The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2007-10-22 TOWN of ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday, October 22, 2007 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kirk Sigel Vice Chairman Harry Ellsworth Board Members: Jim Niefer, Dick Matthews Alternate Board Members Eric Levine David Mountin Staff: Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Excused: Board Member Ron Krantz Others: Shan Varma, 10 Apple Blossom Lane Scott Trelease, 630 Elmira Road James Henry, PO Box 95, Groton, NY Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road Chairman Sigel -- Good evening. Welcome to the October Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have 6 appeals, we will be taking them in the following order: • Scott Trelease • John Rancich • Michael Moore • Shan Varma & Kimberley Owen • Sherri and James Henry • Cornell University The first appeal this evening is that of Scott Trelease, Owner/Appellant, requesting the modification of a use variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XIX, Sections 270-144 and 270-146 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to increase the outdoor display of trailers, snow plows, truck caps and/or other items located at Truxx Outfitters, 630 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-3, Light Industrial (LI) Zone. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the business a use variance on December 20, 2004. Retail sales and outside display of goods is prohibited in the LI Zone. If you could begin with your name and address. Is there anything that you would like to state at the outset here? ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 2 Scott Trelease, 630 Elmira Road, Ithaca Just that the business has changed in the last 3 years and as the competition of Home Depot, Lowes and Tractor Supply going into the City of Ithaca and right down the street from us and my business has changed in the regard that we carry snow plows now and some little 4-wheelers and things and just to be able to have them out front so when people are driving by and see them it just lets the general public know what we carry and that's basically it. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Well, the, unfortunately you do need a use variance for this modification which is a difficult test to meet. Essentially, it requires you to show that the property can't receive a reasonable return on the investment for all permitted uses for the property which doesn't include just the way you're using it now. Mr. Trelease —Well I don't own the property, the Salino family does, and originally, back in 2004, 1 signed a 3 year lease which expires on January 31, 2008, and I probably would look elsewhere in Ithaca if I don't get a permit because I have other stores that have outdoor display space and it works very well and this store, out of all my stores, it is the newest one, but it is still the one with the least amount of revenue in gross sales. So it definitely works and it is basically free advertising in that regards, as far as being able to leave things outside and display. The products that would be displayed outside would be new products. I don't want to have a junkyard there or have used things. My Binghamton store, I actually have a junk license there, I can put anything outside that I want to, as a junk license attached to it... Harry Ellsworth —What's that property zoned? Mr. Trelease — Commercial. Harry Ellsworth — a different category. Mr. Trelease — Yeah, yes, commercial/light industrial. But we take things down, if I get anything used I just take it down and get rid of it. I sell new products, that's my main business... Chairman Sigel — To be honest, the criteria, when you were here 3 years ago may not have been applied quite as strictly as it kind of should have and that was partly in recognition that it is somewhat of a unique situation with a building that fits retail use well, in a light industrial zone, but I think, none of the commercial zones in the Town actually allow outside display. So for me at least, it would be just too great a stretch, I think, to allow it, especially down at the road... Mr. Trelease — Right, well, it's just right down the road, I mean, every place has it. I mean, granted, not in the Town of Ithaca, but I mean, if you drive a half a mile down the road, Home Depot has it, Lowe's has it, Walmart has it, you know, tractor supply has it... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 3 Chairman Sigel — No, I agree... Mr. Trealease — ...everybody has it. But again, it's a different municipality and... Chairman Sigel — Yeah, I mean, there has to be a line somewhere, so... Harry Ellsworth — There was a long, long discussion about this and evidently you haven't been adhering to what was passed, from what I read here, and we got after Ithaca Beer to clean up around their area...they weren't displaying stuff, they just had construction vehicles all over...we made them clean it up...So, I don't think this... Mr. Trelease —Well, you're answering my question because as I said, I just won't renew my lease and obviously that puts it back to the Salino family to find a new place...I don't want to move, I want to stay in the Town of Ithaca and everything else, but, it's my bu...what I was granted 3 years ago, times have changed a little bit, not only in my business but my competition in Ithaca, you know, in a metropolitan area, has changed a little bit so I would just have to look for another place that is zoned correctly and be able to... you know, if that's in the Town of Ithaca or the City of Ithaca, or wherever... Chairman Sigel — When I was down there, also, I didn't check the sign law, specifically, regarding the signage that you have up, but I suspect that some of it, some of the signage you have up is not in compliance as well, and so, it may be the case, unfortunately that the Town's commercial districts don't suit your kind of business if you really do need all that signage advertising the different products that you sell, the different kinds of snow plows and such and also, you know, the things you sell are large things, which I admit, certainly probably sell better when they are out on display where people can see them, but that doesn't fit very well wit the Town's commercial zones. Harry Ellsworth —Actually, what's going on here is a new form of signage. Mr. Trelease —yes. Definitely, there's no doubt about it. Chairman Sigel — I just want, in an administrative matter, I should have mentioned in the beginning, that according to my records, since we have one member absent, it is Mr. Mountin's turn to vote on this matter and then we will be alternating the cases tonight as to which Alternate votes. So, David, you'll be voting on this case. So, any other comments? Dick Matthews — I have a question, if you could bring me up to speed a little bit...you said, a couple of lines back, that you had to draw the line somewhere with regards to displays... Chairman Sigel — Well in this case it's as sharp a line as you can have, which is a boundary between two municipal bodies. The City of Ithaca clearly has different rules than the Town for signage and outdoor display...you know, you look at Home Depot, ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 4 and I assume what they are doing is legal...they have many trailers and PODs and sheds and lots of things on display... Dick Matthews — They're in the City... Harry Ellsworth — They also set back from the road too... Chairman Sigel — They're in the City. I mean, there's a new Tractor Supply there that I think has a lot of outdoor display of equipment... Dick Matthews —And the Town line is... Chairman Sigel — Is pretty much at the edge of Home Depot. Dick Matthews — Another question I have with regards to fairness. Down the road, not too far away is this farm-stand, there's two of them, one on opposite sides of the road, right, and they have their wares out for display, that's not a discrepancy in your reasoning? Chairman Sigel — Well farm-stand is an allowed use. As part of a farming operation, and Eddydale Farm I believe does have some variances from quite a few years ago, form I think over 10 years ago. But I think, personally, it is a significant difference between trailers and such and say produce, as a display item. Dick Matthews — Because of visual effects? Chairman Sigel — And I believe things like farm-stands, as part of a farm operation are pretty well protected by the Ag & Market Laws. I don't' know that the Town could prohibit that even if they wanted to. Dick Matthews —Well, I have a difficulty, if you recall, from the last meeting we had with this gentlemen with not encouraging businesses to reside in a community. I don't know how many employees this gentleman has, but I wouldn't like to see that lost either. And it seems like a successful business and I understand what you are saying about the visual effects but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would not like to see this business relocate out of Ithaca. I would like to discourage this gentleman from pursuing his business. Chairman Sigel — I share your feelings, in general, but in this case, I think I feel that our hands are pretty well tied given the criteria that we have to apply. This really is more of the Town Board's decision. If the Town Board thinks that this kind of use in this zone is appropriate then they should really rezone it, modify the zoning to allow this sort of thing. I think it's too far for us to justify granting. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 5 David Mountin — I disagree... I agree with your conclusion that because of it's zoning, in lieu of it's zoning for light industrial, that I don't see an appropriate use for doing this variance. James Niefer — I concur. At the time he came in for the variance previously, why, we were quite clear about what we were willing to do and I think we stretched our willingness at that time and so I really concur with your comments Kirk. Chairman Sigel — We'll open the public hearing at this time. If anyone wishes to speak regarding this appeal, please come up. (There was no one wishing to address the Board) We'll close the public hearing. Let's see, we do have an environmental assessment form, Chris, is there anything you want to say regarding this? Ms. Balestra —Staff is leaving this particular environmental assessment up to the Board. We did not recommend approval, I'm sorry...we did not recommend a negative determination of significance just based on the past issue, we are leaving it up to the Board to determine, if the potential impact is significant, the environmental impact, that is. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So if our inclination was to move to deny the appeal, Susan, I don't think we need to deal with the environmental assessment? That's the way we've treated it in the past... Ms. Brock— That' correct. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Any other comments? Questions? ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION No. 2007 — 046 Modification of a Use Variance Scott Trelease, Truxx Outfitters 630 Elmira Road Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-3 October 22, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. That this Board denies the appeal of Scott Trelease, requesting the modification of a use variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XIX, Sections 270-144 and 270-146 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to increase the outdoor display of trailers, snow plows, truck caps and/or other items located at Truxx Outfitters, 630 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-3, Light Industrial (LI) Zone for the following reasons: ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 6 That the applicant has not submitted any competent financial evidence to show that a reasonable return could not be achieved for every allowed use on this property, and That the hardship is self created given that the applicant leased the property knowing that a use variance would be required and accepted the terms of the use variance that was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2004, and That the hardship that this property suffers from is not unique to the area and in fact does apply to a number of other properties in the light industrial zones, and That the requested variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood given that, not only in the Light Industrial Zone, but in no other commercial zone in the Town of Ithaca, is outside display allowed, and certainly not outside display of large trailers along the roadway. A vote on the motion was as follows. Ayes: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, and Mountin. Nays: Mathews Absent: Krantz The motion passed 4 to 1. The second appeal is that of John Rancich, Owner/Appellant, requesting Special Approval per the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVI, Section 270-217, to be permitted to excavate a farm pond on the Marshall Farm property located on NYS Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2, Agricultural Zone. The deposit or extraction of more than 250 cubic yards of fill requires Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Walker — Kirk, there is one correction. This is an agricultural district, so it would actually be 500 yards over a three year period. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Mr. Walker— And this says 250 yards. It still requires this Board to review it because it's 2,200 yards, but it is an agricultural zone and it is a bonafide agricultural practice because they are using the pond for irrigation water. Chairman Sigel — Okay, so then approval is required because it is over 500 cubic yards. Mr. Walker— Yes. Chairman Sigel — Good evening. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 7 John Rancich, 363 Hines Road and Steve Bauman, 214 Park Place Chairman Sigel — I haven't really had a chance to look at what you've submitted this evening. Do you want to just explain that a little. Mr. Bauman — Do you want the history on the project as well? Chairman Sigel — Sure, yeah. Mr. Bauman — Originally the pond was going to be expanded because it had silted in over the years and the farmers hadn't had enough water for the irrigation of the pumpkins and the like. So Mr. Rancich went to clean that out, clean the brush off that was on the levee, he purchased it 2 years ago...3 years ago? Mr. Rancich — No, 5 years ago. Mr. Bauman — and in cleaning off the brush off the top of the dike, it was discovered that it was only about 3 feet wide at the top and a significant drop off the back, and we couldn't figure out what was holding it up. Mr. Rancich — The dike was really inferior. Grossly inferior for holding the water that it was, it is amazing that it held it as long as it did. So with the request for more irrigation water, we wanted to enlarge the pond. We started that and we were going to haul the fill from the excavation around to the back side of the dike and beef up that dike. Mr. Bauman — There's a low area to the north that is seasonally wet and there were actually drains out of the pond to that area and it's shown as a depression area on the map there. In the process excavation and where the springs came in, it went beyond the 500 cubic yards and when we spoke with Dan Walker, he asked us to come in and talk about and figure out what we needed to do. We put in the original application. The modification today, our documents that we just hadn't submitted in the original one, it's the two sections of the area just showing the cross section of that and where the stone check dams would be on the way down on the outfall. That outfall has been graded to a relatively minor slope compared to what it was, with the fill. That would be on the lower right hand corner of the map. It's been widened out all the way down to the bottom except where it was very wet. I think that may have been done now. There was about a 3 or 4 foot drop to the bottom just because they couldn't get the equipment in and out without getting it stuck. That's all been seeded and taken care of. The groins have not been put in at this point, but the main concern was the...this is the headwaters for Lindermann Creek and Lindermann Creek runs right down past the Lindermann Apartments and the like and with the amount of water that would be in that pond, were it to break, it would actually do some kind of damage. Either erosion and/or property damage were it to let loose. So, that was half the premise of increasing the capacity of the pond, was to get more water there, but when seeing the poor condition of the dike ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 8 and we don't know how old it was, whether it was hand dug...There were 2 trees, we think the root system is probably the reason that that dike was there in the beginning. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Now Chris, you, Dan has written a letter here stating that you feel that... Mr. Walker— I am very comfortable with the design and that it's appropriate. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Dick Matthews — Could you repeat that please. Mr. Walker — I am very comfortable with the design and it is an appropriate structure and that I am recommending that the permit be granted. Chairman Sigel —And Chris... Dick Matthews — So you've addressed the concerns that Chris had? Mr. Walker — Yes, 1, that's one reason I asked Mr. Rancich to prepare the additional material, to give more detail. I did have the benefit, or had the benefit of being onsite a couple of times and walking it and being very comfortable, from an engineering standpoint that what they are doing is appropriate and... Dick Matthews —And sound? Mr. Walker—And sound. James Niefer — Could you give us some explanation or comment about the qualifications of the people who have passed judgment on the adequacy of this dam. Are you a civil engineer? Mr. Walker — I am a civil engineer. I have worked...with Soil Conservation Service, I worked for them for 13 years.... James Niefer—Would you be willing to put your PE license and certification on this... Mr. Walker— Yes. I am very comfortable with this design. James Niefer— ...that it is an adequate structure. Mr. Walker— Yes. It is primarily and excavated pond... James Niefer—1 am familiar with it. I have been up there, I've seen it, so I know what's there. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 9 Mr. Walker— In place of additional fill of the material that's available up there, it's a good structural fill and the permeability of the soil for the existing dike has been holding the water but it needs some reinforcing behind it. I don't like dikes with trees on them because roots go down and then roots die and they create spaces for water to run, so... But in reviewing it, I felt that the work they're doing is appropriate to reinforce that dike. James Niefer— How far is the work progressed on the, oh, downstream side of the dam where those check dams are supposed to be. Are any of the check dams in at this present time? Mr. Walker— Check dams are not in. Mr. Bauman — Not as of yet, no. Mr. Walker — Presently the water level in that pond is quite low because of the dry season that we've had... James Niefer — But the original pond is up approximately where normal level would be isn't it? Mr. Walker — It's still about 2 feet below going over the spillway because of the dry seasons that we've had. James Niefer — It generally appeared that the proposed addition is going to have a substantial more capacity than the existing pond. Mr. Walker— Right. What they are proposing, the hole they have excavated to the north of the existing pond, there is a large berm left between those 2 so they are... James Niefer— Is that going to be removed? Mr. Walker — Hmmm...that's a possibility in the future. At this point I think Mr. Rancich just wants to leave it in place... James Niefer — The berm to the east...the berm between the 2 ponds, will that be removed? Mr. Rancich — Oh... James Niefer—Will that be removed when this goes into operation? Mr. Rancich — the berm between...the dike that exists between the 2 ponds is...we didn't want to drain the existing pond into the empty how, so we left that dike there. Now, what our plan is, to see how the new pond fills and adjust that dike based on the water level in the new pond. We, I've got a hope that the water in the new pond will be higher than the existing pond, and if that happens, we'll design a spillway from the new ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 10 pond into the old one. Quite possibly, the2 ponds will fill up to exactly the same level and then we will be able to just remove that partition, or not. Or, we can remove it in part. Mr. Walker — Right now, if you notice the, the drawing shows the depressed area there which has been a depressional wet area and is actually lower than the dike is, a very small, you can see a little pipe showing in there which I think they are proposing to put in to run the water between the two... Mr Bauman — That was actually there and it was taken out during this construction because of the buildup of the berm there. Mr. Rancich —That pipe that was there was their irrigation line that would draw water out of the pond. They would hook the pumps to that pipe and suck it out of the pond, but over the years, you know, the pond is silted in and there wasn't enough water for the irrigation. James Niefer — The irrigated land is in the direction of Mecklenburg rather than downstream towards... Mr. Rancich — It's in both directions. The farm exists on both sides of that pond. James Niefer — Does the State have any permit issuing jurisdiction for this size of excavation? Mr. Walker — This pond...the pond is less than a million gallons and it's less than a three foot high dike, basically, so it does not, it's, primarily excavated ponds do not require State permit in it's existing form. If they were to raise a new dike across the bottom and raise it up to 10 or 12 feet which Mr. Rancich had talked about, possibly some time in the future, then it would require State permit and I've told him that, but the existing pond is smaller than what requires a State permit. Dick Matthews — Another question Mr. Walker. Are you an employee of Tompkins County? Mr. Walker— No, I am an employee of the Town of Ithaca. Dick Matthews — Town of Ithaca? Mr. Walker— I am the Town Engineer. Dick Matthews — Okay. Mr. Walker— I am the person that regulates the earth fill ordinance. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 11 Dick Matthews — Oh. Now, Chris, are you comfortable with what Mr. Walker has said? In regard to your letter that requested more information? Ms. Balestra — Somewhat. Planning Staff didn't have all of the information that you have in front of you tonight when we were conducting our environmental review, so, we do have a couple of remaining concerns, although...Let's see...the maps in front of you show the topographic changes and additional check dams for erosion control. We haven't heard from the applicant what type of material is actually in the existing levee and the existing excavated material, so, we are concerned that it's not going to contain, it's going to be (inaudible) little bit too permeable, so there may be a leak that goes into Lindermann Creek and this is the head waters for Lindermann Creek, so there is some concern about that. Chairman Sigel -- You mean the type of soil that... Ms. Balestra — The type of soil that's going to be used. Dick Matthews — Does that amend your recommendations Mr. Walker? Mr. Walker— Yes, the materials out there is a silty gravel, so... Ms. Balestra — Yeah and we weren't aware of what was being used... Mr. Walker— Right, and that was probably...in...I've done a lot of farm ponds in the field and made determinations...the fact that the pond is holding water right now, and also in looking at the material that was excavated, it's a material that has enough fines in it that when it's compacted, it will hold water. Now, the primary use of this is not up against the water, it is effectively a lining within this dike now because it is holding the water and this is an excellent structural fill on the outside to reinforce it, and in fact, you want a little bit of permeability on the toe side so that the water will drain through it and not pipe out through the top of it and it actually acts as a drain, and the amount of fill will flatten the slope out to about a 6 on 1 slope which is very flat and very stable, with this material. So, it will be a stable embankment. Dick Matthews — Chris? Ms. Balestra — If the Town Engineer says it is going to be a stable embankment, then I am not an engineer and I can not question that. All I can say is that we didn't have that information in front of us when we were doing our environmental review and also, the County requested additional erosion and sedimentation control and traditionally that means silt fence, but, I can't speak to where that would go and how it would work, that would be up to the Town Engineer. James Niefer — My reasoning is that the size of this excavation, the amount of fill removed, the amount of water involved...quite frankly I would feel much more comfortable in considering it and/or approving it if these submissions had a professional ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 12 engineer's certification on it by someone other than a Town employee. I think that when we have major building projects that come before us, we look for those, architect's certification and stamp approvals and so on and so forth, and by reason of the fact that this is the headwaters for Lindermann Creek, there's a big Lindermann development downstream from this, and you know, there's a good probability that nothing adverse will happen here, however, if something should happen with a lot of water rainfall up the fields above and the pond dam be breached, there would be a possibility of litigation against us, having approved such an item without engineer's certification. I think that this is something that should be considered that we do have engineer's stamp on this as being adequately designed facility. I'm not proposing that the Town Engineer certify it either... Mr. Walker— No that's not appropriate for me, I'm reviewing the application and... Mr. Rancinch — Mr. Niefer, if you will allow me...the chances of a failure prior to this work was far, far greater. This dike, I have a little tiny excavator that oh it's tracks are 40 inches apart, I could not traverse across the top of that dike because it was too narrow. The tracks would set down on either side. On the water side, I don't know exactly how steep it dropped off, but on the outside of the dike, it dropped off, it dropped off tremendously. I mean, you could not walk down, you would fall down that hill. So it was a very steep, and in my estimation, and I have built 30 o0r 40 ponds in my life, it was totally inadequate. So the work we've done, we haven't raised the water level, not an inch, all we've taken is the fill from the hole we dug, which was an existing depression in the ground, and moved it to the outside of the existing dike and reinforced it. Now we have a dike that the top of our dike is 20 feet wide and slopes off very gradually. James Niefer— I see. Mr. Rancich — So we took all that fill and up against the back so things are much better than they were. Mr. Bauman — The new excavation, the new pond is actually an excavated pond in and of itself. IT could actually stand if the other pond wasn't in front of it and the reason that was done that way was we weren't sure what kind of pressure that other pond, the existing pond would take on it until that dike was put into place in the front and the capacity of the existing pond is probably much better than it was, but It's not going to be excavated, just the new pond is what would be used for the irrigation and the slope on the top of that dike goes off at 6 to 1 so it can be mowed without any issue and in the past it was too steep and that's why the equipment that went down in got stuck was because all the silt was down in there and the brambles and the like and it just wasn't conducive to getting equipment through. James Niefer—Are you planning to deepen the existing pond? ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 13 Mr. Rancich — We don't have any plans for that right now. I would say no, right now there is no plan for that. It seems to be pretty deep. Dick Matthews — The point was made about the signature and certification of an outside engineering source and that's an arguable point and it's a point worth at least considering another viewpoint. I would hope that the Town official, the Town Engineer would be more adversarial than would be an outside engineering architect. As far as fearing a lawsuit, I am sure the Town is quite capable of handling a lawsuit, but to suggest that, and I am not so sure my colleague has done this, to suggest that the Town Engineer and his word lacks integrity or lacks competence, is somewhat unfair. I understand my colleagues point, but I believe the man across from me has the integrity of any outside engineer that we could have. If he says so, if he believes it, I have nothing else to go on except the integrity of his professional view. James Niefer — My comments were in no way to discredit your professional skills. I recognize you as a certified professional engineer and I was not doubting your skills and your ability and your handling of this matter. It's just a matter of what we have done in the past vis-a-v what we're doing now as far as approval of a project of this size. Mr. Walker — I understand that and my comments and my memo and my evaluation of the project and the fill is primarily that the structure of the dam itself was not, a dam was not being constructed. Fill was being put into a low area, reinforcing it, which would strengthen it and basically it was movement of excess material, so, I understand your concerns about the integrity of it, and if the Board wishes to have another licensed engineer review it and look at it, that's your decision. Again, I feel very comfortable that what they've done in no way increased any risk and it is decreasing risk if there was...my evaluation of an imminent failure of it would not be the same as what Mr. Rancich represented in the memo, it was, the dike was in poor shape (inaudible) maintain it and it widened it out so you can get on it and mow it now. Chairman Sigel — Well I think my views are more along the line of Jim's, to be honest, I don't' know anything about creating ponds or dikes, so, but it is the case that when we've had projects like this in the past, we have gotten stamped plans and the Town Staff can review and so, given how this has come to us and given that at least some parts of the Town Staff are not entirely comfortable with what's been presented, I would be inclined towards asking the applicant to flesh out the plans some more, include more details about sediment control, and seeding plans and such and have plans that are stamped by a licensed engineer. Mr. Walker— One thing on the vegetation and, the application materials that you got did not have all of the materials that came in, and the fill permit application and the fill permit application did include details on silt fencing and vegetation, with a conservation mix. That is actually part of the application that didn't get reproduced and brought to this Board and I didn't realize that until after the packet had already gone out and I didn't ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 14 make copies of it, but I've got more details here....it is the standard and comes right out of the State guidelines, silt fencing, vegetation and the stone, stone trenches there, so... Dick Matthews — Kirk, what am I missing? You said some members of the Town are not comfortable with this? I haven't heard those names mentioned. Chairman Sigel — Well, Chris, in her review was not, she did not recommend, and the Town Planning Staff did not recommend a negative declaration of environmental significance. Ms. Balestra — May I, just for point of clarification, although I often sign my name to the environmental review, I hardly ever review these projects alone. It is often at least myself and one or two other members of the Staff, whether they be Planning, Engineering or Zoning Staff, just so you know. Dick Matthews — So it means what? Chairman Sigel —Well it represents the opinion of not... Dick Matthews — Others. Chairman Sigel — Yes, others, a consensus opinion of Planning Staff is that fair to say? Ms. Balestra — Yes, that's fair. Chairman Sigel — And given that we have gotten new materials just tonight, I would feel more comfortable if Planning Staff had a chance to review them more fully and we had the applicant submit stamped plans... Mr. Bauman — it might help if I interject...I am a licensed landscape architect, State of New York, and I got involved when Mr. Rancich noticed the condition of the dike and everything and we looked at how to rectify the situation that was there. These were prepared, although rather hurriedly, because of the situation at hand, they were prepared by myself and reviewed and I've worked with Dan Walker on all the attributes the Town would require because originally this wasn't going to be a permitted job. It wasn't required to be a permit. And so, in reviewing what's been done and how it's been done, I would feel comfortable putting my professional stamp on it, I wasn't asked to do that, in the course of events. So, from a liability standpoint, I feel totally comfortable, because it is an excavated pond, in soils that are already holding water right adjacent to it. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Well, I still don't, given that the Planning Staff had concerns about this, I still don't feel comfortable trying to have, you know, the Planning Staff's representative here change their recommendation at this point. I would still feel more comfortable if we adjourned this to a subsequent meeting... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 15 Harry Ellsworth — We still require seals and it looks like the owner has access to a seal... recommending it is one thing, putting a seal on it is another thing, I'm a licensed (inaudible) and not in this area, so. Mr. Rancich — I know for the Board that perhaps my 30 years experience in building these sort of things might not count, but, I'm not doing something to expose myself. My goal here was to short circuit a problem that I saw happening with some giant rainstorm or a big snow or snow melt, I was confident that that dike only had a year or two of life in it. Maybe four years, but, it was, it was inadequate. Mr. Bauman — Part of the reason for doing it at that time was that he had the equipment onsite for his gravel mine, which is permitted, just to the north of this. So the equipment was brought over to help reinforce that and bring it to a standard where the farms could use it for irrigation. Mr. Rancich —And it would be safe for all the downstream public. Harry Ellsworth — I am not discrediting contractor because it takes a good engineer and a good contractor, and a good inspection to have a good project. Chairman Sigel — Let me ask other Board Members how they feel about proceeding on a vote tonight versus requesting more information and more time for Planning Staff to either review the existing information or request additional information. James Niefer — I think that my opinion is that we should request the additional information and so on, the letter... Harry Ellsworth — I am for the seal, not because I have one, but it seems pretty simple, people here with the owner have the ability, that are involved, and certainly understand why, but if some things have been missing in certain parts of the Town and they need the whole thing to look at. Mr. Rancich — Can you grant the variance based on providing the seal? Chairman Sigel — Well there were other concerns expressed by Staff as far as a seeding plan and erosion control, silt fencing... Mr. Rancich — Dan can attest that we've addressed all that. Mr. Walker — They have addressed the silt fence with check dams, extra controls in the channel and the vegetative treatment. The season...no matter what happens, they've got to put the, you know, have it vegetated and they've already gone ahead and seeded it just because it's open and raw, and, or was open and raw, and they've put down seed already on it and have silt fencing in place just simply because they started the project, it was open and I told them they had to stabilize it so we wouldn't lose it and so a lot of the fill that was already pushed over behind the dike, they graded that off and seeded it ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 16 because it needed to be stabilized. That's what they've done. Finishing the additional pond, the big excavation, it isn't all in an excavated area and there's actually the big berm to the east, it is to the east, the east, basically contains anything that's in that pond unless it goes over that little dike and then down out the existing pond. Harry Ellsworth — I presume there's some concern Dan, yours and the owner, that we could be coming in to a very wet time. Mr. Walker — Well a wet time an the growing...we've had an exceptional fall, I mean, if they have to get it, they've seeded it already, to stabilize it and I hope, and I think the grass has started to grow and they've put some more seed down in areas that, when it was so dry, it wouldn't take...and I'd really like to see those check dams in there because that's what's going to, even as a temporary measure, simply because, if we do get a huge amount of rainfall, that's the most delicate spot on that channel. That's actual a remedial measure we could, I asked them to put in there, on those check dams, so I'd really like to get those in and that would, you know, alleviate my concerns about anything happening in spring runoff. It's the 22nd of October now, the next meeting is the end of November, and 1, it isn't North Carolina yet, it acts like it, but it isn't, now, so, that's, the timing of it is my main concern to get it stabilized. So I would at least like to get them permission to let them go in and get those stone check dams in and stabilize that, even if they don't' complete the excavated pond area, you know, because the worst that's gonna happen is, I would, even if the Board decided not to create that big excavated pond, I really don't want to remove any of the material that's already put up against the other pond, because that could cause more problems down the road, and this was a, kind of a misunderstanding on how much material they could move, is my concern there. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Well one option is we could move to approve this project tonight with the condition that plans be submitted that are stamped by a licensed engineer... Harry Ellsworth — And reviewed by the Planning Department and accepted by the Planning Department. Mr. Walker — I think we've been addressing, I can't say if Chris is satisfied or not, but some of the questions in there were basically if the sediment erosion control, which we are talking about right now, with the check dams and the vegetative cover and the silt fence, which, granted, the plans were not really detailed showing all that. Uhhmmm... Ms. Balestra —The plans don't show any of the silt fencing whatsoever... Mr. Walker — Well, it showed some of it...(inaudible)...and they've actually put it in out there, so... Dick Matthews — Are you back pedaling a little bit or something? Backpedaling? My impression of what you preciously said was you were comfortable with this. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 17 Mr. Walker — I am very comfortable with it, but if the Board wishes to see stamped plans, that's up to you. I don't feel it's necessary, from my professional standpoint. Dick Matthews — Okay, that's fine, I apologize if you think ... Mr. Walker — No, you, but, you have the authority. I am just making recommendations. I feel that they...granted, the plans are not the best set of plans in the world because they don't have all the details on them...being out in the field and seeing it, kind of half the plans are on the ground and half the plans are on the drawings here so... Mr. Mountin — Question that I have is, after the ponds would be built, do you see that they would have enough adequate capacity for future possible runoff of stormwater, being at the bottom of a hill and any future development that would happen at that site in terms of a future... Mr. Walker — Well, the future development of this site would have to be addressed by...when they as site plan approval, if they put more impervious surface. Right now it's a silty gravel soil up there. It's in real good corn ground and they've got pumpkins growing like crazy and actually, they have not changed the drainage area. Effectively that shallow area that's been excavated acted as a wet area in the field that they couldn't plow in the spring and so they really haven't changed the characteristic of that and so it will hold the water as well as it has in the past. Mr. Mountin — So any future potential development then would include some kind of swales or some kind of a condition to address the downhill slope of water. Mr. Walker — Right and with the future development if they decided they needed a larger...this may be a site where they want to use more stormwater detention. And then it would require building a larger dike possibly and a different flood structure... Mr. Rancich — Well we didn't do this without being conscious of what my larger plan is and what my future plans for that area, so this was done in a way that accomplished the 2 main goals, which was to reinforce the dike and provide some water for irrigation, but also, width specifically the idea that these ponds would adequately address our stormwater runoff for the future. No, there's other plans in there, but this is, wasn't a step towards that big plan, but it was designed in conjunction with, well, if this happens in the future, this is going to work wonderfully. Mr. Walker — Yeah, I looked at the master plan and this was all green space on the master plan. They, it's not like they said, oh, we need a pond here for the master plan, let's go ahead and build it now. They didn't do that. They were cleaning up an existing situation there, so I'm...and again, that is a tremendously large berm of earth the way the topography is there. The glacier really built a nice berm there and I am very comfortable with what's going on there. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 18 Dick Matthews — I don't' know anything about water. I know I drink it and I know I bathe in it and once in a while it's good for duck hunting...I have to rely on people like Chris and like Mr. Walker to provide us with the information and the assurance that we're operating on as much knowledge as we can absorb. And I have to have faith in the Town employees, and I do. Mr. Levine — Have we ever granted subject to secondary satisfactory of resubmission to the Planning Department? Or would it absolutely have to come back here after the Planning Department were to get all the facts? Chairman Sigel — Well I don't know, it could be tough if the subsequent submissions are going to influence the Planning Department's recommendation as far as the environmental significance then that kind of puts them in a tough spot where they are almost becoming the Board at that point. I mean, if it was something just, if it was say just that plans must, like the exact plans we see here must be submitted stamped, then that's a pretty clear cut requirement and I would feel comfortable with that but when it's still more subjective determination...Chris, you could say more if you want but... Ms. Balestra — I don't know if I could... Ms. Brock — I agree Kirk. I think if you are looking for futher analysis of submissions, then it would not be appropriate to grant the special permit tonight. If it's just a ministerial action of having stamps placed on current plans, that's something that you could do. Eric Levine — And the delay of a month or two, how detrimental would that be to your project? Mr. Rancich — In the overall scheme of things, it's not a big deal, but it does leave a project unfinished into the frozen weather, and if we get a rainstorm that fills that existing pond up, and it has overflowed in the past, that's why the spill way is there, without being able to complete our project, if you say no, stop right now, we certainly will, but that will expose us to a much worse situation than allowing us to complete this in a timely manner. Mr. Bauman — Erosion is probably the biggest factor and we don't know what capacity that is because of the condition that it's currently in. Mr. Rancich — The dams that Dan asked us to put in or recommended go in there and we agreed, I said to Dan on Friday, `Do you want us to go up there and do them right now" and he said "No, let's go to the Board meeting, let's see what happens there." We're prepared to build those tomorrow. Harry Ellsworth — You're talking about the check dams... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 19 Mr. Walker — I have a suggestion. I think what we see here is with that earth dike between the two, excavate between the pond and the excavation, I think I'd recommend granting the...the amount of material they've moved right now is 2,200 yards, they've excavated roughly that much out of the pond...I think I would recommend granting...finish...granting the earth fill permit to complete the finish grading for what's already been excavated, excluding any removal of that dike and if that section between the two ponds needs to be removed at a plan prepared by a licensed engineer be provided before any further excavation on this site be done. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So what exactly needs...what remains to be done? Mr. Rancich — Put the check dams in. Mr. Walker — Put the check dams in. There is some additional grading around the excavated area that, you know, needs to be seeded and graded and then it would be stable. If Mr. Rancich decides he really wants to make the pond bigger, there is a time period of waiting whether we remove that dike in the middle... Mr. Rancich — I am totally content to leave the excavation just as it is. I would like the permission to clean up all the outside and do my final grading around it. I would like to be able to finish up in the very, very bottom of the filled dike, where it still drops off kind of steeply, because it was too wet. Now that we've built that dike so that we can get a machine on it, we can get down to that area and kind of get that smoothed out. I'd like to be able to seed that and I'd like to be able to put the stone dams in that Dan has talked about. Then, in all honesty, with the stone dams and another day of, not excavation but grading and...we're done... Ms. Balestra — Can I ask a question. Is there any silt fencing up right now, around the pond? Around the stockpile area near the creek? Mr. Bauman — There's two separate areas of fencing down below. The initial stuff was put up and when Dan came out, looked at it, he said put more up over here, and then I think it was last week, we talked about the stone dams going in just as additional sedimentation control. Mr. Rancich — So we had all of that...that fencing was in, and if you're talking about to the north, where there's some stockpiles, where we have some topsoil stockpiled, that is, that is, can only erode into our excavation, it can't go the other way. And by my permit with DEC, I have my silt fencing in place for the mine over there. So we're covered all the way around. Ms. Balestra — I think the concern that Planning Staff had was that none of this is shown on either the existing or the proposed plans. So there was no erosion control, significant erosion control for a project like this shown on the plan. We based our environmental review on that. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 20 Chairman Sigel — Okay. Mr. Rancich —And Dan...Dan has seen. Mr. Walker — Mr. Rancich has been very cooperative in providing the protection once I discovered that he was building this and I explained to him that it was outside the bounds of what he could do without a permit and then it's been, what, almost 6 weeks I think, to get to this Board. Mr. Rancich — Yeah, it took us 6 weeks to get to you folks. We're close to being done. Mr. Walker — And I really wanted him to finish things up and stabilize them because, if we let it sit there for those 6 weeks, we'd have a bigger mess there than what we have now. So this is a kind of a remedial action here and he's been very cooperative about going through the process, but before, he knows now, before he makes this bigger, he'll have to come in with a whole new plan. Mr. Rancich — Without a doubt, but my plan started out as a much smaller project. It was a project that I was quite confident would fall below, you know, where it was permitted and then as I say the condition of the backside of that dike and the enormous amount of fill that it needed, the project got bigger. Then I started talking to Dan about it and he says Oh you're going to have to go in front of the Board, that's why we're here. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Chris... Ms. Balestra — It's obvious but, it's difficult to make an environmental determination, at least from Planning's standpoint, without the full amount of information. Mr. Rancich —We didn't have it at the time it was submitted to you, or we didn't know. Chairman Sigel — Well I have to say I feel torn. The arguments for allowing this to go forward sooner so that the project can be finished are compelling. To finish the check dams and seeding and final grading and to, from what Mr. Walker describes, it's almost done, so, I wonder if we were to hold it up now, that would be worse than seeking more information and waiting, or adjourning to the next meeting. David Mountin — May I...from the information I've heard and from being out there and looking at it, I have one question before I give my answer but, the question is...in you're experience Dan, would a project of this, and I'm not familiar with building dams or rebuilding ponds, in this case, I'm thinking this is the rebuilding of a pond or restructuring of a pond to reinforce it, but in your experience or your opinion, do the a project of this scale, does it need to have an engineers stamp or does a person with a landscape architect degree and his experience, does that lead you to have a this is fine... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 21 Mr. Walker— This would not require an engineer's stamp because it's not a State permit requirement. You don't need a dam permit to build this size of a structure. David Mountin — Okay and as per all the details that were adapted in these drawings, that these would all be appropriate as you require...so in light of that, in what I've seen and what I've heard, in terms of rebuilding a dam, existing dam to restructure it, I think that I'd be in favor of granting the forward progress of this project and I would certainly respond also to the experience that Dan has and the experience and the knowledge he has. Harry Ellsworth —Without a licensed seal, is that what you're saying? David Mountin —Yes, as is. Chairman Sigel — Eric, how do you feel? Eric Levine — As long as we get that landscape engineers seal, I think we're good. I think that... Mr. Walker — I think that what I would like to have as a record drawing after we get done, sealed by the landscape architect would be good to have in the file. Eric Levine — Otherwise I think that Dan has satisfied the concerns. Dick Matthews — How long does that take? To get that seal? Mr. Bauman — I just have to get all the plans with all the information to make sure the way it's evolved, because it has been an evolution process and then stamp it, so I would say within a week you can have that. Dick Matthews — You can guarantee that within a week? To the best of your human answer. Mr. Rancich — Give him 10 days... James Niefer — Well in view of Dan's recent statement that there are no State requirements for any seal on the plans for ponds, of this nature, why, I guess I'll withdraw my objection at this point in time. However, I still concur that it would be very nice and appropriate to have, for the record, plans that do have seals on them. Chairman Sigel — I agree and certainly I mean, if it wasn't the issue of the season, I would not hesitate to adjourn and require it, but, I am feeling swayed by the press of time. Harry? ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 22 Harry Ellsworth — Yeah, move forward, based on Dan's but I think it would be good to...he's involved...I mean, it isn't a big deal, but...if he wasn't involved and had to go in and do an investigation it would be a whole different time cycle. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Let's open the public hearing, if anyone wishes to speak regarding this appeal...if not, we will close the public hearing. I will move to make a negative determination in regard to the appeal of John Rancich based upon, in part, on the report by Town Planning Staff and where the report by Town Planning Staff raises issues about sedimentation and erosion control measures, and the nature of the fill material, that this motion is further based upon, for the reasons stated by the testimony of Dan Walker at this meeting tonight stating that the applicant has reasonable sedimentation and erosion control measures in place and has submitted plans for such with the fill permit and based upon Mr. Walker's site visits to verify that the fill material is appropriate for this type of dike or levy. Susan, anything you would... Ms. Brock— No. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Second on the motion... Dick Matthews — I'll second... ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 047 SEAR John Rancich Route 79, Mecklenburg Road Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-14.2 October 22, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded Dick Matthews. That this Board makes a negative determination in regard to the appeal of John Rancich based upon, in part, on the report by Town Planning Staff and where the report by Town Planning Staff raises issues about sedimentation and erosion control measures, and the nature of the fill material, that this motion is further based upon, for the reasons stated by the testimony of Dan Walker at this meeting tonight stating that the applicant has reasonable sedimentation and erosion control measures in place and has submitted plans for such with the fill permit and based upon Mr. Walker's site visits to verify that the fill material is appropriate for this type of dike or levy. A vote on the motion was as follows. Ayes: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Matthews and Levine. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 23 Nays: None Absent: Krantz The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Sigel — I will move to grant the appeal of John Rancich requesting approval of Special Approval per the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVI, Section 270-217, to be permitted to excavate a farm pond on the Marshall Farm property located on NYS Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2, Agricultural Zone. Susan, do the area variance criteria apply... Ms. Brock— No, this is a request for a special approval. It's not a request for a variance so the criteria you look at are in Section 270-200 of the Town Code. There are a number of criteria, subsection A-L, to be considered. Chairman Sigel — Okay. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 048 Special Permit Route 79, Mecklenburg Road Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-14.2 October 22, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded Harry Ellsworth. That this Board grants the appeal of John Rancich, Owner/Appellant, requesting Special Approval per the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVI, Section 270-217, to be permitted to excavate a farm pond on the Marshall Farm property located on NYS Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2, Agricultural Zone. FINDINGS That the requirements under 270-200 (A-L) have been met, specifically: 1. That the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community are being promoted, and 2. That the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, being a large farm operation, and ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 24 3. That the proposed use and location and design of any structure would be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located given that this is a pond to support the irrigation of farmland and this is in an agricultural district, and 4. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in an amount sufficient to devalue neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants, and 5. The operation in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone; this is actually a permitted use, and 6. Any infrastructure and services are adequate to accommodate the use; this board doesn't believe any infrastructure or services are required for this use, and 7. The proposed use, building and site layout comply with all the provisions of this Chapter, and 8. The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed, and 9. That there are no effects of the proposed use on the community as a whole including such items as traffic load, water or sewage systems. It is not detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. This project will not impose any noticeable change in traffic load on nearby roads. The lot access parking and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and access parking areas are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact; this project does not involve any of those aspects, and 10.Natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town Local Law or Ordinance and existing drainage-ways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties. We are relying upon the opinion of our Town Engineer that those conditions are met, and 11.That to the extent deemed relevant by the reviewing Board, the proposed use of the structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in this chapter. CONDITIONS That the applicant submit, before work continues, to the Town, plans that are stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect, that in addition to what has been shown tonight, show the location of silt fencing and all of the seeding measures. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 25 A vote on the motion was as follows. Ayes: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Matthews and Levine. Nays: None Absent: Krantz The motion passed unanimously. The next appeal is that of Michael Moore, Owner/Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a newly constructed home at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone (LR). The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance on May 15, 2006 to permit the construction of the home with a 10-foot setback from the northern and southern property boundaries. The home was actually constructed 9.8+/- feet from the southern Property boundary. The ZBA also granted a variance on June 18, 2007, to permit the construction of an entranceway on the southern side with a 5'4" setback from the southern property boundary. The constructed entrance is 4'8"+/- from the southern property boundary. Michael Moore and Cathy Isham 1020 East Shore Drive Chairman Sigel — Okay, so you've given us some new plans here... Mr. Moore — No, what I've given you is the surveys that I have had done during the process of purchasing and building the house that's there right now, and also some pictures of what was there and what I tore down and what has been rebuilt. Chairman Sigel — Okay, so it looks like this, am I correct in saying that this supports what basically your application is telling us. Mr. Moore — Yes. Chairman Sigel — So you have a survey showing the 9.8 feet for that southwesterly corner. Mr. Moore — That's right. Chairman Sigel —And 4.8 feet for the side entranceway. Mr. Moore — That's the as-built survey. That was done by TG Millers. There seems to be a discrepancy between the two surveys that I used when I positioned the house. The survey that was done by Michael Regan, shows that the southern property by the pink mark, on the first survey, is at 2.9 feet, and that's the ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 26 measurement I used to place the house, at the other end, the southeast corner of the neighbors property, the 2.8 feet, which concurs with the survey that was done by TG Miller at 2.8 feet. Chairman Sigel — I'm sorry, explain that again... Ms. Isham — the survey done by Michael Regan showed that the southeast corner of the house is, of the house to the south of us, is 2.8 feet off the property line...then the south... Chairman Sigel — Their northeastern corner you are talking about. Ms. Isham — Right. Sorry. Chairman Sigel — Is 2.8 and then their northwestern corner is 2.9, on that survey. Ms. Isham — So the survey from TG Millers said that... Mr. Moore — So the 3.1 feet...so the house is moved .2 feet according to the two surveyors. So when I positioned the house... Ms. Isham — We used TG Millers...the 3rd survey in your packet, sorry, I misplaced them, the 3rd survey in your packet was the survey we had also when we built the house and that shows that northeast end of the house as 2.8 but doesn't indicate any difference in the placement of the house in the northeast, on the northeast corner. Chairman Sigel — So your saying it doesn't indicate any distance. Ms. Isham — Any difference, any distance, so we assumed that it was approximately 2.8 or 2.9 feet as the Regan survey showed. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Ms. Isham — The second survey in your packet is the one that was requested after the house was built and that's when they put in there that the south, excuse me, I am directionally challenged, the northeast side of the house they are now saying is 3.1 feet...Northwest, sorry. Chairman Sigel — Okay, so your argument is that that would explain the .2 feet, pulling the house closer, if you based the measurement on the location of your neighbor's house. I think we probably asked you this the last time you were here, but I'll ask it again. Is there, was there a particular reason why you were trying to be so close to the setback on that southern side of the house? ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 27 Mr. Moore — No, I just wanted, that was the side that there were trees all along the other side, it was easier to measure off of this property line, it was clear, you could get a clear measurement, so I knew that I could be exactly where I needed to be to be within that 10 foot setback. Chairman Sigel — Okay, but you knew, also, that your total, you know, you knew you had an extra foot or so, total, I mean, you have room for the 10 foot setback plus another foot, approximately, or a little over a foot so you could have, for instance, gone an extra half a foot off the neighbors house, off that southern... Mr. Moore — Right. I think it shows, on the as-built, the one at the east end of the house, 10 feet 1 inch so it's farther on that end, but the discrepancy comes where it gets closer on the other end of the house. Chairman Sigel — Okay, well, I mean I feel like this is one of those cases that we don't like to see. We especially don't like to see a 3rd time, at least, but, also, I think we might have a hard time arguing that, denial of the variance, was also justified given that it's a fairly minor variation from what we had specified and obviously correcting it would be quite costly for the applicant. Anyone want to... Dick Matthews — I wouldn't want to be sitting in Mr. Moore's chair tonight. He's probably very uncomfortable. Mr. Moore — I going to come forth a few months, since I got the final survey, it was back and for the, that if I showed the other end was 10 foot 1 inch then it seemed to be okay, so it's kind of been an up and down ride, yup. With a child going to Ithaca College, and then a senior at Ithaca High School right now, it is a little stressful. David Mountin — I have a question. So the 2 plans right here dated 8/15/07...there's a little difference...which one is the survey of record? Which one is going to be filed on... Mr. Moore — The one that is going to be filed is the one...the center... David Mountin — The center one, So the difference between the center one and the last one, I can see that it mentions 3.1 feet in the north, no, southwest corner of the house, that's omitted from the last survey. Mr. Moore — It wasn't on there and I had to go back and do it again. David Mountin — Everything else looks...no, the 10.1 is added too...any other... Chairman Sigel —Why did they remove the notation of 9.8 feet? ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 28 Mr. Moore — I just wanted to clarify it as far as the distance from the back, the 10.1 feet and then on the front, because I already had the other survey, I wanted to know what that measurement was. David Mountin — I think the 9.8 should be on there, on the final. Mr. Moore — I can submit...they've already gotten both of them anyway, so they can submit both of them if you'd like. Or I could have TG Millers combine all of the numbers, f that's what you want. Chairman Sigel — Okay. David Mountin — That's confusing. Put it all on one. Chairman Sigel — Yeah I agree. I mean, the distance to the neighbor doesn't seem as important as the distances on the property and so, submissions should include the distances on the property. David Mountin — Is that it then...any other amended changes from the number 2... Mr. Moore — No, I don't think there is. Ms. Brock — Well there is the porch as well. The variance that you granted before allowed it to be no closer than 5.4 feet to the property line and it is 4.8 feet as built. So, you have 2 aspects to your variance that you need to be addressing tonight. Both the setback from the house itself, which previously was permitted to be 10 feet to the property line, and the distance between the porch and the property line as well. David Mountin — Do we have a copy of the original plan that showed the measurements of the house to the property lines? When we met last May, I can't remember, did we have a plan that showed the dimensions... Chairman Sigel —When we granted the variance for the side entranceway? David Mountin — Yes. Chairman Sigel — I don't know. That's not in our packet. David Mountin — that would have been the 5/17 that would have been this 5/17 right. So the 8/15 is in it, amended 8/15. Chairman Sigel — Actually the survey that he submitted 8/15 with our packet does show the 2 numbers we would want. It shows the 9.8 feet at that... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 29 Ms. Brock — This is after your variances were granted. The 8/15 /07 survey. This isn't what you had in front of you when you approved this in May, was it May, or June...it was in June. Chairman Sigel — When you were here for the variance for the 5 feet 4 inches for the side entryway, was that built at that time? Mr. Moore — The, I think the foundation was in, so you may have had that, because I had to go survey for the flood elevation certificate, so TG Miller's did that, so that might have been there. David Mountin — At the time they were working on the second deck, I did a tour, and, just before, the day before we did our meeting here there was construction at the house working on the second deck. There wasn't any foundation or footings for the porch at that time. Chairman Sigel — So how is it that the porch was constructed. I mean, your shift of .2 feet doesn't account entirely for the discrepancy on the side porch. Mr. Moore — The 2 inches...with the survey being different, how he measured it, probably, no, it wouldn't I guess, at that end, no. Chairman Sigel — because you've got a little over 6 inches... Ms. Brock— Yeah, we're dealing with tenths of a foot, not inches... Chairman Sigel —Well I thought the one measurement was 5 feet 4 inches... Mr. Moore — Yes, but the survey measures it in feet so it's 4.8 feet which is 4 feet 9.6 inches, the distance from the property line, rather than 5 feet 4 inches, so it's a difference of 6.4 inches on the porch or the entranceway. Chairman Sigel — I'm sorry, what was your conclusion? Mr. Moore — I think that 4.8 feet is 4 feet 9.6 inches so (inaudible) and I was allowed, I had to meet a 5 foot 4 inch setback, so the difference is 6.4 inches. So the reason, I didn't have a final survey at the time the we put that little porch entranceway on there, and the architect stipulated that it had to be a minimum of 5 feet in the plans that I gave you at the time, so, it is actually 5 feet 2 inches, so it was just 2 inches too big according to the architects plans, but the setback ended up being 6.4 inches closer. Chairman Sigel —Any questions... David Mountin — I'll ask...was there a tape measure problem, or what? ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 30 Mr. Moore — Well, I think that I told the people that were building it that it had to be 5feet 4 inches away, he thought it had to be 5 feet 4inches, possibly. So, I would just say they measured the 2x4 on the inside of the form rather than the outside and that would account for about 3 inches or so...There are pictures in the packet that I gave you of the entranceway that show that on the bottom left corner of the third set of pictures...in making it much smaller, my mother is in a wheelchair, so that would shrink it up, I guess if I didn't put the cement pad down there and build the structure off of the side of the house, I wouldn't have had to go for the variance, I guess you can go 6 feet out from the house, is what I understand, from Steve Williams, but... David Mountin — This is the only entrance to the house? Mr. Moore — Yes, well, there is an entrance on the lakeside. David Mountin — So this is wheelchair accessible, this entrance right now? Mr. Moore — Yes, right now it is. David Mountin — That means that door is 36 inches wide, the front door. Mr. Moore — Yes it is. David Mountin — You need that space to move a wheelchair around, you definitely do. Mr. Moore —Well, she's got a scooter so she gets around with that... Chairman Sigel — Okay. Any other comments, questions? Chris, any comments from the Planning Staff about this slight addition of 2 feet....we'll open the public hearing, if not, we'll close the public hearing. Chairman Sigel — I move to grant the That this Board grants the appeal of Michael Moore, Owner/Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a newly constructed home at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2- 16, Lakefront Residential Zone (LR). CONDITIONS 1. That the setback of the house at the southwest corner be no less than 9.7 feet, and 2. That the setback of the south side entryway be no less than 4.7 feet, and 3. That no other construction be permitted within the allowed setbacks for this zone, and ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 31 FINDINGS That the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, specifically- 1. pecifically:1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve can not be met by any other means feasible given that the applicant's house is already built. It would be very difficult to bring the house into compliance by moving it in some fashion and that also, the applicant wanted to make the side entrance wheelchair accessible and that contributed to the need for the additional distance from the house, and 2. That an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that this is a neighborhood of small lots, many of which already have deficient setbacks, and 3. That the request, this Board finds, is substantial, and 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects and that while in this case the alleged difficulty was self-created by the applicant, nonetheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Ms. Brock — Hold on...Kirk, you had indicated, or David had, that you wanted to have submission of plans showing all of the information on the two survey maps dated 8/15/07. Chairman Sigel — Well actually, well, I don't know how David feels but I, after looking at the map that they actually submitted with their packet, that actually does show the 9.8 and the 4.8 David Mountin — I was looking at the 10.1 also. Chairman Sigel -- ...setbacks...I mean, that is within what we had previously granted to I didn't feel that was critical. So I'm comfortable with what they submitted. Ms. Brock — Okay. And just for clarification, you're motion said no other construction be permitted within the allowed setbacks for the zone, are you speaking to new construction? Because other corners of the house don't comply with the allowed setbacks, you previously granted the variance... Chairman Sigel — Right, new construction, or modifications. Ms. Brock — Okay, and so then you want to say "no other new construction or modifications be permitted with in the allowed setbacks for the zones? Chairman Sigel — Maybe we should...better just say new construction. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 32 Ms. Brock — Okay. And do you want to say that, add to the end of that, that in all other respects, the requirements and conditions imposed by the variance granted on June 18th remain in effect? Chairman Sigel — Yeah, that would be a good idea. Okay, second on the modified... Ms. Brock — And the record should reflect that David Mountin voted on this particular matter, because, as Kirk stated at the beginning of the meeting, we are alternating back and forth betweene the two alternates. Chairman Sigel — Okay, thank you. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 049 AREA VARIANCE Michael Moore 1028 East Shore Drive Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-16 October 22, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. That this Board grants the appeal of Michael Moore, Owner/Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a newly constructed home at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone (LR). CONDITIONS 1. That the setback of the house at the southwest corner be no less than 9.7 feet, and 2. That the setback of the south side entryway be no less than 4.7 feet, and 3. That no other new construction be permitted within the allowed setbacks for this zone, and 4. In all other respects the requirements and conditions imposed by the variance granted on June 18, 2007 remain in effect. FINDINGS That the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, specifically: ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 33 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve can not be met by any other means feasible given that the applicant's house is already built. It would be very difficult to bring the house into compliance by moving it in some fashion and that also, the applicant wanted to make the side entrance wheelchair accessible and that contributed to the need for the additional distance from the house, and 2. That an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that this is a neighborhood of small lots, many of which already have deficient setbacks, and 3. That the request, this Board finds, is substantial, and 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects and that while in this case the alleged difficulty was self-created by the applicant, nonetheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A Vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Matthews and Mountin. Nays: None Absent: Krantz The motion passed unanimously. The next appeal is that of Shan Varma and Kimberley A. Owen, Owners/Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct an addition to an existing home located at 10 Apple Blossom Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-8.14, Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. The proposed addition will encroach into the required side yard setback for structures in an LDR Zone. Shan Varma, 10 Apple Blossom Lane Chairman Sigel — So you are looking to put an addition that goes over the existing garage, is that right? Partly over the existing garage and partly over new ground... Mr. Varma — Right, right. What my wife and I wanted to do was create an addition but also try and maintain the look of the neighborhood. So we enlisted the help of an architect and his suggestion was that we re-alter the existing line of the existing garage. So the outline would like an L as opposed to some sort of...I don't know...design. So subsequently it does encroach on, I think it's a 40 feet, yup, 40 foot, so do to that it will encroach upon that setback... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 34 Chairman Sigel —And the setback for an attached garage here, is that 30... Ms. Balestra — I just read it, it's 15. Chairman Sigel — So then apparently it's well within... Mr. Varma — So again, in consultation with the architect that we hired, this was the sort of suggested sort of way of moving forward and due to that, we're actually incurring some additional expense to re-alter the roofline of the garage, but in essence, what it does is, hopefully, you know, from the plans, I think we're very happy with the sort of look of the house, so I'm not really an architect, but I think it looks really nice. Chairman Sigel — Any questions? Comments, from the Board? It should be obvious by now, but Mr. Levine will be voting on this appeal. Dick Matthews — I am wondering, the plans here, what do I have...it shows 30 feet now, from the existing garage, but it was there before... Chairman Sigel — Right. An attached garage is allowed to have a setback of only 15 feet. Ms. Balestra — It could be separate as well. Either attached or separate. Dick Matthews — So the existing garage is already at 30 feet, so it's fine... Chairman Sigel — The problem is that the proposal, obviously, the setback gets larger as it goes to the rear of the lot, but at it's greatest setback, it's only estimated to be 35 feet which is less than the required 40, for the house portion of the structure. Mr. Varma — Right. I think what was explained to us is because we wanted to try and maintain the integrity of the existing property, the house on the garage, that now we are not in compliance with code because the garage, in essence, becomes a part of the house, so now we are out of compliance. Whereas, if we were just, I don't know, if there was some other design, we potentially would be, because we're altering the roofline of the garage, to keep it at the existing roofline of the house, that's where we ran into this request for the variance. Ms. Brock — And also the allowance for only a 15 foot setback for garages applies to one story garages. So the fact that they now want to build on top of the garage would now make this noncompliant with that requirement. Dick Matthews — They're putting a room on top of the garage? Or just extending the roof? ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 35 Mr. Varma — No, the garage dimensions aren't changing. I think it's the pitch whatever the pitch is, has to be in alignment with the existing house, so it just goes up at a steeper angle. Ms. Brock— So it's still one story? Mr. Varma — Yeah, I mean, there's in here, and in the full set of diagrams there's a bunch of, I don't know what it's called but it's like dead space that exists, I don't know, like unusable space within the garage. Ms. Brock— But in any event, that then... Chairman Sigel — It's still less than 40 feet... Ms. Brock— Behind it, it still has.... Chairman Sigel — And is there already a variance for he other side of the house setback? Mr. Varma — Yeah, so this house, my geometry is not that good, but I think it's like, the lot is not really a rectangle, it's a trapezoid, so when we purchased the house, I think the house was a couple of feet off on the opposite side, so in, what's it called, when your...in escrow, that, a variance was received for what ever side that was...south.... David Mountin —What year was the house built? Mr. Varma — 2004. Chairman Sigel — It seems very reasonable to me. James Niefer — I feel it's a reasonable request and doesn't change the character of the neighborhood and it's hardly even noticeable by reason of where it's located. Chairman Sigel — Comments, questions...Chris... Ms. Balestra — No comments. The project doesn't require an environmental review. Chairman Sigel —Alright. I'll open the public hearing. John Tashman, 6 Apple Blossom Lane I am the property owner on the side that will be encroached and I just wanted to say that I fully support the variance because I have reviewed the architectural plans and I actually think that it will add to the property value of his property and also mine and other people in the neighborhood, so, I wanted to say that. Chairman Sigel — Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else? ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 36 Tom Fuller, 175 Seven Mile Drive Our properties back up to each other and I will see the new development or the new portion and I'm all for it and I would encourage you folks to approve it. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak? There being no one, we'll close the public hearing. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 050 Area Variance Shan Varma & Kimberley Owen 10 Apple Blossom Lane Tax Parcel # 33.-3-8.14 October 22, 2007 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. That this Board grants the appeal of Shan Varma and Kimberley A. Owen, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct an addition to an existing home located at 10 Apple Blossom Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-8.14, Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. The proposed addition will encroach into the required side yard setback for structures in an LDR Zone. CONDITIONS 1. That the side yard setback be no less than 29 feet, and 2. That the addition be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this Board, and 3. That no further construction be permitted within the required setback beyond what has been indicated on the applicant's plans. FINDINGS That the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, specifically- 1. pecifically:1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve which is to build an aesthetically pleasing addition to his house that fits in with the character of the neighborhood and serves his needs can not be achieved by any other means, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or undesirable change to nearby properties as evidenced in part by the support of neighbors at the public hearing, and ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 37 3. That the requested variance is not substantial, being approximately 25% of the required setback, and 4. That there will be no adverse environmental or physical effects, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the lot is a somewhat narrow lot and the house is not a particularly wide house. A Vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Matthews and Levine. Nays: None Absent: Krantz The motion passed unanimously. The next appeal is that of Sheri Johnson Henry and James R. Henry, Owners/Appellants, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to create a lot by subdivision, located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2, Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR). The parcel has insufficient lot widths at the street and at the required setback for parcels within the MDR Zone. James Henry, PO Box 95, Groton, NY I could give a little summary. First, does everyone have the new map...when we first submitted this stuff, we didn't have, the surveyor didn't...okay, I just wanted to make sure...we submitted the map...make sure everybody... Chairman Sigel — Yeah, we have one received October 16th at the Town. Mr. Henry — In 1961 a family named Underwood had a subdivision map done where they divided their parcel into 3 lots. Lot A was 1022 Hanshaw, which had a house on it, Lot B was the lot to the east and Lot C was the lot to the north, which is the lot that we're talking about here. They sold off the parcels in 1962 to Brady, for the house 1022 Hanshaw. In 1967 to somebody I believe was named Chamberlain, for the Lot C that we're talking about and they built another residence on Lot B. They got a building permit in 1982. They filed the map with the Town but there is no record that there was subdivision approval at that time even though the Town had the map in their records and they granted the building permit based on the map as it divided the parcels out. Lot C remained a vacant lot that was transferred, you know, separately, deeded down through. We became the, I refer to we as my wife and myself, my wife was the titled owner, or is the titled owner, became the owner of 1022 Hanshaw, the front lot and a last minute negotiation, we ended up with the vacant lot. The lot has been...I know that the prior owners, Uris, had kept the lot with the idea that someday a family member ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 38 would build a house there...we kept the lot with the idea that my wife's sister would move to Ithaca and build a house there. But, we sold the front lot, the 1022 Hanshaw in 1991 and kept the lot. We were approached in 2003 by an individual named Sam Flatt to purchase the back lot and it came before this Board at that time. Mr. Flatt did all the applications at that time. He obtained subdivision approval for, retroactive, you know, approval of the lot, because it appeared that there had never been subdivision approval, from the Planning Board and then came to this Board because it required the frontage variances, both at the street line and at least 50 feet back. At the time that he brought it before this Board he also, in addition to what the Planning Board was requiring, asked for a use variance to build a residence that was not in compliance. He wanted to build a two-family that was, that didn't that was a 50/50, you know, it was the same size and the Board had concerns about that and the neighbors had objections to that, and after the hearing...there was no vote taken, I can't remember, it might have been that there wasn't a quorum or something, or maybe it was just adjourned for further proceedings, but he withdrew the variance application after that meeting and withdrew from the contract. We were approached a couple of months ago by, again, by someone who wants to build a residence there but they want to build a regular house and we did a contract, we have a contract for sale, which is contingent upon obtaining the necessary approvals. So we went back to the Planning Board because although there had been approval in 2003 there was a question on whether it had expired or not. The Planning Board last week approved, again approved the subdivision with certain conditions. The major one, from our point of view, is that it comes to the ZBA for consideration of the variances again. Chairman Sigel —Are you aware that in June of 1982, these two lots were consolidated? Mr. Henry — Today I became aware that that question was out there, and so I spent a little bit of time this afternoon trying to look at whatever I had at my office to try to figure out what that was and that, as I understand, Assessment says that it was consolidated for tax purposes, not for lot purposes, under the statutes, which refers to deeded lots, but for tax purposes, Uris' consolidated the parcels. At the time that we purchased it, it was a single tax parcel which then became separated and the reason...I know how it became separated...I remember what resulted in that which was that we had both of the parcels put in my wife's name. We had mortgages on them, on the lot...one mortgage was for the Uris' for the purchase of the vacant lot. The mortgage to Alternatives Federal Credit Union, AFCU, was sign...the mortgage was in my wife's name because she was the titled owner, but the mortgage note was signed by both of us, making me liable for payment as well as her, which is fine under New York law and that's the way they had done it. We got a call from AFCU in it must have been...when I looked at the deed, because the transaction was December of 1986 so it must have been February or March, AFCU called us and said "we have a problem. We did this mortgage with the assumption that QUNA, the Credit Union of North America, whatever it is, the, which is, ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 39 apparently credit unions have this entity that purchases their mortgages and that was always what was planned but QUNA has bounced it back saying that they have a rule that you have to have the same names on the mortgage note as on the mortgage and the deed. So, if, so they came to us and said would you help us out by doing a deed from Sheri to Sheri and myself as spouses doing a correction deed and doing a correction mortgage which will solve our problem and we will be able to sell the mortgage to them rather than to hold it as a portfolio loan which we weren't counting on, we wanted to get that money from selling it in order to loan it out to others." And they said, "we will prepare all the papers, all you have to do is sign and we'll record them." And so we said yes, we'll do that. What that ended up doing was putting the front lot into both of our names and the back lot into just what it was, into her name, because the mortgage was just on the house lot. That's all they wanted. And, so that ended up dividing the parcel for tax purposes again. What we have been focusing on is the subdivision issue and lots, you know, as deeded lots because it was always deeded as a separate entity. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Do you have any records remaining from the credit union requesting that from you? To make that, as the purpose of that... Mr. Henry — I think it was verbal but of course the correction deed and the correction mortgage, which is what you want to see, is the correction mortgage from CFCU, I mean AFCU, that's in the County Clerk's records. That was done April 2nd of 1987 was the date on those. So I mean I could supply a copy... Chairman Sigel — Okay. I'm not sure...I don't know if Susan, you would know this, or Chris or Dan...about...if there is, from the Town's point of view, what action creates a consolidation of lots. I mean, is it, it does appear, I have the deeds from your purchase from the Uris' and there were 2 separate deeds that I got, from the County, but yet at the time, as far as the County was concerned, it was one tax parcel number. So, from the Town's subdivision requirement point of view, how do we treat that? Is that one lot at that point and splitting it requires subdivision approval. Mr. Walker — Historically, we've always looked at, once it's consolidated at the Assessor's Office, it becomes a single lot and then any subdivision of that requires Town Planning Board approval. But apparently in this particular case, if there were two owners and it was going to be recorded, they misrecorded the two separate parcels...and we had problems with the court house accepting subdivisions in the past. Some one had, created two lots and filed them without getting Planning Board approval and actually getting them recorded in the Clerk's office and then recorded in Assessment... Chairman Sigel —And then the County would just assign the numbers. Mr. Walker — Assign the numbers, and when I started with the Town in 1990, that was happening occasionally so we kind of went over and went through it with John Barney, when he was the Town Attorney, and made it clear to the Court Clerk that they not ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 40 accept subdivisions unless they were signed by the Planning Board Chair and that was mid-1990's probably that we had that little confrontation. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So prior to that then, it's...possible. Mr. Walker — Prior to that, we could catch it occasionally and we would ask people to come in for subdivision approval. But, once it's become one parcel, it's one parcel again. Chairman Sigel — Susan? Ms. Brock — Yeah, that's my understanding too, of what the Town has historically done. That, to subdivide a parcel requires Planning Board approval, but then, afterwards, if the property owner wishes to consolidate parcels, they can do so. They don't have to come back to the Planning Board for that approval, they can merely get the County Assessment Office to change the tax maps and show it as one parcel, and that's okay. But then if they want to, thereafter, split that into two parcels again, they would need to come back for subdivision approval again. That becomes a new subdivision, of that parcel. Mr. Henry — But I would like to point out that the statute, the zoning statute, in terms of definition of lots, is all in terms of deeded lots. I mean, there's nothing in there about tax parcels. It says, you know, what is a lot? It's the property lines, what's lot area, it's the deed description less the amount from the road...it just doesn't talk about tax parcels. Ms. Brock— Let's look... Mr. Henry — I can help you there Susan, if you'd like..."The definition of a lot is in the area of land bounded by property lines which is not divided into part by public road or a railroad." If you were talking tax parcels, you would say it's a tax parcel. You wouldn't talk about it being divided by a road, you wouldn't need to talk about it being divided by a road or a railroad. "A lot area is the area of a lot excluding any portion of the public highway right-of-way that may be included in the deed description of the lot." Again... Ms. Brock—Where are you reading from? Mr. Henry — The definitions of...the definitions in the, I think it's in the zoning ordinance... Ms. Brock — In the Town's zoning ordinance? Are you reading from the subdivision regulations or the zoning ordinance? Mr. Henry — The zoning... Ms. Brock—Well we would need to look at the subdivision regulations... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 41 Mr. Henry — Okay, in the subdivision regulations, a lot is "a parcel of land or volume of space. A lot area is the deed description of the lot, with the exception of any portion of a public highway right-of-way." So the lot area is defined by deed, and the lot line is the property boundary of the lot. Again, it doesn't talk about tax parcels. Ms. Brock — Well, the definition of a lot is "a parcel of land or volume of space." So, it's not clear to me that the Town would be restricted at looking just at... Mr. Henry — Oh I'm not saying the Town... Ms. Brock -- ... a deed, you know, what's deeded as opposed to what's on file with the County Assessor's Office, in terms of lots. Mr. Walker — There are implications in Town Administration and Town taxing, for example, on these two lots, if they were consolidated, instead of having two water and sewer benefit assessments each, they would only be assessed one because it would be one lot and there's a major financial advantage to the property owners to do that... Mr. Henry — But that was not the case. When we, for years after we purchased this, we paid two sever and two water on this lot. That's one on the front lot, and two on this, because the lot is so large that the Town considered it two building lots and assessed us for two sewer units and the two water/sewer units on just the vacant lot, where there was no building. We were paying taxes as though it were two residences on this one lot. Which does, I mean, the question...this is what happened 21 years ago and the division was 40 years ago, it's a long time ago, but, this lot is one of the two largest lots in that area, next to the church and the golf course. And maybe that's what...I mean, it seems like we are getting off on to a ...I think, I mean...is your concern... Chairman Sigel — My concern is that the representation of this, and I am not claiming that it would not have been approved or, you know, I'm not offering any judgment on that, but my concern is that the representation to the Planning Board was not accurate in this case, because I believe it's clear that there was a consolidation of the lots by the Uris' and in fact, your, the survey that was submitted with your deeds when you purchased this, show the entire lot as being one tax parcel. Mr. Henry — Right, and the Planning Board has that. I mean, I don't understand why you say, I mean, we didn't discuss at the Planning Board tax parcels, and so, I mean, when you say it was misrepresented, it wasn't misrepresented. As you said, there was a map sitting in front of the Planning Board that showed that. How was that misrepresented? We just didn't discuss that. Chairman Sigel — It wasn't represented as a subdivision that took place without approval in 1987. It was represented as a subdivision that took place in 1961. Mr. Henry —Which is true. But in... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 42 Chairman Sigel — I don't believe so though. There was a subdivision... Mr. Henry — You think the subdivision was approved in '61. Chairman Sigel —The subdivision...there was some kind of subdivision in 1961, 1 don't know if it was approved or not, but, if the lots were consolidated in 1982, then that's where we start from. They were consolidated, they were one lot, they were 71-1-66. Both A and C were that tax parcel number from '82 forward. And in '87 they were subdivided...they were split, in the County records, without approval from the Town, in 1987. MR. Henry — Okay, I understand what you are saying, and that may be why, the Planning Board, in 2003, they defined that as a two-lot subdivision. Chairman Sigel — I mean, that's why...I believe it is...it's a split of what was formerly (inaudible) ..66 Mr. Henry — Okay, and that was what was reconsidered last week, was, that what was done in 2003 and so if in 2003 that was the...remember Susan...there was a question...why was it a two lot verses a one or three and they said well, it can't be a one, it's got to be two. And we didn't know why in 2003 they said it was a two...because we didn't do the application in 2003. That was done by Sam Flatt. But they called it a two-lot subdivision back then, so, they called it a two-lot subdivision now, and maybe that's why is that it was the split between A and C, but, that, I mean... Chairman Sigel — In my mind it does change things that...To me there's a big difference between something that happened in 1961 where it's not clear if something was lost or mishandled by someone many owners ago, versus something that happened in 1987 while you owned the entire parcel and were in control of the entire parcel. Mr. Henry — And so, what you're saying is maybe the Planning, maybe if you consider this here, is you want to make the Planning Board aware of that, because the condition, the approval of the sub division is conditioned on several things. The variances, as well as several things that the Town Attorney has to review and the Planning Board has the power to pull it back if they want to look at that. When I became aware of this issue today, I talked to Mike Smith and he said "I don't think, I don't..." again, that's just his opinion, as Planning Staff, he said, "I don't' think it affects what the Planning Board would do." But of course that's not the Planning Board saying that, so, it's fine with us that you make the Planning Board aware of that, or the Planning Department so that, I mean, they can do what they want with regard to that. Chairman Sigel — Well, I mean, I'll ask the other Board Members, personally, I guess maybe at first I should say, is everyone been following what we've been discussing or have any questions about this? Basically, you know, in our packet, no mention was made of these events that happened in 82 and 87, where there was a consolidation of A ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 43 and C and then a subsequent split at the time that Mr. Or your wife, transferred ownership of Lot A to both of your names, right, that's what they... Mr. Henry — Right, because of the mortgage... Chairman Sigel —That's what triggered the split to the 66.1 ... Mr. Henry — Right, that's what...I went back through and that's what it did... Chairman Sigel — and .2 and so, from what I can tell, I believe that that was another, that was essentially a new subdivision which should have been approved by the Town and unfortunately at this point, if Mr. Henry has come before the Planning Board at that point, there would have been more flexibility in that because they controlled both lots and so if the Planning Board had wanted to, for instance, say the lot lines changed for some reason, that would have been possible the, it would be very difficult right now. Dick Matthews — Because? Chairman Sigel — Because at the time they owned both lots and now Lot A is owned by a different party. But my feeling, I don't feel comfortable approving a variance that then has a condition that the Planning Board then go back and reapprove what they did, you know, when their original approval is conditioned on our approval. You know, I feel like it gets, it become too circular. I would feel more comfortable referring this back to the Planning Board asking them to indicate whether they would, you know, if they still approve this, essentially, given the new information, and then have it come back here. Ms. Brock — Under the Town Code, the ZBA can refer matters to the Planning Board for recommendation. So I believe Kirk, what you are saying, is that you would refer this back to the Planning Board with a, asking them for a recommendation as to whether or not they would have approved this had they know the information about the transactions in the 1980's and if.. Chairman Sigel — Right. Approved it in this form, so that if there are changes made, you know, we basically see the final approval. Ms. Brock — And at that time, when it's back to them for that recommendation, if they choose to reopen their decision, they can do so. New York case law is very clear that a Planning Board does have the ability to reopen a subdivision approval based on "new material, information or evidence, or based on the fact that the application had misleading information in it." So the Planning Board does have that ability to reopen that decision if they believe it's appropriate to do so. Mr. Henry — I object, again, to saying misleading information in it. You can say something wasn't in that you think should have been in but to say it had misleading information is a conclusion that I don't think is appropriate. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 44 Ms. Brock — Well I wasn't stating that there was, in this case, misleading information, I was giving the Zoning Board the series of criteria that they could look at and that includes "new material, evidence, new material, information, or submission of misleading information.", and that would be up to them to decide whether any of those criteria are met. Dick Matthews — Put it in terms that I might understand better. If we were to approve the variances it would be another form of the tail wagging the dog, wouldn't it? When in fact the Planning Board has to make a move first. Chairman Sigel —well, I mean, strictly speaking... Ms. Brock—Well, they have moved... Chairman Sigel -- ...the Planning Board doesn't have to do anything else, if they don't want to. Dick Matthews — But they... Chairman Sigel —And we could grant the variances tonight. Dick Matthews —And what mistake would we be making if we did that? Chairman Sigel — Well, I don't think we would be making a mistake, except that 1, 1 would like to have the Planning Board reaffirm their decision based on the new, based on the information that was not available to them. Dick Matthews — So you suspect they don't know that. Ms. Brock — They didn't have this information about the 1980 transactions in front of them. I was at that meeting and I reviewed the packet that was provided to them and that information was not in their packet. The affidavit submitted by Mr. Henry spoke at length about the transactions in the 1960's, it did not state that he and/or his wife owned, at any time, both parcels A and C. I think it only spoke to the fact that his wife owns Parcel C now. It didn't speak to the fact that the lots had been consolidated and were consolidated when they purchased them, nor did it state that they themselves re- divided the lots into two tax parcels. Dick Matthews — So what kind of trouble would we be facing or creating if we did approve the variances? Hard feelings? Chairman Sigel — I'm not sure how to answer that. I mean, would we be making a flawed decision? I don't think so. But, I mean... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 45 Dick Matthews — I mean, to like something is one thing, to do something because it's the legal procedure to follow is another thing. I tried not to make my votes based on whether or not I kike this, whether or not it follows the procedures correctly. Chairman Sigel — well in this case I think we could...you could argue that we could go either way. We could request that we get, that we request more information from the Planning Board, which we are allowed to do, or, we could choose to decide that we have enough information and vote. Dick Matthews — So who wants to argue the both points? I don't feel capable of doing that to tell you the truth. Chairman Sigel — Well, I've already stated that my feeling is that I would like to see the referral to the Planning Board and they can discuss, I mean, it might be as simple as a very brief discussion at the Planning Board where everyone agrees that the new information would not impact their decision and they can re-affirm that with a vote, and then the same exact plans and application can come back to us at a subsequent meeting. Or, the Planning Board could change their decision, in which case, we would be dealing with their new decision. I mean, they can re-open this on their own, so even if we approved this, they could change it, and I just don't...I'd like to know the answer... Mr. Henry — We do not have an objection to it being referred back to the Planning Board. It's unfortunate because it's going to cause a delay in what we hoped to do, but we don't have an objection to that. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Dick Matthews — That's easy. Let's do it. He can come back. He can choose to get up and walk out and not lose his place in line. Just give him a new hearing and move forward. Chairman Sigel — Okay...I'm not sure if we should open the public hearing tonight. Ms. Brock — I think it's in your discretion since people have, perhaps, have attended who wish to be heard. You could say that this is not a formal public hearing on this matter, that will happen at a later date if this comes back for consideration, but if people wish to make any comments tonight, then you can hear them. I think it's up to you. Chairman Sigel — Has anyone come to speak regarding this appeal? (some people nod) I think in this case, it would make more sense to wait until we have what might be the same exact proposal, might be a modified proposal, at a subsequent meeting, rather than receive comments about what might change. So, I will not open the public hearing for this appeal. There will be one, of course, at the next meeting. Or at the next meeting where this is heard. Chairman Sigel — Moves the motion. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 46 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 051 ADJOURNMENT Sheri Johnson Henry 1020 Hanshaw Road Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-66.2 October 22, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. That this Board adjourns the appeal of Sheri Johnson Henry and James R. Henry, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270- 73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to create a lot by subdivision, located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2, Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR) until such time that the Planning Board has had an opportunity to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding whether the information about how the property was consolidated in 1982 and then split again in 1987 would have altered or does alter, in any way, their approval of the subdivision. A vote on the motion was as follows. Ayes: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Matthews and Mountin. Nays: None Absent: Krantz The motion passed unanimously. The next appeal is that of Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, John M. Keefe, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a 126,000+/- gross square foot Cornell Animal Health Diagnostic Center, located on the Cornell University Campus near Farrior and Caldwell Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67-1-10.2 and 67-1- 10.4, Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. The proposed building will exceed the maximum height allowed for structures in the LDR Zone. John Keefe, Cornell University Good evening. I'm John Keefe, the project manager for the animal health diagnostics center, 102C Humphrey Service Building, Ithaca, New York. I would like to take a brief moment and talk a little bit about the health diagnostic facility or the health diagnostic center before I get into the details of what we are here for tonight. So I will talk a couple of minutes on their mission and activities, look at the scope of what we are proposing, and then look at some of the views we have developed and where we think the building will fit into our campus landscape. The health diagnostics has been done at Cornell University since its inception and when the veterinary school was chartered in 1894, however the first diagnostic lab was not ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 47 constructed until 1977. That is the current facility they are working in. The diagnostic lab was built in 1977. Since then their work has increased by about 50-fold. So what the diagnostic center has done is basically expand to other buildings in the university as well as 11 different locations throughout Tompkins County. So the proposed health diagnostic center is a building which will consolidate these elements into one single building, which is really essential for efficiency of operations. Additionally the building constructed in 1977 does not meet the current standards of today of a modern diagnostic lab. The diagnostic center or what they do at the animal health diagnostic center, basically the bottom line is they are set to approve public health and promote economic growth not only in the area but in New York state as well as in New England. They do this through a variety of services that they provide, obviously diagnostic services, research programs that they do, teaching and outreach education. A good example of what they do is if you have a companion animal that goes in for a blood test it is most likely going to come to the diagnostics center. If you have your well water tested it is most likely going to come to the diagnostic center at Cornell. They process about 900,000 tests a year right now. This is based upon about 140 to 150,000 samples they'll receive. They're really the only such facility we have in this state right now. One of the key aspects, they did, if you recall, about 4 to 6 months ago when we had problems with tainted dog food, it was the diagnostics center at Cornell that discovered the toxicity of that. The proposed scope of work is about 126,000 square foot facility. We plan to locate...propose to locate it in the northeast corner of the veterinary center complex and I'll show you a visual of that in a second. It is going to be a typical wetlab type research facility, 3 stories high with a mechanical penthouse over one of the wings, the wing that faces basically east-west. This map gives you a good idea of the overall location we are looking at back here in this corner with Caldwell Road here, Campus Road and Route 366 running right through there. This is a bit of a 3-D image super-laid over the existing conditions on the site. Right now it is sort of what we call the back yard of the veterinary center, a lot of barns in this area. The Dairy Barn is housed in here as well as some other small, minor cinder block type buildings. These buildings will all be demolished to make way for this facility. We feel that this cleans up the area quite well and we are actually pulling back from the wooded area and trying to create a more pleasant view and atmosphere for the facility in that location. One of the key aspects to the facility is its connectivity to the rest of the college and that is what we call our connector link right here. It connects Sherman Hall...with the new proposed facility. The reason that being is there is actually 3 sections of the diagnostics center itself that are housed right in this area here. And so that gives an all-weather connection for the facility to function properly. Next couple boards will show you some of the views. The coloring did not come out all that great. It looks a little bit too orange. It is not quite as orange. I think the one in your packet is more accurately displays the actual coloration of the building. But your top view is your north view. You can see that the building is primarily brick, two-tones of brick with a large curtain wall bordering the ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 48 outside looking out over the wooded area. This in the center is sort of atrium, linking these two wings of the building together. The view down below is of the west elevation. These two both show the south elevation and the east elevation. The south elevation has more of a punched window rather than a curtain wall system and this is the side that really faces in towards the vet school complex itself. So what we attempted to do was to see what impact this would have visually and I think that is the important aspect of the facility. So we took a number of photos from the surrounding area, and I'll put this map over here once we get to the photos and then superimpose the building into the photo itself. We did not take photos...actually we did take photos from across the creek over here in the Forest Home section as well as up around Fairway Avenue, which I believe is right there and the reason I didn't have those photos brought with me is because you basically can't see anything from there. Both due to the buildings in the way as well as the trees in that area. The same is true coming from this angle here. It is basically hidden by the east campus research facility, the veterinary research tower. Any views from this area is obscured by the veterinary medical center. Chairperson Sigel — How is the height and the elevation of this building compared to the buildings that are immediately adjacent? The large buildings that are adjacent. Mr. Keefe — I can show that really well in the next slide. I'll talk about those heights. So this is the view if you were standing down at point 1, which is basically down at the bottom right by the bridge there across the creek. Unfortunately I don't have a winter picture to add this in, but in the summer you can see that it is pretty much totally obscured by trees with the exception of the break on Caldwell Road here and maybe a little tailings off in this direction here. Certainly in the winter you are going to have some visibility in the building. It will be partially obscured by trees and conifers in that area, but there will be more of a view of it than you see in this photo here. This is a view looking from the overlook at the Plantations. We were concerned what it was going to look like in that area and this is where some of the other buildings come into play and you can see them. Then the next slide you will see it even closer, but from the overlook in the Plantations you really get no visual, maybe just a slight topping of the roof in this area as compared to the VRT, which you can see here and the VMC, which is right over in this area here. We moved a little bit closer and basically our next shot came from the water tower area. And here again it is again where it shows its positioning with the other structures in the area. The health diagnostic facility at 70 feet, the VRT at about 130 feet, the VMC at close to 90 feet and the east campus research facility right in there at 76 feet. Then this is the final view and its the view basically from 366 and Caldwell Road where you are going to see the one wing of the facility as you come down 366 in that area there. And finally just to give you an idea of how we envision the construction going provided we get all the necessary approvals. We have received a preliminary site plan approval and a neg dec on our SEAR. So our next step was the Zoning Board followed by final ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 49 site plan review. We hope to start construction probably late in March, early April, depending on the weather, of next year with a completion about 26 to 28 months after that. Mr. Mountin — I have a question. In terms of the environmental affects of a building of this scale, in lieu of Cornell's new sustainability plan, what is the connection between...how does the energy or the environmental functions of this new building fit into that plan. Mr. Keefe — It very well does. We are looking at obtaining LEED silver. We are hoping to gold. We are really close at this point because energy wise we have done a very, very good job with a lot of the measures we have taken. And obviously we do that selfishly to save money and in saving energy, but in saving energy as well as some of the other LEED components. We are trying to implement recycling and reuse of the materials, the bicycle racks, our shower facilities and things like that. Mr. Mountin — Excellent. Ms. Brock — Just for the Board's information, this was a coordinated SEAR review and the Planning Board was lead agency and they have already made their decision. They gave a negative determination of significance and so that is binding on you because it was a coordinated review. So you won't be doing a separate SEAR review tonight, but in lines with your question, my belief, too, is that there will be an increase in pervious surfaces of about not quite half an acre. Is that correct? You are basically redeveloping what is already a developed site and some of the areas that currently are impervious paved areas in buildings will actually become pervious, I believe. Mr. Keefe — You can see the whole area to the rear, which is paved and roofed as well as this dirt lot here will all be green area when we are done. So we are increasing, I think, by 14% is what we ended up with. Ms. Brock — And as I said the Planning Board's determination is binding on you, but I thought that might be interesting information for you to know since you were asking about some of the environmental affects anyway. Mr. Mountin — Yes. I'm just curious...(not audible)...or any solar application on the...? Mr. Keefe — No. No solar application. Room sensors both for ventilation and lighting, of course. Mr. Matthews —As I read the literature, our concern tonight is the height? Chairperson Sigel — Is the height variance. Mr. Matthews — That's it. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 50 Ms. Brock — Which actually it doesn't...do height variances need SEAR anyway? I'd have to look. It's a coordinated review. Chairperson Sigel —Well, for a commercial building it would. Mr. Matthews — It seems to me it is a lower building than the few buildings I can see. It seems to me. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. I mean obviously...it's a...you know, for the low density zone it is a very large amount over, but given the character of the neighborhood and what is there it does, I think it appears to fit in. Dick Matthews — I agree with that. Chairman Sigel — Any other comments before we open the public hearing. Chris, anything you wanted to add about the SEAR? Ms. Balestra — Not at this point, other than the negative determination was included in your packets so that you could see what was discussed and what was reviewed. Chairman Sigel — Okay. At this point we will open the public hearing. Bruce Brittan, 135 Warren Road The Animal Health Diagnostic Center seems like a very worthwhile project and I am to opposed to the project per se. On the other hand, it is going to be 30 or 40 feet above the Town's height limit for that area. While it is an important building and will do worthwhile activities, there's nothing that I heard tonight that says the building has to be that height or has to be located in that location. The wooded slope of the Caldwell Road hill is, it's called Slim Jim Woods, it fulfills a very important function of separating Forest Home community and the Plantations from the hub bub of campus. It's an important visual barrier and an important sound barrier and I'm concerned that any encroachment on that buffer or overtopping it would, could have a negative impact on the Forest Home Community and on the Plantations. I have a photograph which I will (he passes out a photo)...so this photograph was taken within the Cornell Plantations on the northeast side of Caldwell Road looking at the existing structures. Those are single story buildings that you see in the center of that photograph. The existing buildings are seasonally visible but when the leaves are on, you can't see them. My concern is that this is a single story building in the middle of the picture, if you replace that with say, a 70-story building, I think it's going to overtop those trees and be visible. So I am concerned about the visible impacts this would have on the Plantations and on the Forest Home community. And I was able to see some of these pictures showing that there would not be an impact, but it looks like, I'm concerned that there would be and I am wondering, would it be possible to float balloons at the proposed corners of this proposed building in order to demonstrate...this ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 51 is where the building will be, so that we can stand here and look at it and know, gee, it will be visible, or it won't be visible. Planning Staff seems to have indicated that there won't be a visual impact and if so, I think they would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that and I think it would go a long way to relieving some of the concerns that Forest Home residents have about the potential impact it. So, thank you. Chairman Sigel — I think...I'll just comment about the visual impact. I don't think that the applicant claimed that there wouldn't be any visual impact from their photographed location, which is essentially from the foot of the bridge and they actually drew in some of the building being visible... Mr. Brittan — Minimal. Chairman Sigel — Minimal. With leaf cover...and...Mr. Keefe did state that, obviously, in the winter with no leaf cover, the building would be more visible. So, just, I don't think it's fair to characterize that they claimed it wouldn't be visible from that vantage point, because I think they...but thank you very much for your comments. Chairman Sigel — Actually, can I just ask you...When did you take this picture? (spring) This past spring? (yeah). It's a useful photo for us, thank you. Mr. Brittan —Well, I had thought that this was going to come to the Board in April, so... Chairman Sigel — Thank you. Dick Matthews — To address his concern, and I understand what you're saying, and I think that's valid too... Chairman Sigel — Actually, Dick, I just want to check that there is no one else...so we'll close the public hearing. Dick Matthews — My question is, is it at all possible for the gentleman, yes sir, is it at all possible for you to pencil in the height of this building in on this photograph and be fair to you and the gentleman who just spoke...so we could have an idea of what it looks like in the wintertime. Mr. Keefe — I could do that, but I think what you are seeing is, if you look at that picture there, where you've got the slight dip in trees, on the far side...that's what I have shown right here. Dick Matthews —And where is your building. Mr. Keefe — That is our building, superimposed in the rear of it. Dick Matthews — In the dip in the trees... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 52 Mr. Keefe — Yes, as the far end. Chairman Sigel — I think it...this building that is shown in Mr. Britons photo...is that closer to the edge? Mr. Keefe — Yes... Chairman Sigel — Than the proposed building... Mr. Keefe — It's, you might be looking at this two story structure here...Now Sherman Hall, which is 3 stories, is what you are seeing at the far end in this picture also, I believe. Chairman Sigel —And what's the height of that building? Mr. Keefe — Sherman Hall's about 42 feet. Chairman Sigel — Okay. The one at the right edge of Mr. Britton's photo. David Mountin — So that picture is taken off the map there...that photograph... Mr. Keefe — That photo was taken from right there...It's almost the same spot... Chairman Sigel — Mr. Britton's is a little bit closer I think. Mr. Keefe — a little closer maybe, I went back where, basically where the first residence was. Ks — Because the proposed building is further set back, that would mitigate the impact on the view somewhat from this position, but obviously it's considerably higher, so it's hard to...it's hard to know for sure exactly where it would hit in this tree line. I mean, if we judge from this drawing...it would be close to the tops of these trees. Dick Matthews — Close to the tops of these trees? Chairman Sigel — Yea. So, there are benefits to both Cornell and the community at large I suppose you could argue, that a building that's taller, allows it to be more energy efficient...more efficient use of the land...and I mean, there are some compelling reasons to use this site because it is existing...well there's the convenience aspects, but they are reusing what's already impervious area. David Mountin — What is the side of the building going to be on...facing the woods...what's that going to be comprised of? Steel...reflective steel... ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 53 Mr. Keefe — No, what it is primarily is a brick facade and these are windows and they are actually a tinted type window, frosted. This area up here is a dull, gun metal type grey clouding on the top of the penthouse. Personally, I think that Mr. Britton does raise some good issues but that the overall test for an area variance is met by Cornell. And I think that a lot of the aspects of the proposal do have a lot of merit. Anyone else? Dick Matthews — Well I...mouthy me...when it comes to Forest Home, I have a tremendous amount of sympathy about the little place and I have to watch myself. It's a very attractive place. I wish it was isolated someplace else other than the intersection of busy road 1 and busy road 2, but I believe the economic value of this building to the purpose of Cornell and so forth, should be considered a great deal. The view that the gentleman has showed us is, maybe one or two houses see it, from their porch, from across the water. But it's this side of, south of the bridge, and there are no houses there. There are stop signs and cars, and I think there's one house right across the bridge that may see this view and maybe on the road, they may see it, but I believe a lot of it may be closed out by trees on the Plantations grounds. Chairman Sigel — I think there is some vegetation... Dick Matthews — And I think the greatest number of people seeing this hillside are traffic and you're more interested in making sure you can take the hill in the winter and not getting hit by the car wanting to go across the street into Plantations more than looking at the hillside. That's my comments. Chairman Sigel — Any other questions, comments? No...I will move...Well, let me first ask, what exactly is the proposed height? Mr. Keefe -- 70 feet/ Ms. Brock— Is that to the height of the tallest structure on the roof? Mr. Keefe — That's to the top of the mechanical penthouse. It's not including the stacks, we had that discussion before. Chairman Sigel -- Do they need a variance or are they exempted, like a chimney would be. Ms. Balestra — They are exempted. Let me look at the minutes...this came up at the Planning Board meeting...Susan Brock said, in the minutes of the Planning Board meeting on this item that "our code actually defines height as it relates to structures other than buildings." We then have definitions of height from lowest interior grade and height from lowest exterior grade, and in doing those measurements, our code says that you measure to the highest point of the roof excluding chimneys, antennae or other similar protrubences." ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 54 Chairman Sigel — So is this 70 feet from the exterior grade, I assume? Mr. Keefe — That's correct. Ms. Brock — But it wouldn't hurt to mention in the resolution to also state that there's an allowance for stacks and other items on the roof...so what I was saying then was that the height limit in out code is set up so that it doesn't take into account chimneys, antennae and other things like that, but we should be clear about what it is we are granting here. We'll be granting a variance from the height limit, but it would also be appropriate to state what the maximum height the stacks are to I think, if you wish to do that. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Do you know the height of the stacks? Mr. Keefe — Yes, the stack height would be 10 feet above the penthouse roof on some of them, so the highest point would be 80 feet then... David Mountin — Clarification and then I might have a question. You said the zoning allows for top of the roof excluding antenna and other...we just gave a variance to Ithaca College because they wanted to put up an alarm, or siren, to warn the campus. Did we need to do that? In terms of what you're saying, because it wouldn't be included in the height/ Chairman Sigel — One of those was freestanding. David Mountin — I thought it was on top of a roof... Chairman Sigel — one of them was on top of a roof, I don't know...but that isn't an antennae or a chimney... David Mountin — It's an "other"...it sounds like...we granted.. and we wouldn't have had to deal with that issue if we considered it an "other" so my question is are there any plans of any towers or sirens or anything going to be on this building? Mr. Keefe — No. Chairman Sigel — If we explicitly...if the variance is specifically for the building to be a certain height and then the stacks, as shown on the plans to be an additional height, then I think it will be pretty clear as to what's allowed. David Mountin - -1 was just confused about that one siren that was on the roof that we had to give a variance for... Chairman Sigel — It's possible that that interpretation could also be correct. ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 55 Ms. Brock – There was also all kinds of equipment associated with that, so, it may be it would be considered, would be considered a similar protruberence... David Mountin—I just remember the picture that was submitted and that was what the variance was about, putting that additional height on that building? Ms. Brock – Was that a building that had previously had a variance on it? Do you remember? I don't know Dave... Chairman Sigel –Alright. Motion made, seconded and voted on. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 052 Height Variance Cornell Animal Health Diagnostic Center Cornell Campus Tax Parcel #67.-1-10.2 & 67.-1-10.4 October 22, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Eric Levine. That this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a 126,000+/- gross square foot Cornell Animal Health Diagnostic Center, located on the Cornell University Campus near Farrior and Caldwell Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67-1-10.2 and 67-1-10.4, Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. CONDITIONS: 1. That the height of the building from lowest exterior grade be no greater than 71 feet, and 2. That the height of any of the stacks that are shown on the plans submitted to this Board be no greater than 81 feet from lowest exterior grade, and 3. That the building be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant in the location indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. FINDINGS That the applicant does meet the criteria for an area variance, specifically: 1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve can not be achieved by any other means given that the applicant wishes to attach this facility to related facilities that are already existing on campus and the applicant wishes to achieve ZBA Final 10/22/07 Pg 56 a certain density of lab space to create a more energy efficient building requires that they build it higher rather than with a larger footprint, and 2. An undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place as the immediate neighbors to this location, on the south, east and west sides are other Cornell University buildings and that to the north is Cornell owned arboretum and beyond that, Forest Home, which does have some vegetative screening from this project, and 3. That this Board does find that the requested variance is substantial being approximately twice as high as is allowed; and 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the negative declaration prepared by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self created in that this is an expansion of Cornell's campus and they are constrained by the land that they own and the portion of campus that this needs to go into to connect with similar buildings, and 6. That overall, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion was as follows. Ayes: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Matthews and Levine. Nays: None Absent: Krantz The motion passed unanimously. OTHER Training discussed. Harry Ellsworth will be absent at least November, possibly December. Meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairman