Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2006-06-19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2006 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; Jim Niefer, Board Member; David Mountin, Alternate Board Member; Eric Levine, Alternate Board Member; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner; John Coakley, Deputy Town Clerk. ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Herman Sieverding, IAD; Mary Howard, 220 Forest Home Dr; Tom Brutnell, 220 Forest Home Dr; Michael Kandrach, 217 Forest Home Dr; Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Dr; Julie Crowley, 985 Taughannock Blvd; Jason Demarest, 301 South Geneva St. Chairperson Sigel opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening, welcome to the June meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Before I introduce our appeals, I would first like to introduce our two new alternate members to the board: Eric Levine and David Mountin. This is the board: Dick, Jim, Ron, and Harry. Ms. Balestra—They know me. Chairperson Sigel — This is John, our note-taker, although he just informed me this is his last meeting, so we won't see John anymore. And Sue is our legal representation for the Town, and Chris is our Planning Department liaison. OK. So, it looks like we have a full slate of board members tonight, so you guys just get to watch I guess, although I believe you are allowed to participate fully as far as questioning, if you want to question the applicant or question any of us. OK, tonight we have four appeals, the first is that of Cornell University, the second is Mary Howard, the third is Jason Sokoloff, and the fourth is Julie Crowley. APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Herman Sieverding, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-7 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to place a 38.5+/- square foot illuminated freestanding sign at the entrance of 395 Pine Tree Road and another 25+/- square foot illuminated freestanding sign approximately 750+/- feet into the site. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 62-2-13.2 and 63-1-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. Signs in residential zones are restricted to six square feet in area,with illumination prohibited. Off-premise signs are not permitted in any zone. Other variances may be required. Chairperson Sigel —Do you want to have a seat? I think you are pretty familiar with our procedures here. So, if you'd like, you can begin with anything you'd like to add. Your TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES explanation and your supported in your documentation here was very good I thought, but anything you'd like to point out at this point. Mr. Sieverding - Well, I guess I'll just stop right here and take questions. Chairperson Sigel — Well, the other four board members said that they actually hated everything, so... [laughter] Mr. Sieverding - There are two things that I put together. There's the original application which is dated April 17, and that just discusses the fact that the size of the two signs that we are proposing for which we need variances, are larger than the ordinance stipulates, plus the fact that they are internally illuminated, which isn't allowed in a residential zone. I did that on the basis of what I thought was the last word on the variances that we required based on e-mail between Susan Brock and Susan Ritter, and it turns out that wasn't the case. So when Susan reviewed the initial application, she contacted me, so on May 19th, I put together the supplemental packet of information which addresses the other variances which we need, which is more than one regulated sign in a residential zone, a sign that's greater than 4 square feet, but one of these days Chris, you're going to have to explain to me... I can read the ordinance and see in some sections it talks about 6 square feet, and other sections it talks about 4 square feet, I think there's a lot of confusion in the ordinance. Ms. Balestra—That's true. Mr. Sieverding - And a variance to allow an off-premises sign, and then a variance to allow a sign within 15 feet of the property. So it sounds like a lot of variances, but I think when you break it down and sort of analyze it in terms of the site that we're developing, not to be presumptuous, but I just don't think it's really that significant when you list them all. Pine Tree Road, as you know, when we were here last time for the height variance, I think you're all familiar with the site. There is existing curb-cut, two of them, between Olivia and Sizer, part of the proposal that has been approved by the Planning Board is to consolidated that driveway, and have a median, and on that median is the first of the two signs that we're talking about. The second sign is 750 feet back to the site, which is at the turn circle, which provides access to the main entrance of the building, and then there is a sign that is right at the corner of this circle which will also identify this property. And the reason why that's there, is because as you go along that driveway, you have Olivia's, you have East Hill Car Wash, you have the entrance to variance Cornell University Offices which currently exist in East Hill Plaza, so it's really a marker for that building. Part of the reason I think why we need these variances is a bit of anomaly I think, in that the only zone which an educational use is allowed in the Town of Ithaca is the residential zone, and this site where this building is being built was formerly zoned Office Park Commercial, where the kind of signs we're proposing would have been entirely consistent with the ordinance, and consistent with the predominant character of the neighborhood, which is a commercial zone. But because Universities, or Educational, 2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Institutions of Higher Learning, are only allowed in a residential zone, the site was rezoned residential to allow the University to build this office building, and so therefore, you are all of a sudden subject to a higher standard than you would be if you were in a commercial zone. So there again I think is another reason why these particular variances are being requested. If it were strictly in a residential zone, I think it would be a case, I think that the fact we are really in a commercial zone. What we're proposing to do here, as you can see from the various designs we've submitted is very consistent, in fact I would say probably on the smaller scale of the signs that you predominantly see in the East Hill neighborhood. At least in the East Hill Commercial section. Mr. Ellsworth—You have any idea what size Olivia's sign is? Mr. Sieverding - I don't Ms. Balestra—I believe Olivia's is at least 50 square feet, it may be larger, they may have received a variance for it to be... it may be 60 square feet, but I'm sure it's at least 50. Mr. Ellsworth—And that's internally illuminated, too. Mr. Sieverding - And that's internally illuminated, and I think the model of the sign, sort of a [inaudible] of what we're proposing, it's almost exactly like the sign that you see when you enter East Hill Plaza from Pine Tree Road. It's a very low sign, it's only 3 foot 6 off the ground if you include the base. The letters themselves are punched out on this panel, and so the amount of illumination relative to the whole face of the panel is relatively small, it's only about 7 or 8 square feet. And it will just simply say 395 Pine Tree Road, Cornell University, that's all it's going to say. The reason why we need some of these variances also has to do with property ownership. You'll notice that a couple of the variances relate to a sign being closer than 15 feet to the property line, I think ordinarily that would be something to be concerned about, but here the property is all Cornell University. This is all based on tax map parcels. The parcel on which the building sits is this large parcel here. The parcel on the driveway, the entry sign, this smaller parcel here, 13.2, and then I think our entry, the sign that's on our entry loop is within 15 feet of these parcels and that property line. But again all the surrounding property is owned by Cornell. The nearest privately owned site, approximate to that sign is over 200 feet away, and it's East Hill Car Wash. I think the only other thing to say is I think relative to the computations we did in terms of square footage, not to be sort of picking the fine points here, I think the size of the variance isn't really. I think it's larger as you indicate it. 38 square feet I don't think is the size of the sign, it's 27.5 square feet. Chairperson Sigel—I think we have, we have determined that actually. Ms. Balestra—Right, we need to correct the memo and the EAF. Mr. Sieverding - Because the base isn't included. Chairperson Sigel—And then the smaller one comes out to about 20 square feet. 3 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Sieverding - 20. Ms. Balestra—Right, that's about right. Mr. Sieverding - Exactly. So, if these were for instance, exempt signs, I mean as of right, their allowed 24 square feet, but again because it's internally illuminated, it's part of the reason why we're here for the variance. So I think without further talking about this, in both of the documents I've submitted, I sort of tried to address each of the 5 criteria that you need to consider when granting the variance, and I think the short summary here is that I think what we're proposing to do is really consistent with the overall aesthetic that's been established on Pine Tree Road, the size of the sign we're proposing really isn't very much different, in fact in a lot of cases, it's a lot smaller than other signs that advertise businesses [inaudible]. All of those signs are illuminated, some of them with overhead lighting, or groundspots, ours are internally lit, which I think is a much more subtle way of doing it. And we just don't think that this will have any negative impact whatsoever on the character of essentially a commercial district. Chairperson Sigel—The sign out by the road is on a separate parcel, correct? Mr. Sieverding - Yeah, that's this parcel 13.2. Chairperson Sigel—And is the sign back by the building, is that also on a separate parcel from the building, or is that the same parcel? Mr. Sieverding - No, it's on the same parcel as the building, but different from the parcel where the entry driveway is. And I think part of the reason why that's segregated like that is because all of the easements that have been granted to adjoining property owners to provide access to their businesses through that parcel. Chairperson Sigel—OK, so then that one is practically on the property line. Mr. Sieverding - Yes. Chairperson Sigel—Questions? Nothing? Mr. Krantz—Seems reasonable. Chairperson Sigel — It does seem reasonable, the sign does appear smaller than most in East Hill area, or certainly on the smaller side, and the one that's setback from the building is not even really visible from the road, or barely. And except for being illuminated, and of course the setback issue, that would be actually conforming. Mr. Matthews —The illuminated one is in the back? Chairperson Sigel—They're both illuminated. 4 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Sieverding - They're both internally illuminated. Chairperson Sigel—They're both illuminated the same way. Mr. Matthews —But they're not spot lights, right? Mr. Sieverding - No, it's really just a big bronze panel, and then the letters are just punched out, and it's internally illuminated so that the only thing you see are just the letters on the sign, not the whole sign. Mr. Matthews —OK. Chairperson Sigel — So, I'm just trying to figure out all of the variances for each one. Does the one by the road have a setback issue as well, because it's so narrow? Mr. Sieverding - No, no, it's really just the sign that's back on the entry. This one back here. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Let's see, do we really, because we have two separate parcels, do we really need a variance for two signs? Ms. Balestra— They're both, if it's residentially zoned, then it's two regulated signs in a residential zone, and one on each tax parcel, right? Chairperson Sigel—Right, but you're allowed one per tax parcel, and they're using two. Ms. Brock—But one is an off-premise. Chairperson Sigel —Right, so you would definitely need a variance to allow off-premise, but I'm not sure... Ms. Balestra—And they're both greater than 4 square feet. Chairperson Sigel — Right. I mean, strictly speaking they don't have two, they're really looking to... well, they do have two. Ms. Balestra—They don't have two on one tax parcel. Chairperson Sigel—Right. Ms. Brock— So I don't think we do need a variance for two signs on one parcel, because there's really only one sign per parcel. Chairperson Sigel—Right. Chris, did you have anything to say about the environmental? 5 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra — I have some changes that need to be made on the environmental assessment. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Ms. Balestra — The sign area as Herman indicated, they were miscalculated on both the signs, because they should not have included the support, and when we originally calculated the sign area, we included the supports of the sign. So the first sign was originally calculated at 38.5 square feet, it is actually 27.5. So in C2, it says "the proposal includes erecting 2 illuminated signs, one that is 11 feet by 2.5 feet" and then in parentheses it's 27.5 square feet, instead of 38.5. "And another that is" 4 feet 2 inches instead of 5 feet 2 inches, and then in the parentheses, it's approximately 20 +/- square feet, not 25 square feet. So that needs to be changed. And then in C4, the second sentence, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance requires a 4 square foot maximum for signs in a residential zone, the applicant is proposing two signs that well exceed the 4 square feet, and then in parentheses again, 27.5 square feet instead of 38.5 and 20+/- square feet instead of 25 +/-. And again this area is all commercial, it's community commercial, this area was originally zoned office park commercial, and as Herman indicated that does not allow educational uses, so Cornell University received a zone change from the Town Board to allow it to be residentially zoned, and then that kicked in the more stringent sign regulations. We don't believe it's out of character with the surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. Chairperson Sigel — I just want to draw everyone's attention, I assume you read this, to the Tompkins County Department of Planning memo, where they said they officially had no comment, or determined that there would be no negative impacts and then had a sort of and off the record, you might say, comment where they suggested a smaller sign might be more appropriate for what is deemed a neighborhood commercial area. Which, in this case, I don't think it's really an issue, I think it does fit in with at least the character of what's there. Maybe you can argue about what the character of a neighborhood commercial zone should be, but given what's there, I think the signs are... Mr. Krantz—And they are smaller. Chairperson Sigel — And you're right, they are smaller than certainly what's typical, I mean they are half of what's allowed in that... Mr. Krantz—Can we take credit for that? Chairperson Sigel—Can we take credit? No. Mr. Mountin - Kirk, I have a question. Herman, I wonder what the illumination level is for the signs, the lumens... Mr. Sieverding - I don't know what it is. They're just two small fluorescent tubes inside that box, so it's just really enough to give a low white glow to the letters. 6 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Mountin - Just two in each box. Mr. Sieverding - In each box. Mr. Mountin - 4 footers or 2 footers or 1? Mr. Sieverding - Probably 4 footers in the front, smaller ones in the back because the back one is very much narrower. The whole sign is 11 feet long, the whole box is 11 feet long, but the punch out area is [inaudible]. Mr. Mountin - two 4 footers, probably T-8s. And that consideration was designed of the amount of light reflecting out of those? Mr. Sieverding - Just to make the letters stand out so you can read them at night time. Mr. Mountin - So there was some design consideration of how much light would be coming from those 2 T-8s, to determine that it wouldn't be glaring when you drive up, which I'm sure it's not,just for reference for myself. Driving by, I would probably ask myself, how many bulbs are in that, now I know. Ms. Brock — The Town sign law has some requirements about illumination that say no sign shall produce illumination in excess of 10 foot candles above ambient light level at a distance of four feet on a level with the sign. So you know whether this sign complies with that? Mr. Sieverding - You can make the variance conditioned on meeting that standard. That's fine. Chairperson Sigel—You would be subject to it regardless. Mr. Matthews — Just a question of interest, nothing more. Not to add a conflict to the discussion. There's a sign there now, for what was formerly the breeding operation, it seems to be considerable larger than the one that there is proposed for this building. How did that get there? Chairperson Sigel—I'm not sure. Mr. Ellsworth—That's probably before we even had a sign ordinance. Mr. Matthews —OK. Chairperson Sigel—I think the sign ordinance might have been 93. Ms. Brock—It looks like there was an initial ordinance in 1980, and then it was amended in its entirety in 1996. 7 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — It could have pre-dated that. It could have been updated since then, but the original sign could have pre-dated that. If there are no questions at this point, we'll open the public hearing, and if no one wishes to speak regarding Cornell's appeal, we will close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —And I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Cornell University, for their two signs, at 395 Pine Tree Road, for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form, as amended tonight,prepared by Town Staff. Second? Mr. Ellsworth—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 043: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Appeal of Cornell University, Appellant, Herman Sieverding, Agent, 395 Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel No.'s 62.-2-13.2 and 63.-1-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Cornell University for their two signs at 395 Pine Tree Road for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form, as amended tonight, prepared by Town staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel —Motion passes. Any further questions or comments? I will move to grant the appeal of Cornell University, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-7 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to place one sign no greater than 28 square feet at the entrance of 395 Pine Tree Road and another sign no greater than 21 square feet approximately 750 feet back into the site. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 62-2-13.2 and 63-1-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. With the findings that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for an area variance, specifically: that the signs would appear to be the minimum size and illumination needed for the applicant to effectively identify the location of the building, that an undesirable change in the neighborhood will not take place, given that the signs will be in general of a lower level of light intensity and smaller than most other signs in the surrounding area. 8 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES That the signs will not have adverse physical or environmental effects. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created in that Cornell was essentially forced to request that these parcels be zoned low-density residential, since that's where educational uses are allowed and commercial zones, which probably would have been more appropriate here, do not permit educational use. And finally, while the requested variances are substantial, given the allowed four square feet in this zone, it is the board's determination that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the community. Mr. Ellsworth—Light level. Chairperson Sigel —Yes. OK, and then we have a number of conditions that we need to impose. Maybe just the light level. Ms. Brock—I think that was the only condition. Should I just read that again? Chairperson Sigel—Sure. Ms. Brock — So the condition would be that neither of the signs shall produce illumination in excess of ten foot candles above ambient light levels at a distance of four feet on a level with the sign. Chairperson Sigel — OK, that will be condition 1, condition 2 will be that the signs be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. And, that in addition to the previously mentioned variances granted, a variance is also granted for internal illumination for both signs. For the sign by Pine Tree Road, for that sign to be off-site, and the sign back by the new building that Cornell is building, that that sign is given a variance for a setback... is the setback essentially zero? Mr. Sieverding - Sorry? Chairperson Sigel — Is the setback of the recessed sign, is that setback essentially zero? Is it almost right on the lot line? Mr. Sieverding - It's hard to say because this doesn't have the tax map parcels, but I'd say it's pretty close,probably within 5 or 6 feet of the parcel line. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Well, we could say for the sign back by the building to have a setback of zero feet, conditioned upon Cornell retaining ownership of the adjacent parcel. Anything you want to add, Susan? OK, second? Mr. Matthews —Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 044: Appeal of Cornell University, Appellant, Herman Sieverding, Agent, 395 Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel No.'s 62.-2-13.2 and 63.-1-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, Appellant, Herman Sieverding, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-7 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to place one sign no greater than 28 square feet at the entrance of 395 Pine Tree Road and another sign no greater than 21 square feet approximately 750 feet back into the site. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 62-2-13.2 and 63-1-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. In addition to the previously mentioned variances, variances are also granted for internal illumination of both signs, for the sign by Pine Tree Road to be off-site, and the sign back by the new building to have a setback of 0 feet. FINDINGS: The applicant has satisfied the requirements for an area variance, specifically- 1. pecifically:1. These signs would appear to be at the minimum size and illumination needed for the applicant to effectively identify the location of the building; 2. That an undesirable change in the neighborhood will not take place given that the signs will be in general of a lower level of light intensity and smaller than most other signs in the surrounding area; 3. That the signs will not have adverse physical or environmental effects; 4. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created, and that Cornell was essentially forced to request that these parcels be zoned low-density residential, since that's where educational uses are allowed, and commercial zones, which probably would have been more appropriate here, do not permit educational use; and finally 5. While the requested variances are substantial, given the allowed four square feet in this zone, it is this board's determination that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the community. CONDITIONS- 1. ONDITIONS:1. Neither of the signs shall produce illumination in excess of ten foot candles above ambient light level at a distance of four feet on a level with the sign. 2. The signs be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. 3. The 0 foot setback variance is conditioned on Cornell retaining ownership of the adjacent parcel. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews 10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel—OK, thank you. Mr. Sieverding - OK, thank you very much. APPEAL of Mary D. Howard, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-71 and 72 and Article XXVII, Section 270-221 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to replace an existing 240+/- square foot garage with a new 240+/- square foot garage and to construct a 330+/- addition to the northwest side of a residence located at 220 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-2-9, Medium Density Residential Zone. Proposed garage will be located approximately 5-feet within the 10-foot required side yard setback, will exceed the maximum height permitted, and overall building area, with addition, will be greater than the maximum 20% allowed for lots in the Medium Density Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel—Good evening. Ms. Howard - Hi. Chairperson Sigel — Hi. If you could please begin with your name and address for the record? Ms. Howard- Mary Howard, 220 Forest Home Drive. Mr. Brutnell - And Tom Brutnell at 220 Forest Home Drive. Chairperson Sigel—And is there anything you would like to begin by saying? Mr. Brutnell - We've never done this before, so we're not quite sure how it works, but just to summarize, we'd like to build an addition onto our house, and because of the close proximity to Warren Road, we were pretty much forced to move in the direction that we did. We'll be removing a shed and a porch, and be replacing that with a breakfast room and a mud room and adding more functionality to our kitchen. When we do that, we'll also be taking down an existing garage, which is being basically pushed over by a large walnut tree, so we don't feel that it's safe the way it is now. And we will be replacing that with a carport, and we're going to move the garage closer, away from the property line more towards our home. The height variance is needed for the garage, and the reason we are applying for that is that we want to keep the same feel, the same character of the house, it's a high pitched roof on the garage now, and we want to replicate that style. We've tried to be true to the character of the house. It's a very old home, built in 1830, so we've worked hard with the architect to keep it in line with the neighborhood. II TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES We're also going to do some repairs, there's a chimney that's crumbling and we're going to be fixing the front of the house, so we're really trying to maintain the whole look of the house. Chairperson Sigel —And the garage is going to be open on all sides, so it's going to be a carport, is that correct? Ms. Howard - Yeah, I mean the garage that's there now, you can pull a car into it, you can't store anything in there or anything, so really it's just to keep [inaudible] from the walnuts that come off the tree, things like that. Chairperson Sigel—OK, what was your motivation for not enclosing it? Ms. Howard - Really it would just be more cost effective. As far as getting robbed, you can pull a car into it, but you can't even open the doors so small as it is. We just want to keep it the same size. Mr. Brutnell - There's a lot of increased costs because it's not attached to the home, to rebuild the garage it was a substantial cost. Chairperson Sigel — So the gable end is going to face the road, of the garage, and the gable portion will be solid, then. Ms. Howard - Right. At the moment, there are shingles on there that match the house, it's the same, that's on the front of the house. Mr. Brutnell - The side that would be open facing our neighbors house, he has a shed against the garage right now. It's not going to change his view from that house. The other open side faces our home and in the back there's a hill, it's a big slope coming in the back. Chairperson Sigel—Right. And have you discussed this with that neighbor? Mr. Brutnell - Yes, we did. Their concern was that we not damage the tree, that's something that we talked to the contractor about, they're aware of. It's a very old Walnut tree that is essentially is what's pushing the garage over. So, it's lifting the roof off the garage, there's a big crack, you can see through the crack in the back of the garage. Ms. Howard- It's grown right onto the roof, and it's bearing down on it. Mr. Brutnell - So it's just not a safe structure, but we're going to maintain the tree, and that's part of why we want to move the whole structure further from the tree. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Any questions, Dick? 12 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — My question is what is prohibiting you from building this carport to conform to the setback? Ms. Howard- Why we want to keep it not ten feet? Mr. Matthews —Bring it to code. Ms. Howard - We don't have a large yard, and right now the driveway just comes up to where the garage is, and we'd like to just keep it off to the side there and keep the yard that we have. Mr. Matthews —But there's nothing preventing you physically from moving that carport over towards the house? Mr. Brutnell - Right, we could move the whole carport, then we'd have to move the driveway. Mr. Matthews —Ten feet? Mr. Brutnell - Right, so our whole livable yard essentially is between the garage and the back of the new addition. Everything behind the garage is a big slope up to Warren Road, and essentially it's all planted. We have two small kids, we wanted to maintain some sort of yard for the kids to play in. And because of where the existing driveway was, we were hoping to essentially move it slightly over but not the full ten feet. Mr. Matthews — Well I have a little bit of a problem with non-conforming, and then building another building within the setback limitations. We're just perpetuating the matter. Chairperson Sigel —Well, I think, my view in this case, is they are bringing it more into conformance, and given that portion of their yard where it is next to the neighbor's yard... is that a shed or a garage, that your neighbor has next to you. Ms. Howard- Shed. Mr. Brutnell - He has a shed. Chairperson Sigel—He has a shed? It's not exactly the same but it's similar to a situation where you'd actually have a connected garage that straddles a lot line say, where you are allowed to have a garage right up to the lot line in some areas. So to me in this situation, I don't really have a problem with it, and I understand the applicant's desire to try and maintain as much of their yard as possible. Mr. Krantz—I go along with you there I think Kirk, despite the fact there are three things, the height, the building area and the setback that are not within the limits that are 13 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES normally prescribed, the overall change is pretty minimal, and the overall effect is really not going to be very different. Chairperson Sigel — I wanted to ask you Chris, did you or anyone else in the staff verify the 38 square feet as how much they'll go over, or were you able to reproduce that number? Ms. Balestra—Yes. Chairperson Sigel — They're including this removal of the barn corner, since it appears fortuitously to not all be on their property. Fortuitous in this case. Ms. Balestra—We re-did the numbers and they worked out. Chairperson Sigel—So the lot area that they used, you concur with? Ms. Balestra—Yeah. The lot size is 13, 939 square feet, and 20% of that is 2, 789 square feet. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Ms. Balestra—Which is what they had written as the allowable building area. Chairperson Sigel—OK, they actually have 2777 on one of these. Ms. Balestra — Their existing right now, their existing building area is 2777, which is approximately 19.9% coverage, and then the proposed is 2827 square feet, which comes out to be 20.3%lot coverage, so it all worked out. Chairperson Sigel — OK. So, that's a pretty modest amount over. Any other further questions, Dick or anyone else? Any questions? Mr. Mountin - I have a question maybe more for the town than it is... is there a definition of a garage versus carport, because it's used a lot in this discussion here. Chairperson Sigel—That's a good question. Mr. Mountin - Garage and carport are both used in the application, it could be just a semantics thing, and I just was... Chairperson Sigel—I think they're probably treated the same. Ms. Brock — There's no definition in the zoning ordinance for a carport, there is for garage which is a covered building used primarily for storage of automobiles and other similar motor vehicles, so this would be a covered building, even though it has open sides. 14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Mountin - It could be called a garage or a carport. Ms. Brock — Right. The code would really consider a carport to be a garage. I have a question for the applicants, which is who does own the corner of the barn that you are proposing to remove from your lot coverage calculations? Mr. Brutnell - The Town of Ithaca. Ms. Howard- We have a lease for it, I guess. Mr. Brutnell - A deed, actually. Ms. Brock—Does your deed, do you own to the center of Warren Road on your deed? Ms. Howard- We have a deed that we have the corner of the barn... Mr. Brutnell - To maintain it. Ms. Howard- To maintain it or whatever. Mr. Brutnell - I think it's called a deed. But we are basically granted the right to maintain the barn on the Town's property, the City of Ithaca's property. So we have a deed for I believe it's a dollar to maintain the barn. Ms. Brock—Is it a right of way encroachment agreement that you have? Mr. Brutnell - Yes, so it would be possible if the Town decided to widen Warren Road, that they would take the barn down. Ms. Brock — But it says deed to centerline of road, reserving existing highway right of ways. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I have noticed this in the past, that in Forest Home it seems that at least some of the owners own into the road, and this one would appear to show that. Ms. Brock—Well, that's not unusual for a property owner to own to the center line of the road, subject to the right of way of the Town to use the road for what you call a Town highway. Chairperson Sigel — So if your lot area then is counting to the center of the road, then it wouldn't be correct to subtract the corner, because it's covering your... I mean if you own to the center of the road, then it's on your... you've counted half the road in your lot area. 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Brock - Well, I guess that's the question, when they calculated the lot area, did they only include what we see as sort of the darker lines, or did they go out to the centerline of the road to calculate what your total lot area is. Mr. Brutnell - They used the survey map, which did not show us owning to the center of Warren Road. Which is this here. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Ms. Howard - I never thought that we owned into the road, I always thought that our barn, that corner is not on our property, and that's what our survey map shows. Chairperson Sigel — Well, it gets a little complicated with ownership versus, and then there's an easement which basically takes away your right to use that space, but you may technically own it. Ms. Brock—If they owned to the centerline of the road, but they didn't include the land, then they don't need the lot coverage variance, but maybe we should just assume the worst case scenario, which is that they do need it. Chairperson Sigel — If you own to the middle of the road, you would presumably have plenty of lot coverage to do what you want to do. Ms. Brock —Unless the calculation of the total lot coverage included all the land to the center of the road, I guess we just don't know. I can't tell. But this survey map does state, deed to centerline of roads, except in reserve, all existing public utility and highway rights of way. 0.32 acres net to right of ways. Ms. Brock, Ms. Balestra and Chairperson Sigel briefly discuss. Ms. Brock—So Christine,your calculations were based on .32 acres as the lot size? Ms. Balestra—Yes. Ms. Brock—It does sound like the right of way areas was being excluded. Chairperson Sigel—But we could grant it. Ms. Brock—I think you should just assume they need a lot coverage variance, and if you choose to grant the variance, you can stipulate that what they construct conform to the plans that they've submitted to you. Chairperson Sigel — OK, Chris any other comments on the environmental assessment or anything else? Ms. Balestra—Nope. 16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Any other questions at this point? OK, we'll open the public hearing if anyone wishes to speak. If not, we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Mary Howard... Ms. Balestra—What do you need? Chairperson Sigel—The Town staff portion of the environmental? Ms. Balestra—You should have that, the Part 11, you're going through it right there, that's all Part 11. Chairperson Sigel — That's what confuses me, I like that compact text. OK... for all of the reasons stated in the Part 11 Long Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff. Second? Mr. Ellsworth—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 045 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mary D. Howard, 220 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-2-9, Medium Density Residential Zone MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Mary Howard, for all of the reasons stated in the Part II Long Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel — OK. And I will move to grant the appeal of Mary Howard, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-71 17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES and 72 and Article XXVII, Section 270-221 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to replace an existing approximate 240 square foot garage with a new garage not to exceed 250 square feet and to construct an addition not to exceed 350 square feet on the northwest side of a residence at 220 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-2-9, Medium Density Residential Zone. With the finding that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for an area variance, specifically that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved in any other way, namely to expand their house and rebuild their garage, while maintaining as much of the limited flat yard area of their house as possible, that an undesirable change in the neighborhood will not occur, there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, that the alleged difficulty is not self-created in that the requests both for the setback and the height of the garage and the area, the lot coverage area are not substantial, and having found that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the community. With the following conditions that the garage not exceed 17 feet in height, that the garage setback be no less than 5 feet, that the lot coverage be no greater than 50 square feet more than what is permitted by the Town Code, and finally that all approvals in this variance be built as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. Second? Mr. Matthews —Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 046: Mary D. Howard, 220 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-2-9, Medium Density Residential Zone MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Mary D. Howard, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-71 and 72 and Article XXVII, Section 270-221 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to replace an existing approximate 240 square foot garage with a new garage not to exceed 250 square feet and to construct an addition not to exceed 350 square feet on the northwest side of a residence located at 220 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-2-9, Medium Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The applicant has satisfied the requirements for an area variance, specifically: 1. that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other way, namely to expand their house and re-build their garage while maintaining as much of the limited flat yard area as possible; 2. That an undesirable change in the neighborhood will not occur; 3. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects; 18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES 4. The variances for the setback, the height of the garage, and the lot coverage area are not substantial; 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created; and 6. The benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the community. CONDITIONS- 1. ONDITIONS:1. The garage not exceed 17 feet in height; 2. The garage setback be no less than 5 feet; 3. The lot coverage be no greater than 50 square feet more than what is permitted by the Town Code; and finally 4. All approvals in this variance be built as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel—OK, you're all set. Mr. Brutnell - Thank you. Chairperson Sigel—Thanks. APPEAL of Jason Sokoloff, Appellant, requesting a modification of a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, originally granted on February 27, 2006, for an open pile dock that exceeds the maximum permitted width and surface area required by Code. Said modification includes moving the approved dock approximately 100-feet north from the southern property line. No other changes are proposed. The proposed is located at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel—Hello. Mr. Sokoloff- Hi there. Chairperson Sigel—Please begin with your name and address. Mr. Sokoloff- Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Drive. 19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — And it seems through some level of negotiation between you and your neighbor, you have decided to move it 100 feet north. Mr. Sokoloff- Correct. Ms. Brock—It was originally placed at 70 feet north I think, it's a move of 30 feet. Mr. Sokoloff- Moving 30 feet. Chairperson Sigel—Moving 30 feet, yes. Ms. Brock—So it would now be approximately in the center of the parcel. Mr. Sokoloff- In the center of the property which is about 210 feet, so... Chairperson Sigel — OK, thank you. And this is something that was already at the Planning Board, and... Ms. Brock— The Planning board, I believe at its last meeting approved the modified site plan to incorporate the move of the dock these 30 feet northward, and all the other aspects of the dock remained unchanged, in terms of its width, its length, the size of the ell on the end of the dock. And this previously came before the zoning board for variances as to size, I think. Ms. Balestra—Total square footage. Ms. Brock — Total area, and the board approved that. So the only change that's happening now would be because one of the conditions of the zoning board's approval was that the dock be built as shown on the plans, and now he wants to move it 30 feet north, he has to come back to you to get modification of that approval that you gave previously. Mr. Krantz—It would seem that the change is for all the right reasons. Chairperson Sigel — It would appear to be, at least this change would appear to be fairly inconsequential. Mr. Matthews —Would it also make the... is it Marie Taylor, the Taylor's, conform... I guess the word it conform, conform to their wishes? Chairperson Sigel—I think that was implied. Ms. Balestra—Yes. Mr. Matthews —It does? 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—Yes. Mr. Matthews —It makes them a little happier, assuming...? Ms. Brock— Yes. She requested the dock be located further to the north, which is what this does. Chairperson Sigel—Any questions? Chris, anything? Ms. Balestra—Nothing. Chairperson Sigel—OK, let's open the public hearing for this. If no one wishes to speak, we will close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—I guess we have to do another environmental assessment, is that true? Ms. Balestra—That is true. Ms. Brock—Because you are modifying your early approval, and the project is changed. Chairperson Sigel — OK, I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Jason Sokoloff for the reasons stated in Part 11 short environmental assessment form prepared by Town staff. Second? Mr. Niefer—Second. Ms. Brock—Before you vote actually, Christine had a change to the Part 11. Ms. Balestra—The first paragraph in C-1, "the proposal includes an open pile dock 8 feet wide by 60 feet long,"wanted to strike "with" and add instead "which includes" a 12 foot wide by 12 foot long ell at the end. That's the only change. Ms. Brock— That just clarifies that the total length of the dock is 60 feet and not 60 feet plus the 12 by 12 foot ell stuck onto the end of that. Chairperson Sigel — OK. So amend my motion to include the revised, short environmental assessment form. Second again? Mr. Matthews —Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 047 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-5.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Jason Sokoloff, for the reasons stated in the revised Part II Short Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel—And when was it that we made this original motion? February 27 '. Ms. Brock—February 281'isn't it? Oh, February 27th 2006. Chairperson Sigel —OK, well I will just re-move the motion that we made regarding Mr. Sokoloff on February 27th, 2006 with the only changes that wherever there are references in that to the dock being 70 feet from the southern property line, that that be changed to 100 feet from the southern property line, and that in addition, that now the dock be built as indicated on the plans as submitted by the applicant at this meeting. Ms. Brock—I don't believe the earlier resolution gave the specific setback number of 70 feet, I think it just said that the dock must be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans. So I think that's really the only change you need is for it to say that the dock must be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans as submitted for this meeting, and that will incorporate the change. Chairperson Sigel—OK, sounds good. Second? Mr. Ellsworth—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 048: Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-5.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Jason Sokoloff, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an open pile dock that exceeds the maximum 8-foot width and the maximum 300 square foot surface area required by Code, located at 1126 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19.-2- 5.2 FINDINGS: The applicant has satisfied the requirements for an Area Variance CONDITIONS: 1. The dock not exceed 530 square feet 2. The width of the dock not exceed 12 feet, and only exceed 8 feet in the region indicated on the applicant's plans, which is the last 12 feet of the dock, with the allowance that if the applicant wants to reduce the width of the dock anywhere along its length, that is permitted. The dock must be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans as submitted for this meeting. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel—OK, thank you. Mr. Sokoloff- Great, thank you. APPEAL of Julie Crowley and Lisa Kerslake, Appellants, Jason Demarest, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47(C) and Article XXV of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to replace an existing residence located at 985 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-2-28, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposed residence will be located within the required 20-foot side yard setback on the south side(proposal will decrease existing non-conformity). Chairperson Sigel — And please if you could begin with your name and address for our records. 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Demarest - Jason Demarast, Tallman and Demarest Architects, 301 South Geneva St, Ithaca. Ms. Crowley - Julie Crowley, at 987 Taughannock Boulevard. Chairperson Sigel — OK, and if you'd like you could begin by telling us what you've handed out or kind of start from the beginning or however you'd like to proceed. Mr. Demarest - I just passed around a close-up detailed site plan view attached to some photos, and then I thought at the last minute, I should give you the whole topo site map, so that's sort of loose leaf in there, I hope that made it all the way around. The difference here is that I finally got the topography from the topo survey done by TG Miller recently to clarify the difficulty of the site. I should take you through the photos, starting on the upper left-hand corner, that shows the existing structure, and the structure is an older lake cabin from the early 1900's and it was added onto over the years, and I think as you guys now it was converted into 3 units, and was recently limited to 2 unit rental prior to the present owner's purchase. So anyways the cottage is in kind of rough shape and doesn't fit the program for what the owner would like to do. So that's the first photo, then moving to the right, I just wanted to show you the location, this would be north of the existing cottage, of some of the larger trees on the property, and then you can see where the bank starts to drop off into the creek, which is further clarified on the site plan. On the site plan those are the 14 inch hemlock and the 24 inch maple that you see closest to you in that photo. And then moving down to the lower left-hand corner is a shot kind of looking back towards the last photo to further emphasize the creek on the north side, and then the photo on the lower right hand corner is just looking just past the existing deck on the east side and shows you how close the steep back which the topo map clarifies as well, and shows you how close that is. And then the detailed site plan just gives you the topography and hopefully makes it pretty clear that there's one spot to build on on this site. One other thing I wanted to clarify is right now the house plan is still under design. It's hard to move forward with the design until I know where I can located the house, that's why I'm here. So I was showing sort of a cross-shaped roof plan and you can see the bump-outs in orange on the site plans, and the bump-out is nine feet from the line. Just because I am still in the early design stage, I wanted to clarify that if possible, we're really requesting a 9 foot side yard setback on the south side for a design essentially in that location. Chairperson Sigel — Are you asking for that given the drip line you have shown, or are you asking for the potential to have nine feet along that entire length of the house. Mr. Demarest - I guess I was asking for nine feet along the entire length. If that's too much of a change, we would review the plan as it is. The biggest rationale behind that, as you can see the new footprint which is squared up to the property line to get a consistent setback will definitely take out that 14 inch maple closest to the northwest corner and it already puts us very close to the 14 inch hemlock and the 24 inch maple, and because there's a steep bank north of those trees, any excavation there on a 24 inch maple, we're 24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES into the drip line of the tree, definitely into the roots, and the roots are all obviously on that side of the bank, so if we could move it further south, and obviously even a nine foot consistent setback is 3 times more than the 2.9 foot setback on that one corner of the existing cottage. Chairperson Sigel — So you're saying the 14 inch maple is definitely going to be removed, that's closest to the proposed, and your plan is to keep all other trees of significance. Mr. Demarest- Exactly. Mr. Matthews —Could you repeat that? Keep all of what? Chairperson Sigel—Keep all other trees marked here that are of significance. Mr. Matthews — So as I see it, they've improved the setback dimensions a little bit, squared it up with the property line. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, the current gets as close as 2 and a half feet, is that right? Mr. Demarest- It's 2.9, call it 3. Chairperson Sigel—So almost 3. Mr. Matthews — Can anyone point out to me any negatives to this request, that I'm not aware of? Chairperson Sigel — Well, it would appear that it's mostly bringing the property into greater conformance. You are proposing just a single-family house? Mr. Demarest- Yes. Chairperson Sigel —Basically this is... I believe the lot actually itself is non-conforming in that it's too narrow. Mr. Demarest- Correct. Chairperson Sigel — So given that, ordinarily what they would be permitted to do is by right, they could construct a house, which if it conformed to all the setbacks, they would be allowed to construct a single family house with no variance, even though the lot is too narrow. Obviously since they want to build it too close to one of the lot lines, they need a variance for that, but I think it certainly is good that they're conforming in every other way except that one setback. Even in the height, which I think is commendable given what a lot of people come in and ask for along the lake. Mr. Matthews —The height is the same? 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—The height is within the allowed... Ms. Brock — Is the height different between the existing house and what's being proposed? Mr. Demarest - It's approximately the same. The difference will be the current structure is actually sunk into the ground a little bit, but from lowest exterior grade to ridgeline, I think the new project will be slightly bigger, but it's really two stories plus a loft, basically a walk-out basement, a main floor, and then a loft level under a slightly raised roof. Currently it's a sunken basement, two full floors, and then a roof on top. So we're just kind of going to take advantage of the space underneath the roof structure, so, even though we're going to lift out of the ground a little bit to have a walkout basement, right now the current basement's about 4 feet into the ground, so we're also trying to make the main level roughly level with a little parking area to the west. Slightly different configuration but yes, approximately the same in height. Ms. Brock — I noticed the neighbors to the south are also built very close to the same property line. So I guess I was just wondering as they look out at the new building, will it be significantly higher, and I guess your answer is it might be 4 feet higher as they look out? Mr. Demarest - Well actually I think it's going to be the same. The current structure is three whole levels, walkout basement, two standard roughly 8-foot levels and then a steep roof on top. What we're doing is two levels, and then the third level is underneath the roof, with maybe a two foot wall height, so it's sort of a finished attic, but it's not a finished attic. Ms. Brock—OK. Mr. Niefer—Excuse me, are Parcel A and B owned by the same parties? Mr. Demarest- Yes. Mr. Niefer— So it's a common owner for both A and B. Because we had at our previous time, when this was before the board, there was quite a bit of discussion about rights of way and encroachment of the garage and so on, and it was a one-owner situation before, so it's still staying a one-owner situation now. Chairperson Sigel—I think back then we had some conditions that attempted to formalize the agreements between the two properties even though they are owned by the same owner, so I think there should be some easements in place, or at least one easement in place with regard to driveway access, and the carport I think is over the lot line. Now, is your plan, do you believe, still to have essentially the roof lines that you've indicated here? 26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Demarest - It's the main rectangle that you see on the site plan, currently we're still planning a ridge down the center of that. The plans that we're submitted had a cross in the roof where the bump-outs were, that might be swapped out with kind of a tower concept on the northeast. So it could change a little bit, but it would be approximately the same footprint. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Demarest- But everything would still be within the height limit. Chairperson Sigel—OK. And you had said that—did you say the third floor was going to be finished? Mr. Demarest- Yes. Chairperson Sigel—Does that meet code? Mr. Demarest - It's not a third floor, it's walkout basement and two floors above. The difference is we're finishing the volume in the attic structure, the roof structure. Chairperson Sigel - So that would meet all egress and whatever requirements? Mr. Demarest- Correct. Chairperson Sigel —I guess for me it is a bit of a detail here with regard to the setback, I feel that the twelve feet proposed with then the nine feet encroaching just on the second floor is a little, is more than a little different than asking just for nine feet for the whole face. You certainly get a different feel when you walk around the house, or when the neighbor looks across, how much house they feel is there and how close it is. I don't know. Mr. Ellsworth — I thought you said that was going to change, they'd like to have the whole length? Chairperson Sigel — That's what he's asked for is essentially to allow the whole face of the southern side of the house to be as close as nine feet, rather than just a second-story bump-out. Mr. Niefer—Well that is a significant improvement over what's currently there. Chairperson Sigel—That's true. Mr. Niefer—Significant improvement. Mr. Demarest - It didn't show up on the map, the neighbor to the south, if you look at the blown up site plan, the one called site plan detailed view, the front face of that neighbor's 27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES house on the south is roughly across from where I have the 12 foot dimension marked, west of where I wrote proposed location of new cottage. It's up the hill, and if you look at the contours, the walkout grade of that is, you can see 435 right near my 12 foot dimension. The lowest level of that house could possibly be about 440, and if you look at on parcel B, we're roughly going to be starting around 420. So, there's a big difference is what I'm trying to say between what that neighbor on the south is really looking at. It's also very, very wooded along there. Chairperson Sigel — OK, and you said that the front, or I guess the rear of their house is further east than the rear of this proposed? Mr. Demarest- The lake side of their house is further west, it's back a little bit. Chairperson Sigel—Oh it's back. Ms. Brock—Kirk, do you have the tax map, showing the parcels? Because the house is shown on there, right before the fold-out maps, the last document before that. It's shows the location of the house to the south. Chairperson Sigel — OK. So, the proposed, the existing house and the proposed are well within that view, but your point is that it is what, 20 feet higher? Mr. Demarest - The point is that the... the idea here is — and unfortunately the topo doesn't completely show this, but hopefully you can somewhat infer from the topography that the lowest level of that neighbor is at least 15 feet above the lowest level of this structure. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Demarest - And then if we're building a structure that's roughly the same height and volume and mass as what's there, but moving that one corner further away should hopefully help. Mr. Ellsworth—So their floor level is looking at the bump-out? Mr. Demarest- Right. Their lowest level is probably looking at the bump-out, exactly. Chairperson Sigel —All right, well I think I'm comfortable with the nine feet. Any other questions or comments? Would it be reasonable, from your point of view, to restrict your footprint to let's say, the bounding box around what is here, including the two bump- outs? We do like to have more concrete plans to approve normally, I'm reasonably comfortable in this case given the fact that you are conforming in most respects, but still... Mr. Demarest - We're working with a 24 foot width. The bump-outs in essence, might be put together, might become slightly different with a tower concept off the northeast 28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES corner, so it's kind of a trade off. But what we're trying to do is stick with the 24, and if we can go to 9, we just get further from the roots of those two large trees, and the overall length we're trying to shrink as well a little bit, it's just hard to be put into a box at this stage of the game. And it may move slightly towards the lake, but we're talking 4 feet. Chairperson Sigel—OK, what is the length that you have drawn in here? Mr. Demarest- This length should be on the original plans, 44 feet. Chairperson Sigel—44 feet. Mr. Matthews —Kirk, are you suggesting he reduce the footprint of the new house? Chairperson Sigel — No, I would like, absent... the applicant has asked that we not require that he build what he has proposed here exactly as submitted, because they are still planning to change it, so I was trying to arrive at some kind of a condition we could impose as far as footprint size or length and width maximum dimensions or something to that effect. Not necessarily smaller than what they've shown here, but just so that they have the leeway to change their plans somewhat but not drastically from what we've approved. So... Mr. Demarest - Actually my assumption was that once the plans are set they would go to the building department, but if you want to make it a condition that the staff look at it and if it's substantially different than what's shown here, we could come back to review it again. Chairperson Sigel —I would possibly propose a length not to exceed 46 feet, and a width not to exceed 30 feet. Mr. Demarest- OK. Chairperson Sigel — Which is slightly bigger than, somewhat bigger than what you've shown here. Mr. Niefer—That's basically what they're asking for to build. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, and then they can work, they're not asking for a height variance, they can work within that... Mr. Demarest - The only difference is there is a current design scheme where that tower concept comes off the 24 foot dimension, maybe a little bit more than 6 feet, if I take the bump-out on the south side, move it over, and we might actually in just one area be a little bit beyond 30 feet total width, but the majority of the footprint will remain in the 24 foot box. The length has been reduced to about 36 feet. I have a feeling it might go back to 40 feet, so we could say an average of 30 feet in width. 29 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—You're planning the tower to be in the northwest corner? Mr. Demarest-Northeast. Chairperson Sigel—Northeast, so towards the lake. Mr. Demarest- Towards the lake, yeah. Ms. Brock — So it would be better to say the width not to exceed x feet, maybe x is 30 feet, with the exception that if a tower is designed for the northeast corner of the building, that the total width of the building including the tower at that location not exceed 35 feet, at that location. Make it clear that... Chairperson Sigel—For how far back along that wall will that tower run? Mr. Demarest - The tower is maybe 16 feet diameter circle, so 10 feet beyond the 24 might be the worst case. So 35 I think will do it. Chairperson Sigel—And then how far back towards the... how far west will it run? Mr. Demarest - Roughly ten to twelve feet, in essence if you draw a circle on that corner with a 10 foot radius, that's approximately what it would be. Mr. Mountin - If you do that, do you have to remove that 60 inch poplar? Mr. Demarest- We're at 44 on what you see here, it's going to go to 36, maybe 40. Mr. Mountin - On the overall length. OK. Chairperson Sigel—So the eastern edge is moving to the west. Mr. Demarest- Right. Chairperson Sigel —Within the house bumping out. OK. Spending your client's money freely. Ms. Crowley - They're ideas at this point. Chairperson Sigel—That's cheap. Any other questions? Chris, anything? Ms. Balestra—Nothing. Yes, one thing. There's no environmental assessment with this, because individual lot-line variances do not require an environmental review, however, this is a very sensitive lake-front residential area with some significant steep slopes, and staff would like to recommend that the board consider adding a condition of approval, given the slopes and the sensitive area, the condition be: "to include a submission to the Town of an erosion and sedimentation control plan for the slope and the creek which is 30 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES adjacent to the house, as outlined in the New York State DEC standards and specifications for erosion and sedimentation control manual, and that the applicant preserve as much vegetation as possible during construction and possibly revegetate in a form that is I guess approved by the board, however you want to discuss that, revegetate the disturbed areas post-construction." Chairperson Sigel—OK, that seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. Ms. Balestra — Again, that's given the slope of the area, the erodable soils and the sensitive environmental area of the lake shore, the lakefront. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, I talked to Sue about that. Did you have something else? Ms. Brock — Well a condition of approval could be "submission to the Town of an erosion and sedimentation control plan for the slope and the creek as outlined in the New York State DEC Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Manual, which submission shall include identification of areas of soil disturbance and erosion control during construction, and restoration of disturbed areas post-construction to minimize erosion, all subject to approval by the Town Engineer." Mr. Krantz—Can that be subject to the approval of the Town? Chairperson Sigel—Of the Town Engineer, yeah. Ms. Brock — Right, so basically they have to submit this erosion and sedimentation control plan, DEC has standards and specifications for what those plans have to include, and we're saying in addition to the extent those specifications don't include these items, we want to know the areas where soil will be disturbed, how they're going to control erosion during construction, how they're going to restore the disturbed areas after construction is completed to minimize erosion, and that will all be in one submission to the Town, and all of that will be subject to approval by the Town Engineer. Chairperson Sigel — Seems reasonable, that is something that we have required a number of times in the lake front areas but also in other areas where erosion is an issue. OK, any other questions? OK, we'll open the public hearing, they're being no one present besides the applicant, we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — And, I will move to grant the appeal Julie Crowley and Lisa Kerslake, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47(C) and Article XXV of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to replace an existing residence located at 985 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21.-2-28, Lakefront Residential Zone. With the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, specifically: that given the layout of the lot and the predominantly steep slopes of the lot, that the benefit that the 31 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES applicant seeks cannot be achieved with any other means; that an undesirable change in the neighborhood will not happen; that the alleged difficulty is not self-created, it is caused by the unique topography of the area; there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects; and that the requested variance, while substantial, being an encroachment of 11 feet into a 20 foot setback, that that is mitigated by the fact that the current setback of the house is only 3 feet and therefore the applicant is increasing the setback by an additional 6 feet; and given all those factors, that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood. Additionally, this variance is subject to the following conditions, the first of which is the requirement for a sedimentation and erosion control plan as specified by Susan Brock a couple of minutes ago. Can you just get that off of the tape from before? OK, the second requirement is that the house be no closer to the southern property line than 9 feet, that the width of the house be no greater than 30 feet and the length be no greater than 45 feet, the length being the direction in the predominantly east-west direction, and the width being in the predominantly north-south direction with the exception that a tower be permitted to be constructed on the Northeast corner of the house, and in that location the width of the entire house cannot exceed 35 feet and the tower can run no more than 15 feet along the northern side of the house. Could you follow that Jason, does that...? Mr. Krantz —Does any of that seem unfair to you? One of the problems is you're not coming in here with a finalized plan. Mr. Demarest - Right, the only one, the tower, the worst case I think the tower would center on the corner of that 24 by 45 or smaller box, but it could be 20 feet in diameter so the tower might stick out east of the main footprint of the house, but what I wrote was 45 feet max, and I came back 15, but if I could come back 20, that would be more than enough, total, whereas ten of the tower might be east of the main footprint and the other ten... if you wanted to say 15 feet back on the main footprint of the house, but that gets a little blurry. Chairperson Sigel — Oh, I see, you want the tower to extend further east than the rest of the house. Mr. Demarest- Right, it might be ten feel out. Ms. Brock — Maybe you should just specify a radius for the tower, on the northeast corner of the house. Chairperson Sigel — OK, if we specify a radius from the northeast corner, what would that radius be? Mr. Demarest- Ten feet. Chairperson Sigel—Ten feet, OK, then I'll start that condition again. The width of the house can be no greater than 30 feet and the length no greater than 45 feet, with the 32 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES exception that a tower be allowed to be built on the northeast corner which must fit within the bounds of a ten foot radius circle, with its center at the northeast corner of the house. Mr. Mountin - If I can ask a question then, the longest length possible with the tower and the length on the east side, would any of the trees get compromised beyond that one maple? Is there any intention at all of removing any more trees? Mr. Demarest-No, we're trying to keep as much as we can. Chairperson Sigel—That would be a good condition though, I think. Mr. Mountin - Because the roots are going to, you know... Mr. Demarest- Right. Chairperson Sigel — So that would be a good idea to add as a further condition that all trees shown on the site plan, except for the 14 inch maple, which is close to the northwest corner of the house be preserved. Ms. Balestra—Do you want to specify the site plan because he handed out more detailed plans with topo lines tonight. It was sheet C 1.1 or C 1. Mr. Demarest - Could I ask for one minor change? The 45, if that could go to 46. Right now the current design is a 36 foot long rectangle, with a smaller than a 10 foot radius tower, but it could be, the latest look at it, I thought it might get a little bit bigger, so 36 plus the ten feet of the tower would be 46 total length. Chairperson Sigel —Well, in my wording the tower was in addition to the dimensions of the box, so I think I gave you a lot more than you asked for. Mr. Demarest- OK. Ms. Brock—So did you get the plan drawing number? Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, every tree, except the tree mentioned on drawing, on C1.1. Ms. Brock—OK, and I have another proposed condition. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Ms. Brock—This is conditioned upon the home that's constructed will be a single family home and that the prior Zoning Board of appeals variance for a two family home that was granted on March 25th, 2002, would be terminated upon demolition of the existing structure. So that we're going to go from permission for a two family structure, back to a two family structure. 33 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel —Yeah, on a non-conforming lot, that's what's allowed by right. And I would just add that I assume no one on this board feels any prejudice towards a two family structure, so it would just state in the condition that while only a single family dwelling is allowed, the Board is not prejudiced against a request for two family occupancy in the future. Mr. Matthews —But this is a one family. Chairperson Sigel —Right, that's all we're approving, but we're not saying that there's a particularly strong reason for restricting it to one family, we're not prejudiced against... Mr. Matthews —We're not opening the door to a two family? Chairperson Sigel—No. That would have to be a separate application. Second? Mr. Ellsworth—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 049: Julie Crowley and Lisa Kerslake, 985 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-2-28, Lakefront Residential Zone MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Julie Crowley and Lisa Kerslake, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47(C) and Article XXV of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to replace an existing residence located at 985 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21.-2-28, Lakefront Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, specifically- 1. pecifically:1. That given the layout of the lot and the predominantly steep slopes of the lot, that the benefit that the applicant seeks cannot be achieved with any other means; 2. That an undesirable change in the neighborhood will not happen; 3. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created, it is caused by the unique topography of the area; 4. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects; and 5. That the requested variance, while substantial, being an encroachment of 11 feet into a 20 foot setback, that that is mitigated by the fact that the current setback of the house is only 3 feet, and therefore the applicant is increasing the setback by an additional 6 feet; and 34 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES 6. Given all those factors, that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood. CONDITIONS- 1. ONDITIONS:1. Submission to the Town of an erosion and sedimentation control plan for the slope and the creek as outlined in the New York State DEC standards and specifications for erosion and sedimentation control manual, which submission shall include identification of areas of soil disturbance and erosion control during the construction and restoration of disturbed areas post-construction to minimize erosion, all subject to approval by the Town Engineer. 2. House be no closer to the southern property line than 9 feet, 3. The width of the house can be no greater than 30 feet, and the length no greater than 45 feet, with the exception that a tower be allowed to be built on the Northeast corner of the house, that must fit within the bounds of a 10 foot radius circle with its center at the Northeast corner of the house. 4. All trees shown on the drawing C1.1, except for the 14 inch maple which is close to the Northwest corner of the house, be preserved. 5. The home to be constructed be a single family home, and that the prior Zoning Board of Appeals variance for a two family home that was granted on March 25, 2002 would be terminated upon demolition of the existing structure. While only a single family dwelling is allowed, the board is not prejudiced against a request for a two-family occupancy in the future. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel—OK, anyone have any official business they would like to discuss? Mr. Niefer — I won't be at the July meeting. It will be a chance to use one of the alternates. Chairperson Sigel—OK, any other official business? Mr. Matthews — I don't know if this is official, I think it's more personal than anything. I'm not going to resign. [some laughter] 35 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — During the last meeting, there was a contentious discussion, and that's why I'm speaking now. Chairperson Sigel—Sorry... Mr. Coakley - Is this on the record or not? Chairperson Sigel—Do you want this to be part of the minutes? Mr. Matthews —No, this is between the board itself. Chairperson Sigel—Well, then, we'll adjourn. Ms. Brock—If it deals with official Town business, it needs to be done in open meeting. Mr. Matthews —This is not official. Chairperson Sigel—Door's open. Ms. Brock — That's true, actually, I guess, there aren't any specific requirements about what the minutes have to contain. Mr. Matthews —This is Dick Matthews to the other members of the board. Ms. Brock—What's the nature of your comments, can you say that? Mr. Matthews — The issue is an apology from me to the board members and the board collectively. Ms. Brock—I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Mr. Matthews —An apology that may be required on my part. Ms. Brock—On your part? Mr. Matthews — Yes, because of some comments that were made by me that may have been felt by some of the board members and the board as a whole that I was questioning their integrity or their objectivity in dealing with an appeal, specifically, the property on the lake. [tape is changed] Mr. Matthews - ... integrity or their sense of objectivity, it wasn't my intention. And I enjoy being on the board, and I feel sometimes like a junkyard dog whose allowed to go to the Westminster dog show when I come here, although I don't belittle myself, it just 36 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19,2006 APPROVED MINUTES makes me feel good to come here and I don't want to ruin that. You're good folks and I apologize if I've imposed on you in a meeting. Mr. Krantz—I don't think an apology is necessary at all. Chairperson Sigel—No, I don't think so, either. Mr. Krantz — And this board really gets along amazingly well. I would think we should be having more arguments. Mr. Matthews —Well, I'll ratchet myself up then, that's not difficult for me to do by the way. [some laughter] Chairperson Sigel — I think all comments made by all members were well within the bounds of the kind of debate we should be having. Mr. Matthews —OK, thank you. Chairperson Sigel —And it's dissent that really makes our decisions better and makes us think more about why we have justified our own decisions, so I welcome all the dissent and debate. Mr. Matthews —OK, but again if anybody feels that I did impose on them, I apologize. Chairperson Sigel—OK, well thank you. Mr. Niefer—I'm so offended, I've totally forgotten what you were talking about. [laughter] Mr. Matthews —Thank you. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson John Coakley, Deputy Town Clerk 37