Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2005-02-28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Byrd - It's approximately 41, maybe 41 and three quarters to be specific. It's obviously from the lowest point to the highest point, it has a 12 inch pitch, so from the bottom of the foundation, at least where the walkout door is to the top of the roof is approximately 41 and a half feet. Mr. Matthews —Is that the front elevation or the rear elevation? Mr. Byrd- That's the rear elevation. Mr. Matthews —The rear elevation? Mr. Byrd- That's correct. It's the side, it's actually going to be a side walkout, so if you look from the side, that's exactly where the elevation will take place. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Anyone have any questions or comments? This is within what we have granted for other homes. Mr. Matthews —Been here before. Mr. Niefer—From the elevations that we have, all it shows is one basement door exiting the side of the building. No other windows or anything else? Mr. Byrd- There are more than likely to be small windows on the back side,perhaps maybe one or two. Chairperson Sigel—Mike, any comments? Mr. Smith—No, it should be an area variance, there is no SEQR needed. Mr. Krantz—There are no views impeded? Mr. Byrd - Absolutely not, no. Mr. Matthews —So the slope of your house... you have a door in your plan here... and the slope goes this way? Mr. Byrd - This way? Chairperson Sigel—He has it marked on the map her has, actually, indicated which way the land slopes. Mr. Matthews —I'm very familiar with the land. I've hunted every acre of it, so I pretty much know it, I'm just not aware of where the variance that is requested is. Is it on the front of the house or the rear of the house? Chairperson Sigel—No, it's the rear. 2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—Where the walkout basement is. Chairperson Sigel—The rear corner. Mr. Matthews —So in order to have the walkout basement, he has to go up higher. Mr. Frost—Right, the height is measured from the lowest point at grade, which is at the bottom of the door at that side of the house. It's a very common... Mr. Ellsworth—It's also because of the steep roof. Chairperson Sigel—Any other questions or comments? OK, I will move to grant the appeal of Marlon Byrd. Oh, thank you—we have to have a public hearing, I forgot about that. We will open the public hearing, anyone wish to speak about this appeal? Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—If not, we will close the public hearing and give it another try. Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—I move to grant the appeal of Marlon Byrd, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a building height not to exceed 42 feet at 212 Eldridge Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.6, Low Density Residential Zone. With the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, and with the requirement that the applicant's home be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted in the packet. Second? Mr. Niefer—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 006: Marlon Byrd, 212 Eldridge Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.6 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Marlon Byrd, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a building height not to exceed 42 feet at 212 Eldridge Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.6, Low Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. 3 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES CONDITIONS: The applicant's home shall be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL of Lee C. Lee, Owner, Ernie Bayles, Agent/Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XXV, Sections 270-203 and 270-205 to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with non-conforming building setbacks and exceeding lot coverage limits at 1032 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-14, Lakefront Zone. Variances from the requirements of Article VII, Section 47 and 48 may also be requested. Said new structure replaces an existing non-conforming structure. Chairperson Sigel—Good evening. Mr. Bayles - Good evening, I am Ernie Bayles, architect, this is Lee Lee. I am at 209 Utica Street, and Lee Lee is renting as this project goes forward. I have a slightly revised proposal here, I think it would be advantageous to refer to, so I am going to distribute this. The important piece here is the map depicting the proposed versus the outline of the existing. Mr. Frost—Ernie, we also have a fax that we got on Friday from a neighbor, Susan Miller. Have you or Mrs. Lee seen this? [pause as the applicant reads the letter] Chairperson Sigel—Before we continue, I just want to state for the record that I am a client of Mr. Bayles. Actually his partner is working on a renovation for my home. So I wanted to get an opinion from you, John, on that conflict. Mr. Barney—Has he indicated that you'll get a discount on your... Chairperson Sigel—Quite a substantial discount. [laughter] 4 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—No, no discount. I don't feel any conflict. Mr. Barney—There is no pecuniary benefit to you? Chairperson Sigel—No. Mr. Bayles - We're just reviewing this letter. Mr. Frost—This is a handout, it was a fax from the neighboring property owner, who I believe is in Hawaii at the moment. She voices some concern and also some support in her letter. You may all want to read that now. Mr. Bayles - So basically, the proposal here... I'm going to pull out a larger version and sort of walk you through it, so it's clear what we're asking for. Essentially, the existing building is a story and a half... Mr. Coakley - Sir, would you like to use a wireless microphone? Mr. Bayles - Oh, do we need that? Mr. Coakley - Yes, you need to be microphoned so I can pick it up on the tape. Mr. Frost—Ernie, I wonder if you can face it so that I think we have a number of people in the audience of interest. Mr. Bayles -Basically, the proposal is to build a new two-story structure with an attached garage in place of the existing one and a half story structure with an attached carport. The overall footprint has been enlarged slightly. 110 square feet out of 1100 total existing. The proposal is this: the black, this is the property, this is the lake side, this is the railroad side. The property is currently located right here, where the black outline is. Our proposal is to build at the same side lot clearances that are there currently and effectively remove a projection to the south which brings us down to a two foot side lot clearance on this side, and basically keep that entire structure back so that the very tip of it is no further than the existing westward projection of the building. So the area that we we're actually going to be adding will be towards the railroad side, consisting of an addition of about 4 feet to the carport area and about 4 feet off an existing front room as it stands. Mr. Frost—How close is the Northeast corner which is in the front yard, approach the property line. You've got about 9.5 foot if I read this correctly? Mr. Bayles - The original survey indicated 9.5 to the original corner. Depending on the outcome of this meeting, we can maintain approximately six and a half, seven feet on both sides, depending on whether you want us to kick it around or not. The way it stands now, this corner would probably be more like 6.5 feet. 5 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—And that's on the handout you just gave us, that shows the outline of proposed building, February 28th. You said 6 foot. Mr. Bayles - I believe so, I think I actually mention it in that little narrative. Mr. Frost—OK, the narrative says 5 foot on the north line. Mr. Bayles - OK, 5 foot, I'm sorry, I stand corrected, the narrative is correct. Chairperson Sigel—Is there a particular reason you didn't align the new house more with the lot lines to get a little bit greater setback? Mr. Bayles - Well, we were primarily trying to illustrate the house in relationship to the existing footprint, so that the extent of the additions were clear, and then we were going to get into the discussions of how you would like us to treat the actual side lot lines. I mean, they're not parallel obviously, but whether it would be preferable to crank the house a little bit more to get closer to parallel or not. It seemed like a fine tuning decision. Mr. Barney—Are you using any of the foundation of the existing? Mr. Bayles -No, no, we'll be replacing the entire foundation. Mr. Matthews —Did you say you were going to make the side parallel with the property line or not? Mr. Bayles - We will ask for your direction there. If you would like to see that, I believe we can accomplish. Mr. Matthews —It's up to us to decide? Mr. Bayles - Well, our proposal was to do this, but I think that we're amenable to a slight adjustment if the board should choose that to be a better... we aren't real particular on that particular issue. Ms. Lee- I thought we had to be on the original footprint, that's why it's that way. Mr. Matthews —OK, my other concern is the letter that we got from Susan Miller. Have you spoken to this neighbor? Mr. Bayles - Yes, we have had several conversations with her. Mr. Matthews —And her concerns are legitimate? Ms. Lee- Yeah, we adjusted it. 6 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —And you are going to address that? Mr. Bayles - Well, if you look at the letter that she had asked for, and you look at this map, our original proposal is the green line, our original proposal was to extend the building forward approximately four feet at the lake front side, from the existing building line where it was, and through discussions with Mrs. Miller, we've agreed to move it back approximately four feet, so that line no longer, the front point of the building no longer encroaches beyond the existing building line. Mr. Matthews —So you'll satisfy her concerns? Mr. Bayles - I believe so, yes. Mr. Matthews —So you'll have a happy neighbor? Ms. Lee- Well, I have been very compromising throughout all of this. I even knocked out a greenhouse in the front, because she didn't like the size. I've got to live with you, we're going to be neighbors for the rest of my life, so I have to be neighborly, so that's why we talked to her, and so we agreed in the end that if we move the whole house back two feet, she will be satisfied. And that's what she was going to write to you, and that's why we decide we will go ahead, and it will hamper a little bit, but it's not going to endanger or enhance my living condition. I have been very accommodating. Mr. Frost—So Mrs. Miller in her fax that the board received tonight, it says "if Ms. Lee and her architect Mr. Bayles, move the structure back two feet as I was assured today February 22nd, that they intend to do, so that it doesn't go beyond the current footprint on the lake side, and the second story doesn't go beyond the current second story roof line on the west like side of the house, and lake views from my windows should remain close to what they are now, this would be acceptable to me," and Mrs. Miller is saying she would accept that. And that is what you are saying you are doing? Mr. Bayles - There was an interim.. it's a little confusing, but I'll try and explain. When we drew the green line, we had no final plan, and we were just submitting to get in the queue for this hearing. When we developed the plan further, we actually had pulled back this line, our proposal, we had pulled it back two feet from that original green line. That was then presented to Ms. Miller, she objected to that for her reasons, and so we agreed to pull it back an additional two feet, which is what she's referring to, and so it's four total, and so our current proposal now is to keep the prow of the building behind the existing line of the front edge of the building, which is what she had asked for. Mr. Frost—And again,just so the board is clear as they decide on this matter, the green line on the lake side on the building sketch is moved back four foot to indicate the new lake side park of the building. Mr. Bayles - Right, the new footprint is outlined in red. The green outline was what we had submitted back in January, which you can just throw in the garbage at this point. 7 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—Now, was this based on a survey? Assuming the board in some way decides to consider this in your favor, how could the board be assured that the placement of the building, since you're taking down the old entirely, and putting up the new, how could the board be assured that this location is what Mrs. Miller expects to see? If there's no survey? Mr. Bayles - We could give you a measured offset from the concrete retaining wall to the front of the existing building and provide that on the site plan that's provided with the building permit, and then you can verify that on-site, or we can have that verified presumably by survey for the bank, I don't know if Ms. Lee has a bank involved in their transaction. Mr. Frost—Assuming it goes up and the outcome isn't what the neighbor expected or the board accepted, there's a problem. Mr. Bayles - I guess what we would do is create a letter that would say the existing front edge of this building is this far from these fixed points and get that distributed to everybody so they all understand that and then that can be verified in the future if anyone has any questions. Mr. Barney—I suppose we could also condition that any construction beyond the foundation not occurring until we had a survey of the foundation as it stands, showing that. Mr. Frost—Would Mrs. Lee be willing to provide some kind of a survey of the foundation when the new foundation is in to help certify its location? Ms. Lee- I don't understand. Mr. Barney—I think what we might want to see, since it's so close is that once the foundation is constructed and before a lot of investment is made on the rest of the house, that we have a surveyor, qualified surveyor, certify that the foundation is within the bounds as this board may determine it should be. Of the new building, that it meets the requirements as set forth on the plan that is being presented to the board. Mr. Bayles - It will cost somewhere around $400. Mr. Frost—What we're intending to do is try to ensure that what you build doesn't end up closer to the lake and doesn't obstruct anybody's view. Ms. Lee- Well, you can see very clearly it's not. Mr. Barney—We're agreeing with that, but once the old building comes down, all the physical monuments that we would be able to compare it to are gone. 8 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Lee- Couldn't it be suggested that the original there is on the front what is that...? Mr. Bayles - There's a concrete retaining wall. Ms. Lee -There is a concrete retaining wall so many feet back. — Mr. Barney—Right, and we want somebody competent who can certify that with an appropriate measurement, and typically we look to surveyors. If you're an engineer maybe we could take yours, but normally we would want a surveyor to make a determination. I have a question with the other end of the building quite frankly, how close to the sewer line are you? Mr. Bayles -We had the sewer line marked out. We will be probably 11 feet form the sewer line. It's not drawn accurately here. I called your sewer department and they came out and marked it and there's a green line. I've taken some measurements. The current building is about 14 foot 6 inches from that sewer line now, so when we move it back that four feet, we're still 10 feet and some change. Mr. Barney—My map says 14 feet minus... Mr. Bayles - 14 feet minus 4 feet is ten feet. Mr. Barney—OK, this is probably, I would guess a 20 foot easement, that's normally what we have. Mr. Bayles - I asked what the minimum clearance was, and he said normally we would ask for 10 feet. I said is there any leeway, he says, well, what are we talking about? I said well, 8 feet, fine. So that was the word I got from ... give me a name? Mr. Barney—Wayne, Creig? Mr. Bayles -No. Mr. Barney—Dan? Mr. Bayles -pardon? Mr. Barney—Dan? Dan Walker? Mr. Bayles -No. Mr. Frost—Creig Ballard? Mr. Bayles - Last names. Mr. Frost—Sincebaugh? 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney - Wayne Sincebaugh? Mr. Bayles - Wayne Sincebaugh. Mr. Barney—I suspect that certainly if you choose to grant this there be a condition that there's approval from the appropriate authorities from the town, and I'm not sure Wayne is exactly the appropriate authority. I think this is probably going to encroach into an easement area. Actually the Town Board will sometimes grant people a license to do that, but again, without having it fairly precisely denominated on the survey, it's a little difficult to know. Mr. Bayles - Well, I did get a physical, there's a green line painted out there until the snow covers it that we measured off of,just to confirm that exact fact—and if we do take the building and straighten it out a little bit in relationship to the lot lines that will increase that clearance. Mr. Matthews —What's the minimum, John? Mr. Barney—typically, we get an easement that's 20 feet centered on wherever the line is. Mr. Bayles - So if we're ten feet away... Mr. Barney—If you're ten feet away, you'd be outside the easement. Mr. Matthews —So if he rotates the footprint... Mr. Barney—if he rotates the footprint, it will improve the situation, assuming that they show the line appropriately. Mr. Bayles - I feel fairly confident that those are accurate measurements, and the ten feet is certainly on the edge of the easement, but if the easement were 20 feet, then the ten feet would be clear. Mr. Frost—Mrs. Lee, I hope you understand that, and we understand that you are being very accommodating, and this is a very small building lot, and many of the lots on the east side of the lake are substandard in size which makes these kinds of things difficult, so I think the board is trying to recognize the compromises you've made, but at the same time deal with the constraints of your building lot, so... Chairperson Sigel—So, I'll ask the other board members how they feel about the orientation of the building. Personally I think I would like... Mr. Niefer- I have no objection to the orientation being changed so that the lines of the building more closely parallel the property lines. 10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, I think that would make sense. I mean, we are supposed to try to grant the smallest variance that we can to accomplish a given goal. So it seems to make sense to straighten it at least some. Any other questions or comments? OK, let's open the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—Sir? Mr. Thaler- My name is Richard Thaler, and up until about a year ago I owned this lot. The second cottage, I owned 1030 East Shore drive. The house in question that Mr. Bayles indicates he is going to tear down is one of the original cottages down on the east side, the east shore. It belonged to the builder who built several of the... it's the one that is closest to the lake. Cottages on each side of it are set back. This cottage happens to be closer, and the retaining wall used to be the docking, the first site of the docking of the ferry boats that came out of the inlet. As a matter of fact, the metal stanchion is still embedded in this concrete wall, and historically, when I bought this property ten years ago, I did so to maintain the historic value of the east side of the lake. I don't have any question that Mr. Bayles has done a good job as far as the design of the cottage, it is going to be updated from what it is presently, and probably increase the value of all of the housing down in that area. I notice however, that there is a provision for an elevator which is on the south side of the house, and I want to know what type of elevator it is because of the noise level that would be generated and next to the house that I am going to be occupying, or do occupy. I'd like to have Mr. Bayles tell us what kind of an elevator and where the lift machinery for that elevator is going to be located. Secondly, I would like to ask what they are going to do with the... you'll notice, along with the house, this used to be a garage. I tore that down in order to provide extra parking for the people who were occupying this house. It has not been used for parking, and what happens is cars are parked out here on the roadway and it becomes difficult for the people using the roadway. Again, I would just like to ask if that is going to be put back into parking or if that is going to be used as it is now for garbage. Again, this is the only house that is not parallel to the lot lines, of all the houses down there in that area. But, other than that, I don't have any objection to what Mr. Bayles has designed. Chairperson Sigel—Thank you, sir. Mr. Barney—Dick, before you go, how are the other houses oriented? It's kind of cocked on the lot, but is that consistent with how the other houses are...? Mr. Thaler- If you'll notice the older houses, 13, 14, 15 —are the three older houses down there. I remodeled 15 but?I did not change the footprint. The footprint is the same. 13 is the same footprint. 14 was originally the original house down there. It is the one that is the closest, so any visibility from my house going towards the north is blocked to some extent by this house, and by 13 looking south. 11 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—are the exterior walls of each house parallel to each other, or are they cocked, so as the board deliberated... Mr. Barney—whether to shift the back end of that house a little bit so the house winds up being parallel. Mr. Thaler- 14 I think it would be helpful if it was parallel to the lot lines, but again ?I don't think it's critical, but it certainly would make everything in conformity. Everything else is parallel. Mr. Barney—The others are more parallel. Mr. Frost—So what you're saying is that Mrs. Lee's proposal, which is building 14, its exterior walls are not parallel with 13 or 15. Mr. Thaler- That's correct, and the projection that is here that is being proposed to be taken down, that is the closest area to my lot line. What I did is when I owned both places, I put some trees and a garden in here. The utility is right about where the elevator is going to be, and that's why I'm concerned about elevator noise, because that's right next to my bedroom. Mr. Matthews —Is the elevator something that we should be considering? Chairperson Sigel—Well, we could ask Mr. Bayles to address that. Do you know anything about the elevator? Mr. Bayles -Yes, the elevator that we were proposing to use is a very bottom-of-the line residential lift, really. It does not meet any handicapped accessibility requirements or anything like that. It is simply a platform in an enclosure that's run by a small electric motor which is in the cab itself. There is a track that is mounted on the inside wall that the elevator runs up, there's a trap door in the upper floor which comes up when the elevator is at the second floor, and then when it goes down, that closes. I can't comment specifically on the noise, I may have some information here in the specifications, which I do happen to have with me, but my sense is that it will make no more noise than a residential washing machine. Mr. Frost—probably, actually I don't know if that's a good comparison. I've seen them in homes for handicapped accessibility, and basically electric motors are pretty quiet, I mean they hum, but they are not loud. Unless you do have a spec that shows that some kind of decibel, they are pretty benign. Ms. Lee- Like a garage door opener. Mr. Frost—I wouldn't even say that, they are very smooth running electric motors. 12 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Bayles - In terms of the motor, it's probably a 1/3 horsepower motor, but it wouldn't be as noisy because there aren't all the mechanical chains and stuff. Mr. Frost—What is the intent if it's not for handicapped accessibility? Mr. Bayles -Well, it's for less than able accessibility, we don't have enough room to get a wheelchair in and turn it around. It's wide enough that you could approach it in a wheelchair by turning around and backing into it, and then operating, but it's not a commercial elevator of any type. It would not be acceptable in a commercial installation as an ANSI compliant elevator. Ms. Lee- Well, I need that because I have knee problems. Mr. Frost—The only thing I can say from my experience, is they are typically very quiet. Ms. Lee- the elevator takes years. Mr. Bayles - It's slow. I mean, I think it'll take about a minute to get to the second floor. Mr. Matthews —So after all is said and done, what I think you're saying is that you are assuring the next door neighbor that you won't be waking him up at 2:00 in the morning with a Clang, Clang, Clang. Mr. Bayles - I will be willing to guarantee that, yes. Mr. Frost—You had a two part question though, Dick, one was the elevator, and what was the other? Chairperson Sigel—Parking issue. How many cars there are going to be? Mr. Bayles - I am going to let Ms. Lee address these questions. Ms. Lee- I really haven't thought much about this issue, but when I bought the house, the broker told me that this was the house that had the most parking than any other house around, because you can park here on the back side, you can pull in. So, I don't know, I haven't thought about that. Mr. Bayles - I will say that we would not be able to build any more structure without coming to this board once again, because that would be part of our lot coverage and we would have to request further variances. Mr. Barney—How many units are in this house? Mr. Bayles -Pardon? Mr. Barney—How many units? It's a single family house? 13 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Bayles - It's a single family house. Two bedroom. Chairperson Sigel—Well, there will certainly be, even with the new plan, there will certainly be parking for at least two cars, right? Completely on the property, I would think. Ms. Lee- Yeah. Chairperson Sigel—For a single family unit, it doesn't seem reasonable to require room beyond two cars. Mr. Frost—It looks at least, you have in your packet from County Assessment, a picture of the property, and you also have a picture that Kristie took around here. One would assume that they could park pretty close to the house and therefore be out of the roadway. Do you feel comfortable with that, Mr. Thaler? Mr. Bayles - I think if one car is in the garage, there is clearly the driveway itself to park in, and that there is space to put a car there. At this point I think it's actually used, I think the neighbor uses it for her garbage, but that would obviously change somewhat. I don't remember reviewing the parking requirements in this zone. Can you clarify that? Mr. Frost—Nothing particular. Mr. Bayles -Nothing particular. There is at least one required per residence is there not? Mr. Frost—Theoretically you can park in the road. I mean, for one and two family residences, there aren't any real strong requirements for parking. I think as anyone knows that part of East Shore drive to be able to maneuver a car on the lake side of the railroad tracks to get into the property is not always easy if someone is parking in the roadway, and I think that is Mr. Thaler's concern. Mr. Bayles -Usually it doesn't allow real two-way traffic, so anyone who parks elsewhere is creating an obstacle. Mr. Frost—I don't know if that addresses your concern, Mr. Thaler, or not. Mr. Thaler- We planted a couple trees in the lawn to prevent people from parking on the lawn, and there is enough room on the garage driveway if they want to stack them, so they don't have to park either on the lawn or out on the roadway. Again, when I first bought the property, the part that is here was intended to be extra parking, so that you wouldn't have cars up here and on the grass. Chairperson Sigel—OK, any more questions at this time about Mr. Thaler's comments? OK, anyone else wish to speak? If not, we will close the public hearing. 14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel closes the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—Now, back to the issue of alignment. You are going to have—it's going to be 7 feet at the Southwest corner, and then the setback will get progressively greater along the Southside as you go back from the lake. It might be reasonable to suggest, say, maintaining that 7 feet along that... Mr. Bayles - I think that probably the easiest thing to legislate would be to suggest that we stay parallel to the southern lot line with a minimum clearance of 7 feet or 8 feet, whatever. I'm trying to collect my thoughts about what the actual distance is across the lot at that point, versus the width of the house, and since it's 40 feet at that end, and 51 feet at the other end, we might make a guess that it's 48 and the width of the house... the documents don't have the dimensions on them, does someone have one of the plans I submitted? Can you tell me the width of the house on the shell there? Mr. Frost—It looks like 26, 6. Mr. Bayles -26, 6. So if we had 48 and taking out 26.5, and then you should be able to get ten feet on the side,presumably. So we could, ?I think that in terms of, I guess what we would like to do is maybe to leave it so that we have some parameters that we can work within a little bit. Maybe if we maintain a minimum of 8 feet on one side, and keep parallel to the southern lot line... could the resolution be stated that way? Chairperson Sigel—How about... I'm just trying to be fair to both neighbors —how about 9 feet? Mr. Bayles - 9 feet.. or, or. Chairperson Sigel—At least nine feet. Mr. Bayles - At least nine feet, I think that can be easily accommodated. Chairperson Sigel—At least nine feet from either side at the western extent and then, can you estimate what would be the same number basically at the eastern end? The way it's drawn now, you've got about five feet where it's close on the north... Mr. Bayles -Right, right, but I had the ability to scale, but I'm afraid without my computer I'm at a loss. Chairperson Sigel—You said it's 41 at the far end? Mr. Bayles - 40 at the right-of-way, at the railroads. Mr. Barney—Except that's probably an overstated number, because that's at a slight angle, so it's perpendicular... 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Bayles - Right, but as is the other lot lines, and those lots are fairly parallel. [he measures the lines]. It looks like 46 feet, if you take out 26, we would still have ten feet on either side, so if we were 9 feet from one side, we would be 11 foot to the other side. Mr. Barney—At the west side now, or at the east end of the building? Mr. Bayles - At the east end of the building, it appears that the lot width is about 46 feet. If the building is 26.5, 19 feet, so it should be about 10 foot clear to that east property line, maybe 9 foot. Chairperson Sigel—So it looks like it would be safe to say 8 feet at the ... Mr. Ellsworth—West end. Mr. Bayles - Yes, I think so. Chairperson Sigel—9 at the west and 8 at the east? Mr. Barney—I would make it 8 across the board. It's about 45 feet, if the scale is right at the easterly edge of the building. Chairperson Sigel—You think 45 at the east? Mr. Barney—That would be 16 feet, take away 40, you don't want to lock him into within inches... Chairperson Sigel—Well, it seemed like the 9 at the western end actually allowed for a number of feet either way. [the tape is changed] Mr. Barney—you're forcing it not to be parallel by doing it that way, whereas you could have it line up so it's parallel at least on one side. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, that's true. OK. So we could just say 8 feet for the entire... Mr. Bayles -No less than 8 feet. Chairperson Sigel—No less than 8 feet to any side lot... Mr. Bayles -to any side lot, and parallel to the southern. Chairperson Sigel—And substantially parallel to the southern lot line. Mr. Bayles -No, I think that would be fine. 16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—OK, Mike any comments? Mr. Smith—No, I think it's just area and setbacks, so no SEQR. Chairperson Sigel—OK, so we don't actually need to make a motion? Mr. Smith—There's one included in there incase something changed here and we needed it, but I think you're just dealing with the area and setbacks. Mr. Matthews —Kirk? Chairperson Sigel—Yeah. Mr. Matthews —By rotating it, and doing what you're doing with the distance from the other property, we're not causing any grief for the other neighbor and her view from the lake? Ms. Lee- Actually we have set the house back...[inaudible] Mr. Barney—We're relieving the grief at one end of the house and increasing it at the other is what we're actually doing. Mr. Matthews —I think you're actually benefiting her more. Mr. Barney—Yeah, because it sounds like, from what Dick was saying, that it makes it a little more parallel to the lot lines. Chairperson Sigel—It's possible it could make a very slight detriment, I guess, depending on what window you're looking out, but... Mr. Matthews —Don't see a great deal of... Chairperson Sigel—John, now which of these advertised sections do you think we actually have to deal with? This isn't really rebuilding, this isn't rebuilding a building the same? Is it simpler to just grant the section 47 and 48 variances for what they want to do? Which would just be the setbacks and the lot coverage? Mr. Barney—I think the 47 and 48 would probably work. It actually ought to refer to our code. Chairperson Sigel—270-47 and 48. Mr. Bayles - The yard regulations are 270-47 and the building area is 48. Chairperson Sigel—Any other questions or comments? I guess I'll give a motion a try here. I will move to grant the appeal of Lee Lee, requesting a variance from the 17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES requirements of Article VII, Sections 270-47 and 270-48, to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with non-conforming setbacks and exceeding lot coverage limits at 1032 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-14, Lakefront Zone. With the following requirements: That the... Mr. Barney—Can I make some suggestions here? Chairperson Sigel—Please. Mr. Barney—The first one is that we get a current survey showing the location of the front of the existing building, relative to the concrete wall... Chairperson Sigel—westernmost edge. Mr. Barney—westernmost edge, with the actual dimension, and that that be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit. And that it conform to what is being shown on the plans that has been presented here. Then, a second condition be prior to construction beyond the foundation that the building code enforcement officer be provided with an as-built survey showing that the new foundation is no closer to the concrete retaining wall than the current structure is. I would suggest a third condition that this be limited to a single family house because of the parking area. A fourth condition that prior to any construction and the issuance of a building permit that any required approvals from Town officials be obtained for any possible encroachment of the rear of the house, or I should say probably more accurately, the northeast corner of the house, onto any sewer or water easements be obtained. And then the fifth condition, which I think you just talked about is that there be no side yards less than 8 feet in width from the side of the structure to the adjacent side yard line. [He confers with Mr. Frost] The assistant town attorney [laughter] has indicated that we can delete the section on the single family house because it's a substandard lot, and he's right, there is a section of our zoning ordinance that prohibits anything other than a single family house on a substandard lot. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Ellsworth—Don't you have to indicate that we're also trying to make it parallel to that south lot line. Mr. Barney—Do you want to add that? Sure. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, to make it... Mr. Barney—Substantially parallel.... Chairperson Sigel—Substantially parallel to the south lot line. OK. And add the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. 18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney—And the additional condition, which I think it implicit, but it probably ought to be expressed, that the construction not be any closer to the west line of the property than the current existing structure is. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Now we didn't mention, or we didn't state an exact lot coverage value. We should probably put in that we are granting a variance for lot coverage not to exceed, say, 18.5%. Ernie specified 18.2. Mr. Barney—Or, more particularly, that the house be constructed substantially in accordance with the building plans and dimensions that were shown as part of the application. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Second? Mr. Ellsworth—I'll second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 007: Lee C. Lee, 1032 East Shore Dr, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-14 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Lee C. Lee, Owner, Ernie Bayles, Agent/Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII, Sections 270-47 and 270-48, to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with non-conforming building setbacks and exceeding lot coverage limits at 1032 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-14, Lakefront Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: 1. A survey be provided showing the location of the front of the current building in relation to the westernmost edge of the concrete wall prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and that it conform to what is presented in the applicant's plan. 2. Prior to construction beyond the foundation, the Zoning Officer shall be provided with an as-built survey showing that the new foundation is no closer to the concrete retaining wall than the current structure is. 3. Prior to any construction and the issuance of a Building permit, any required approvals from Town of Ithaca officials be obtained for any possible encroachment of the northeast corner of the house onto any sewer or water easements. 4. There shall be no side yards less than 8 feet in width from the side of the structure to the adjacent side yard line. 19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES 5. The building shall be constructed substantially parallel to the South lot line. 6. The construction shall not be any closer to the west line of the property than the existing structure is. 7. The house shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the building plans and dimensions that were shown as part of the application. 8. Lot coverage may not exceed 18.5%. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Niefer—Do you have to do the environmental? Chairperson Sigel—No, because it was just area variances, Mike said we didn't have to. Mr. Barney—Single family house with area variance don't require... Chairperson Sigel—So were you voting in favor, Jim? Mr. Niefer—Yes. Chairperson Sigel—OK, unanimous. OK, Thank you. Ms. Lee- May I ask a question? Chairperson Sigel—Sure. Ms. Lee- Throughout this whole process, it's been very frustrating to me, because it seems I am the one that gives everything. I got nothing from our negotiation, and I, in a way, resent it. How much does the owner of the property... what rights do we have? This looks like my neighbor has all the rights. Mr. Frost—I think as I said before, this is a very substandard lot, and the board could basically deny your request and I think they were trying to accommodate you while accommodating the neighbors. If you're neighbor came and wanted to build something to their house that took away your view, you'd probably be concerned too. Ms. Lee- What are the views? They didn't even ask that. The views are the bathroom view and the bedroom view. That's all she was objecting to, so you tell me. I mean, it's over, that's... 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—I think fortunately you got your variance. Ms. Lee- It's just very annoying because here I've got to worry about building this house so she doesn't lose part of her bedroom view and part of her small window for her bathroom. I don't want to say anything because I think I'm getting mad. Mr. Barney—You're not succeeding. So, careful, they may rethink it. Ms. Lee- OK, thank you anyway. Mr. Frost—Your real challenges will be faced when they start building. Ms. Lee- What? Mr. Frost—Your real challenges will be faced when you start building. Ms. Lee- Well, that's true... Mr. Frost—Feel free to call me tomorrow and we can talk more about it. Ms. Lee- Thank you. Thanks. I want to shake everyone's hand for voting yes. OK, thank you. APPEAL of South Hill Business Campus,Andrew Sciarabba,Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XX, Section 270-158 to be permitted to allow a food catering operation within an Industrial Zone,located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39-1-1.2. Said zone does not specifically allow such a use. Chairperson Sigel—Hello. Good evening. Ms. Luciano - I'm Linda Luciano, I'm the property manager at South Hill business campus. What we're asking for is a use variance to be allowed to rent space to a catering operation. The building is zoned industrial right now, and the industrial zone does not allow for restaurants and cafeterias or similar uses. So, if the caterer is seen as in that category, then we would need a variance to be allowed to rent the space. Mr. Frost—There is an existing dining facility and an existing commercial type kitchen in the building. Chairperson Sigel—Before we go further, I just want to state my conflict with this case... Mr. Ellsworth—This is your night. 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—which is that Mr. Sciarabba is my accountant. Mr. Sciarabba- He gets no discounts, believe me. Chairperson Sigel—And he overcharges me regularly. Mr. Barney—Also, I should indicate that our office has represented I think Mr. Sciarabba in connection with the acquisition of this property. And I think another partner in my office is representing the financing group or the investment group or whatever. So I should let you know that there is that potential conflict as well. Chairperson Sigel—Your advice is tainted. Mr. Barney—It is biased as usual. Chairperson Sigel—OK, I don't think my conflict will affect my voting in this case. So, as I suspect you are probably aware, receiving a use variance is a very strict test, and it requires some kind of financial documentation, essentially, showing that you can't get a reasonable return from the property, or I suppose in this case, maybe just that section of the building. I don't know if that would be appropriate? Mr. Barney—I think it's a reasonable return for the whole property. Chairperson Sigel—Without the granting of the variance, and you do provide some anecdotal evidence of the amount that it would cost you to renovate it, and I just want to ask you if you can expound on that, if you have any further details? Ms. Luciano - Yeah, if I can pass this out. This is a letter from the building architect who came and looked at the space, and gave us a description of what would need to be done if we weren't allowed to use it as a kitchen facility and had to bring it up to building standards. And also a break out of cost from the contractor that does most of our work there detailing what the exact cost would be. Chairperson Sigel—OK. [board reads the handout] Chairperson Sigel—Do you maybe want to walk us through the letter and hit the highlights? Ms. Luciano - Well, what they're saying there is with the demolition being at least $30,000 and another$72,000 in construction fees, and then if you figure in an estimated contingency and professional design services, you come up to $115,000 to convert this space to a standard office type space. That figures out to about $66.00 a square foot, and with a standard rent of$12.00 a square foot, it would take 5 and a half years just to break even. So we are saying that is a hardship. We probably couldn't rent the space out. 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —My question, if I may have a question? The zoning doesn't permit a cafeteria or a restaurant there? Mr. Barney—It does incidental to another use there, it is permitted as an independent stand-alone use. Mr. Matthews —Previous to this, there was a cafeteria there. Chairperson Sigel—Right. Mr. Matthews —They don't want to turn this into a restaurant at the present time. I guess I don't understand where there is a problem for the community if it is turned into a catering unit, and I see an advantage if it in fact is turned into some sort of a restaurant for the occupants of the building at some future date when they rent out all the space to the industrial sites and businesses that want to go in there. You wouldn't have the traffic on the highways because people wouldn't be leaving the building to go have their lunch. I don't understand the problem. Chairperson Sigel—Well, the problem, I mean, I agree with you, I also don't foresee any problem, any impact on the community if say we allow this catering business there, and like you said, the hope that in the future, as their occupancy grows, if this business also serves food for the other tenants of the building, would, as you said, be a plus as well. The problem is just that, unfortunately, the variance they need to do this is a use variance, and it is a variance that has a harder test to meet, which is that you are supposed to show that you couldn't get a reasonable return from the property otherwise, without getting the variance. And therefore you need the variance to get a reasonable return. It's not the same as an are variance, where the test is just what is the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community. Mr. Barney—The problem is that the determination as to what's permitted in what particular zone is normally a legislative function of the Town Board. There are safety valve, I might call it that, that this board represents, where the legislative determination may not take into account a particular set of circumstances which has the effect of depriving the owner of the property from any reasonable return on the property. Then, once that's demonstrated to your satisfaction, you can grant a use variance. Mr. Matthews —Why is the test higher than something else they want to do, why? Is there something detrimental to the community because it's a restaurant? Mr. Barney—That's the law. It's not a local law, it's a state law. Mr. Matthews —Well, you're a lawyer, so would you explain to me why the law is so high? 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney—Well, yes. The zoning is permitted as long as it doesn't effect an unconstitutional taking of someone's property. So, you can zone for example a property and say you can't put any gas stations there. This is the typical situation in fact you had 100 years ago, when they first put zoning in. You cannot have any gas stations, but you've got somebody who has a gas station when you change that zoning at that point in time. So, you have a gas station, the gas station is there. You can't legislate that out of existence, because that would be a taking. He has an investment, he has a right to make a return on it. By the same token, if you legislate in a way that precludes the property from being used for any purpose that develops a reasonable rate of return then you have a taking. So the Board of Zoning Appeals is given the authority that if you have that situation, that you cannot make a reasonable return on that property, and therefore you would have the risk of having the statute being declared unconstitutional because it is taking people's property without the compensation for it. The board is given the authority to vary the provisions of the ordinance to allow a use that enables the person to make a reasonable return. But it is the use issue because normally the use that is permitted is determined by the Town Board or by the Legislative body, the City Council or whatever the body is, it is not determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals is only determining that, in this particular case, that is applied to this particular situation, they can't make a reasonable return, therefore we are authorized by law to permit them to do something that's not otherwise permitted under the ordinance. But it's not your business as a BZA to kind of randomly pick and choose the things you think ought to be appropriate or that you don't have a problem with. That's not your role, your role is to determine if this test has been met of insufficient return. In which event, you have the right to grant it, if the test is not met, you don't have the right to grant it. It's that simple. Mr. Frost—On the other hand though, the Zoning Board does have the authority to interpret the zoning ordinance. So, as an example, in our ordinance for industrial zone, we allow any lawful manufacturing activity. So, let's say they were canning vegetables in this place as an industrial use, I don't think there would be any argument that this is a permitted use. They are canning vegetables. One of the positions I took at one point with this is that manufacturing means the preparation of something. And since no one is eating in the restaurant or the cafeteria there, they are basically manufacturing food and putting it in tin pans and taking if off-site. So at one point I thought that catering was a permitted use because you are basically manufacturing food and taking off-site. There was some debate with that, and the result was that they are here before you tonight asking for the variance. I suppose it's not impossible at this point to make a determination that catering is permitted. I'm going out on a limb here a little bit, but... Mr. Sciarabba- Could I address the rate of return and the feasibility of this project, so that you all have a sense of what we have in front of us here. We've got a 275,000 square foot building, of which we have around 65,000 square feet leased up. We bought the building for cash. We could not put a mortgage on because it's got environmental problems, which you may have read about in the papers. The building [inaudible] may depend upon how attractive and how much demand there is for space in the community for that. And certainly, I've been involved in commercial real estate for a long time, and 24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES I don't have one building in my portfolio or in my client's that have gone without significant vacancy for some period of time. It takes a while in this community to fill commercial space, especially when [inaudible] overall, there's no retail out here, there's no real commercials, manufacturing offices, that sort of thing. So the building for us to lease wherever we can to help us get the [inaudible] dollars to keep the project going is important to us, OK? To tear that space out of there to use doesn't make any sense we don't have the demand for that space from anybody else. We have about $3.5 million to spend on the remediation of the property over the next couple years. We're hoping that's a good estimate, so from a legislative point, every lease is very important to us, right now. This is very, very small certainly. And if we look at some of the prospects we have for other tenants right now, those are all small tenants. 1000 square foot, 1500 square feet. So, we certainly feel that there is a financial hardship, if we can't lease any of this space right now. Five years from now it might be a different story, but right now, it's very important to us. Mr. Barney—Andy, what's the term of the lease you're looking at? Mr. Sciarabba- One year, with an option for two. Mr. Barney—A potential three years? Mr. Sciarabba- Yup. Mr. Barney—One way the board may look at it is a temporary use variance for a period of three years, which would basically get you your lease right now, and based on what you're saying, based on right now, the economic difficulties are [inaudible] and then take another look at it in three years, and that wouldn't necessarily foreclose getting it renewed in three years, but you'll have to make the economic pitch at that point in time if you still would need it. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, that might be reasonable. If at some point you were full otherwise, then maybe the economic argument may not be as strong as to say not renovating the space back into space that would then allow a conforming tenant. Mr. Sciarabba- If we were full, I would suspect that the caterer would likely to be able to have a restaurant for the tenants of the building... Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, and then that would be a different situation that then we can take a look at. Mr. Sciarabba- I also like Andy's argument too. Chairperson Sigel—You're not so fond of that, John? Mr. Barney—No, I'm not fond of that argument. 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Well, I don't feel strongly about trying to make that interpretation, so I will yield to our counsel's... Mr. Barney—Well, it's your call, not mine. The ordinance has some very specific revisions about restaurants and saying non, and it talks about I think in a couple places that allows a accessory use, a cafeteria or a lunchroom but not as a direct use, and then it specifically says in the industrial zone, the following uses are prohibited, and one of them is a restaurant of any nature, except for a cafeteria or other similar facility. Granted, a catering operation is not a true restaurant, since you have people coming in and sitting down, but it's close enough, that I guess if I were pushed I would argue pretty strenuously that that's what they were looking to prohibit. But, I think what we're talking about here, might work get over the hump here immediately of getting the authority to execute this particular lease, and in the interim period, I strongly recommend, Andy, that we take a look at amending the ordinance itself, and letting the legislature make the determination whether catering... because I don't think, quite frankly, you'd have a great deal of difficulty to get the Town Board to say catering would be a permitted use there, in which event this issue would go out the window in three years. Mr. Sciarabba- Some other things we would like to do is approach the Town Board about adding to the zone the allowed uses of the office park zone, which would then allow that. Mr. Barney—Right, yeah. Mr. Niefer—Approximately what percentage of the building is presently occupied? Mr. Sciarabba- About 27%, 28%right now including our office? Mr. Matthews —Is there a definition of industrial? You know I'm thick as pea soup sometimes. Mr. Barney—what's allowed is defined basically by what's permitted and what's not. And it allows any lawful manufacturing activity or any lawful activity permitted as of right in a light industrial zone. And then it goes onto list. But, notwithstanding that, several items are prohibited, including restaurants and motels and hotels and adult entertainment businesses, among other things. Mr. Frost—I went into the dictionary and got the dictionary definition of manufacturing. Mr. Matthews —That's probably different from Ithaca Zoning. Again, you know I'm Columbo on this board, I ask these silly questions. Mr. Barney—You ask good questions. Mr. Matthews —If someone has a business at that site and they take computers and repair them and take them back to the people's homes. What's the difference between fixing a 26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES computer and bringing it back to someone's home, as opposed to fixing a vegetable and bringing it to somebody's party. Mr. Barney—Well, I think you have to think in terms of what is traditional manufacturing and light assembly and that sort of thing. In a light industrial zone, light assembly is a permitted use, and by virtue of that it is also a permitted use in the industrial zone. Mr. Matthews —So I can't become legal tonight and say that you are preparing a steak dinner for someone is not the same as light assembly. Mr. Barney—I guess I would have to ask you the question: Is preparing a steak dinner more analogous to light assembly or more analogous to being a restaurant? And I guess I don't eat computers. I don't eat a lot of steak either, for that matter, but I think you're probably closer to that line then you are to the computer. Mr. Matthews —I'm trying to stretch here somewhere. Mr. Barney—More power to you. I don't make these decisions here, these are your decisions to make. I'm only giving you my view of law. Mr. Frost—Usually if our ordinance doesn't provide a definition, that's when I go to the dictionary. Mr. Matthews —Pardon? Mr. Frost—Usually if our ordinance does not provide a definition, specifically, I will go to the dictionary. It's the only other definition we have. Mr. Matthews —Is that official, that we use Webster's Collegiate dictionary for definition of a zoning practice? Mr. Barney—If you lack a definition you are to use the term that is commonly understood. Chairperson Sigel—OK, well let's try to move along a little bit. Mike, any comments on the environmental assessment report? Mr. Smith—The only think I mentioned in there is the accessory permitted use of the cafeteria lunchrooms seems to have similar impacts and requirements for parking traffic, deliveries hours that type of thing. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, seems like they have plenty of parking. OK, any other questions, comments from the board right now? OK. We'll open the public hearing at this time. 27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—Anyone wish to comment about this case? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel closes the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—And I will make a motion on the environmental assessment. I will move in the appeal of South Hill business campus to make a finding of a negative environmental impact based on the environmental assessment form prepared by Town staff dated February 21, 2005. Second? Mr. Niefer—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 008: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : South Hill Business Campus, 950 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 39.-1-1.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of South Hill Business campus, Andrew Sciarabba, appellant, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated February 21, 2005. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA- Chairperson Sigel—Ron? Are you voting? Are you against? Mr. Krantz—I'm not happy with that. Chairperson Sigel—With the environmental impact? 28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Krantz—Yeah. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Are you voting against it? Mr. Krantz—Yes, I'm voting against it. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah,please expound. Mr. Krantz—It may be stretching it a little bit, but it seems to me that you have a property here that is only rented 27%, that is going to be used for light industry, and I don't know that that is not going to create some pollution which is going to contaminate a kitchen. It may be pushing it a little bit and stretching it, but I think that's a factor. We don't even know what's going to be in the rest of the building. Chairperson Sigel—Well, it has presumably been safe when run as a cafeteria for people who worked at the building in it's former uses, but I agree, I think it's a good point. Mr. Krantz—Yeah, I'm not ready to hang my hat on that completely, frankly. But it would be a concern. Mr. Barney—I think you can be sure that any catering service is governed in part by the health department, and they come down and stick their thermometers in food and do all of the things they do in a restaurant to make sure there is not a contamination or a problem that way. So it's outside our scope obviously, we don't do that kind of regulating. I would guess that that's any catering establishment, am I correct in that? Mr. Matthews —So the health department would answer these concerns? Mr. Barney—I assume if they came down and saw dust filtering down from someplace upstairs onto the food, that would be the end of the catering business for a while. Ms. Holtzpower- Can I answer that question? Chairperson Sigel—Sure,just approach a microphone and tell us your name please. Ms. Holtzpower-Hi, I'm Stephanie Holtzpower(sp?), I own Serendipity catering, and I have approached Andrew Sciarabba to rent the facility, and I've talked to Carol Chase at the health department, and the kitchen is fine, and they feel like they would like us to move ahead with putting in our application for the kitchen. There is no issue that she sees with contamination within the kitchen. Mr. Barney—And she comes down and takes a look, or somebody from the health department does? Ms. Holtzpower-Yes, there is constant, constant reviews of the kitchen. 29 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—I hate to say this. 20 years ago, I worked for the health department, and in fact inspected the cafeteria and it was operating at NCR, so it's a routine. Mr. Barney—I don't know if that assuages your concern or not. Mr. Krantz—Yeah, I guess. I think it could conceivably be an issue, but it is certainly unlikely to be one, and there are some safeguards obviously. Chairperson Sigel—Changing your vote? Mr. Krantz—Sure. Chairperson Sigel—OK. And if there are no further questions or comments, I will move to grant the appeal of South Hill Business Campus, Andrew Sciarabba, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XX, Section 270-158 to be permitted to allow a food catering operation within an Industrial Zone, located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39-1-1.2. Said zone does not specifically allow such a use, with the finding that the requirements for a use variance have been satisfied by the applicant, with the condition that this variance be limited to a period of three years from ... are they starting very soon? Mr. Sciarabba- The lease they agreed to is about approval, for various we can say March 1, which is tomorrow. Chairperson Sigel—OK, for a period of 3 years beginning on March 1st, 2005. Any other? Mr. Barney—I think you want to make your finding with respect to meeting the conditions or the requirements for a use variance, that based on the information submitted tonight and that this project is in its infancy, and that at this juncture the building is not very fully leased, that for the next two or three years, it looks like it may be difficult to obtain a reasonable return. If they had to do the renovations and the like. So that that's the reason you're giving a time limited variance. Mr. Matthews —So what happens after the third year? Mr. Barney—After the third year, they have a choice. Well, a couple of things, as you may have heard, my recommendation to Andy was within that three year period, somebody come in and alter the ordinance, so we get rid of the limitation. They can have a catering as a matter of right or at least on a special permit basis. But if that doesn't happen at the end of the three years, they either have to move out and stop the catering or come back to this board and this board can take a look and see if the economics justify continuing it for a period beyond three years. That's not unheard of-we've had situations, I think the one that went on the longest was a parking lot up at Cornell, where 30 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES this board gave a variance for a temporary parking lot that was renewed at periodic intervals and I think it lasted for about seven years before they finally closed it down. Mr. Matthews —Will that three year temporary permit chill the tenant who wants to move in there? Mr. Barney—I can't speak for the tenant obviously, but I think in the grand scheme of things it's a realistic possibility that the catering would be a permitted use if an application was made to the Town Board to alter the zoning ordinance and stuff. I can't speak for the Town Board and I can't guarantee that, but they seem to be pretty reasonable about these things, and I don't know that there's a reason that they would want to insist that catering could not occur there. Chairperson Sigel—Call a vote on the motion, or a second on the motion. Mr. Niefer—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 009: South Hill Business Campus, 950 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 39.-1-1.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of South Hill Business Campus, Andrew Sciarabba, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XX, Section 270-158 to be permitted to allow a food catering operation within an Industrial Zone, located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39-1-1.2. Said zone does not specifically allow such a use. FINDINGS: 1. The requirements for a use variance have been satisfied based on the information submitted tonight. 2. This project is in its infancy and the building is not fully leased and for the next two or three years it looks like it may be difficult to obtain a reasonable return. CONDITIONS: This variance shall be limited to three years, beginning March 1, 2005. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 31 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—OK. Thanks. Mr. Sciarabba- Thank you. APPEAL of John and Ida Wolff,Appellants, requesting an approval under Article IX, Section 270-69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be allowed to have a psychotherapy office in a home located at 145 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2-39.10, Medium Density Residential Zone. Home occupations are allowed only with the approval of the Zoning Board. Chairperson Sigel—Good evening. Ms. Wolff- Good evening, my name is Ida Wolff. I am a psychiatric social worker, and I am here to ask for your approval to do psychotherapy in 145 Honness Lane. Chairperson Sigel—OK. This is going to be... the actual office that you use is in the basement, is that right? Ms. Wolff- There is an apartment in the lower level of the house, and those are the rooms that I am going to use. Chairperson Sigel—And you said you are just going to have one person visiting at a time. Ms. Wolff- With the exception of when I do couple therapy where two people come, the couple comes. But basically most people come for individual therapy. Chairperson Sigel—Does your property, is there room for parking... say a couple comes and they drive separately, is there room for two cars? Ms. Wolff- Yes, there is a two car garage, and behind that there is room for at least four more cars. Greg—My name is Greg [last name inaudible], I'm her real estate broker. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Greg - There's probably parking for ten cars. You can probably put six cars stacked in the driveway, and then two in the garage. Chairperson Sigel—OK. It seems pretty straightforward. Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Krantz—It seems certainly reasonable. Mr. Niefer—What would your normal hours be for seeing people? 32 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Wolff- I usually start at 10 in the morning. Chairperson Sigel— 10 until 5 or 6? Ms. Wolff- Five. Five or six. It really is dependant on the availability of the clients. Some of them work, so they have to come. Mr. Niefer—How many days a week? Ms. Wolff- Right now I'm working something like three days a week. OK, let me put that... I have a number of clients who would take me three days a week, but not all of them area able to come and see me within three days, so it may be spread out over five days, but I won't be seeing the same number. I usually don't see people Saturdays and Sundays. Mr. Matthews —How would the cars park in the back of that yard? Is there a driveway going back there? Ms. Wolff- There's a driveway in the front. Greg—The driveway is actually on the front corner, and there's a walkway that goes around the house and comes down the side, and then there's an entrance on the lower, southwest corner of the property, on the sidewalk coming around from the garage entrance. Mr. Matthews —OK, so you would park out front and walk around. Chairperson Sigel—Is it possible that you would see people in the evening? Say after dinner time? Ms. Wolff- I haven't done that, for psychotherapy, no. Chairperson Sigel—OK. And is it possible that you might see people on the weekend? Ms. Wolff- Sometimes. I have seen people on the weekends, but that is not my regular. This is if they are having some kind of crisis or emergency. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Matthews —Neighbors? Have you spoken to the neighbors at all about this? Ms. Wolff- We are not in this property yet. This is the property that we are buying, and we are not moving into this property until maybe in May. Mr. Matthews —So you don't know what the neighbors think about this. 33 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Greg—Right now the space is being used as an art studio... Mr. Ellsworth—I'm a neighbor, I live across from the church. I don't have a problem with it. Ms. Wolff- You know which property this is. Greg—We've spoken to one neighbor. [laughter]. Ms. Wolff- I have actually spoken to one neighbor who lives across the street, 146 Honness Lane. He said that there would be no problem, so long as we are not building any new structures or a parking lot, which we are not going to do. Mr. Matthews —If Harry says it's OK, I'm not can't argue with that. Chairperson Sigel—I don't foresee how there could be much problem with one or two people at a time coming. It sounds like the applicant wouldn't be opposed if we limited the time say to between 9 and 6. And that's maybe all I would suggest. Mike any comments? Mr. Smith—The one thing I was going to ask was about signage. I didn't see any mention about that if there are going to be any signs or directions or anything like that. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, were you planning to put a sign out? Ms. Wolff- You mean my name? No, I have never used that in 18 years of doing business. There might be a little arrow to direct people to the office. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Barney—Have you conducted this kind of business in another home somewhere else? Ms. Wolff- Currently, since 1987. Since 1987 I have been doing private practice in my current home. Mr. Barney—Which is not this building. Ms. Wolff- Which is not this building, it's at 109 West Upland Road. Mr. Barney—In the Village of Cayuga Heights? Greg—That's correct? 34 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney—And there's no signs or anything there? Chairperson Sigel—A sign is permitted right? Mr. Frost—If it's permitted by the, as a permitted use, which this would be if it got the approval, I think it's up to 6 square foot now, and then directional signs are exempt from the regulation. Chairperson Sigel—I don't see a particular reason to exclude a sign if we were to approve it. I mean a small sign is allowed by the sign ordinance seems reasonable to me. If she wanted to. Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8:30p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—If there are no further questions, comments, I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of John and Ida Wolf, requesting approval under Article IX, Section 270-69 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, be allowed to have a psychotherapy office at 145 Honness Lane. Second? Mr. Krantz—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? Board—Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 010: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : John and Ida Wolff, 145 Honness Lane, Tax Parcel No. 58.-2-39.10 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of John and Ida Wolff, appellants, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated February 17, 2005. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel—Okay and I will move to grant special approval to John and Ida Wolf under Article IX, Section 270-69 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, be allowed to have a 35 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES psychotherapy office in a home located at 145 Honness Lane, Tax Parcel 58.-2-39.10, Medium Density Residential Zone with the finding that the requirements for a special approval have been satisfied in regard to a home occupation and with the one condition that clients be seen only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Second? Mr. Niefer—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? Board—Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 011: John and Ida Wolff, 145 Honness Lane, Tax Parcel No. 58.-2-39.10 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of John and Ida Wolff, Appellants, requesting an approval under Article IX, Section 270-69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be allowed to have a psychotherapy office in a home located at 145 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2-39.10, Medium Density Residential Zone. Home occupations are allowed only with the approval of the Zoning Board. FINDINGS: The requirements for a special approval have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: Clients shall only be seen between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL of Conifer Realty, LLC, Appellant, Ray Wetherbee, Agent, requesting variances from Article XXV, Section 270-205 to enlarge a non-conforming multiple residence building with additional living space at the Ellis Hollow Senior Apartments,located at 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1.124, Multiple Residence Zone. Said existing building encroaches on building setback limits from property lines. Additional variances from Article XII, Sections 270-104, 270-106, 270-107, and 270-111 to exceed setback limits, building coverage in relation to lot size, and to allow a waste receptacle to be located within a front yard buffer zone are also requested. A variance from Chapter 221, Section 221-6 of 36 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES the Sign Law is requested to be permitted to have a second freestanding sign on the property (single sign limit). Tim Fournier, Owner of Conifer Realty I am Tim Fournier. I am one of the owners of Conifer Realty, which is the owner of Ellis Hollow Senior Apartments, 183 E Main St, Rochester NY. And with me this evening is Mr. Roger Langley on my right, a New York State registered architect with NH Architecture and Mr. Raymond Wetherbee, a project coordinator with us at Conifer Realty. Just a couple of comments are you want and then I can turn it over to the architect if that is helpful. Probably many of you are familiar with Ellis Hollow Senior Apartments, built in 1973 on the East Hill right next to the Plaza on Ellis Hollow Road. The building was built in 1973. Its tired and in need of really extensive rehabilitation to extend the useful life to provide affordable housing now for these seniors for the next 30 years. We were fortunate to receive a federal tax credit award this past year from the New York State Division of Housing Community Renewal that will allow us to do about a $3 million complete rehabilitation at the project. Some of the rehab improvements will be, one very importantly and its part of the addition that we are proposing, we will be able to include an elevator for this two-story building, which in 1973 built as senior housing did not include an elevator. Energy conversion from electric to gas. Windows, siding, roofing, gutters, new kitchens, new baths, common areas as well. In addition, we are providing a new community area. We have received conditional final site plan approval for this conditioned on the variances that are necessary here. This addition will also now include a computer room, a wellness/fitness facility, a doctor's office and a larger more functional community space. Our joint venture partner in this is Better Housing for Tompkins County and they will be assisting us with providing the supportive services for the seniors to, again, allow them to live independent longer. I think probably the most important thing here is that this proposed addition is not for the creation of more living units, but rather to provide a space that allows us to deliver these services to these seniors to again, our motto really is to allow them to live independently longer at affordable rents. With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Langley,just to go through the variances that we are requesting. Roger Langley, NH Architecture Just very quickly, a brief explanation of the existing building. It was constructed as a u- shape building with these two fronting sides. The majority of the tenant spaces, their living quarters, there are four units I believe on the second floor above what is currently the office and community space. Our goal is to create a new entry element including common spaces to improve the accessibility in the building as Tim mentioned. Providing an elevator to take the tenants up to the second floor level. Currently there is a stair lift over in one of the stairways, which really isn't that functional for a wheelchair bound person to move from floor to floor, and it being a senior's development that is very critical to provide these days. Also, this new addition will house all the community type facilities. A larger, more grandiose community space so that the tenants have a spot 37 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES where the majority of them can all meet together rather than right now it has gotten limited use to a little quadrance over there. Its got low ceilings, kind of dark, balconies very little, exterior exposure, no daylight, things like that. We are trying to create a very open and inviting community space so that these people have a location where they come and gather together and sit and chat with each other. Also, a computer room with access to the Internet and just being on a fixed income some cannot afford computers,provide that service for them. A doctor's office off to the side here. A convenient spot for a doctor to come in a see a senior resident without them having to get in a bus or find some transportation to try to get to see a doctor. Replacing the office area and providing a little conference room so that if office staff needs to meet with somebody who is planning on moving in or their family,just have a nice little convenient conference area. The two far ends are the more mundane necessary functions of mechanical spaces, trash collection, and things like that. What we are proposing to do is create trash collection in all four corners of the building making it easier for the tenants to be able to get to a spot without carrying the trash all the way down this long corridor. This way it is in the four corners of the building and very convenient for them to dispose of the trash coming down into shoots at the first floor level. That way it can easily come out and go across the way to what is proposed in corner is a dumpster location and then in the opposite corner a dumpster location making it easier for the maintenance people to gather trash and get it out quickly so that they don't have to bring it all the way through the building. One of the rooms providing HVAC needs because we are replacing the electric baseboard heat. We need a location to provide boilers for the facility. Of course we need a fairly big size because there are 104 units and its decent sized equipment so we need that area for that. What we are doing by closing off this end of the project is allowing a tenant that lives here on one side to, it's a short cut over to this side. Currently right now a tenant that lives here and a friend lives here has to traverse the whole length of the building two times and if they are on another floor they have to go up a flight of stairs. So enclosing it kind of creates a walkway all the way around the building. They won't have to go to the mall to do some walking if you don't want to. You can do some laps in the building. The second floor level. Again, connecting the corridors basically from one side to the other and providing trash rooms on each side that is all that second floor space is. Again, a convenient connection from one side to the other. Chairperson Sigel—So is the rest of the second floor going to be like a double height ceiling to the first floor or is the roof just going to be lower. Mr. Langley—This allows us to keep the roof fairly low except for over the community space where we are upgrading to a cathedral ceiling in that area. So that allows us to keep the roof structures on the side at a lower level. 38 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—What are you doing to the skin of the building? It's got that board and baton on it. Mr. Langley—The proposal provides greater ventilation through the attic space, a new roof over the entire building. Residing the entire building with vinyl siding. Here's the proposed colors right now a white vinyl shake and some of the accentuaries, you know there are sort of bays as you go down the building, accent those with white vinyl shake. Then kind of tan, light brown siding on the rest of the building along with corner accent trim,putting aluminum over the faces, vinyl gutters throughout the entire building to collect the rain waters instead of just flowing out across the lawn areas. Then doing some painted accents. The main entry area that is a decorative sunburst type over the main entry. So the pink area is very small. Mr. Ellsworth—Are you eliminating some apartments there with that new entrance way? Mr. Langley—That center portion that we are adding is all addition. The dark edge area is all addition. That's all the common area. In so doing, there is an area down here where we are taking out the community space; we are taking out the office. That creates four boxes for the additional four apartment units. It wasn't the intention of the design. The intent wasn't to add four units, its just kind of a left over. What else do you with the space after you add all your community functions at one end, you don't want to do any more community functions down at the other end, you want all of those centrally located within the building. So the idea was to renovate this first floor level to four apartment units. Mr. Matthews —I'm a little bit confused. I'm sorry. I get confused easily. You are not invading the parking on the right side of the building, right? Mr. Langley—This parking lot? No. We are not going into that parking lot. Mr. Matthews —Okay. Here is where my confusion is. Your narrative said here you were extending the building 40 feet. Would you tell me where that 40 feet is,please? You are extending it 40 feet along the same rear property line. Mr. Langley—Currently the edge of the existing building, there is a stairway that sticks out to this point right here. This is the edge of the building we are building on. So that 40 feet is back at this point that we are coming out from. So from the stairplane we are coming out approximately 26 feet. Mr. Matthews —Again, the real property line is the line... Mr. Langley—The rear property line is down here. Mr. Matthews —That's the rear property line? Where's the parking lot? Mr. Langley—It's a corner lot so maybe...this is probably the rear property line. 39 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews - So where is the 40 feet we are talking about? Mr. Langley—Sorry. We are not going anywhere closer to the rear property line than the existing building. Mr. Matthews —So where are you extending the building? Mr. Ellsworth—To the east. Mr. Langley—To the east we are extending. Do you see this dark hatched area here? Mr. Matthews —That little corner? Mr. Langley—That corner right there. Chairperson Sigel—That is 40 feet right? Mr. Langley—That is 40 feet from west to east. Mr. Ellsworth—That leg along the east side, is that where there is parking? Is that out in the parking lot or no? There is parking along there now. Mr. Langley—This is an existing parking lot that we are going to fix and restripe. We are not coming out any further than the existing parking lot. Mr. Matthews —The sidewalk is still there? Mr. Langley—Yes. Mr. Niefer—I noticed looking at a couple of plot plans that the underground electric utilities come in through the open "u" at the present time with a utility easement. Now you are going to build above the underground the utility lines. You are going to build on top of them in the easement area. Did you clear that issue up with the utility? Mr. Langley—We have started discussions with the utility company. Obviously, they are not going to let us landlock their transformers. They will all be removed and brought outside the building to this front plate. Mr. Krantz—Do you anticipate displacing any of the present residents while this massive reconstruction is going on? Mr. Langley—No. We do not actually. What we are doing is actually we are going to have 7 to 8 units that are going to be available as we have had vacancies we are not going to re-rent those. We have done this before in 7 or 8 other locations now where we have done the rehabilitation in place and we will provide what we call lodge units. We will 40 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES actually pack the goods for the residents; pack their kitchens up etc, because we will be redoing their kitchens. They will probably be out of their apartments about 2-3 days and we will move them into a lodge unit and it will be fully furnished. Better Housing is helping us with that as well as our partner to provide supportive services. Activities will occur over in the old community space while we are doing the renovation and basically it will be like moving into a hotel room. If we get to a point where we have any other issues needing more space, returning units faster, we have the Best Western, which is actually the property that is our neighbor to the north that we will actually move people in there for a couple of days, but it is generally about a 2 or 3 day maximum turn around. Mr. Krantz—What percentage of the current 100 apartments have cars? Mr. Langley—We have 128 existing spaces. About 35% of the residents presently have vehicles. So we are... Mr. Krantz—And you are cutting from 139 to 118. Mr. Langley—What we have found since we have owned the site is that never more than 75% of the spaces are used on very rare occasion. So we find parking is actually excessive if anything for the seniors and there's a real elderly component. In fact, there's a frail elderly component that we set aside as part of the tax credit award for about 15% of the units. It will be 15 that will cater to a real frail, elderly component and the renovations that we are doing are going to allow frail elderly to live independently longer because we will also have some supportive services that will be brought in by Better Housing and using the doctor's office and those things that will allow the individuals to stay there longer. Mr. Niefer—I recognize from your write up this building is going to be completely sprinkled with an alarm system. In the past the fire department had ingress/egress to the courtyard area. In consideration of closing off the end, how is the fire department or the building department that has jurisdictional over building safety, how have they reacted to this or commented on the approval? Mr. Langley—I have had a discussion with the fire marshal. He saw no problem with enclosing that end of the courtyard. It's really not set up very well for them to access nor would they access that with a fire truck. His only concern was that we maintain an egress, several egress points out of that point yard either so that a tenant could exit into the court yard in an emergency situation and then be able to exit out again. So the goal is that any door entering this courtyard will be unlocked at all times. It's now a secure environment that they will be able to go in there and come back out the other side of the building. Mr. Niefer—You didn't feel that people living on the second story would want to escape from a window on the second story; they wouldn't have any assistance from the fire department to do that. 41 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Langley—As stated, there are access points through the building. There are a couple of central type corridor areas and you can see the walkways. If the fire is over here a firemen could come through the building and be in the courtyard. Mr. Niefer—So will there be something from some fire official that will say... Mr. Frost—Actually they wouldn't get a building permit if it were not code compliant. They actually have access on all four sides of the building anyhow. Mr. Langley—I think it is actually interesting as well that there... Mr. Niefer—It is going to be a unique building because we don't have very many court yard buildings in the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Frost—Lakeside Nursing Home has a courtyard. Mr. Langley—Yeah. There are 8 separate entrances into this building. There's two on the north side, two on the south side, two down to the other end and two there. So there is a lot of access in and out of the building. Mr. Frost—Often the design of a lot of the buildings really doesn't even accommodate windows as a viable means of egress. You take any hotel or multistory buildings you cannot even open the window. The building interior is designed to accommodate people going down stairs. Mr. Matthews —So if they ran out into the courtyard, they could still escape out of the building. Mr. Frost—The intent by design usually is not to count as a means of egress the courtyard, but provide enough passages to get out of the building without using the courtyard. In the design they determined that the occupancy of the building with the number of people, the number of doors, the distance traveled to doorways and stuff like that. Mr. Matthews —I have one question. Are you committed to maintain this facility as a senior housing facility? Mr. Langley—Yes, we are actually and as a senior affordable facility. As part of the award of the federal tax credits from the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal is a 30-year regulation, regulatory requirement that's deal fixed that will require us to maintain this as affordable for the next 30 years. Mr. Matthews —For 30 years? Thank you. 42 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Any other questions? I was wondering about on the application here and the use variance is checked. I didn't notice any...are you aware of any use variances that you are requesting? Mr. Frost—I don't see that. The only thing I thought in my thinking was in terms of going into the buffer zones. Mr. Langley—Yeah, in a nonconforming use side within the area variance. Mr. Frost—I think when they checked it off we was thinking...(not audible, Mr. Frost not speaking into the microphone). Mr. Langley—That's right. Exactly. We are not changing any use. We were looking at nonconforming use because of the area setback. Mr. Smith—In the narrative, also, it mentions expansion of nonconforming use instead of expansion of a nonconforming building. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Attorney Barney—I had just one question. I don't want to second-guess the designer, but when I had a mother in a facility somewhat like this the doctor's office is kind of off by itself. How do you accommodate people who might be waiting to see the doctor? Where would they go? Mr. Langley—It is fairly close to the community space and also if it is somebody who needs assistance or whatever they could use the conference area. Its still preliminary design and its something that we could look at further. By and large it is by appointment, the doctor coming in often times its my understanding that a tenant will be called from their apartment unit and the doctor is ready to see them. Mr. Forney—We also have it in the community space as well. There is often times where they end up sitting in there with their friends or they are playing cards or whatever might be in there waiting. Attorney Barney—I know the doctors in the area and having experience with my mother the appointment time quite frequently was not the time that the doctor actually got to see her. Mr. Forney—That's very true. This, of course, we won't be serving any outside. They would only being seeing residents of the that and a lot of times its also podiatrists as well that we are now finding that its better to do in the apartment unit that they are providing the service and they are going directly to the apartment units. So often times the office doesn't get used as much. That is a good point. I think the conference area will be one of the areas that will be used, but I think most of the time I think they end up sitting in the community room. 43 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Okay. I guess we need to enumerate all of the area and all the setback variances that you are requesting. Are there any...it doesn't seem like there are any new...you are extending the building a little bit on the rear and that's along the rear lot line, but that is just a continuation of the current setback, right? Mr. Langley—Correct. Chairperson Sigel—And then all the rest of the new structures is conforming, is that correct as far as the setbacks? Mr. Langley—That is correct. Chairperson Sigel—And that is a 20 foot setback? Mr. Langley—22 feet 2 inches. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Mr. Langley—I believe the existing building is 20 feet 1 inch. Chairperson Sigel—So if we said 20 feet that would be plenty. Mr. Langley—Correct. Chairperson Sigel—So is that it then as far as setback? Mr. Langley—I believe that is it. Chairperson Sigel—Then there is just the general expansion of a nonconforming building, nonconforming structure. Then there is the issue of a sign variance. Building coverage. Mr. Frost—And then the garbage dumpster being located in the front yard buffer zone. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. So we have the 20-foot for the new piece, multiple residence ratios, garbage and the sign. Do you want to talk a little bit about why you are requesting a second sign? Mr. Langley—Well the existing sign is down here at this corner. With the office function and the community space, everything down at the other end, we are kind of seeing this driveway at the eastern end as the new primary entrance so we would like to add a sign down at that end as well as trying to encourage traffic through this existing driveway, but knowing full well that people are creates of habit. The fear is if they don't see the sign there, they've always seen the sign there that they think something has changed or different that maybe the Ellis Hollow isn't Ellis Hollow any longer. So the idea was if 44 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES we could put a sign in that location, it would just be more familiar to everybody saying okay I'm at Ellis Hollow that is coming from the western direction. Mr. Frost—It makes good sense because the current sign now is kind of on the corner where people going down Summerhill Lane, not just to the Ellis Hollow apartments but to the apartments further down the road. Interestingly a business zone, which is East Hill Plaza, right adjacent to it can have two freestanding signs on a corner property. This is a corner property,just happens to be in a multiple resident zone. It does make good sense to offer the second sign at the second entrance. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Any question about the signage? I assume you are planning to make the sign the size allowed. Mr. Forney—I believe they are 24 square feet each. Chairperson Sigel—Mike, any comments on the environmental assessment? Mr. Smith—No. Most of the variances are preexisting things. Having the dumpsters being enclosed will improve the situation. Chairperson Sigel—Okay we will open the public hearing. With no one present, we will close the public hearing. I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance with regard to the appeal of Conifer Realty for the Ellis Hollow Senior Apartments for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment form completed by Town staff dated February 16, 2005. Second? Mr. Krantz—I'll second it. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? Board—Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 012: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Conifer Realty, 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, Tax Parcel No. 62.-2-1.124 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Conifer Realty, appellant, Ray Wetherbee, Agent, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated February 16, 2005. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews 45 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel—And I assume John that you would recommend separate motions for the sign as opposed to the other stuff or... Attorney Barney—Well if we had an audience out here screaming at us with a possibility of a law suit in the back of our mind I would do it, but given what we have here, I would be perfectly comfortable if you want to do it all in one. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. I will move to grant the appeal of Conifer Realty requesting variances from Article XXV, Section 270-205 to enlarge a nonconforming multiple residence building with additional living space at Ellis Hollow Senior Apartments, 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, Tax Parcel 62.-2-1.124, multiple residence zone with additional variances from Article XII, Sections 270-104, 106, 107, and 111 to exceed setback limits, building coverage in relation to lot size and allow a waste receptacle to be located within the front yard buffer zone. Additionally, a variance from Chapter 221, Section 221-6 of the Sign Law to allow a second freestanding sign on the property where one sign is permitted specifically the variance is allowing a continuation of the building in the rear to have no less than a 20 foot setback to the rear property line. How are the multiple residences changing? Do we need to specify the new ratio? I could just specify the total number that it's being increased to 104. Mr. Smith—The current ratio would allow a maximum of 65.4 dwelling units and they currently have 104. Chairperson Sigel—So just say that this motion is granting permission to have a total of 104 dwelling units instead of the current 100 units where only 65 would be permitted according to the zoning regulation. Also, this motion is allowing the garbage receptacles to be within the front yard buffer zone. And lastly, the motion is permitting a freestanding sign at the second entrance to be no greater than 24 square feet as allowed in the sign law with the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied in the case of the area variances and the requirements for a sign variance has been satisfied in the case of the sign variance. Any suggested modifications? Okay. Second? Question? Mr. Niefer—With regard to the trash receptacle and enclosure in the front yard, there is no comment or suggestion about some minimal landscaping, architecture around. Chairperson Sigel—I think that was dealt with at the Planning Board level. Mr. Niefer—I stand corrected. It just struck when I read through it that I was surprised or I couldn't see it, any reference to any plantings around the front yard trash receptacle enclosures. 46 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—What is the material actually going around the dumpster? Mr. Langley—It is going to be a board on board fence. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Is there any landscaping on the outside of it? Mr. Langley—I believe there is some existing landscaping down at the end but not specifically surrounding the dumpster. Mr. Krantz - ...it says that the proposal calls to for the dumpsters to be placed within wooden enclosures. So it doesn't really talk about trees covering or shrubs covering. Mr. Langley—One very important thing is that the elevation grade here. The road is approximately 15 feet higher than the parking lot elevation. While I could plant trees around it, you are pretty much looking over it at the building. We would be happy to put landscaping around it. When you look at the grade and why we selected that corner is that it sits lower in that corner and no one will ever see it because when residents drive in they are looking at the building and with that 15 foot grade distance it sits down below the road you don't see it from the road either. But quite honestly we would be the first ones to throw landscaping around it if we thought it didn't look well. We are happy to do whatever the board would like with that. Chairperson Sigel—You received preliminary site plan approval from the Planning Board? Mr. Langley—And final. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Mr. Smith—I think you can see from the pictures that went around, too, the picture from the road does show that it is a limited view in. Chairperson Sigel—I don't feel strongly. I tend to defer to the Planning Board on that kind of a matter. Second? Mr. Niefer—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? Board—Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 013: Conifer Realty, 1028 Ellis Hollow Rd, Tax Parcel No. 62.-2-1.124 47 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Conifer Realty, LLC, Appellant, Ray Wetherbee, Agent, requesting variances from Article XXV, Section 270-205 to enlarge a non-conforming multiple residence building with additional living space at the Ellis Hollow Senior Apartments, located at 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-1.124, Multiple Residence Zone, with additional variances from Article XII, Sections 270-104, 270-106, 270-107, and 270-111 to exceed setback limits, building coverage in relation to lot size, and to allow a waste receptacle to be located within a front yard buffer zone. Additionally, a variance from Chapter 221, Section 221-6 of the Sign Law to allow a second freestanding sign on the property where one sign is permitted. Specifically, the variance is allowing a continuation of the building in the rear to have no less than a 20-foot setback to the rear property line. This motion is granting permission to have a total of 104 dwelling units instead of the current 100 units, where only 65 would be permitted according to the zoning regulation. This motion is allowing the garbage receptacles to be in the front yard buffer zone. This motion is permitting a freestanding sign at the second entrance to be no greater than 24 square feet as allowed in the Ithaca Sign Law. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, in the case of the area variances; and the requirements for a sign variance has been satisfied in the case of the sign variance. CONDITIONS: None. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson 48