Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2006-01-23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2006 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; Jim Niefer, Board Member; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner. ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Graham, Cornell Athletics; Laurene Gilbert, Cornell University; Steve Herbert, Cornell University; Chad Horihan, 303 Old Gorge Rd; Tim Higgins, 303 Old Gorge Rd; Tim Atsedes, 301 Old Gorge Rd; Stacey Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins County, 950 Danby Rd; Carol Oster, Conifer Realty, LLC, 1835 Main St, Rochester NY; John H. Fennessey, Conifer Realty, LLC, Syracuse NY; Bonnie Warren, 2028 Elmira Rd, Newfield NY; Robert M. Drew, 100 Hunt Center. Chanpefson Sigel opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Welcome to the January Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have four appeals, that of Chad Horihan, that of Cornell University, the appeal of Conifer LLC, and the appeal of Bonnie and James Warren. We'll be taking them in that order. APPEAL of Chad Horihan, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a newly constructed home located at 303 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.36, Low Density Residential Zone. A portion of the home is located within the 30-foot required front yard setback. Chairperson Sigel—Hello. Mr. Horihan - How you doing? Chairperson Sigel — Could you please have a seat here and please just begin with your name and address. Mr. Horihan - Chad Horihan, 21 Saunders Road, Ithaca. Chairperson Sigel—OK, and could you just give us a brief overview of why you are here and why you don't want to chop off the front of your house. Mr. Horihan - Tim's the builder and although he likes to build, tearing it down first isn't his first preference. We measured for the setback from the road as opposed to the right of way of the road, and there's no shoulder or ditch or anything there, so when we measured we thought we were actually 45 feet back. And we were working to put it actually what TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES we thought was 50, and there were more trees to cut down in the back, and since we thought we were well beyond the setback, we kind of left those trees in the back, but as it turns out when they did the survey, and they said hey you dummies, you're supposed to measure 30 feet from the center line of the road, and this is really where you're at, we ended up 1.8 feet too close. Chairperson Sigel — Sounds like a fairly reasonable explanation. Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Matthews — Yes I do. How long has the person responsible for having started building that garage been in business? Mr. Higgins - I've been in business for myself for 17 years. Mr. Matthews — 17 years. It seems to me that having had experience of 17 years laying out houses, I just can't get it straight in my mind why you would make the foot and a half mistake like that. Mr. Higgins - Well, we measured from the edge of the road, and thought that was where the setback started. Mr. Matthews —But you've been in business for 17 years. You don't measure from the edge of the road. Mr. Higgins - Apparently not. Mr. Matthews — Is there a possibility that by going back further it would have made it more difficult to come out of that driveway? Mr. Higgins - Pardon me? Mr. Matthews — Would it have been more difficult to get out of that driveway in the wintertime if you went back the foot and a half that was required? Mr. Higgins - Probably not. Mr. Matthews—You don't believe that? Because there is a slope there. Mr. Higgins - It is, yes. Mr. Matthews — I have a difficulty with somebody who's been in the business for 17 years, making a mistake like this and not knowing it. And I know that we put the owner and the builder in a difficult position, because as you opened up your remarks Kirk, not that we want to take the front of your house off. I don't know how you deal with that. Obviously, the rule was broken, and I take into account that somebody's been in the business for 17 years and broke the rule, that concerns me a great deal. 2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Well, you have to, we have a test to apply in the case of an area variance, and basically it's the benefit to the applicant in granting the variance, which is the benefit to them is clear, which is they don't have to take their house apart in the front and rebuild it versus the detriment to the community, which at least to me, I don't think there's really any detriment to a less than 2 foot encroachment in the 30 foot setback in this case. Mr. Matthews—With all due respect, why have the rule? Chairperson Sigel — Why have the rule? Because you have to set a number at which to start. Mr. Matthews—That's correct. Chairperson Sigel — And while I agree that obviously it would have been better had the applicant measured properly, mistakes do happen, and I don't think it's an egregious mistake, and I don't see any evidence that the applicant willfully did it. Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah, I don't have a problem with this, we pass these all the time, and we've seen lots of mistakes and I still make them, so... Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, I mean we've had a number of cases where... Mr. Ellsworth—It's a tough situation on the homeowner that is already in there. Mr. Niefer — I don't have any particular problem with it. We've accepted similar situations in the past. It's unfortunate that a little more careful attention is not given when the property is originally staked out to do the excavation and so on and so forth. Something that's not mentioned here, but it raises a question in my mind from one of the pictures —it the height situation in this property OK to meet our height requirements? Ms. Balestra—Yeah, it is. Mr. Niefer—You're sure of that? Ms. Balestra—Mmm hmmm. Mr. Niefer—Because it's a walkout basement and so on. Ms. Bale stra—I know. Mr. Niefer—And it looks like a three story with a peaked roof. Ms. Balestra—Right. 3 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Niefer—OK. Ms. Balestra— This one does meet the requirement. I can get the specifics if you want, but I know that it does meet the height requirement. Chairperson Sigel—It looks like the roof pitch is a little shallower than some of the other ones in this area. Mr. Ellsworth—Some we've had are quite steep. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah... Ms. Balestra—That's a good observation. Chairperson Sigel — So I suspect that they just might make it. Any other comments or questions? OK, we'll open the public hearing, if anyone would wish to speak for or against this appeal... sir? Chanperson Sigel opened the publ is hearing at 7:10 p.m. Chairperson Sigel - You could come to the end here where the microphone is please, and if you could just begin with your name and address. Mr. Atsedes - My name is Tim Atsedes, and I live right next door, 301 Old Gorge. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Atsedes - They've done a good job, you know, some of the... one pin there was missing, and I did notice Tim was working really hard to try and measure it. We all have rules and regulations that we have to follow. I would have liked to have seen them follow this regulation, but as a neighbor I don't have a problem with it. You know, they're close enough, they did make a good effort to try to find it, but like Dick says, we all have rules and regulations and [inaudible] closer. I just wanted to voice that, that I have no concern whatsoever. Chairperson Sigel—OK, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? OK, if not, we'll close the public hearing. Chanperson Sigel closed the publ is hearing at 7:12 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—Any further questions? OK, I will move to grant the appeal of Chad Horihan, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a newly constructed home located at 303 Old Gorge Road, Tax Parcel 46-1-15.36, Low Density Residential Zone, with a finding that the applicant has met the requirements for an area 4 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES variance, with a condition that the house be no closer to the front lot line than 28 feet and that no further portion of the home be built within with 30 foot required setback. Mr. Niefer— Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? Chairperson Sigel, Mr. Krantz, Mr. Niefer, Mr. Ellsworth—Aye. Chairperson Sigel—Opposed? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 001: Appeal of Chad Horihan, 303 Old Gorge Rd, Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.36 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Chad Horihan, requesting a variance from the requirements of chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a newly constructed home located at 303 Old Gorge Road, Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.36, Low Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: Applicant has met the requirements for an Area Variance. CONDITIONS: 1 . The house shall be no closer to the front lot line that 28 feet 2. No further portion of the home be built within the 30 foot required setback. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: Matthews The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel - OK. It passes, and you're all set. Mr. Horihan - Thank you. 5 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Laurene Gilbert, 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 install rugby goal posts located at the Precinct 9 Athletic Fields on Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60-1- 9.2, Low Density Residential Zone. Said goal posts exceed the 30-foot maximum permitted height for structures other than buildings in the Low Density Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel—Good evening. Ms. Gilbert- Good evening, hi. Chairperson Sigel—Hi. If you could begin with your name and address. Ms. Gilbert- I'm Laurene Gilbert, I'm with Planning, Design and Construction at Cornell University, and Steve Herbert. Mr. Herbert- Steve Herbert, I'm the Associate Athletic Director. Chairperson Sigel — And if you could just give us a brief overview of what you want to do and why you need the variance. Ms. Gilbert - Well, I'll begin, there are two existing multi-purpose fields out there that are often used for rugby, and one is behind the Reis Tennis Center, and the other is directly behind the Oxley Equestrian Arena, Polo Arena. The two, the one field that's in back of the Oxley Polo arena is the field that is being used for rugby, and that is where the goal posts will be located. I had some photographs included in the packet, that didn't... OK. Ms. Balestra—I couldn't find them Laurene, I apologize. Ms. Gilbert- Well, it was to illustrate that they are very hard to see unless you are really, really looking for them from Pine Tree Road. I had a hard time even photographing them so that you could see them. Ms. Balestra—Yeah, we couldn't see anything. Ms. Gilbert - They are removable posts, they will be in place, the intention is for them to be in place during the season and then being removed after the season is over. So, they're not going to be year-round permanent structures. And that's about it. They're... Mr. Herbert- Season is roughly September, October, November. Mr. Ellsworth—I live on Honness Lane. Ms. Gilbert- Yes, we know. 6 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth — I have a funny feeling the rugby players have much louder voices than all the other players, or maybe it's just because they're... no, there's others using those fields. How did you play rugby, you had several matches last year. What did you do for those for goals? Mr. Herbert - I think there were other fields not really suitable for rugby that were on campus. Is that correct, Pat? Mr. Graham - Correct, we don't have any other suitable... Mr. Herbert- Yeah, they played in other... Mr. Ellsworth—There was rugby matches on that field last year. Mr. Herbert- Maybe in the spring, but not any competition. Mr. Ellsworth — Because I could easily hear the rugby players in my backyard. That's not what we're here for, but I just wondered how you were able to play there without rugby goals. Mr. Herbert - I don't think they had competition, I think it was just practice, using the field space. Mr. Ellsworth — There were signs up on Pine Tree directing out of town teams to that location. Mr. Herbert- I don't know... Mr. Ellsworth—Somehow they played the games, right Pat? Chairperson Sigel—For the... Mr. Graham - [inaudible] they're not a club team, well they're a club team but not a team of...they don't receive complete... if you think they had some competition there, I don't know... Mr. Ellsworth—At least two, maybe three. Mr. Graham - They very well could have. Chairperson Sigel—Are the posts up now, or were they up this past fall? Mr. Graham - Yes, they were up. When they were ordered, they were ordered by the rugby club, the Bob Warner Collegiate rules goals. When they came in, it was our responsibility to get them installed. When I went to have them installed, a employee of 7 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES the Town of Ithaca, I can't remember her name, a woman, was involved with the rugby team, and that's when we found out we were in violation of the height requirement. Ms. Balestra — That's Kathryn, was in our engineering department, she's a big rugby player, so she was associated with the project. And she just recently moved away. Mr. Graham - The minute she informed me that we were in violation, she offered to help do the variance appeal request and everything. And that's what happened — she did all that, and we proceeded to hear. I did ask her at the time that we put the goal posts up, what would happen. She goes you may be told you have to take them down immediately, because they didn't meet code, and I was prepared to do that anytime I was told that. Mr. Ellsworth—They're removable now? Mr. Graham - Yes, they were removable. Mr. Ellsworth—I mean that's what we're talking about here. Mr. Graham - They are removable goal posts. They go up, usually the second [inaudible] in August and then I try to take them down by the end of November, if not by the first part of December they come down. That's my responsibility. Mr. Matthews — Goal posts are supposed to be 30 feet tall, is that it? I don't know anything about rugby. Mr. Herbert- The rules require that they be 36 feet tall. Mr. Matthews —36? Ms. Gilbert - Yeah, and the height requirement, or the zoning height right now is 30, so we're 6 feet over. Mr. Matthews—What is the function of 36 feet, may I ask? Mr. Herbert - I think it's the upright so when they kick the ball, I guess you can tell you whether it went between the uprights. Mr. Matthews —I see. Mr. Herbert- I'm not a rugby player. Mr. Ellsworth—So that's the top of the side of[inaudible] Chairperson Sigel—Pat, could we just get your last name? Mr. Graham - Graham. 8 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Graham, thank you. Mr. Matthews—And a question, excuse me if I seem dense, a goal post is a structure? Ms. Balestra—According to our zoning code. Mr. Matthews—Pardon? Ms. Balestra—According to the zoning code, it is considered a structure, in the way that a code is written, it says no structure other than a building, shall be erected, altered or extended to exceed 30 feet in height. So, it's considered a structure. Mr. Matthews—So, if I put up a flagpole on my property, and I went beyond 30 feet... Chairperson Sigel—You would need a variance. Ms. Balestra—You would need to get a variance. Mr. Matthews—With a marine corps, I understand. Ms. Balestra—It's something the COC might consider revising. Mr. Matthews—OK, that's interesting. Ms. Brock - Actually, your zoning ordinance defines structure as "anything that is constructed or erected on the ground, or upon another structure or building..." And then there is excluded from the term structure, "underground graves, vaults, other underground facilities for the internment of bodies." So, really, it's that first sentence that I read to you that applies, and there's... exclusions don't apply. Anything constructed or erected on the ground. Mr. Matthews—OK, thank you. Mr. Ellsworth — You just need to get somebody from the Town that admires flagpoles, beforehand. Mr. Matthews — Is that it? As far as in Ithaca. I guess I have another question — what harm is done if the goal post go to 30 feet, the viewshed is hurt or something, or what? Chairperson Sigel—That's for you to determine. Ms. Brock- That's right. Mr. Matthews—That's for us to determine? 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—It's the same balancing test. Mr. Ellsworth—They probably don't meet the rugby regulations. Mr. Matthews —Yes, I understand. So what harm is done if we in our wisdom permit the goal posts to go to 36 feet? What harm is being done to the community? Chairperson Sigel—That's for you to determine. Ms. Brock - Right, you look at whether there is some undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties if you were to allow the variance, I mean that's one of the things that you look at. And you may decide that there is no harm, and that's tine, in which case you could grant the variance once you do your balancing. Mr. Matthews — Well, I'd much prefer them playing rugby than being downtown drinking beer. Mr. Niefer—That comes later. Mr. Matthews—That comes later, that's tine. Mr. Krantz—Do standard regulations require a 37-foot pole? Ms. Gilbert- 36. Mr. Matthews- I voice an opinion that I don't think 36-foot poles sticking up out of the ground isn't going to hurt anybody's view. Chairperson Sigel—No, I agree. Ms. Gilbert- There was a short Environmental Assessment Form attached to that. Ms. Balestra—yup, they'll get to that. Ms. Gilbert- [inaudible] answer to those questions also. Mr. Matthews —I would suggest that we consider approving the goal posts to reach to the sky at 36 feet, and to let them play. Mr. Krantz — Obviously our city fathers were not tuned into rugby goal posts then they wrote their ordinance. Ms. Gilbert - And I just thought the fact that they're not permanent structures, I mean, that's one of the reasons why we initially didn't think there would be a zoning issue. So, we were mistaken with that. 10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—OK, any other comments, or questions? Mr. Ellsworth—Well, I would like to have a provision when it's passed that at the end of the season they take them down, that would give Pat something to do. Chairperson Sigel — They've indicated that that's the intent, we can certainly make that part of the motion. Mr. Ellsworth—Yeah, because times change and people forget. Chairperson Sigel—So you said the season is September to November? Ms. Gilbert - Through November. Chairperson Sigel — OK, through November, OK. OK, we'll open the public hearing, if anyone wishes to speak regarding this appeal. If not, we'll close the public hearing. Chanperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—Chris, any comments on the environmental assessment? Ms. Balestra—Nope. Chairperson Sigel—I think you said none... Ms. Balestra—None anticipated. Chairperson Sigel — None anticipated. OK. I will move, in regard to the appeal of Cornell University, to make a negative determination of Environmental Significance for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form completed by Town staff. Second? Mr. Krantz—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 002 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Appeal of Cornell University, Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel No. 60.-1-9.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz RESOLVED that in regard to the appeal of Cornell University, this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form completed by Town staff. 11 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel—And I will move to grant the appeal of Cornell University, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to install rugby goal posts located at the Precinct 9 Athletic Fields on Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 60-1-9.2, Low Density Residential Zone, with the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, with the condition that the posts not exceed 37 feet in height and that they only be installed during the months of September, October and November. Mr. Krantz—So, maybe it's December? Chairperson Sigel—They indicated they only needed it through November. Mr. Krantz—They said sometimes they take them down... Mr. Graham - I may not take them down until like the first week in December. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Graham - Because if they should make it into the playoffs, it takes them right into the last weekend before Thanksgiving, and that's when all my winter or fall sports end, so I may not be over there immediately, but I will get there as quick as I can. Chairperson Sigel — OK, we could say September 1st through December 15`b. OK? Second? Mr. Krantz—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 003: Appeal of Cornell University, Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel No. 60.-1-9.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to install rugby goal posts located at the 12 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Precinct 9 Athletic Fields on Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 60-1-9.2, Low Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied CONDITIONS: 1 . The posts shall not exceed 37 feet in height 2. The posts shall only be installed from September 1st through December 15th The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel—OK, you're all set. Ms. Gilbert- Thank you. Mr. Matthews —Thank you. APPEAL of Conifer LLC, Appellant, Carol Oster, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XII, Section 270-105 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an 80,000+/- square foot, three-story building located on a 9+/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III on Conifer Drive, off of Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 27-1-13.12 and 27-1-13.162, Multiple Residence Zone. Said building exceeds the maximum permitted height for structures in the Multiple Residence Zone. Ms. Oster - Hello, I'm Carol Oster from Conifer and with me tonight is John Fennessey of Conifer and Stacey Crawford from Better Housing for Tompkins County our not for profit partner. And I'm just giving John a couple seconds here, and do the presentation to you. Chairperson Sigel—OK. John Fennessey, Conifer LLC Good evening. Does this work? Yes. My name is John Fennessey from Conifer Realty, and I'd like to just take a moment to explain to you the proposed development we have and then get to the building in which we are seeking the variance. For those who are just not completely familiar where this project is located, this route 79 coming up from the 13 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES city and this is the bend in the city that runs... this is the incorporation line between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca which runs right along this line here. We have, over the years, built 56 units in here and we built 72 units here, and the 2 years ago, we finished 24 units over here. And our overall concept plan which is expressed here, which contains about 90 some-odd acres of land, calls for Conifer Drive to be continued on up through here and eventually on over to what would be the Bundy Road. These would be single-family homes, patio homes in here, and more single family homes in here. And our discussion here tonight involves just this space right here which is the proposed elderly building that we want to put here. Now in the planning of this project, we took a lot of things into consideration. One of the things that drove us was a housing market study which showed there's a substantial demand for elderly housing in the community, and we felt that this was a good location in which to locate that housing. So we had proposed to put a, originally, we proposed to put a 72 unit project in a two story physical environment. But the topography here is such that the buildings had long wings on it in a delta shape, and it was very difficult for us to get a pleasing structure with that configuration, and it also required us to move a lot of dirt and take down more trees that what we wanted to do. So we toyed with the idea of what if we went to the three-story building. And immediately when we went to the three story building, we were cross the threshold in terms of the height requirements, where we would go, I believe it is, we would be at 36 feet, and we would have to go to 42 feet. Or 43 feet rather I should say. So that would require a variance. But in the same token, that allowed us to have a more pleasant looking building. But we ourselves weren't convinced as would this look good in terms of the whole neighborhood. And I believe in your packet, you have materials where we had what is known as a "balloon test' last, a year ago this past January, where we had balloons erected on the site, one set of balloons erected at the permitted height which is 36 feet, and the other set of balloons erected at the 42 or 43 foot height. And then on that we superimposed the proposed building that we had. And I believe you have in your package, those drawings with those balloons that show where things are relative to one another. Then, besides that we went out and took photographs from all around the countryside from different angles, several miles away, even across the lake to see what impact this would have visually on the community. And the sum and substance of it is it's a modest, very modest impact on our property here. On the properties that are distant from us, it's no impact whatsoever, you just don't see it. So, if we take a look at these photographs here, which is a artists rendition of what the building is, set on the exact site, the way it would sit on the site, and then the balloons depict what it would be like if it was built with a, at the approved height, which is 36 feet or what it was built at 43 feet. And it's, I hope in your packet, you can see how modest that change is. So, that's our purpose here tonight. We thought that a pitched roof building would be a better looking building, and it would be worth our coming before this board to seek, to get, your approval. I would like to say too, that we could have done it with a two story, or a three story building but with a flat roof and we did present that to the Planning Board, and it went over like a submarine with a screen door, in terms of its acceptability of appearance, and we felt again, that we are in a residential neighborhood, a residential neighborhood 14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES that primarily has buildings with peaked roofs and not a flat institutional look. So that's why we're here, it is to ask your indulgence and your approval for us to put up, to make this building a more attractive building by allowing it to go up to three stories with a pitched roof as opposed to a flat roof. I think in your deliberations, there are five areas that need to be considered, and just let me speak to those if I could for a moment. We don't want to have an unreasonable change in the character of the neighborhood. And keep in mind that these are all rental units that have been developed here. The single-family homes are out here along the street and over in here. And we're back in here quite a distance away. So, this building will have no impact visually on these neighbors, these single-family neighbors that are over here and down in here. It's barely visible from our site. This is our site right here, and you can see back into it from there, so it will not have any negative impact on the character of the neighborhood that we've already developed here over the past several years, with well over 100 units in here. Next, the second consideration is, I mentioned we could have built a three story building with a flat roof, and again it has an institutional character to it, and it's not in keeping with the residential character of this area. So we felt that was a factor that needed consideration. Moreover if we built, if we proposed to build a building that conformed with the height requirements to get the same number of dwelling units, we would have had to go to a larger building, which is going to have 40,000 square feet of land are have to be covered, so it was going to be a bigger environmental change to the land than if we went to the three story building with a pitched roof. So we felt that that was modest, it would be substantially different. It would be like 48%, we'd have to eat up 48% more land area to build that building with the, on a two story configuration. Finally, the request that we're making is not substantial. It is a variance, but it's not substantial. It's like 19%, 20% increase over what the, the 36 feet and the 43 feet that we ... [tape is flipped] Mr. Fennessey - The physical characteristics of the village or of the neighborhood as we mentioned, we could have built... since this is a variance, you know, it's a self created variance, we are the ones that decided we ought to try to do this, but we think by doing it the way we're doing it, you'll have a... the community will have a better project, we'll have a better project, and it will be a better looking project. So, while it is a self-imposed "hardship", the factors that mitigate it outweigh it. It has a smaller footprint here, which is substantial when we're dealing in an area that has substantial topography to it. So, we're moving less dirt around, that means we have more open space, more green space, for everyone to enjoy than if we had a spread out building. So, that's basically it, I think that we have tried to address the realistic things of what is the impact of the building going to have on the neighboring people, and we concluded that it will not have an adverse impact. Some of the photographs you have there, you can't see... It's in our own neighborhood, and we all have... we have multi-family here, and it's not going to have any impact on these homes here, when they are built. These houses are already going to be here, this building will already be here, and these buildings will know that the environment they're moving into when they do that. 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES So, basically, that's it. I think that without having to scale back the development, which would be detrimental to the elderly people of this community, because you're just building less units where the demand is clear there for what we want to build. So, I think that all in all, though we are as they say, it is a hardship that we have imposed on ourself, we feel the community's going to be better off with this subtle variance granted to this development, because of all the positive influence it will have on the elderly community. Can I answer any questions? Mr. Krantz — Yeah, I have some. I have a problem. I guess I've always known rules were made for breaking, but this Town enacted a whole series of rules for agricultural land, which this was. And on Agricultural land, you can always put up one residential unit in 7 acres, and somehow this has gone from Agriculture to medium density to multiple residential, and all of a sudden on what was agricultural land, on 9 acres we're going to have 72 units. How does this come about? Chairperson Sigel—Well, that's not really an issue for us to tackle, I don't think, because that's the Town Board's decision. Mr. Matthews—They already approved that. Mr. Niefer—Changed the zoning. Chairperson Sigel— The Town Board decides how things are zoned and we just respond to requests for variances from that. Mr. Krantz—Right. Chairperson Sigel— So, I don't think the property's history as being other zones has any, wouldn't appear to have any bearing on... Mr. Matthews — You can't prohibit that, prohibit them from building because it's been approved. Chairperson Sigel—Right. Mr. Niefer — I think the thing that's kind of interesting is that the Planning Board approved this project and the height involved and the size of the project, the physical size of it. It's humongous. But then contrast the Planning Board's approval of this, versus the Planning Board's view of the Auble project on the... across from Sam Peter's up on South Hill. And the Planning Board on that project, chopped a three story building down to two stories and were very restrictive on the size of the facility, so this... Ms. Balestra—I believe the height for this... Mr. Niefer— to some extent is inconsistent with what they had previously done. Now I fully understand politically low cost housing, that's five stars right there, and the 16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Board is all for that, and I'm not necessarily opposed to that. So, it's a matter of low income, moderate income housing, an affordable situation, and granted it's more economical to build a three story building with 72 units than it is to build a two story building with 72 units, and granted the footprint is smaller. So there are a lot of factors that I understand as to why they are proposing to do what they're doing, but my basic comment is that it's an interesting observation how the Planning Board goes one way on one situation, and another way on another situation that are somewhat similar. Mr. Krantz — And I would like to go on record as being quite critical of the Planning Board for allowing this. They're allowing 72 units on a 9-acre plot in what was agricultural land and that's outrageous. Chairperson Sigel—I think that the 72 units is well within the multiple residence density. Ms. Balestra—I believe it is. Chairperson Sigel—I mean, if not, they would need a variance. Mr.Fennessey- We would need a variance if it wasn't. Chairperson Sigel—So the number of units is permitted in... Mr. Ellsworth—With the current zoning. Chairperson Sigel—in the multiple residence. Mr. Krantz—I think it's outrageous that they changed the zoning. Chairperson Sigel—That's the Town... Ms. Balestra—Well, the Planning Board didn't change the zoning. Ms. Brock- The Town Board can do that. Ms. Balestra— The Town Board changed the zoning according to research that the COC did, which some of the people on this board were on the COC at the time, and the zone change happened a while ago, from agriculture to residential. Mr. Krantz—How long ago? Ms. Balestra— I have to actually check, but I would be happy to do that right now. It may have been something that the Comprehensive Plan of 1993 requested and based on the research then. Chairperson Sigel—That was to medium density. 17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—Medium density residential, which allows 15,000 square foot lots. Mr. Krantz —And there's another factor, too. You know, there's a time and a place for all things, the West Hill already has the box stores, the recycling center, the school bus garage, the Highway Department, West Village, Linderman Creek and a gravel pit. Mr. Ellsworth—Eco Village. Mr. Krantz —Wouldn't it be nice if we could put something like this up close to Cornell, so these people could go and take courses there? Mr. Ellsworth—I have a question, to the west, I know that terrain... Mr. Fennessey- Here? Mr. Ellsworth — Well, adjacent, right directly west from the building you're talking about. That terrain rises. Mr.Fennessey- That's correct. Mr. Ellsworth — In other words, is this three stories going to be... you know the view to the East, is the big view of Cornell and a few other things, but is this going to... what's supposed to be there to the West? Mr. Fennessey - That's a good question. You don't, maybe, I'm not sure if this comes with your plan, but here's a 5 foot person standing here, at this level here, beyond... just, this is our property line here, just beyond the property line, and this is the top of the building shown here, and the line of sight is right over the top. As I think I mentioned in my presentation, viewing it from the east looking west, there's no one can see it except our own property, is the only one where it's visible. And it's also visible when you're over here where this... this is a future Town park, it would be visible from there. Mr. Ellsworth—The major view of the properties that are going to be to the West is to the East across the valley. Mr. Fennessey- These people would look across... Mr. Ellsworth— Is this additional height going to be obstructing that view of whatever's going to be there... single story homes or whatever. Mr. Fennessey - That's what I was talking about here. Here's a drawing which depicts the height of the three story building relative to a five foot person that's standing here just past the property line, and their line of sight is right over the top of this building, as shown by this arrow right here. This is one of the things we had when we went before the Planning Board to show them [inaudible] and we verified that by doing the balloon 18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES test with the photographs, and we did the photographs during the January month when there's no leaves on the trees. Mr. Ellsworth — Well, I know what you tried to show, but I know you can use photography to your advantage too, so I didn't make that a big deal looking at all those 20 pictures. Mr. Matthews — What restricts the line of sight going lower, is there a hill there or something? Mr.Fennessey- I'm sorry, say that again please sir? Mr. Matthews —What restricts the five-foot person's line of sight going lower? Is there a hill there or something? Mr. Fennessey- No, no, no... Mr. Matthews—If I'm standing there, what restricts me...? Mr. Fennessey- If you're standing here, Mr. Matthews —yeah... Mr. Fennessey - you can certainly see it. If you're standing over here, you cannot see it. If you're standing right along Oakwood Lane, you won't see it. You could come in here onto the site, where it's cleared land back in here, you can... Mr. Matthews—But there's no... Mr.Fennessey- But if you're over here on this side of the street, you cannot see it. Mr. Matthews—OK, the picture you have on the top right, is that from Route 79? Mr. Fennessey- This picture right here sir? Mr. Matthews —Yes. Mr. Fennessey- Yes. Mr. Matthews—Is that from the road? Mr.Fennessey- No that picture is right from our road right here... Mr. Matthews —Yes? Mr.Fennessey- ... right here, that's on Conifer Drive. 19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews—So who would see that building in the surrounding diameter of a mile? Mr. Ellsworth—The people due west. Mr. Fennessey - Well, if you're over here, you're not going to see the site, you're not going to see the building. If you're up here, you're not going to see the site. Mr. Ellsworth—Why, what's...? Mr. Matthews—What's up there to prevent me from seeing? Mr. Ellsworth—Right. Mr. Fennessey - This topography rises up. Remember I had mentioned during the time period that we had, there was an awful lot of...[inaudible] Mr. Ellsworth—Yeah, because the road rises, 79 rises. Mr. Matthews—Is what? Mr. Fennessey - As well as this land up here is substantially higher than ours here, so again I have to go back to this drawing which shows the elevation and what a five foot person would see if they looked across here when this was built. You're going to be looking across, all this represents our development out there. If you're looking across it would not be obstructing your view. Mr. Matthews — Would you be kind enough to show me on that picture, top right, right. Bring the roofline down, if you can, to the zoning regulation. Chairperson Sigel—It would be roughly... Mr.Fennessey- I can do it with this board right here. Mr. Matthews—Put a card over it or something, so that I can see. Chairperson Sigel—It would probably be roughly removing the pitched roof, right? Mr. Ellsworth—Yeah. Mr. Fennessey- Yeah. Chairperson Sigel—Because the flat roof would meet the requirement. Mr. Fennessey - the flat roof would meet it. On this photographed picture, you see that Orange balloon right there? 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —Yes. Mr.Fennessey- OK, that's at the 36 feet level, that's at the 43 feet level. Mr. Matthews—So you'd have to come up here to the top of this third floor, is that right? Mr.Fennessey- Well, we'd just take it and cut this roof off. Mr. Matthews—Yes, but you couldn't have a flat roof. Mr. Fennessey - No, you can have a flat roof. But it's not, our view is that it's not, and the Planning Board's view is that it's not an attractive way to build this building, you're better off having a pitched roof. Mr. Matthews — So, essentially, to have the pitched roof, you'd have to have two floors, two stories? Mr. Fennessey - To have a pitched roof, there'd have to be two floors and then you'd have to go off... Mr. Matthews—I understand. And you can't go deeper in the ground? Mr. Fennessey - No, no, you can't live below ground, you wouldn't be able to live below grade. Chairperson Sigel—you'd still need a variance actually, because we have a provision for measuring from the interior, lowest interior floors as well as exterior. So, if they essentially made the first floor a basement, it would still... Mr. Matthews—They would still need the variance. Chairperson Sigel—They would still need the variance. Mr. Matthews — So the concern I have, I don't know if other people have the concern, is the visual effects. You keep pointing out the visual effects, so I'm wondering if you go down, you grade out, then you wouldn't have the visual effects of this tall three story building for somebody to look at. Which, I don't have a problem with looking at buildings, but some people do. Mr. Fennessey - There is no, with this, where this site is located, and the topography, there is not any visual impact except places that I've tried to show here in these photographs. Mr. Matthews —I know and you brought a lot of that up, so that's why I'm bringing it up, to reduce the visual impact. 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—How far back from the property line on that, on your elevation chart there, is... in the lower right, yeah, that one. So you have your five-foot person there, how far back from the property line are they, to achieve that line of sight? Mr. Fennessey- The uh... Chairperson Sigel—How...? I think the dark vertical line is your property line... Mr. Fennessey - Yeah, that's going to be... it says vertical is... horizontal is one inch equals 100 feet, and vertical is one inch equals 20 feet. So you're back here 100 feet from the... if this represents the property line right here, back 100 feet, if you're five foot high, you won't see anything. Chairperson Sigel—Did we get that in our packet, do you know? Mr.Fennessey - I do not know. I know it was part of the Planning Board review, because this is an issue that we went through with the planning board, concerning this whole issue of[inaudible], and that's why, as I said, we went, from our point of view, the importance of having a balloon test, which we felt would be unequivocable in terms of what you're actually going to see, once you're out in the field. And it's not something superimposed by artists, it's something where balloons are set in the air, they're set at 36 feet, they're set at 43 feet, they take photographs from all around the area to see what you can see. Carol, do you know if those photographs are part of their packet, too? Mr. Ellsworth—Yeah, they're in here. Ms. Balestra— Just for the board's information, the Planning Board was lead agency for environmental review, and they did look at the visual impact, and that information is included in your packets as well. Mr. Ellsworth—John, is it John? Mr. Fennessey- Yes. Mr. Ellsworth—What is going to be on that piece of property between Route 79 and your building? Mr. Fennessey- Right here, the green? Mr. Ellsworth—Well, what's those things drawn in there, those just trees? Mr.Fennessey- Oh, these are all houses. Everything that's in there. Mr. Ellsworth—And they're what, single story? 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Fennessey- These are two story town houses. Mr. Ellsworth—Two story. And up the other way are all single-family two story? Mr. Fennessey - We've developed as far as, this is Linderman Creek right here. These are all built. And our proposal is to build this building that we're talking about here. The balance of these, these are single-family homes, patio homes, zero outline homes, to be built sometime. Mr. Ellsworth—They're two story? Mr. Fennessey- Two story, well, probably. They might be one story too. Mr. Ellsworth—Well. What about to the north? Mr. Fennessey- In here? Mr. Ellsworth—Yeah. Mr. Fennessey- These would be more single-family homes. Mr. Ellsworth—Some two story. Mr. Fennessey - Right. As I said, this land here, when we bought this land back in the early 90's, we bought half the land, and both the owner and we contributed ten percent of our, what we planned, to the Town. [inaudible] Mr. Ellsworth—But what I don't want to happen, is if this board approves this, and then you come back later in one of these other area developments and start going at this again. OK? You know, we say you already approved one at 43 feet, now we want 46 feet for some other reason that whatever, you know? Mr. Fennessey - Well, we presented this conceptual plan to the Planning Board, that [inaudible] Mr. Ellsworth—Well, this isn't the planning board. Mr. Fennessey- Pardon me? Mr. Ellsworth—This is the board of appeals. Mr. Fennessey- I know. 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—And we have criteria here. And one of them is, whether the undesirable change in the neighborhood character has to nearby properties. These are the first three story buildings in this whole area, right? Mr. Fennessey - That's correct. Again, these are all two and, two stories here, these are all properties that we own and we manage, as we both own and manage that. The people who buy here eventually, if this is approved, before they buy a house here, they're going to. [inaudible] Mr. Ellsworth—Use the microphone I guess, we'll get you on the Nixon tapes. Mr. Fennessey - I don't know if this works, yes, it does work. So, the people who buy these single-family homes, these patio homes, they're going to see what's all here before they make a decision whether to buy here, OK? And our plan is to eventually build this out with these single family homes, patio homes, zero outline homes, whatever, and serve a population that is not inconsistent with the other residential homes in the area. But I think that, the point that I tried to make is that, that we're dealing with an issue of seven feet, seven feet, and in that seven feet, we're having a, an attractive solution to a development. And we can go to, I mean if this is denied, we'll just go and build a flat roof building, and it will not be as an attractive... Mr. Ellsworth—No, you can build two story. You can build less units in two story. Mr.Fennessey- Then again, if we were to do that... Ms. Balestra — That would need to go back to the Planning Board, who has already approved this project. Chairperson Sigel—They could also, I mean they are permitted though to build a building with a flat roof, which would need further site plan review. Mr. Ellsworth — the last item on the area variance criteria is, and you mentioned it yourself, that this difficulty is self-created, because you want to build 72 units in three stories. Mr. Fennessey - Well, I'm glad you brought that up. We've done a market study that showed the demand for elderly housing in the community, and we said how can we best address that, and we can best address it by building a 72 unit project, but you're right, you can build a smaller project, but you're not going to have the level of amenities in the project for the tenants that you want to serve. Now, we have hundreds of apartments across the countryside here that serve the elderly, and we've got a pretty good idea of what it takes to do a nice job and make it pleasant living for them. And we felt that it was, that the issue of a seven-foot variance was not significant, because it was not going to have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood. The character of the 24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES neighborhood's, first, not going to know about it, secondly we own all this land here, we own all this land around it, so we know what we're doing in terms of what we want to try to do for housing development in this area, and we thought it would be a better solution, we're moving less land, we're cutting down less trees, to make this possible. If you made a smaller project, which is possible, then you can't serve the same number of people you served before, you can't provide the level of amenities you could supply if you had a larger development. It's basically as simple as that. And we want, we have two 75-unit projects in New Jersey, and what's the other one? In Maryland, that we had a similar type of situation there, where we could have a large enough development where you could have facilities to serve the tenants beside the normal type of facilities to serve tenants. We think it's advantageous to the people that are elderly that want to live in this town and live on this site. Mr. Ellsworth — Well, there's a lot of other projects going on in the Town, too, some of which I'm sure are going to have elderly going into them. Mr. Matthews — The homes that are looking at the map there, the homes to the right of your building, are privately owned. Mr. Fennessey- This right here? Mr. Matthews — No, move your hand forward towards the building you want to build. Yeah, right there. Mr. Fennessey- These right here? Mr. Matthews—Right. Mr. Fennessey - These are not here, these are proposed single-family patio homes, zero lot line homes. Mr. Matthews—That individuals will purchase? Mr.Fennessey- That's correct. Mr. Matthews — So that will be a neighborhood of individual owners, you wouldn't own that? Mr. Fennessey - No. There would probably be a common area maintenance program for them, because they wouldn't be, they might not be maintaining these homes as you and I might maintain a home. Mr. Matthews —And up in the upper left hand corner, those are also going to be privately owned homes? Mr.Fennessey- Yes. The balance of the site, the balance of the site is... 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews—And they can all be looking at this three story building? Mr. Fennessey- Correct. Mr. Matthews—Is that correct? Mr. Fennessey - And if that's a concern, then they're going to say well, I'm not going to purchase here, but we feel that it's going to be an attractive physical improvement to this property and an attractive building for people that are going to be living here to look at. [inaudible] Mr. Matthews—But you don't know what those homeowners are going to think. Mr. Fennessey - All I know is that if I was a homeowner here, and I took umbrage to the fact that there was a three story building there, I wouldn't buy here, and we're not concerned one iota about that, because we think that this whole thing is attractive... I don't know the level of familiarity you have with the area, but we think we've done a pretty good job up here of developing this in a very attractive development, and we know this will be as equally attractive, and when we get to do this, it will be attractive as well, with hiking trails and things leading to the park. We think that it's going to be an area that's very very desirable for people to live. Mr. Matthews — People move to Ithaca usually for the combination cultural/country environment that they live in, I think. And, I'm not so sure they move to Ithaca to look at large buildings. Mr. Krantz—They stay in New Jersey, or something. Mr. Matthews—I think that's pretty much true. Ms. Balestra—It would go against a lot of the suburban development that exists today, in Ithaca, but... Mr. Matthews—I'm not opposed to progress, nor am I opposed to a growing community. Mr. Niefer— If I read the material correctly, this is for people 55 and older, and it will be for people who's high taxes on their individual houses downtown drive them to sell downtown and move up here, so that you're giving some of the people that are between a rock and a hard place on the taxes, a place to live at a moderate price, and that's basically the market I think that you're [inaudible] to look at. Mr.Fennessey- That's right. Mr. Ellsworth— Surrounding this new building, is, none of these have been built yet, this is all future development? 26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Fennessey - This is, what, down in this part, this whole frontage here along Route 79 is all built, OK, then this is Linderman Creek through here, and then the first thing we are proposing to build on the north of Linderman creek is elderly housing. Mr. Ellsworth—Those other three plots are not built yet? Mr. Fennessey- Pardon me? Mr. Ellsworth—Those other three light yellow areas are not built yet. Chairperson Sigel—That's correct. Mr. Ellsworth—Correct? Mr.Fennessey- That's correct, right. Mr. Ellsworth — That's why those people can't be here because they don't like your proposal... nobody, those houses don't exist. Chairperson Sigel—The applicant is the current owner of that land, so... Mr. Ellsworth—Yeah, I understand that. Mr. Fennessey - And as I mentioned, our view is that we made the whole thing attractive so far, and we will continue to do same, and I feel comfortable, and not concerned at all, that the people who buy these single family lots or these townhouse lots or these patio home lots, are going to have any concern about this building that happens to be seven foot higher than it ordinarily might be. Seven feet, that's a little bit taller than me, well maybe a little bit. But, it's not, in the universe of things, it's not a significant issue in terms of anything in this geographic area. Chairperson Sigel—I just want to point out to the board, that you know, these, unlike the case of a use variance, with an area variance, the criteria here, that it says the Board of Appeals shall consider, are not criteria that the applicant necessarily has to meet, it's just additional criteria that the board may consider in their decision. But it's unlike a use variance, for instance if the alleged difficulty is self-created, if you found that the applicant had created the difficulty themselves then that would disqualify them immediately in the case of a use variance, but in the case of an area variance it does not, so don't... I don't want you to get hung up on them say, failing one test, or you think not fully meeting one test. It's still this balancing test where you try to weigh the benefit to the applicant, versus the detriment to the community, taking into account these factors listed. Mr. Matthews — And I think that's what we've been... if I can use the term lightly, arguing... 27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, no, I agree. Mr. Matthews — That the benefit to the community or the adverse impact to the community. I think we're all grow up men, and we recognize people who are senior citizens need a place to live and want a place to live, and we don't have any problem with that. Mr. Ellsworth—Most of the board are senior citizens. Mr. Matthews — We're all going to be there in a couple weeks or a couple months, I think, except for Harry. Mr. Ellsworth—Right. Chairperson Sigel—Any...? Mr. Ellsworth—Well, Kirk, you're saying the key thing is this balancing test— Chairperson Sigel—Right. Mr. Ellsworth — It says, the last part of it, detriment to health, safety and welfare of the community. Our opinions might be a little different from John's, he's here for economic reasons. Chairperson Sigel — Right, well the benefit to the applicant I think has been clearly stated... Mr. Ellsworth—That's pretty obvious. Mr. Matthews—That's obvious. Chairperson Sigel — They get to build a more compact, efficient structure, and the detriment to the community is up to us to decide. Ms. Balestra—And, if I may, the detriment is concerning the height of the building, not the use or whether it was agricultural once or how many houses are going to be next to it, it specifically, the action in question, which is the height of this proposed building. Mr. Matthews—That's it. Ms. Brock - Right, you shouldn't be looking at whether you think it should be in this location at all, whether you agree that this should have been rezoned to multiple residence, you shouldn't be looking at how many units are there. All that was determined by the Town Board when they did the rezoning, so the only thing you're looking at is whether the height variance should be granted. 28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —And my point is people who are going to buy these homes, who haven't purchased them yet, are going to have to live with our decision to have this building that is relatively tall, to what we're used to, to what the norm is, and we have to make a decision if that's something we can approve. Chairperson Sigel—Right. Mr. Krantz—The nearest three-story building is downtown in Ithaca. Mr. Niefer—But on the other hand, though, as John's pointed out, if a buyer comes in for a single family home and this is already there, this three story building is already there, the potential buyer, it's open and obvious, if the buyer doesn't like to have that building next door, he can go somewhere else. So, it's an open market, free market situation, that's not like the situation where all these individual homes have already been built and then we come along and put in a three story or are asked to put in a three story that's 43 high, that's significantly different and the homeowners have little or no choice there other than to rise up and say we don't like it, we're going to fight it. Here, this is a strategic move to put in all the rental properties first, and then subsequently build one family units later on and... [tape is changed] Mr. Niefer —is there, and as a practical matter, a peaked roof is less maintenance than a flat roof too. A flat roof, regardless of how good it is, it is a problem to maintain. So, from the standpoint of being more attractive, I think the peaked roof situation is significantly more attractive to anyone living in the area or seeing the situation. Chairperson Sigel—I agree. Mr. Ellsworth—Why don't you go with the public hearing? I want to see if there are any people that live in those homes down below there that have any feelings about this. Chairperson Sigel— Sure. OK, we'll open the public hearing at this point. Does anyone wish to speak? Chanperson Sigel opened the publ is hearing at 8:07p.m. Chairperson Sigel—Do you want to speak during the public hearing portion? Ms. Crawford - Whichever's appropriate I guess. Chairperson Sigel—Sure, go ahead. Ms. Crawford - Sure, I'm Stacey Crawford, I'm the executive director of Better Housing for Tompkins County, and we're working with Conifer on this project and have on 29 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES several others, and as such, we've been partners in joint ventures and developments and developing and owning Linderman Creek and Ellis Hollow Apartments. I just wanted — my comment is that as a non-profit that works on housing issues locally, we've been well aware of the needs for projects like this for seniors and other folks doing a variety of things rental and ownership. The discussions around the number of units and whether it could be two story and have fewer units and things, we really do see a need for this many units, and to the extend that we like to be involved with projects that are attractive and do fit with the communities as well as possible, this configuration with the peaked roof is in our mind definitely preferable to flat roof situations. Also, too, just a general comment, on proposals going forward and housing being built and things, there is a needs assessment that is being completed at the County level right now, and final results aren't going to be out for another month I'm told, but the consultants who have been working on the plan have been releasing some information ahead of time, and their projection is now, just given current demographics and jobs and things, and the rate of housing need they see in the area, between now and fifteen years from now, they're going to see a need for at least 150 some odd units a year in order to keep people in this community housed. And there certainly, I'm just bringing that up because there certainly us a need for the [inaudible] that are proposed. Chairperson Sigel—Is that total units for all demographics? Ms. Crawford - I believe so, yes. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Ms. Crawford - That's the rough number is 150. They do have something on the county's website that has more in depth information about housing need in the area, and just what we're seeing in terms of demographics and talking to the office for the aging about the growing, you know, the aging of communities everywhere, including Tompkins County, the need for seniors is going to continue to grow, and we know that this is going to be a nice project and combine some amenities that will be really, really, really good for the community. So, those are my comments. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Ms. Crawford - Thanks. Chairperson Sigel—Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel closed the publ is hearing at 8:10 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Any further comments, questions? The... as Chris pointed out, I think the Planning Board did act as lead agency with regard to the environmental assessment, and they made a negative determination which I'm not sure exactly how you say this, it's essentially binding on us, right? 30 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—Mmm hmm. Chairperson Sigel — We don't make a negative, or we don't make a separate determination. Ms. Brock- Because it was a coordinated review. Ms. Balestra—It was a coordinated review. Chairperson Sigel — Because it was a coordinated review. Chris, did you want to make any comments about that, highlight anything in particular? Ms. Balestra — Well, there were comments regarding the photographs that were submitted, and regarding the balloons and the height differences and the visual impact regarding the height differences to a 36-foot roof as opposed to 43. And it, I believe there were no environmental concerns regarding that, because the difference is only seven feet, so it's not that significant of a height increase, environmentally speaking, to cause a significant impact visually. Mr. Niefer — I have one question to raise. Normally notice is sent to adjoining property owners or adjoining residents, in this situation, what was the extent, I granted there was a sign that's put out by the road, granted there is the legal notice in the journal. How extensive was any other notice distributed to people of interest in the area. To what extent did it go? Ms. Balestra— I know for the Planning Board, we generally send things to people within 500 feet of the proposal, then if there are any other neighborhood groups that are of interest, we'll also send things to them additionally, or anyone else who requests information. Mr. Niefer—Would that have included tenants and rental people in these houses? Ms. Balestra—Yes, that would include the people in Linderman Creek... Mr. Niefer — I recognize that they're not property owners, so they really don't have that much interest in the height of the building. Ms. Balestra—Yeah. Chairperson Sigel—Any other questions? Comments? Mr. Ellsworth—Yeah, I guess I have one. Chairperson Sigel—Sure. 31 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—These areas to be developed in the all the light yellow there. This is for Chris —is it set what's going to be there? I mean, my concern again is, it's only x number of feet like you just said, but tomorrow, or next month or next year you get these people in here that, you just approved one, you know x doors away for 43 feet, now I want 48 feet, 52 feet, or whatever. You know, we've been through that several times. Ms. Balestra—Well, there has been some discussion... Mr. Ellsworth — So, the question is whether we're not going to go through that for these adjacent developments. Ms. Balestra — There's no way for met to tell you whether the houses they're going to build... Mr. Ellsworth — John's a good businessman. He's here because of economics, and he'll be back again because of economics. Ms. Balestra — I can tell you this — there has been talk internally with staff as to the wisdom of our zoning ordinance height requirements and height restrictions, based on different architectural styles that have come about, and the measurements that we choose to measure, interior and exterior grade to the roof peak. Peaks of roofs are a little bit differently these days. You've seen with a lot of the Southwoods development. Mr. Ellsworth — You know, we have this unique problem in Town of Ithaca with these hills, and that's what's driving all this, the hills and the walkout basements is what's driving... Chairperson Sigel—For the single-family homes... Mr. Ellsworth — [inaudible] the hill and so on. You know, the minute we get a walk out basement with a steep roof, we're into this situation. Now, his probably isn't unusually steep, but we've had a lot of them in here that are unusually... you haven't witnessed all this. I have because I'm the elder here. Ms. Balestra—Yeah, there have been quite a few. Mr. Ellsworth — And we're getting it time and time again. Thus the Town officials are considering upping the limit, is that where this is going? Ms. Balestra—It's just sort of talk amongst the staff at this point. Chairperson Sigel — That's up to you, Harry, what you think in each situation is reasonable. Mr. Ellsworth—Since you're on the board that makes the rules. 32 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—I don't make the rules. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, there's a committee that makes the rules. Chairperson Sigel—But we have our current set of rules that we need to enforce, and it's up to us in each case to decide. Homes in the single family development will be in a different zone, so I don't think there's much of a... personally, I don't think there's much of a compelling argument for someone to come in and say I want a height variance simply because this neighboring property, which is a different zone... Mr. Ellsworth—We already had that several times. Chairperson Sigel—got variances. That's not to say that a 43-foot variance might not be unreasonable in a neighboring zone. We have, I think, found thus far that in the Southwoods development that 42 or 43 feet has been a reasonable height. Ms. Balestra—Right. It's my understanding though, also, that patio homes especially are generally not as tall as your typical single-family homes. I don't know if that's correct, but that's my understanding. Mr. Fennessey - That's correct, they're primarily for people that are retiring, they want to have everything at all one level, and so they're designed to be smaller houses, maybe zero lot line, but smaller houses that are easier to maintain with maintenance done on the outside of the buildings by community organizations. Mr. Matthews — We used to have a term when I worked for a living and earned my dollars, you do something without prejudice or precedent, but we can't do that here. The market, the market is driving, as Chris said, the market in architecture is driving the height of these homes higher and higher. In my short tenure on the board, I've noticed that. And I don't think we can legislate against that, we had to take each individual case as it comes along, and they're probably pumping us up over a ten-year period. We'll have these neo-Victorian homes that have been sprouting up all over the place. That's all I have to say. Mr. Krantz—Do we have to vote on the environmental assessment? Chairperson Sigel—No. Mr. Ellsworth—That was done. Ms. Brock- It's already finished. The Planning Board did that as lead agency. Mr. Krantz — The planning board on 90 percent poorly drained soil, in the agricultural district, in the wetlands along Linderman Creek, allows the use of herbicides and pesticides. 33 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—Where are you reading that, Ron? Mr. Krantz—Right from this environmental assessment form. Ms. Balestra—I know, tell me specifically though. Chairperson Sigel—You're looking at the... Ms. Balestra—You're looking at the part I? Mr. Krantz—The full environmental assessment form. Ms. Balestra—OK. If you're looking at the part I, that is the part of information... Mr. Krantz—One, soil drainage, poorly drained, 90 percent. Ms. Balestra—Right. Mr. Krantz—OK. Two, site located in an agricultural district, number 18, yes. Ms. Balestra—Right. Mr. Krantz — Number, page number 18, will project use herbicides or pesticides, yes. And somewhere it says wetlands along Linderman Creek. Ms. Balestra — Poorly drained soil, the wetlands, all of those were considered in the environmental review that the Planning Board had gone through. The applicant submitted information for the environmental analysis including stormwater management studies, all of those different things. As far as being in an agricultural district, that is a Tompkins County designation that the landowner, applied for. IYs not agriculturally zoned, and in fact, I looked this up, it hasn't been agriculturally zoned for many, many years. IYs been a residentially zoned area since before the comprehensive plan, and the Town comprehensive plan zoned, or excuse me, anticipated more suburban style development for this property for the future, and that was in 1993, so... Mr. Matthews — Hasn't this been approved by the town Planning Board except for the height? Ms. Bale stra—Yes. Chairperson Sigel—Yes. Ms. Balestra—Yes, all of this has been approved. Ms. Brock- So the... 34 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews—With all due respect to my colleague, it's not apoint. Ms. Brock- Right. The environmental determination of significance for ... Mr. Matthews—It's not a point. Ms. Brock- the environmental impact... Mr. Matthews — It could be an obstructionist point, but it's not a point that we can deliberate. Ms. Brock- Right. Ms. Balestra — If you were on the planning board, you could deliberate it, but you're looking at the height. Mr. Matthews — So we have to determine whether or not we like the height or not, and whether or not they're dumping pesticides or whatever they're doing up there, somebody can go back to the Planning Board, certainly not us. Ms. Balestra—Correct. Chairperson Sigel—If you look, the wetland is listed as half an acre. Mr. Matthews — But they've already determined that there was no impact, so why even discuss it? You know... Ms. Brock- Right, that's a done thing. They've made their determination. Mr. Matthews —I can determine to live until I'm 93 years old, there's not a hell of a lot I can do about it. That's the way it is. Can we vote on this? Chairperson Sigel—We can. Mr. Ellsworth—I'm ready. Chairperson Sigel — Any further questions, comments? OK. I will move to grant the appeal of Conifer LLC, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XII, Section 270-105 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an approximately 80,000 square foot, three-story building located on an approximate 9 acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III on Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.12 and 13.162, Multiple Residence Zone. We'll make the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the applicant, and with the condition that the building not exceed 43 feet in height, and with the further condition that the building be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans. With a further condition that all of the conditions listed... all the requirements listed in Planning Board 35 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES resolution 2005-125, with the exception of the requirements related to this board, also be met. Ms. Brock - Just a point of clarification, when you say that you want, one of the conditions is that the building be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans, you probably need to specify which plans you're referring to. Are you talking about the plans that were submitted to this board? Chairperson Sigel—Yes. Ms. Brock-For this hearing, OK. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, for the sloping roof. We also have plans for a flat roof. Chairperson Sigel — Right, the plans that the applicant has indicated that they want to build, that they've submitted to this board. Ms. Brock- OK. Chairperson Sigel—Any further suggestions? Mr. Ellsworth — I'd like to... I think we ought to condition it a little further on some of the points John made, so that when somebody comes back later and points at this and wants theirs passed, we say well, there were special conditions. One is that it's not blocking the view from sites to the west, the view across the valley... what else? That by building this number of units in this type of structure it saves a lot of economics and landfill, and it makes for a smaller footprint. Those, you know, specifics. Chairperson Sigel—We can make the finding that the applicant has shown, through photo simulation evidence, that the impact from various points outside of their property is minimal, and that the impact from various points within their property is modest, also make the finding that allowing a three story building allows the applicant to disturb less land, allows them to build more units in a smaller overall structure and more efficient structure. Mr. Ellsworth—No one came to speak... Chairperson Sigel—Make a finding that... Mr. Ellsworth—from the public, from, that live adjacent to this property presently. Chairperson Sigel—that no one from the community spoke against the proposal. Mr. Matthews —Again, to take everything Harry is saying, which is, it all has validity... can we, can we fold it all in into the term that I used in my work years ago, without 36 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES precedent or prejudice, in other words, this decision stands on it's own, and it doesn't establish any precedent... Chairperson Sigel—All decisions are like that. Mr. Matthews — Well, maybe if we put it in there, then somebody comes and says well, you did it for them, uh uh, uh uh, uh uh. Chairperson Sigel—I don't personally think it's necessary, or... Mr. Matthews —OK, well, I just didn't want you to have to use 16 tapes to get everything that Harry was concerned about... Chairperson Sigel—No, it's good to add more findings, because that basically establishes the uniqueness of this application and deserving of a variance. Mr. Matthews —OK. Chairperson Sigel—So, it's good to add those findings. Mr. Ellsworth—I think that's it. Chairperson Sigel—OK, Second? Mr. Niefer seconded the motion. Mr. Matthews—Yeah, I'll second it. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? Mr. Matthews, Mr. Niefer, Mr. Ellsworth, and Chairperson Sigel—Aye. Chairperson Sigel—Opposed? Mr. Krantz — Opposed, on basis that there is no other three story building within approximately ten miles. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 004: Appeal of Conifer, LLC, Mecklenburg Rd, Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-13.12 and 27.-1-13.162 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Conifer LLC, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XII, Section 270-105 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an approximately 80,000 37 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES square foot, three-story building located on an approximate 9 acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III on Tax Parcel No.'s 27-1-13.12 and 27-1-13.162, Multiple Residence Zone. FINDINGS: 1 . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the applicant 2. The applicant has shown, through photo simulation, evidence that the impact from various points outside of their property is minimal and that the impact from various points within their property is modest 3. Allowing a three story building allows the applicant to disturb less land, and it allows them to build more units in a smaller overall structure and a more efficient structure 4. No one from the community spoke against the proposal CONDITIONS: 1 . The building shall not exceed 43 feet in height 2. The building shall be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans that they have submitted to this board 3. This variance is also conditioned upon the following requirements of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board: a. Rezoning by the Town Board of the proposed project site as described above prior to consideration of Final Subdivision Approval by the Planning Board; and b. Submission of draft easement language allowing emergency access for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community development to utilize Cypress Court and to utilize other portions of the existing Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III on Tax Parcel Nos. 27-1-13.18 and 27-1-13.17; and C. Submission of draft easement language providing access to the Town of Ithaca to all storm water management facilities, and sewer and water mains, and indication on the Final Plat of the location and dimensions of all such easements to be conveyed to the Town; and d. Approval of easements guaranteeing access of the large remaining parcels to Conifer Drive, by the Attorney for the Town, prior to signing of the Final Subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair; and e. Evidence of the necessary approval by the Tompkins County Health Department on the final plat, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair; and 38 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES f. Before construction of any improvements anywhere on the project site is commenced, requirements of the Final Site Plan Checklist shall be met, and Final Site Plan Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board; and g. Submission of a revised subdivision plat that correctly aligns the extension of Conifer Drive within the road-right-of-way; and h. Completion of the new extension to Conifer Drive and required utilities, and completion of the existing Conifer Drive with the addition of six more inches of "crusher run" to the road base followed by an asphalt covering, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and i. Prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, the Town Board grants approval for the Town to accept the conveyance of Conifer Drive (extension and existing segment); and j. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the conveyance of the above referenced road to the Town of Ithaca, and k. No building permits for future phases or development of the remaining large parcels located north of Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community and Linderman Creek Phase I shall be issued until the access road, extending from Conifer Drive is reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer; and I. Submission of evidence of inclusion of a deed restriction for the wetland mitigation, required by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Nationwide Permit No. 12 and No. 14, showing/describing the required 0.72 acres of unmowed, vegetated upland buffer along the north side of Linderman Creek; and M. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final plat and three dark-lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department; and n. Rezoning of the proposed project site by the Town Board; and o. Preparation and submission of final design and construction details of all proposed structures and improvements, including drainage 39 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES and storm water management facilities, roads/driveways, parking areas, curbing, walkways, sewer and water facilities and other utilities, design of the play area, and sedimentation and erosion control measures, for review and approval by the Town Engineer; and P. Submission of final details of size, location, design, and construction materials of all proposed signs and lighting (including any building wall mounted lights and proposed recessed ceiling porch lights), including the proposed entrance sign; and q. Submission of final, detailed building elevations and floor plans including descriptions of building materials and colors, and accurate dimensions of buildings, including building heights; and r. Provision of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from other county, state, and/or federal agencies and obtaining the necessary curb-cut and road work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation, prior to issuance of any building permits; and S. Submission of a revised site plan modifying the placement of the two stormwater management facilities, identified on the plans as "Proposed Detention Basin", outside of the Conifer Road right-of- way; and t. Submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement' between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of a building permit, and U. Documentation from TCAT that bus service will be extended to the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community and that access accommodations for buses on that site will be adequate, and V. Provision of curb cuts necessary for ADA access on the sidewalk on the site; and W. Provision of the necessary curb-cut and road work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation, prior to issuance of any building permits. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: Krantz 40 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel—Ten? Ms. Balestra—How about all of Cornell campus? Chairperson Sigel—OK, it's approved. Thank you. Mr. Fennessey- Thank you. Mr. Krantz—Ten, I'd say ten miles to downtown Ithaca. Approximately. Several side conversations occur. APPEAL of Bonnie and James Warren, Appellants, Bob Drew, Agent, requesting an interpretation, or alternately, a use variance, from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Sections 270-54 and 270-55 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to operate a miniature golf course that includes the sale of ice cream, frozen ice cream novelties and other concessions located at 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35-1-10.2. The miniature golf course is an allowable use in the Low Density Residential Zone following Planning Board Special Permit and Site Plan Approval. However, retail sales are not allowed in the Low Density Residential Zone. Therefore, an interpretation is being requested as to whether ice cream and concession sales are a "normal function" of a miniature golf course. Otherwise a use variance is being requested to allow the ice cream and concessions to operate with the mini-golf use. Chairperson Sigel—Good evening. Ms. Warren - Hi. Chairperson Sigel—Please start with your name and address. Ms. Warren - Bonnie Warren, 2028 Elmira Road, Newfield. Mr. Warren - James Warren, same address. Chairperson Sigel— I just wanted to point out to the other members that we were handed out tonight the Planning Board resolution, which was done a short time ago. Mr. Matthews—I have a half a acre of trees here. 41 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Bale stra—I know. Chairperson Sigel—And there was also one page missing from the... Ms. Balestra—From the SEQR. Chairperson Sigel— from the environmental assessment form which was handed out just tonight. Mr. Matthews —Can I ask just a very silly question. Elmira Road has a lot of businesses on it. Where is the location of this in relation to some of those...? Ms. Warren - Yeah, we're right next door, right adjacent to Eddydale farm market, right across from Treman. Mr. Matthews—South of it or north of it? Ms. Warren - South. Mr. Matthews—South of it? Ms. Warren - Yeah, right between Eddydale's and Turback's, there is a field. Mr. Matthews—OK, thank you very much. Mr. Drew - There's an aerial in your packet—my name's Bob Drew, Hunt Engineering, 100 Hunt Center—there's an aerial right there too, included in your packet that shows the exact location of the lot. Ms. Balestra—It should be in your packet. Mr. Matthews—Oh, OK, I was wondering what that was. Ms. Balestra—that's what it is. Mr. Matthews—OK, where's Turback's on there? Mr. Krantz — To abbreviate this even more quickly than it probably will need, wouldn't you think that a normal function of a mini golf is to be able to sell an ice cream cone? Ms. Balestra—That's for you to determine. Chairperson Sigel—That's your job, Ron. Mr. Krantz—I would think so. Do you gentlemen agree? 42 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—Yeah. If I were you, I'd just say there are these other places and they've got similar. Chairperson Sigel—I forgot actually to look up, is there wording regarding ancillary uses of things permitted? Ms. Balestra—Not so much. Ms. Brock- There's no definition in the code of accessory use. Mr. Matthews—Isn't Eddydale doing retail sales? Ms. Brock- I didn't see one, I looked. Nope. Mr. Krantz — If they can be allowed to sell... if we consider that a normal function, that answers it. Mr. Matthews — Yeah, but they're already selling retail things in Eddydale farms, right? You can buy honey and eggs and everything you want. Ms. Balestra—That's a whole `pother issue. Chairperson Sigel—Eddydale has a use variance. Mr. Matthews—Pardon? Chairperson Sigel—Eddydale has a use variance for what they sell. Mr. Ellsworth—That the Town doesn't want to get into. Mr. Matthews—This is where pumpkins used to grow, right? Mr. Drew - Yeah... Ms. Warren - It used to be the Babcock property. Mr. Drew - [inaudible] vacant lot. Ms. Warren - It's vacant now, but... Mr. Drew - [inaudible] Mr. Matthews — I wonder if there's the question of telling that they're already selling retail things along there and that's a function of this business... I mean, I haven't played miniature golf in years... 43 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Well, what they... Mr. Warren - We're hoping you do a lot from now on. Mr. Matthews—I hate golf, it's a waste of time. Ms. Warren - I don't like regular golf, but I like miniature golf. Chairperson Sigel— Well, what they do on adjacent properties is not related to this case, and particularly since the adjacent property has a separate use variance to do what they do. Mr. Matthews—It has no bearing on our thought process? Ms. Brock- No. Chairperson Sigel — I mean, that compromises the neighborhood, so it does have an impact on what you consider the neighborhood to be and how it could say be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Matthews—It's already been compromised is what you're saying? Chairperson Sigel — That could have a bearing, but it's not simply the case that because the neighbor can sell things, they can sell things, or necessarily should be able to sell things. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, it has to do with the character of the neighborhood. Chairperson Sigel—That it does have, it does effect. Ms. Brock - Right. What happened at the Planning Board is they gave a special permit, because that was what was required under the zoning for a miniature golf course as the principal use, and now you have to decide whether the sale of Ice cream and sodas and that type of thing is an accessory use to that principal use of a mini golf course. That's your question. And there's no definition in your code for accessory use. I mean, I looked a little bit tonight at some other cases, and unfortunately they all really deal with other codes that define it, and here I guess the custom is to look at is this a normal function? I think other ways you can think about it is, is it customary for this principal use of the mini golf course to sell these kinds of things? And is such sale incidental to the principal use? It doesn't overtake it and become another principal use, it's really secondary to the mini golf course. So you can look at it that way too I think. Is it customary to have this, and is it incidental and secondary to the principal use of a mini golf course. Those are the questions for you. Mr. Matthews — I'm at a disadvantage, I don't know a hoot about miniature golf courses and what they sell. I haven't the slightest idea, does anybody have that? 44 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Brock- Well, I know they submitted some information on that where they... Mr. Krantz—There's one in Cortland... Ms. Warren - Yeah, the one in Cortland that just opened last summer... Mr. Ellsworth—Do they have ice cream? Ms. Warren - They sell ice cream. Ms. Balestra—They have ice cream. Ms. Warren - And I played a course up in Cicero New York over the summer that also sold ice cream, and then we travel we play... Mr. Matthews—ice cream? Ms. Warren - They all have something that goes along with them. Mr. Matthews—Ice cream and other concessions? Ms. Warren - Especially in the summer if it's hot, you're out there for 45 minutes to play a game. Mr. Krantz —Ruben Weiner used to have one right down on the Elmira Road, and they had a little concession stand. He sold soda and ice cream. Mr. Matthews—So you're talking soda and um...? Mr. Warren - Soda, bottled water, ice cream. Ms. Warren - Yeah. Mr. Matthews—Bottled water... Ms. Warren - Yeah, and soda cans. Chairperson Sigel — What portion of your sales do you anticipate the concessions being versus the mini golf playing? Do you have any... Ms. Warren - No idea. Mr. Warren - No idea. Chairperson Sigel—Any idea? Um... 45 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews—It's not the major purpose for you being there. Ms. Warren - The miniature golf is the major purpose, but the ice cream will be there... Mr. Matthews—Something for them to carry in their other hand. Chairperson Sigel — I don't... in this particular location, I don't necessarily... I don't personally think it's a problem, but I could easily see how it could be the case that the concession sales could end up being the major revenue generator for this type of thing. I mean, you've got the park across the street, it's a busy road in the summer, people like to go out for ice cream. So, if we... I just want to point out, if we did make the finding that it was an allowed accessory use, it's sort of part way to allowing ice cream stands in this zone, which I'm not necessarily saying is a bad thing, but... Mr. Matthews—Only if you have a mini golf. Chairperson Sigel—You have to put a couple holes out back. Mr. Niefer — How would you feel if the enterprise becomes so successful, that they decide they're going to put in, sell hot dogs, hamburgers, pizza, and some other things that they're going to want to do then. Chairperson Sigel—Well, that's a good point. Ms. Brock- You can condition your interpretation on saying... Mr. Ellsworth—Right, [inaudible] just like we just did with [inaudible] Ms. Brock- this interpretation is based on sales being of x items, this type of item. Mr. Ellsworth—This is use variance, number one on... Chairperson Sigel—No, they're requesting... Ms. Brock- They're requesting an interpretation right now... Mr. Ellsworth—So this is out? Ms. Brock - as to whether — they're requesting an interpretation as to whether this is really just an accessory use, they don't need a use variance. If you decide, no, ice cream and bottled water sales are not an accessory use to a mini golf course, then they're asking... Mr. Ellsworth—It says Use Variance. 46 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Brock- Then they're asking for a use variance. Chairperson Sigel—"alternately". Look at the word before. Ms. Brock - So I think the first thing to decide is whether the sale of these products is accessory to the mini golf course. If you decide it is, then that's the end of it, they don't need to get a variance. Chairperson Sigel—So they're hoping to not require... Mr. Ellsworth—It's very unusual to get comments from the county. Ms. Brock - Right, the Planning Board received that and addressed those comments in their decision, and they don't really deal with this particular issue. They dealt with some other issues that the Planning Board dealt with and addressed. Chairperson Sigel—So did the... Mr. Matthews — So you're advising us that if we arrive at a decision that this is an accessory to the business, then they need not be here, is that what you're saying? Ms. Brock- No, well, they need to be here to get that interpretation from you... Chairperson Sigel—But they won't need... Ms. Brock- But they won't need to get a variance. Mr. Matthews — If we determine that it's more than an accessory to the business, then what? Ms. Brock- Then... [tape is flipped] Mr. Ellsworth—I don't have a problem with this request. Chairperson Sigel—Which part of it? Mr. Ellsworth—It's definable, it's in the definition, as far as I'm concerned. Chairperson Sigel—Grant them approval to have a used car lot? Mr. Ellsworth—Right, right. Ms. Balestra—A used car lot? [laughs] 47 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—A what? Chairperson Sigel—A used car lot. A pick and pull. [laughter] Mr. Ellsworth — No, we'll condition it, so you can't get hot dugs, hamburgs and beer nuts. Chairperson Sigel—Oh, I need beer when I do mini golf. Mr. Matthews—This is a low density residential area? Ms. Warren - Yes. Mr. Matthews—There's what, one or two houses along the road there? Ms. Balestra—There are a few, not too many. Mr. Matthews—Not too many. Ms. Balestra— And the Turback's property as you all know, was recently granted a use variance to allow that dermatology practice. Mr. Ellsworth—And to produce products. Ms. Balestra—yes, on site. Mr. Matthews — It is... the Elmira Road commercial activities seem to be reaching out southward. We just approved one I think for a doctor's office. Mr. Ellsworth—That's what she was just talking about, a dermatologist. Ms. Balestra— Right, that's what I was just talking about, and that actually could have been a stretch, it could have been considered a home occupation because the owner is actually living in that house as well. Mr. Matthews — It's a business, so it's reaching out there. Before you know it, it'll be in Newfield. Ms. Balestra—I don't think so. Ms. Brock- But again, that's not really... Mr. Matthews—I have no problem with this request. 48 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Brock - But again that's not really what you're looking at. You're just looking at is the sale of ice cream and water considered accessory to the functioning of a mini golf course. Mr. Matthews — I would think that if I had a business like that, having soda pop and ice cream would be an additional enjoyment of the experience whatever it is. And I don't think that's their real purpose, except it's a little profit. They want [inaudible] golfers, right? World class golfers. Chairperson Sigel — And you are, I think I saw on your layout, you're planning to have 18 holes? Ms. Warren - Yes. Nine of them are handicapped accessible. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Ellsworth—Nothing for the elderly? Ms. Warren - There's no stairs or anything, so it's easy to walk. Mr. Matthews—Paintball. [laugher] Chairperson Sigel—Paintball for the elderly? So, I assume it is the case that the Planning Board felt that they fully addressed the county issues? Ms. Brock - Yes they did. Because I think the county's one real issue was with that lighting... Mr. Ellsworth—And the hours. Ms. Brock - And they had conditions about the lighting in there, that they felt would minimize the glare and that type of thing. Ms. Balestra — Page three of the planning board resolution addresses the lighting, and page four addresses the hours of operation. Ms. Brock- In fact, one of the things they said is the lights have to be turned off when the business is closed, when the course is closed, except for security lighting around the building. Chairperson Sigel — It's going to take a moment to finish reading part of the environmental assessment... Mr. Ellsworth—Don't drag this out, I'm getting tired. 49 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Are you? Sorry. [pause] Mr. Ellsworth — James, you going to be at this location? Because I know you're busy further this way on Elmira Road, right? OK. Chairperson Sigel — Alright, I'll open the public hearing. With no one remaining of the public, we'll close the public hearing. Chanperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 8:40p.m. Chairperson Sigel—Any further questions, comments, statements of fact or opinion? All right, I will move that this board make the determination that it is a normal part ... Ms. Brock- I think we need to do a SEQR first. Mr. Ellsworth—Oh. Ms. Brock - I think it was an uncoordinated review, so you need to do your own SEQR determination first. Chairperson Sigel—For a determination of...? Ms. Brock- Oh. Chairperson Sigel—We're not really doing anything related to this case. Ms. Brock- Oh, that's true. Ms. Balestra—For the interpretation or use variance? Ms. Brock- Well, it's an interpretation of the code. Chairperson Sigel—It's just an... Ms. Brock- it's an interpretation of the code. Chairperson Sigel—Which would apply to anyone. Ms. Brock- So it's not an approval. Ms. Balestra—But we've done environmental assessments for this before. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, if you're doing a definition, you have to do an environmental? 50 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—We've rarely, actually, made an interpretation. Ms. Balestra — Didn't we... didn't we make an interpretation for the Six Mile Creek Winery. That had an environmental review for it. Mr. Ellsworth—Yes, and we did for the dermatology... selling products. Chairperson Sigel — Six Mile Creek was a modification to their use variance, I'm pretty sure. Ms. Balestra—But itwas actually also an interpretation... Chairperson Sigel—Part of it was an interpretation. Mr. Ellsworth—Turback's was also. Ms. Brock- Maybe you're right. Because you only have to do... Chairperson Sigel—I just don't know what the environmental impact would refer to. Ms. Brock- What the action is. Chairperson Sigel—What would it refer to? It would have to refer to the interpretation. Ms. Brock- Yeah, I'm sorry, I think, keep going, sorry. Chairperson Sigel—OK, I will move that this board make the interpretation of the Town of Ithaca Code to permit as an accessory use to a miniature golf course, the sale of ice cream, frozen ice cream novelties, and other ice cream preparations. Mr. Ellsworth—Bottled water. Chairperson Sigel—As well as soft drinks...and candy— Mr. Warren - Candy bar, yeah. Chairperson Sigel — Candy bars. That those items are considered an accessory and permitted use with a miniature golf. Ms. Brock- Did you include bottled water in that? Chairperson Sigel—I said soft drinks. Ms. Brock- I don't... you might want to specify bottled water, too. 51 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Bottled water. Ms. Brock- Thank you. Chairperson Sigel—I think that's the softest of soft drinks. Second? Mr. Matthews — Second. Mr. Ellsworth—I'll second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 005: Appeal of Bonnie and James Warren, 869 Elmira Rd, Tax Parcel No. 35.-1-10.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board make the interpretation of the Town of Ithaca Code, to permit, as an accessory use to a miniature golf course the sale of ice cream, frozen ice cream novelties, and other ice cream preparations, as well as soft drinks, bottled water, and candy bars. The sale of those items is considered an accessory and permitted use with a miniature golf operation. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel—OK, I think that's all you need. Ms. Warren - Thank you. Ms. Balestra — Oh, can I just tell quickly...? You know this already, the board didn't know this. They will be coming back potentially with a sign variance as well. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Ms. Balestra— But they didn't get that together for... the Planning Board didn't act as a sign review board at the last meeting, so it's going to be an additional meeting. 52 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Any further official business? No. OK, we're adjourned. Chanperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson John Coakley, Deputy Town Clerk 53