Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2007-07-16 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved TOWN of ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday, July 16, 2007 7:00 p.m. Present: Vice Chairman Harry Ellsworth Board Members: Ron Krantz, Jim Niefer, Dick Matthews Alternate Board Member David Mountin (arrived at 7:02 p.m.) Staff: Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk Excused: Board Member Jim Niefer and Alternate Board Member Eric Levine Others: Herman Sieverding, Integrated Acquisition Development Brian Francis, Crown Construction Judith Hart, 148 and 150 Snyder Hill Road Beverly Livesay, 147 Snyder Hill Road Unidentified Gentleman, Crown Construction Mr. Ellsworth called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Ellsworth — This is the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals July Meeting for July 167 2007. We have two appeals: The first of Cornell University, Appellant, Herman Sieverding, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 173, Section 173-11 and Chapter 221, Section 221-6 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to place a 56+/- square foot freestanding entrance sign consisting of an engraved rock located in the landscaped island in front of the Pine Tree Road Office Building, 395 Pine Tree Road. The second appeal is of Judith Hart, Appellant, Brian Francis, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Sections 270-204(A), 270-205(A), and 270-226 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain two separate dwelling units on a single tax parcel located at 148 and 150 Snyder Hill Road. Appeal Number 1: Cornell University Mr. Ellsworth — I know we have a lot of information so, if you could briefly tell us. Herman Sieverding — We have been here about a year and a half ago. Mr. Ellsworth — June 2006. 1 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved Mr. Sieverding — For a variance for the signs for this building at 395 Pine Tree Road and one small detail has changed and that is the landscaped island in front of the building and I think you have some aerial photographs that show that has a number of large rocks. One of those rocks broke when they tried to place and so some of the folks at Cornell thought that that would make a much nicer sign than a metal box that is internally illuminated sitting on that island. The thought is to take this rock, which is about 12 foot 6...12 feet 6 inches long and about 4 feet 6 inches high and mount it where the original metal fabricated sign was going to go and just simply engrave on that sign 395 Pine Tree Road, Cornell University. And then have a couple of ground spot lights that would just illuminate the face of that rock. So while the variance talks about the total area of the sign being 56 some odd square feet, the fact of the matter is it is a big rock and the portion of it that is engraved is quite a bit smaller than that. We were here a couple of weeks ago with the Planning Board. They had some concerns about the various aspects of the proposed sign. Particularly the number of ground spots that we were going to have, where they were going to be placed, how bright those lights were going to be, whether or not they were going to be directional and so we have taken those comments and passed them on for our landscape architect. And the plan that I think Christine passed out is the final plan that reflects the Planning Board recommendations for this. So the two variances in question are the size of the sign and the fact that the Town's new lighting ordinance doesn't allow ground spots. I've tried to describe in the narrative that accompanied the application some of the mitigating factors. I think the principle one being that the property or the building and certainly this landscape island is over 700 feet back from a public right-of-way. It is not actually visible from the right-of-way because the building blocks it. And I think that the Planning Board has asked for enough controls in terms of the light where we are not too concerned about light spillage that would affect any of the surrounding properties. So with that I can answer any questions that you have. In the narrative I tried to address each of the five criteria that you need to consider in terms of granting the variance, in terms of impacts on the neighborhood, and the like and whether or not this is a large variance relative to what is described in the ordinance. I think on the whole it is a pretty small variance. Mr. Ellsworth — I would like to remind the Board in, again, June 2006 this Board granted a variance for one entrance internally illuminated sign, 28 square feet and one, I guess the other sign was further back. Mr. Sieverding — Yes. Mr. Ellsworth — 21 square feet internally illuminated. So we're...Cornell is back again with what they consider a better plan. Just one question I have is regarding the lighting. If you get...the lighting ordinance was set to not get what I call overspray. If you get overspray, where is it going to go? What is behind it? 2 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved Mr. Sieverding — In the direction that the sign is oriented and light is going to be pointed, it is pointed north and there is nothing but open field. You need to go quite a long ways before there are any buildings that would see them. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay... Mr. Sieverding — Yeah. Its just all field and drops down into Cascadilla Creek gorge and on the other side of that is Route 366. Mr. Ellsworth —Who owns the field? Cornell? Mr. Sieverding — Its all Cornell land other than the NYSEG right-of-way that runs through there with the high power lines. Mr. Matthews — One question I have is looking at this photograph here, it seems that your proposed sign is lower than most of those boulders that are in back of it. Is that correct? Mr. Sieverding — Yes. It is substantially lower. The sort of field of boulders, I guess we call it, is probably 5 feet high, 5.5 feet high. Mr. Matthews — So they are higher than the sign. Mr. Sieverding — Yes. Mr. Matthews — The sign is relatively small when you look at the whole scape of it and the writing on the boulder is probably within the signage ordinance, I'm sure. If we are going to refuse the sign in the proposed form, then it seems to me that we'll have to refuse the boulders that are behind it. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, I don't think that is part of this Board's... Mr. Matthews — Part of what? Mr. Ellsworth — The landscape plan is not submitted to this Board. Mr. Matthews — I know that. Mr. Ellsworth — It is Planning Board, right? Mr. Matthews — I understand that, but if the ordinance says the sign has to be such a size it seems to me if landscape is added and the landscape is acceptable...we are arguing with ourselves. Mr. Ellsworth — No. I understand. 3 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved Mr. Matthews — I'm only a graduate of Cornell University and sometimes I get mislogic, but it seems to me that the sign is arguing with the pretty boulders in back of it if we are going to refuse it. Mr. Ellsworth — Now you are still going to have the 21 square foot internally lit...the previous variance was for two signs. Are you still going to have two signs? Mr. Sieverding — Yes. There will still be a sign that will be consistent with the other variance that was granted out on the street itself. Mr. Ellsworth —And that is the 28 or 21 square foot internally illuminated? Mr. Sieverding — I'm not sure that I remember exactly either. It is probably the larger of the two. Mr. Ellsworth — I just wanted to be clear to the Board that... Ms. Balestra — Yeah. It's the 28. Mr. Ellsworth — You are here for one sign. You are still going to have another sign. Mr. Sieverding — That's right. This is for the one that is really way back out on the site. Mr. Ellsworth —Any other questions from the Board? Mr. Matthews — No. Ms. Brock— I have some questions. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. Ms. Brock— Herman, I think the last time you were here you said that this sign is approximately 750 feet from Pine Tree Road. Mr. Sieverding —Approximately. Ms. Brock— So will this sign be placed in the same location as the sign that was approved? Mr. Sieverding — Correct. Ms. Brock—And will it be visible from Pine Tree Road? Mr. Sieverding — No. I don't think so because the building really blocks the view of that sign from the road. 4 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved Ms. Brock—And how does the size of this proposed sign compare with the size of other signs in the nearby area? Such as the Olivia sign, the Eckerd sign, the East Hill Plaza sign? Mr. Sieverding — I guess it depends on what portion of the rock you want to consider the sign. The overall size of the rock itself is 56 square feet. So I imagine that is probably a little bit...well, actually maybe not because I think within that commercial district you are allowed signs up to 50 square feet. Ms. Balestra — Right. It is approximately consistent with the Olivia sign. I haven't measured the Olivia sign, but I know that it is at least 50 square feet, possibly up to 60 square feet in area. Ms. Brock—And how about the Eckerd's sign? Mr. Sieverding — The entire rock here, the face of the rock is 56 square feet. The portion of it that is engraved is substantially smaller. Ms. Balestra — I do not have the information on the Eckerd's sign right on me. Ms. Brock—And the Eckerd sign and the Olivia sign are both lit, both internally illuminated. Isn't that correct? Ms. Balestra — That's correct. Ms. Brock— Do you know how the light levels, the wattage from those signs would compare with the wattage for the sign you are proposing? Mr. Sieverding — I don't. Ms. Brock— Chris, do you have any comments on that? Ms. Balestra — I don't have the information for that. Mr. Ellsworth — The size of the Olivia sign was in the previous approved minutes somewhere. I can't find it, but you gave an approximate size. Ms. Balestra — It is at least 50 square feet, possibly up to 60 square feet in area, but not larger than 60 square feet in area. I'm guessing its only 50 square feet, but I don't have the definite information in front of me. Mr. Matthews — The residential area that is covered in this proposal, does it extend southwest towards the Citgo gas station? Ms. Balestra — No. 5 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved Mr. Sieverding — No. Mr. Matthews — The residential area doesn't go in that direction? Ms. Balestra — No. That becomes a commercial area. Mr. Matthews — Okay. Mr. Sieverding — Relative to the question of size, I do have it here in the narrative. The overall rock is 56 square feet, but the portion that contains the lettering is 8.5 square feet. Mr. Ellsworth — The next property to the south is the Olivia Restaurant. The next property to the south beyond that is East Hill Plaza, which Cornell owns. If you go north, the next property is... Mr. Matthews —A graveyard. Mr. Ellsworth — No. A branch of Cornell. Some other...it used to be the artificial insemination and its now... Mr. Sieverding — No. That's where we built the building. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. Mr. Sieverding — So everything to the south, you have Olivia's and then you have East Hill Carwash and then you have East Hill Plaza and Best Western. Those are the neighbors to the south. Mr. Ellsworth —And the Citgo on the corner. Now get us going north. Mr. Sieverding — Going north I think you would have to get clear across the other side of campus to get another property owner. Because if you go directly north, you go down into the gorge and then you go through what used to be the fish wildlife area and then Route 366 and then campus. Mr. Ellsworth — If you want the property across the street described, its Courtside, was Courtside Fitness. Mr. Sieverding — Cornell bought that when Tom Murray closed. Then you have East Lawn Cemetery. Mr. Ellsworth —And going south you have Rite Aid and then I think the house on the corner Cornell owns, by the bank. HSBC bank. That is the nature of the immediate neighborhood. Any further questions from the Board? I'd like to open this up for the 6 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved public comment (7:14 p.m.). Anyone? I'll close the public comment (7:15 p.m.) portion. Chris, can you give us some information on the environmental assessment? Ms. Balestra — Staff did not have too much concern regarding the potential environmental impact of the proposal. One of the main reasons is the sign is located 750 feet plus or minus away from Pine Tree Road. So visual impacts are minor at best. There was a bit of a concern with light spillage, but I believe the applicant is proposing lighting that will mitigate any light spillage and glare concerns by focusing the lighting straight on the face of the rock. And the sign size is not out of character with other commercial uses in the general vicinity. So staff doesn't really have a lot of environmental concerns with this particular proposal. Mr. Ellsworth —Any questions? Mr. Matthews — No. Those are very good points I think she made. Thank you. Mr. Ellsworth — Can I have a motion from someone on the Board on the environmental assessment? Ms. Brock— I have a motion, I mean, I have a draft resolution if you would like to hear that? Mr. Ellsworth — Sure. Ms. Brock— Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Cornell University, appellant, Herman Sieverding, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 173, Section 173-11, and Chapter 221, Section 221-6 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to place a 56 plus or minus square foot freestanding entrance sign consisting of an engraved rock lit by ground mounted spot lights, located in the landscaped island in front of the Pine Tree Road Office Building, 395 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number 63.-1- 3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. 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. Mr. Ellsworth — Do I have a second? Mr. Mountin — Second. Ms. Brock—Well, somebody needs to make that motion, actually. Mr. Ellsworth — I'll make the motion. Mr. Mountin — Second. Board votes. Carried unanimously. 7 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-028: Environmental Assessment— Variances, Cornell University, 395 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel Number 63.4-3.4 MOVED by Harry Ellsworth, SECONDED by David Mountin. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Cornell University, appellant, Herman Sieverding, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 173, Section 173-11, and Chapter 221, Section 221-6 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to place a 56 plus or minus square foot freestanding entrance sign consisting of an engraved rock lit by ground mounted spot lights, located in the landscaped island in front of the Pine Tree Road Office Building, 395 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number 63.4- 3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. 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. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews, Mountin. NAYS: None. The vote on the Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Ellsworth — Do you have something... Ms. Brock— I do have a draft resolution prepared to grant the appeal. Do you want to add as conditions those suggested conditions that the Planning Board recommended? Mr. Ellsworth — Yes. Ms. Brock— Okay. Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, appellant, Herman Sieverding, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 173, Section 173-11 and Chapter 221, Section 221-6 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to place a 56 plus or minus square foot freestanding entrance sign consisting of an engraved rock lit by ground mounted spot lights located in a landscaped island in front of the Pine Tree Road office building, 395 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number 63.-1-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. Conditions: the ground mounted sign lighting shall be focused on the sign text only; no more than two shielded light fixtures be used and be screened by plantings; that the light fixtures contain light bulbs of low wattage containing no more than 850 lumens; and that any excessive up-lighting or glare noticeable from neighboring properties, as determined by the Director of Planning, must be remedied by either modification of the fixtures, the light bulbs, or the fixture orientation. That was a. B, submission of a lighting fixture details and locations for approval by the Director of Planning. C, the applicant must obtain sign permits prior to installing the sign. D, the sign must be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. And e, the setback 8 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved variance granted by the ZBA on June 19th, 2006 and its condition that Cornell retain ownership of the adjoining remain in effect. Findings: the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community because 1) even though the sign size is significantly larger than what is allowed and the lighting will be aimed in a direction that is prohibited, these factors are mitigated by the fact that the sign will be located approximately 750 feet from Pine Tree Road; will not be visible from Pine Tree Road; the sign (rock) is smaller than adjacent landscaping rocks; only low levels of lighting are permitted and the lights will be shielded and aimed to eliminate glare and minimize light spillage. 2) There is no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the sign will be approximately the same size as other signs in the surrounding area. 3) The location of the sign so far from Pine Tree Road and the conditions placed on the lighting will assure that the sign will not have adverse physical or environmental effects. 4) The alleged difficulty is not self-created, in that Cornell was essentially forced to request that this parcel be zoned low-density residential, since that's where educational uses are allowed, and commercial zones, which probably would have been more appropriate here, do not permit educational use. And 5) While the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, this factor is outweighed by the other factors. Mr. Ellsworth — Does someone want to be the sponsor of that motion? Mr. Niefer— So moved, the motion. Mr. Ellsworth — I need a second to the motion. Mr. Krantz— Second. Mr. Ellsworth —All those in favor? Board —Aye. Carried unanimously. Mr. Sieverding — Thank you very much. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-029: Variances, Cornell University, 395 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel Number 63.4-3.4 MOVED by James Niefer, SECONDED by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, appellant, Herman Sieverding, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 173, Section 173-11 and Chapter 221, Section 221-6 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to place a 56 plus or minus square foot freestanding entrance sign consisting of an engraved rock lit by ground mounted spot lights located in a landscaped island in front 9 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved of the Pine Tree Road office building, 395 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number 63.-1-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. Conditions: 1. The ground mounted sign lighting shall be focused on the sign text only. 2. No more than two shielded light fixtures be used and be screened by plantings. 3. That the light fixtures contain light bulbs of low wattage containing no more than 850 lumens. 4. That any excessive uplighting or glare noticeable from neighboring properties, as determined by the Director of Planning, must be remedied by either modification of the fixtures, the light bulbs, or the fixture orientation. 5. Submission of lighting fixture details and locations for approval by the Director of Planning. 6. The applicant must obtain sign permits prior to installing the sign. 7. The sign must constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. 8. The setback variance granted by the ZBA on June 19th, 2006 and its condition that Cornell retain ownership of the adjoining remain in effect. Findings: The benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community because: 1. Even though the sign size is significantly larger than what is allowed and the lighting will be aimed in a direction that is prohibited, these factors are mitigated by the fact that the sign will be located approximately 750 feet from Pine Tree Road, will not be visible from Pine Tree Road, the sign (rock) is smaller than adjacent landscaping rocks, only low levels of lighting are permitted and the lights will be shielded and aimed to eliminate glare and minimize light spillage. 2. There is no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the sign will be approximately the same size as other signs in the surrounding area. 3. The location of the sign so far from Pine Tree Road and the conditions placed on the lighting will assure that the sign will not have adverse physical or environmental effects. 10 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved 4. The alleged difficulty is not self-created, in that Cornell was essentially forced to request that this parcel be zoned low-density residential, since that's where educational uses are allowed, and commercial zones, which probably would have been more appropriate here, do not permit educational use. 5. While the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, this factor is outweighed by the other factors. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews, Mountin. NAYS: None. The vote on the Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Appeal Number 2 — Judith Hart Mr. Ellsworth - The second appeal is of Judith Hart, Appellant, Brian Francis, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Sections 270-204(A), 270- 205(A), and 270-226 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain two separate dwelling units on a single tax parcel located at 148 and 150 Snyder Hill Road. Give your name and address. Brian Francis — Do you want Crown Construction's address or the property address? Mr. Ellsworth — Crown Construction's address. Mr. Francis — 176 Cortland Road, Dryden, New York. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. Do you want to briefly describe your appeal? Mr. Francis — Sure. We are going to frame a 5 foot 6 and half by 10 foot addition for the main and only bathroom in the existing structure. The reason we have to expand on the footprint of the building is because the existing and only bathroom as it sits right now is only 3 foot 11 by 6 foot 4. And if we were to make it bigger on the interior then the room on the other side of the bathroom would then become small. Mr. Ellsworth — So that is the reason you are here at the Board of Zoning Appeals? Mr. Francis — The reason we are here is because there are two structures on one tax parcel and the zoning law says... Mr. Ellsworth — But what brought that up was this addition, right? Mr. Francis — Correct. Yes. 11 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved Mr. Ellsworth —Any questions from the Board? Ms. Brock— I have a question. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. Ms. Brock— The other home on the parcel, the smaller one, can you describe what it is being used for? Mr. Francis — It is a rental property. Ms. Brock - So it is a self-contained unit? Mr. Francis — Yes. It has a separate driveway. Ms. Brock— Does the main property make any use of it? I mean obviously the owner of the main property is renting out the small one. Mr. Francis — Right. That's it. Mr. Mountin — So this is grandfathered in, right? Ms. Brock— It is in that...it is grandfathered in because the two homes on one parcel predate the zoning ordinance. Mr. Ellsworth — It makes it nonconforming. Ms. Brock— Right. So it's allowed. The problem is that the code says a nonconforming use cannot be extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment. So one thing you can do is grant a variance from that requirement, an area variance because basically the law is saying they cannot occupy a greater amount of land. Mr. Mountin — Isn't the rental considered to be, wouldn't it be 50 percent of the size of the main building? Ms. Brock— The other thing you can do is consider a special approval and there are 8 or 10 factors that you have to find. And so you are right, it looks in this case as if the second unit is 50 percent or less in terms of size compared to the first unit. The problem is you also have to find that the second unit is accessory to the larger unit and that was why I asked the question about what the second unit is being used for. If it were a garage and somebody had put an apartment in the garage or something like that then you could make a finding that it was actually accessory to the main unit, but because it is a completely freestanding dwelling unit with no real connection to the other unit, it has a separate driveway and everything, I think it would be difficult for you to 12 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved make a finding that it was accessory. So what I would recommend is that you consider a variance from Section 270-204 for nonconforming uses of land to the provision that says that a nonconforming use cannot be extended to occupy a greater area of land. You can do that through an area variance. This requirement says you cannot increase the amount of land that you are using and you would be considering whether or not they can and we would use the area variance criteria to determine that. Mr. Mountin — So we are considering it an area variance and ask questions accordingly? Mr. Ellsworth — That's the way I feel. It has a separate driveway. Separate addresses, so on. Mr. Mountin — I don't...as far as an area variance for the size of the addition I don't have any questions. Five by ten addition? Mr. Francis — Yeah. Five and a half by ten. Mr. Ellsworth —Any other questions from the Board? Mr. Mountin — No. Mr. Ellsworth — I would like to open up for public comment (7:26 p.m.). Beverly Livesay, 147 Snyder Hill Road — I live on the property directly across the street from this property. We certainly have no objections to this. We don't feel that it in any way falters from the neighborhood perspective the current use. Thank you. Mr. Ellsworth —Any further public comment? I'll close the public session (7:27 p.m.). Do we have an environmental...? Ms. Balestra — If it's being considered an area variance then there is no environmental assessment required. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. Any further questions from the Board? Mr. Mountin — I have a question. What is the consideration of the special approval that you already discussed? It was either a special approval or the area variance, but we are deciding to go the area variance instead of the special approval. Ms. Brock— Yes. Mr. Mountin — Right. Okay. Mr. Ellsworth —What's the criteria for an area variance? 13 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved Ms. Brock— It's on the blue cards. Do you have one? Mr. Ellsworth — I can't find mine. Ms. Brock — Here. It's a balancing test. The Board balances the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Board shall also consider whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, whether an undesirable change in neighborhood character to nearby properties will occur, whether the request is substantial, whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental affects, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. And if the approved, you should grant the minimum variance necessary and may impose reasonable conditions. I do have a draft resolution for you. Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Judith Hart, appellant, Brian Francis, agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-204a to enlarge the existing structure located at 150 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number 61.-1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. Chapter 270-204a prohibits a nonconforming use from being enlarged to occupy a greater use of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the zoning chapter. Conditions: 1) the addition be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. Findings: the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community because: 1) the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant because any addition to the building triggers the prohibition against increasing the amount of occupied land that is applicable to nonconforming uses. 2) There is no undesirable change in neighborhood character to nearby properties given that the addition is only approximately 55 square feet and meets all setback requirements. 3) The request is not substantial and will not have adverse physical or environmental effects, given that the addition is only 55 square feet, is less than 10% of the size of the existing house, and meets all setback requirements. 4) While the alleged difficulty may be self- created, this factor is outweighed by the other factors. Mr. Ellsworth — In the appeal it mentions the second dwelling encroached into the 15 foot required yard setback. Correct? Ms. Balestra — That is one of the criteria that would be considered if the Board was... Mr. Ellsworth — Special approval. Ms. Balestra — Yes. That is one of the criteria listed. That the secondary dwelling needs to be 15 feet from the side yard. Ms. Brock — But any nonconformity regarding that structure is allowed because it is a prior nonconforming structure as long as they don't do anything to the structure, if they were to change the nonconformity or make it worse then they would need to come back before you. Another thing the applicant might want to consider that is not really part of this resolution is just to avoid having to come back every time they want 14 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved to do anything to the property the applicant might want to just consider subdividing the property and making it two tax parcels. You probably would need to come...for the subdivision and get some variances because I think the lots may, depending upon how you subdivide it, the lots may or may not meet the requirements and things like that, but once that's all done then you wouldn't need to keep coming back every time you want to change something on one of the structures. It increases the nonconformity. Mr. Ellsworth — I'll sponsor the motion. Can I get a second? Mr. Krantz— Second. Mr. Ellsworth —All those in favor? Board —Aye. Carried unanimous. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-030: Variance, Judith Hart, 148 and 150 Snyder Hill Road, Tax Parcel No. 61.4-10 MOVED by Harry Ellsworth, SECONDED by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this board grants the appeal of Judith Hart, appellant, Brian Francis, agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-204a to enlarge the existing structure located at 150 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number 61.4-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. Chapter 270-204a prohibits a nonconforming use from being enlarged to occupy a greater use of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the zoning chapter. Condition: 1. The addition be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. Findings: The benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community because: 1. The benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant because any addition to the building triggers the prohibition against increasing the amount of occupied land that is applicable to nonconforming uses. 2. There is no undesirable change in neighborhood character to nearby properties given that the addition is only approximately 55 square feet and meets all setback requirements. 15 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved 3. The request is not substantial and will not have adverse physical or environmental effects, given that the addition is only 55 square feet, is less than 10% of the size of the existing house, and meets all setback requirements. 4. While the alleged difficulty may be self-created, this factor is outweighed by the other factors. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews, Mountin. NAYS: None. The vote on the Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Other Business: Staff confirmed Board members had updated copies of the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Law, copies will be provided to those who do not. The Board discussed upcoming training opportunities with Town Staff. Mr. Krantz brought up the memo from Susan Ritter to the Board regarding lead agency designation for the Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostics project. Ms. Brock reviewed the memo and suggested that the Board pass a resolution with regard to the designation. She also noted that the Board could make comments on potential environmental impacts to the Planning Board by August 21, 2007. Mr. Mountin questioned the need for lead agency designation. Ms. Brock and Ms. Balestra explained when and why lead agency designations are made. Ms. Brock further explained that the Zoning Board would be considering a height variance for the project. She suggested the Board have a motion, "to concur with the designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as lead agency for the proposed Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostics Center". Mr. Mountin moved the proposed motion and Mr. Ellsworth seconded. The Board voted on the motion and it was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-031: Concurrence of Lead Agency Designation, Cornell University—Animal Health Diagnostics Center MOTION made by David Mountin, SECONDED by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals concurs with the designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as lead agency for the proposed Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostics Center. 16 Zoning Board of Appeals July 16, 2007 Minutes Approved A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews, Mountin. NAYS: None. The vote on the Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Ms. Brock mentioned that information regarding the project would be on file with the Planning Department if anyone was interested in reviewing the material. Adjournment Mr. Ellsworth adjourned the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Harry E. Ellsworth, Vice Chairperson Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk 17