The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2006-08-21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2006 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Harry Ellsworth, Acting Chairperson; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; Jim Niefer, Board Member; Mr. David Mountin, Alternate Board Member; Eric Levine, Alternate Board Member; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, Christine Balestra, Planner; Carrie Coates, Deputy Town Clerk; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk ABSENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson OTHERS: Linna Dolph & Mr. David Dunbar, 1457 Trumansburg Rd.; Bill Hilker, 354 Coddington Rd.; Harold Cox, 348 Coddington Rd.; Jim Merod, 204 Park Lane Chairperson Ellsworth opened the meeting at 7-00p.m. Chairperson Ellsworth — I am going to change the order of appeals a little bit since the first applicant isn't here yet. We'll make the first appeal of Henry Hilker requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 280-a of Town Law, to be permitted to construct a home on a parcel that does not front on a state, county or town highway, and variances from Chapter 270, Section 270-73 to be permitted to construct a home that does not meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the Medium Density Zone and this property is located at 354 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42-1-9.63. Presuming the person with the first appeal shows up by the time Bill is done...I would put Linna Dolph for the second appeal; requesting a variance from requirements 270-55, to be permitted to maintain a horse paddocks and structures within a required 50-foot buffer zone surrounding the perimeter property located at 1457 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23-1-27. The third appeal will be of Jim Merod, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70, to be permitted to construct a home that exceeds the maximum permitted height, located at 204 Park Lane and he also needs a variance from Section 270-71 to be permitted to construct a deck within the required 30-foot rear yard setback. So Henry Hilker will be the first appeal. APPEAL — of Henry E. Hilker, Appellant, Bill Hiker Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 280-a of Town Law, to be permitted to construct a home on a parcel that does not front on a state, county, or town highway, and variances from Chapter 270, Section 270-73 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 2 permitted to construct a home that does not meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the Medium Density Residential Zone in terms of width at street line, width at front yard setback, and depth from highway right-of-way. The property is located at 354 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42-1-9.63. Chairperson Ellsworth — Can you please start by giving your name and address, Henry, and a brief description of what your appeal is. Bill Hilker, appearing for Henry Hilker, 354 Coddington Road Mr. Hilker — My name is Bill Hilker. I am appearing on behalf of my brother, Henry Hilker, who is currently in Africa and unable to appear before this Board, fortunately for him. (Laughter) Mr. Hilker — On the other hand, I have his son here with me so he can speak to any issues that you have with Henry or the construction itself cause Keith is a contractor, general contractor in the area. We developed this, Henry and I developed this subdivision back in the early 70's and when we did, this lot had a 20-foot right-of- way for a driveway to it. In the latter part of, I believe it was 1979, we declared bankruptcy and during that bankruptcy, John Barney drew up the deed for the Town Park and took our 20-foot right-of-way for getting to this lot away. And now we understand that we can't use that. So, in essence, the Town has landlocked our piece of property and the only other way to get to it is over the, sort to speak, Water Tower Road, which has been in limbo since some time back in the early 60's when the Town started its... (cell phone rings) ... time out. Chairperson Ellsworth — Maybe it's Africa calling. (laughter) Mr. Hilker -- Anyway, and the Town started foreclosure, not foreclosure, but adverse possession for that right-of-way and the Water Tower Road, got put in a drawer someplace, which sometimes happens and consequently nothing ever got done as far as the Town taking it over. So it just sit there in limbo and still has, up until hopefully it'll get settled this year. And so that became our option, is to come across here but this has dragged on for now years trying to get in there and the Town has not resolved the issue and now this... Ithaca College has purchased that property from Genero Raponi or I guess Mary Raponi. We approached them and you have a letter in your possession which illustrates that we do... they do intend to give us a right-of-way on that Water Tower Road which is a ... I think a 60- foot road, it may be 50 but I think it's a 60 now. So, if in fact the Town gives us the ability to build on there and use that right-of-way, then we would have a 60-foot entry into it and beyond that, I'm not quite sure I understand what the side yard, front yard side yard and so forth issues are since there's adequate front yard, frontage to the right- ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 3 of-way even though there isn't one to a Town Road or so it becomes a pan-handle lot really which only requires, I think, 20-foot. So that's.... Chairperson Ellsworth — Fifty foot but... Mr. Hilker — Yeah, but I'm not sure that's a big issue. Chairperson Ellsworth — I think the issue is because it's...because there's not a road there. Ms. Balestra — Right, right. That's why. Mr. Hilker — Yeah, but as a panhandle lot, that, I think, solves that issue somewhat. And then as a panhandle lot, all the rest of the dimensions fall in line and I think as you look at the, at the map, it has adequate frontage, adequate depth, adequate sidelines. So, I think what we a really looking for is a building permit. Chairperson Ellsworth — So your brother, your father, intends to build and retire there? Is that... Mr. Hilker — Yeh. Chairperson Ellsworth — Ok. So had the ... I guess... to re-summarize...had the Town gone ahead and built a road there in the first part of this wouldn't be...well I guess you wouldn't be here at all. Mr. Hilker — No we wouldn't be here at all. Chairperson Ellsworth —Any questions from the Board? Mr. Matthews — The map...this map...it's numbered 348, apparently it's a residence now of Cox, of Cox I suppose it is. They have... do they have present use of that quote "road" going up? Ms. Balestra — They do and that house was in existence when that road was just a dirt road. We have it on a map from 19??...all I know is it was prior to 1960. Mr. Matthews — It still is a dirt road. Ms. Balestra — No, it is now paved. Mr. Matthews — It is now paved. Mr. Hilker — The Town paved it. Ms. Balestra —Well it's...right...it's not asphalt, but it's hard packed gravel. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 4 Mr. Matthews — I'm coming at my question from the back door but...if 348...resident 348...has use of that road and I see a letter here from Ithaca College granting the use of that road to the Hilker's, what's the problem? Chairperson Ellsworth — I presume...you go ahead Chris, but I presume because it hasn't been deemed a Town road. Even though Ms. Balestra — Right. Mr. Matthews — But we've already given permission by... Ms. Balestra — No. No, no. The house at 348 was in existence, possible in existence prior to zoning. Which means that it's REALLY grandfathered in. And, I am not aware... I do not know if they have an easement to use the road or not. Mr. Matthews -- So the grandfather can't spill over? Ms. Balestra — They have...I'm sorry. Mr. Hilker — They have a deeded right-of-way. I'm sorry for interrupting. Mr. Matthews — So the grandfather clause can't spill over to a following applicant? Ms. Balestra — No. Mr. Matthews — NO. Ms. Balestra — And that house was in existence prior to the subdivision that Mr. Hilker was approved for. The subdivision was approved in 1975 1 think. So that house was already there. Mr. Matthews — So is the Town Currently going to keep it open for access to the water tank or not? Ms. Balestra — To my knowledge, the Town does not plow that road or maintain that road. Mr. Matthews — And where is the park that was created on this map? Could somebody just point it out to me. That took away the previous right-of-way. Ms. Balestra — If you look at this map, the town parcel with the Town Park is right here. It's just west of the Hilker property. Mr. Matthews --Right There. And where is the right-of-way that Mr. Hilker is talking about? ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 5 Ms. Balestra — He's talking about right here Chairperson Ellsworth -- That strip you see. Mr. Matthews -- Yes, but he said when they put... he used John Barney's name in vain but... Ms. Balestra -- It's right off of West Northview Road. Mr. Matthews -- So it went back into a piece of property that now has a house on it? Ms. Balestra — No. This is now a town park. Mr. Matthews --That's a town park? Ms. Balestra -- It's not... it hasn't been...it's intended as a town park. It has not been developed yet and it has access to West Northview Road. Mr. Matthews -- The access is between the houses or something, is that it? Ms. Balestra — Right, correct. Mr. Matthews — My question is...I'll keep shooting along here. If the Town has put a park there and access to the park appears to be a path? Ms. Balestra -- Not yet Mr. Matthews -- Is it a path? Is it intended to be a path? Ms. Balestra -- Yes it... it is intended to be a path. Mr. Matthews -- Just a path? Ms. Balestra -- Yes Mr. Matthews -- Ok. How could Mr. Hilker claim that by putting a park in, his right- of-way access to this piece of landlocked property was taken away from him? Ms. Balestra --I believe the original subdivision proposal did not include a town park. Mr. Hilker — It did but... Mr. Matthews — Still. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 6 Ms. Balestra — Or if it did include a town park, it didn't have, it didn't block off access to either Northview or that water tank part. Mr. Matthews -- So regardless of what the Town Of Ithaca did vis-a-vie the park, Mr. Hilker was not denied right-of-way into Northview Road? Ms. Balestra -- I can't say. This subdivision occurred in the 70's and we have hardly any physical records of it. Chairperson Ellsworth — I think what Dick's trying to get at is...does the Town go to that park to do anything? I mean, how do they get there. Ms. Balestra -- It is part of the intended park system for the neighborhoods. Chairperson Ellsworth -- It isn't been developed, so they're not going there to mow or anything? Ms. Balestra -- I believe they do Mr. Matthews -- But where was, where was the road access to this landlocked piece of property that Mr. Hilker is presently requesting access to? Ms. Balestra -- There is no road access, that's why it's landlocked. Mr. Matthews -- There never was. There never was. Ms. Balestra -- There never was. Mr. Hilker -- There was a 20-foot right-of-way up through there, which would be a panhandled lot off of Northview. That was included in the deed of the park when the deed was made up. And therefore we lost that Mr. Matthews -- But No. 211 or No. 209 property on Northview, are you saying that the 20-foot width accessed to this landlocked piece of property was between those houses or one of those houses would not have been built? Mr. Hilker — Right. It was between those two. It was plotted in between those two lots. It's still there. There's still a 20-foot width through there. Mr. Niefer —It just hasn't been paved or accepted as a town road is the dilemma, right? Mr. Hilker -- But we... Ms. Balestra — Twenty foot wouldn't be adequate ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 7 Mr. Hilker -- But we, we do not have ownership to it because that was transferred to the Town. Mr. Matthews -- I understand that. But it was not a road, it was a trail. Ms. Balestra -- Right. Right, correct. Mr. Matthews — So it's a walking trail. And you don't know how wide it is? Ms. Balestra — I don't have the information. Mr. Matthews — So that the road that was intended to serve this landlocked piece of property, including now the park, was never wide enough to be an access road. Ms. Brock—Well, it opened onto West Northview Road. Mr. Matthews -- Pardon Ms. Brock -- It opened onto West Northview Road. There was frontage onto West Northview Road. I don't know what happened with the subdivision, but it sounds like as part of the subdivision approval this land that's now a park was required to be conveyed to the Town as a neighborhood park. Had that conveyance not occurred, and that parcel been added to the parcel that we are talking about today, then there would be this 20-foot right-of-way that does access Northview Road. So there would be 20-feet of frontage on a public road but because of the final subdivision plat and what was required, that park parcel was divided off from the parcel that we are talking about today. So the parcel that we are talking about today, their only potential access to a public road would be to Coddington Road and that would be via the private road that goes out to the water tank. Mr. Matthews -- Ok. Is it safe to say...I'm sorry if I am taking up all the time... Is it safe to say that the landlocked condition of this piece of property that the Hilker's are seeking access to was landlocked because of the actions of the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Balestra — I don't think that we can say that. Mr. Matthews —We can't say that. Ms. Balestra —We don't know. Mr. Matthews —We don't know. Ms. Balestra — It was 1971. Mr. Matthews — Okay, let me see if I can go through some sort of a step. Mr. Hilker said that they declared bankruptcy and then the next step was the Town of Ithaca ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 8 came through and took this park land, and that landlocked this land that we are currently discussing. Ms. Balestra — I don't think that the bankruptcy had anything to do with...the Town of Ithaca wouldn't have looked at the personal finances of the applicant. Mr. Niefer— No, no. Mr. Hilker — It just happened at that time. That's all. And it was about 1981 that that transfer was made. Mr. Matthews — So who created the landlocked situation? Ms. Balestra — The land lock situation was a result of the final subdivision approval. The process by which it became that way...we don't know. Mr. Matthews —We don't know. Ms. Balestra —We don't have records. Mr. Krantz — It seems to me that the...when we were all a lot younger the fates created a landlocked property and I don't think it is over significant how this all came about. The fact is that its still, it is a landlocked property now, number one and number two it is an adequately sized lot. It's more or less a normal lot. And number 3, Ithaca College has, in all likelihood will give an easement for a driveway so it's not landlocked. Obviously enough, any approval has to be on that contingency, that Ithaca College can work this out with them. The alternative is to leave a landlocked property inaccessible. Which is, I would think, not something that should be done. Mr. Matthews -- He didn't...in other words... the Hilker's...if I can use the term "the Hilker's"...did not create the situation they find themselves in today. It is not a self- created hardship. Ms. Balestra — I don't know. The original subdivision that we have on file in the Planning Department archives from 1971, shows a subdivision that is much different than the subdivision that was approved. It had a loop road. It had different lot layouts. Through the Planning Board process or something...we also have another map on file from 1973...it's a sewer map...that shows the final subdivision with the landlocked parcel and the town park. What happened in-between there to get from step a to step b and one meeting to another... we don't have the records. Mr. Matthews — Thank you. Ms. Brock — I do think it would be appropriate for this Board to look at the adequacy of the road and maintenance and plowing of the road and that type of thing, Today. I mean I think if your going to consider granting an area variance from the road ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 9 frontage requirement, you need to be assured that in fact emergency vehicles will have adequate access. That fire engines and police cars and ambulance will be able to access the property. So we may need to just get on the record what the present conditions are. I mean we know that it's a 60-foot right-of-way, but I believe that the actual paved road itself is much, much narrower, more like 15-feet. I mean I don't know, I guess you can tell us. Is that adequate for fire apparatus? Can they get in... Mr. Matthews —You mean from Coddington Road. Mr. Hilker – It's got big shoulders. It's got a wide shoulder. I was on it today and its at least 10-feet of shoulder on either side of the gravel so I mean the fire trucks and ambulance can get down there easily. Ms. Brock–And that's graveled or is that dirt? Mr. Hilker – It's a hard gravel. Ms. Brock -- The shoulders' are gravel too? Mr. Hilker -- Yeah, well probably grass growing up through gravel. I presume, but it's, it's wider than a tree. There's nothing, really, that's going to impact a big fire truck. Mr. Matthews -- Has the fire department looked at that road. Is that something that we should be asking for? Mr. Hilker – They can get to the Cox's so I assume that they can. Chairperson Ellsworth – That's the house beyond your property? Mr. Hilker – Yes. Mr. Krantz – What kind of trucks is Ithaca College go up or the town go up to serve that water tank, do you know? Audience Member 1 -- There re stake body trucks, there're vans, ... Audience Member 2 -- ...and Bolton Point has been. The Town comes up and does the maintenance for (inaudible) with a big stake-body. Mr. Matthews – A big stake-body? That's a four-wheel, double-wheel? There are no pipes going across the road? Big drainage pipes or anything like that? Audience Member 1 –We've got drainage pipes. Our water tank (inaudible) ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 10 Mr. Matthews — You live there, folks? Chairperson Ellsworth — Why don't we open the Public Hearing at this point so these people can come up and identify themselves. Do you people want to speak at the Public Hearing you can come up to the microphone and give your name and address. Chairperson Ellsworth opens the Public Hearing at 7:23 p.m. Harold Cox, 348 Coddington Road Mr. Cox — Good evening. Do I have to push any buttons here? Chairperson Ellsworth — Nope, nope. Just go ahead and give your name and address. Mr. Cox — My name is Harold Cox and I live at 348 Coddington Road and I've lived most of my life at that address. So I can maybe answer some of the questions but I couldn't hear all that went on here. We've had a deeded right-of-way since way back when, before Raponi's owned it and there was a delivery service out of where the Raponi's house is now. He's the one that gave the original one, but ours was updated when my father died and we got the...bought the property. My understanding is that Ithaca College owns the land, Bolton Point has jurisdiction over the pipes...we had to get our permits for the sewer that's on the south side of that road, and the water's on the north side of that road...both those permits came through Bolton Point. We have...we maintained a right-of-way that the City confiscated when they put in the water tank. We maintained that from 1923 to the early 50's when the City confiscated it. I can try and answer some of your questions, but I couldn't hear all that went on. Chairperson Ellsworth —Any further questions? Mr. Matthews — Well, the question, the question was brought up about access for emergency vehicles and fire vehicles and so forth. How can we...how can the Board be assured that there's access for the emergency vehicles on that right-of- way? Mr. Cox -- The fire trucks go up and maintain the hydrant that's up by the tank, the water tank and below and there's another one right at the end down on the Coddington Road. Mr. Matthews — That's good information. Chairperson Ellsworth — Good. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 11 Mr. Cox — The other thing is that our mailbox is always down on Coddington Road. So other people are granted...well Barry Howell has asked me how I got access to that road. So I told him that it had been granted...we got old deeds that go back to 1914...and some of that stuff is on them. Mr. Matthews — Who plows the road in wintertime? Who plows the road in the wintertime? Mr. Cox -- Town of Ithaca maintains the road and plows it, not when you want it sometimes, when you want to go to the early morning doctor or dentist or something, but they plow it most of the time and maintain it and they dig it up. Mr. Matthews -- You say most of the time. Mr. Cox -- Yeah. Its maintained and plowed. Chairperson Ellsworth — I think he means that they don't necessarily get there first thing in the morning. They plow up to your house. Just beyond your house. Mr. Cox — Yeah. Yeah. And later on when they get caught up with everything, they go clear up to the tanks so Bolton Point can get up there. They're up and down there quite often. Mr. Matthews — That should satisfy us. Ms. Brock — Except that there is an agreement that's been circulating for some time between Ithaca College, the Town of Ithaca, the Cox's and the Hilker's about this axe private road and who might own it and who might have right-of-way over it and that type of thing and in the agreement it states that it's a private road and that the Town does not assume the responsibility to maintain the road or to plow it. So I don't think in the future, that the Town wants to make any kind of commitment to do that. Mr. Krantz -- So is Ithaca College gonna take that over per this letter? Mr. Mountin — How will the Town maintain the water tank? They have to get up there to maintain it. Ms. Brock — But I don't know the timing, you know, whether this would be plowed...needs to be plowed every few weeks, in the winter. I don't know. I don't know what their timing is for accessing the water tank. Maybe they don't need to go there in the winter. Mr. Matthews — They wouldn't plow it, necessarily, after every storm. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 12 Ms. Brock — Correct. It's not going to be maintained, because it's not going to be a Town road. Mr. Matthews — Did they say they were going to shut it off at any particular time? The Town? Ms. Brock— Shut off what? Mr. Matthews -- Shut off their maintenance of the yard. Plowing? Ms. Brock -- The agree...the draft agreement just says that the Town does not assume the responsibility to maintain or plow the road. Mr. Matthews —As of...now. Ms. Brock — Well. I don't...I don't think that right now the Town views itself as having assumed that responsibility. It sounds like they're doing it for their own convenience. I don't know if Christine has other information. Mr. Matthews — Who's water tank...So they are servicing a hydrant and they're servicing a water tank that is the Towns? Ms. Balestra— Yes. Ms. Brock— The water tank is owned by the Town, yes. Mr. Matthews -- So how can the Town say they're not going to service the road if they have a water tank up there and a hydrant? How can they...how can they do that morally? Ms. Brock — Well, they'll do it to suit their purposes, not to suit the purposes of anybody who lives on the road is what I am trying to say. Mr. Matthews — They'll do it what? Ms. Brock — For the Town's own convenience. When the Town needs to access the tank. Mr. Matthews -- So if there's a blizzard, they can say they're not going to plow it because they don't have to go up to the water tank? Ms. Brock— Presumably, yes. Mr. Mountin — Well, I think it's similar to Eco-Village...now... Eco-Village up on the west hill now has a town water tank on it but that's on a private road too, but the Town does go in to do maintenance here and there, but I don't think...I think it is ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 13 very similar to what Susan is saying. They are not responsible to do any more maintenance on it that when they want to get to it they'll plow it. Otherwise, Eco- Village people have to keep it plowed. Mr. Matthews — Okay, now...I hear what everybody's saying, but this gentleman says...sorry I didn't get your...oh, it's Mr. Cox...that in your life time, that right-of-way has been serviced by the Town. Mr. Cox — It has since the City put the tank up there. Mr. Matthews -- Okay, and that's been how long? Mr. Cox -- That was in the early 50's that they put the tank up there and the water main goes up the north side of the road and our sewer's on the south side of the road. Mr. Matthews — So that's a half a century they've been servicing that road. Mr. Cox — Yeah, yup. Mr. Matthews — Okay. And now we're confronted with the idea that the Town of Ithaca is gonna say "We're not going to service that road" after fifty years of doing it? Ms. Balestra— No. The situation is no different than fifty years ago. Mr. Matthews — Pardon. Ms. Balestra— From the Town of Ithaca's point of view, this is the way it has always been. We're not...they're not saying anything new. This agreement has been around for a while. Ms. Brock— The draft. Ms. Balestra-- The draft agreement. Its still in... Ms. Brock — The Town has never said this is a town road, this is a public road, we have a responsibility to maintain it. If in fact they have been maintaining it, it's not because...out of any obligation to maintain it for the residents. So that situation hasn't changed. Mr. Matthews — So is there another tact that we can take to...to serve both the Coxs' and the Hilkers' with regards to residing on that right-of-way? That...we...we approve the variance with conditions that they would be responsible for maintaining the access for both living quarters if the Town of Ithaca has officially said we are not going to maintain it anymore; that they are responsible to do it. Can we do that? ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 14 Ms. Brock — We could. Or...We don't want to presume what Ithaca College might want to do. If Ithaca College is retaining ownership of the road...it might be... It just needs to be somebody other than the Town that needs to commit to maintaining and plowing the road. Mr. Matthews -- The Hilker's and the Cox's? Ms. Brock -- They could do it. It could be Ithaca College. Mr. Matthews -- Could we require that in the...in the approval of a variance? Ms. Brock— Yes. Mr. Matthews — Huh. Chairperson Ellsworth — I have a serious problem here. You know, it seems to me like the Town's obligated to maintain that road to that hydrant Ms. Brock— No, no it's not. Chairperson Ellsworth — If the fire department has to get to that hydrant, they're not going to go up there and chop the ice out to get to that hydrant. Mr. Matthews — I hear your anger...I hear your anger, but I also hear a lawyer saying they're not gonna do it. Chairperson Ellsworth — Yeah ...I... Mr. Matthews — I hear your anger. I'm with you. I'm riding in the same boat, but I hear the Town lawyer saying, the Town's gonna step away from it. So if the Town's gonna step away from it, I don't see why the Hilker's and the Cox's, or the Hilker's for sure, shouldn't here hostage to an argument by the Town of Ithaca. Chairperson Ellsworth — I agree with you. Mr. Matthews --- So I'm saying, let's put it in the variance, that if in fact the Town of Ithaca says they're gonna chop ice. Then the Hilker's and the Cox's assume responsibility for maintaining access to their residency for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. That's all we gotta do. That's what we gotta do. Chairperson Ellsworth — I agree. Mr. Krantz — If Ithaca College will not take on that responsibility, the letter from Ithaca College states that they're negotiating, or will be negotiating, just what the terms will be with the Hilker's and certainly, it would be nice to say...If the Town ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 15 doesn't and Ithaca College refuses to assume that responsibility, then it's up to the Hilker's. Chairperson Ellsworth — Sue said we had to put that in the variance. Mr. Matthews — I don't see Ithaca College assuming responsibility for access to the Cox and Hilker residence. I mean, it's a nice gesture but they have a budget for something else. If they want to do it, it's nice, but I don't see why they should have to. Chairperson Ellsworth -- I mean...Anyone else wish to speak on this subject? The public hearing is still open. Thank you Mr. Cox. Mr. Cox — One other thing. Barry has land that... joining the roadway, about 300- feet. He wants to develop that back there, so there'll be more of the same thing, getting access to his property and the Raponi's were turned down. They were told they had to put a driveway along their son's property of 60-feet to the Coddington Road and didn't give him access to that tank road. That happened a few years ago. Chairperson Ellsworth — Who...whose this. The people who own the property beyond yours? Mr. Cox — No. They're right near...it's a lot back of his son's property that he wanted access to from that tank road and it was denied. Chairperson Ellsworth — Thank you. Mr. Matthews — Can we somehow make a motion Ms. Brock—Wait. The public hearing is still open Mr. Krantz — This letter from Ithaca College that they're negotiating the agreement on the easement. It's provided that the Town and the college will enter into an agreement satisfactory to each of them, which permits the easement. So, you know, hopefully they'll work it out and they...if the Town won't assume the responsibility, it will be, hopefully, Ithaca College will. And if not, the Hilker's are stuck with it. Chairperson Ellsworth -- Let me get done with it. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? We have the public hearing still open. There's no...anyone else. Then I'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Ellsworth closes the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. Chairperson Ellsworth — Chris...Do you have any...We're gonna move on to the Environmental Assessment. So maybe we can continue here. Any comment? ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 16 Ms. Balestra— No. Environmentally speaking, proposal's in character with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The lot itself, if fronted on a public road, would meet all of the dimensional requirements. We don't have any environmental concerns with it. Chairperson Ellsworth -- Can I have a motion on the Environmental Assessment from the Board. Mr. Mountin — Can I make a comment? It seems we are setting a precedent now that...that...that lot across the street could be re-approached for a building permit now that we are giving preference for Hilker's lot, that means those two other lots ...someone could come in front of the Zoning Board here and ask for a variance on that so we have now set a precedence for five...well two more lots being developed back there. Ms. Balestra— Well, if I may... The owner of the home on the end of the culde-sac of Northview Road owns the parcel that's adjacent to the Cox residence. At least that's what the County Assessment records show that it is one owner although it's two lots. Mr. Mountin — So is that lot big enough to build on? Ms. Balestra-- I don't know. I wouldn't know without a survey map. Mr. Mountin —And then that lot directly across from 354? Ms. Balestra-- That lot may have a history, I do not know. Mr. Mountin —Sounds like it was originally turned down. Ms. Balestra— I'd have to look it up in our records. Mr. Mountin -- So, I'm just making a comment that it could come around again. Chairperson Ellsworth -- Well, usually we make statements to each appeal so that it stands by itself. I know that we are going to get into this a little later here. Mr. Matthews —We can't look at the future. We had to look at the present. Mr. Krantz — I would move that there be a negative determination of environmental assessment on the appeal of Henry Hilker to construct a home on a landlocked parcel at 354 Coddington Road in the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Brock — I think that that motion should say that the negative determination is made for the reasons...based on the information in the Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and I I and for the reasons stated in Part 11. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 17 Chairperson Ellsworth — Fine...Second. All those in favor...Is there any more discussion in the appeal. Can I get a motion on the appeal from the Board. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-050: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: HENRY HILKER, 354 CODDINGTON ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 42.-1-9.63 MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Dick Matthews RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental assessment on the appeal of Henry Hilker to construct a home on the landlocked parcel at 354 Coddington Road in the Town of Ithaca. The negative determination is made based on the information on the short Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and I I and for the reasons stated in Part I I prepared by town staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried. Mr. Matthews — This would be a first. I make a motion that we grant the variance request of Henry Hilker. Ms. Brock -- We need to specify which variance request. So far we've only discussed the request from Town Law Section 280-a, which is the requirement to have at least 15-feet of access on a public road or highway. So the motion would be to request a variance from the requirements of 280-a of the Town Law. And because it's an Area Variance, the Board needs to find; When balancing the benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, that the benefit can not be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant because the property is landlocked and this access road is the only feasible means of access by which to reach a public road. There would not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The proposed use of the property would be something that is permitted in the zoning ordinance, a single or two family house and that's in conformance with other properties that are in the neighborhood. The request, while it may be deemed substantial, there really is no other feasible alternative and the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons that have been stated here at the meeting tonight. Chairperson Ellsworth —And it's not self-created. Ms. Brock — Well, we really don't know. It depends on the history of the parcel but that, this self-created difficulty criteria is not, is not decisive. It's one thing to consider but it's just one of many factors to look at. Approval that this Board ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 18 conditions...the granting of the variance upon the following; that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca reach and accept agreement with Ithaca College, the Hilker's and the Cox's regarding ownership of the private road and easements and right-of-ways that need to be granted to the Hilker's for them to use the private road and further subject to the condition that if that agreement does not address responsibility for maintenance of the road, including plowing in the winter, sufficient for emergency vehicles to access the Hilker property at all times, that the Hilker's reach an agreement with Ithaca College as to who will maintain and plow the road and that, the further condition that that agreement with Ithaca College be subject to, submitted to the Town for review and subject to review and approval by the Attorney for the Town. Chairperson Ellsworth — And this is for the property located at 354 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel 42.-1-9.63. Mr. Matthews — I couldn't have said it better myself. Ms. Brock — Thank you. Does that address all of the issues you had been discussing? Chairperson Ellsworth — Can I get a second to the motion. Mr. Matthews — Second Chairperson Ellsworth —All those in favor. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-051: AREA VARIANCE, HENRY HILKER, 354 CODDINGTON ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 42-1-9.63 MOTION made by Dick Matthews, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, this Board grants the appeal of Henry Hilker requesting an area variance from the requirements of Section 280-A of the Town Law to build a home. FINDINGS: The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied by the applicant, specifically- 1. pecifically:1. When balancing the detriment to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community that the benefit can not be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant because the property is landlocked and this access road is the only feasible means of access by which to reach a public road, and 2. There would not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, and ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 19 3. The proposed use of the property is permitted in the zoning ordinance and in conformance with other properties in the neighborhood, and 4. The request, while it may be deemed substantial, there is no other feasible alternative, and 5. The request will not have any adverse environmental effects for the reasons stated. CONDITIONS: This Board conditions the granting of the variance on the following- 1. ollowing:1. The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca reach and accept an agreement with Ithaca College, the Hilker's, and Cox's regarding ownership of the private road, and easements and right-of-ways that need to be granted to the Hilker's for them to use the private road, and 2. If the agreement does not address responsibility for maintenance of the road including plowing in the winter, sufficient for emergency vehicles to access the Hilker property at all times, the Hilker's reach an agreement with Ithaca College as to who will maintain and plow the road, and 3. That the agreement with Ithaca College be submitted to the Town for review, and subject to review and approval by the Attorney for the Town. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Mr. Neifer—We're not done yet. Don't we have to do the second part? Mr. Matthews — The Second part to the... Ms. Brock — Oh, that's true, they need to come back for the...can you get them back in here? Chairperson Ellsworth — Can you have them come back in here. Ms. Brock—We have the other Area Variance. Mr. Matthews —Who do you want? The Hilker's? Chairperson Ellsworth — Yes. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 20 Ms. Brock— The Hilker's. Ms. Balestra—We could probably, you could probably vote without them here if there gone. Chairperson Ellsworth — There's a second part to the appeal. (inaudible while everyone settled back in) Chairperson Ellsworth — Basically with the granting of this first easement, minimal dimensional requirements for a medium density residential zone are now met. Ms. Brock — Well not technically. Some of these requirements all run from the road back and because he's not on the road he can't technically meet them. So you could entertain a motion to grant the request from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-73 of the Town of Ithaca Code to construct a home that does not meet the minimum density requirements the medium density residential zone in terms of width at street line, width at front yard setback and depth from highway right-of-way. Mr. Matthews — This property, the map that we have here...if I may comment...The Coxs have a home here on the upper property and the Hilker proposed property is further back off the right-of-way than the Cox property. Mr. Neifer -- I don't think so. Mr. Krantz— The Cox's is located just beyond there. Mr. Matthews — I know, but they're closer to the right-of-way, the Cox's are than the Hilker's proposed building. Now ... Mr. Mountin — They both front the right-of-way... Mr. Matthews — I know they do, but the same distance from the right-of-way? Mr. Mountin — Yup. Mr. Matthews — Okay. So IF somebody decides to build a hard-packed road up there and it becomes a town road...that won't Mr. Neifer— It's accepted as a town road. Mr. Matthews — It won't impact the front setback? Ms. Brock — Well it might but if buildings exist they'd be grandfathered in once...if a town road comes in after they have already put a building down and now they don't ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 21 have enough setback from what is now a town road that wasn't before, the building could stay and be non-conforming and be legal. Mr. Matthews — Okay. Mr. Hilker — May I address that? Mr. Matthews — I'm okay, I'm fine. Chairperson Ellsworth — This again is at the property located at 354 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel 42.-1-9.63. Can I get a second to the motion. Mr. Krantz— Second. Chairperson Ellsworth —All those in favor. Ms. Brock — Yeh, well, there really wasn't a motion made. I had just said that the Board could consider a motion. You need somebody to make the motion. And, before you vote, I think you should make the finding that in balancing the benefit to the applicant with the health, safety and welfare of the community, that on balance, the request should be granted, again, because the parcel is landlocked, there is no way for the parcel to comply with the setback requirements and those requirements are the 60-foot minimum lot width at street line, 100-foot lot width at the maximum front yard setback and the 150-foot minimum lot depth from the highway right-of- way. Again, there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties through granting this area variance because the lines of the property are what they are and in fact the property is set further back from the Coddington Road than would otherwise be required; that the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons previously states; and again, while we don't know whether the difficulty is self-created, that is only one factor to be considered and on balance, this Board concludes that this variance should be granted. Mr. Neifer — Also, don't you want to make some reference to the plot plan that was submitted with the application? That the house will be located as submitted on the plot plan. Ms. Balestra—Ah, yes. Chairperson Ellsworth — Yes, I accept. Ms. Balestra— That the proposal should be constructed substantially as the submitted plan suggests. Ms. Brock— Did you get that on the record? ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 22 Ms. Balestra— So that would be a condition... Ms. Brock— ...for the approval for that Area Variance. Chairperson Ellsworth — Can I get a second to that motion. Mr. Krantz— I'll second it. Chairperson Ellsworth -- All those in favor. All —Aye ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-052: AREA VARIANCE, HENRY HILKER, 354 CODDINGTON ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 42-1-9.63 MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, this Board grants the appeal of Henry Hilker requesting an area variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 Section 270 —73 of the Town of Ithaca Code to construct a home that does not meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the medium Density Residential Zone in terms of width at street line with the front yard setback and depth from highway right-of-way. FINDING: In balancing the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the request should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The parcel is landlocked. There is no way for this parcel to comply with the setback requirements and those requirements are the 60-foot minimum lot width at street line, the 100-foot lot width maximum front yard setback and the 150-foot minimum lot depth from the highway right-of-way, and 2. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties through granting this area variance because the lines of the property are what they are and in fact the property is set further back from the Coddington Road than otherwise would be required, and 3. The request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons previously stated, and 4. The Board could not determine whether the difficulty was self-created, that is only one factor to be considered and on balance, this Board concludes that the variance should be granted. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 23 CONDITIONS: The proposal should be constructed substantially as the submitted plans suggest. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Ellsworth — Thank you. Mr. Hilker — Now we're done? Chairperson Ellsworth — Yes. Thank you again. Chairperson Ellsworth — We started out... We are going back to the first appeal of Linna Dolph, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-55 (i) to be permitted to maintain a horse paddocks and structures with in a required 50-foot buffer surrounding the perimeter of a property located 1457 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel 23.-1-27. Said 50-foot buffer surrounding the perimeter property is supposed to be non-occupied and non-used. Chairperson Ellsworth -- Would you please come up, identify yourselves, name and address and give a brief description of your appeal. We went ahead with second case because you weren't available. APPEAL of Linna D. Dolph, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-55(1)(2) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain horse paddocks and structures within a required 50-foot buffer surrounding the perimeter of a property located at 1457 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23-1-27, Low Density Residential Zone. Said 50-foot buffer surrounding the perimeter of the property is supposed to be "non-occupied" and "non-used." Linna Dolph & David Dunbar, 1457 Trumansburg Road I'm sorry. Chairperson Ellsworth — You want to briefly tell us what your appeal is. I know we've got a lot of written information but... Ms. Dolph — I'm sure you do. Well, we've been operating the farm for 16 years now and we've been Chairperson Ellsworth — Is this the Green Heron... Ms. Dolph — Yes... ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 24 Chairperson Ellsworth — Okay...I think you were before our board sometime ago. Ms. Dolph -- Oh yeah...a few times. We...every five years we had to come before the Board to get reinstated sort to speak and this time...you know...the zoning laws changed and we went in for a special permit and the glitch in the permit is that our paddocks that we built...they actually existed before we moved there...with the exception of two that we put in...were to...well some of them...the fence...the perimeter fence is up against the property line and the paddocks are within the 50- foot buffer zone of the property line. There was no...when we put them in, there wasn't any regulation as to where they had to go...and now to not have them...to have to take them down and put them within...you know...outside of that line, would probably...would be very costly and it would kind of shrink the property a bit because it's a narrow swath of property down to Evergreen. Ms. Balestra — This property received several time limited use variances, so ...to operate as an equestrian facility cause an equestrian facility, prior to 2004 were not an allowable use in a low density residential zone so they needed to get a use variance, and every five years they came back to the Zoning Board to get this use variance. Then once the law changed in 2004, equestrian facilities were an allowable use in the low-density residential zone by special permit of the Planning Board. So, they went before the Planning Board most recently to obtain that special permit and that is where they found that one of the conditions that's listed in the law is that you can get the special permit if you have this 50-foot buffer that surrounds your property. They don't have that. And they never did. They never needed it prior. Mr. Dunbar— In the prior order it wasn't required. Ms. Balestra — Right Mr. Matthews -- But they've had these paddocks up against the fence line for years. Ms. Balestra — Yes, that's correct. Mr. Matthews —All of them. Ms. Dolph — Yes. Mr. Matthews — I have...I think 2 questions. Is this a business? Ms. Dolph — Yes. Mr. Matthews — You board horses? Ms. Dolph — Board horses, give lessons ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 25 Mr. Matthews -- You sell em and buy em and board em Ms. Dolph -- Yeah I ...not so much anymore, but yes. Mr. Matthews -- Are there employees there Ms. Dolph — No. Mr. Matthews — You're the employee. Ms. Dolph -- You bet. Mr. Matthews — Okay. The second question I have is the people on the fence line here...Zolton...and Gumbas. Ms. Dolph — No, that actually is Mark Williams and his wife. Mr. Matthews -- Do they live there? Ms. Dolph -- Yes. Mr. Matthews -- They have...they have the whole property in back of your fence line? Ms. Dolph — They have the property on the south side. Mr. Matthews -- Southside Ms. Dolph -- Of the...of the ...okay...so if our property...facing the property from 96...they own the property on the south side. There are a few different properties on the other side. The...north side I guess...and they've changed hands over the years that we've been there...the 16 years that we've been there. But our fence actually...I went to walk the fence line...and our fence is...that fence on the north side is actually 37 feet in from the previous existing fence that Frank Paige, the owner before...the hedgerow had grown in so much that it's actually 37 feet from our fence to the original fence. So we have more property than I even knew we had. Chairperson Ellsworth -- So those paddocks on that side are setting.. Ms. Dolph -- There was a buffer, but it's not a total of 50 feet. I'm sorry, then at the lower end...the east side of the property there is a house off of Evergreen Lane and I don't believe we...we have somewhat of a buffer...there's a hedgerow here but certainly not 50 feet. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 26 Mr. Matthews — Okay. We speak of buffer...this is a new term for me...Is this the same as setback? Or do horses have a different... Chairperson Ellsworth — That's the distance away from the property. Can you tell what a property line is? Ms. Dolph — Okay. It's been described to me as a buffer zone but we are supposed to be...our fence is supposed to be 50 feet...or any paddocks where we contain horses...are supposed to be 50 feet from the property line. So, when we moved in, there was noth...you know...there was a fence that just went down the property line on the south side and we just sort of followed that old fence when we put our paddocks in. Chairperson Ellsworth -- But on the south side, you set it in some? Ms. Dolph — No, no, no...Maybe a little bit...but it's still fairly close to the... Mr. Matthews — Not like on the north side where you... Ms. Dolph — Yeah... on the north side it had just grown... Mr. Matthews — So is this term buffer/setback? Is that what we're talking...side yard setback or something? Or is it special for horses? Ms. Balestra — It's special for this use. You have the regular setbacks that are required for residences, but for equestrian uses, in this zone, it's a special non- occupied and non-used buffer. That's as specific as the regulation gets. And the buffer is occupied by fencing. Mr. Dunbar—A fence within a fence. There's a fence around the property line and there's different paddocks within this property... Mr. Matthews — So horses... they have a different requirement for equestrian ... Ms. Balestra — Right. Mr. Matthews — This is a question, arguing with myself, but if this land next to this property, next to these paddocks is developed, for houses, will we be running into problems? Is this land that is developable? Developmental land? Chairperson Ellsworth — You're talking about south and north side of this property? Mr. Matthews — Yeah, where we're...right here... Mr. Matthews — This land that says "lands of Paige..." is that future land of a development? ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 27 Ms. Balestra — That's...there's an existing home on that property. Mr. Matthews — There is now? Ms. Balestra — Yes. They could potentially subdivide. It's also zoned low density residential. Mr. Matthews — Is Mr. Paige here? Ms. Dolph — No. He's been dead for ... Mr. Matthews — Oh, he won't... Ms. Dolph — for years before we bought the property. Mr. Matthews — So who's living in that Paige residence now? Ms. Dolph — Oh, we're living in the Paige residence. The people that live next door to us which is the other parcel of land that looks very similar to ours is Mark Williams and his wife. He's not all that mad, I believe. Ms. Balestra —Well, on the colorful map...its...its 1453 Trumansburg Road parcel... Mr. Matthews — Okay. 1453... That's where the Paige residence was. Ms. Dolph — No. We're 1457. Mr. Dunbar— I need to correct something here if you're looking at the map I am. Where it says lands of Frank Paige...that was taken out of...this is a photo copy that we made for the Planning Board , and that really came from the middle of our parcel, but I removed that so we could draw in paddocks that weren't included on that. That doesn't really belong. Ms. Balestra — That's not the current property owner. Mr. Matthews — So who's on... Mr. Dunbar— Lands of Frank Paige really refer to our piece of property. Mr. Matthews -- So who's on 1453? Ms. Dolph — That's Mark Williams. Mr. Dunbar— That's the Zolton... Joan Gomba sold that to Mark Williams. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 28 Ms. Dolph — Yup, a few years ago. Mr. Matthews — So Mr. Williams is affected. Mr. Dunbar-- Mr. Williams has...yeh...we share about 1300...you know...the entire property line. Mr. Matthews -- Is Me. Williams available? Chairperson Ellsworth —Well let's open the public hearing and see if... Ms. Balestra —All adjacent property owners have been notified of the appeals and they received the Public Hearing Notice. Chairperson Ellsworth opened the Public Hearing at 8:18 p.m. Chairperson Ellsworth —Anyone wish to make statements? Chairperson closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 p.m. Chairperson Ellsworth —Any further questions? Mr. Matthews —Well it would be nice to have Mr. Williams here to comment about the plus or minus of this. Mr. Neifer— Presumably he received the notice and saw the signs on the property that a hearing was being held... Ms. Dolph — He's also a good friend of ours. Mr. Neifer -- ...if he wanted to be heard and voice his opinions. He had ample opportunity so... Mr. Matthews — Your right Ms. Balestra —Additionally, Dick, they're not changing anything on their property. The property is as it has been for 16 years, so if Mr. Williams had a problem with it her could have complained in the last 16 years. Chairperson Ellsworth — OK. I'd like to move on to the environmental assessment Chris. Do you have any further comments on... Ms. Balestra — Staff does not see any environmental issues associated with the project. The land has not changed in the last 16 years. The property is very low intense...a low intensity use. There is agricultural land across the street. It's low density residential. We don't see any problems with it. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 29 Chairperson Ellsworth — Can I get a motion on the environmental assessment from the Board. Mr. Krantz— I'll make a negative determination of environmental assessment... Ms. Balestra — Significant... Mr. Krantz -- ...of Linna Dolph. Noting that for over 16 years there's been no change in the buffer zone on this property at 1457 Trumansburg Road and I think that's all you have to say for an environmental assessment approval. Mr. Neifer -- Well, in reference to forms...submitted by... Ms. Balestra — I think... It's a negative determination of environmental significance and I think you can add to the motion that's just been made that the Board further bases it's findings on the information in Parts I & 11 of the short environmental assessment form and further bases it's findings...or makes it's determination for the reasons stated in Part 11 of the environmental assessment form. Second -- Jim Neifer. All those in favor. All —Aye ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 053: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: LINNA D. DOLPH, 1457 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 23-1-27 MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED, that the Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance on the appeal of Linna Dolph, noting that for over 16 years there has been no change in the buffer zone on this property located at 1457 Trumansburg Road and, the Board further bases its findings on the information on Parts I and 11 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form and makes its determination for the reasons stated in Part 11 of the Environmental Assessment Form. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE Chairperson Ellsworth — Any further questions for the applicants? Can I get a motion on the appeal from the Board for the property at 1457 Trumansburg Road. Mr. Krantz— The chair can make a motion. Can the Chair make a motion? ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 30 Mr. Krantz -- I would move that we approve the appeal of Linna Dolph requesting a variance from the requirement of Chapter 270 Section 270-55 1 (i) (2) of the Town of Ithaca Code so they are permitted to maintain horse paddocks and structures within the required 50-foot buffer zone surrounding the perimeter of the property located at 1457 Trumansburg Road in the Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 23.-1-27. It is noted that this is a low density residential zone and that this buffer zone has been in existence for at least 16 years and ... Mr. Neifer— This is use variance? Ms. Balestra — No, it's an area variance. Mr. Neifer— Excuse me, area variance. Mr. Krantz — This is an area variance, correct? ...and this meets the criteria of an area variance. I don't think it's necessary to list what the area variance criteria are... Ms. Balestra — Well, we have been stating how each of the criteria play into the decision to support the findings and the reasons. Mr. Krantz— I personally think that's redundant. Ms. Balestra —Well... Mr. Krantz— I will certainly accept it if you want to ... Ms. Balestra — Okay, let me take a shot at.. Ms. Balestra — You want it to stand up in a court of law... Ms. Balestra -- ...the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does out weigh any detriment to the neighborhood or community in granting this area variance; that while, perhaps the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, that would require the applicant to move the existing fences and paddocks and house for that matter, which have been in place for a number of years and that would not be a reasonable requirement to impose on the applicant; there will not be any undesirable change in the neighborhood or nearby properties because in fact the existing conditions have been in place for at least 16 years; while the request may be viewed as substantial in that the structures do encroach almost entirely within ...into the entire 50-foot required buffer, that again, requiring those structures to all be moved would be unreasonable and; that the variance will not create adverse physical or environmental effects; nor is the difficulty self-created because all the structures pre-existed the requirement of the zoning ordinance. This...I would recomm...this variance is conditioned upon the requirement that the fences and paddocks not be enlarged, moved or otherwise modified without further Zoning Board of Appeals approval. And that's all I have. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 31 Chairperson Ellsworth — Does that carry over if the property is sold? Ms. Balestra — Yes, that ... But and... Oh I'm sorry...Let me change that last condition...That the paddocks and fences be maintained as show on the survey map that was submitted to the Planning Board with the application materials and that the fences and paddocks not be enlarged, moved or otherwise modified...why don't we say to further encroach into the buffer...without further Zoning Board of Appeals approval. That's the end of that motion. But as an explanation...then if paddocks or fences are moved or removed so that they are now further away from the property Iine,that would be okay and the applicant would not have to come back. It's only if the fences further encroach and get closer and closer to the property line that they would need to come back. Chairperson Ellsworth — Do you want to specify the time period that we are granting that. Ms. Balestra — That isn't applicable anymore. Chairperson Ellsworth — No? Mr. Neifer— It's now zoned for this. Ms. Balestra — It's a permitted use, and in fact they've received a special permit conditioned on getting the area variance so there isn't any need to put any time limit on it now. Chairperson Ellsworth -- Are those acceptable...terms acceptable to...I need a second to the motion. Mr. Neifer— Second Chairperson Ellsworth —All those in favor. All —Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-054: AREA VARIANCE, LINNA D. DOLPH, 1457 TRUMANSBURGROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 23-1-27 MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Linna D. Dolph requesting a variance from the requirement of Chapter 270 Section 270-55 (1)(2) of the Town of Ithaca Code so that they are permitted to maintain horse paddocks and structures within the required 50-foot buffer zone surrounding the perimeter of the property located at 1457 Trumansburg Road in the Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 23-1-27. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 32 It is noted that this is a Low Density Residential Zone and that this buffer zone has been in existence for at least 16 years and this meets the criteria of an area variance. FINDINGS: The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied by the applicants, specifically- 1. pecifically:1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood or community in granting this area variance, and 2. While perhaps the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, that would require the applicant to move the existing fences, paddocks, and house which have been in place for a number of years and that would not be a reasonable requirement to impose on the applicant, and 3. There will not be any undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties because, in fact, the existing conditions have been in place for at least 16 years, and 4. While the request may be viewed as substantial in that the structures do in fact encroach almost entirely within the entire 50-foot required buffer, that again, requiring those structures to all be moved would be unreasonable, and 5. The variance will not create adverse physical or environmental effects, and 6. The difficulty is not self-created because all these structures pre-existed the buffer requirement of the zoning ordinance. CONDITIONS: This Board conditions the granting of the variance on the following- 1. ollowing:1. This variance is conditioned on the requirement that the fences and paddocks be maintained as shown on the survey map that was submitted to the Planning Board with the application materials, and 2. That the fences and paddocks not be enlarged, moved, or otherwise modified to further encroach into the buffer without further Zoning Board of Appeals approval. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Ellsworth — You're all set. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 33 Ms. Dolph — Thank you. Mr. Dunbar— Thank you. Chairperson Ellsworth — The next appeal of Jim Merod, requesting a variance from requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a home that exceeds the maximum permitted height at 204 Park Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56.-3-13.34 and the appellant will also need a variance from Section 270 —71b to be permitted to construct a deck with in the required 30-foot rear-yard setback. Chairperson Ellsworth -- Do you want to briefly explain your appeal. APPEAL of Jim Merod, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a home that exceeds the maximum permitted height, located at 204 Park Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3-13.34, Medium Density Residential Zone. Appellant may also need a variance from Section 270-71(B) to be permitted to construct a deck within the required 30-foot rear yard setback. Jim Merod, 10 John Street What we...all we really want to do is, instead of back filling the foundation...if you see this site, it slopes off two different directions; toward the street and down the hill, the way it's built. So in the last house we built, which is right next to it, we actually had to bring backfill in so that we met the height requirement. So this time we decided why not have a walk-out basement. That way it takes advantage of the land. We won't have to do any additional backfilling and it will fit the slope of the...the natural slope of the land better. And it also allows somebody to have a walk-out basement. And...I guess the other thing that came up was the area setback of 30-feet. If we have to, we could slide the house forward that 2-feet, but then that is going to expose more of the foundation to the natural slope, so we figured if we brought it back just a little farther, 2-feet basically, it's gonna lesson that...that effect. So I am trying to minimize how much of the foundation you have to expose. Chairperson Ellsworth — So your saying your trying to maintain that... I'm trying to maintain... Chairperson Ellsworth — ...the deck? Mr. Merod — Pardon. Chairperson Ellsworth — Your trying to stay with a 30-foot wide deck? ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 34 Mr. Merod — Yeah, yeah. I don't think the width is a problem, I think the depth of the deck. Chairperson Ellsworth — So that that corner, it looks like that one corner to me. Mr. Merod — Right, right. Mr. Krantz — You know...we've okayed for a number of people in the past, this height variance in the same area; so as far as I can see, for me at least, that's certainly no problem. But there is a problem because of the slope with erosion. How do you feel...how would you address that? Mr. Merod — Well...the place we just did, we planted grass and that seems to be okay. What happened with the June rains, the footer drains, the short sight we had on that is we put the drains to the daylight which is what the law requires, or what the building codes require. On this next house, we are actually going to bring the footer drain right down to the culvert, so there isn't...if you look at the house that we just built at 202, you'll see that there is some erosion, that erosion is directly attributable to the footer drains. So, we can eliminate that problem with another 30- feet of drainpipe. Ms. Balestra — Is that shown on the current plans? Mr. Merod — What's...yeah...well the current plans, we just said...we're putting the drain right to the culvert. Ms. Balestra — So the current plans show what you've just said. So the current plans show... Chairperson Ellsworth — The additional pipe. Ms. Balestra -- ...construction that would address this erosion... Mr. Merod — Exactly. That was a short sight on our part and I have actually told the people...The Para's, who bought the house from me, that I'll come back when we are doing the next house...I'll just do that for nothing because it really should've been done. I mean we didn't realize...I mean June was more rain than anybody could have expected, before the grass had a chance to grow. So, the erosion you see is just that alone. But as far as bushes and stuff like that, I think that somebody is going to want to landscape that anyhow. But we always put grass in and I ...where the grass is grown...where there isn't... the footer drain coming out, it looks beautiful. There hasn't been any erosion so, we're going to keep that natural slope and that's what we're trying to do here. Mr. Krantz— You spoke of thick vegetation and multiple trees. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 35 Ms. Balestra — Yes. Mr. Krantz — And you're saying that you don't do that, but you expect the owner to do it if you wanted to. Mr. Merod — If it was my house I certainly would. But I'm not going to tell somebody what they are going to do for their own landscaping. I mean I'm a builder, not a landscaper. Ms. Balestra — If I may...I have just been advised by the Town Attorney that although there are some environmental conditions on the site, they are not related to the height variance, which is what this Board is meant to consider. Mr. Krantz— well we have to...there's two parts... Ms. Balestra — There's no SEAR with this. Mr. Krantz— Isn't there two parts to this appeal? Mr. Merod — Yeah, the setback and the height. (Inaudible ) Mr. Krantz -- ...doesn't that affect... Ms. Balestra — ... for a single family, two family or three family homes, individual lots and setback variances and height variances, do not require SEAR. Chairperson Ellsworth — ...and SEAR has to do with this. Mr. Krantz— So we can recommend it, but not require it. Ms. Balestra — That's correct. This area, the entire area, not just this particular lot, but the entire area surrounding it has a significant slope and there is concern about erosion and stormwater run-off and when you lose vegetation on a site, trees generally will take in water, so you don't have as much erosion. So the more vegetation you have on a site, the less erosion you will generally get. That's where that was coming from. Mr. Krantz— That entire area is erosion prone. Ms. Balestra — Yeah, there's a significant slope in that area. Mr. Matthews --That's across from the winery is that correct? All — Yeah ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 36 Mr. Matthews — So that entire area is erosion prone, but what he's asking for is a height variance and a setback so... Ms. Balestra —Although the home is on a slope... Mr. Matthews — Yeah...we shouldn't even be bother discussing that, actually. Mr. Niefer— Because we don't have no environmental... Ms. Balestra — The Board does not have the authority because the environmental issues are not directly related. Ms. Balestra — And you do have the ability to impose conditions, but the Town Law says the conditions shall be imposed for the purpose of minimizing any adverse impact such variance may have on the neighborhood or community. So really, the impact needs to be caused by whatever the effect of granting the variance might have. Mr. Matthews — Now the deck that you want to build is going into the hill? Mr. Merod -- Correct. It's behind the hill. Mr. Matthews -- And in back...going into that hill...are there houses in that hill? Mr. Merod -- No, not yet. Mr. Matthews -- Not yet Ms. Balestra — There is a potential subdivision that may be coming back to the Planning Board, behind that home. And that will have some serious environmental issues that will be addressed. Mr. Merod — One thing...One thing I do know about that proposed plan is that the lot...the two lots right behind the house that I just built and the one that I am asking you guys for the variance...that is going to be a catch basin. Talking to the surveyor, the engineer for the property, he said...by the new codes, the new environmental impact statement, they have to have a dry catch basin in there. So, apparently that's one of the things your...that's coming up. But that's neither here nor there, I guess, because it hasn't even been presented to you yet. Ms. Balestra — Right...we haven't received the plans yet. Mr. Krantz— We can't even consider that. Ms. Balestra — I'm sorry... ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 37 Mr. Krantz—We can't consider that. Mr. Matthews – So your are invading, if I can use that term, your invading the setback by two feet? Mr. Merod – Yes. Mr. Matthews – Two feet. And you're invading the sky by how many feet? Mr. Merod – Four. Mr. Matthews – One foot. Mr. Merod – Well, no. By my calculation it's 5-feet by the way the codes are written which is the lowest point, which is only going to expose 20% of the foundation. So it's only 20% of the foundation will not meet the height requirement. The rest of it will. Mr. Matthews – Okay. Chairperson Ellsworth -- The deck is even less invasive than that. It's just the corner of the deck... Chairperson Ellsworth opens the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. There is no one wishing to speak. Chairperson Ellsworth closes the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. Chairperson Ellsworth –Any further discussion on this appeal. Ms. Balestra – I had a question. It sounded, from the information I received, that you had said it would be possible to build the deck so that the rear yard setback is met. Is that correct? Mr. Merod – It is. We could actually push the house forward a little bit so that that corner, the 2-feet, wasn't impacted, but that is then going to expose more of the basement...I'm gonna be on the one hand satisfying one requirement, but exacerbating another one so far as the amount of the house that doesn't meet the height requirement. Chairperson Ellsworth – You could cut the corner of the deck off. Mr. Merod – If somebody says that, I would do it. I mean I'm not here to argue that particular point. I'm more concerned about the height. Ms. Balestra –What are the dimensions of the deck? ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 38 Mr. Merod — I think it's 12 x 30. Chairperson Ellsworth — It doesn't show on our plans. Mr. Merod — It is 38 x 12 and there's a little part that's actually 16 x 15 that's part of it but generally it's 38 x 12. Mr. Matthews — It's across the back. Ms. Balestra — All right, so if you cut the corner you could meet that setback requirement. Mr. Merod — Correct. Ms. Balestra — Did the Board see that? You can just look at the top sheet of the plans and you can see the main part of the deck he was referring to. And you can see where the corner of the deck encroaches into the rear yard setback by 2-feet. Chairperson Ellsworth — Is that an option? Or do you want us to continue considering it. You'd cut the corner off there... Mr. Merod — I have no...that to me is a very minor issue. If that is something that satisfies the over all goal, which is building the house with a walkout basement, and that's a problem...you know...I don't mind...that's ...the size of the deck is substantial enough as is...you know. So whatever you guys want. Mr. Matthews — Well, I have one, as outrageous as it may sound, but why couldn't you cut the corner off? Mr. Merod — I just said. Chairperson Ellsworth — He said he would. Ms. Balestra — He said he can. Mr. Matthews — If the height variance will pass, he'll cut the corner. Ms. Balestra — Well, we...the Board doesn't actually engage in that kind of trading I would think. Mr. Krantz— We have to know whether we have two parts or one. Ms. Balestra — Well I guess the question to really asked is whether the request for a rear yard setback variance is withdrawn or ... ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 39 Mr. Merod — I guess...Steve Williams is the one that told me that I should ask you guys for permission on that so that we didn't have to re-engineer the drawings so we can get on with him issuing a building permit. And he said that, since it is only that corner, you probably wouldn't have an issue with it, but leave it up to you. Ms. Balestra — Right. He can't really speak for this Board. Mr. Merod — Oh he wasn't. He was suggesting to me that I ask your permission, under the circumstances, to not slow the project. Mr. Matthews — There are issues and then there are issues. I don't think a corner is an issue. Chairperson Ellsworth — If there's no further discussion, can we get a motion on the appeal of Jim Merod. Mr. Krantz— Environmental assessment? Ms. Balestra — There's no environmental assessment required. The Type 2 action is not subject to any SEAR review. So you can have a motion directly on the request for a height variance and a rear yard setback variance. Mr. Krantz — Well, I'll get it started I guess. On the appeal of Jim Merod, requesting a variance from the requirement of Chapter 270 Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to construct a home that exceeds the maximum permitted height which is located at 204 Park Lane in the Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 56.- 3-13.34 This is a medium density residential zone and it is noted that several or similar variances have been issued in the past in this area; that...what else do we want to say here... Mr. Matthews — Could we suggest how much...how much the height Mr. Krantz -- ...would be no more than let's say 5.3 feet. Mr. Matthews — Okay. Ms. Balestra — He needed 5 feet. Mr. Matthews — He has 3.5 now... Ms. Balestra -- ...5 inches. Right? Mr. Matthews — He's gonna build...the plans call for 3.5 above the variance...above the permitted height. Ms. Balestra — The 36-foot height limit... ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 40 Mr. Matthews -- ...above the permitted height...so if we go 5 feet, we're giving him a little Mr. Krantz— It's five plus... Ms. Balestra — The over all proposed height is 41 feet 5 inches, which is 5 feet 5inches 5 Ms. Balestra -- feet 5 inches above 36 feet. Mr. Matthews — So you gotta go 6. Ms. Balestra — Correct. Mr. Krantz— So we'll grant an additional 5 and a half feet. Ms. Balestra — To be safe you could grant...the Board could grant 6...it's up to you. Mr. Krantz — We'll give him 6 feet. I'd like to also put in that although it's not within the powers of this Board to require that thick vegetation and trees be put in the property to try and hold down on the erosion, which may happen because of the slope, we certainly highly recommend it. Mr. Matthews —Are we also going to include in this motion the deck setback? Chairperson Ellsworth —Well, let's finish up the reasons for the first part. Mr. Matthews — Do one and then the other? Chairperson Ellsworth — Okay. Mr. Krantz — This motion is made from the belief that the area variance criteria is met; that there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects; that it's not an undesirable change in the neighborhood, particularly since this has been granted to other houses and that it'll allow for a walk out basement, which although certainly not absolutely necessary will enhance the property. And how bout we turn it over to our attorney to finish it now. (Laughter) Ms. Balestra — While this Board finds that the benefit...the home could be constructed without the variance, as just stated, the appearance and height of the home will be consistent with those of other nearby residences. The request for the variance is not substantial because only approximately 20% of the area of the home will not be in compliance with the 36-foot height limit at lowest exterior grade. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 41 While the alleged difficulty is self-created, the other criteria as previously described show that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community. Chairperson Ellsworth —And now the second part... Ms. Balestra — So...do you want to vote on the height variance first...and just vote on that motion? Chairperson Ellsworth — got a second on that motion? Mr. Krantz — If we are going to be in agreement on the 2-feet extra, we could just include it now. Mr. Matthews — I think we should. Mr. Krantz— So why don't we do that. Ms. Balestra — So do you want to further...I'm not sure which way you want to go on this... Mr. Krantz — Well, we are agreed I think that we will let, permit the construction of the deck to exceed by no more than 2 feet the 30-foot rear yard setback. Ms. Balestra — Okay, before we do that let me amend the earlier part of the motion to say that the house will be constructed substantially as shown on the plans that were submitted to the Board with this application. It sounds like...for this motion...the Board, in addition, grants the applicant's request for an area variance to encroach on the rear yard setback by 2 feet and that that be granted upon the condition, again, that the deck be constructed as shown on the plans submitted with the application and that only the southwest corner...Is that correct?... Mr. Merod — Yes, that's correct... Ms. Balestra — of the deck will encroach by up to 2 feet and the rest of the deck will not encroach on the rear yard setback. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community in granting this variance for the rear yard setback requirement; finding that the encroachment is not substantial and only one corner of the deck will be encroaching into the setback. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects or create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to near by properties and while the alleged difficulty is self—created and the benefit that the applicant seeks can be ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 42 achieved by other means that are feasible to the applicant, because the encroachment is so insubstantial, that outweighs these other criteria. Chairperson Ellsworth —A second to the motion. Mr. Matthews — Second. Chairperson Ellsworth -- All those in favor. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 055: AREA VARIANCE & HEIGHT VARIANCE, JIM MEROD, 204 PARK LANE, TAX PARCEL NO. 56.-3-13.34 MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Dick Matthews RESOLVED, on the appeal of Jim Merod requesting a variance from the requirement of Chapter 270 Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca to be permitted to construct a home that exceeds the maximum permitted height, which is located at 204 Park Lane in the Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56.-3-13.34. This is a Medium Density Residential Zone and it is noted that several similar variances have been issued in the past in this area. FINDINGS- 1. INDINGS:1. Although it is not in the power of this Board to require that thick vegetation and trees be put in the property to try and hold down on the erosion, which may happen because of the slope, we certainly highly recommend it, and 2. This motion is made in the belief that the area variance criteria is met. That there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects. That it is not an undesirable change in the neighborhood, particularly since this has been granted to other houses and that it will allow for a walkout basement, which, although not certainly absolutely necessary, will enhance the property, and 3. While this Board finds that the home could be constructed without the variance, the appearance and the height of the home will be consistent with those of other nearby residences, and 4. The request for the variance is not substantial because only approximately 20% of the area of the home will not be in compliance with the 36-foot height limit at lowest exterior grade, and 5. While the alleged difficulty is self-created, the other criteria, as previously described, show that the benefit to the applicant does out weigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community, and ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 43 CONDITIONS: 1. The board grants the variance not to exceed 6 feet. 2. The house will be constructed substantially as shown on the plans that were submitted to the Board with this application. and be it further, RESOLVED, the Board, in addition, grants the applicant's request for an area variance to encroach on the rear yard setback by 2-feet. FINDINGS: The Board finds that- 1. hat:1. The benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community in granting this variance for the rear yard setback requirement, finding that the encroachment is not substantial and that only one corner of the deck will be encroaching into the setback, and 2. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects or create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, and 3. While the alleged difficulty is self created, the benefit that the applicant seeks can be achieved by other means that are feasible to the applicant, because the encroachment is so insubstantial, that outweighs these other criteria. CONDITION: The deck be constructed as shown on the plans submitted with the application and that only the southwest corner of the deck will encroach by up to 2- feet and the rest of the deck will not encroach. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried. Mr. Mountin — I just want to comment that I appreciate your sensitivity to the drainage and erosion control by putting in that extra drain line to that...up to the road front in the new construction. Mr. Merod — Well, thanks. We didn't realize when we did it or it would have been right away. We went right to the letter of the Code at the time which was go to daylight, but in hindsight, we would have been better served by going right to the culvert so in future.... ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 44 Chairperson Ellsworth — Thank you. Ms. Balestra — There are 2 pieces of other business. I have a question for the Board. Did you all receive the planning news in your packets...You didn't get yours...We need to get you a copy...That's the one. There's a Planning Federation conference...New York Planning Federation...it's in Saratoga Springs and it happens every year and there are some very good trainings that happen there. The Town does have some money in the budget to send a member or two of the Zoning Board...I believe that may include someone from the alternates...maybe not both, but one of you...So we would encourage you guys to sign up and go. Let me know if your interested and let me know soon. Also, there are a couple of articles in there that are interesting. Board talks amongst themselves. For example, the NYS Legislature has approved a bill to establish minimum training requirements for municipal planning and zoning officials. The new legislation proposes a minimum training standard of 4 hours annually for local planning boards, ZBAs and county planning boards. So you might want to read that. It'll be a requirement. Mr. Matthews — It won't grandfather us old people? Ms. Balestra — No Ms. Balestra — The Town is looking into ways to have that training brought here locally so you don't have to travel. Perhaps it will happen, because the Planning Board members have also been discussing this and it might be in the context of your meeting or their meeting that there might be an hour of training a couple of times a year that everybody can come to so that the requirement can be met fairly easily. Chairperson Ellsworth — They just had some over in Cortland, and you were there and I was there... Ms. Balestra — Yup...all right...you guys are experts. Ms. Balestra — There's also another item of Other Business that is kind of important. In your packets there is the Solar Collector Law. It is something that the Codes and Ordinances Committee has been working on. You do...you may recall those...that Zoning Board meeting where there were 4 solar panel projects at the Board, well the Town has updated the law... Ms. Brock— No, actually... Ms. Balestra -- ...or actually created a law... ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 45 Ms. Brock — No, it's being proposed. And it actually hasn't gone yet to the Town Board...It's gone to the Town Board but with some gaps in it, right. We're also...the Codes and Ordinances Committee could not reach agreement on certain key provisions, so they sent it to the Town Board with different options and the Town Board has now referred this to the Planning Board for comment and for their advice on how to fill in those gaps. But they also ask that this be sent to the Zoning Board and the Conservation Board to ask for their recommendations that they might have as well. So that's what's happened, is this has been referred to you by the Town Board. The 3 issues that have been left open are 1) what the maximum height should be for the solar collectors and the 2 options that were being considered by the COC were either 15 feet or 20 feet when oriented at maximum tilt and 2) They also could not reach agreement as to whether the total surface area for ground mounted and free standing collectors should be 500 square feet or a 1,000 square feet. This doesn't apply to anything that might be on the building itself such as roof- mounted collectors, there's no area limit on that. This is for things that are put on the ground or on poles on the ground. Whether it should be 500 square feet or a1,000 square feet. And just to get you kind of get you back into a frame of reference, the one that was on Trumansburg Road you saw, the largest one was approximately 600 square feet, the one that lay on the ground and tilted up...right...it was in-between the two. And I think the highest one you got was maybe 16 feet or something like that, of the projects that came before you on that one day. And then finally 3) there was disagreement as to whether these collectors should be limited to side and rear yards or whether they should also be permitted in front yards. The arguments were: Well, you know, the aesthetics, if you allow them in the front yards, that won't look good, but other people said that; What if the front yard is the best place for them. You know, if you say they have to be in the side or rear yards, then people might be encourage to cut down their trees to get adequate solar access to their panels. So there were sort of arguments on both sides. And the arguments on both the maximum height and the maximum area sort of...you know...one side worrying about sort of the aesthetics...you know and how that's going to impact the neighboring properties...and on the other hand...the argument is: Shouldn't we be doing everything we can as a Town to promote alternative uses of energy and these solar collectors are no more ugly than somebody's RV parked in their front yard or side yard or water and that we should not be putting roadblocks in the way of use of solar energy. We should be doing everything we can to encourage it. So...There's just people feeling very strongly on both sides of the issue and that's why the Codes and Ordinance Committee could not reach a decision. So those are really the 3 areas for you to discuss tonight and if you can jointly come up with recommendations in those 3 areas then those will be sent back to the Town Board along with the Planning Board's and the Conservation Board's recommendations. So do you want to just take them one at a time? Do you want to start with height...whether you have any feeling... ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 46 Mr. Kanter — Well...(inaudible)...comments... they are clearly ugly as hell and they're not going to be maintained and it's like they outlawed billboards and a lot of them are just like a whole bunch of billboards and if they were near anybody here's house, they would object to them. But you can't really go against solar power ...you know...it's like motherhood...(laughter)...and everything else. It's just not...it's something that's with the deal with oil and energy now that you just worry...can't put too many restraints on it...it's just not acceptable, especially in a town like Ithaca. Ms. Brock — If you pick some numbers, I guess the other think I should have said is; if somebody wants something that exceeds those numbers, it's an Area Variance and it'll come back to you anyway. So...but that may be conceived by some applicants as an additional stumbling block that they don't want to go through. Mr. Niefer— There was only one that was over 500 square feet of the four ... Ms. Brock— Of the 4 you had, one was over 500 square feet. Mr. Krantz — Yeh, 600 feet (inaudible)on Trumansburg Road...and it's ugly. Ms. Brock— Yeh...that was Trumansburg Road. The one that was out in the field. Mr. Krantz — You know...it's like a billboard that fell down. Chairperson Ellsworth -- Well, do you have any specific feelings on the height. What was it...15... Mr. Mountin — Let me...if I may jump in here... Mr. Niefer —What's the (inaudible)...is permitted in the zoning ....50 feet...an auxiliary building? Ms. Balestra — It depends on the zone. Some of them are 15, some of them are 20. Mr. Mountin — I can lend some expertise to this area. I installed my first solar panels in 1990, I've installed solar hot water heaters, I've installed PV systems so... (inaudible)... interest in getting involved in the community and this ....(inaudible) the Zoning Board is my interest in energy and alternative energy and what I've been doing the last 20 years is see that we can create zoning laws in this town that can have some legitimacy to...I love panels...I love they way they look... and I think it is very important that we also look at alternative energy because of the societal impact of oil...peak oil have an impact on us...so I...I'm really...having installed them I can a lot to being the expert here to give you an idea of what kind of heights would come from certain ground mount systems, whether they're track mounted systems or rather they're tilted systems or whatever.. I can give you some information on that but ...My main interest is really to see that...again, Susan brought this up...that we don't block the development of alternative energy, but also speak to the fact that I ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 47 have some practical knowledge, knowing heights, sizes of systems and want to make a couple of comments... That comment that real build ground mount system on Taughanock Boulevard it's 65,000 watts. That's huge... Ms. Balestra — Trumansburg Road Mr. Mountin — Trumansburg Road, that's about as big as they would normally get. Some one going beyond 600 — 700 square feet...my interest there is thinking they are...they're actually...then your starting to produce electricity for consume or to sell. Most houses, if you have 65,000 watt panels... Mr. Matthews — Your feeding it back to the grid. Mr. Mountin — Right, and that's, that's huge. Obviously they have the property to do that, a lot of space to do that, but if someone wanted to put a system that big on a much smaller lot, that would be a question to probably all of us in terms of how would it impact the views, impact the neighborhood, something like that. So, I'm I make the suggestion that at least on the size of a system, not go more than 700-750 square feet because then you are really getting into something that's' ...people are really putting in a large system because they either have a lot of money or because they want to produce a lot of electricity. Mr. Matthews — Or a big house. Mr. Mountin — And the other consideration then is, we're doing energy conservation first, we're doing energy efficiency with alternative compact fluorescent light bulbs and real efficient insulation and and a furnace and all that, you have a much lower load than 65,000 watts of electricity. I just built a house and I'm...you know...my loads about a fifth of that. And that's a real energy efficient house. 21,OOOsquare feet, in a big house you don't need that big of a system if you've done energy conservation, energy efficiency first. So, I like... if we set a standard...I suggest of 150...it comes back to this...comes back to this board here...because then you may be looking at something that could impact visually a neighbor, could impact a... I think another issue is what's being done in terms of energy efficiency energy conservation first. So just a normal house your sticking a bunch of solar panels on there without taking in energy efficiency, energy conservation, maybe those considerations could be thought of first and ...I (inaudible)...that can't be...you know... requested by this board... but its something that comes into my mind, if somebody puts up a big system, what...why are they putting up such a big system. It makes sense for somebody like Ithaca Bakery to put up a big system on their roof...that's commercial...I don't know if... does this law...this law covers... Ms. Brock— It covers all zones. Mr. Mountin — I have a problem with that because it's certainly different for commercial/ industrial than it would be for residential. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 48 Mr. Niefer -- So you're suggesting a limit of 750 square feet of solar surface? Mr. Mountin — Yes. Ground mounted. Mr. Niefer— For a normal home. Mr. Mountin — Yeah, for residential zoning. Ms. Balestra — That would be bigger than the one on Trumansburg Road. Right? Mr. Mountin — Right, but someone might have a bigger...some one might have a 5- acre lot. Or you know... It would be comparable to...You get into that big a size, then you are...I think you really are needing to come to the zoning to see how...are there impacts on the neighbors, are there impacts on the environment where you doing that with run-off...you can get some big systems with some erosion, potential run-offs of those panels... Chairperson Ellsworth — Let's take an item at a time here. Is there any other feeling about this square footage limitation from other members? Mr. Niefer — I think certainly the square footage should be limited. I think there should be some kind of side yard buffer and maybe even a certain percentage of lot, particular...I think... My personal view is that none of these collectors should be in front yards anyway. Chairperson Ellsworth —Well, I was going to get to that. Ms. Brock— Let's do the area first. Mr. Niefer — Right....criteria...no front yard solar collector panels...because I think they look horrible and...well... I wouldn't be very unhappy to have somebody put a solar collector panel in the front yard in our neighborhood... even some of these jungle gyms and play things that people put in their front yards...it makes you look...it makes the neighborhood look like a schoolyard. Put them in the back. So that's why I feel that it just clutters up and makes the neighborhood look unkempt. Mr. Mountin — Well, what if your house is set back 300 feet from the yard...from the road...can you put the panels 250 feet from the road but they're still in the front of your house. Mr. Niefer—With screening at the road. Mr. Mountin — With screening at the road or something like that, yeh...bushes or something. I think...there are some variances or some trade offs ... if you've got a house that's 50 feet...meets the minimum set back from the front, maybe that won't ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 49 ... that setback criteria could be established, as nothing closer than the setback, but...you know... people got a big yard, why not put them in the front yard. If that's the best...if that's the best solar access. Mr. Niefer — People are actually putting these great big tv dishes in their front yard too, I mean there are still some around in the Town of Ithaca that are sitting in people's front yard and you know...they've just been abandoned. Mr. Mountin — I think the law is also saying that if there's anything abandoned it has to be removed as far as the tv's go... finally... Ms. Brock — Yes, this law does require the removal of the solar collectors if they are not used for a certain amount of time. Mr. Mountin — Go up and see the meter not running backwards. Mr. Matthews — Is it possible to put into the zoning constrictions that it can...based on the square footage of the home...the size of the solar panels...based on the square footage of the home or the usage in the home? Ms. Brock — Well the only thing is that the zoning ordinance actually allows public utilities as a right, even in residential zones. And so it would be inconsistent for this law to say that the collectors can be sized only to serve that home and not meter any of the excess energy back on to the grid because if you're going to allow public utilities everywhere, then you should be able to allow oversized collectors to be built to that send energy back to the grid. Mr. Matthews — But the homeowner is not in the business of.. Ms. Brock — It doesn't matter. It's a permitted use. In the residential zone, public utilities are permitted as a right. Mr. Matthews — But don't we have to balance the neighborhood needs verses the social, the larger social needs. Ms. Brock — Well I think you can do that by just putting an overall limit on the area, the total area, but trying to say that you can not produce anymore energy than your home is going to need and so you have to size your collectors accordingly, I don't think that that would be something that we could really justify based on the way that rest of the ordinance is set up right now with public utilities permitted as a right in residential zones. Mr. Matthews —We would be violating the law if we required it? Ms. Brock — Well I think your law...I think the zoning ordinance would be internally inconsistent if you were to do that. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 50 Mr. Krantz — You know that wouldn't be a problem... Mr. Niefer— If we limit to say 500 feet, that's doing the equivalent of putting them in a position of not generating power and selling it to the neighbors. Mr. Matthews — That's fine. Mr. Mountin — You can't sell it to the neighbors anyway. You've got to sell it to NYSEG and that's required. ....something the law addresses... off grid solar systems too...in terms of siting in terms of size, area...this just really talks to the fact of NYSEG grid connected solar collector systems. Ms. Brock— No it's not written to ... Mr. Mountin — No, it doesn't mention it. Ms. Brock — It's not really written to really differentiate between what's connected to the grid and what's not. Mr. Mountin — So it's vague enough. I read it... Ms. Brock—Well it's not vague, it just covers both types of installations. Mr. Mountin — Well, they're very different. They are very different in terms of safety in terms of installation, in terms of expertise in doing them. You're talking batteries in off grid systems...they're very different than grid conne..grid tied systems. Ms. Brock — So there are requirements that the people who do the installations have to be qualified and there's a long definition about who is qualified and the requirements that any connections to the grid be inspected by the appropriate utility and things like that too, so... Mr. Mountin — So I have an issue with that too. As having installed my own, I'm...I'm not a licensed installer but I'm pretty handy and a lot of people are pretty handy at doing things and are smart enough and do a lot of installing their own furnaces, install your own water heaters, I don't...this is...installing pv panels or solar hot water thermal hot water storage collections isn't that hard. A lot of people can do it themselves. I think that the important thing is that it be inspected by a licensed electrician and by the building code inspector, but I think you should allow anyone, by right, to install, to do their own work on their own home as long as it's code approved and electrical or building inspector approved after you've finished it. I mean, lots of us have put our own heating systems on. I put my own pvs on, I put my own solar hot water, but I did get them inspected by a licenses electrician and by the zoning inspector but, qualified kind of brings the sense then only business ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 51 people or only licensed business people should do this, and I think that that's a deterrent for people. Ms. Brock — The law as drafted doesn't say that. It says that if you can show that you've had appropriate training... you can also be deemed to be qualified to do it. The Codes and Ordinances Committee actually discussed that requirement a lot and I believe it's the National Electrical Code that a lot of this language came straight from that, so the Town really wasn't imposing anything above and beyond what the National Electrical Code would have required anyway. But that issue isn't before you anyway, the Town's really referred this to you for those three distinct issues of total area, height and placement in yard. Which yards should it be allowed in. Chairperson Ellsworth — Have we come to an agreement on the square footage? Kill one bird at a time here. Either 500 or 750.... Mr. Niefer— The one at Trumansburg Road was 6 Mr. Mountin — 600 Ms. Brock— I believe it was about 600. Mr. Matthews —What's the difference between 750 and 500? 1 mean.. Mr. Niefer— 250.... Mr. Matthews — Give me a visual here someplace. Mr. Mountin — It's about another 1500 watts of power. Mr. Niefer— 10 by 25. 10 foot by 25 foot's a total of 50 square feet. Mr. Mountin — 750 square foot array would be enough power to probably do a 3-4 bedroom house, family of 4 or 5, with 3000 square feet. Ms. Brock— Is that include heating? Mr. Mountin — It depends what king of heating system but typical electric load. Ms. Brock—What if they have electric heat? Mr. Mountin — No way. Ms. Brock— No. So your looking at some other type of energy to heat the home. Oil or wood or gas. Mr. Mountin — Yes. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 52 Ms. Brock— Okay. Mr. Niefer—An extra 250 square feet is 10 x 25. Mr. Matthews So that panel right there where the clock is on is half....half...is that 10 feet high? That brown panel? Mr. Niefer— Probably. Mr. Matthews — So that's the size of the panel. About 500 square feet. Mr. Mountin — 10 by how far? Mr. Matthews — 10 x 25 Mr. Niefer— That's 250 square feet. Mr. Matthews — So 500 is double that? Mr. Niefer— That's the additional one, about 500. Mr. Matthews — That's huge. Mr. Mountin — It's big. It's pretty big. And I think to have it for a two-person household. Mr. Matthews — That's huge. That's from the top of that brown panel down to the floor where Chris is walking....is approximately 500 square feet. Mr. Mountin — But then again you may have somebody with a big huge 5 acre lot that has a big huge house that...that doesn't look so big. Mr. Matthews — That's big. Chairperson Ellsworth — We aren't going to be able to describe all of the limiting factors. Mr. Matthews — Well now your looking at...you know... something 500 square feet in the back yard is impacting the neighbors view, if they like looking down the valley, that thing is going to block it. Mr. Mountin — I think it's a question of also, how many times do you want people to come in for the variances, for going beyond the 500 square feet. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 53 Mr. Krantz — The one on Trumansburg Road that many of us have seen is 600 square feet, and it costs something like $40,000 dollars to put it in, so you know, one of the limiting factors here is; solar panels, particularly when they are not attached to the rest of the house. Are not cost efficient. I mean they're efficient for a lot a people it's worth it for saving on energy and it's their thing to do but, in terms of economics, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, number 1 and then you have a lot of maintenance expenses as well, and so it's not likely that anyone is really gonna even want to sell off an excess of energy. Chairperson Ellsworth — Well, let's have a show of hands on the...or we'll be here all night. Square footage...How many say limit it to up to 750? How many say limit it to 500? Okay. Mr. Niefer— So this is our recommendation, limit it to 500. They've got that part of it taken care of. Chairperson Ellsworth — Now Dave, do you want to enlighten us on the height. Mr. Mountin — Most systems... Chairperson Ellsworth — Those that can be moved... Mr. Mountin — Most systems...a movable tracking system? There's two different types of ground mounted systems, one's that are stationary and one's that automatically track the sun. Those are the most efficient. Ms. Brock -- And the height requirement would apply to either one of those. Mr. Mountin -- Either one of those. I have never seen systems over 15 feet. Even these big 500-square foot, six...tract ones. The tract ones...it's a huge pole to put that much pv on a system that actually tracks the sun so, mostly ground mounted systems that don't track the sun. I've never seen them above 15 feet, so. That limitation then, also means that your not chopping...your not chopping down a lot of trees...you know, or people have to make an assessment. The higher you go up, people are going to realize, well I can chop down less trees because of the higher I can get them up. But also, at the same time, it actually...there's an impact to what that may do for shading or for the effect for the other neighbors, but I've never seen a system taller than 15 feet. Mr. Matthews — So we're talking about 15 foot to the top of the array. Mr. Mountin — From the ground, yeh. Most of them are...you know...10-12 feet. Ground mounted systems, even this one...this real big one on Taughanock, that's not, that's not higher... Ms. Brock— Trumansburg Road... ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 54 Mr. Mountin — Trumansburg Road...Taughannock Boulevard... Mr. Niefer— Fifteen feet from ground level to the highest extremity of the panel when it's...adjusted in it's most vertical position. Chairperson Ellsworth — Can we get a show of hands on that. Ms. Brock— So wait, how many voted for that? Chairperson Ellsworth — Three. Mr. Niefer— Four. (inaudible) Chairperson Ellsworth —What was...what was the third? Ms. Brock— The location, whether side and rear yards only or also Chairperson Ellsworth — Rear, side or front... Ms. Brock— And again, this is as of right...these issues you are discussing are what will just be permitted as right, they don't have to do anything but comply with these requirements and they can get their building permit. So there is always the option to come in for an area variance to either ... bigger area, taller height or if you decide on side/rear yard Chairperson Ellsworth — The yard that we don't... Ms. Brock— ...could go in front yard...but keep in mind that counter argument of; Why not put it where the sun is best and we don't want to somehow inadvertently encourage people to cut down trees to put it in the rear yard or side yard as opposed to the front yard. Mr. Krantz — That's kind of tough because its...it kind of depends...if your to go for the side yard say... Mr. Niefer-- I'm not in favor of side yards. Ms. Brock— Well they would still have to meet all of the applicable setback requirements. So the side setback requirements and the rear setback requirements that apply to that zone, would still apply. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 55 Mr. Matthews — So, does it matter? I mean if the side yard setback is maintained, so rather than look at somebody's windows, and you can't peeping tom, you get to look at a solar panel. What's the difference? Chairperson Ellsworth —Well, let's first... (laughter) Chairperson Ellsworth -- ...and maybe we can conclude the meeting. Chairperson Ellsworth — How many agree with them in the backyard? Mr. Matthews —We all do. That's fine, that's fine. Chairperson Ellsworth — Now we'll move to the side yard. Mr. Matthews -- I think we should maintain the side yard setback and leave it at that. Chairperson Ellsworth — Side yard while maintaining the setback. How many agree with side yard while maintaining the setback. Mr. Matthews — Leave it that and then 15-foot... Mr. Niefer—Well, no. Mr. Matthews — No. Mr. Niefer— No. Mr. Matthews -- Argument why not. Ms. Brock—We got three. (inaudible) Mr. Krantz — They're ugly...maybe that's why. Chairperson Ellsworth — Okay, I guess we got three out of four. Now we'll go to the front yard. Any votes for putting them in the front yard, as long as they have setback from the road. Mr. Matthews — None. Not from me. Chairperson Ellsworth — No votes for that. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 56 Ms. Brock— Okay, so the report back to the Town Board is that the Zoning Board recommends a maximum 500-square feet on the ground mounted and pole mounted facilities, a maximum of 15-foot height again for those types of facilities, and placement in the side or rear yard only, not in the front yard. Correct? Mr. Matthews —With setbacks? Ms. Brock— Right. Actually that's written into the law already, that ...that's one of the requirements. Mr. Niefer -- ....for information... Is a solar collector free-standing to be considered a structure within the scope of zoning? Ms. Brock— It...let's see... Mr. Niefer— Particularly with regard to setbacks and side yard...rear yard... Ms. Brock— Yeh, we'll make sure it do's Mr. Niefer -- ...setback too... Ms. Brock— Yeh, we'll make sure that that works. That...It says that...one of the requirements is the location of the solar collector meets all applicable setback requirements of the zone in which it is located. Maybe we should say all applicable requirements for structures or whatever. Mr. Niefer— So basically if this gentleman who just applied for a variance, wanted to put a solar panel in his...the back yard at this place, and he's already 28 feet from the back and he wanted to put the solar panel back there, the zoning would not permit it because the solar collector's considered a structure, needed to be 30-feet from the back lot line. Ms. Brock— Correct. Mr. Mountin — He'd need a variance. Mr. Niefer— He could apply for a variance. Mr. Mountin —And a lot of them will. Ms. Brock— Right. Your gonna still see these applications. Mr. Mountin —A lot of people. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 57 Ms. Brock— Hopefully a lot of them will just fall within whatever law is finally drafted. The intent was to allow a certain proportion of these to just occur as a right as long as they can meet all of the requirements. They don't have to come to you for a ... Mr. Matthews — Or if it's a 400-foot deep lot, why certainly there's lots of room back there to put a solar collector. Or even a 300-foot deep lot, there's lots of room to put it. But in a residential area like where this development is... Mr. Mountin — The law also might encourage designers, and architects and builders to look at site location of the house because it's in a best practical location is on the house. Creating a law might get people to think about how they're orientating that house if they want solar collectors and put them on the roof vs the ground, then we should design these with knowing the setback. Ms. Brock— And everything's allowed on the house, I mean, as long as they can meet building code. The zoning is not limiting what goes on the roof. (inaudible) Mr. Matthews — Put em on the roof. Chairperson Ellsworth — They're still working on boatlifts... Ms. Balestra — It's not quite concluded yet but at this point, the COC is looking at allowing docks to be 40-feet long, 300-square feet in surface area, same as before, a maximum of 8-feet wide. And then boatlifts, no covered structures. That means no covered boathouses or cabanas or gazebos or boatlifts and if the boat hoists', the highest point of the boat hoist pole, would hoist the boat sort to speak, would meet the 8-feet tall and we still have to determine if that's measured from the dock or if that's measured from the ordinary high water line. Which are two very different measurements. And all those reviews will be...there won't be any Planning Board process involved in that. It'll all be Zoning Board variances. Chairperson Ellsworth — I'd like to see the town people measure from the high-water line. Ms. Balestra — That's actually a better standard for measuring the length than anything else they've done. That's where the Army Corp measures. Chairperson Ellsworth — I'd think that would be tricky on the height.. Ms. Balestra — It's all tricky. No matter what we're coming up with. Chairperson Ellsworth — Ok is that it? For tonight? ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 58 Ms. Brock— The COC is also looking a law that revises when alternate ZBA members can vote in meetings that will considerably loosen up the requirement that basically whenever a member is absent, an alternate can fill in for them. So, that's, that may be...right...so that one...in the future where you have one member that's absent for a short amount of time, like the meeting that the chair or acting chair can designate a member to serve in a regular member's place. And that may be referred to the Town Board for it's September Town Board meeting. If not September then definitely October. We're just waiting for comments on a revised draft. Most notably from Kirk Sigel and it's important that we get his comments and he's on vacation this week. But, if we get his comments back and there aren't any big changes, this will get to the Town Board in September and then...There's a process they have to rev...I guess refer, because it's a change to the Zoning Ordinance and then it has to be referred to the Planning Board, and it gets put on the next Planning Board Agenda and they report back to the Town Board and then because it's a change to the Zoning Ordinance, have to set a Public Hearing.. So it takes a few months to kind of walk through the procedural steps but... Mr. Mountin —We're still getting paid anyway, so it doesn't matter. Ms. Brock -- The wheels are turning and there will be a change made. Mr. Matthews — So, If I may ask, on what basis will they select either one of these two gentlemen. Ms. Brock -- Well basically it will be if there's a member who is absent or if somebody has to leave. Mr. Matthews — But which one would be selected? Ms. Brock — Oh. How do you pick? It'll happen on an alternating basis. So that whoever did not serve last will be picked. If they're here. I mean if only one of them is sitting here at a meeting, obviously that person gets to serve, but if both of them are at the meeting, then whoever did not serve last...I know it sounds funny...but I couldn't think of another way to word it...Is the one who would get to do it. And that way they'll both have e...And that way it really removes any discretion from the Chair, so they don't pick one person all the time or anything like that. It will just rotate. Chairperson Ellsworth — So your carrying our folder ... Ms. Brock — Christine or I will communicate to the Town Board on that. Chairperson Ellsworth — Yeh, I think we're adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. ZBA 8/21/06 Pg. 59 Harry E. Ellsworth, Chairperson Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk