The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2007-09-17 TOWN of ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday, September 17, 2007 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kirk Sigel Board Members: Harry Ellsworth, Ron Krantz, Jim Niefer, and Dick Matthews Alternate Board Member David Mountin Staff: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Excused: Alternate Board Member Eric Levine Others: Burke Carson, 10 Willow Point Road, Ithaca Lars Washburn, 112 Judd Falls Road Marty Nichols, 610 Coddington Rd Dave Auble, 111 King Rd W John Yengo, 1147 Danby Rd Lewis Clark and Alice Wu, 111 Christopher Circle Ed Kratil, 1151 Danby Road Rick Couture, 104 Westhaven Rd, Ithaca William Ferguson, Member of the Public Safety Dept. Ithaca College Sally Mennen, 997 Taughannock Boulevard Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Welcome to the September meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Tonight we have 6 appeals and we will be taking them in the following order. - The appeal of Judith Kellock - The appeal of David Auble - The appeal of Lewis Clark - The appeal of Edward Kratil - The appeal of Ithaca College - The appeal of Richard and Sally Mennen The first appeal this evening was adjourned from last meeting and that is: 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. The appeal was adjourned from the August 20th meeting to allow the appellant to gather neighbor signatures and present a modified proposal to the Zoning Board. Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Carson, please begin again with your name and address for us. Burke Carson, 10 Willow Point Road, Ithaca Agent for Ms. Kellock. Chairperson Sigel — It appears that you met with support from the neighbors for the... Mr. Carson — There were a number of...I didn't see all of the letters personally, but Judith described enough that a number of people had written letter in support. And I'm not sure if you have a copy, this came late from William Goldsmith. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. We got this tonight. Thank you. Yeah, there were a number of others in our packet. And I assume it is the case that Ms. Kellock still prefers the original design. Mr. Carson — Yes. Strongly and there's a...I have a statement here from her. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Was there anything you wanted to say before we start? Mr. Carson — Only that Ms. Kellock is, as a request, this is a statement from Judith: "As requested, we brought along an alternative plan with a solid roof. However, letters of support from the surrounding neighbors on Judd Falls Road and McIntyre Place reflect the responses to the drawing of the addition in its original form. When I mentioned the prospect of a solid roof no one in the neighborhood saw that as an improvement and some thought it would be less attractive than the solarium." Mr. Carson — That is really the design that she is strongly in favor of building. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Anyone have any questions? Mr. Matthews — If the neighbors don't mind, I don't mind. Chairperson Sigel — Comments? No, I have to say, myself, after going out again and reading the neighbor comments, I am pretty convinced that this is a reasonable... Mr. Niefer— Forest Home is a unique neighborhood, having been there for 200 or 300 years and as a consequence thereof, there are many properties that are close to the property lines and many situations where setbacks are not existing today. And while I normally wouldn't look on this type of a situation very favorably, due to the unique character of the neighborhood and the lack of any written support thus far, although we haven't had the public hearing yet, I would be supportive of the original proposal that was presented to us for those reasons. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Well said. Mr. Krantz— I would agree, too. I think if anything it is going to improve the appearance, obviously enough of this one house and make it perhaps less of a sore thumb than it was. Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah, I agree for the reasons stated by our board members here. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I am supposed to open the public hearing again in regard to this case. Actually, I'm not sure if we did last time, well, anyhow, we'll open it now. If anyone wishes to speak in regard to this appeal, sir? If you like, you could sit on the end here, if you don't mind. And please, if you could, begin with your name and address. Lars Washburn, 112 Judd Falls Road My name is Lars Washburn and I live at 112 Judd Falls Road, which is right next to Judith Kellock's property and I am in favor of the proposed addition in either form that she has put there. I think that it certainly will add architectural interest and make the small house perhaps better blend with the neighborhood. It may not be directly in the building plan, but she is also proposed putting in a row of gold cone junipers across the front of the property line and that is where my concern comes from is that if they are too close to the walk path...we don't have official sidewalks in Forest Home, it will cause a real snow removal issues and I would just like to make sure that she can move that back, say about 3 feet from the inner edge of the sidewalks. Simply so there is enough room to place the snow. There are a few gauntlets on the walk path along Judd Falls Road where you simply cannot put the snow anywhere and the snow plows make the matter worse. So for my own children's bus access and for my own access to work, I frequently, for the past decade or so, have been plowing the walk path in front of her house for previous tenants would not take care of it. It doesn't serve their needs. They would always exit on McIntyre Place and I would have to place the snow in the front yard and so as long as here proposed small hedge of gold cone junipers can be placed back a few feet without interfering with the aesthetics that she wants, I am fully in favor of it. That is the only comment that I would have, but as far as the building procedure and all of that, like all of the other neighbors, I am in favor of it. It certainly will make a nicer looking house. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you very much. Do you know, Mr. Carson, if she knows exactly where she wanted to place those or...? Mr. Carson — I'm not doing the work, but we have had discussions and that particular juniper does have kind of a mature size. It doesn't just keep expanding in diameter so I'll just...I'll make that known to her and I see it all the time when people plant pine trees about 4 feet apart and then discover what happens about 15 years later. So I'll...I will let her know that. Then if she has any argument with it, we'll have her contact you guys. Chairperson Sigel — I'm not sure I feel comfortable making that an explicit condition of the approval. Mr. Niefer— Can we do it? I mean, do we control hedges along the street? Chairperson Sigel — No. Mr. Carson — I'm sure she would be willing to get along... Mr. Niefer -...we even have the authority to address that particular issue. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, I think that the Planning Board, isn't that what site plan approval... Chairperson Sigel —Well, it would have to be related to mitigating the affect of this proposal, which I'm not sure that it would be, but hopefully Ms. Kellock will be receptive to the suggestion. Mr. Carson — Yeah, I think she would be. Mr. Washburn - ...to raise the awareness on that...(comments not audible, speaking from audience). Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak regarding this appeal? Okay. If not, we'll close the public hearing. Any further comments? I don't believe...we are not required to do an environmental review for this. I will move to grant the appeal of Judith Kellock requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71 a and Article XXV, Section 270-205a of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install an approximate 5.5 foot by 16 foot sunroom addition on to the front of a single family home located at 110 Judd Falls Road, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 66.-5-9.1 , Medium Density Residential zone. The property contains an existing non-conforming home with on an existing non-conforming lot and installing the sunroom to create additional living space will expand the existing non-conformity and encroach into the 25 foot minimum front yard setback with the following conditions: 1) that the setback from the road be no less than 15 feet and 2) that the construction be done substantially as indicated on the applicant's photo labeled "original design" and also as indicated on the survey and submitted by the applicant, which shows the placement of the sunroom on the front of the house. And with the following findings: that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically that the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means given that the applicant is trying to expand a particular room in their house and that room is in the front of the house, but there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties as evidence by support from many neighbors in the area and no neighbors being objecting to the proposal; that while the requested variance is substantial and that it reduces significantly the front yard setback, there are actually other properties in the area with even smaller setbacks and so while substantial it is not out of character, the requested variance will not have any adverse physical or environmental affects and while the alleged difficulty is self-created, none-the-less the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the community. Mr. Niefer— Second. Chairperson Sigel — Second? Thank you. All in favor? Board —Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007— 038:AREA VARIANCE, JUDITH KELLOCK, 110 JUDD FALLS ROAD, TAX MAP NO. 66.-5-9.1 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Judith Kellock, requesting variances from the requirements of 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 an approximate 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. With the following CONDITIONS: 1. That the setback from the road be no less than 15 feet, and 2. That the construction be done substantially as indicated on the Applicant's photo labeled "Original Design'; and also as indicated on the survey submitted by the Applicant which shows the placement of the sunroom on the front of the house. With the following FINDINGS: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Specifically, 1. That the benefit that the Applicant wishes to achieve can not be achieved by any other means given that the Applicant is trying to expand a particular room in their house and that room is in the front of the house, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties as evidenced by support from many neighbors in the area and no neighbors objecting to the proposal, and 3. That while the requested variance is substantial in that it reduces significantly the front yard setback, there are, actually, other properties in the area with even smaller setbacks and so, while substantial, it is not out of character, and 4. The requested variance will not have any adverse physical of environmental effects, and 5. While the alleged difficulty is self-created, nonetheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the community. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Niefer NAYS: None Chairperson Sigel — Okay. The next appeal this evening is: That of David Auble, Owner/Appellant, Martin Nichols, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVI, Section 270- 219.2(A) and Article XXV, Section 270-205(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to renovate the interior of an existing garage to create a home occupation within a residence located at 111 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37-1-16, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The garage is an existing non-conforming structure and altering it will increase its non-conformity. Additionally, the area for the proposed home occupation will exceed the maximum allowable area required by Town Code. Chairperson Sigel — Hi. Please begin with your name and address. Marty Nichols, 610 Coddington Rd and Dave Auble, 111 King Rd W Chairperson Sigel —And is there anything you would like to state at the beginning here? Anything you would like to add? Mr. Nichols — Yeah. I think Dave was going to add something. Mr. Auble — I just want to say that...to point out that I own the adjacent land to the property and, um, that's the reason that I actually purchased this property. It was in pretty bad condition and over the time that I've owned it I've done considerable work in the...on the house and on the yard and so on. There was a tremendous amount of debris and a burn barrel in the back yard and a lot of plastic bags of animal feces that had been thrown in there and just a real sad situation that I cleaned up, my own labor primarily. And in addition to substantially...the house was in bad repair and I've done a lot to upgrade that so this is a continuation of that I think this will be a major improvement actually on the site. It's at the entrance to my subdivision, so it's in my interest to upgrade that property and also I live there. Those are the reasons for my being here. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I noticed that the two garage bays that face the street that have...that are boarded up basically, are you intending to seal that off? Mr. Auble —When I moved there the garage...the garage doors were in bad shape and pretty much inoperable and leaking air. So I removed the garage doors and sealed it off until...that's...it will be framed in for windows. That is the other thing. I'm replacing all the windows with double pane windows and insulating it and so on. Chairperson Sigel —Any...anyone have any questions of Mr. Auble? Mr. Niefer— Is this home office going to be a long term proposition or is this just during the construction, maintenance, and operation of the motel adjacent there, too? Mr. Auble — No. This is actually being used for the construction of the Townhouses that I have approval for immediately behind the garage and then on an ongoing basis for maintenance and that type of thing, so...I need an office basically. My wife has kicked me out of the house so... Mr. Niefer— So at the moment there are no plans that 3 or 4 years from now to convert it to a living space rather than an office occupancy? Mr. Auble — No, sir. I'm assuming that if I wanted to make any changes I would come back...I would go to the Planning Department and come back before the board. Mr. Ellsworth — He's asking that because you've got a sink and toilet facilities and so on there, so...it could easily be converted. There's practically enough to make it into a home for somebody or an apartment. Mr. Auble —Well, my intent is to use, continue to use it for, as I said, maintenance and for the property that I have. So I think it is going to be...I mean I have 25 units there that... Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah. I know you have 2 projects there right adjacent to this. Mr. Auble — So I'm assuming that it's going to be a need for ongoing maintenance and... Mr. Ellsworth — Has that garage been lengthened already or is that what you want to do? Mr. Auble — I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. Mr. Ellsworth — I see two different plans here with different lengths on that garage. One is 20 feet long and the other 26 feet long. Is that...? Mr. Nichols — (not audible) Mr. Ellsworth —Well, I'm confused then. I've got a sketch addendum that shows... Mr. Auble — I think there was a difference between when I ran a tape on it and what was on one of the... Chairperson Sigel —Are you looking at this area? I think that might be a "6" there. Mr. Ellsworth — Oh. It's hard to read these dimensions. They are right on the... Mr. Auble — They are blurred into the line. I had problems myself. Chairperson Sigel — That is probably supposed to be a 6 on the line. Mr. Auble — I didn't change it. It's the same dimensions as when I bought the property. Chairperson Sigel — This seems reasonable to me. I mean it is obviously a rather unique circumstance here. It's actually in a commercial zone. It's in a neighborhood commercial zone and this isn't...its not a huge amount above what would be allowed for a home occupation, which would be 500 square feet. Mr. Matthews — It's already there. I mean it's been there. Chairperson Sigel — The garage. Yeah. Mr. Matthews — For a long time. As long as I've lived up in that area. So I don't know where the problem would be if he turns that into an office area. If I lived there...turned the garage into a woodshop/workshop... Chairperson Sigel — The impact is really in the use. Mr. Matthews — Yes. I understand that. Chairperson Sigel —And so Mr. Auble states that he will have, he estimates 5 to 7 vehicle trips per day. So that's the external impact. Mr. Matthews — There's a lot of traffic up there anyway. It's a bypass road to Ithaca for a lot of people. If it's my garage and I wanted to work on my cars I guess you could say I am using it for an automobile repair shop. I don't know what you could say. Chairperson Sigel —Well, if it's just you it's allowed. Because it's not a home occupation if it's just you. Mr. Ellsworth — You own both sides of it, right? You said? What's across the street? Directly across the street? Mr. Auble — Mr. Torcia, and none of my neighbors have indicated any objection. As a matter of fact, one of them asked...they've given me all kinds of letters of support for my project. So... Mr. Matthews — So all you are having is traffic is business associates? You are not storing equipment there? Lawnmowers or things like that? You're not. Mr. Auble — Right. Mr. Matthews — So all anybody would see is your car, a business associate's car, maybe a truck coming in talking about doing some work something like that. That's it. Mr. Auble — Exactly. Chairperson Sigel — No delivery of material to this particular lot? Mr. Auble — It would be out on the site. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Auble — But for meetings with contractors and inspectors and those types of things, I'm sure if its bad weather I'm sure we will be meeting there occasionally. Chairperson Sigel —Any comments? Ms. Brock — I just want to confirm because I didn't see it actually in the packet, do you live at 111 West King Road? Mr. Auble — Yes. Ms. Brock —And you are not going to make any changes to the exterior of the garage? You are not going to be extending the garage towards the lot line? Mr. Auble — No. Ms. Brock— But in terms of the footprint of the garage you are not making any changes to that? Mr. Auble — Correct. Ms. Brock— Then I don't really see this as expanding the non-conforming situation. Chairperson Sigel — Just in this use, right? Ms. Brock—Well, the use is a permitted use in the zone. There are certain criteria that need to be met and he's applying for the area variance from the 500 square foot maximum requirement because he is proposing 692 square feet. So in my view what you are looking at is an area variance to vary the 500 square foot maximum requirement for a home occupation. Chairperson Sigel — So does that mean we...one of these sections does not...apply? Ms. Brock— The, uh...yeah...Section 270-205A discusses nonconforming structures and says no such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. And since the nonconformity deals with the rear yard setback, but there are no changes being made to the footprint, then there is no increase in the nonconformity vis-a-vis the rear yard setback. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Brock— So in my view we're looking really just at an area variance regarding the criteria for a home occupation in terms of the amount of square footage that the home occupation is allowed to be. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So then we would...now is that in the definitions now or is that? Ms. Brock— No. It's in special requirements, which is Article XXVI of the Zoning Ordinance and you've got the cite for that in your public notice, Section 270-219.2A. That was amended by the Town Board at the end of last year, beginning of this year. Do you have that section in your version of the ordinance? If not, I can give you mine. Chairperson Sigel — Probably in my...in here I do. Ms. Brock—What the Town Board did was it pulled these criteria for home occupations out of the definitions and put them in the special requirements section so that it became very clear that if anybody wanted to vary from these criteria requirements it would be an area variance. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So then...okay, so we would then grant a variance from 270-219.2? Ms. Brock— Yes. And that section is referenced in the public notice. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And then since he otherwise meets the requirements, that is the only...he just needs a variance from the square footage. Ms. Brock— That's what Christine's memo indicates that he meets all the other requirements. We can ask him how many people will be involved in on-site operations and things of that sort, but her memo indicated that she believed he would meet all the other requirements except for the area requirement, or the floor space. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. You are not planning on having more than 4 persons, including yourself, be involved in that building. Mr. Auble — That's correct. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. You do reside there. No goods will be offered for sale from there. Are you planning any kind of a sign on the property? Mr. Auble —A sign? Chairperson Sigel —A sign to advertise? Mr. Auble —Actually, I hadn't really considered that. Chairperson Sigel — You are allowed to have a sign as permitted by the sign law. Mr. Auble — I thought if I did, I'd just go...just apply for the sign...as a separate issue. Chairperson Sigel —Actually, since it's a neighborhood commercial zone you would be permitted a fairly large sign. Mr. Matthews — Because it's a neighborhood commercial zone? Chairperson Sigel — He's in a neighborhood commercial zone. Mr. Matthews — Could you explain that term to me, a neighborhood commercial zone? Chairperson Sigel —Well, its one of our zones. He's not in a residential zone, even though it's a residence. So he's in the same zone as the hotel next door. So that means he could... Mr. Matthews — (not audible)... Chairperson Sigel — He could, if he took down the house and the garage and all and put up a commercial structure as long as it met all the requirements for a neighborhood commercial zone that would be legal. Mr. Matthews — Okay. Chairperson Sigel — Its because this is an odd situation that it is a house and so then he needs to meet the requirements of a residence for this, you know, a residential occupation. Mr. Matthews — Oh, I see. Chairperson Sigel —Ah...okay. I agree that it looks like he will meet all the other requirements. Okay. We will open the public hearing for this case. If anyone wishes to speak regarding Mr. Auble's appeal? Male — I'm a neighbor and I approve. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Would you like your comments officially entered? Male — Yes. Mr. Ellsworth — You need to come up and give your name and address. Chairperson Sigel — If you don't mind. Mr. Auble — Could this hurt my case? [laughing] Chairperson Sigel —We'll see what he says. John Yengo, 1147 Danby Rd My name is John Yengo and I represent Lillian, my wife, who owns the property on 1147 Danby Road, which is probably an 1/8 of a mile from that spot and I don't believe David putting an office in his garage is going to change the character of the neighborhood, particularly since you agree that the entire parcel is a commercial zone. I would think that he could divide his entire house up into offices and be doing as of...behaving as of right. So I just want to state the fact that we as his neighbor agree that he can have an office in his house. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? All right. If not, we'll close the public hearing. This does require an environmental review. Jonathan, any comments regarding that? Mr. Kanter— No. I think all the comments that have been made about the neighborhood character and the use of the site are basically what we came up in the environmental review. So I think there don't seem to be any significant impacts in that respect. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Kanter— The one thing...I think you did go through the list of requirements for a home occupations and we did mention the outdoor storage of goods and materials and that's...just to reinforce that with this type of use. I don't think you need to address that as a specific condition, but it is listed as a requirement in the home occupations. So if there is any problem of compliance with that I'm sure neighbors will tell the Town. Chairperson Sigel — Right. That would be a matter of enforcement at that point. Okay. Any further comments? Questions? Mr. Ellsworth — I think part of the...we are accepting this...because it has been advertised this section 270-205 as part of this do we need to say it's determined that it isn't? Chairperson Sigel — I just won't say that as part of my motion. I think granting less than what was advertised is... Ms. Brock— Right. I think that happens, actually, fairly often that some times if staff isn't sure whether a certain types...certain sections apply or not they'll go ahead and advertise the need for the variance for everything because if they don't include the need for a certain type of variance and then it is determined here that you need it, you can't grant it that night because it hasn't been public noticed. So they err on the side of being very conservative, but it often happens that there will be several sections listed and there is a determination made at the meeting that a variance isn't needed for all of them. I think the minutes will speak for themselves as to why you ended up not acting on the Section 205 variance. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. In regard to the appeal of David Auble, I move to make a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the part II environmental assessment form prepared by Town staff. Second? Mr. Ellsworth — I'll second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 039: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, David Auble, Owner/Appellant, 111 West King Road, Tax Parcel No. 37.4-16 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of David Auble, for the reasons stated in the Part 11 Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel —And I will move to grant the appeal of David Auble, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVI, Section 270-219.2A of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to renovate the interior of an existing garage to create a home occupation within a residence located at 111 West King Road, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 37.-1-16, neighborhood commercial zone. Don't need that next sentence. The area for the proposed home occupation will exceed the maximum allowable area required by Town Code. This motion is subject to the following condition that the total area for the home occupation not exceed 700 square 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 the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met with any other feasible way given that the applicant has an existing garage and needs the space for this particular home occupation, that an undesirable change in the neighborhood will not take place given that it is actually a neighborhood commercial zone and this is more of a commercial use, that the request is not substantial, there will not be any adverse physical or environmental affects, and that the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the garage and house were existing on the property. Second? Mr. Matthews — I'll second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007— 040: AREA VARIANCE, David Auble, 111 West Kin_g Road, Tax Parcel No. 37.4-16 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of David Auble, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVI, Section 270-219.2(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to renovate the interior of an existing garage to create a home occupation within a residence located at 111 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37-1-16, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The area for the proposed Home Occupation will exceed the maximum allowable area required by Town Code. This motion is subject to the following CONDITIONS: 1. That the total area for the Home Occupation not exceed 700 square feet. With the following FINDINGS: That the benefit to the Applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit the Applicant wishes to achieve can not be met with any other feasible way given that the Applicant has the existing garage and needs the space for this particular Home Occupation, and 2. That an undesirable change in the neighborhood will not take place given that it is actually a neighborhood commercial zone and this is more of a commercial use, and 3. That the request is not substantial, and 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the garage and house are existing on the property. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Mr. Auble — Thank you. Chairperson Sigel — Okay that next appeal this evening is that of Lewis M. Clark and Alice Wu, Owners/Appellants, requesting an area variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(B) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to renovate the interior of a home located at 111 Christopher Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-21, Medium Density Residential Zone. The home contains an existing addition that encroaches into the required 30-foot rear yard setback. The addition was added in 1985 and did not receive a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson Sigel —And please begin with your name and address. Lewis Clark, 111 Christopher Circle My name is Lewis Clark. Address is 111 Christopher Circle, Ithaca, New York. Alice Wu, 111 Christopher Circle My name is Alice Wu, same address. Chairperson Sigel — So you are looking to convert the garage or carport portion of the house to interior living space? Not change the footprint at all? Ms. Wu — That's right. We want to make the garage, or it's a carport, into a family room. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And there was an addition put on before you purchased the house, I assume. Ms. Wu — Yes. Actually the addition that caused the sort of 4 feet too little in the back was put on in 1968. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Matthews — So you purchased that home with an existence violation of the zoning rules. Is that correct? Ms. Wu — I guess so, although we weren't aware of that. Mr. Matthews — You didn't know it? Ms. Wu — Didn't. Mr. Matthews — No one brought it to your attention? Ms. Wu — [indicated no] Chairperson Sigel — I think it was just discovered when they applied for the building permit. Right? Ms. Wu — That's right. Chairperson Sigel — To do your current... Ms. Wu — That's right. Mr. Matthews — Currently, but when they purchased it nobody picked it up. Chairperson Sigel — No. Mr. Matthews — My question is right off the nit-nose, there was a building permit issued for that violation and then it says here no subsequent inspections, by who I don't know, was it the Town? Ms. Brock— By the Town. Mr. Matthews — So who's in violation? Can I ask that question? [laughing] Chairperson Sigel —Well, I mean, clearly the property is in violation, so therefore whoever... Mr. Matthews —And maybe this is a moot point, but someone in the past received a building permit to go ahead and do that addition and then someone errored and didn't come and see that it was within the existing zoning laws. So I don't think these people should be held responsible for that error at all and then we should discuss from there what they want to do. Chairperson Sigel — I think technically it's the case that even if the Town Code Enforcement Office does not catch a mistake or catch a zoning violation in submitted plans, it still does not relieve you of the obligation to meet the zoning law. Mr. Matthews — It certainly should be taken into consideration. Chairperson Sigel — So a mistake by a Code Enforcement Officer does not give you the right or relieve you of the need to get the variance. Ms. Brock— Right. They need the variance. Mr. Matthews — I understand that, but I think it should... Chairperson Sigel — Obviously it's a mitigating circumstance, or it can be. Mr. Matthews — It should ease our considerations in a more positive view. I'm sure all you folks are probably agree with that. Chairperson Sigel — So the house as...when modified will otherwise meet all of the required setbacks? Ms. Wu — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — That is true. Okay. Any other... Mr. Krantz— It says 4 feet shy and it's been that way indefinitely. Nobody even knows how long. Chairperson Sigel — Since about the late 60s. Ms. Brock— 39 years. Chairperson Sigel —Any other...? Okay, we'll open the public hearing. If anyone wishes to speak, if not we'll close the public hearing. And we do not need to do an environmental review for this. Mr. Ellsworth — The short assessment form. Chairperson Sigel — That's true, we do have that but I don't think we have to do the environmental... Ms. Brock— No. Its type 11, an area variance for a single-family home. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I will move to grant the appeal of Lewis Clark and Alice Wu, requesting an area variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71 B of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to renovate the interior of a home located at 111 Christopher Circle, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 71.-1-21, medium density residential zone. The home contains an existing addition that encroaches into the required 30 foot rear yard setback. The addition was added in approximately 1968 and did not receive a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals at that time. With the following condition that the rear yard setback be no less than 25 feet and with the second condition that no other portion of the house be built to further encroach into the 30 foot required rear yard setback. And with the following findings: that the benefit to the applicant, in this case does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically that the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met any other way, which is the right to not have to remove 4 feet of their house, that there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character given that this addition has been present for almost 40 years, that their request is not substantial being only approximately 4 feet out of 30, that there will be no adverse physical or environmental affects, and that the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the applicants purchased the house without knowing about the deficiency. Okay. Second? Mr. Krantz— Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. You're all set. Ms. Wu — Great. Thank you very much. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007— 041: AREA VARIANCE, Lewis Clark & Alice Wu, 111 Christopher Circle, Tax Parcel No. 71.4-21 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of Lewis Clark and Alice Wu, requesting an area variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(B) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to renovate the interior of a home located at 111 Christopher Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-21, Medium Density Residential Zone. The home contains an existing addition that encroaches into the required 30-foot rear yard setback. The addition was added in approximately 1968 and did not receive a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals at that time. With the following CONDITIONS 1. That the rear yard setback be no less than 25 feet, and 2. That no other portion of the house be built to further encroach into the 30 foot required rear yard setback. With the following FINDINGS That the benefit to the Applicant, in this case, does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Specifically, 1. That the benefit the Applicant wishes to achieve can not be met any other way, which is the right to not have to remove 4 feet of their house, and 2. That there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character given that this addition has been present for almost 40 years, and 3. That the request is not substantial, being only approximately 4 feet out of 30, and 4. That there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self created given that the Applicants purchased the house without knowing about the deficiency. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Okay that next appeal is that of Edward Kratil, Owner/Appellant, requesting an area variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a workshop addition to an existing garage/barn located at 1151 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-18, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed addition will encroach into the required side yard setback for structures and garages in a Low Density Residential Zone. The appellant may also require a variance from Section 270-60(E), as accessory buildings may not occupy any open space other than a rear yard Chairperson Sigel — Please start with your name and address. Ed Kratil, 1151 Danby Road Chairperson Sigel — Is there anything you would like to add at the start? Mr. Kratil — I was here in front of you 3 years ago where you approved a 5 foot side yard setback for this building as well as a height variance. I have... Chairperson Sigel — I'm sorry. Could you pull the microphone a little closer? Thanks. Mr. Kratil — My hobbies seem to have outgrown my space. Within the past 3 years I have picked up 2 older cars, collector cars and I have not a lot of space to swing a board around really. My wife parks in this garage as well as myself and then I have these two other vehicles, which doesn't...it takes up a lot of space. So the additional 24 feet in the back would allow me to do household projects and other things related to the automobiles that wouldn't necessarily throw sawdust or...there's a certain separation there. Chairperson Sigel — How large is your lot? Mr. Kratil — Two and a half acres, 2.4 1 believe. Chairperson Sigel —What is the allowable square footage for accessory buildings for that size lot? I forgot what the... Ms. Brock—Accessory buildings that are not a garage, Kirk? Is that what you are looking for? I'll read you what it says for permitted accessory buildings, "up to three accessory buildings other than a garage, all such accessory buildings in the aggregate, not to exceed a total of 600 square feet in size unless the lot is 3 acres or larger, which in case the aggregate area of the accessory building may not exceed 2,000 square feet." Chairperson Sigel — But there is no restriction on something that is a garage. Is that true? Ms. Brock— Give me a minute to make sure...I believe that is true. Chairperson Sigel —When you are finished with this, it is going to be all one building? Mr. Kratil — Yes, sir. Chairperson Sigel — You are going to be removing at least part of that back wall of the existing structure. Mr. Kratil — The wall will stay but the siding will come off and there will be an opening cut in so you can go from one spot to the other. Chairperson Sigel — So a doorway? Mr. Kratil — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Brock— Kirk, there is some maximum lot coverage requirements for accessory buildings. Accessory buildings in the aggregate may not occupy more than 15% of any required rear yard. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Brock— That's it. I don't think there is any square footage limitation on ...(not audible)... Mr. Kratil — I believe as part of the application as well it asks how much built area is on the property itself and I believe I came up with 3 percent and that was including my house. I'm well under 15 percent. Chairperson Sigel —And this is clearly a garage, so...anyone have any questions or comments? I mean personally I was actually at first reluctant to grant the original variance, but then after considering the particular law and its pretty far back and its well screened and actually its sited nicely on the property even though its somewhat close to the property line. Then obviously this addition is even further back. Mr. Krantz— You can't see it from the road. Chairperson Sigel —Well screened. It's even well-screened from the neighbor. Mr. Matthews — I'm just a little confused about the print here, the blue print. And it shows on the left hand side of this print, this one here, that there was a 5 yard setback variance granted and I think the arrow points to the dashed am as the variance line, right? Chairperson Sigel —Well, the dashed line is 5 feet in from the property line. Mr. Matthews — Okay. So he has not gone into that 5 feet? He's still short? Chairperson Sigel — No, but I'm pretty sure that it was the case that when we granted that variance for 5 feet it was only to build what was proposed at the time. Ms. Brock— Kirk, that's correct. The condition was that the structure be built substantially as shown on the applicant's plans and sited as indicated on the applicant's plans. Mr. Matthews — So what was built at the time? Chairperson Sigel —Well, the existing barn. Mr. Matthews — Oh, I see. Mr. Kratil — 26 x 40. Mr. Matthews — Okay. Chairperson Sigel — So that existing barn was granted a variance to be as close as 5 feet, which the applicant actually didn't get that close to...but the variance didn't allow unlimited building within 5 feet, just for that proposal so that is why he needs a separate variance for this new proposal. Mr. Matthews — Yeah. It's out in the country and it's out of view. Mr. Ellsworth —And it's only the corner that comes within 5 feet. Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions, comments? Okay. We will open the public hearing. Anyone wish to speak? Are you... Male voice — I am the neighbor. Chairperson Sigel —We would actually like you to come speak now, not that you weren't welcome before. Mr. Yengo — I represent Lillian Yengo, who is the owner of record of the property in question. We are his neighbors to the north and you couldn't ask for a better member of the Town of Ithaca, Ed and Debby Kratil. I couldn't ask for better neighbors. They took a 100 year old house and continued to remodel it after I did and they added to it and with the barn. And I happen to have a barn next to his barn that extends further back than the barn he has already. So again, your remarks are that he is screened from any point of view. A barn is looking at a barn. But you just couldn't ask for a better member of the community and the work that they do and how they handle their grounds, and their fauna and their everything else, its just a...to cooperate with his desires is...besides being code compliant is what we should be doing and I'm pleased to have him as a neighbor. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you very much. Okay if there is no one else who wishes to speak we'll close the public hearing. Anyone else have any questions, comments? I will move to grant the appeal of Edward Kratil, requesting an area variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60C of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a workshop addition to an existing garage and barn located at 1151 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 36.-2-18, low density residential zone. The proposed addition will encroach into the required side yard setback...(coughing by another)...structures and garages in a low density residential zone. Susan, what is your opinion on the Section 270-60E? Ms. Brock— You do not need this variance because this garage is in the rear yard and garages are permitted in the rear yard. Mr. Kanter—And that's thanks in large part to our...the new law that more clearly defines side and rear yards. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. This motion has the following conditions: 1) that the new structure being built be no closer to the side lot line than 5 feet and 2) that the structure be built as indicated on the applicant's plans, 3) that no further structure be allowed to encroach within the required side yard setback. And with the following findings: that the requirements...that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically that while the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve which is expanded garage space could be achieved on another portion of his property, but it would not work nearly as well for him and would involve creating more structure visible from the road and from other neighbors. 2) that there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the proposed structure is well-screened. At the request...is in this case substantial, but none-the-less, mitigated by the other factors, that there will be no adverse physical or environmental affect and that while the alleged difficulty is self- created, again it is mitigated by the other factors in this case. Second? Mr. Krantz— Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you very much. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007— 042: AREA VARIANCE, Ed Kratil, 1151 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 36.-2-18 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED Edward Kratil, requesting an area variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a workshop addition to an existing garage/barn located at 1151 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-18, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed addition will encroach into the required side yard setback for structures and garages in a Low Density Residential Zone. This motion has the following CONDITIONS 1. That the new structure being built be no closer to the side lot line than 5 feet, and 2. That the structure be built as indicated on the Applicant's plans, and 3. That no further structure be allowed to encroach within the required side yard setback. With the following FINDINGS That the benefit to the Applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Specifically, 1. That while the benefit that the Applicant wishes to achieve, which is expanded garage space, could be achieved on another portion of the property, but it would not work nearly as well for him and would create a structure more visible from the road and to the neighbors, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, given that the structure is well screened, and 3. That the request is, in this case, substantial, but nonetheless mitigated by the other factors, and 4. That there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self created, again, it is mitigated by the other factors in this case. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Okay the next appeal this is that of Ithaca College, Owner/Appellant, Jeffrey R. Paddock, Agent, requesting height variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Code to erect two poles and loud speakers for a mass notification alert system located on the roof of Phillips Hall and in a wooded area between Wood Field and College Circle Road on the Ithaca College Campus, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed poles will exceed the maximum height allowed for structures in the Medium Density Residential Zone Rick Couture, 104 Westhaven Rd, Ithaca Rick Couture, 104 Westhaven Rd, Ithaca William Ferguson, Member of the Public Safety Department at Ithaca College William Ferguson, Member of the Public Safety Department at Ithaca College Chairperson Sigel —And you would like to state anything at the... Mr. Couture — Just in addition to the information packet you received on this emergency notification system, there were a couple of questions I think that the members of the Board asked for clarification on. One being the height of Philips Hall and that is...the highest point of the building is 55 feet tall and the second was, I think, there was some question as to the use of this emergency notification system and I think I read some reference that some folks or someone may have thought we were going to use this on an ongoing basis just to send out announcements on campus and that is not the case. This is only going to be used for emergency situations and will not be used as a public address system to announce like football games or anything like that. Mr. Ellsworth — This is an outcropping of Virginia Tech? Mr. Couture — Yes, sir. Absolutely. We've tried to institute a number of safety measures on campus and this is one of them. Chairperson Sigel —With these two poles, do you get coverage of most of campus? Mr. Couture — Yeah. We believe that...most of you are familiar with the campus center of Philips Hall is, it's on the...towards the eastern end of campus. The soccer field is over toward the western end of campus close to the college circle apartments. So we think both locations will give us enough coverage for the entire campus. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So the pole going on Philips Hall is going approximately 10 feet above the 55 foot current maximum...? Mr. Couture — That's correct. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And then the other pole, 50 feet tall covers the entire height including whatever is on top? Mr. Couture — That's correct. Mr. Niefer—Will that be some kind of steel pole or a wood pole? Mr. Ferguson — It will be a telephone pole actually. A wooden telephone pole. Mr. Krantz— In our new world, that is a requirement. Mr. Ferguson — It's a requirement to have a redundant emergency notification systems. We have one system in place now that makes notifications through email, through voicemail, on the telephone, through text messaging to cell phones and this is the redundant system because you'll have many visitors to campus that aren't part of the other system. They're not registered for that system and wouldn't receive a text message or a voice mail message on their cell phone. So this is the way to communicate with those people on campus. In addition we have many summer camps, many children on campus in the summer that don't carry cell phones and are not part of the other emergency notification system. So this is the redundant system to make sure that we have coverage to capture all of the people that are on campus at any given time. Chairperson Sigel — Seems reasonable. Seems to have minimal impact. Mr. Matthews — It's a brave new world. Chairperson Sigel — Jonathan, any comment on the environmental review? Mr. Kanter— I would just suggest since we've gotten a statement from Ithaca College to the affect that we amend on the Part 11, C5, where there was a reference to there is a slight concern regarding the potential use of the system for recreational or other events notification. I'd keep that sentence. I'd strike the next sentence, which says such use should be carefully considered for potential noise impacts. And in place of that sentence I would recommend adding a sentence to the affect that Ithaca College has indicated, however, that the system will be used for, only for emergency purposes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Agreed? Mr. Krantz— Yeah. Mr. Kanter—And with that, there were no other environmental issues that were identified. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. All right if there are no other...you have a question? Mr. Matthews —As far fetched as it sounds, when you make one of these emergency notifications, will that be heard on the traffic going up and down Route 96? Mr. Couture — It could be, yeah. Mr. Matthews — It would be. Is that a potential safety factor? Driving down the road fat and sassy and all of a sudden you hear this blaring whatever... Mr. Couture — I wouldn't think it would be much different than a siren at the fire house going off. The potential of any traffic driving by a fire house for example. Mr. Matthews — Except this is a voice. Mr. Couture —Well it will be an alert tone so that people pay attention then it is either followed by real live voice message or a pre-recorded voice message depending upon the type of emergency. Mr. Matthews —Anybody see a problem with that? [Board indicates no]. Chairperson Sigel — Communities do have similar types of things and have for many years. So I don't see it as being any more of a risk than what a lot of communities have. Ms. Brock— I grew up in a tornado-prone area and there were tornado sirens. Sirens that would go off to warn you if a tornado was nearby. It might actually be a benefit to the community if they hear a siren and there is a report saying take cover because of dangerous weather or something. That might actually be a benefit to the motorists, too. Chairperson Sigel — How is access to this controlled? Is this sort of an old-fashioned PA type system where there is only one physical location you can do an announcement from or is this more sort of network accessible and possibly network hackable? Mr. Couture — No. It's done through radio frequency. The main control will be in the Office of Public Safety and then we do also have a portable unit that we can take to a command post, for example, if we have to set up during an emergency and operate it from a site other than the Public Safety Department. Chairperson Sigel — I can just see this as a very desirable target for students wanting to take advantage of. Mr. Couture — Yeah. It's not networked. It's not run by a computer. It's done through radio frequency. Chairperson Sigel — So it would take a little more effort. Mr. Couture — Right. Mr. Ferguson — Just as our radio...the emergency radio system we use in Public Safety. Chairperson Sigel — I didn't open the public hearing, did we? Ms. Brock— No. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. We'll open the public hearing in regard to the appeal of Ithaca College. No one wishing to speak, we'll close the public hearing. I will, in regard to the appeal of Ithaca College, I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part I I environmental assessment form as modified this evening by Jonathan Kanter. Second? Mr. Matthews — I'll second it. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. All in favor? Board —Aye. ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2007— 043: SEQR, Emergency Notification Tower, Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 41.4-30.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part 11 Environmental Assessment Form as modified this evening by Jonathan Kanter. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel —And I will move to grant the appeal of Ithaca College requesting height variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Code to erect two poles and loud speakers for a mass notification alert system located on the roof of Philips Hall and the second located in a wooded area between Wood Field and College Circle Road on the Ithaca College Campus at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 41.-1-30.2, medium density residential zone. The proposed poles will exceed the maximum height allowed for structures in the medium density residential zone. With the following conditions: that the height of the pole and speaker structure being mounted on Philips Hall be no higher off the ground than 66 feet and that the pole, freestanding pole mounted between Wood Field and College Circle Road be no taller than 51 feet. And with the finding that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically that the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means given that mass notification does require a loud speaker mounted at a height sufficient to carry the sound, that there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, that the request while substantial is necessary to meet the applicant's goals, that there will be no adverse affect...no physical or environmental...sorry, that the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects and finally that the alleged difficulty is not self-created. Second? Mr. Niefer— Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Couture — Thank you. Mr. Krantz— I would like to make one last comment. Somewhere and somehow there is going to be a student who is going to take it as a challenge to break into your system. Mr. Ferguson —We'll do our best to make sure they don't though. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2007— 044: HEIGHT VARIANCE, Emergency Notification Tower, Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 41.4-30.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Ithaca College, requesting height variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Code to erect two poles and loud speakers for a mass notification alert system located on the roof of Phillips Hall and the second located in a wooded area between Wood Field and College Circle Road on the Ithaca College Campus, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed poles will exceed the maximum height allowed for structures in the Medium Density Residential Zone. With the following CONDITIONS 1. That the height of the pole and speaker structure being mounted on Phillips Hall be no higher off the ground than 66 feet, and 2. That the freestanding pole mounted between Wood Field and College Circle Road be no taller than 51 feet. With the following FINDINGS That the benefit to the Applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Specifically 1. That the benefit can not be achieved by any other means, given that mass notification does require a loud speaker mounted at a height sufficient to carry the sound, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, and 3. That the request, while substantial, is necessary to meet the Applicants goals, and 4. That there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self created. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Okay the final appeal we have this evening is that of Richard and Sally Mennen, Owners/Appellants, requesting a height variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-46 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a connection between a garage and the existing home and to convert the garage from storage into additional living space,. The property is located at 997 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-2-26, Lakefront Residential Zone. Proposed conversion of the garage into additional living space and connection of the garage to the main home creates one main building and exceeds the maximum permitted height for buildings in the Lakefront Residential Zone. Appellants received a height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the construction of the accessory garage in March 2006 Chairperson Sigel — Hello. Sally Mennen, 997 Taughannock Boulevard Hi. I'm Sally Mennen, 997 Taughannock Boulevard, Ithaca, 14850. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. And is there anything you would like to add at this point. Ms. Mennen — I have some photos I guess that might be helpful for people to look at. The issues that...my understand that are in front of you tonight were decided at that variance hearing in March 2006 so there is already a decision that, you know, the four criteria were applied to or based on. So just ask me questions or whatever your concerns are, I will be glad to answer them. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I guess, I mean my main question is whether simply putting a roof between these two structures does indeed make them one structure. And I'm...I wonder...my initial recreation was that simply putting a roof over what it otherwise an open sidewalk, I wouldn't have thought that would make it one structure. Ms. Mennen —Well, it's kind of like a breezeway, I guess you might say. You know its pretty common for a garage and a house to have a breezeway connection kind of thing. Chairperson Sigel — Right, but does that make...you know, in that case does that make the garage part of the house? Is that an attached garage? Ms. Brock— Did Kristie or Steve weigh in on this, do you know? Mr. Kanter— Yes, and you might not get the same answer from both of them, but the Senior Code Enforcement Officer's interpretation of this is that yes, a breezeway attaching a garage to a house makes it all one house and no longer an accessory structure. And the plans were submitted to them, again, there was a difference of interpretation between the two... Mr. Ellsworth — Even though the sides are open? Mr. Kanter— Yup. Ms. Brock— Its all State Building Code. It's not really governed by our Zoning Ordinance. It's governed by New York State Building Uniform Code. So we need to look to our Code Enforcement Officers to tell us how to interpret that Code. Chairperson Sigel — So without any...it would seem that without any specific indication to the contrary in our Zoning Ordinance, then we would have to assume that the intention was to follow...so if something is considered one structure for building code then it would be one structure for this, for the zoning code. From the building code to the zoning code. Ms. Brock— Yes. Mr. Kanter— I agree. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Matthews — Could you repeat that for me, please? Chairperson Sigel —Well, without the zoning code indicating specifically otherwise, it would make sense for us to use the definition that the building code uses for what is one structure or what is two structures. In this case it is the Code Enforcement Officer's opinion that this breezeway makes it one structure. The combined garage and house becomes one structure when connected by the breezeway. Mr. Matthews — How subject to challenge is that decision? Chairperson Sigel — Um... Mr. Matthews — How solid is that decision by zoning control officer in a legal challenge? Chairperson Sigel — I mean that would be appealed to some kind of state review board, right? Any code enforcement decision? It wouldn't be appealed to anything at the Town, I think. Mr. Kanter— No, I mean...you're...I guess there are a couple of questions. If you are talking about a challenge to a decision the Board would make tonight regarding a variance that would only be challengeable by a neighbor bringing an Article 78 proceeding against the Zoning Board's decision. In terms of a building code decision by our code people, an applicant, I suppose, could challenge a Code Enforcement Officer's interpretation of the building code, I believe actually that might even have to come to this Board first. I'm not quite even sure where that goes from there. I guess there is...there must be appeals that can be made to the State. Ms. Brock— I don't think it would come here because this Board does not interpret the State building code. It would only be an interpretation of our Zoning Ordinance that would come here. I don't actually know the answer to your question, Dick. Mr. Matthews —Well, we are acting on a decision because of a decision by the Zoning Control Officer and then that's why we are talking now. Ms. Brock—Well, the decision is that this is a two dwelling unit building and it doesn't meet the height requirements when you look at the height from lowest exterior grade to highest point of the building. It exceeds the maximum allowable. So that's the issue, really, before you, is whether or not to grant the height variance. Mr. Matthews — So we have to act on the Zoning Control Officer's decision. We have to act...(not audible)... Ms. Brock— Right. Yes. Mr. Krantz—Are we talking about 11 inches? Ms. Brock— No. The maximum height that is permitted is 36 inches and this is 37 inches and a little bit more. Feet...feet. I'm sorry. 36 feet is the... Chairperson Sigel —A little less than 2 feet. Ms. Brock— Right. The maximum exterior height and I believe that the applicant's material showed... Mr. Krantz— Can't be seen from the road, from the lake or from any neighbors. Ms. Brock— That you'll need... Ms. Mennen — Correct. And I have pictures if you want to see the view from the neighbors and the road and the lake. Mr. Krantz— So the neighbors, or from the lake or from the road can't see this and it would be less than 2 feet? Chairperson Sigel —And it's already built. It's just the act of connecting the house to the garage that makes it this new combined height. Mr. Niefer—What's the downside if we approve this? This side issue, anything of any consequence that makes it a downside by our approving this? Chairperson Sigel —Well, a side affect of approving this would be allowing them to have a second dwelling unit because in a Lakefront Residential Zone, a second dwelling unit must be in the main house. You are not allowed to have a second dwelling unit in an accessory building. And so right now, the garage being not attached is an accessory building. With it attached and part of the main unit, then they will be allowed to put an apartment above the garage. And so if it was...if there was some change in the code enforcement decision that indicated that it was not all one structure then what we've done would not have really hurt nor helped anything but second dwelling unit then would not be conforming. Mr. Ellsworth — Let me ask Jonathan a question. Bill Stewart... Mr. Kanter— You can ask. Mr. Ellsworth — You know who Bill Stewart is? Mr. Kanter— I'm not sure. Mr. Ellsworth — He's the State person that helps towns, a city... Mr. Kanter— I don't know him because I don't deal... Mr. Ellsworth —Well, I know him. Mr. Kanter— Okay. So my answer is no I don't know him. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, he resides in Binghamton and his sole job is to help clarify the State Building Code. Did the Senior Code Enforcement Officer, who I assume is Kristie, check with him? Do you know? Mr. Kanter— I can't answer that. Mr. Ellsworth — He's here or he used to be here at least every two weeks in the City to help them out because they have a lot of issues. Mr. Kanter— That's a good question and I can't answer that. Mr. Ellsworth — That's his job. Mr. Kanter— I will mention that and this is from the Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Kristie Rice, that her interpretation of the situation is based in part at least on past actions that the Zoning Board has taken in terms of those kinds of interpretations. Other than that I can't say any more. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. Mr. Kanter— I don't know specific cases or examples of it. Ms. Mennen —And our architect had informed us that there were other cases of connections of this type approved for 2 units, structures. Mr. Ellsworth — He didn't check...Jason did not check the State building code. You only asked him to write a letter giving dimensions. Ms. Mennen — Right. Yeah. I didn't ask him to be here tonight because I wasn't really even sure what...I thought, yeah...I wasn't sure what the criteria were that we were addressing. I thought it was going to be the 4 criteria for a use variance, but that which I guess is actually the same criteria that you apply for that other kind of variance...whatever that...what's the other kind? Chairperson Sigel —A use variance would be...actually is a must stricter test to meet. Ms. Mennen — Oh, it is. Okay so this is... Chairperson Sigel —An area variance. Ms. Mennen — This is an area variance... Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, for the height. Ms. Mennen —And it's not the same criteria as a use variance? Chairperson Sigel — That's correct. Ms. Mennen — Oh, okay. I mean I could ask Jason to speak to it I guess, but I didn't even know if that would be necessary Mr. Kanter— I think if you wanted anybody to speak to it, it would be our code enforcement people, if you needed any... Chairperson Sigel — I'm a little confused as to why Kristie would say her decision regarding code interpretation would be based in part on what the Zoning Board has done since we don't have anything to do with the building code. Mr. Ellsworth — I do because of my work. Chairperson Sigel — I don't remember any of the cases where we have had connections that then enabled a second dwelling unit. I mean we had a proposal... Mr. Kanter—Well, I don't know about a second dwelling unit, but an accessory structure connecting to a main house. Chairperson Sigel — Oh and having that impact say what the side yard setback is or something. Right. Like an attached garage would be different say from detached. That's possible. Mr. Matthews —Assuming, I'm making an assumption because I haven't spoken to anybody else here, if we approve this, assuming we approve this, what can you consider can you find any future possibility for others to encroach upon this ordinance? Are we opening up a box? Chairperson Sigel — Um...well it seems to me that sort of the more enabling aspect of this interpretation is that a breezeway connecting two structures makes it one structure and if that's what's intended by the building code then that's not anything we have control over. Mr. Matthews — That's not what? Chairperson Sigel —Anything we have control over. That's the building code definition of what is one structure or two structures. Mr. Matthews — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — So assuming that is the case, assuming that Kristie is right, then other people on the lake, particularly, might want to do something similar. In which case, if the height exceeds the allowable height, they would have to come here for a variance and we would be able to look at that as a separate case, obviously. Mr. Krantz— About three years ago Bonnie Howell came before this Board and she had some elaborate plans where you came into a garage and then there was a walkway into this rather fancy house she was building and the walkway was covered, so it would be protected in the winter. Chairperson Sigel — I remember that. Yeah, it was a bridge. Mr. Krantz— And that was not considered part of the house, you know, the house was separate from the covered walkway, which came from the garage. And it was approved and never built. Chairperson Sigel — Oh, is that true? Mr. Krantz— Yeah. She never built it. Chairperson Sigel — I don't remember that specifically if the garage was considered part of the height. Mr. Krantz— It was not. Chairperson Sigel — I think you are probably right, yeah. Mr. Krantz— It was a long walkway, too. Chairperson Sigel — I mean I guess in a case like that technically if this ramp ended and there was any path or something even maybe then it would be considered a break from the garage... Mr. Krantz— No, it was just a walkway that directly connected the garage to the house and it was covered. Ms. Mennen —Well, I would like to point a couple of things out. Our house is on an acre and a third of land. Its quite, its much less dense...very, very much less dense than a lot of the other properties along the lake there and we could have torn down the house, the main house, the old lake cottage and built a big new house without coming to you for a variance, I guess. A big new structure with a second unit, but the old house...we were informed I mean it has the kind of charm that we like and we were informed that it was built in 1850 by a mayor of Ithaca and so we wanted to preserve the history, too. And so that is why we are in this predicament of having this garage that's a little higher than it should be and wanting to have the two all one structure, but without tearing down the old cottage. So... Mr. Ellsworth — So this is a designated historic structure? The house? Ms. Mennen — It's not, no. We were just informed about...that it was built in 1850 and it, you know, it does go back there pretty far, but I haven't done the research yet to find out that exactly. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, I ask that...if it's a designated historic house then there are a lot of rules that go along with it. Ms. Mennen — Right. No. Mr. Ellsworth — You can't change the outside appearance so and so forth. Ms. Mennen — No. Its been pretty steadily lived in over 100 years, but its, you know, its never been designated a historic house, although, you know, we might even try to do it if we find out more about the history and think that its worth doing, but, you know, you have to be...real historic preservation thing there. Mr. Ellsworth — I have a question to the Town, to Jonathan I guess. If we approve this, and I can't speak for the other members, and it's eventually found out that Kristie didn't or whatever, your Senior Code Enforcement Officer, didn't interpret the code right where are we going to be? Whether its one structure. Mr. Kanter— Let me at least in part respond with another question to you. How would that determination be made? Who would make that determination? Mr. Ellsworth — Bill Stewart. That's his job. Mr. Kanter— That assumes that if this Board directs the Code Enforcement Office to seek that question, I think, that is the only way that would happen. Mr. Ellsworth — I don't think the Board needs to do that. I look at it as part of the Code Enforcement Official's duties. Mr. Kanter— That's between you and them. Chairperson Sigel — I suspect the State official, that would essentially just be an opinion. Its still up to the Town's Code Enforcement Officer to make the decision they think is right and then if someone thinks that's wrong, they can challenge it and there's an appeals system for State Building Code. Mr. Matthews —We will be operating in good faith with all the information we tried to gather at this meeting. Chairperson Sigel — I mean if somehow it was decided that that was the wrong interpretation then this variance would essentially become moot because it wouldn't be one structure to grant a variance for. Mr. Matthews — Okay. You know what I see? I finally answered my own question, I think. If the word gets out that this happened, people can build garages in the back of their houses all over Cayuga Lake. I mean it's a steep bank there anyway. And the only thing we would be stopping is breezeways, so that the house doesn't become one big house. Mr. Ellsworth — (not audible) Mr. Matthews — That's the only thing we really would stop. You can't stop the garages from being built. Chairperson Sigel — No. You're right. Not if they are conforming. Mr. Matthews — Now if somebody wants to put a breezeway up now we can deliberate on that. It's the breezeways... Chairperson Sigel —Well, it's because the connection makes it one structure that they would need to come to us most likely. Mr. Matthews — The breezeways. Mr. Ellsworth —Well and the height. Chairperson Sigel —Well, the height, yeah. Ms. Brock— That's the only reason its here is for the height. Mr. Matthews — It would be the breezeway we would be arguing about. No breezeways on Cayuga Lake. Ms. Brock—Well, you should be discussing the height variance and whether or not granting of variance... Mr. Matthews — By doing that... Ms. Brock - ...granting of the variance...no...you need to be looking at the granting of the variance, the height variance. That's the issue. Does that have an undesirable change in the neighborhood and that type of thing? Whether the height itself has the affect. Chairperson Sigel — But in this case, you are right Dick, in that the only thing being added now is a breezeway. The garage is built. Mr. Matthews —And this garage has been built already. Ms. Brock— The Town Board has stated that the Lakeshore residential areas may have one or two-family homes in that area. You should not be making a decision based on whether or not this property should have two dwelling units in the building or not because the Town Board has a matter of policy that that is permitted in this zone. You really need to focus on the height variance. Chairperson Sigel — Right, which in this case is less than two feet. Mr. Kanter— If it helps also, if I could just refer to the Zoning Board of Appeals' minutes of the March 20, 2006 meeting where the variances for the garage were granted. The minutes were discussing the garage with a space above it and they were describing the space above the garage as being primarily a storage area, but in quotes "we were also trying to look at it as a multi-purpose place and down the road may be making it a second unit and attaching it to the house." So that was indicated to the Board when they were here a year and a half ago. And then in their cover letter to the Board dated February 7, 2006 and I apologize, I don't know whether the Board got these materials or not. I think Chris said she was going to send the minutes, but I don't think they ended up getting sent. In that letter dated February 7, 2006 Richard and Sally Mennen, again, were talking about the height variance, which at that time was for strictly the garage and they were talking about the structure that is to be used strictly for recreational purposes and storage and that it was their intention within the next two years to make it contiguous with and part of the main house and then they go on to say, "we may at that time be required to return to the variance committee" or the Zoning Board of Appeals, actually, to seek a variance from the 36 foot height restriction for a single residence. So those things were discussed with the Board at that time. So it was something that the Mennens were contemplating. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you, Jon. Mr. Krantz— So we can not only not object to the garage, we can't object to the breezeway either. It's just the roof and the height of the roof. The fact that there is a roof. Chairperson Sigel —Well, if we don't grant the height variance for the overall structure, then they couldn't build the breezeway. Mr. Matthews — Yeah, it's the garage roof, but it's already there. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Okay. Any more discussion? Mr. Matthews — It's almost academic tonight. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I will move to, oh, wait a minute. I have to open the public hearing. With no one present other than the applicant, we will close the public hearing. I will move to grant the appeal of Richard and Sally Mennen, requesting a height variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XI I, Section 270-46 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a connection between a garage and the existing home and to convert the garage from storage into additional living space. The property is located at 997 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 21.-2-26, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposed conversion of a garage into addition living space and connection of the garage to main house, to the main home, creates one main building and exceeds the maximum permitted height for buildings in the Lakefront Residential Zone. Applicants received a height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for construction of the accessory garage in March 2006. With the following conditions: 1) that the height of the new single structure not exceed 38 and a half feet and 2) that the breezeway connecting the two structures be built as indicated on the applicant's submitted plans. 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 the benefit that applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met with any other means, that there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood given that the garage and the house are already built and that the breezeway connecting them will be a very minimal structure, that the request is not substantial, being approximately 2 feet above a 36 foot height allowance, that there will be no adverse physical or environmental affects, and that while the alleged difficulty is self-created, none-the-less, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. Mr. Krantz—Would it be wise to add that it is noted that there is no visibility from the road, the lake or the neighbors? Chairperson Sigel —Ah, sure, under there being no undesirable change in the neighborhood character I will add that the view from the road, from the neighbors and from the lake is minimal at most of the garage structure that is being constructed. Mr. Krantz— That just gives us an out for future... Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Second? Mr. Ellsworth — Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. ZBA RESOLUTION NO 2007 — 045: HEIGHT VARIANCE, Richard & Sally Mennen, 997 Tau_ghannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel No. 21.-2-26 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of Richard and Sally Mennen, requesting a height variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-46 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a connection between a garage and the existing home and to convert the garage from storage into additional living space. The property is located at 997 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-2-26, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposed conversion of the garage into additional living space and connection of the garage to the main home creates one main building and exceeds the maximum permitted height for buildings in the Lakefront Residential Zone. Appellants received a height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the construction of the accessory garage in March 2006. With the following CONDITIONS 1. That the height of the new single structure not exceed 38 % feet, and 2. That the breezeway connecting the two structures be built as indicated on the Applicant's submitted plans, 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 1. That the benefit the Applicant wishes to achieve can not be met with any other means, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood given that the garage and the house are already built and that the breezeway connecting them will be a very minimal structure, and the view from the road and from the neighbors and from the lake is minimal, at most, and 3. That the request is not substantial, being approximately 2 feet above the 36 foot height allowance, and 4. That there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self created, nonetheless, the benefit to the Applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Matthews, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any other official business to discuss. Okay, we will adjourn. Approved By: Kirk Sigel, Chairman