effect the height variance? Mr. Chambliss — This is a separate building. The height is being governed by where the tunnel from the...(not audible)...and if this is now...(not audible)... Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay. Mr. Chambliss - ...from this tunnel, then we can plot. That is what we were thinking of back in September. So... Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Let me ask a question here, then. Do we need to proceed with this then, Chris? Ms. Balestra — The last I knew, the building department still considered the structures connected. I don't know if you have spoken with them in the last week or not, but previous to that I believe that the opinion of the building department was such that it still required a height variance. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —Well, go ahead then. I didn't want to spend a lot of time... Mr. Tobey — It is visually broken from the entrance to the tunnel because the tunnel does, is underground and so visually there is no visual connection to the tunnel ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.3 entrance and the top of the shrine room because there is a fire access road that crosses over the top of them. Mr. Chambliss — What happens is that the...(not audible)...is being determined by it's...where it hits grade. This whole site slopes downhill this way. (not audible)...but in the meantime we are building an access road up here so there is a bank over here and the front of the building here is a one-story building. We are talking about 10 feet of frontage here versus 150 foot...(not audible). The height question is just for this portion of the complex. It's the shrine building in the middle. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Right. Mr. Chambliss —And it's just this lantern on the top. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Isn't there an antenna or a spear that sticks up or something? Mr. Chambliss — Yes. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — That doesn't count, huh? Ms. Brock— No. It does. Mr. Tobey —We are including that in our justification. It is a bronze adornment. Ms. Brock — I think that should be counted in the height. I don't think we should consider it the same thing as an antenna. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —Well, we want to do it right as long as we are all here. Ms. Brock—We'll consider everything. Mr. Tobey — So it is physically linked to the entrance to the tunnel, but only underground. The same way as a footer might connect you to your garage, a house to a garage or something. Ms. Balestra — Yeah. I think that is the reason why the building department still considers it...the tunnel, the lowest exterior grade to the absolute highest point. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —We'll proceed on that basis, I guess, even though you've de- linked it with that wall, but...so we don't have to go through this again. Mr. Chambliss — So the...given that...where the tunnel daylights out here and we are including the ornament on top of the ridge at a total of about 44 feet. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —Versus? ZBA 3/19/07 PgA Mr. Chambliss — 30... Ms. Balestra — 36 for the lowest exterior grade and 38 for the lowest interior grade. Mr. Tobey —Which in this case would be the same, the exterior and the interior. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay. Any questions from the board? Eric? Mr. Levine — This isn't visible from any public area? Mr. Tobey — No. I believe we are over 2,000 feet back from 96B and I don't know how far back we are from King Road. Mr. Chambliss —Almost as far from King Road. You are looking through Spring... Mr. Tobey — Those new apartments. And the entrance to the tunnel is in a fully wooded area, also. The tunnel entrance is fully wooded. Mr. Mountin — Yeah, when I was up there it clearly...looked like a 40 foot would be not very visible from anywhere within proximity of a long distance around that site from my checking the site out. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —Any other questions from the board? Mr. Krantz — I would agree with what I think you are saying. The height variance really doesn't seem be a problem. It is a fairly remote area. It is not blocking the view of anything. It certainly seems acceptable to me. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Any other questions from the board before I open the public hearing? Okay. We are going to open the public hearing now (7:12 p.m.). Does anyone want to speak or ask on questions on this issue? I will close the public hearing (7:13 p.m.) We got an environmental...? Ms. Brock— Yes. We do. We need to do SEAR on this. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Chris, do you have any additional comments on the environmental assessment? Ms. Balestra — Staff doesn't really have any concern environmentally regarding the proposal. The shrine building is really not any different than any other religious or spiritual building that have similar steeples on them that generally will be talker than building code or Town code will allow. The visual impact will be minor. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —Any questions? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.5 Mr. Matthews — From the drawings here, I think it is a rather handsome building and I don't see where the visual impact would be negative. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Can I have a motion from the board on the environmental assessment? Ms. Hunter — Are both of the alternates going to be voting or just one? Should we clarify that at this point? Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay. We are going to have both alternates as part of the board tonight. Ms. Brock — Because we only have three regular board members and it is a five member board, both of our alternates will be voting tonight in place of the two missing regular members and that is our normal procedure. And Harry, I have drafted a resolution if you like. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay. Ms. Brock — Unless somebody else would like to propose one. "Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Namgyal Monastery, requiring a height variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70...oh, before we do this, though, I just realized we should probably consider the sprinkler variance, to, because the environmental determination needs to cover both. So let me retract what I just said so that we can cover the sprinkler variance issue and then we can make one environmental determination based on both matters. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —Why don't you go ahead and explain the sprinkler variance? Mr. Chambliss — So the basic issue with the sprinkler variance question is about the nature of the artifacts that are to be used inside the shrine room, just in this building. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Let me stop you a minute. Could you bring that over here so that if members of the public want to see what is going on they can see it all. Right over here and then turn it. Okay. Go ahead. Sorry to interrupt your train of thought. Mr. Chambliss — So the issue for the Monastery is the fact that there are artifacts that are used in this space, paintings in particular, that are made of water soluble paints. They need to be on the walls. They are part of the educational and the religious observance that happens in this space. There are susceptible to any form of water damage whatsoever. In this space the State code allows a variance if the local authority gives it for not sprinklering a space. The hard requirement here is the local law in terms of requiring a sprinkler. As I said before, there is a firewall that was added here. These spaces are all sprinklered, fully sprinklered. This space has 3 hour walls around the perimeter of it, heavy timber construction for the ceiling and it has...the ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.6 occupancy for this is 126 by code, but it has exiting units that would accommodate 1,000. The life safety issues, I think, are pretty much nonexistent. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —What is the area of that? Mr. Chambliss — It is about 880, so just shy of 900 square feet interior space for the shrine room itself. Mr. Matthews -What did you say? It wouldn't be unsafe to have people in there? Mr. Chambliss — It is so heavily exited and I mean it is a single space with two doors directly to the outside, one through this passage there. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — He's saying he has gone overboard on exiting. Mr. Matthews —And the construction of that unit is wood? Mr. Chambliss — This is 3 hour rated walls around the perimeter. Mr. Matthews —Wood? Mr. Chambliss — Concrete. Concrete walls. ICF walls, concrete fill. They are rated for 3 hours. That is heavy timbered construction for the ceiling. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — ICF means insulated forms. Mr. Tobey — A wood membrane floor system, a traditional wood floor system, and the roof is supported with heavy timbers and 2 by...I think the roof is a 2 hour assembly. Mr. Chambliss — It will be a 1 hour assembly on the roof, but because of its proximity to the fire wall it will be fire retardant treated wood for the decking. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Now you are saying your heavy timbers give you a better rating? I mean the timbers are holding up the roof, right? Mr. Chambliss — Yes. Heavy timbers are...there are a number of things we are doing where we could probably push the rating and we're not. For example, on the subject of sprinklers, these buildings all have noncombustible trusses, but we are still calling it type 5 construction. We just went with noncombustible trusses so we wouldn't have to sprinkler in the cold attic space. But, everything is sort of down rated to a type 5, typically, and I haven't checked out the actual rating for a timber construction but it is heavier than a 1 hour type 5. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Is it open? I mean there are no ceilings; you are open to these timbers? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.7 Mr. Chambliss — Correct. The timbers are exposed and there will be fire retardant wood deck that will be the finished ceiling. Mr. Krantz — You know, what I don't understand is there are so many adherent dangers to these paintings, you know a leaking roof, flooding, abuse of people, earthquakes. In most museums when there is something really precious they will shield it with a clear coat fancy plastic of some sort to prevent decay of the painting itself and to protect it from its environment. You guys are spending a lot of money building this shrine and putting it up right, don't you think that each individual painting should be protected? Mr. Tobey — I do understand what you are saying. I think in a lot of cases in museums, in particular, it's concerned about vandalism and stuff. We don't have that concern. We have never experienced any threats like that, but the purpose of the paintings...each one is a separate deities, represents a different part of the Buddhist practice and philosophies. And sometimes...and they actually have, I should have brought one as an example, but they have a cover that sometimes in amongst...a lot of times they have to be changed depending on the practices that are being done. Sometimes they have to be covered; sometimes they have to be exposed. So there is a lot of back and forth. A lot of care that has to be given to the paintings. So if they are behind glass, it would certainly make it more difficult. It is possible, of course, but... Mr. Matthews — But that is not the area that this board has to be concerned with. If you lose those valuable, historical, artwork or whatever it may be that is your problem. Our concern is the safety of people who use the facility and the safety of the surrounding buildings and the firemen. Mr. Tobey — I think that is why we are trying to stress that... Mr. Krantz — I just bring that up because if the paintings were protected, the sprinkler system would be redundant. It wouldn't matter. Mr. Matthews — It would matter because firemen have to put a fire out. I mean they are programmed to do that. Mr. Krantz — No. It wouldn't matter to them. If their only purpose, apparently, is they don't want the sprinkler system because it will...the paintings could get damaged and wet, but if they are protected then they won't object to the sprinkler system. Mr. Matthews — Yeah. The concern I have...one of the concerns that I have is the firemen who will respond to something like that and vandalism is a very real threat in this world today. They would, by training and inclination, try to save those valuables. Mr. Tobey — If I could address your concern... ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.8 Mr. Matthews — They will. They will do it and somehow there has to be protection provided for the firemen. I mean if I had to make a choice, this is a cold choice; I would make a choice to protect the firemen. Mr. Tobey — I certainly understand. Mr. Matthews — So is there alternate...these is alternate methods of fire suppression. Are you going to put them in if this variance goes through for you or are you just going to have it fire free? Mr. Chambliss — I have been doing some research on Haylon systems. There are a number of concerns about those. Mr. Tobey — They have been banned in Europe and Canada. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — They are on the way out. Right. Mr. Tobey — They have been banned in a lot of countries. They are some of the most ozone depleting chemicals out there. Mr. Matthews — So they are not a viable alternative here? Mr. Tobey — If they are installed now it will be a matter of years before they are regulated out. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — With Haylon you got an escape limited time. If a person doesn't get out in a short time they will be dead. Mr. Tobey — If I could please address some of your concerns because they are valid concerns, but I do feel that we can address them. The concern for public safety is that it is a single open room. It's just like this room here. It is one single room. It has 3 double exits. It's actually slightly smaller than this room. So the amount of time it would take for people to get out...those exits could accommodate 1,000 people. We are only talking about 120 people. So the people should, by all rights, be able to get out in the event of an emergency. Mr. Matthews — I think you are right, but I am worried about the firemen. Mr. Tobey — The other...the chances of it catching fire with the exterior being a 3 hour rated construction and the roof decks being a rated assembly, its almost impossible that it could catch fire from an outside source. So the source of ignition could only come from inside. The timber frame construction, what... (not audible)...was relaying to, there is a standard house construction with a 2 by frame and it burns very quickly and becomes unstable very quickly. The types of timbers we are talking about installing are massive timbers and require several hours of burning to weaken them to the point ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.9 where they would structurally fail. There is not enough fuel for that fire to burn for that period of time. The fire would burn itself out before those trusses would collapse. Mr. Matthews — So are you saying you are going to give a pass to the fire department to let it burn? Mr. Tobey — I wouldn't be there. I can't say that I would be there when they are responding. However, there are adequate fire hydrants on site within 200 feet of that structure and in review with the fire department we made accommodations for them behind the...(not audible)... of the monks' quarters. We specifically designed and built a widened parking section because they said if they were responding to a fire there, they would bring their ladder truck and they would stage it there and they would shoot into the complex from outside. So I don't...I'm not a fireman and I don't know how they would respond in the event of a fire, but that is what Tom Parsons discussed with us. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Is that going to affect your paintings? If they are standing out there with a water gun, is that going to affect your paintings? Mr. Tobey — In the event of a fire, it is going to go. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — In the even of a fire without sprinkler protection you are going to lose your paintings. Mr. Tobey — Correct. Our concern is malfunction of the sprinkler system. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Because there is nothing to put it out. Mr. Matthews — And are the folks who are running the shrine going to interfere with the firemen pouring water into those valuable paintings? Mr. Tobey — No. No... Mr. Matthews —We don't know that, do we? Mr. Tobey — Yeah, we do because Buddhism is all about impermanence. If they are gone, they are gone, but we would like to make any...well, we would like to be reasonable in preparations and I understand the concern about the fire department and how they might respond, but we have reviewed it with the fire department. Mr. Chambliss — In terms of the threat to the artifacts themselves, one way of looking at it is, if there was a fire and there was a sprinkler system installed, then they would stand a good chance of being destroyed by the fire and or the sprinkler system. Whereas if there was a fire and there was no sprinkler system, they would just be destroyed by the fire. If there was no fire and a sprinkler system and there was a malfunction, then they would be destroyed by the sprinkler system. So that is the concern. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.10 Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Uh, I would like to know a little bit about the interior furnishings that the religious people are going to have. Are they going to be using candles in there a lot? So on and so forth. Are there tapestries hanging down? Mr. Tobey —Well, no. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I don't know anything about... Mr. Tobey — Typically there is a wood floor with some cushions for people to sit at. There is a throne, a shrine area right there. In that area they make a lot of brightly colored offerings. Traditionally there are what's called butter lamps and candles. Typically we have gone over to mostly electric at this point. You know, little electric candles basically. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — They are not wax candles? Mr. Tobey —Well, there could be an occasion for wax candles, yes. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —And what is the floor material? Mr. Tobey — The floor material we have designed right now is a hardwood. Mr. Matthews — Its hardwood. And the roof is made of? Mr. Tobey — That would be a native wood. The roof? The actual roof material would be a rubber membrane with rigid foam insulation over a fire treated structure of that. Mr. Matthews — That is burnable. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I wonder if there aren't some misconceptions about sprinklers. When a fire starts and there are quick action sprinklers, the whole...all the heads in the place don't go off. One goes off over the fire and many times...so if you have paintings in that one location, you don't have them all clustered in one location. It sounds like you got them over the various walls. Right? Mr. Tobey — They are around the perimeter in most cases. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — So one head will cover at most about 200 square feet. That is one quarter. So you have lost one of your paintings. Mr. Tobey — I guess our concern is that in that particular area for one thing, I know when we were reviewing a year or two, if we go back, I know that there were problems with water pressure on that line there and that there was over pressure at a time and under pressure. Very unbalanced pressure and La Tourelle actually had heads just explode just because of the... ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.11 Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I design sprinkler system and I design backflow devices. I know all about what's been...that's true. They have a wide pressure variation up there. They have a problem with the pressure reducer valve with that tank up there. And yes, I know about La Tourelle because...I wasn't involved when they flooded the lower level, but you know, there are ways of dealing with that, with pressure reducers. I'll tell you quite frankly, and it's not because I design these systems that I think everybody's gotta have them, but I think you are way off base here. You're eventually going to be putting sprinklers in there anyway just because the laws are going to be changing and if you don't put them in you better stub up a pipe for them because in a few years you will be putting them in anyway. And I think you are way off...your short sighted with your concerns. So I guess...that is setting up on a hill. The winds come right at that. Up at EcoVillage when the previous Code Enforcement Officer went up there to a fire, it was a very windy night and he thought they were going to lose the whole complex because of the high winds. Luckily they didn't but...it was and you got the same kind here. Sitting right up, looking clearly right up the lake, well you got a few trees there that are sheltering you from the north and what isn't sticking up...you know the wind is going over those other buildings they are going to make a chimney affect. Mr. Tobey — I remember the EcoVillage fire. That was during a wood frame construction. All of our construction assemblies are noncombustible. All of our buildings are concrete and steel. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — There is a difference. They were clustered close together, but still it was a bad scene. Mr. Matthews — It seems to me, the paintings are valuable, I understand that, but to deny putting in sprinklers because of the paintings when in fact you could lose the entire complex, at least that building and far beyond that you could lose the entire complex, which is quite a few dollars, I'm sure. Mr. Tobey — The majority of the remaining complex is sprinklered. Mr. Matthews - ...and on top of that we are putting the fire responders in danger. Something is missing in this puzzle and I don't think it is expense. I don't know what it is, but something is missing that you are not telling us or something. I don't know. Why wouldn't they put in sprinklers to save the building? ...and be concerned for the safety of the firemen. Mr. Tobey —We do have a concern for the safety of the firemen. Mr. Levine — We have had dealings with the fire department. I haven't seen any documentation about their analysis or their opinion about this other than a little sentence here that says they don't have a problem pending approval. Do you have any expansion? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.12 Mr. Chambliss — I talked with Tom Parsons last week about that and he said that he would be neutral. He would speak neither for it or against it. Mr. Matthews — He would be neutral. Ms. Balestra — He does that. Mr. Matthews — That's unlike him. I'm speaking a lot here, obviously, and up front I would like that in the community. This shrine. I think it is a wonderful addition, but on the other hand, I am being right up front with you folks. I can't support going without sprinklers. I just can't do it. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Nor could 1. Any other questions from the board? Mr. Chambliss —We have one other sprinkler item on the agenda. Ms. Balestra — Actually, I have a question. In the memo by Kristie Rice of the Code Enforcement Office, she says that a variance could be granted to allow a fire alarm system in lieu of the required sprinkler system. Has that been a consideration? Mr. Chambliss — It's in our write up. There will be an alarm system and we were certainly willing to talk about enhancements to the alarm system in lieu of a sprinkler system. Mr. Mountin — I've done some timber frame construction and I concur with you that some of these timbers take...considering what elements are available in that building to burn, the buildings aren't going to burn down. If there was a fire, I think we are going to see charred heavy timbers, but considering the open space that is the elements of it, I guess my first concern is the benefits and the safety of the people in there that they remove then there is a safety to that first. The firemen, I think, are very well aware of what may happen with a structure of that type and how it would burn with ICF walls, with timbers, fire rated ceilings, a 3 hour rated building. I think there's lots of protections being taken for the safety of this building, not only the occupants, but the construction materials in this building. So I see, perhaps, that there is a religious emphasis perhaps on there not being a sprinkler system in the shrine part itself, but I'm also thinking there is a sprinkler system in all the rest of these buildings and its like that is the public sleeping area, but then again I also have respect for that this is one shrine area that is heavily built to last and to withstand some type of a fire if there was going to be a fire. The loss of materials and valuables in that building are second to my consideration in terms of safety and detriment of the community. I just wanted to concur that I know something about construction and I think this building is doing well to satisfy... Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I will agree with the construction. It is a matter of how much stuff gets carried in there that's flammable. Paper, fuel, not gasoline, but paper products, you know. It gets inspected once a year. These ornaments or whatever they put around the shrine are made of what? Flammable material? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.13 Mr. Tobey — Much of it is. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —What is it? Mr. Tobey — Fabrics. Canvas paintings. You know. Mr. Matthews — Did I lose something in not listening? What is your reason for not wanting to put a sprinkler system in that facility? Mr. Chambliss — Concern about malfunction. Mr. Matthews — Pardon? Mr. Chambliss — Concern about malfunction of the system damaging artifacts in that one room. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — He is worried about a discharge of the sprinkler system because of the problems up at the tower with the pressure. They have a pressure variation. That pressure variation caused the hotel up there to...lower level to flood one time because of over pressure. Mr. Matthews — Okay. Let me bite on that for a minute. You are concerned about the valuable, sacred paintings and that is a valid concern. Therefore because of that concern you don't want to put in sprinkler systems. As outlandish as my argument may sound, if I build a building, a business building up there and I want to protect all the documents that I have in my building, I can make an argument for not having a sprinkler system in my business building because there are so many valuable things, documents, patents, drawings that water would destroy them. Now I don't want a sprinkler system in my business building and it would be valid if we used your argument. Mr. Chambliss — I think there is a difference of degree. Mr. Tobey — State code excludes... Mr. Matthews —A difference of what? Mr. Chambliss — Of degrees. In terms of the nature of documents, whether they can be backed up in some other way or whether there are alternatives in protecting the documents and the rarity and fragility of the original artifacts that we are talking about. Mr. Matthews — I understand degree, but when they come before this board, we don't deal in degrees. Mr. Mountin — Dick, I don't think we need to judge the contents of the value of the materials themselves. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.14 Mr. Matthews — Pardon? Mr. Mountin — I don't think that is our job to judge the content and the value of the materials in that building. I think it is our job to... Mr. Matthews — It's not our job. Mr. Mountin — But when you are...you seem to be valuing what materials they have in there for as a judgment for a sprinkler system. Mr. Matthews — If an appealant comes here and gives a valid reason, it is not our position to determine the value of the document they are trying to protect. All our position is, is determine the validity of the argument. That's it. Mr. Tobey — You are concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Matthews — What is valuable to these folks by the greater majority of the community is extremely valuable, but what is valuable to an individual, is another case indeed. Mr. Tobey — This is different in that it is excluded under State code as a religious place of worship. Places of primary worship for religious purpose are exempt under the State code. So the same would not apply to the business situation. Mr. Mountin — Is there a sprinkler system in the church on Bostwick? The bottom of Bostwick that was built a couple of years ago. Ms. Balestra — I don't know. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I don't think so. Mr. Tobey — I know Ticomevor up in Lansing got a variance from the State for their new temple on Triphammer. Mr. Mountin — I see that you already have full alarm system in there. So there is persons getting out of the building, no doubt. I also see that it is not a State code requirement. I see the benefits of the variance. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — A little problem. We've got a Town that has a code that isn't required by the State. That is why we are here. Mr. Mountin — Yup. Mr. Chambliss — Shall we move on to the next one. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Yes. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.15 Mr. Chambliss — A little bit different. This is the main complex. This will be used year round and there are woods around it up behind it. We are currently planning...there will be future discussion, which we may not come back to you. I hope we won't have occasion to come back to you folks on. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Thanks a lot. Mr. Chambliss — There are some questions about the cabins on the site. They're in R1 and so they require sprinkler. We are in discussion with the State now about, just all the issues that are involved around that. These are basically summer only cabins for 4 people out in the middle of nowhere. They have electricity but no other utilities. They are not heated. They are not candidates to be sprinklered, but State code requires that we sprinkler. That is not what I am talking to you about now. That is off the table. Mr. Tobey — Yeah. We pulled those out. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Well, that's the essence of your discussion with the State that they are seasonal? Mr. Chambliss — Well, yes, and also...what we are wondering about with the State and then we have to run it through the building department here is if it is plausible, the State...Bill Stewart seemed to think it was plausible to have seasonal sprinkler coverage there. When the seasonal cabins were in use, they would be sprinklered. When they are closed down and locked up for the year, they could be drained down. Tom Parsons seemed to think that there was something along those lines, some verbiage somewhere that covered that situation. I don't know where that is going to go. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — It is in Bill Stewart's hands at this point? Mr. Chambliss — Yes. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I'm not too concerned about the cabins. Mr. Chambliss — But, in any event, if we find a way to make the cabins work as they are currently conceived, then we would need a bathhouse to take care of them. The bathhouse, again, is seasonal. Right now it is wood frame. It could be made totally noncombustible, but it's... Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Well, we gave the Town that has a bathhouse an exception not to put sprinklers in, in a park. So...in fact I don't think we should be voting on the cabins because it's... Mr. Chambliss — That was background to asking about the bathhouse. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.16 Mr. Tobey — Initially we were asking for it in the cabins because that does present a hardship. We have shallow stone there. We would have to do deep water lines. They would have to heat the cabins throughout the winter. It would change the whole dynam ic. Mr. Chambliss — If we don't find an alternate pass through the problems for the cabins in the State code, then we are going to have to rethink the cabins. If the cabins get rethought, if they become year round because they have to be sprinklered, then the bathhouse may very well go away. Ms. Brock — Do you want us to consider the bathhouse tonight or do you want to pull that piece off the table for tonight until you know what is happening with the cabins? Mr. Chambliss — If you feel comfortable making a determination about the bathhouse, it may not ever get built, but it would be useful to know. And if you would prefer not to that's... Mr. Tobey — No. The bathhouse would be important to camping or whatever. Mr. Chambliss — That's true. There may be campsite with no cabins and the bathhouse would still be... Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I'm willing consider the bathhouse and make a determination, but it is going to be conditioned on it being seasonal. I mean when we give our own Town, you know, practically the same. It was a bathhouse in a park. Ms. Brock — Could you speak to the practical difficulties that you would encounter if you were to sprinkler it and explain why omitting the sprinkler system would not significantly jeopardize human life? Those are the standards that we need to apply? Mr. Chambliss — This is in the bathhouse? Specifically? Ms. Brock— Right. Mr. Chambliss — It is not a weatherized structure. It is remote. Actually we didn't run any cross numbers on it so I can't tell you what the impact would be. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Its small. Mr. Chambliss — It is a very small... each of them. It is a male and female. Each one has 2 toilets, 3 showers, 3 lays. Mr. Tobey — It is a single building divided and... Mr. Chambliss — It is a slab on grade, one story building. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.17 Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Roof? Mr. Chambliss — Metal roof on wood frame. Also that is potentially negotiable. We could make it noncombustible. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Nobody is living in there. You know. I don't think. Mr. Matthews — Excuse me. Didn't the Town amend its request on that bathhouse that they asked us...? Ms. Balestra — They received a sprinkler variance for Tutelo Park comfort station. Mr. Matthews — Didn't they put a roof on it? Ms. Balestra — The roof was originally planned. There was a difference in the materials for the roof. Mr. Matthews — Right. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Yes. They put different materials on. Mr. Matthews —And we amended that, too. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Yeah. Ms. Brock — What is the area of the building? When you say it is a small building, what does that mean? Mr. Chambliss —Well, I should know this, but I don't. Mr. Tobey — Below 16 x 24. Ms. Balestra — It's very small. Mr. Chambliss — Something on the order of 16 x 24, under that. Mr. Matthews — Christine, has the Ithaca fire department representative visited these plans at all? Have you spoken with...? Ms. Balestra — Staff has not spoken with the Ithaca fire department. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I have. Today. Ms. Balestra — The building department staff may have spoken with the fire department. Mr. Matthews — Did you say you have? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.18 Ms. Balestra — Often times the fire department's position, um, is neutral if the State building code does not require sprinkler system and they see other forms of fire alarm systems or fire suppression systems, they don't have all that much to do with the Town required sprinkler code. Mr. Matthews — So I am left confused. Ms. Balestra — I'm sorry. Mr. Matthews - ...concerns me because he is not saying yes and he's not, no. He's taking that fence and we all know what happens when people walk fences. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Well, I spoke to the fire marshal because I talk to him almost daily because of the work I do. I said I design sprinkler systems. I design approximately 20 building sprinkler systems a year and have done this for 5 to 7 years so I have all kinds of ongoing things with the fire marshal. So it's very easy to change horses a little bit while I'm talking. He's basically neutral. He told me that he can stand out on 96 and reach that building with his gun on his truck to spray it. Okay. I'm sure if he had his fondest wishes he would like to see a sprinkler, but he realizes, because he knows the regulations, that is part of what his job is, that it's not required. And churches are exempt. We have a very unusual situation here. Nobody requires this except the Town of Ithaca. The State doesn't require it. The Town of Ithaca is one step ahead of the rest of the State in requiring these systems. But I will tell you right now, and it's not because I'm looking for future work, eventually everything, including private homes are going to be sprinklered and it may not be very many years off. So if I were the appellant, I would at least put a pipe in there while you are running all this other stuff, size to sprinkler that building because in a few years they are probably going to have to do it. And it would be at a lower cost to do part of it now. Mr. Matthews — I am trying to be as fair as I can to the appellants and I do a lot of questioning. The Town has a code to protect life and limb. Is there some way that I can get my mind around and away from that requirement of life and limb? I mean we are not talking about life and limb here. We are talking about painting. That is the central concern. Mr. Mountin — You are talking about the painting, Dick; I'm talking about life and limb in that I don't think the paintings are our issue. Mr. Matthews — You're talking about what? Mr. Mountin - I think the issue is, to me, is about the buildings and the structure and the safety of the buildings in terms of letting people get egress and getting out of these buildings if there was a fire. And I am looking at the safety of the people getting out of the building. I'm not looking at what people have in these buildings. That is not my ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.19 concern what is in these buildings and what is going to burn unless it was full of a lot of flammables and full of a lot of poisonous materials, but that is not my concern and I'm looking at the definition... Mr. Matthews — But the arguments that these folks have put forth is...the central point of the argument seems to be the value of those paintings because they said there is egress for the numbers of people who go into their shrine, adequate egress. I'll take them at their word. I have no reason to take other. Mr. Krantz— You know, I am painfully ill-equipped to tell you people how to think, but I'm going to do that anyhow. First of all, Ithaca is a lovely town. It is not immune to vandalism and your shrine is not immune to vandalism. Many churches and synagogues in Ithaca have been vandalized before. You're also not immune to such things as storms and floods and earthquakes. When you have a sprinkler system, it is there to protect people and your artifacts. They are conceivably sure. It could go off and it could do damage, but more than likely if it goes off it is going to protect a lot of what you have. And if you have priceless artifacts and paintings, why don't you do what they do in a museum? Protect them and the main way to protect them is that you shield them. Museums all have sprinkler systems and that adds to the protection. It doesn't take away from it. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Layne, if I am in a wheelchair in that shrine building, is it all level going out or is it...in other words, I'm looking at speed of exiting for someone in a wheelchair. Mr. Chambliss — There are steps down in these two exits. The accessible path is at this exit and out through this building. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —And that is all on a level? There are no steps? Mr. Chambliss — No steps. A ramp down here. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — It's a ramp. Okay. Mr. Chambliss -An ADA ramp and from here on it is all sprinklered. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Oh, okay. Mr. Chambliss — This whole...all of this part of the complex is sprinklered. Mr. Tobey — So as soon as you get outside that first exit door, you're in a sprinklered... Vice Chairman Ellsworth — The shrine, if I'm in the middle of the shrine there, what is the distance to that ramp? Mr. Tobey — Interior, its 31, 16 feet to the end. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.20 Mr. Chambliss — And that was taking the longest possible route from the farthest. 32 feet at the most. Mr. Tobey —Well, the entire building is a 30 foot width. Mr. Chambliss — I think the number I came up with is 28 feet, assuming, you know, the most remote spot from any exit and the most circuitous route to get there. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — How many times a year are you going to have 126 people in there? Mr. Tobey — In my opinion, about twice a year. At the Chinese New Year and then there is a retreat during the summer, at the end of the retreat you could possibly have that. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — That is when the cabins are used. Mr. Tobey — Exactly. At full occupancy. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay. Mr. Matthews — Again. It is constructed of heavy timbers. What are they? 6 x6 or 8 x 8? Mr. Tobey — The ones that we have been talking to, just today, are 8 x 24. 24 inches tall, 8 inches wide. Mr. Matthews —And they are fire proofed? Mr. Tobey — No. They wouldn't be fire proofed. Mr. Chambliss — Heavy timber wouldn't have to be. The depth would be fire proof. Mr. Tobey — The roof would have to be fire proof so that if a fire from an outside source could not get into the structural members. Mr. Matthews — The deck is attached to a sidewall, right? And what is that wall made of? Concrete? Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Concrete. That is Dave's point. Most of the building is nonflammable. All you got is flammable is the floor and the heavy structure holding the roof and the contents. Mr. Matthews — So you don't have a sudden eruption of flame with a building like that? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.21 Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Well, I don't know how many ornamental things that they bring into the shrine, but what have you got for a warning system? You got smoke and temperature? Mr. Chambliss — Smoke and heat. I'm not sure. Mr. Tobey — ...engineering is still working on those details, but the entire complex will have an interconnected, at least smoke, if not smoke and heat system. So that if a fire went off in any part of the complex, it would alert the entire complex. Mr. Mountin -What is the main heat in the shrine? Radiant? Floor? Mr. Tobey — It is all radiant floor. That was another thing. I did contact the insurance company to find out a few of these details, but there are a few things that they look for like boilers, pumps, air conditioning pumps, those kinds of things. Mechanicals. There are no mechanicals in this building either. So there is no...the mechanical systems are all housed in the basement of the main building and then we have a hot water loop that will circulate throughout the basement to provide heat. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Yeah. I know what radiant flooring is. Mr. Tobey — And then the air conditioning, the air handlers will be located out beyond the complex and then the Freon or whatever the suitable chemical is would be pumped through the ground. So there are no mechanical sources of ignition in that space. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — They are air locked so that air handlers shut down when there is sense of fire. Mr. Chambliss — The air handler for this space is in the basement underneath the passageway here and there is a fire damper where it goes to the fire wall. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Any more discussion from the board? I would like to open the public... Mr. Matthews — Yeah. I have been very vocal and have had a few minutes to think here to myself. My first concern, of course, is the safety of the responders. If they chose to ignore the protection that sprinklers will afford them that is their choice. The construction of the building is probably of a nature that you are not going to have a sudden eruption of flame. Certainly people will have sufficient time to escape and the only thing that you have to worry about then are cinders and flying sparks and so forth. Sol...my old father just spoke to me and said use your common sense, boy. Once in a while he lets me know that he is still around and I think that is a good thing to think about here. Let's use our common sense. They chose to bear the expense of losing all of that stuff without the protection of a sprinkler system. We have to chose...use our wisdom to determine if their choice is okay, that no one is going to get hurt. I think I am going to opt for common sense. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.22 Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay. Ron, any more questions? Eric or David? Okay. We are going to move ahead. I guess we have to do an environmental for this? Ms. Brock— Open the public hearing on the sprinkler variances first. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay. We will open the public hearing, I was going to do that next, on the sprinkler variance (8:00 p.m.) No one wants to talk. We've had enough. I'll close the public hearing (8:01 p.m.) Ms. Brock— Now we can do the SEAR. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay. Chris, any comments on the...or do you have something prepared, Sue? Ms. Brock— Chris, did you have any comments on the environmental? Ms. Balestra — No comments on the environmental. Ms. Brock — So this SEAR resolution will cover all the variances that are being sought tonight. Both the height variance and the two sprinkler variances. "Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Namgyal Monastery, requesting a height variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70 and Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a shrine hall building that exceeds the maximum permitted height and to be permitted to construct a shrine hall and bathhouse without the installation of Town required sprinkler systems. This negative determination is made based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part 11 and for the further reason that the proposed shrine hall will be located a significant distance from Danby Road and will not be out of character with other types of religious buildings that contain steeples or similar peaks with spiritual symbols in their architectural design." Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Can I get a second to the environmental assessment? Ms. Brock—Well, did anybody move that? You need somebody to move that first. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I'll move it. Whatever that means. Second? Mr. Matthews — Second. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Dick. Okay. Do you have something prepared for the... Ms. Brock—Well, you need to vote on the environmental assessment first. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.23 Vice Chairman Ellsworth — All those that accept the negative declaration of environmental impact? Board —Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-009: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Nam_gyal Monastery, Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel Number 43.-2-10, March 19, 2007 MOVED by Vice Chairman Ellsworth, SECONDED by Mr. Matthews. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Namgyal Monastery, requesting a height variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70 and Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a Shrine Hall Building that exceeds the maximum permitted height, and to be permitted to construct a Shrine Hall and Bath House without the installation of Town-required sprinkler systems. This negative determination is made based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part 11, and for the further reason that the proposed Shrine Hall would be located a significant distance from Danby Road and will not be out of character with other types of religious buildings that contain steeples or similar peaks with spiritual symbols in their architectural design. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay and a motion for the appeal. Ms. Brock — Okay. For the height variance, it sounded from the discussion as if you felt that it would be appropriate to grant the height variance. Is that right? Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Is anyone opposed to the height variance? Ms. Brock — Just so I know what to put in the motion. So okay, and then there was a letter from Eric Monkemeyer that was on the desks...I'm sorry, Evan Monkemeyer, requesting that you place a condition on this height variance to require a screening buffer on the north side of the parking lots to buffer the residential buildings to the north and he suggested some densely planted tall ornamental grasses, 5 to 6 feet in height. Are you...do you want to discuss that any more? Do you have any questions for the applicant about that? Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I thought that you had indicated that it was pretty well buffered with some woods. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.24 Mr. Mountin — Yeah. There are woods. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — On the north? Mr. Tobey — Its heavily wooded. That particular spot he is talking about is deciduous and there was an error in layout by the surveyors or...I don't know where it came out to, but when we started laying it out on site to actually do the construction, we were much closer to that wood lot than we had thought. That hedgerow. So we actually modified the construction of our parking lot. The parking lot got a little bit smaller to reduce any cutting of that hedgerow. So we did not touch the existing hedgerow. So we didn't make the situation worse, but we don't want to see them any more than they want to us. So we do intend to plant something there. I don't know if it is going to be ornamental grass or blue spruce, but I understand what his concern is. We didn't do anything to aggravate that concern, but... Mr. Matthews —What are his concerns? Mr. Tobey — Just that you can see when the leaves are off of those of that hedgerow. It's like a 40 foot wide hedgerow and when the leaves are off you can see through it because its mature hardwoods so there isn't a low canopy. Mr. Matthews — So he can see your buildings? Mr. Tobey — No, you can't see our buildings actually. That's why it's funny that he is concerned about the height variance. You can see the parking lot, but you can't see the building. It doesn't relate to the height variance, in my opinion, but that's okay. Mr. Matthews — That is not an area of our concern. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — That's more site plan approval I would think. Ms. Brock — Okay. So it sounds to me that the board does not want to impose any conditions related to the plantings. All right then. Let me give you a proposed resolution for your consideration. This is dealing with the height variance. We will do the sprinkler variances next. This will be just for the height variance. "Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Namgyal Monastery, requesting a height variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a 1,500 +/- square foot shrine hall building that exceeds the maximum permitted height allowed by the Town Code located at the Namgyal Monastery on Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel Number 43.-2-10, Medium Density Residential Zone with the findings that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community because 1) even though the height is higher than what is allowed, it is mitigated by the fact that the shrine hall is set significantly off of Danby Road and is within the Monastery complex of buildings, therefore, the only impacts are to other Namgyal Monastery buildings and there do not ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.25 appear to be impacts to any neighbors 2) for the same reason, there is no undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties 3) the request is not substantial given the physical location of the tunnel some distance from the shrine hall and the fact the shrine hall and tunnel are only linked underground so that the visual impact of the shrine hall is no greater than the visual impact of a building that complies with the zoning ordinance's height requirement 4) while the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant and the alleged difficulty is self-created, these factors are outweighed by the other factors. And with the following conditions: the height shall not exceed 45 feet as measured from the lowest interior and exterior grades of the basement tunnel entrance to the top of the symbolic elements on the lantern structure at the center of the shrine hall roof 2) the building shall be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans submitted to this board." Ms. Brock — I just wanted to ask the applicant whether the first condition, in fact will achieve your purposes. That the height...typically when Kirk is here he gives you an extra...typically we give an extra foot or so just in case there are changes of a few inches you don't have to come back again. So let me read that again and make sure this actually will accomplish what you need. "The height shall not exceed 45 feet as measured from the lowest interior and exterior grades of the basement tunnel entrance to the top of the symbolic elements on the lantern structure at the center of the shrine hall roof." Mr. Chambliss — Fine. Ms. Brock — And that is the measurement, right? That required you to come in here. That you were exceeding the maximum permitted height? Vice Chairman Ellsworth —And we are allowing a foot for mistakes. Ms. Brock — Well we typically don't give a lot more, but yes, we allowed a foot because they said that by their measurements it was 44 feet. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Well, before you do this other part, do you want to poll the board members so you know which way to fill in the blank on the sprinkler? Ms. Brock — Well, I think you should vote on the height variance first, and then you will vote separately on each of the sprinkler variances. Mr. Krantz — I was thinking that. Ms. Brock—Who moves this resolution? Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I'll move it. Ms. Hunter—And Ron seconds. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.26 Vice Chairman Ellsworth —All those in favor? Board —Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-010: HEIGHT VARIANCE, Nam_wal Monastery, Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel Number 43.-2-10, March 19, 2007 MOVED by Vice Chairman Ellsworth, SECONDED by Mr. Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Namgyal Monastery, requesting a height variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a 1500 +-/- square foot Shrine Hall building that exceeds the maximum permitted height allowed by the Town Code, located at the Namgyal Monastery on Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel No, 43-2-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community because: 1. Even though the height is higher than what is allowed, it is mitigated by the fact that the Shrine Hall is set significantly off of Danby Road and it is within the monastery complex of buildings. Therefore, the only impacts are to other Namgyal Monastery buildings, and there do not appear to be impacts to any neighbors. 2. For the same reason, there is no undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties. 3. The request is not substantial, given the physical location of the tunnel some distance from the Shrine Hall. 4. While the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant and the alleged difficulty is self-created, these factors are outweighed by the other factors. CONDITIONS- 1. ONDITIONS:1. The height shall not exceed 45 feet as measured from the lowest interior and exterior grade of the basement tunnel entrance to the top of the symbolic elements on the lantern structure at the center of the Shrine Hall roof. 2. The building shall be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans submitted to this board. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.27 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. Ms. Brock — Sprinkler variance, I guess you need to, perhaps, have some discussion, this is for the shrine hall, have some discussion so I know what type of resolution to d raft. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Which word to fill in. I guess we need to poll the members so we will know. Mr. Matthews — Well, I'm discussed out. I'm not disgusted, I'm discussed out. I've made my peace with this whole thing. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — To allow them, not put sprinklers... Mr. Matthews — I think common sense tells me, anyway, from my perspective that if somebody puts a...(not audible)...in that place it is not going to go up so quickly that occupants are not going to be able to get out fast and it's a religious shrine. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Ron? Mr. Krantz — I think eliminating the sprinkler system is short-sided. I think there are other ways of dealing with the problem more successfully and I am against eliminating it. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Well, I've crossed over the bridge. I realize there is an easy way to protect those paintings, easier than you made it sound. An enclosure with a hinge back and you can change them all you want to, but I think a lot of thought and a lot of work has gone into the building materials and so on and so forth and I'll grant leaving the sprinklers out. I will just add as a non-board member engineer, then I would put a stub in there sized properly for sprinklers in the future. Mr. Tobey —We can do that. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — And that's not a requirement from me as a board member. It's a suggestion. Mr. Levine — I am in favor of granting the appeal. Mr. Mountin — I'm in favor, also, of the appeal. Ms. Brock — So it sounds like the resolution should propose granting the appeal. Are there any conditions that you wish to impose? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.28 Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I have none except that you have to stay with your design and materials and soon. In other words, as your plans have been presented. Ms. Brock — Okay. So the building should be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans submitted to this board? Okay. Let me try this resolution: "Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Namgyal Monastery, requesting a variance from the requirement of Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct the shrine hall without the installation of a Town required sprinkler system, located Namgyal Monastery on Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel Number 43.-2-1. Findings: 1) the application of the strict letter of Chapter 225 would create a practical difficulty because the shrine hall will contain irreplaceable ancient artifacts as well as wall paintings and sacred texts that would be ruined by the discharge of water within the hall should the sprinkler system malfunction and there is a history of fluctuating water pressure in that area of the Town 2) the omission of an approved sprinkler from the building will not significantly jeopardize human life because a) the space has an occupant load of 126 person with an exit capacity of over 1,000 occupants b) there are three exits of which two lead directly to the exterior and the longest travel distance from any location within the shrine hall to an exit is 28 feet c) the wheelchair accessible exit has a fire wall and once outside that exit, those exiting would be in a fully sprinklered part of the building d) the shrine hall will have full fire alarm system coverage e) the shrine hall is designed with 3-hour rated concrete walls and heavy timber roof construction with a fire treated structural deck that would have to burn several hours before the roof could collapse and there would not be sufficient fuel for a fire to burn that long and f) no mechanical sources of emission are present in the shrine hall." Vice Chairman Ellsworth —And there's level exiting for those in wheelchairs. Ms. Brock— So why don't we say condition g... Mr. Mountin — Did you say full fire alarm system? Ms. Brock — Yes. Full fire alarm system coverage. Yes. Did you want to add that specifically as a finding? Vice Chairman Ellsworth — No, as part of the plans. Ms. Brock — Okay. Are there any other findings? These are ones I pulled from the materials and the discussion tonight. Okay. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I'll move the appeal. Ms. Brock— Move the granting of the appeal for the shrine hall sprinkler variance? Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Right. Second? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.29 Mr. Mountin — Second. Ellsworth, Matthews, Levine, Mountin —Aye. Krantz— Nay. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-011: SPRINKLER VARIANCE FOR SHRINE HALL, Nam_wal Monastery, Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel Number 43.-2-10, March 19, 2007 MOVED by Vice Chairman Ellsworth, SECONDED by Mr. Mountin. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Namgyal Monastery, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct the Shrine Hall without the installation of a Town required sprinkler system located at the Namgyal Monastery on Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel No. 43-2- 10. FINDINGS: 1. The application of the strict letter of Chapter 225 would create a practical difficulty because the Shrine Hall will contain irreplaceable ancient artifacts, as well as wall paintings and sacred texts, that would be ruined by the discharge of water or chemical extinguishing agents within the Hall. 2. The omission of an approved sprinkler system from the building will not significantly jeopardize human life because: (a) the space has an occupant load of 126, with an exit capacity of over 1,000 occupants,- (b) ccupants,(b) there are three exits, of which 2 lead directly to the exterior, and the longest travel distance from any location within the Shrine Hall to an exit is 28 feet, (c) the wheelchair accessible exit has a fire wall and once outside that exit, those exiting would be in a fully sprinklered part of the building,- (d) uilding,(d) the shrine hall will have full fire alarm system coverage,- (e) overage,(e) the shrine hall is designed with 3-hour rated concrete walls and heavy timber roof construction with a fire treated structural deck that would have to burn several hours before the roof could collapse and there would not be sufficient fuel for a fire to burn that long, and (f) no mechanical sources of emission are present in the shrine hall. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.30 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. NAYS: Krantz. The vote on the motion was carried. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Now we have to do the other part of this. Ms. Brock — Right, for the bathhouse. I guess I need a little bit of help from you as to findings as to practical difficulty because that is one of the findings you need to make. That application of strict letter of the Town's chapter regarding sprinklers would create a practical difficulty. Mr. Tobey — It would require making it a heated, year round structure. Planning Board has only approved us for a seasonal structure. We would have to go back before the Planning Board as well as provide a source of heat. Cost of installing the heat and maintaining the heat. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Nobody resides here permanently. Short term use. Mr. Tobey — It's a bathhouse. Mr. Chambliss — Seasonal bathhouse. Ms. Brock—And that has already received Planning Board approval? Mr. Tobey — Yes. Ms. Brock— The structure itself? Mr. Tobey — Yes. Ms. Brock — Okay. All right I'll try this one. I don't have anything pre-prepared on this so, bear with me. Let's see. You can help me out, Chris. Before we go forward, Christine just wanted to confirm in the public notice it says that it is an 800 +/- square foot bathhouse. Mr. Chambliss — That is the footprint of it. It includes sort of a porch over the entry to it. So that is the roof area, not the area of the actual bathhouse. Ms. Balestra — Okay. Mr. Mountin —Are you referencing that information that was given on the bathhouse? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.31 Ms. Balestra — Right. I'm looking for the actual square footage. I calculated the square footage with the overhang or the front porch area to be approximately 884 square feet. Is that correct? Mr. Chambliss — I think it is less than that. Ms. Balestra — Its less than that? Okay. Mr. Tobey — It is the same bathhouse that was approved by the Planning Board. So you already have the documents on record. Ms. Balestra —Well, to be specific for the resolution. That is the only reason why. Mr. Chambliss — I have the total footprint for zoning purposes of 754 square feet. Ms. Balestra — Okay. So 800 square feet plus or minus. Ms. Brock — "Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Namgyal Monastery requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct an 800 +/- square foot bathhouse without the installation of a Town required sprinkler system located at the Namgyal Monastery on Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel Number 43.-2-10 with the following findings: the application of the strict letter of Chapter 225 would create a practical difficulty because the Planning Board has approved the bathhouse as a seasonal use building and to sprinkler that building, the building would have to be changed to a year round heated structure and 2) the omission of an approved sprinkler system from the building will not significantly jeopardize human life because the building is seasonal use with no facilities for sleeping, assembly, food preparation or any hazardous activity and the bathhouse will have full fire alarm system coverage." Is there any other information you would like to add to the findings? Board — No. Ms. Brock — How about, "in addition, the bathhouse will contain only showers, sinks and toilets, and there are no flammable materials located within the interior of the bathhouse." Is that correct? Mr. Tobey — That is correct. I suppose there could be cubbies for people to put their clothes in while they are bathing. Ms. Brock— We'll say, "there are a limited number of flammable materials located within the interior of the bathhouse." Mr. Tobey —Are you willing to require...(not audible)... ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.32 Ms. Brock—We'll call it limited materials as opposed to no materials. Mr. Tobey — Are we discussing combustible or noncombustible construction? We have a concrete floor and a steel roof, but are we requiring metal trusses or wood trusses, wood frame or concrete? Ms. Brock — Are there any conditions you want to place on this? The condition will be that the building shall be constructed as indicated on applicant's plans submitted to this board. Mr. Mountin — Let Steve and Kristie deal with that. That's building code. Ms. Brock—All right. That's the resolution. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I'll move the motion. Is there a second? Mr. Matthews — Second. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —All those in favor? Board —Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-012: SPRINKLER VARIANCE FOR BATH HOUSE, Namgyal Monastery, Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel Number 43.-2-10, March 19, 2007 MOVED by Vice Chairman Ellsworth, SECONDED by Mr. Matthews. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Namgyal Monastery requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct an 800 +/- square foot bathhouse without the installation of a Town required sprinkler system located at the Namgyal Monastery on Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel Number 43.-2-10. FINDINGS: 1. The application of the strict letter of Chapter 225 would create a practical difficulty because the Planning Board has approved the bathhouse as a seasonal use building and to sprinkler that building, the building would have to be changed to a year round heated structure,- 2. tructure,2. The omission of an approved sprinkler system from the building will not significantly jeopardize human life because the building is seasonal use with no facilities for sleeping, assembly, food preparation or any hazardous activity and the bathhouse will have full fire alarm system coverage, and ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.33 3. There are a limited number of flammable materials located within the interior of the bathhouse. CONDITION: 1. That the building shall be constructed as indicated on applicant's plans submitted to this board. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Tobey — Thank you very much. Appeal #2 Montessori School Ms. Brock — I need to disclose for the record that Ernie Bayles is my architect. Just so you know that. If you are uncomfortable...well he's not actively designing anything for me at the moment. But I'm still... Mr. Mountin — I can tell you that Ernie turned me down because he was too busy. I won't it hold it against you, though. Ernie Bayles, Architect for Montessori School I'm Ernie Bayles, architect or representative for the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School. Talking about the blue house or the middle school building at 122 East King Road. Andrea Riddle, Montessori School I'm Andrea Riddle. I am founder and principal of the Ann Clune Montessori School of Ithaca. Lisa Smith is an administrator at the school. Mr. Bayles — I think this is fairly, clearly stated in the announcement for this public hearing. Basically in 1999 the school was approved by the Zoning Board for a special permit to conduct school activities with a maximum number of 30. We are now 8 years later. Our program has grown somewhat and we are looking at an addition of approximately 1500 square feet to the building which will allow the enrollment to increase to a total of 40 students and 4 teachers to bring the total up to 44. Since the zoning law has changed, the Zoning Board no longer grants special permit approval. That goes to the Planning Board. We are meeting there tomorrow evening, but everyone thought that the Zoning Board should have their chance to weigh in since it was this board that granted the original approval 8 years ago. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Oh. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.34 Mr. Bayles — Basically the proposal is to add the footprint of roughly 800 square feet of new building construction on to the existing building that is towards the back. Runs us at a little bit less than 11% of lot coverage in this district. So basically the additions proposed are all to the back of the building. This is King Road out here. This is the main school building. This is their so-called equalevel, which is older elementary grades over there. So basically the addition is to the back and then a small addition to an existing entry that was part of the construction in 1999. There is a character sketch showing this. I have...we have now developed more complete building drawings so I can give you copies of building elevation drawings that are not in that. So the basic additions are residential in character. They do not increase the height of the building in any way. Essentially it is a means for projecting roofs off of the back of the building and enclosing the space. Mr. Matthews — Excuse me. How far is it from that addition to the property line? Mr. Bayles — This represents the...this little dashed line here represents the side yard setback, which is I believe 15 feet. So we are probably 25 feet to that. This is 1-inch equals 20 feet. Mr. Matthews — That is 15 feet? I thought...(not audible) Mr. Bayles — I believe that is what that line is...without a scale here. Mr. Matthews — So it shies away from the ... Mr. Bayles — It is, yeah. Everything is within the setbacks. Everything is within square footage coverages allowed. Mr. Matthews — Its more than 15 feet. Ms. Brock — And Dick, because the law has changed, the Zoning Ordinance has changed and now it's the Planning Board who grants special permits, they will actually be considering whether this addition should be built or not pursuant to their approval authority. The only real reason that the applicants are here tonight is because before the zoning law changed, it was the ZBA who had the power to grant special approvals and you did grant a special approval for this school, but put a condition on it saying that the middle school building could be occupied by no more than 30 people. Mr. Matthews — That's the issue? Ms. Brock — And that's the issue is because they now want to put more than 30 people in there. I've looked at the minutes from the meeting in 1999 where that condition was placed on them and I didn't see any real discussion about that other than the fact that they said we don't expect to have more than 30 people. There was no reason or elaboration as to why the ZBA felt that condition even needed to be imposed and as I ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.35 think about it, to me, it is almost...as long as the State fire and building codes are met, the State education department requirements for house spaces are to be constructed and accessed and things like that are met, as long as they have adequate parking pursuant to your Zoning Ordinance requirements, then to me, I don't really understand why this board would want to put a condition on how many people could be in the building. They were asking that the condition be modified and they had another number, I think 44, but to me it seems, actually, more appropriate that you just delete the condition putting any limit on it as long as all of these other requirements are met. The State building and fire code requirements, the education department requirements for classroom space and your parking requirements. I just don't see why this board really needs to be too concerned about any of the other pieces of it because the rest of it will all be considered by the Planning Board since they now have the special permit approval. Mr. Matthews — So what you are saying is we shouldn't even be concerned about the issue of 44 students? Ms. Brock— Unless somebody can tell me why that would be something you would care about. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — No...I... Mr. Matthews — You are saying they did that providing the sprinkler system and fire protection was...met code and so forth. Ms. Brock — Well, I'm sure they can't operate without that...and we can make those conditions of your special approval. These are things they are going to have to meet anyway. They won't be allowed to operate, I assume. Mr. Matthews — How do they determine...Harry, you are the resident expert on sprinkler systems that is what you said. I am always afraid of the word expert. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —Well, it's not an issue... Mr. Bayles — Unfortunately, it is. The cost of construction will exceed 50 percent of the value of the existing building. So we are going to trigger the sprinkler regulations. It is true that our preliminary estimates are coming in at something over 10 percent of the entire building. So we may be back in here asking for some relief, although I don't want to bring that up right now. [laughing] Ms. Brock — But that is not your issue tonight. I think your issue tonight is, is there any reason to put a limit on how many people can be in that building? Mr. Matthews — Is there a code? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.36 Mr. Bayles — Yes. There are occupancy limits. They are based on square footages. Occupancy for the lower floor I think is like 70 and the upper floor is 90. Those are the actual occupancy limits by the building code. Mr. Matthews —Well, it's a moot point. The whole thing is a moot point. Ms. Brock — Well, I think technically you have sitting on the books this special approval from 1999 with the condition that the building be occupied by no more than 30 people. So my recommendation would be that you simply delete that requirement and if you want just not put a number in at all. Then we can put in conditions saying they have to meet these code requirements, which they have to do anyway, but if it makes you feel better we can do it. If you prefer not to even bother with the conditions we don't have to. Mr. Krantz— This building has no sprinklers... Mr. Mountin —We're not there yet. Ms. Brock— That is not before us tonight. Mr. Krantz — We are going to allow them to have as many students as they want, is that what you are saying? Ms. Balestra — No. Mr. Mountin — That is not our issue tonight, either. Mr. Matthews — They are saying there is a code. This gentleman said there is a code, but they are not even near it. They can double their enrollment and still be under the code requirement. Ms. Brock— Does the education department have requirements for space? Mr. Bayles — No. Ms. Brock— No? [multiple conversations at one time] Ms. Balestra — The only issue really that this will bring up is the parking issue and that will be dealt with as part of site plan and special permit approval from the Planning Board. Mr. Krantz — Only 5 parking spots were allowed before and you are going to increase the enrollment now from 30 to 44. Is there any increase in parking spots? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.37 Ms. Balestra — They would be utilizing the parking in the main building, which is something the Planning Board will be looking at. There is sufficient parking on this site for the students. The students themselves are not going to be requiring parking spaces. It is any additional staff, really. Mr. Matthews — I haven't seen any parking on King Road from their facility. Ms. Riddle — Actually, for big events now we handle those off campus. So our concerts are at Hord Hall at Ithaca College and our musicals at the State Theatre. Mr. Mountin — So how do we make a motion to repeal the 1999 ZBA...? Ms. Brock — Well, I do have some language, but before we do that we need to do the SEAR and before we do that we should have the public hearing. Mr. Mountin — Okay. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay, lets do the SEAR. Ms. Brock— Do the public hearing first. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Oh, okay. We'll open the public hearing (8:33 p.m.). Anyone who wishes to speak come forward. We'll close the public hearing (8:34 p.m.) because there is no one sitting in the public. Ms. Brock — So now we can do the SEAR, if you are ready. Are you ready for the SEAR or do you have more discussion? Vice Chairman Ellsworth — No. Anyone? Mr. Krantz — I'm a little confused. Is says in the notes that we have that this property contains the condition that the building be occupied by no more than 30 people or such a lesser number as mandated by the State building code. Does the State building code say they can only have 30 or does it not? Ms. Balestra — Actually, I spoke with the building department. The State building code allows them to have many more 30. Mr. Krantz— Then this statement is incorrect. Ms. Balestra — From 1999. Mr. Matthews — So they were granted 30 because they were asked for 30. Mr. Krantz— Well, that is not what it says. ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.38 [several talking at once] Ms. Brock — Well, I think that should have said, "or such number as mandated by the State building code, which ever is less." That is probably what was meant. Mr. Krantz— Okay. Ms. Brock— I'm sure that's what was meant. Mr. Krantz— If that's incorrect that's fine. Mr. Matthews — They didn't initiate the number, though. Ms. Balestra — No. Mr. Bayles — If I could add a little bit of clarity. I believe the reason that the number 30 or this issue came up was because during that meeting there was a fair amount of discussion about parking and just how people are going to be coming and going and so there was some concern that some huge increase not be permitted so that they could kind of see how this was going to work. Ms. Brock — But because now it is the Planning Board that has special permit approval, all these issues will be coming up at their meeting. When they look at the expansion, they will look at all the impacts of the expansion. Traffic, parking, circulation on the site, distances to setbacks, impacts on the neighbors. All that is now under their purview. I mean if you were still the sole approval authority then you would be looking at all those things, too. So are you ready for the SEAR? Vice Chairman Ellsworth — You mean Ernie and I could have stayed home and watched the Syracuse game? Go ahead. Excuse me. Ms. Brock— So here is the proposed SEAR resolution: "Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School requesting the modification of a previously approved special approval to be permitted to increase the enrollment of the Montessori middle school. This negative determination is made based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part I I." Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I'll move the motion. Mr. Krantz— Second. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —All those in favor? ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.39 Board —Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-013: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Montessori School, 122 East King Road, Tax Parcel Number 43.-1-3.6, March 19, 2007 MOVED by Vice Chairman Ellsworth, SECONDED by Mr. Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School, requesting the modification of a previously approved Special Approval to be permitted to increase the enrollment of the Montessori Middle School. This negative determination is made based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part 11. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Further discussion? Okay. Go ahead. Ms. Brock — And then for the special approval modification, here is a proposed resolution: "Resolved that this board grants the appeal of the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School to modify the previously approved special approval to permit an increase in the enrollment of the Montessori middle school by deleting condition a of the ZBA's June 9, 1999 special approval that restricted occupancy of the building to no more than 30 people or such lesser number as mandated by the State building code." Ms. Brock - Do you wish to have any conditions? That the building meet all the requirement of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code? Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Yeah, we can add that. Ms. Brock — Okay so conditions: 1) the building should meet all requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and 2) the applicant shall provide an adequate number of parking spaces as required by the Town's zoning ordinance. And with the findings that... Vice Chairman Ellsworth — You mean by the Town Planning Board? Ms. Brock — No. The Town's zoning ordinance specifies the formula for determining parking spaces. Christine, will we run into a problem if the Planning Board...the Planning Board has the ability to modify within a certain percentage the number of ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.40 parking spaces and really if the applicant wishes to decrease the number of spaces beyond that and the Planning Board agrees, it would have to come back here for a variance. So I think we can leave that condition in here and then if they need to get a variance on the parking requirements they would have to come back anyway. "With the findings that the requirements of Town code Section 270-200 sections a-I for special approvals are met, the deletion of the limit on the number of people who can occupy the middle school building will not have any affect on the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community nor on the neighborhood character." Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Do we have to go through all these? Ms. Brock— I am not. I'm just... Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Ernie laid them out pretty carefully. Mr. Bayles — You're doing great, Susan. Go ahead. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Go for it. Ms. Brock — I was almost finished, actually. "Nor on the community character. The Town's Planning Board will be considering the proposed renovation that would make any increase in the number of occupants possible and the Town Planning Board under its special permit authority will consider all the requirements for special permit." I think that's it. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — I'll move the motion. Mr. Krantz— I'll second it. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —All those in favor? Board —Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-014: MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL APPROVAL: Montessori School, 122 East King Road, Tax Parcel Number 43.4-3.6, March 19, 2007 MOVED by Vice Chairman Ellsworth, SECONDED by Mr. Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School to modify the previously approved Special Approval to permit an increase in the enrollment of the Montessori Middle School, by deleting condition "a"of the ZBA's June 9, 1999 Special Approval that restricted occupancy of the building to no more than 30 people or such lesser number as mandated by the State Building Code. FINDINGS: ZBA 3/19/07 Pg.41 1. The requirements of Town code Section 270-200 sections a-1 for special approvals are met, 2. The deletion of the limit on the number of people who can occupy the middle school building will not have any affect on the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community nor on the neighborhood character nor on the community character, 3. The Town's Planning Board will be considering the proposed renovation that would make any increase in the number of occupants possible, and 4. The Town Planning Board under its Special Permit authority will consider all the requirements for Special Permit. CONDITIONS- 1. ONDITIONS:1. The building shall meet all requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and 2. Applicant shall provide an adequate number of parking spaces as required by the Town's Zoning Ordinance. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Ellsworth —Any other official business? Ms. Balestra — I don't think so. Vice Chairman Ellsworth — Okay. I move that we adjourn officially, on this clock, at 8:40 p.m. Vice Chairman Ellsworth adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Harry E. Ellsworth, Vice Chairman Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk