Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2007-08-20 TOWN of ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday, August 20, 2007 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kirk Sigel Vice Chairman Harry Ellsworth Board Members: Ron Krantz, Jim Niefer, Dick Matthews Alternate Board Member Eric Levine Staff: Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Excused: Alternate Board Member David Mountin Others: Monique Morse, 99 Harvey Hill Road Burke Carson, Agent, 110 Judd Falls Road Judith Kellock, 110 Judd Falls Road David Schlosser, Cornell University, Merrill Family Sailing Center Shirley Egan, Attorney, Cornell University, Merrill Family Sailing Center Doug Bianchi, East Hill Car Wash Chairman Sigel — Good evening. Welcome to the August 20th meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have four appeals which we will take in the following order: The appeal of Monique Morse, the appeal of Judith Kellock, the appeal of Cornell University and the appeal of Douglas Bianchi. The first appeal this evening, that of Eunice McFall, Owner, Monique Morse, French Lavender Flower Shop, Applicant/Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-6(A) to allow two wall signs on the French Lavender Flower Shop building, including moving an existing 4 square foot sign currently located on the front of the building to the east side of the building, and installing a 23+/- square foot sign on the front of the building. The French Lavender Flower Shop is located at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59-2-16, Medium Density Residential Zone. The Town Sign Law permits one 4 square foot wall sign per building in a residential district. The applicant therefore requests variances from the ZBA to have two wall signs, with one that exceeds the 4 square foot maximum size. Chairman Sigel — If you'd like, you could sit at that deck right there and please, if you could, begin with your name and address. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 2 Monique Morse, 99 Harvey Hill Road in Ithaca. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Is there anything you'd like to add? Ms. Morse — Just sort of to go over what was pretty much said. The sign that I'd like to put up would be very, very similar to that of the previous tenant, which was Knitting Machines, Inc. It would be very similar in size and actual lettering to that sign, so there wouldn't be a huge change from that. And what I'd like to do, and the reason I would like to move the small sign that is in the front of the building now to the side of the building, is to deter people from parking in my lot, which is happening more and more. I have been getting a lot of Cornell students, of course a lot of people come to use the walking trail, which I don't mind, because they come and go, but I also get a lot of commercial vehicles parking there for the day and Town vehicles parking there sometimes, and snow ploughs and all kinds of vehicles. So I'd like to move that small sign in the front of the building to the side and hopefully that will give people the message that basically the lot belongs to me. So... Chairman Sigel — Okay. And the lettering that you are proposing, it's going to be letters attached directly to the facade, right? No separate backing... Ms. Morse — Right. No. James Niefer— Have you decided whether they are going to be 10 inch letters or 6 inch letters? I know the proposal or the material we have here, it says option 2 and it shows 2 different letter heights. Ms. Morse — Yes, the actual French Lavender part of the sign will be 10 inch letters and the smaller lettering underneath it that says Flowers and Gifts would be 6 inch tall. Mr. Niefer— Okay. Chairman Sigel —And the way I read the Planning Board resolution, it appears that they wanted to restrict your request a little bit by saying...well it says the proposed signs, which I assume means they were not restricting you to 1 sign or recommending just 1 sign, it says "the proposed signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in total area." So that would be the 4 square feet, existing sign, plus what you would put in the front, the total combined 24 square feet is their recommendation. Susan Brock — Kirk, this is actually not correct, the s should not be there on the the word signs. It should be the proposed sign, meaning the sign that the applicant wants to put on the front of the building. The draft resolution in front of the Planning Board had a (s) after the word sign, and 1, actually, pointed out to them that they should delete the (s), but apparently it did not come through clearly on the tape and so that's why their final resolution still shows the s. But I can tell you that that is a change that I proposed at the meeting and they did accept it. And in any event, this is just a Planning Board ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 3 recommendation, it's not binding on you. But their intent was that she could have two signs, one a 4 foot sign and the other, the proposed sign, not to exceed 24 square ffet. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Thank you. Sorry. James Niefer— Is the sign on the front of the building to be spotlighted at all? Ms. Morse — I would use...there's existing spotlights, two, on the front of the building that shine down just to the sign, they don't shine out into the parking lot or anything else. They shine straight down and they light the sign and I would only use that, say, in the winter time when it gets dark early, and I would turn them off when I left the building for the evening. So they wouldn't be on all night long. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So they would only be on during business hours. Ms. Morse — Yes. Chairman Sigel —And what are your normal hours? Ms. Morse — Our normal hours are 9:00 — 5:30, Monday through Friday, 9:00 — 3:00 on Saturdays, with also a little bit of a holiday exception when I'm approaching a major holiday or something, that I could be open a few hours here or there. A little longer. Chairman Sigel — Okay, but if we said, say, that it couldn't be illuminated past 9:00 p.m. that would be... Ms. Morse — That's fine. Ron Krantz — The previous sign was approximately the same 24 square feet? Ms. Balestra — The previous sign was a little bit smaller. The size of the French Lavender section of the proposed sign is the same size as the previous sign. The addition of the Flowers and Gifts underneath the French Lavender section adds to the overall square footage of the sign. So that makes it a little bit larger than the previous sign, but it's essentially, it's very similar. Chairman Sigel — Because then the bounding rectangle has to go all the way down to the smaller lettering. Ms. Balestra —And that includes any empty spaces in-between the 2 sign sections. Chairman Sigel — It seems that the way it will be attached directly to the facade, seems to be a pretty modest impact and in character with the sort of...quasi-residential- commercial nature here. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 4 Dick Matthews — Having driven past there in the recent week or so, I wondered when I saw the sign that's there how anybody could imagine it was a business. It was so small. Ms. Morse — Most people that come in tell me that they don't know what the store is, they stop out of curiosity. Dick Matthews — Hmmm. Ron Krantz —And despite the large increase in size, it's really unobtrusive. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Any other questions, comments? Okay. We'll open the public hearing. If anyone wishes to speak regarding this appeal...if not, we will close the public hearing. Chris, any comments on the environmental assessment? Ms. Balestra — Staff isn't too concerned with the environmental impact of the proposal. It's not going to be lit, the sign is relatively small and unobtrusive, it's attached to the building, it's residentially styled, on a space that has a history of nonconforming commercial use and we don't' believe it will have significant environmental impacts. Chairman Sigel — The applicant did, actually, indicate it will be lit from external lighting. Ms. Balestra — Occasionally, although the lights that are existing will be shining strictly back into the building where the sign is, back on the facade, and not spilling out or glaring anywhere else onto the property. And the existing lights are nonconforming, they are existing prior to the outdoor lighting law. Chairman Sigel — Okay. I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Monique Morse, for the reasons stated in the Part 11 Environmental Assessment prepared by Town Staff. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 032 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : French Lavender Flower Shop, Monique Morse, Appellant MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Monique Morse, for the reasons stated in the Part 11 Environmental Assessment prepared by Town Staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews, NAYS: None ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 5 The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairman Sigel — Okay. I will move...let's see...we have a sample resolution prepared. I'll just read what Susan has prepared...I will move to grant the appeal of Monique Morse of French Lavender Flower Shop requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-6(A), Medium Density Residential Zone, to be permitted to allow 2 wall signs where the zoning allows one and for one of the wall signs to exceed the 4-square foot maximum size, with the following conditions...Can we include all conditions from the Planning Board? Ms. Brock— They had two. Ron Krantz — They only passed one. Ms. Brock—Well, I had two conditions. Chairman Sigel — Two conditions... Ms. Brock— The proposed sign... Chairman Sigel — Actually, we probably don't particularly need either of those, because we are going to include the size in our. Ms. Brock — Well you will probably want to state a maximum size. So I think the first condition would be appropriate. Chairman Sigel — Okay. With the condition that the proposed sign for the front facade of the building not exceed 24-square feet in total sign area as defined in the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, and, I suppose it doesn't hurt to require condition B., condition 2, Applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the new sign and, condition 3, the sign be constructed as indicated as Option 2 on the drawing submitted by the applicant and in accordance with the other information submitted in the application. With a fourth condition that the sign be illuminated only during the hours that the business is open, but in no case should the sign be illuminated past 9:00 p.m. With the following findings: That the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community because: That the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community because: ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 6 1. There is no undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties, given that the sign lettering on the front on the building is approximately the same size as, and is similar in appearance to, the sign lettering for the former Knitting Machines business in the building; the lettering will lay flat against the building; and the building is adjacent to a large Cornell- owned industrial building; and for the further reason that the 2nd 4-foot sign will be around the corner from the larger sign, facing the building's parking area and the Cornell building. 2. For the same reasons, the variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 3. The alleged difficulty is self-created, in that the applicant recently leased the building and knowledge of the Sign Law restrictions is imputed to her. However, this factor is mitigated by the fact the building has been continuously used for commercial purposes for many years and previously had a large similar sign. 4. Even though the sign size is significantly larger than what is allowed, and the benefit might be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, these factors are outweighed by the other factors. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 033: Sign Variance, French Lavender Flower Shop RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Monique Morse of French Lavender Flower Shop requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221- 6(A), Medium Density Residential Zone, to be permitted to allow 2 wall signs where the zoning allows one and for one of the wall signs to exceed the 4-square foot maximum size, with the following- CONDITIONS- 1. ollowing:CONDITIONS:1. The proposed sign for the front facade of the building not exceed 24-square feet in total sign area as defined in the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, and, 2. The Applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the new sign and, 3. The sign shall be constructed as indicated as Option 2 on the drawing submitted by the applicant and in accordance with the other information submitted in the application. 4. With a fourth condition that the sign be illuminated only during the hours that the business is open, but in no case should the sign be illuminated past 9:00 p.m. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 7 FINDINGS: That the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community because: 5. There is no undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties, given that the sign lettering on the front on the building is approximately the same size as, and is similar in appearance to, the sign lettering for the former Knitting Machines business in the building; the lettering will lay flat against the building; and the building is adjacent to a large Cornell- owned industrial building; and for the further reason that the 2nd 4-foot sign will be around the corner from the larger sign, facing the building's parking area and the Cornell building. 6. For the same reasons, the variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 7. The alleged difficulty is self-created, in that the applicant recently leased the building and knowledge of the Sign Law restrictions is imputed to her. However, this factor is mitigated by the fact the building has been continuously used for commercial purposes for many years and previously had a large similar sign. 8. Even though the sign size is significantly larger than what is allowed, and the benefit might be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, these factors are outweighed by the other factors. The MOTION was carried unanimously. AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None Chairman Sigel — Okay. The next appeal is that of Judith Kellock, Owner/Appellant, Burke Carson, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(A) and Article XXV, Section 270-205(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to install a 5'6" x 16' sunroom addition onto the front of a single family home located at 110 Judd Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5-9.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The property contains an existing non- conforming home on an existing non-conforming lot. Installing the sunroom to create additional living space will expand the existing non-conformity and encroach into the 25-foot minimum front yard setback. Judith Kellock, 110 Judd Falls Road Burke Carson, Carson Design, 10 Willow Point Road Chairman Sigel — Is there anything you'd like to state at the beginning here? ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 8 Ms. Kellock — The only thing was a semantic thing, in what you wrote as the appeal, it refers to the front yard, and actually it's the side yard. It's not in the front, it's on the Maclntyre Place side, so this would be the side of the house, not the front. Chairman Sigel — Okay, is that how the Town views it, Chris? Ms. Balestra — No, actually. Mr. Carson — The first thing I had done was to ask...I called this office and asked and was told that, yes, the Maclntyre face was in fact the front. So, it didn't seem to me, but it might not be material... Ms. Kellock— The large part of the yard is there. Ms. Balestra — From my understanding, it may be limited because I don't deal with putting the numbers on the houses, but to my understanding, when there is a corner lot, the lot is 110 Judd Falls Road, it's not Maclntyre Place, so we consider the Judd Falls Road portion the front yard. Ms. Kellock— Even though that's not where the entrance is or anything like that? Ms. Balestra — This is the knowledge that I had. I don't know who you spoke with at the Town... Mr. Carson — I'm trying...I should have...who and when, exactly, because that was the question that popped up with me right away so I asked it right away. Chairman Sigel — There is, I mean, there is a door entering the house right along Judd Falls Road.. Mr. Carson — There is a door on that side... Ms. Kellock — It is never used, because, I mean, the driveway is on Maclntyre Place so the other doors are the ones that we use, so. Chairman Sigel —And then Judd Falls is clearly the larger road... Ms. Kellock — I t is the larger road. It's funny because the property used to be, before it was divided up two owners ago, it used to belong to the next house on Maclntyre Place, so that's what... Chairman Sigel — Right. Harry Ellsworth — You mean to tell me that all these documents are showing the sunroom on the wrong place? ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 9 Chairman Sigel — No, no. Ms. Kellock — No it's just whether it is called the front yard or the side yard, is all. Anyway, that may not be relevant, but that's the only thing I caught when I read this. Chairman Sigel —Anyone...is there anything else you wanted to state? Ms. Kellock— I don't think so. Mr. Carson — Nothing in particular. We're here to answer your questions. Ms. Brock — We do have to decide if it's front yard or side yard because the amount of the required setbacks are different. Chairman Sigel — Right. Ms. Balestra — Yeah, if Maclntyre Place is indeed the front yard, then they don't need to be here. Unless they are exceeding the lot coverage. Chairman Sigel —Well any expansion of the footprint of the nonconforming...right. Ms. Brock— Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. Chairman Sigel -- ...property would require. And their variance to move the shed explicitly reiterated that. Ms. Balestra — Right. Thank you. Ms. Brock— It would still increase the amount of the nonconformity. Chairman Sigel — I mean, 1, my feeling is that, without any other evidence to the contrary, I would be inclined to take the street address. Ms. Brock — And I notice that when they were here in February and the ZBA passed the area variance allowing them to move the garage and attach it to the house, that stated, well, it stated that the property was located at 110 Judd Falls Road. I mean, it gives that as the address, which I guess nobody is disputing... Chairman Sigel —Well when we referred to the new side yard setback of the garage... Ms. Brock— Right. Chairman Sigel —And it is moved to what is the side yard. Ms. Kellock—As opposed to... ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 10 Chairman Sigel — In relation to Judd Falls, right. Ms. Kellock — Yeah, so it was calling it...in other words, what you're saying is it was calling it the side yard then? Because it was moved to the Judd Falls side. Chairman Sigel — Well it says the new...well wait a minute. The new side yard setback of the garage, after it was moved, to be no less than 5 feet and the rear yard setback of the garage after it was moved to be no less than 19 feet. Ms. Kellock — Well the rear goes...yeah...so they're calling that the rear...if they are calling the rear of the garage the rear, then that would make Judd Falls the side yard. Ms. Balestra — No, that would make Judd Falls the front yard. Ms. Brock — I believe what we are doing now is consistent with how we treated this in February. Ms. Kellock— Okay. That's fine. Chairman Sigel — Yeah, your setback to the west, from your new garage location, is approximately 15 feet, oh no, actually 19 feet. And that's what we refer to as the rear, we refer to the westerly property line as the rear. Ms. Kellock— Okay. Chairman Sigel — And the northerly property line as a side yard setback, which is going to be no less than 5 feet. Harry Ellsworth — So you still need to be here. I was at the property today, and I've got several questions. Number 1, there's a utility building...the garage was moved? Harry Ellsworth —And it's supposed to be a garage still? Ms. Kellock— No, the garage...the old garage? Harry Ellsworth — Yeah. Ms. Kellock — No, no...that's why...we were changing it into habitable space...no, not a garage. Harry Ellsworth — Okay. You got a utility building that's kind of appeared there. Ms. Kellock— I do, but it's not attached to anything. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 11 Harry Ellsworth —And also, there's a little room that's been built for a boiler, on the front. Ms. Kellock— Right. Right. Harry Ellsworth — In addition to the sunroom, right? Ms. Kellock— Right. Harry Ellsworth — It's not part of the sunroom? Ms. Kellock — No, that's gonna be the...that's actually the new heater for the whole house, because there was an old furnace in there. Harry Ellsworth — Okay, I am just trying to get this configuration straight. Ms. Kellock — Okay. Right. That's gonna be the...there's an old, barely functioning furnace in the house that's going to be replaced, but... Harry Ellsworth —And you need the sunroom why? Ms. Kellock — Well, it's gonna...for real purposes, as far as...it's probably gonna be used as the dining area. That room just needs to be expanded out for light and space. The original plan...the reason for it...the original plan had been to renovate the original garage where it stood, as my studio, and attach it, in some weird way with a "dining room/sunroom" whatever, to the house from where it stood. And it was determined that that was just going to look ridiculous and not be very, it wasn't going to work very well. So, it was my builder's idea to actually move the garage and instead make it actually look good, which it does. I mean, it looks like part of the house now. And that left me without the attaching space, which was from the dining room. So now, instead of having it there, because the garage is now attached to the house, we're going to open up the other side so that there can be also some light. There's precious little light in that room. Harry Ellsworth — You can put more windows in to admit light. Ms. Kellock— True, but...well it's actually... Harry Ellsworth — or add windows to the front, east side to get more light inside, right? You can even add... Mr. Carson — I'm sorry... Harry Ellsworth — You can even add skylights to get more light inside the house. The front of all the adjacent buildings, as best I could tell, because there is shrubbery ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 12 between every place, are lined up with the present front east side of your house. Not on... Ms. Kellock— Is east Judd Falls Road? Chairman Sigel — Yeah. Harry Ellsworth — None of them go out beyond that line, as far as I could tell. So this is kind of a new situation, in that area, right? Mr. Carson —Well, to the of 5 '/2 feet in a tiny, tiny, house. Harry Ellsworth — It's a tiny, tiny, lot. Mr. Carson —Well, compared to a lot of things in Forest Home? Harry Ellsworth — It's still a small lot, and... Mr. Carson — Everything is small. Harry Ellsworth — And you're gonna end up 16 feet from a very busy road. I'm one of the ones that use that quite a bit. So, I have some problems with this. Mr. Carson — Sixteen...it's 20...it wouldn't be 16 feet from the road... Harry Ellsworth — It's gonna end up by... Mr. Carson — It would still be 20 feet plus... Chairman Sigel — Sixteen feet... Harry Ellsworth — Sixteen feet...it's 21 feet now... Chairman Sigel — Sixteen feet to the edge of the gravel walk, which is, I guess, the edge of the road right-of-way. Mr. Carson — Okay, the right-of-way, I understand. Chairman Sigel — But then I guess when you include the gravel, then it's 20 some feet to essentially the curb. Mr. Carson — Right. I got about 21 to the curb. Harry Ellsworth — Okay. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 13 Chairman Sigel — Are...so...In your plan to add this to the front, are you then going to remove some of the existing front wall to try and combine it into that room? Ms. Kellock — Yes. That wall will disappear and it will just be an extension of that, a glass extension of that room. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Mr. Carson — Make that room lighter. Ms. Kellock— Yeah, in fact that whole wall, he intends to take out. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Ms. Kellock — That's why I say I am not exactly sure what will go in there. It's just going to be a bigger room, essentially. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Well, personally, I feel somewhat along the lines of Harry...I mean, I think that the combination of this coming closer to the road than other houses in that area, plus the fact that it's a green house in the front, I think that the combination of the two seem to be out of character for that neighborhood, having a, essentially a greenhouse facade along the front of a house, and being closer to the road, ummm... Mr. Carson —Are we here for aesthetics? Whether you call it a greenhouse or... Ms. Kellock — Well, can I actually respond to that...I talk at great length to my neighbors about various things in the house, and one of the things about that house, is that, as it was pointed out to me, it was that it was the worst house in the best neighborhood. And so, my neighbors seem to be quite enthusiastic about any improvement to this property because it was a rundown little shack, basically, in the middle of a beautiful neighborhood, and so, I mean, I think, even though, well I think, first of all, it can be made to look very acceptable, and I am going to be putting up a hedge anyway, on the front, I'm gonna put up a Juniper, small Juniper hedge on the Judd Falls side, which I'm gonna do either way, so it's not going to be very visible, particularly. But, the fact is it...I bought it as a rather rundown, what I call a bungalow, and I'm trying to bring it up to the standards of the neighborhood, which it desperately needed. It really was...I don't know if you ever saw it before, ever been to it, but it didn't belong there, I mean it was really, it had been built as a mother in-law house by the people who...it had been attached to the Brackenbrenner house which was the next one down on Maclntyre, and they had, it was a prefab house, put up for the purpose of someone living in it until that person died and t was never attended to at all. The garage, on the other hand, was part of the original house. The garage is a 100 years old, because they brought, they just divided the line down the driveways and so it just looked like, it looked like something in a shantytown and so the fact that it's getting improved at all, everyone's applauding it because someone is finally paying attention to ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 14 this thing, so I don't...I think we are talking about aesthetics. Part of this is the nature of the neighborhood and that house, as you can see, there's an affidavit there that says it's not a contributing house to the historic district of Forest Home. But it would be fun to make it look like it was, you know. That's my feeling. It would be fun to make it look like something so that it's, so that it looks like it belongs there. That's part of it and part of it is just to have a little more space. Harry Ellsworth — So it would be absolutely impossible to put that sunroom on the south side of your house where you get more sunlight in the winter? Ms. Kellock—well.. Mr. Carson — It doesn't work with the layout as far as just, just the way the rooms layout there, that would be... Ms. Kellock — It would be the extension of a bedroom, which is not, I don't particularly want a glass bedroom. Mr. Carson — The kitchen/dining is all on that end of the house. Ms. Kellock — It's also a long skinny house which I think this is going to make it not quite so one-dimensional. It's a very long thin building which this would add some, you know, width to that side. Chairman Sigel — Comments from other Board Members? Eric Levine — Is it not... Ron Krantz — I wonder if the building/planning people have surveyed the neighborhood, say within one block of this property and taken any measurements from the curb line to the front of other structures in the area so that we have something rather specific as to the set back, if you will, of various other buildings in the neighborhood within a reasonable proximity, i.e. maybe a block of it. Is there anything like that that you have? Ms. Balestra — Staff did do that for this particular proposal. We didn't add the additional house front yards, front yard information, for the Board to look at, but, Staff measured the front yards of the houses immediately adjacent or on the other side. Ron Krantz — But you can't give us a plot plan showing the houses in the neighborhood with distances from the front of the house to the curb? Ms. Balestra —We could give you approximate. Ron Krantz — Now? ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 15 Ms. Balestra — No, no, not right now. We could create a map that could show you the approximates, but without having the survey maps of each of the properties, it's hard for us to tell exactly where the front yard begins. Ron Krantz — Did...this did and does strike me as being kind of the exception to the neighborhood distance from the house to the curb... Ms. Balestra —Well, not exactly. There are, there are several properties... Ron Krantz — Well, I drove along that road just this evening...the only exception I could see of any glaring notice was a double garage and I don't know what the situation is with that. That really encroaches really close to the curb line and, but there is some kind of a sign on the front of the garage, you know, whether it's a demolition permit or some other something, I don't know. Ms. Kellock—Where is this? This is up Judd Falls or up Maclntyre? Ron Krantz — This would be north of your property on the west side of Judd Falls Road. There's a green double car garage that's really pretty close to the road. But on the other hand, all the residential properties seem to be further back from the curb line... Ms. Balestra — When we averaged them, the front yard setbacks, the average turns out to be about 25 feet from the road, from the street line. Harry Ellsworth — For 3 places? Ms. Balestra — I'm sorry. Harry Ellsworth — How many places? Three? Ms. Balestra — Five I believe. And the law actually states front yard set backs of adjoining properties...let me read the exact Code...so the front yard requirement in this zone is "not less than the average depth of the front yards of buildings on lots immediately adjacent." Chairman Sigel —And then are there bounds? Ms. Balestra -- ..."however, the front yard depth shall not be less than 25 feet or need it be greater than 50 feet." And 25 is the minimum and 25 was what we found was the average of the lots that we measured. Ron Krantz —And this is going to be less than the average. Ms. Balestra — That's right. They are proposing something that's less than the average. Chairman Sigel —Well in this case, if the average is about 25... ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 16 Ms. Kellock— Somebody must be less than that... Chairman Sigel — Then it's not really...I mean, we don't need to argue it much beyond that because the ordinance also states "not less than 25", so if the average were less than 25, still, the requirement would be 25. Ms. Balestra — Yes. Chairman Sigel — Right, so... Ms. Balestra — But we didn't measure every house on the block. Chairman Sigel — Right, there are, I mean, just looking at the sort of sketches of where the houses are on this one here, you can see some of them are pretty close across the street, but, it's still not going to pull the requirement below 25. Dick Matthews — I'm going to take a different argument for a moment. Can you hear me Chris? Ms. Balestra — Yes, I can now... Dick Matthews — I don't normally do this. Looking at the present home and looking at the proposed sun porch and then keeping in mind the types of houses that are in that area, consideration, I think, should be given by the Board, that the present house is out of character to the rest of the neighborhood, because it looks like a little box stuck in there. I'm not commenting about the, your home... Ms. Kellock— No, no, I already said that it's out of character with the neighborhood. Dick Matthews -- ...I'm commenting about the little box sitting amongst these somewhat more elegant, if I may use that term, homes. And the proposal is probably to upgrade the neighborhood just a little bit by adding the sunroom. The 4 feet, I think, doesn't matter a great deal so much as upgrading the neighborhood with the addition. That would be my position to take, anyway. Eric Levine — I have a question. Is there a, to follow up with yours, I just want to know the answer to this, is there an exterior means of exit and entry on this sunroom? Or is... Ms. Kellock—We weren't planning on it, but we could put one in if necessary. Eric Levine — No, well, no. Ms. Kellock— There's 2 in the other part of the house. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 17 Eric Levine — Well my point is that although legally we're treating this as frontage, maybe we should consider the fact that defacto, it's not, and that pertaining to our consideration as to whether...how substantial this is. Chairman Sigel — You mean if it in fact was the side yard. Eric Levine — Right. That legally it's not a side yard, but, it seems to be used as a side yard and therefore not as substantial an addition, perhaps. Chairman Sigel — Yeah, if it was a side yard, the requirement would be not less than 15 feet setback. Although, is there an exception for corner lots? Ms. Brock— There is a regulation...but I don't know if... Chairman Sigel — It might not apply to setbacks... Ms. Brock— It talks about...for corner lots, it talks about the yard width on the side street but if we're treating this as the front yard, then it doesn't apply. Chairman Sigel — If this were the side street, what would the provision be? Ms. Brock — On a corner lot in a residence zone, the yard width on the side street shall be at least on half the required front yard for adjoining properties on the side street. Chairman Sigel — Okay, so the 15 would actually be greater than (inaudible). Ms. Brock— Yes. But in no event less than 10 feet, right, I think you're right Kirk. James Niefer— Just as a minor point, but it could be construed as a significant point, the National Register of Historic Places has listed this as 110 Judd Falls Road and that's an official organization recognized by the State of New York as part of the New York State of Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, so, there is a semi if not official publication se government agency that recognizes the address as Judd Falls Road. Dick Matthews — This house. Ms. Kellock— It is 110 Judd Falls Road... Dick Matthews — If we're arguing that point, then making the sunroom addition is driving it out of character of the Historic Designation. Ms. Kellock — Well, the house is not...you'll see there's an affidavit in there that says it's not a contributing house to the historic nature of the...I did that for the first variance. Dick Matthews — It's a noncontributing house... ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 18 Ms. Kellock — It's a noncontributing house. They said it doesn't belong...it's noncontributing, so in fact, what you say is true, it doesn't fit... Dick Matthews — So it's not a member of the historic... Ms. Kellock— It's in the area... Dick Matthews — I'll sit on my one point argument and leave it at that. Chairman Sigel — Well, I mean, you have to, one of the criteria is any impact on the character of the neighborhood and so you have to ask yourself whether encroaching further into the front yard setback with a glass enclosure is neutral, detrimental, positive to the character of the rest of the neighborhood. My personal opinion is I think it's a little bit of a detriment. I don't think it's a huge detriment, but I think it's...my opinion is it's going to deter, somewhat, having the setback be lower. Ron Krantz—Are you saying you think the house will be less pleasant to look at with the sunroom? Chairman Sigel — Closer to the...the house coming closer to the road and the combination...I think that a sunroom particularly close to the road like that, is out of character with the types of buildings...you know, there were not sunrooms on the fronts of houses of building of that nature, when the older buildings in that neighborhood were built. Ms. Kellock — There are several now however. There are several sunrooms on houses now. Chairman Sigel — There are some now, yes. Ms. Kellock— In Forest Home. Dick Matthews — May I ask a theoretical question. If the roof was not glass, would it still be out of character? Chairman Sigel — I think that the more it looked like traditional construction, shingle or clapboard... Dick Matthews — That would be more traditional construction? Chairman Sigel — Yeah Dick Matthews—Without the glass on the roof? ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 19 Chairman Sigel — Then I think it would be more in character, yes. Harry Ellsworth — Chris, 107 Judd Falls Road, right across the street from 110, on this, you know, this has no scale, but it's very close to the road...is it that close do you think? And also, down at the end, there's no number...way at the north end, there's another one that looks like it sets fairly close. Chairman Sigel — I think that might be the one that Jim was referring to. That's... Harry Ellsworth — I know on the corner, when you turn that corner, on the northwest corner, there's a garage just inside the sidewalk, you know, the house and then the garage, they just pull right in, so they've got to be close to the road. Ms. Balestra — I don't know specifically what the setbacks are for those particular properties, but I can say that there are many properties within the Forest Home Historic District that are nonconforming with nonconforming structures that encroach in the side yard, front yard, rear yard setbacks. Ms. Kellock — I think I know the one you're talking about...right before the bridge...it's before you go on the bridge. Harry Ellsworth — Yeah, right on the corner as your coming... Ms. Kellock— Yeah, you have to be kind of careful not to hit it. Harry Ellsworth — Yeah, there's a garage sits just inside there. Well, I guess where I'm coming from...I would recommend tabling this until Staff goes out and measures a couple of these places, because 1, at the moment, I feel the way Kirk does, and that's where I started out, that if you're now putting one out ahead of the line of the houses there, but it looks to me like there's a couple suspects nearby that have already done that. Chairman Sigel — Well, the houses immediately...well, the house adjacent to it on Judd Falls is setback...well that one, that one's probably closer. Mr. Carson — Can I say something. Just in driving down the street, I took a look at it going both directions and it's not the kind of thing that would jump out at you at being 5 feet deeper than it is. In fact, since it's been cleaned up, there aren't any plantings there, so it's a little barer than it otherwise would be and just this....If you're just looking at perception, it's not something that's going to feel as it's crowding the street in that location. Chairman Sigel — But it's...I mean, it's certainly true that from the north there is significant vegetation between this house and the neighborhood. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 20 Ms. Kellock—And as I said, I'm going to put Junipers along the Judd Falls, on the inside of the walkway. Chairman Sigel —Any other comments, questions? Ms. Brock— Kirk, could we get some more clarification? I don't remember which one og the Planning Board members brought it up, but it sounded like there were some additional structures on the property that aren't showing up on the plans? I'm sorry, the Zoning Board, one of the Zoning Board members brought it up. Chairman Sigel — There's a, I assume prefab shed? Ms. Kellock — Pretty much. I mean, somebody made it, but it's not attached, it's just sitting there. Chairman Sigel — No foundation? Ms. Kellock— No. Chairman Sigel — So there's a free standing, I guess, shed, in the approximate location of where the garage formerly was, in that corner of the property. Ms. Kellock— Yeah. Chairman Sigel — I don't know what the setback requirements are for that type of construction, but it's pretty close to the line, within a few feet probably... Ms. Kellock — It's actually farther away than the garage was. The neighbor behind that was actually glad of that because then he doesn't see my headlights coming in, into the driveway. He actually wants one, he's trying to get my builder to build him one. Chairman Sigel — It's in the northwest corner. Harry Ellsworth — It's fairly new. It looks like. Ms. Balestra — I don't know if that required a building permit, and if it didn't, it may not have require review at all. It may be too small to even trigger a review. Harry Ellsworth —What size is it? Approximately. Ms. Kellock — I want to say...it's about big enough for my bicycle and a pair of tires. Four by six or something like that. Ms. Balestra — Yeah, yeah. Ms. Kellock— It's just a little...I mean, it's a storage for my bike, basically. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 21 Chairman Sigel — Shall we take a straw poll to see who...how many members are in favor at this time? All in favor....Jim? Dick's nodding his head... James Niefer—Well you said all in favor.... Chairman Sigel —Well, are you in favor? James Niefer— No. No I'm not in favor. Chairman Sigel — Not in favor. Ron? Ron Krantz — Nor am 1. Chairman Sigel — No, okay. Dick Matthews — I stand on what I said. Chairman Sigel — Good man. Well, you only have one member currently in favor of your proposal. Would...if the proposal were modified to be...I don't know how to put this...more in character with the other facades, say more of a traditional construction, less glass, would you be in favor? Or are you just... James Niefer - Well the thing that I really have a hang up on is the address situation. Is this a Maclntyre frontage house or is it a Judd Falls frontage house? Chairman Sigel —Well I think, as of now, we're treating it as Judd Falls. That's... Ms. Balestra —Which is consistent with the way we've treated it in the past. Chairman Sigel — That's it's...no, they would still, because it's nonconforming property, but that's the address. Until there's evidence to the contrary, we're treating it as Judd Falls frontage, so that's the front yard. Ms. Kellock — Even though there is no entrance on that side... well there is now, but there's not going to be, and so, it's not used in that way, but I understand why it has to be called that, but it's not. Dick Matthews — But they can come back with another proposal at their will, correct? Chairman Sigel — Right. If possible, I'd like to give them some feedback as to whether the Board might be receptive to a different design with a similar encroachment, or if it's more the encroachment. I mean, anything less than this amount of addition I would assume is not worth the effort. I mean, it's their only...they're only seeking that five and a half feet now, that to me, you can't really do less than that and... ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 22 Mr. Carson — Not and get useable room, but it would be very instructive if we knew why...what terms this is being considered (inaudible) Chairman Sigel — Well, personally I would be receptive to a plan that was more intergraded. You made the facade look more as an integrated, traditional facade as opposed to the greenhouse. Dick Matthews — How can we, may I ask, how can we make that demand? Chairman Sigel —Well I think Forest Home has a strong character and... Dick Matthews — Character of the neighborhood? Chairman Sigel — Yup. Mr. Carson — Excuse me, but that's not what we're talking about here. Chairman Sigel — Character of the neighborhood is one of the criteria for the variance. Ms. Kellock — But I would also...whether it is or whether it isn't, this house doesn't...when I bought it, it looked nothing like the neighborhood. Now it looks more like the neighborhood. I mean, it's not like the other houses. It's something, somebody bought a kit in the 1950's and stuck it there and it's not a Sears kit either. It's not a nice antiques Sears kit, it's a little bungalow that they stuck there and it's always been out of character of the neighborhood as everyone has always lamented that fact. So, it's already...people are coming up to me, they just walk down the street and they come and say "oh this is great, this looks so much better." You know. And people are delighted, so I don't...I mean, I'm happy to make something that looks more like the neighborhood, but anything I do to that house is going to make it look more like the neighborhood because there are nice houses there, and this is not a nice house. Period. It was not. It wasn't in any way, shape or form a nice house, and now it is. So, I just...you know, I'm happy to try and conform to what you want me to do to the extent that...I mean...I also know a lot about Victorian houses and they had beautiful glass gazebos stuck to the sides of them. So, I don't know that these houses did, but, you know, there is... Chairman Sigel —Well the problem is that this is the front. Ms. Kellock—Well, that's true. Chairman Sigel —And, you know, from the people driving by, this is the front. Ms. Kellock — Well people driving by aren't going to see it because the Junipers are seven feet tall. They're not going to see a thing. And actually, I've already ordered them and as soon as the foundation went in they are going to be...I mean they're not ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 23 seven feet tall now, but they are four, four and a half feet tall, and they are going to grow eight inches a year, so nobody driving by is going to see it, but... Chairman Sigel — Well I don't think, we don't seem to have enough consensus I don't think, to provide you with clear guidelines as to what might be approved. At this point, you could withdraw your appeal, if you want to, or, we could go ahead and vote, make a motion to deny the appeal, and then if you brought a modification, we would need to vote...I believe we would need to vote, to rehear the appeal? Or if it was... Ms. Kellock — But we do need to have some sense of what the modification would need to entail if we're gonna bring it back. I mean... Dick Matthews — Well a comment has been made that changing the roof to a solid roof might be more acceptable. Ms. Kellock— Okay. So... Dick Matthews — That's not an opinion of the Board, it was a comment between two members of the Board. But I do believe that that has convincing merit and you would have to take your chances with that. That's as much as I can say on it. Chairman Sigel — My sense is that some Board members are more concerned with the setback. And to be honest, I still have concern with the setback as well, it's just that I would like it more if it was more of a traditional facade, but I still...I have to look more at the setback of other homes. So it seems...three members are concerned mostly with the setback, which would be the same for any construction. Ms. Brock — But if additional information were provided to the Board about other homes in the area and what their setbacks are, that may illuminate your discussion, correct? Harry Ellsworth — I would suggest that you get letters from some of the neighbors, especially some with historic designation. Ms. Kellock — Okay, they all wrote me glowing letters last time. I thought I'd leave them alone this time. Mr. Carson — They were all notified, correct? Chairman Sigel — Yes. Ms. Kellock -- A sign has been up as well. Harry Ellsworth — The letters show what they really mean. Ms. Kellock — Right. I can get...I'm sure I can do that I just thought I'd avoid bothering my neighbors. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 24 Harry Ellsworth — And coming by and saying they said so and such doesn't count...it's letters from those adjacent to the property that count. Ms. Kellock — Well, I am happy to do that, I just thought that this time I would avoid harassing my neighbors to write me letters, but I can do it if you want. Harry Ellsworth — You can write the letter, you just have to get them to sign... Ms. Kellock— Oh. Harry Ellsworth —What people say and what they'll sign, many times, are two different things. Ms. Kellock—Well last time they wrote their own letters. So... Harry Ellsworth — So you be my guest, whatever way you want to do it. Mr. Carson — Is there any restriction in our re-applying. Whether it's voted on or withdrawn? Ms. Brock— There is a difference, yes. Chairman Sigel —We could adjourn the hearing... Ms. Brock—We can do that too. Chairman Sigel — Until the next meeting, at which time you would be permitted to submit additional materials, including revision of your plans, letters from neighbors, whatever you would like. I assume that would not require another fee... Harry Ellsworth — I don't want you to be confused. If this goes ahead tonight, you're gonna get denied... Ms. Kellock—Well that's what we're asking... Harry Ellsworth — The Board's been polled, it's gonna be denied, so that's gonna be the end of it. If you want to come back next month... Ms. Kellock— That's just what we're asking. Harry Ellsworth — You might have another shot at it. Chairman Sigel — There are still mechanisms to re-apply, but it's easier to simply adjourn... ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 25 Ms. Brock — But if, Kirk, if you anticipate that the project will be substantially changed, it shouldn't just be adjourned, I think it should be withdrawn and re-applied, because we are going to have another public notice. The encroachments may be different. Chairman Sigel — And how is that treated at the Planning Board, you know, when projects span multiple meetings and there are modifications as things happen. Is that a... Ms. Balestra — If there's a modification, then we make them come back for a site plan modification, and not just...the Planning Board doesn't just simply adjourn if there's going to be some major modifications made. Chairman Sigel — Okay, and does that trigger a new few, and new advertising? Ms. Balestra — It does trigger new advertising, it may trigger a new fee. It may just be a reduced fee. At least with the Planning Board, it's a reduced fee. With the Zoning Board, I don't know. Ms. Kellock — If the modifications that we propose, if and when we come back, are the same size, the encroachment is gonna be the same but the only difference would be the materials in the roof...Because I don't think we're going to bother if it's any smaller than this, that's ridiculous. Mr. Carson —We wouldn't intend to change the footprint... Ms. Kellock — I wouldn't change the footprint because I think...I mean I am throwing my money into a bottomless pit, but...The only change then would be the construction of the roof to make it look less like a sunroom. Chairman Sigel — Personally I don't think a change of materials within the same footprint is that substantial a difference. Ms. Balestra — It's up to you. Chairman Sigel — I mean, we would not advertise it differently, I don't think. Ms. Brock — We might not call it a sunroom, correct? It might just be an addition then, so, it would need to be re-noticed anyway so that people would have notice of the public hearing. But if it's a change in materials and nothing else, then I would agree, that they wouldn't need to reapply, that this could be adjourned and they could come in with a proposed change of materials. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Is anyone in attendance tonight and intending to speak at the public hearing for this tonight? For the public hearing? Audience — I hadn't but I'd like to. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 26 Chairman Sigel — Okay. If we adjourn this to next month, do you intend to come? Audience — I could. Chairman Sigel — Okay. I mean, if you'd like to speak now, I'd be happy to open the public hearing now. Ms. Kellock—We would still have the option of adjournment after that? Chairman Sigel — Yes. If you'd like to just wait until plans get revised and come back, you could do that as well. Audience — I'm actually in favor of it. I think glass is less obtrusive than solid material. Less impact on the area. Chairman Sigel — Actually, if you'd like to, please, come up...We'll open the public hearing. Doug Bianchi, 1263 Ellis Hollow Road I frequently go past that area on my way to Lansing, and I don't believe that it really will have a significant visual impact on the area. As I stated, glass is going to be less obtrusive than a solid, opaque structure that, regardless of what it's made of, will tend to stand out further from the side of the house, visually. But the fact that there is going to be shrubbery around there that will cover that, and maybe the biggest blight on our landscape are power lines, but we need em, so I don't see this as any big deal. Dick Matthews — You're not a neighborhood? You don't live in that neighborhood? Mr. Bianchi — I don't live in that neighborhood, I just frequent... Dick Matthews — You just drive through? Mr. Bianchi — Yes. Dick Matthews — Okay, thank you. Ron Krantz —Are you involved in the design of this ... Mr. Bianchi — No, no involvement whatsoever. Just weighing in on the subject. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, if there's no one else that wishes to speak, we'll close the public hearing. I will move to adjourn the appeal of Judith Kellock, until our September meeting, at which time the applicant will be able to submit revised plans... ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 27 Ms. Kellock — Do you happen to know the date of that because I am in Europe most of... Harry Ellsworth — The third Monday. We always meet the third Monday... Ms. Brock— September 17tH Ms. Kellock— Yeah, I'm in Amsterdam, so I won't be able to be here. Ron Krantz — I'd like to throw in a quick comment. I don't think the modifications are going to make a whole lot of difference about anything. But I certainly would be more impressed if a couple of your neighbors, immediate neighbors came and said, hey, this place is a real dump the way it is and with this modification it would look...I'm taking your word for it...it would look a heck of a lot nicer and I'd like to hear your neighbors saying that. Ms. Kellock— I can certainly provide some documentation to that affect. I personally will not be here on the 17th of September, but I guess I don't actually have to be here, you know how I feel... Ms. Brock— It would be helpful if you had a representative here, however. Ms. Kellock— Okay, maybe I can send him since he's going to be doing the building, do, he's the only person I thought would be the most knowledgeable about what's going to be involved, and I will get some letters. Do I need to just bring them, or send them that night, or do you need them ahead of time or... Chairman Sigel — Ahead of time would be preferred, that way they get sent out to all members ahead of time. Ms. Kellock— Okay. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Second on the motion to adjourn. All in favor. Okay. ZB RESOLUTION No. 2007 — 034: Kellock, 110 Judd Falls Road MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthew. RESOLVED that this Board moves to adjourn the appeal of Judith Kellock, until our September meeting, at which time the applicant will be able to submit revised plans. The MOTION was carried unanimously. AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 28 NAYS: None The next appeal is that of Cornell University, Owner, Robert Blakeney, Appellant, David Schlosser, Schopfer Architects, LLP, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XIII, Section 270- 117(A)(3) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install a 1,200+/- square foot boat storage shed approximately 5'4" from the side property line, in conjunction with the development of the Cornell Merrill Family Sailing Center, located at 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. The Town Code requires a 30 foot minimum setback from any structure to the side property line (for properties in the Lakefront Commercial Zone). David Schlosser, Schopfer Architects, Syracuse, representing Cornell University If I could give you an overview of the request. Cornell University owns approximately 2.5 acres at this particular site, which to the north, there is approximately .3 acres, 1/3 of an acre which is used as the Town Municipal Park, to the south we have the existing marina, and then the remainder of the site is utilized by the University as its sailing center. On this site is basically a couple of existing structures, moving to the south to the north, an existing bathhouse, one story slab on grade. The existing sailing center, approximately 1,200 square feet. A small storage shed and then a gazebo as part of the municipal lot. The site is accessed by a single curb cut off of Route 34. Immediately joining the road way, running parallel to it, is the right-of-way of the railroad and then immediately west of that is a right-of-way for a municipal sewer. What's being proposed is to remove the existing sailing center building. Construct a new building, two stories approximately 5,500 square feet and a second building, slab on grade, 8 foot high eave, be a 20 x 60 storage, boat storage building, and that is the point of our discussion, request for an area variance this evening. Again, the site, basically because it is a linear site, has extremely limited depth from east to west and what is actually being proposed to be constructed on the site is this particular building, which, from the lake and then from the highway (pictures on easels). Two stories with a deck off on the lake. Basically a wood siding look, which is basically a cement fiberboard, asphalt shingle roof and intergraded clap window. The storage shed will be constructed in the exact same materials. It is without foundation, without heat and electricity, oh, excuse me, it does have electricity, without any other utilities. It is basically slab on grade without foundations and being constructed on a specific location as we represented in the area variance. The, we have provided to the Planning Board and also to you, we want to indicate is that the location has been set, has been established primarily for site lines and for usage purposes. The existing site, the marina, which is located right in here, the side yard setback, which has been legally determined, although, at this location, this is a ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 29 request for 5 foot four from a 30 foot side yard setback. The property line, as it currently runs on the 2.5 acre parcel, is the shoreline, over to this location in the south, runs east and then heads south at this location. There's a 2 acre parcel, a water parcel, the peninsula, included, which is long-term leased by the University, so all the property adjoining the area variance is owned by the University or is leased by the University and used as part of the marina. Chairman Sigel — Is that leased from the State? Mr. Schlosser — Yes. There's also another, further to the south, there's another 2.3 acre parcel that's leased as part of the marina as well. The area variance, again, is because of the side yard property of what's owned, but the area that is immediately adjoining, which is the marina itself and the inlet that is leased by the University, and the distance from the west, west side of this particular parcel to the shoreline, primarily the shoreline, is approximately 138 feet. What the...the location, again, was set because the building actually, the use of the building as boat storage has a direct relationship to the sailing center and also to the boat launch and the activity that occurs out on the peninsula. So its location here is immediately convenient to those activities. Second, it is being placed here because it is one of the furthest distances from the municipal park so there is no visual impact on the park and finally, because as this site head south from its current location, as it heads south, the roadway actually rises and this site is...the site grade actually decreases at this location so what actually occurs is we have approximately an 8 foot difference in height elevation at this point and what we gave you, it shows you in the viewsheds, this is the existing viewshed right now, where basically you have the existing sailing center building, pulling us out onto the peninsula. The marina is in here, the highway, and what will actually occur is this building will be located in this position here, the sailing center is going on this, and as you can see, because of foliage and the fact that the elevation at that particular grade is depressed approximately 8 feet from the roadway, it has virtually no impact on viewsheds from the highway. Any other location, you may ask are there other alternatives, and the answer, obviously, is yes. The only other alternative on this site which would comply is this grassy knoll that's right here, and from a viewshed standpoint, when we are discussing and presenting to Planning Board, the preference, obviously, was not to disturb this particular area, and that's Cornell's as well because the views in this particular area as well as from the gazebo of the municipal park, this would have a great deal of visual interruption and disturbance looking back from highway, which is a critical view area. We've indicated...there was a comment, I believe made from, on the Staff Memorandum we rust got in respect to erosion control, and we have submitted a very detailed erosion control plan and it may have been missed, actually, when we went to review, but, we have shown on that plan, silt fencing that entirely wraps the south end and west end of the particular building and wraps around to the, actually the west end from the sailing center and protects that area. As far as excavation relative to ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 30 the slab, there is no, we're actually putting a little bit of grade in to raise the area up so that the area in front of the building can drain to the north and be captured by infiltration trenches for water control. So the building is currently, as planned, and it's currently protected from all the water outlets. There is no excavation occurring to the south so all the water from any excavation and earth moval will actually go to the north and be protected. Which respect to character of the neighborhood, this is (inaudible) character obviously to the east with the bulk of the property currently owned by Cornell and the intent of the work with the Planning Board was to create residential flavor to the character to this particular property was consistent with the residential properties immediately to the north and south, which, are quite a distance away, I think it's close to 1,000 feet in one direction and 700 in another. I would suggest that the condition is not entirely self created. The use exists on the site right now. The boat storage is actually outside on racks. Obviously this gives them the opportunity now to conceal that visual issue and obviously the location is set because of the physical condition on the site. This site as it heads south gets narrower and narrower and in this particular location to move this so that we're 30 feet, we would actually be over and on the sewer easement which in discussions with the Town Engineer, because of the nature of the construction of this building, we can't put it on the easement. So we're left with very little land, actually, in this general location where it's concealed from the highway, to locate it in any other location. I would also suggest that with the marina, and the boats that are stored in here, that visually there really are no issues from the lake, again, because of the foliage that exists on the peninsula and as part of the playing with process, all of the existing foliage on this site, shoreline foliage and any major foliage on the property and up in this particular area will remain untouched. Any comments? Ms. Balestra — May I just make one statement, regarding the memo...Staff added that additional piece in the memo regarding erosion and sedimentation control in the instance that the Zoning Board would want to grant a variance for a setback of 8 feet from the water as opposed to the proposed 5 foot 4. If there was any unexpected grading as a result of that, we wanted to see additional erosion and soil control, that's all. James Niefer — Question. I noticed on one of the drawings by the architects, it shows the building is 65 feet long and 25 feet wide. All of the other material... Mr. Schlosser— We will submit that drawing here, revised drawing L2-1, correcting that. As the architect, I take full responsibility. It is a 20 x 60 building and I think we have about 50 locations where we said 20 x 60 and somehow... Ms. Balestra -- ...and this in the one that shows... ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 31 Mr. Schlosser — Yeah, we tried to clean up a set of plans so that you could easily see setbacks and came in with the wrong dimension, so... James Niefer — The other question I have, I'm sure Cornell is very cautious about building a building on leased property and you're getting your permits, presumably, or easements from the State to do this and all that's been... Mr. Schlosser — Actually, no building is occurring on the leased parcel, all the building the entire building is on the Cornell owned land/ James Niefer — Well, here again, unless this...the one plan that I have shows Parcel B, primary shoreline, Parcel B, leased to Cornell and then the main parcel having the sailing center must be Cornell property and it shows the building straddling the property line. Now... Mr. Schlosser -- The property line is here and north of the 2 acres and then extends, it has a long leg that extend south... James Niefer — I guess the original summation I guess is incorrect then, as far as this line. Ms. Brock— Jim, which plan are you looking at? What's the number on the sheet? Chairman Sigel — The property line does jog, so Parcel B doesn't just head straight to the highway. Mr. Schlosser -- Yes, it's a very odd shaped parcel. James Niefer — Well then the other question is, are these docks that are depicted on this latest sketch, are they docks that currently exist or are they proposed docks, or are they going to be more docks built? Mr. Schlosser -- There is no modifications to the marina. Everything that is shown is existing. There is no work occurring on the leased parcel. The only modification related to the marina is a slight regarding right in this area, and once again, it's being done approximately 1 foot above high water table, so there's no issue in respect to water/shoreline. James Niefer— Okay. Thank you. Ron Krantz — The excavation and grading is gonna be done right at the water's edge... Mr. Schlosser -- Not exactly. Ron Krantz —Well, the proposed shed will be located near to the edge of the water. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 32 Mr. Schlosser -- Yes, it will be close to it, correct. Ron Krantz —And once again, the lake is...(inaudible) will take a beating. Mr. Schlosser -- I guess we've been reviewed and critiqued pretty thoroughly on water quality and silt fencing and erosion control. I would, what's not clearly shown here is there's actually a concrete retaining wall existing, a retaining wall right here. It will not be touched. And we're actually, the grading at this elevation, all we are doing is pouting a slab on top of the existing grade. It is...it really is almost a temporary building. We're not putting foundations underneath this. There's virtually no excavation related to it. Yes, there will be some regarding, obviously to level the grade underneath this site for this slab. We do have, though, between that concrete retaining wall and the building there is a continuous line of silt fencing going right in here, and that's shown on our erosion control plan that we have submitted in to the Planning Board. Submitted and accepted. It actually comes down here and wraps to the south end of theis...moves north...and then continues, actually, right around the boat launch, the boat ramp, I'm sorry, there is kind of a double break there so vehicles can still get into the boat ramp during construction. Then it heads right on down and thoroughly covers the entire west end of the building. Ron Krantz — You must be putting some stone under that slab for drainage. Mr. Schlosser -- Yes we are. Mr. Balestra — The engineering staff have reviewed the erosion and sedimentation control plans as well as the stormwater management plans and have accepted them. Mr. Schlosser -- It's actually even been discussed, is we actually have gone one step further. In cooperation with the Town, we're putting up, actually, infiltration trenches and we are not required to do a stormwater management plan because of the limited size of the disturbance we are doing, but water quality, what now currently drains, this entire area drains, obviously, right into the water and either west or south, these infiltration trenches will basically cover this particular area and all along the west end of the parking lot, which basically capture and then they are sized for recharge purposes so that the water that drains up in this area actually goes into these trenches and is recharged into the soil, stopping any containments from parking lots and things like that, from getting into the lake. So water quality is actually improved. Ms. Brock — And if I recall correctly, the infiltration trenches will also handle runoff from across Route 34? 1 believe there's a culvert that comes across? Mr. Schlosser -- Well, there's actually 2 culverts but the only one it actually handles is there's an open culvert right in here. There's a culvert, a large culvert that (inaudible) up towards the municipal park with a 40 some inch culvert that comes through here, goes open very briefly and then back underneath the parking lot. This is, there's no disturbance, we're not modifying it, but this 22 inch here, we are picking that up, yes. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 33 Ms. Brock — Because the Planning Board did look pretty extensively at the stormwater grading and water quality impacts of the project. But you certainly have rights to ask questions and be assured that you feel these matters are being adequately addressed. Harry Ellsworth — Between the air conditioning plant that Cornell put in and this shed, we should have a pristine lake. Ron Krantz — You ought to see it, it doesn't look very pristine right now. James Niefer— You should go down there now and see the end of the lake... Harry Ellsworth — Sue, we're absolutely sure that this is a side yard setback, due to the unusual configuration of the site? Ms. Brock — Yes, we are. This was actually something that was discussed extensively with Cornell at a meeting and I believe we are all in agreement that this is a side yard. The...Yes...I'll just leave it at that. Chairman Sigel — Why...Can you briefly describe why that is? I mean, it seems somewhat counter intuitive that the opposite setback from the front yard would be a side yard. Ms. Brock -- The lake shore is considered the rear yard. But as you can see it isn't continuous, because of the u shape that goes with this parcel. We know what the front yard is, and that it's adjacent to the rod right-of-way, the rear yard is the lake shore, and that really leaves us with this u shaped piece, which would be the side yard. Chairman Sigel — I'm not buying it yet. I don't know if it's that relevant, but I'm not.... Dick Matthews — May I see the photograph that's there...up closer... Ms. Brock—We're looking at lot line, side lot line, that's the issue, right Chris? Ms. Balestra — Yeah, if you look at the definitions, in the law, definitions of side, front, rear, setbacks, and then the lot lines it becomes clear that it's not a rear lot line, it's not a front lot line, the only other option is that it's a side lot line. Chairman Sigel —And why isn't it rear? Ms. Balestra — Because the rear lot line is further...is 140 feet away... Ms. Brock — You can't have 2 rear lot lines, Kirk. There is more land to the west of the location of the proposed shed. So if you were to call... ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 34 Chairman Sigel — Isn't that part of Parcel B? Is the peninsula is not part of the parcel we arer talking about, is that correct? Mr. Schlosser -- It's part of the leased parcel, correct. Chairman Sigel —And the shed is not on the leased parcel? Mr. Schlosser -- That's correct. Chairman Sigel — So the peninsula, so any land further west from here is a separate lot. Ms. Balestra — No... Mr. Schlosser -- I'm not quite clear on what you're... Chairman Sigel — I mean, it seems pretty clear on your sketch, you know, Parcel B is a nice straight line here and it cuts off the peninsula, so pretty much the entire peninsula is part of Parcel B. I would agree if the peninsula was part of this lot, then it's less clear. James Niefer— The peninsula is someone else's lot. Chairman Sigel — Yeah. I mean, we treat the peninsula as, well it is, a separate lot, and so, in this part of the lot, this is the most westerly portion of the land. Dick Matthews — The peninsula. Chairman Sigel — No, the peninsula is a separate lot. So where this storage building is going is the most westerly portion and the easterly side is clearly in front because it's along the state highway. Ms. Brock — When we made this determination I'm not sure that we considered the peninsula to the west of the proposed building to be a separate parcel. Chairman Sigel — It's one lot that has different ownership within the lot? Ms. Egan —Well it's under Cornell's control. Chairman Sigel — Right, but... Ms. Balestra — It's my understanding hat that entire lot is one tax parcel and it is owned by Cornell University. Ms. Brock— That's not what they're saying. Ms. Balestra — I know that's not what they're saying. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 35 Chairman Sigel — If it's one tax parcel then they don't need a setback variance. Ms. Brock— From the side lot line... Chairman Sigel — For the rear lot line. Ms. Brock— Right, no... Chairman Sigel — There's no... if this is one tax parcel, there's no lot line there. They don't need to be here. Ms. Balestra — Say this to me again. Chairman Sigel — If this is all one tax parcel, then there is no lot line there next to the building. Ms. Balestra — There's a side lot line there next to the building. Chairman Sigel — No. If this...if A and B are one tax parcel, then the line that runs along the edge of the building is not a tax parcel line. Ms. Balestra — Oh. I understand what you're saying now. Chairman Sigel — So they don't need a variance. Ms. Balestra — But the tax parcel doesn't include the marina area. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So you're saying that there's a tax parcel that includes the peninsula, not shown on this map. Harry Ellsworth — Shirley you're awfully quiet tonight. Shirley Egan, Legal Counsel for Cornell University Ms. Egan — I am just looking to see if I have a tax parcel number here or not. Harry Ellsworth —Well it would be part of the survey wouldn't it. Ms. Egan — Well I know where the survey line is and I know where the parcel is that we lease from the state. I still agree with Susan and Christine's assessment though, that, and it wouldn't matter if the peninsula was there or not. If this...if these are the fronts and the backs and then this is the side, it just happens to be irregularly shaped. It wouldn't matter if it did this. (Discussion of microphone) ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 36 Chairman Sigel — Okay, so these tax parcel maps, that's the only thing we can go by as the Town. Ms. Brock — That's what we went by when we made the determination as to what type of variance would be needed. We didn't have this drawing in front of us at the time, or anything similar to it, I don't believe. Ms. Balestra — Well we did have the survey map, but the survey map show this as one parcel. Chairman Sigel — Well this survey...this does show the boundaries go all around but it also shows this line here. Ms. Balestra — Yeah which is just an area that is leased, the marina is leased, it has in the past been leased by various entities. Chairman Sigel —Well, they're showing... Ms. Balestra — But I believe it's still owned by Cornell. Chairman Sigel — No, they're showing that Cornell doesn't own it. That Cornell... Ms. Balestra — So Cornell does not own the marina area? Ms. Egan — It doesn't own what's called "leased parcel". That was fill that was created there, in the lake, which is why it belongs to the State of New York Chairman Sigel — Okay. So the peninsula is owned by the State, leased by Cornell. Okay... Ms. Balestra — I guess we didn't know that when we were discussing this. Chairman Sigel — I guess my question is, can that be part of the same parcel. I mean, doesn't a tax parcel have to have one owner, or ... Ms. Brock—Well, regardless, does it matter? If it's... Chairman Sigel — Yeah, then that's the rear, I think. Your rear property line can jog and it's still the rear and that's...if you eliminate the peninsula, then the rear property line is just jogging, and that's still the rear. I'm not saying it wouldn't get approval, but it, you know... Ms. Egan — I'm just not sure it makes a difference in terms of defining the side yard. Whether or not we own the peninsula or rent the peninsula. I think, from the furthest point out here...that all the rest of this becomes side yard. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 37 Chairman Sigel — If it's all part of the same parcel. Which I...my question is, can it be part of the same parcel if it's owned by the State and the rest of it's owned by Cornell? Ms. Egan — But I mean, the assessor just cares where bills go and that kind of thing so I am not sure that what the assessor determines is... Chairman Sigel — No, that's true but I am just wondering if sort of the flip side, if the State owns that portion, can it be part of your tax parcel, the part that Cornell owns. I mean, it's shown that way, but, you know, that may be, they don't always get it right. Ms. Egan — Yeah I hate to tell you how many mistakes I've seen in tax maps. Chairman Sigel — Right, and so, if it is a mistake, then it's a rear, then I think it would possibly be a rear yard set back as opposed to a side yard set back. Then the requirement is a larger setback. Because if you eliminate that peninsula, then the rear yard is essentially taking a jog to the east, but with no land further to the west from that point, I think it would naturally be the rear yard. The rear lot line. Susan if you think it's okay I'm happy to...I mean, if I make a motion, I'll identify it without saying rear or side, personally, I'll just identify where it is. I mean, I would bet that the rear set back requirement is larger. Mr. Schlosser -- Actually, in that district, it's the same. Chairman Sigel — Is it? Ms. Brock— So, that's what I am looking at right now. Mr. Schlosser -- Actually that's what we have utilized right here and in that particular district it, I believe there is no defined rear yard, but there is a strong recommendation, is that the way it's put, we've been holding that 30 feet, I'm not sure if it's defined or not. Ms. Balestra — I believe it is defined at 30 feet and then the front yard in 50 feet. Mr. Schlosser -- So either way, side or rear yard, the setback is the same. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Why doesn't the Lakefront Commercial Zone specify setbacks? Ms. Brock — Because you look at commercial zones generally, Article 13...it's Section 270 — 117, Yard Regulations..."when the rear yard is not less than 30 feet in depth"...but that's measured from the principle building, the rear property line...it's not measured from the accessory building. So, as long as they've got the 30 foot rear yard setback from the sailing center, which is the principle building, to the shore line, they are compliant and the location of this boat storage building isn't relevant to that issue. Chairman Sigel — If it was a rear yard. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 38 Ms. Brock — Right. For side yards, it's worded a little differently, it says "the setback is not less than 30 feet from any structure" not just principle building but any structure "to a side property line" and at the time we made this evaluation I do believe we were considering this peninsula to have been included as all part of one parcel and that's why we determined that the area of the boat storage building would be a side lot line and why we felt that the variance was needed because the yard regulation says that no structure can be any closer than 30 feet to a side property line. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Ms. Brock — So I guess what it really comes down to is if this Parcel B, shown on drawing L2.1 is a separate parcel, then I do believe it would be a rational interpretation to say that the area along the boat storage building is the rear yard of that parcel... Harry Ellsworth —Which requires a what setback? Ms. Brock — There's a 30 foot yard that's required, rear yard that's required, but that's measured from the principle building to the rear lot line and they meet that. The sailing center is 30 feet...the sailing center is 30 feet from the rear line and so that's met. So they wouldn't need the variance. Chairman Sigel —All the better. Ms. Egan — Don't tell my husband, who is cooling his heels... Chairman Sigel —Well... Ms. Brock — What does the property look like as we go further south? Where does the lot line go? Mr. Schlosser -- It gets narrower and narrower... Harry Ellsworth — Yeah, it keeps narrowing down. (off microphone discussions(s)) Chairman Sigel — Being the more restrictive, there doesn't seem to be much danger in doing that. Ms. Brock — So we could interpret the lake shore proper to be the rear yard and then where the lot line cuts east, towards East Shore Drive, at that point, that line and the line that goes... ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 39 Chairman Sigel — Yeah, but then that's a lot more lake shore that's suddenly side yard. It is so substantially parallel though, to the front. I mean, I wouldn't call it side yard, but I don't think...it doesn't matter that much. Ms. Brock— It's really a matter of interpretation, which, the Board is empowered to do. Chairman Sigel —We will, we can grant a variance from the line in question. Ms. Balestra — it was advertised as side yard. Chairman Sigel —And every other aspect of the main building is conforming? Mr. Schlosser -- Correct. Chairman Sigel Very good. Ms. Brock — There...you'll have noticed, perhaps, that in Cornell's application, there was some mention of a front yard setback but that was deemed...initially the Town had thought they needed a front yard set back as well, but because of this issue of measuring the front yard from the road right-of-way to the principal building, it was determined that that was met, and so, again, the placement of the boat storage building was not relevant to that query. They did not need the front yard setback. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Mr. Schlosser—We initially measured it to the right-of-way of the railroad. Ms. Brock — That's right, because the railroad right-of-way is west of the highway right- of-way, that's right... Chairman Sigel — But is that a right-of-way? So does Cornell actually own the railroad? Ms. Brock — No, it's actually more than a right-of-way, it's actually owned by the railroad itself. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Well, there's an example of some other entity owning part of that tax parcel, I suppose. Ms. Brock— I think that's shown as a separate tax parcel. Chairman Sigel — Oh, it's a separate tax parcel. Oh. Okay. Chairman Sigel — Okay, so we do not need to make an environmental assessment? Ms. Balestra — No, not for individual lot line variances. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 40 Chairman Sigel — Okay, I thought that the applicant's reasons for the area variance criteria were quite good and so I was planning to use those. Susan, do you have any... Ms. Brock — The only set of criteria that I didn't think were necessarily applicable were #3, whether the requested variance is substantial...they checked no...and I wouldn't have agreed with that because they are looking for a...the area between the building and the side lot line of 5 feet 4 inches where 30 feet is required. However, I thought that the fact that the building was so close to the side lot line was mitigated by the irregular u shape of the relevant portion of the parcel and the fact that Cornell does lease the marina water way and the property directly to the west of that property line so that there actually is an addition 138 feet of water and land that are leased by Cornell adjacent to that line. Chairman Sigel — Okay. I agree. So the justification was good but the...doesn't make it not substantial... Ms. Brock — Right, so you could say, while the request is substantial, giving the mitigating factors...these factors mitigate that. Chairman Sigel — Okay. I will move...Oh, sorry...at this point we will open the public hearing. Any one wishes to speak...no...okay, we will close the public hearing. I will move to grant the appeal of Cornell University requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article 13, Section 270-117(A)(3), of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install a 1,200 square foot boat storage shed, or approximate 1,200 square foot boat storage shed approximately 5feet 4 inches from the side property line in conjunction with the development of the Cornell Merrill Family Sailing Center located at 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca tax parcel No. 19-2-29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. With the following Conditions: 1. That the shed be no more than 1,250 square feet, and 2. That the shed be no closer to any lot line than 5 feet, and With the following Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically, that there would be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. The boats to be stored in the building currently are stored onsite on open racks. Use of an enclosed building will reduce the visual clutter on site. 2. The building will be constructed with the same residential style finishes as the new sailing center, and ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 41 3. The building is low profile with an 8 foot eave height and approximately 12 '/2 foot ridge height create a residential scale and appearance consistent with the residential properties north and south of the site. 4. That the benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by another feasible alternative for the reasons that there are alternate site locations that would not require a variance, however, the viewsheds from Route 34 and the municipal park would be greatly impacted, and 5. While the requested variance is substantial, then the fact that the boat storage 138 feet, approximately, from the primary lake shore line, even though it is located only approximately 5 feet from the immediate property line, and 6. That the boat slips and outer peninsula are leased by the University and act as a buffer between this location and the primary shore line of the lake, and 7. That the variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the proposed structure is approximately 1,000 feet from its neighbor to the south and approximately 700 feet to its nearest neighbor to the north and the building is to be constructed as a one-story, slab on grade wood frame shed with no heat, air conditioning or plumbing, and 8. That the alleged difficulty was not self created, the physical site has serious limitations and given those limitations, this is the best location for the shed. Dick Matthews — I have comments to add to that. And that above all, the integrity of the lake will be maintained by proper erosion and sedimentation control. Ms. Brock — You could add that to the factor regarding the impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Chairman Sigel — Yes. Ms. Brock—As an additional finding. Chairman Sigel — As an additional finding, yes, under number 4, impact on the physical environment, that because of sedimentation and erosion controls, there will be no, or very limited, impact on the lake. Board Member Hoffmann — There's no plumbing? There's no toilet facilities in that building? Okay. Ms. Brock — Kirk, do you want to add another condition, that the shed shall be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. Chairman Sigel — Yes. Ms. Brock— Including revised sheet L2.1 dated August 20, 2007. Chairman Sigel — Yes. Thank you. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 42 Dick Matthews — Question. I think about 3 weeks ago we approved a 5 foot set back on a house... Chairman Sigel — I wasn't at the last meeting, so I'm not sure. Dick Matthews — It was a real estate agent that built the house south of this location, wanted to put an entrance into the side of the house... Ms. Brock— Michael Moore's house... Dick Matthews —Was it a 5 foot or a 5 yard setback? Chairman Sigel — I think around 5 feet. Dick Matthews — Five feet. Are we opening up Pandora's box here? Chairman Sigel — This is such a unique property here, I don't think... Dick Matthews — Because it's a unique property, but... Ms. Brock— The configuration... Dick Matthews — That wouldn't limit or...stop somebody from trying to seek a 5foot 4 side yard setback as a precedent setting... Chairman Sigel — Nothing stops anyone from requesting anything, but, you know, situation... Dick Matthews —We have the specter of Cornell University, I'm sorry to say... Ms. Brock— This lot is shaped so irregularly... Chairman Sigel — This isn't even in the same district. This is a lakefront commercial district. That was a residential district. Dick Matthews — Okay. Chairman Sigel — I don't think it's that.. Harry Ellsworth — And they're limited by the sewer line behind there. There's a lot of special conditions in this one. Dick Matthews — Okay. Chairman Sigel — Second on the motion? ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 43 Dick Matthews — I'll second it. ZB RESOLUTION No. 2007 — 035 AREA VARIANCE Merrill Family Sailing Center Boat Storage Shed Cornell University, Applicant Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. Resolved that this Board grant the appeal of Cornell University requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article 13, Section 270-117(A)(3), of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install an approximate 1,200 square foot boat storage shed approximately 5 feet 4 inches from the side property line in conjunction with the development of the Cornell Merrill Family Sailing Center located at 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca tax parcel No. 19-2-29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. With the following Conditions: 3. That the shed be no more than 1,250 square feet, and 4. That the shed be no closer to any lot line than 5 feet, and 5. That the shed shall be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant, including revised sheet L2.1 dated August 20, 2007. With the following Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Specifically, that: 9. There would be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The boats to be stored in the building currently are stored onsite on open racks. Use of an enclosed building will reduce the visual clutter on site. b) The building will be constructed with the same residential style finishes as the new sailing center. c) The building is low profile with an 8 foot eave height and approximately 12 '/2 foot ridge height creating a residential scale and appearance consistent with the residential properties north and south of the site. 10.That the benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by another feasible alternative for the reasons that there are alternate site locations that would not require a variance, however, the view sheds from Route 34 and the municipal park would be greatly impacted, and ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 44 11.While the requested variance is substantial, the boat storage building is 138 feet, approximately, from the primary lake shore line, even though it is located only approximately 5 feet from the immediate property line, and the boat slips and outer peninsula are leased by the University and act as a buffer between this location and the primary shore line of the lake, and 12.That the variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the proposed structure is approximately 1,000 feet from its neighbor to the south and approximately 700 feet to its nearest neighbor to the north and the building is to be constructed as a one-story, slab on grade wood frame shed with no heat, air conditioning or plumbing. Furthermore, that because of sedimentation and erosion controls, there will be no, or very limited, impact on the lake, and 13.That the alleged difficulty was not self created, the physical site has serious limitations and given those limitations, this is the best location for the shed. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. The next appeal this evening is that of Douglas Bianchi, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to erect a new freestanding sign for the East Hill Car Wash, located at 383 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.s 62-2-13.2 and 62-2-13.6, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal is to install a new 69 +/- square foot; 16- foot tall internally lit freestanding sign on Cornell University property at the new driveway entrance on Pine Tree Road. The sign will be located off-premise and includes a clock and copy change section. The proposal will require several variances from the Town of Ithaca Sign Law as it exceeds the 50-foot maximum allowable area, is off-premise, contains a copy-change element, may contain moving elements, and may be located within 15 feet of the side lot line. Good evening. Doug Bianchi, 1263 Ellis Hollow Road Good evening. Again, my name is Doug Bianchi. I live at 1263 Ellis Hollow Road. Chairperson Sigel — Is there anything you would like to state at the beginning? ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 45 Mr. Bianchi —Well, we are replacing a sign. This is, in fact a new sign, but it replaces an existing sign or a sign that had existed prior to the redevelopment of the area. The existing sign was displaced by the widening of the roadway. Chairperson Sigel —Was that sign a wooded panel? Mr. Bianchi — It was a wood frame...yes, essentially it was a 48 sheet of plywood, double-sided. So in reality it also was larger than and must have had a variance. It was larger than the existing... Chairperson Sigel — You said 48. That would be 32 square feet. Mr. Bianchi — Right, but isn't the size determined by both sides? Chairperson Sigel — No. You get both sides. Right? Ms. Balestra — Right. Chairperson Sigel — So, an approximate 7x7 sign, double sided, is a 50 square foot. Mr. Bianchi — Okay. I misunderstood or misinterpreted that. I thought both sides counted in the total footage. Chairperson Sigel — So is your 69 square feet the sum of both sides? Mr. Bianchi — I don't think so. Ms. Balestra — No. Chairperson Sigel — Because otherwise...[laughter] Mr. Bianchi —We have purposely made this as big as it is to provide information. We are trying...I assume you all have a picture of it in front of you. It may or may not be in color. I will show you what the color version looks like. Chairperson Sigel —We do have a black and white picture. Mr. Bianchi — [referring to picture] This is what it will look like in color. The only difference and you have it as...this space will be filled in. So there won't be a gap. It'll blend better with the sign, I feel. Just the top portion with the name and logo will be illuminated and the clock. The changeable letters will not be and I feel they are important to be able to interact, provide information and interact with the motoring public. If you look at the page in your that has the 3 pictures on it, if you look at the upper right hand picture, landscape orientation, you just can't tell there's a carwash anywhere in that area and that's looking into the access to the carwash. So we need to be able to identify ourselves from a distance, from a distance far enough away that ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 46 people can make a decision and a safe passage into the property, make the determination that they are going to turn and make lane changes as appropriate to prepare to do that safely. We've made it vertical and elevated it 6 feet so as to keep an open area underneath so it wouldn't block any vision from motorists, leaving the driveway and also in the wintertime I assume there is going to be snowbanks along that sidewalk that would get built up to a height that could block the sign. It would also stand out a little more from the other signs on that side of the road. Chairperson Sigel — Your proposed clock, is that... are those LED segments? Mr. Bianchi — Yes, but its static. It will be a time temperature clock, but we got the...not to have it display the temperature because I don't want people at 20 degrees or 30 degrees thinking its too cold to wash their car. The clock will serve a purpose. Chairperson Sigel — So it'll be red? Mr. Bianchi — Yes. It will be very similar to the one the Trust Company has down on the west end, only a little bit smaller. I think that is a 15 inch display, ours will be 12. Mr. Krantz— The clock is what is referred to as the moving elements? Mr. Bianchi — I am not sure what will be referred to as the moving element, but the changeable letter...nothing will be moving. It won't be continuously moving. Anything that gets changed... Mr. Krantz— But that's your only moving thing? Ms. Brock—Why is that in? Mr. Krantz— That is the only moving thing on the sign. Chairperson Sigel — I think, well the ordinance... Mr. Bianchi — I think what they are referring to is the fact that the changeable letters...the message will be... [several talking at once] Chairperson Sigel — The ordinance forbids motion or the appearance of motion. Ms. Balestra — Right. Staff wasn't sure if any part of the clock would be blinking at all, like the seconds or the minutes or the little space between the hour and the minutes. If it's blinking its considered motion. Mr. Bianchi — I don't think that is the case on the sign at the Trust Company, the plaque at the Trust Company, and that is the same plaque. Same manufacturer, just a different ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 47 size and if that is the case then we will pursue something that doesn't do that. I understand what you are saying. Its like a clock radio. Mr. Matthews — Clarify that. Its not blinking? Mr. Bianchi — No. Mr. Matthews — It say's 2 o'clock, 2:01. That's it. Mr. Bianchi — Exactly. The only movement is when the time will change. Chairperson Sigel —Well, I have to say when I read the Planning Board motion, I felt that their recommendation was reasonable and I tend to agree and looking at other signs in the area a lot of them are actually, I think, considerably smaller than the allowed 50 square feet and I think 50 square feet is, to be honest, plenty of room to...the portion of your sign that says "East Hill Carwash" is about 36 square feet, which is well under. Then you've got 4 by 6, an extra 4 by 6, which is 24. That has you up to 60 and then I guess if you add in the outer arrangements... Mr. Mountin —Are we adding in the outer posts, still? What is the measurement method? Mr. Bianchi — I think the posts are included. Ms. Balestra — That was one question, actually, staff had that we didn't have a chance to ask you. The drawing shows the 6 feet across the top. It doesn't include the posts so if the posts are included, then that...either the drawing is incorrect or you need to give us the additional dimensions. Mr. Bianchi — I think I did on the application. I included the dimensions for the post. Ms. Balestra — Okay, but the actual picture shows that not going completely to the posts. So that was in question. Mr. Matthews —What is the purpose of the change of a copy? Mr. Bianchi — Just to be able to interact with the public. Put our message, you know, it could be don't forget to vote today. It doesn't have to be necessarily specific to the carwash. Just something that people will look to as they come by, much the same as the fellow on the corner of Hanshaw and Warren Road who has the sign. I am sure people go by there on a regular basis just to see what the new message is. Mr. Niefer— That's an illegal sign. They have no permit from the County to have that... Mr. Bianchi — It still attracts attention. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 48 Mr. Ellsworth - [not audible] Mr. Bianchi — Subliminal...they look at that. They see the East Hill...we have a website that we would like to put up there. Occasionally a special or something seasonal. Just to give...because again, we have no building, nothing anybody is going to see going by that would make them want to check it out other than if their car is white with salt. Just to give us a little bit of personality, if you will. Chairperson Sigel — I appreciate the effort you are trying to go through to provide the time, which can certainly be construed as a public service... Mr. Bianchi —And there used to be one at the HSBC building, their sign across the road, but the technology was such in those days that they couldn't keep it lit so they put a face plate on it. I think it says open 24...1 don't know what it says, but...and the changeable copy previously existed in front of the Courtside building across the road. Chairperson Sigel — Did they have copy change? Ms. Balestra — Courtside didn't have copy change originally. I believe they may have gotten a variance to allow it. Chairperson Sigel — That sign is gone now. Ms. Balestra — That sign is completely gone now. Mr. Bianchi — The business is completely gone. Mr. Ellsworth — The new Cornell building just got the flat rock approved and they had three signs. Ms. Balestra — Two signs. Mr. Ellsworth — One out front, the rock, and another one out back. Ms. Balestra — Yes. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. Ms. Balestra — The rock is 750 feet in from the road and on a different...is that on a different tax parcel? Mr. Ellsworth —What is the sign out front square footage? Ms. Balestra — You would ask that. That is the one sign I don't have information on because its so know. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 49 Mr. Bianchi — The one on the median? Ms. Balestra — I'm trying to remember...I think its compliant. Mr. Ellsworth — I don't want to deny somebody two lots away. We passed a... Ms. Balestra —Well, just to give you a perspective, the entrance sign for Judd Falls plaza was...is 50 square feet. The Zoning Board denied a variance to increase it to 97 square feet. So that's 50 square feet. Olivia's is 50 square feet. Courtside was originally 50 square feet and I believe the board allowed them to get, add the copy change panel, which made it 72 square feet. Its no longer there any more. Rite Aid is 33 square feet. In East Hill Plaza, the main entrance sign is 50 square feet. The HSBC sign is 42 square feet and the Citgo sign is 75 square feet so currently the only sign that exceeds the sign law dimensions is the Citgo sign and that was granted many moons ago. Chairperson Sigel —And to go a little further, Burger King pushed hard for larger signs and we restricted them. Ms. Balestra —And more signs. Mr. Ellsworth — His is the same as the Cornell building. His building sits way back so he has no appearance on that road except his sign for the business. Chairperson Sigel — That's true, but the portion of the sign that is being used to identify his business is, you know, he only has it laid out as 36 square feet. And I really think...in that area, its not a huge sign area even though it's a commercial area. I think, you know, a sign the size of Olivia or the other conforming signs in that area, I think, is sufficient. Mr. Bianchi — In order for a sign to be useful, it needs to convey information. The conforming sign that Cornell has in the median says, "Cornell University 395 Pine Tree Road". I've had two people this week, newcomers to the area, pull in thinking that was the main entrance to campus because that is the first thing they see with Cornell identified on it. It's conforming, but its not useful. Mr. Krantz—All the other places you mentioned are facing a road where they are seen. Mr. Bianchi — Exactly. Mr. Krantz— This is tucked in behind in an alleyway. Mr. Bianchi — This is a unique situation. Chairperson Sigel — But I'm still not convinced that you can't make...I mean the time is not helping identify this as a carwash and copy change that while laudable, to say don't ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 50 forget to vote, is not helping identify it as a carwash. And what the applicant is proposing is only 36 square feet. I mean personally, I would enlarge...if it were me, I would make the East Hill Carwash part 50 square feet, right up to the limit, as identifiable as possible. Maybe an arrow indicating that its back a ways. I mean these other elements, you know, they have the best of intentions but I don't think that they have... Mr. Krantz— They draw attention to the sign. Chairperson Sigel — But I don't think that the elements themselves, I mean we don't have much copy change there except with the exception of maybe the gas station now having price copy change, which actually I believe is allowed in a fuel pump zone. Mr. Bianchi — That almost seems redundant, though, because they've got it again positioned on the pumps and they are so visible from the road. That would be unnecessary. Chairperson Sigel — The Town Board has decided that copy change is not an appropriate form of sign for this commercial zone. Mr. Matthews — Did Chris say that the Citgo, 75 feet square, square feet? Ms. Balestra — Yes. Mr. Matthews — Is that being permitted or is that going to be challenged? Ms. Balestra — That has been in existence for several years. Mr. Ellsworth —What happened was... Chairperson Sigel — That has a variance. Mr. Ellsworth - ...Citgo had standards and he had to go below Citgo standards to mediate this board. Chairperson Sigel —Are you talking about the Citgo? Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah. The gas station on the corner. At the time that was passed, he was trying to stay with Citgo standards, which was way beyond the Town's requirements and he had to knock that down some to get what he has. Mr. Matthews — So we gave him 75 feet as a variance? Chairperson Sigel — I think that was bef...well, the freestanding sign was before my time. So that was at least 10 years ago. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 51 Mr. Matthews — You are not as big as Citgo, sir. Chairperson Sigel — No, but I mean, you know, Citgo is a ways away and I don't think that is the neighborhood standard at this point. Mr. Ellsworth — Probably looks like 50 square feet. [several talking at once] Ms. Balestra — The maximum allowable area according to the sign law in that district is 50 square feet. Citgo has been the one... Mr. Niefer— You said Rite Aid meets that criteria? Ms. Balestra — It does. Mr. Niefer— That's a monsterous sign. Ms. Balestra — It's very tall, I mean it actually meets the height requirement as well. Its just... Mr. Niefer— Oh my goodness. I think that's gross, quite frankly. Ms. Balestra — Yeah... Chairperson Sigel — Rather thick... Mr. Niefer— The one that's on the ground. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, is rather thick. Ms. Balestra — Yeah that's why. Chairperson Sigel — It sort of makes it seem more massive. Mr. Bianchi —And these are all national chains or at least regionals that have other identifying characteristics. We don't. We're local. Ms. Balestra — Olivia's is not a chain. Chairperson Sigel — I don't...I mean, you know, the Cornell sign there is very subdued. So I don't think you are competing with the Cornell sign, which is lower and really is not meant to grab attention. Ms. Balestra — The rock sign that Cornell proposed and received variances for is not in the same location as the proposed sign for the carwash. Its not on the road. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 52 Chairperson Sigel — The rock is way back by the building. Ms. Balestra — So it won't even be... Ms. Brock— It was 56 square feet. Ms. Balestra — The rock was. Mr. Ellsworth — ...take a poll and see where we're headed to guide the applicant? Chairperson Sigel — Sure. I mean my...what did the...the recommendation from the Planning Board is that the request for a 69 square foot sign, which includes copy change be denied and their recommendation is to allow the location, which is off- premise and which is within a 15 foot setback and otherwise so the applicant would need to stay within all other aspects of the law, which is...so that is what I am in favor of. Mr. Niefer— I am in favor of staying within the 50 feet, allowing the time and temperature, but no copy change. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Time and temperature if they wanted to. Mr. Niefer— Time and temperature. Mr. Ellsworth — (not audible) Chairperson Sigel —Actually, I guess I would be opposed to something that changed regularly, like flashing between time and temperature because I think that is... Mr. Bianchi — No. I won't do that. Chairperson Sigel — So I would agree with time if he wants to within the 50 square feet. Mr. Krantz— I could go home with that. Chairperson Sigel — Dick? Mr. Matthews — My career background is working in corporate America. I worked for a huge organization and I do not believe that size of your corporate America gives you special privilege. In fact, it gives you stronger requirements to confirm with the community, conform to the community. And if Citgo can have a sign the size they have, the small business should be able to have at least something close to it. Its just the way I feel. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 53 Chairperson Sigel — I would just point out that that was approved more than 10 years ago. Mr. Matthews — I don't care. Chairperson Sigel —And there's no other sign and there are many other national businesses there, banks, the hotel, Burger King. All of those are conforming. Mr. Bianchi — They are up front and present. If we were Olivia's we wouldn't be having this conversation. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, Best Western is not. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. The Best Western is quite far back and they have requested on a couple of occasions more signage. Mr. Bianchi — People have difficulty finding them. Like when it comes to that we have people coming to the carwash and asking where the hotel is as well. Chairperson Sigel — I just...I empathize with your desire to have as large a sign as possible, but I really, I'm completely unconvinced that it will have any effect on identifying your business. The business identification portion you have proposed is less than 50 square feet. Mr. Bianchi — Overall, the changeable copy will attract attention...that coupled with the clock. Chairperson Sigel —Well in my mind the copy change is not permitted by the sign ordinance so in my mind I don't see a compelling reason to allow it. Okay. It seems the consensus is in favor of allowing just the conforming 50 square feet. That was Jim, Ron, and myself. Mr. Ellsworth — Doesn't matter how I vote, does it? Mr. Matthews — Did you say the consensus is... Chairperson Sigel — The consensus is only to allow the permitted 50 square feet. Mr. Krantz— A nice way of putting it is, you can do everything you want, but leave off the part of the sign that gives the messages. Ms. Balestra — The copy change, you mean? Mr. Krantz— Then its going to be where you want it and in a conforming size. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 54 Chairperson Sigel — That is approximately correct. If you 6, 8...8 and 6, 48, if you add in the supports its...you get to approximately 50. So you could approximately do the East Hill Carwash and the time. Mr. Krantz— In 50 feet. Chairperson Sigel — In 50 square feet. Mr. Krantz—And you can put it wherever you want. Mr. Bianchi — So in reconfiguring this then, we would be allowed to add our website address and text below... Chairperson Sigel — Sure, I mean if you eliminated...if you wanted to keep the East Hill Carwash the same, if you eliminated the time that would appear to be room for a website, an arrow... Mr. Ellsworth — Or your car...you could get your website below carwash. Ms. Balestra — May I just make a comment? Chairperson Sigel — Sure. Ms. Balestra — It's a request on behalf of the building and code enforcement people that this board be as specific as possible as to what is allowed because there have been some questions when it comes time to issue a building permit for signs, a sign permit rather, as to whether what the actual square footage is and what's included in it and so I would just ask that the board be specific as to what they are going to allow. Chairperson Sigel — I think we are not going to be making any specification as to square footage, at all, meaning that it must comply. Ms. Balestra — Oh, okay. All right. Chairperson Sigel — So then that would be subject to all the normal interpretations of the Code. Mr. Matthews — You have it here. Ms. Balestra — Oh, yes. That's right. Yes. I forgot to mention that the sign law was passed out to all of the members tonight so that you have it for your files if you don't have it already. Chairperson Sigel — My plan is to just move to vary the...make a variance for the location. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 55 Ms. Balestra — Okay. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, at this time we will open the public hearing as required by law. With no public present, we will close the public hearing. Do we do an environmental impact for this? Ms. Balestra — There is an environmental impact prepared by Mike Smith. If you want, I can read... Chairperson Sigel — Do you have any specific comments you want to add or... Ms. Balestra — Not above and beyond what's mentioned in the environmental assessment. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Susan, should we modify this to indicate what we plan to approve? I mean because as written constructing a 69 square foot sign, I actually believe would have a positive impact, environmental impact. Ms. Brock— You would pos dec that and require an EIS? Ms. Balestra — Oh, goodness. Ms. Brock— You can give something a negative determination, finding that it doesn't rise to the level of needing an environmental impact statement, but still then impose conditions on your approval based on affect on aesthetics and neighborhood characteristics and things like that. You have often done that before. Chairperson Sigel — True. Ms. Brock— I believe the SEAR needs to be done on the proposal as presented by the applicant. Chairperson Sigel — It does. Ms. Brock— I think that is how we've always done that. Because you don't really...its not a foregone conclusion what this board is ultimately going to approve. So you need to do the SEAR on the proposal itself. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part I I environmental assessment form prepared by Town Staff. Second? Mr. Krantz— Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 56 Board — aye. ZBA RESOLUTION No. 2007 — 036 SEAR East Hill Car Wash Sign MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part 11 environmental assessment form prepared by Town Staff. The MOTION was carried unanimously. AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None Chairperson Sigel —And I will move to grant the appeal of Douglas Bianchi, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code be permitted to erect a new freestanding sign for the East Hill Carwash located at 383 Pine Tree Road, tax parcel number 62.-2-13.2 and 62.-2-13.6, community commercial zone. The proposal is to install a new approximately 69 square foot sign, 16 foot tall internally lit on Cornell University property at the new driveway entrance on Pine Tree Road. The sign will be located off-premise and includes a clock and the proposal includes a copy change section. The proposal will require several variances from the Town of Ithaca sign law as it exceeds the 50 foot maximum allowable area as off-premise contains copy change only...(not audible)...may be located within 15 feet of the side lot line. With the following conditions that the...I guess in this context we do need to limit, explicitly limit the square footage. Ms. Balestra — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Don't you think. Ms. Brock— Yes. The Planning Board's recommendation had some conditions you might want to consider. Mr. Bianchi — I'd also point out that you folks have the leeway to vary this by 25%. Chairperson Sigel —We do. We have the leeway to vary, actually, by any amount. Mr. Bianchi — By any amount? Ms. Brock— You are thinking of Planning Board. The Planning Board has the ability to vary the size of a sign. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 57 Chairperson Sigel — Is it 25%? Ms. Brock— I believe...(not audible)...as a sign review board. Chairperson Sigel — That would be then without... Ms. Brock—Without needing to come to the ZBA for a variance, but the ZBA has the ability to provide whatever variance they think is necessary and appropriate. Chairperson Sigel — The Planning Board could have approved this and it would not have actually needed to come here, I think, if it was within the 25%. Mr. Bianchi — Okay. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Getting back to the resolution, with the condition that the proposed sign shall not exceed 50 square feet in total sign area as defined in the Town of Ithaca sign law, which is Town Code section 221, which of course, I think is probably about as simple as we could state it as far as the Code Enforcement Officer enforcing it. Ms. Balestra — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Balestra — Thank you. Chairperson Sigel —And second that the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the sign. Condition 3, that the submission of documentation that Cornell University has granted the necessary easement, license or other legal authorization to East Hill Carwash to allow the placement of the sign on Cornell property prior to issuance of any sign permit. 4 that the sign have no copy change element. Are there any other conditions? Ms. Balestra — There is the side yard setback and off-premise. Do they need to address or add that to the resolution? Ms. Brock— I think they already did. Ms. Balestra — I should have paid attention. Chairperson Sigel —What is the setback from the lot line going to be do you know? Mr. Bianchi —About 4 feet Chairperson Sigel — about... ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 58 Mr. Bianchi — From the side line. Chairperson Sigel — So condition 5 that the setback from the side lot line be no less than 3 feet. Ms. Brock— From the side lot line. Chairperson Sigel — From the side lot line. Ms. Brock—And I think it would not hurt to add and that the sign is permitted to be located off-premises. Just to make it clear that that variance request is granted. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. With the following findings. That this Board of Appeals does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The applicant's request as modified by the conditions of this variance, specifically that the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met by any other means feasible given that the applicant's business is located far back from a public road and therefore needs a sign on a separate tax parcel at the road. That further it will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character, which are nearby properties given that the sign is as modified by this board in-keeping with the character of other signs nearby which are also conforming. That the request is not substantial that the sign is conforming in size and is only nonconforming in location. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects and the alleged difficulty is not self-created. Okay. Are we...(not audible)...with that? Great. Second for the motion? Mr. Ellsworth — I'll second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Chairperson Sigel, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Niefer, Mr. Krantz — aye. Chairperson Sigel — Opposed? Mr. Matthews — I have a problem. Ms. Brock—Well, you need to vote. Mr. Matthews — I need to vote. Okay. Go ahead. Chairperson Sigel —Well, how are you voting? Mr. Matthews — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — In favor? ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 59 Mr. Matthews — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So, it was passed unanimously. ZBA RESOLUTION No. 2007 — 037 Sign Variance East Hill Car Wash MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Douglas Bianchi, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code be permitted to erect a new freestanding sign for the East Hill Carwash located at 383 Pine Tree Road, tax parcel number 62.-2-13.2 and 62.-2-13.6, community commercial zone. The proposal is to install a new approximately 69 square foot sign, 16 foot tall internally lit on Cornell University property at the new driveway entrance on Pine Tree Road. The sign will be located off-premise and includes a clock and the proposal includes a copy change section. CONDITIONS 1. That the proposed sign shall not exceed 50 square feet in total sign area as defined in the Town of Ithaca sign law, which is Town Code section 221, and 2. That the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the sign, and 3. That the submission of documentation that Cornell University has granted the necessary easement, license or other legal authorization to East Hill Carwash to allow the placement of the sign on Cornell property prior to issuance of any sign permit, and 4. That the sign have no copy change element, and 5. That the setback from the side lot line be no less than 3 feet and the sign is permitted to be located off-premises. FINDINGS 1. That this Board of Appeals does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 2. The applicant's request as modified by the conditions of this variance, specifically that the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met by any other means feasible given that the applicant's business is located far back from a public road and therefore needs a sign on a separate tax parcel at the road. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 60 3. That further it will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character, which are nearby properties, given that the sign as modified by this board is in keeping with the character of other signs nearby which are also conforming. 4. That the request is not substantial, that the sign is conforming in size and is only nonconforming in location. 5. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects and the alleged difficulty is not self-created. The MOTION was carried unanimously. AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None Mr. Bianchi — So if I understand this correctly, you are permitting the clock but not the changeable copy as part of the overall dimension? Chairperson Sigel — The clock, we believe, is a permitted by the sign law. Ms. Brock—As long as nothing is moving, flashing. Chairperson Sigel —And so therefore is permitted. Mr. Bianchi — I thought the Planning Board said that was not. Ms. Balestra — No. They just recommended the removal of this. Ms. Brock— I think they were looking just at what you submitted and thinking if you wanted to keep the part of the sign that said East Hill Carwash the same size that then starting to add the other elements might exceed the permissible limit. So what this board has done has said that you can have a sign that is 50 square feet and if you want to change how you configured the text and the clock, add more text such as the website that is all fine. Chairperson Sigel —We specifically prohibited the copy change section, but, well we didn't actually say anything about the clock. So if its permitted, which you should verify with the code enforcement officer that it is, then you can put that there. Mr. Bianchi — But if its not permitted then we would come back. Chairperson Sigel — Then if you wanted it you could come back for an additional variance. ZBA 8/20/07 Final Pg. 61 Mr. Krantz— The clock is permitted with no moving parts. So the time has to stay the same and never change. [laughing] Ms. Balestra — That's right. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Do you have any other questions? Mr. Bianchi — No. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, any other official business? No. Okay, we're adjourned. Approved by: Kirk Sigel, Chairman Submitted by: Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk