The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2005-05-16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MAY 16, 2005 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Jim Niefer, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; Andy Frost, Director of Building/Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner. ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: John H. Foote, 228 Forest Home Dr; Kristen Rupert, 228 Forest Home Dr; Ben F. Craig, FineLine Homes; Pamela Fairbanks, 935 Taughannock Blvd; Paul Fairbanks, 935 Taughannock Blvd; Kevin Howe, 173 King Rd E; R. Martin Newhart, 171 King Rd E; Tom Clavel, 215 Utica St; Dan Walker, Town of Ithaca. Chairperson Sigel opens the meeting at 7:04 p.m. APPEAL of Paul and Pamela Fairbanks,Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XXV, Section 270-205 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building located at 935 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-3, Lakefront Residential Zone. Said enlargement consists of a building addition to the property's east and south sides. The existing east side setback(rear yard)is >25 feet+ and the addition will result in a 20 foot setback(25 foot rear yard setback required). The south side addition will result in a new side yard setback of 15 feet+ (20 feet required, 18.5 feet+ existing). A variance from Article VII, Section 270-47 is also required. Chairperson Sigel—Please if you like, you can come to the table here and just start off with your name and address for the record. Mr. Fairbanks - I'm Paul Fairbanks, and I live at 935 Taughannock Boulevard. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Ms. Fairbanks - I'm Pam Fairbanks, and I live also at 935 Taughannock. Chairperson Sigel—OK, and you can begin with just a brief overview of what you are asking to do and why you need the variances that you need. Mr. Fairbanks - Well, as we summarized in the little article that we provided to the board, we would like to expand the southern porch which is right now a screened in porch, and we'd like to expand it an enclose it so that we can use it as living space and add on to the western portion which is currently vacant to add a small room off of there, and then a TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES third level, second level above the existing porch, so we would drop the ceiling of that porch. Ms. Fairbanks - Our house now steps up on the side of a hill, and we are on posts, we did that to avoid water dampness in the house, and so we have a half level step-up on each floor, and the main extension of our living room would be right where the screen porch is now, and then an additional room above that same footprint for the screen porch for a studio and a sewing room for me, and more living space downstairs. Chairperson Sigel—Anyone have any questions? Mr. Krantz—It's certainly no question you guys could use more space, we certainly appreciate that, but it's really pretty rare to even come before this board with an environmental assessment as negative as we have in front of us now... The staff believes the proposal as currently proposed could have adverse environmental impacts. Ms. Fairbanks - We don't have any of that information. Mr. Fairbanks - We haven't been provided with any of that information. Mr. Niefer—None of the staff has conferenced this with you before the meeting? Mr. Fairbanks -No. Mr. Niefer—Apparently they've been up there and looked at the property and so on, and neither in writing or in conference have they spoken with you regarding any environmental issues? Ms. Fairbanks -No. Mr. Niefer—I personally don't think it's particularly fair for these people to make an application and then at the last minute get an indication that their application is going to be denied for various reasons and they not necessarily have the opportunity to provide rebuttal or retain outside environmental experts or outside engineers to look at the concerns and perhaps come up with some rebuttal or alternative or other comments on it. Mr. Frost—I can't speak for why they didn't get a copy of the finding that was made by the planning department, I will say though, that probably a couple of weeks ago I did telephone Pam and indicate to her that she was going to have a problem with that and that she should be prepared for other alternatives besides the proposal. So why she didn't... I think ultimately the finding is made by the board, and this board doesn't always necessarily agree with the recommendations of the planning board. Mr. Niefer—Yes, but for them to be prepared to come in to present their case, their application, they need to have what you are going to throw at them, quite frankly. I mean, if I were sitting in their seat, I would be very unhappy quite frankly. 2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—I agree with you, but this should be no surprise to them, since I did telephone them. Ms. Fairbanks - I did speak to Andy, and I understood from him that a couple people had come out and looked at our property and we weren't there, we didn't have any chance to discuss anything with them. I think, I am imagining that the environmental impact you are talking about the creek bed that goes beside the house, and the way... Andy said something about us building out over the creek, and we're not coming close ... Mr. Fairbanks - We're coming close to the creek, but we're not even... if you drew a vertical line from the edge of the creek where there are several fairly old trees, I would say 50-75 year old oaks and hemlocks, that are stable, the bank is stable. We weren't even going to cut those trees down, we are going to leave those trees in place, and not even go over the gorge. Ms. Fairbanks - And we don't even need to dig any foundation, because our house is not on a foundation. Mr. Frost—May I make a suggestion, we can do one of two things, we can either adjourn the meeting, or we can let them go over their information, hear other cases, and if they are comfortable, come back and discuss it further, or just ask for an adjournment. Pam, I don't know what to tell you. I did suggest you call the planning department when we spoke on the phone a few weeks ago, it doesn't sound like that happened. Ms. Fairbanks - I had no idea that this was going to be written up. Chairperson Sigel—I think our next case probably won't take very long. We could just give you a few minutes to at least read that over and then you can come back and we can discuss it further after we take care of the next case. Mr. Fairbanks - OK. Chairperson Sigel adjourns the Appeal of Paul and Pamela Fairbanks until the end of the Appeal of the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Barney—Chris is going to talk to them a little bit about the rationale. Ms. Balestra—Do you need me for the next one? No. Mr. Matthews —Kirk, can we overturn the environmental impact statement if it's against them? Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, I believe we can make a finding contrary to what the town recommended. We would need to have justification for it. 3 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —Because what's written is fairly heavy. Mr. Krantz—It's really rare for us to see one like that. Chairperson Sigel—That's true. Is someone from the Town ready to do the next one? Mr. Frost—Dan Walker is here. Chairperson Sigel—OK. APPEAL of the Town of Ithaca, requesting modification of a previously approved variance from Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code for an omission of a sprinkler system from the Tutelo Park comfort station and pavilion located at 151 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-4-6.1, Low Density Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel—Good evening, Dan. Mr. Walker—Hello, Dan Walker, Town Engineer, Town of Ithaca, 215 North Tioga Street. Back in November you granted an appeal for a variance to eliminate a fire sprinkler system in the comfort station that's planned for Tutelo park, and since then we've modified the size of the building slightly, by increasing it in width by two feet and in length by five feet. I believe 5 feet. Mr. Barney—By five feet. Mr. Walker—two by five. Mr. Barney—Yeah, 27 feet to 32 feet is what it says here on the application. Mr. Walker—OK. And the primary reason for that was that, we've not had a ball field in the Town before, and we originally sized the building with the storage area we felt would be large enough or the equipment we were going to need, and when we started thinking about equipment more seriously, we realized we were running short of space for things like the lining equipment, the bases, and hand tools to maintain the field. We are going to be providing rakes and some drags and things for the teams to use. So we'd like to increase the size of the building. And the width is going to be used for a wet aisle between the two walls, so we can have all the piping for the bathrooms go into that, so it can be drained better in the wintertime. Chairperson Sigel—OK, seems pretty straightforward, any questions? Mr. Niefer—Just one question. Just a matter of curiosity, why do you have a four inch water line coming up the proposed location where all you're going to have is a couple of toilets. 4 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Walker—It's for the toilets but it's also for irrigating the field. We feel we'll have to irrigate that at times with sprinklers. Mr. Niefer- Underground sprinkler system? Mr. Walker—Not an underground sprinkler system,just hoses, and we are running a line all the way down to the pavilion that's planned for just maybe a drinking fountain and a spigot like you'd find in the parks, and it's cheaper to run a four inch line than it is to run a two inch copper line. Chairperson Sigel—OK, any other questions. OK, I will, I suppose I'll just re-move the motions... oh yeah, I will open the public hearing on this case. Anyone wish to speak? If not we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Chairperson Sigel—I can just re-move the same motions, John, with the dimensions? Mr. Barney—With the dimensions, that would work I think. Chairperson Sigel—OK, I will move resolution 2004-055, environmental assessment, with, that motion did not actually mention the size, so, I will just mention that the size has been updated to 19 by 32 feet. Second? Mr. Krantz—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 022 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Town of Ithaca, Dan Walker, agent, 151 Bostwick Road, Tax Parcel No. 31.-4-6.1 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Town of Ithaca, requesting a variance from the Code of the Town of Ithaca Chapter 225, Sprinkler Systems to be permitted to construct a Town park comfort station and pavilion without said system, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated October 28, 2004. The size of the building has been updated to 19 by 32 feet. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows- 5 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel—And I will re-move motion or resolution 2004-056, with the only modification being to finding number 2 with the dimensions changed to 19 by 32 feet. Second? Mr. Ellsworth—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 023: Town of Ithaca, Dan Walker, agent, 151 Bostwick Road, Tax Parcel No. 31.4-6.1 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Town of Ithaca, requesting a variance from the Code of the Town of Ithaca Chapter 225, Sprinkler Systems to be permitted to construct a Town park comfort station and pavilion without said system, at 151 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-4-6.1, Low Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: 1. The requirements for obtaining a sprinkler variance have been met. 2. The building is made substantially of concrete and is 19 feet x 32 feet. 3. It is a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship based upon the cost versus the benefit to be obtained in requiring sprinklers. 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—Thanks, Dan. Mr. Walker—Thank you. 6 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Krantz—I'll go ask them if they want more time. Chairperson Sigel—OK, sure. Inaudible comments APPEAL of John Foote,Appellant, Dan Strawbridge,Agent, requesting an approval under Article IX, Section 270-69 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to create a second dwelling unit above a garage located at 228 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-3-16, Medium Density Residential Zone. A variance from Article XXV, Section 270-205 may also be requested as said property and its buildings do not conform to the area requirements of the Town Code. A variance from Section 270-220 (net proposed enclosed floor area <600 square feet) and from certain requirements found in Section 270-69 is also required. Chairperson Sigel—Hope you remember all that. OK, yeah, please. I guess I'll begin by asking if you have seen the. Well I guess,please just begin with your name and address please. DS** - My name is Dan Strawbridge, I'm at 328 Fonthill (?) Road. Mr. Foote - My name is John Foote, I am the owner of the property and my address is 228 Forest Home Drive. Chairperson Sigel—And have you gotten a copy of the environmental impact statement prepared by Town Staff? Mr. Foote - No sir. Chairperson Sigel—OK, can you make a copy. We're getting you a copy here. It's somewhat unusual, but in your case also Town Staff had a number of negative comments as far as environmental impact is concerned about your case. Inaudible comments Chairperson Sigel—Actually, while you read that, we'll read what you gave us. Mr. Foote - OK, that would be fine. Or, would you like me to do just a quick description of what we are planning on doing? Chairperson Sigel—Sure if you want to do that. John Foote, 228 Forest Home Drive Yeah, let me do that, and that will give you some context for the packet I just gave you. Let me just very quickly tell you what the package is. The first page is some bullet point 7 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES facts about the property itself and also the project we are proposing. The second page is a map, not a site map, which you received in the application, but a map showing this part of Forest Home drive, which is taken from the Forest Home traffic calming program booklet. Which gives some relevant details regarding walkways, and so forth, retaining walls around the property. The third page is a photograph or two photographs of the barn itself which we would like to convert into a living quarters. And the rest of the pages are letters in support of the project from our neighbors as well as a letter from Historic Ithaca, who has visited the property, walked it, and feel that it is quite appropriate for this particular project, given the historic, residential nature of the community. Just in terms of some very quick points regarding the property and the project, we are located on Forest Home drive between the two one lane bridges. And we're just downstream from the upstream bridge, if you can envision that. It's a 1.3 acre property that extends actually between Forest Home on one side, actually on two sides, and Warren Road on the third. As with almost all the properties in Forest Home, both the main house and barn are... sit very close to the road right of way. Again, it's a similar situation with all of our neighbors. The barn itself that we are proposing to convert is separated from the road by a concrete and stone retaining wall that is constructed by the town probably many decades ago. It is approximately 20 inches high, and during that stretch between the road and the barn is in pretty good shape. Between the retaining wall and the barn is a 12-foot stretch of elevated grassy area, and in this grassy area there is what I call a community walkway. It is the primary walkway between the Cornell campus and plantations, and is very heavily used during the course of any day of the week for walking and running, and that walkway is part, in the traffic calming plan, is due to be improved into a more formal walkway approximately three feet wide that would make a more formal path along that part of the Forest Home drive to ensure that people are not in that roadway. The speed limit along the road I s10 miles an hour, posted speed limit, and in fact, you can see in one of the photographs, the corner of the speed limit sign that indicates 10 miles an hour. One of the concerns that we have heard from our neighbors is parking. Parking is a premium in Forest Home, and fortunately, we have in the last year improved the existing parking area that is situated between the house and the barn, and there is ample parking for this project. The project itself is the conversion of the existing second floor of this barn, a second floor that has been used at some point by a prior owner for a workshop or a work area, it's got a potbelly stove in there, in fact you can see an existing chimney out of the barn that was used in conjunction with that. But basically taking that space and converting it into a living quarters, bedroom, living/dining room, kitchenette, bathroom. And the barn itself is 20 by 30, so this would be a 600 square foot space, and one of the issues that was in the zoning notice was that this was, you needed a variance, because it was going to be less than the minimum square footage. Which, going back and reading the zoning rules, the rules are a 600 square feet and that's what we've got here. In fact, the barn is 20.5 by 30.5 feet measured again today, so I think we're well within the, we should be able to make that 600 square feet without a problem. The footprint of the barn itself will not be changed. We respect the historic nature of the community, we are not looking to enlarge the footprint, we don't need to we believe, we will however, be placing an external staircase on the barn on the side opposite from the road. Two reasons, for safety, and second is to keep it out of site, 8 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES basically from any passersby from the road, we want to make sure we ensure the character of the barn itself. The reason why we are doing this, and this was indicated on the application was that my wife and I, because of business obligations, split our time between Ithaca and Boston, and we are in Ithaca about 1/4 of the time, and we believe that it's for the safety of the property, for the well-being of the community, for the upkeep of the property, we'd like to have someone on-site full time, not just a quarter of the time when we are there. So we believe that the most expeditious way to do this is to convert this existing structure, which is a well-known structure in the community, and one that people want to see maintained, convert that into a living quarters. The other side of that is, as I mentioned, the barn is an old barn, and it requires upkeep, and a certain amount of investment to keep it there. And we believe that by converting it into this useful application, that we can justify making the investment in that barn and avoid the possibility of having to raze it at any future date. We have spent a significant amount of time talking to our neighbors about this property. Forest Home, as I'm sure you are aware, has a fairly active improvement association, and a fairly active sense of community. We have spoken, or communicated in some other way, directly with each of our neighbors, we have full support of the neighborhood. And those letters that you have in your package I think are representative of the reactions that we have received at this point. So that's our project. Again, we're not aware of any particular concerns of the town, other than the fact that the barn is situated close to the right of way, which, again, as any property on Forest Home drive, almost, has got the same issue. So, again, we were not made aware of any other possible issues. Chairperson Sigel—Well, Town staff identified principally, as you said,proximity to the road, also parking and emergency vehicle access to the house and the barn. I think you can see for yourself, on the third page, I think they put their major concerns in bold. Mr. Foote- Well, again, the parking, we are fortunate to have a very large parking driveway area, that is situated as you can see on this map. This map is done... inaudible... We actually enlarged the footprint of the gravel driveway... JC** - Sir, can you use the wireless microphone? Mr. Matthews —His voice projects so well, I don't think he needs it. Mr. Foote- Hello? Chairperson Sigel—You're fine. Thank you. Mr. Foote- So the driveway now is this shape, the full width of the barn OK, not just one length, the full width of the barn. So as you can see in one of the photographs, we've got two cars parked side by side right in front of the barn, we've also got this parking area adjacent to the house as well. Mr. Matthews —And the Planning Board knows that where you just drew the diagonal lines is parking area? 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Foote-well, it's all gravel. Mr. Matthews —That was all gravel? Mr. Foote- It's all gravel existing there now. When we bought the property two years ago, a lot of it was old gravel that had been overgrown. So, basically we carved it back to where it used to be in this area. Mr. Niefer—Is the inside of the garage suitable for parking? Mr. Foote - Well, it's open on the first floor, we don't use it for parking, and we understand that if, in fact, the second floor is to be used for living quarters, there may be restrictions against having cars in that barn, I've just heard that. It could be used for parking, we don't use it for that purpose at this point. Mr. Matthews —I have seen a sports car parked in there. Mr. Foote - Not since we've been there. Mr. Matthews —In the last six months I have. It was a small Miata I believe. Mr. Foote - That's not ours. DS** - We could do fire separation though between the living space so we could have parking in there if we decide to do that. Mr. Niefer—If the fire separation met code, that would provide some alternative, additional parking, assuming that they didn't store a lot of other things in there. Chairperson Sigel—With your parking area configured the way it is now, how many cars do you feel you have space to accommodate? Mr. Foote- We have accommodated up to five vehicles. You can put five vehicles in that space. It's a little difficult to move them around, you have to take them out one by one. But, there is ample parking space for five vehicles. Chairperson Sigel—And I assume, given the size of the second dwelling unit that you propose that you would only be renting that to a single person, who would have, at most, one vehicle? Mr. Foote - That's correct. I don't think it's appropriate for more than one. It's an efficiency apartment for one person. Mr. Niefer—will you be changing the exterior height of the building at all? 10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Foote -No. Mr. Niefer—Will you be adjusting the roof in any shape or form? Mr. Foote -No. Mr. Niefer—Raising the roof, keeping the same peak line, ridge line. Will you be raising the roof? Mr. Foote- There will probably be the need for a dormer on this side, so that the stairway access into the... Mr. Niefer—It looks like there could be questionable headroom on this second level. Mr. Foote- Actually the knee-walls on the second floor are about at this level. So if I stand two feet from the side wall, I've got full headroom. Mr. Matthews —A question regarding the main residence. There seems to be a concern about parking and egress into that very narrow road. Let me assume for a moment that you assume to rent the main residence out to people who would occupy a bedroom. How many people could be accommodated in that house? Mr. Foote - It's a three bedroom house, but again... Mr. Matthews —So theoretically, you could rent that house out to three students, is that correct? Mr. Foote - Theoretically, I guess... Mr. Matthews -Well, let's get theoretical, that's what I'm trying to do. So those three students could each have their automobile, is that correct? And you wouldn't be out of code having three people rent that house and have three cars? Chairperson Sigel—I don't think so. Mr. Matthews —The concern of the planning board is the present residence has two cars parked there, and this apartment will bring in a third car. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, I don't know if they specified how many, but they were concerned about the addition of a car. Mr. Matthews —So if he decides, if this gentleman decides to rent this house out, he is going to have three cars, theoretically he could have three cars already. And nobody could do a thing about it. Chairperson Sigel—That's true. 11 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —So, now he's saying I'm only having two cars for my spouse and I, and then the third car will be used by this person who will make this carriage apartment house. So there's three cars again. So that argument of the Planning Board goes poof, out the door. Chairperson Sigel—You mean of Town Staff. Mr. Matthews —So I discarded the parking problem, because Forest Home, as tight as it is, and my own wish is they built a road around the back and went through the golf course, but that can't be. My point that is driving me where I want to go here is one of the residents said something to the effect that by putting somebody in the barn—I've been in the barn a lot of times —but by putting someone in the barn, the owner is now going to be taking care of that historic building. And that's... history is kind of important to a lot of people, including myself. So discarding the three cars, all I'm troubled with now is that that barn stays whole. And this is what this gentleman wants to do. After the parking, there is no considerations here that we have to [inaudible] do we? Chairperson Sigel—Well, there is the issue of proximity to the side lot line. Mr. Matthews —To what? Chairperson Sigel—To the road right of way. Mr. Matthews —but it's already there, they're not making any changes there. Chairperson Sigel—Right, right, but one of the criteria for granting special approval, and this is something I actually wanted to get to. One of the criteria is that the second dwelling be located at least 15 feet from any side boundary of the lot. Ummm, and it does seem that there.... Mr. Matthews —The footprint's already there, am I right? Chairperson Sigel—Right, I understand that. Mr. Krantz—The environmental assessment is not totally binding on us, number one, and it certainly is not infallible. But when you read them saying that it is dangerous access for vehicles, and it is a hazard to pedestrians,potentially, that emergency room vehicles, emergency vehicles would have difficulty getting into the area maybe—that's really like three strikes. How do you vote and discard that? Mr. Foote - Well, the emergency vehicles, we're not changing any access to this property for emergency vehicles. We're not changing the way the driveway is accessed from the road. Again, it is what it is and people live there. We also have, in terms of the pedestrian traffic, this is a... this walkway here is well established and is part of the, in Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan, is to be formalized. And in fact, we have indicated 12 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES our willingness to the Forest Home Improvement Association to, in fact, make that investment on behalf of the community. To change this from a somewhat informal dirt path into a three-foot wide crushed stone with stone dust on top of it. There is no other place for pedestrians to go that is part of Forest Home, other than the road, and the road has no shoulder. And so, this,pedestrians will be moving between the road and the barn, in any event, unless it's fenced off, and I don't believe that's the issue. So pedestrian access, in fact, for pedestrians using the barn, that's why we're putting the primary access to the barn on this side 35 feet away from the barn, with the barn between the road and the stairway. So the parking and pedestrian access, and then the emergency vehicles again it's, there is actually two ways for emergency vehicles to access this property. One is through this driveway right here, and the other, if I can come over here, is through this, this is a grassy area right through here, that can access right between the barn and the house. In fact we have had maintenance vehicles, truck, tree-removal and so forth, use this route because of the tightness and traffic considerations on Forest Home Drive. Mr. Matthews —There's no wall there. Mr. Foote- There is no wall. This is at grade. There is, as a matter of fact, not even a curve here. Mr. Matthews —Mr. Krantz, with all due respect, this improvement on this carriage house, is not going to make a difference about the egress with regards to anything coming on that property. The only thing that you might have to consider is a person living in that carriage house, but there is a way to get that person out. Chairperson Sigel—Well, there is this potential issue of an additional vehicle. Mr. Matthews —An additional vehicle. I hope I have pointed out, and I hope people see my argument, that the owner of the property can already put three vehicles on that property and nothing can be done about it. Chairperson Sigel—That's true. The owner can put more than three vehicles. Mr. Matthews —So he doesn't even have to come down here to put more than three cars on that property. The concern is putting living quarters in that barn is the concern that I have and I don't see a problem with that. Egress doesn't mean a thing to me in this case, and he's already pointed out that he can come on that flat grass where I know he's talking about with the emergency vehicles and fire trucks. Mr. Krantz—Christine, as the reviewer, have your thoughts been altered by any of these discussions? Ms. Balestra—Well, honestly, I've only caught just a few minutes of it so far. I've been out in the lobby. But when planning staff went out on this site, it was a concern to us, the egress especially was a concern to us, because what you're doing, or what they are proposing to do it increase the existing condition, which, they could put three cars on that 13 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES property, currently, but, what you would be approving is for them to be able to put, for more occupants in that space, which would increase the use. And so therefore it could potentially increase the egress issue. You have a lot of cars coming in and out of there, it's a safety concern. It's around a very tight curve, and staff had some concerns about that for safety reasons. Mr. Frost—If I could throw in... I understand the fact that they could have as many cars perhaps as they wanted, living in the house, but the mechanism here is that they are coming to the board for special permit for an approval from this board. The board's giving them a decision,positive or negative, to allow them or not allow them to do something that has the potential impact. So, the town attorney can maybe speak to that. To me it seems, while I'm not an attorney, that you're participating in giving them a decision that if it has negative consequences from a safety standpoint, then, in my mind you've participated in that decision. And I don't have anything to do with the findings of the planning department makes. I think also what they are saying is not just so much that cars coming in and out of the property as well as cars on the public road that are coming by at any given time for someone who is going in and out of the property. So I think the hazard conceivably is created in two directions, the people on the property going out onto the road, and people on the road going past the property. Mr. Niefer—But in effect, you're only adding one possible car. Mr. Frost—I mean, I don't make these decisions, but I think... Ms. Balestra—We don't know. Mr. Niefer—I think if they're entertaining for instance at the present time, if they elect to have a dinner party, and have five cars in that parking area, so be it.... I mean there's nothing.... Mr. Frost—But this board has to have a discussion.... Mr. Niefer—They have the latitude to do something like that, so in retrospective, one car for a rental property doesn't add anything of any significance to hazard ingress and egress... [cut off by Mr. Frost] Mr. Frost—I don't vote, so one way or another, it's you're vote, but you don't give them a permit to have their party with their guest. You're entertaining giving them a permit to put an occupant in a building that's already too close to the road. Ms. Balestra—If I may, also the board may want to consider the current owner is, I guess that they are not, they spend part of the time in Ithaca and part of the time in Massachusetts or something. Mr. Foote - Boston. 14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—Boston. This is the current owner of the property. Future owners may have many more cars, many children, many situations. So you need to consider the decision that you make based on what could potentially be the future as well. Mr. Niefer—It would be interesting to have open for the public hearing to see whether or not there is anyone that has any comments from the public, because, based on my experience, Forest Home has been very attuned to what takes place in their community, and they are not reluctant to express their view one way or the other. So, I'll withhold further comment until the public hearing, if there are any, have a chance to speak. Chairperson Sigel—OK, I would just like to address one final issue before we do that, and that is the issue of the setback. Now it seems to me, this lot is somewhat unusual, in that the lot appears to extend to the centerline of the road, right? And so, the setback from their lot boundary is 22.7 feet. Mr. Barney—Yeah, setbacks do run from the highway, from the pavement. Chairperson Sigel—They do run from the... Mr. Barney—Actually they do run from the highway right of way line. The highway in here is actually by usage, I don't think this was a deeded road to the town, but the usage clearly includes the paved area, if not something off the paved area, so I think when you go to the setback, it's usually measured from, at a minimum, the edge of the pavement and maybe even a little out from that. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Frost—We have some properties where actually they show the right of way line running through the buildings on Forest Home Drive. Chairperson Sigel—Right, right. I mean it doesn't feel right to measure the setback from the middle of the road, since most properties don't. Mr. Barney—Somewhere in this morass of material it talks about a defined definition of where you measure it from and it's from the highway right of way line. Chairperson Sigel—OK, so then by the definitions of our zoning ordinance, they are set back at least on the road side of the barn is essentially zero to the right of way, and in fact, it looks like it clips the barn a little bit. OK. So I just want to point out to the other members that one of the criteria for granting special approval for a second dwelling unit is that the second dwelling unit is located at least 15 feet from any side boundary line and from the line that we measure from, to get that distance, this, the barn is actually negative... I mean it's over the line, it's over the road right of way. So, they have no setback. Mr. Matthews —They have no setback. 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—And one of the requirements — Mr. Matthews —For? Chairperson Sigel—For giving special approval for a second dwelling unit is that it be 15 feet. Mr. Matthews —Constructing a new building, or one that is existing? Chairperson Sigel—No. A second dwelling unit in a building other than the principal building,provided that.... So, allowing... this is not, this is not the criteria to allow you to build a new building as a second dwelling unit, this is just the criteria to allow a second dwelling unit to be created. Whether it be in a new building or an existing building, either way. Mr. Matthews —OK, it, does that have any flexibility with an existing historical building? Chairperson Sigel—Well, I guess, as with anything, John, we could grant a variance. Mr. Barney—It's an area variance. Chairperson Sigel—So we would be granting a special approval to allow the dwelling at all, and then we would on top of that need to then of course grant an area variance for having it be over the line. Mr. Matthews —But if the building is already there and it is considered historical site, do we have any allowance to bend the rule as it were. Chairperson Sigel—Well, I mean, no greater allowance than we ordinarily have, which is we have the power to grant variances. So, we do have the power to grant the variance, if we find that the criteria for it have been met. OK, any other comments before we open the public hearing? No, Christine, did you want to say anything else? Ms. Balestra—I don't think so, right now. Chairperson Sigel—OK, We'll open the public hearing. Did anyone come here to speak about this case? Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Mr. Frost—I do have this advertised which permits two issues which you haven't discussed. The section 270-220, which requires the floor area to be over 600 square feet, and at the end of this particular written notice, it does say that variances from certain 16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES requirements found in section 270-69 is also required. So, you have the opportunity to vary any of those sections, components of the sections you want. Chairperson Sigel—The applicant indicated that it would be a little bit over 600 square feet. Mr. Foote- The dimensions of the barn are 20.5 by 30.5. Mr. Frost—I think we're talking about interior living space, but it's up to you to decide, based on the [inaudible] Mr. Matthews —What is the point that Andy is bringing up? I'm sorry. Chairperson Sigel—There is a requirement that, is it any dwelling unit? Mr. Barney—yeah, any dwelling unit has to be 600 square feet or larger. Chairperson Sigel—Any dwelling unit has to be 600 square feet or larger, and it appears that I guess depending on how you... Mr. Frost—Well, I've got a sketch here on this map, 20 by 30, is that 600? Mr. Barney—That's 600. Mr. Frost—And we're not counting the outside, we're talking about living space, so the walls and the wall cavities don't count, at least on the exterior walls, so... we're just looking at the sketch that, Dan, you submitted, which says 20 by 30. DS** - That's the outside. Mr. Frost—yeah, I know. So, obviously on the inside, it's going to be less than that. Mr. Foote- The outside is 20.5 by 30.5. So, we're right at that. Mr. Frost—But we're not counting, again, the exterior wall cavities don't count. Chairperson Sigel—So if you subtract off approximately half a foot, I mean they're certainly pretty close. Mr. Frost—Yeah, it's up to you to decide. Chairperson Sigel—I mean, that certainly wouldn't do it for me, I mean, [inaudible], but, so it appears that they are very close to the 600, we might need to grant a variance to allow, I mean we could allow the plan as indicated in case it was a little bit under. Now, what was the 270-69? 17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—Well, that was just the other things, the very things I think you were... Mr. Barney—The fifteen foot side yard setback. Mr. Frost—So if you wanted to vary any of those requirements, like the 15 foot and so forth, you can do that because I have so advertised it. If you choose to do that. Chairperson Sigel—OK, right, any other questions, comments, discussion? Mr. Ellsworth—What is the extra side yard setback? Chairperson Sigel—The setback of the barn from the road right of way is zero, actually it encroaches slightly into the road right of way. Obviously it doesn't encroach into the road itself. But as, what Andy and John says, as the ordinance defines the setback, it's essentially zero. Mr. Foote - If I can make one, two comments. The effective setback is that strip of grassed property with the path and that's 12 feet wide. It's elevated off the road by a 20 inch stone and concrete retaining wall. So, it's fairly well protected from the roadway, which again, is also posted at 10 miles an hour at that stretch. If I can make one other comment, and that is that I had to do a fast read of this report, and it indicates in the recommendations, it says "recommended the applicant explore other options to accommodate the apartment, for a way to provide better vehicular access and additional on-site parking." Well, the only really options to accommodate the apartments, is to A, alter the footprint of the house, which we're back to the same problem with the setbacks, or to raze the barn, and put a new dwelling 15 feet back from the right of way line. And what we're trying to do here is not take that, what we feel is an irreversible and fairly dramatic step, to lose what is, a lot of people in the community believe it is one of the totems of Forest Home. Now, we can meet both the historic considerations of the town, again, that is why we want historic Ithaca involved here, as well as meet our own particular need of safety and maintenance by requesting this particular variance, which we believe will stand muster when measured against certain very important safety considerations that you are thinking about. Mr. Matthews —but the setback has been there for 100 years, correct? Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, yeah. Mr. Matthews —So our concern is...? Chairperson Sigel—But the point is that the, and no one is trying to claim that the barn should be torn down because the setback is deficient, but, you know, it is not our job to write the laws,just to enforce it, and the people who decided to allow second dwelling units, decided that there should be at least 15 feet from any side setback, you know, for a building that is going to have a second dwelling unit. And at least for me, I consider it to be a significant problem that the setback is zero. 18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —You consider it a significant problem? Chairperson Sigel—Yes, zero versus fifteen I consider to be a significant problem. Mr. Matthews —So, the variance we are voting on, please clarify for me, ... Chairperson Sigel—You mean, what do they need as far as approvals? Mr. Matthews —Yes, what am I voting against or for? Chairperson Sigel—Well, they need a special approval to allow the second dwelling unit, and then subsequent, as part of that, they would need a variance to allow it to be less than 15 feet, and what else is listed, Andy? Mr. Frost—The 600 square foot, I mean I don't feel too strongly how you do that. I don't know what the square footage is, it may be less than 600. Chairperson Sigel—And then there is the issue that it may be slightly under 600 square feet, but not by much. I don't think it would be much under if any. Mr. Frost—I don't feel real strongly about that one. Mr. Matthews —He'll have to use thin wall-board. Mr. Barney—He'll have to use smaller than 2 x 4's too, if he's got half a foot, he can only use 2 x 3's. Mr. Niefer—This is a question,perhaps. Is the exterior of the building going to be changed, different siding or anything else put on? Mr. Foote -No. Mr. Niefer- Same siding? Are the windows going to be changed on the first level, are they going to remain the same? Mr. Foote- The first level will remain exactly the same. You can see the windows in the one of the photographs the windows that face the house we will probably put in a energy efficient window, but with the same 3 over 3 pane. DS** - We might just put a storm window on it, too, so historic Ithaca doesn't have a problem with that. Because sometimes they don't even want you to take the window out? Mr. Niefer—And the window on the end of the building towards the bridge, the closest bridge, will that be approximately the same size as the... 19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES DS** - Exactly the same size. Mr. Niefer—It looks like there are a couple double doors facing the road, are those going to remain there the way they are? DS** - Right, the only thing that we would change is on the opposite side of the barn is where we would put in that stairway, and the small new dormer, right. So it would not affect the appeal of the road. Mr. Niefer—Well, I think it's rather significant that there is no one here from the Forest Home Association or Group, or interested group to make any negative comments about this. Mr. Barney—Have you opened a public hearing yet, do we know that? Chairperson Sigel—We did. Mr. Matthews —Yeah we did, we do have letters in the pack supporting it. Chairperson Sigel—yeah, we have letters of support and no apparent indication of any... Mr. Niefer—negative comments from the community, and I think that says something about community feeling towards this effort this gentleman is proposing. Ms. Balestra—Can I just ask a question of the applicant, regarding this application? Chairperson Sigel—Please. Ms. Balestra—regarding the staff recommendation that we had, or non-recommendation as the case were, our main concern regarding the safety was that if it was possible to have an alternate access to this site... you had actually stated that there was a grassy area adjacent to the house. We were actually looking at that area as well. Is that at all a possibility for adding a small gravel parking area for additional parking. Mr. Foote- On the side yard between us and the chapel? Ms. Balestra—Yes. Mr. Foote- I guess anything's possible, but we try to maintain the green space in Forest Home as well, and again that parking area, again, we've had 5 or 6 cars in that parking area without. Ms. Balestra—I'm surprised. Mr. Foote - Come by on Saturday night. Without a problem. Again, you have to move cars around to get them out, but just finding them a place to park, it is not a problem. 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—I just wanted to clarify that that was something that we wanted to hear before the board to have it explored. Mr. Niefer—Well, I will repeat my comment that I really think the first floor should be made available for inside parking in conformity with code requirements. If that could be done, which I think no one has indicated that it couldn't be done, I don't know whether Andy has any input or not, but as a provision for approving this, I think it would be more palatable. Mr. Frost—you're basically saying,put a new garage in under this apartment? Mr. Niefer—Yes. Mr. Frost—It could be done. Mr. Barney—In fact, under the building code, wouldn't have to be done, if this were granted? Mr. Frost—The garage? Mr. Barney—Well, it's a garage as it stands now, basically. Mr. Foote- It's used for storage. Mr. Barney—But it's nevertheless a garage. Mr. Frost—Does it have a garage door going in, I don't remember? Chairperson Sigel—Well, the doors along the parking area are large enough to pull a car in. Mr. Frost—Well, I mean if it looks and smells like a garage, it will need the fire separation. Chairperson Sigel—So I guess even if you don't plan to park there... Mr. Foote- That's fine, if that's a condition, we're happy to have parking Mr. Niefer—Well,parking and so on seems to be an issue, and that's one possible solution to the parking issue. Chairperson Sigel—Do you think it would be required? 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—Well, if it looks and smells like a garage in there, without having been in it, that's got nice garage doors, it will have to have a separation, that's really minor construction element. Mr. Matthews —The planning department wouldn't have any problem with that? Ms. Balestra—It's a solution, I hadn't heard that, that must have been when I was out there. Chairperson Sigel—Any other questions? Comments? OK, well, if it's the board's inclination to approve, then we need to make a motion on the environmental assessment,. Which we obviously can't use the reasons stated in the town staff...Could you give us some suggestions, John, it's pretty rare to have a pretty negative Town Staff. Mr. Barney—That's because Chris is doing it now instead of Mike. Ms. Balestra—No, Mike and Chris collaborated on all of this. Mr. Krantz—Do you think it's the board's inclination to approve? Because it's not mine. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Krantz—I very frankly feel that a building that already encroaches on the right of way, it's not even a question of it's less than 15 feet, it's no feet already, and we're going to add a tenant and another vehicle in the face of an environmental assessment that says it's dangerous for vehicles, it's a hazard for pedestrians, and that emergency vehicles don't have proper access to it, it doesn't get my vote. Chairperson Sigel—My main concern is also the setback being zero, and my inclination is against it. Mr. Krantz—I think that the gentleman presented your case very well, and in the last analysis, it probably isn't going to make a heck of a lot of difference whether there's one tenant in that building or not, but still, how do you disregard an assessment like that? Mr. Barney—I would point out that if somebody chose to, they could put an apartment in the existing building, the existing dwelling. Mr. Frost—No they couldn't, they would have to go to the zoning board because it's a non-conforming property, they would need a variance. Mr. Barney—Non-conforming because, not of use, because of location. Mr. Frost—Right, and if it's an undersized building lot, it's also limited by the ordinance to a single family... 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney—I don't think it is an undersized lot, though, is it? Mr. Frost—I don't know, I don't have it... Mr. Barney—What's the size of the lot? Mr. Foote - 1.3 acres. Mr. Frost—But they would still need because it's non-conforming, again, because of setbacks, to come to this board, that it's not a by right thing either in that particular... Mr. Barney—I would be very loath to stand up in front of a judge and say he couldn't... [inaudible] Mr. Matthews —Kirk, would you explain to me your reasoning for speaking about the egress of the emergency vehicles in regard to the setback? Chairperson Sigel—I don't know, can you say anything, Christine? Mr. Matthews —It's a tight driveway now with the retaining wall, but I doubt very much even if you could get a fire truck there at the present time. Chairperson Sigel—I would assume that if there were a fire there, that the... Mr. Matthews —So the setback of the carriage house, I don't see what that has to do with an additional safety hazard. Chairperson Sigel—I don't think it's necessarily safety, it's just a requirement in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Balestra—There were two separate issues, in our analysis, the setback was one consideration, the egress and ingress was another consideration. Mr. Matthews —I think, maybe I'm thick tonight, I often-times am, the setback has nothing to do with the tenant in that carriage house. Chairperson Sigel—Ummm, well except that it's a requirement that a second dwelling unit have a fifteen foot setback. Mr. Matthews —We deal with requirements a lot and we give variances for that. Chairperson Sigel—Harry? Mr. Ellsworth—I am concerned about the setback issue, also. Chairperson Sigel—OK. 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Concerned enough to vote against? Mr. Matthews —Again, can I ask Mr. Ellsworth, what's the concern with the setback and having that place as an apartment where somebody can live? Mr. Ellsworth—Well, it's one of the requirements for special approval. Mr. Matthews —I understand that, but what does that have to do with the safety of a person living in there or the quality of life? I don't understand that. The house is already there. The building is already there. The reasons for wanting to put somebody in that building is somewhat safety, in fact, in that the larger residency is going to be watched, and secondly form an historical point of view, they are able to maintain that barn by having somebody live in it and pay rent. Chairperson Sigel—Well, the 15 foot setback is not necessarily one of safety. Mr. Matthews —It is for? Appearances sake? Chairperson Sigel—Partly, I think, yeah. I mean, why do you have setbacks at all? Mr. Matthews but it's already tight there, we're not changing that by putting someone in that carriage house. Chairperson Sigel - That's true. Mr. Matthews —It's already a tight area. Mr. Frost—But you're still giving an approval based on certain criteria that are not met. Mr. Matthews —I understand that, but you know, I am not a bureaucrat. Ms. Balestra—Who's the bureaucrat here? Mr. Niefer—We are all the time flooded with the setback situation, we're going to have one later this evening on a ten foot versus fifteen foot setback, and we're going to be asked to grant a variance on that? Why can't we grant a variance in this situation? On the setback? Mr. Ellsworth—Well, this is fifteen foot versus zero in this case. Mr. Frost—Why deliberate...? Mr. Niefer—We're not changing the footprint of the building that we are talking about one bit. The building is going to be there today, tomorrow and next week whether we grant this or not. 24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—But why do you even deliberate on any particular case. In many, in all the ones I've ever seen where a variance is granted, it's based on the particular components of the individual case. In this case, you've got a house in Forest Home. In the other case, you've got a house out on West King Road or East King Road. I don't think you can draw a comparison, you have a side yard setback versus a setback on a road that's not an ideal location on a road and on a dangerous intersection. I think to ask the question if we are going to look at a variance with a setback deficiency up on West King Road, you can't compare that to the deliberations you do on Forest Home. Otherwise, why not just make a variance that goes across the board for anyone who comes in and want a fifteen foot setback? Mr. Matthews —It's not changing anything. Just putting a person in that place, does not change that setback. Mr. Frost—But it's not allowed by right, again, however this board votes is immaterial to... Mr. Barney—None of them are ever allowed by right, Andy, if they were we wouldn't be here. Mr. Frost—Right, but they're making a decision to put someone in there based on findings that you don't have all those findings being met. Mr. Foote- If I can add one thing. For someone who is walking that property, they would, and not having the benefit of the sitemap, they would think that there is ample setback, because the road is separated from the barn by a stretch of 12 feet at one end, 15 feet at the other end, and the retaining wall. People would say, well, your property line's got to be that retaining wall. In fact, our property line is the center part of the road, but it's just the fact by historic precedent or whatever, the road right of way goes past the road into almost every dwelling along Forest Home along that stretch. But if you were just walking that property, you would see this stretch of elevated grassed strip with the community walkway in the middle of it, and that stretch is again, at it's thinnest, 12 feet, at one end of the barn, and 15 feet at the other end. It's this... so that, from a visual perspective, there's, the side of the barn is sitting on the property, it appears truly that there is ample setback from the road, but again it just turned out that for whatever reason, when Forest Home was first developed, the property lines came to the center of the road, and then somebody decided the road ought to have a 22 foot space on either side of the road. But the Town built this retaining wall 12 feet from the barn, and I don't think that retaining wall as being, there aren't any plans to move that retaining wall, in fact there are plans to improve that retaining wall in situ. Mr. Matthews —You know, it seems to me that I've been educated for the little time that I've been on this board that we vote based on the economic impact, on the visual impact, the wishes of the community, and not because it is a law. We are a law a board of variance, we are saying, we are making a judgment call whether or not this request is 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES economically harmful to the community, visually harmful to the community, does it have the support of the community. And I think we ought to consider that and not this rule that, using the poor analogy, well a doughnut has to have a hole in it, therefore it's not a doughnut. If it has to have a setback of a certain number of feet, we are given the allowance to vote an approval taking that into consideration. It's not an absolute. We've done that before. Mr. Barney—Criteria for an area variance are: "Whether an undeniable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance", first criteria. Second, "Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance." The third one is "whether the requested area variance is substantial," and fourth is "whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district," and five "whether the alleged difficulty was self-created,"which is relevant but not determinate. And you know, you look at Forest Home, I don't know how many of those houses comply with any setback requirement, let alone the setbacks you have. If you go up on East King Road where you're talking about, you have houses that are setback 25 and 30 and 40 and 50 feet from the road, and so it makes some sense to look at what the setback requirements are and what the variations are for... but here you have a building which sits,probably, with reference to the street right of way line, the exact same place that probably 85% of the buildings do, at least along this stretch of Forest Home, so I don't see that you are adversely effecting the character of the community by considering granting an area variance. Having said that, it is clearly your decision, I am not a policy maker and I am not arguing necessarily for one reading or another, I just, when I hear you make your decision, I want to feel comfortable that if I have to defend it, should somebody challenge it in court, that I can do so. And I just want to point out that that character of the neighborhood is a significant element, and just think of what the character of the neighborhood is, and how this building impacts it or favorably? Mr. Frost—Are they granting an area variance or a special approval? Mr. Barney—Both. In order to get to the special approval, you've got to grant an area variance for the location of the building. Ms. Balestra—Because then there's the special approval criteria to consider as well. Mr. Barney—That's correct. Which also include an element of what effect it has on the character of the community. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, I am tending to agree more with your point of view I think, Dick. Mr. Matthews —Thank you. 26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—I think if they, as it seems that they would have to, make the area underneath the first level of the barn parking, legal parking, since it is.... Mr. Matthews — [inaudible] Chairperson Sigel—Since it is already, essentially a garage, it would seem to provide certainly significantly more parking than many of the homes in that area have, and Forest Home is, as you've said, a unique area with homes that have been there for a long time, and predate the zoning by quite a lot, and maybe it is asking too much to, in this case at least, to have it, to hold it to that standard. Mr. Matthews —Thank you, Kirk. Chairperson Sigel—So ummm.... Mr. Krantz—Would that require the proposal then, to add a garage underneath, to utilize the garage...? Chairperson Sigel—Well, I don't—from what Andy indicated, they would have to actually make it a legal garage, anyhow as far as fire separation, because it can be used as a garage, it needs to then... Mr. Ellsworth—Well, it has been with that boat storage. There has probably been gas in there. Chairperson Sigel—Obviously, we can't require them to pull the cars into it, but I think whether we say so or not, whether we add the specific requirement or not, I think it would have to be made a legal garage. Unless it was made into something different, like interior living space. Mr. Frost—Again, I don't see that as an issue, I mean, it would have to comply with the code, and I'm confident that it will be built according to code. Chairperson Sigel—So, umm, I don't think the parking is that big a concern for me, personally, because they do have a decent amount of parking in there. So. OK, so in making an environmental determination, John, how would you suggest it? Mr. Barney—Well, what I would suggest you might want to do, is you have Chris' write up, but you also may want to take a look at one of those short form. I picked up the one that happened to be the next one, and just work through the form C 1 —C 7, and just make sure you're comfortable with the answers that none of them create an environmental significance...[inaudible]. Christy reminds me that actually you're supposed to look at a full EAF, so maybe we better go back there. Chairperson Sigel—Just because of the historic district? 27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—Right, because Forest Home is an historic district, according to State Law, you have to do the full environmental assessment form. Otherwise, you wouldn't normally be looking at all of this. Chairperson Sigel—Are the criteria substantially different, or is it just sort of fleshing everything out more? Ms. Balestra—It's more expanded. The only portions of it that staff commented on is number one, the impact on land; and number 12 and number 19, so maybe that's all they need to focus on. Mr. Matthews — 12 and 19 you said? Ms. Balestra—Number one, number 12 and number 19. Chairperson Sigel—Physical change to the site, impact on historic and archaeological resources, impact on growth and character. Ms. Balestra—And number 12 is just noting that the action is occurring wholly or partially within list, a place listed on the state and national registers of historic places. So that's nothing the board would really need to vote against, that's just stating the fact. So, really we're looking at number 19, actually. Mr. Barney—I think probably the way to approach it is if you were choosing to find that there is no environmental impact would be to deal with number 1, determine whether your comments are that there, I mean, clearly there is a conversion, but the question is whether that is an impact that is a small to moderate impact, as recommended by staff, or whether that's actually, small to moderate is OK. Is that the only...? Chairperson Sigel—Under number one, yeah, they didn't really. Mr. Ellsworth—It's because it's historic. Ms. Balestra—Number 19,proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals, and proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. That's where the staff went into detail about the special approval criteria and some of the environmental issues regarding community, character of community and neighborhood. Mr. Ellsworth—How does this affect the character, it's an existing building? Ms. Balestra—The specific underneath that item was "proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals," and so the adopted plans of goals included what we discussed, that they're requiring an area variance because they don't meet the setback. And the special approval criteria which are outlined. "Proposed access and egress for all structures and uses were safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for 28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES emergency vehicles." That's one of the special approval criteria that the board is to look at. There are others. Mr. Barney—Well, I think probably, you might want to make a motion to the effect that you find that while there may be a small to moderate impact with the conversion of the second story to an apartment house/guest house, because of the location of the building not being changed, the exterior structure not being changed, the intent of the use is no greater than what is permitted under the zoning ordinance, is substantial for the houses in that area, that it does not have a significant adverse environmental impact. That would be finding number 1. And as to item 12, you might consider that while it is in an historic district, and while it is an historic building, the anticipated change of use is not going to affect its physical characteristics in a manner that would alter its significance as an historic dwelling, and in fact, the changing the use to make it into a more economically beneficial use, would probably improve it to make it a more attractive structure within an historical district, consistent with the historical attributes of other buildings in the area. And then 19, make the finding, or consider making the finding that while it is in conflict with the zoning ordinance on its face, the deviation from the terms of the zoning ordinance is no greater than any other matters that are basically variances which have been granted over the past several years, that the deviation, while it deviates in the sense that it is a requirement, it doesn't meet exactly the requirements of the physical location of the building on the property is not going to change at all. The occupancy is not all that much different than if somebody were to occupy the main structure with a subordinate apartment in there. It will increase the density of the land use, but only by one additional person in the two structures which would, in your view, if you choose to make this finding, would not constitute a significant, adverse environmental impact. Have I covered everything? Ms. Balestra—Yeah, I think you have. Chairperson Sigel—Thank you. So I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance, for the reasons just stated by Mr. Barney, and in addition, all of the other non-conflicting reasons stated by the document prepared by Town staff in the long EAF form. Second? Mr. Niefer—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 024 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : John Foote, 228 Forest Home Drive, Tax Parcel No. 66.-3-16. Medium Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of John Foote, based upon the findings of this board 29 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES and in addition all the other non conflicting reasons stated in the analysis of the Town staff set forth in the Long Environmental Assessment Form ("LEAF") submitted in connection with this application. The following findings supercede contrary findings that are contained in the analysis in the LEAF. FINDINGS: 1. With respect to item 1 of the LEAF, while there may be a small to moderate impact with the conversion of a second story of the barn to an apartment house/guest house, because of the location of the building not being changed, the exterior of the structure on the roadside not being changed, and the proposed use being no greater than what is permitted under the zoning ordinance for many of the houses in that area, this board finds that the environmental impact in that regard is not significant. 2. With respect to item 12 of the LEAF, while the accessory barn is in an historic district and may be an historic building, the anticipated change of use is not going to affect its physical characteristics in a manner that would alter its significance as an historic building, and in fact, changing the use to make it a more economically beneficial use, would allow it to be further improved to a more attractive structure within an historic district consistent with the historical attributes of other buildings in the area. 3. With respect to item 19 of the LEAF, while the proposed use of the building is in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance insofar as the Ordinance ordinarily requires an accessory building with living quarters to be located elsewhere than in a front yard, in this case the deviation from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance is no greater than many other variances which have been granted over the last several years for construction of additions or decks within an otherwise required setback. In this case, the barn is already in a non-conforming location, and the proposed use does not alter or increase the non-conformity of location. The occupancy is not all that much different from an occupancy that could occur if someone were to occupy the main structure in a subordinate apartment, a use permitted generally in Medium Density Residential Zones. It will increase the density of the land use, but only by one additional person in two structures, which would not constitute a significant and adverse environmental impact. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Krantz 30 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES The MOTION was declared to be carried. Mr. Krantz—I will abstain. Chairperson Sigel—OK, four yes, one abstain. And, I will move...I will move to grant the appeal of John Foote, requesting approval under Article IX, Section 270-69 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to create a second dwelling unit above a garage located at 228 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-3-16, Medium Density Residential Zone; in addition, granting a variance from Article XXV, Section 270-205 since property does not conform to the area requirements of the Town Code; How should we handle the intertwined area variance and special approval? Mr. Barney—I think we would probably make some findings that would substantiate, if you choose to, the granting of the two area variances that you need to deal with, one is the 600 square foot internal enclosed floor area, and the other is the actually setback variance, it's not the side yard variance, it's the setback of the road variance. I'm not quite sure where the side yard is, but it looks like your 20 feet from any side yard. I think really it's that your not 15 feet away from the road that creates a problem. And, again, the findings could include the finding that the building is there, has been there for the last 80-100 years, and by granting the proposed special approval, you are not changing that physical structure in any way, or increasing its non-conformance from where it is presently. And with respect to the 600 square feet, I think we say it has an external dimension of 20.5 by 30.5, which means it has nearly 600 square feet internally, and maybe slightly less, and allow a variance down to 580 square feet, with the finding that that's not a significant deviation, and given the size of the structure and the historic district, and the desire not to modify the external aspects of the structure,particularly on the street side, which is difficult to use it for any other purpose by not granting the variance. Chairperson Sigel—With the finding that all other criteria required for the special approval have been satisfied. Mr. Barney—I think we wanted a condition that the structure be constructed in a way that permits the occupancy of the lower floor as a garage and the upper floor as a dwelling unit and meet the building code requirements for fire separation and any other building code elements to allow that to happen. Chairperson Sigel—OK, sounds good. Second? Mr. Niefer—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 025: John Foote, 228 Forest Home Drive, Tax Parcel No. 66.-3-16. Medium Density Residential Zone. 31 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of John Foote, requesting (i) an approval under Article IX, Section 270-69 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to create a second dwelling unit above a garage located at 228 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-3-16, Medium Density Residential Zone; (ii) a variance from Article XXV, Section 270-205 prohibiting a non- conforming structure to be altered in a manner to increase its non-conformity by allowing construction of a means of egress and a dormer on the side of the barn away from the road; (iii) a variance from Article IX, Section 270-69 C. (3) prohibiting an accessory building containing a second dwelling from being located in any required front yard by permitting a second dwelling unit in the existing barn in its present location adjacent to the Forest Home Drive right-of- way which is in the front yard of 228 Forest Home Drive; and (iv) a variance from Article XXVI I, Section 270-220 prohibiting dwellings from being smaller than 600 square feet by permitting the dwelling in the garage to be no smaller than 580 square feet. In granting this special approval and variances the Board makes the following findings- FINDINGS- 1. indings:FINDINGS:1. The barn in question has been in its existing location for the last 80-100 years, and by granting the proposed special approval, the board is not changing that physical structure in any way or increasing its non- conformance with respect to its location. 2. With respect to the requirement for 600 square feet of internal dwelling space, the barn has an external dimension of 20.5 by 30.5, which means it has nearly 600 square feet internally. The board allows a variance down to 580 square feet internally. 3. The special approval and variances do not grant significant deviations from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinances, and given the size of the structure, its presence in an historic district, and the desire not to modify the historic aspects of the structure particularly on the street side, it's difficult to use it for any meaningful purpose by not granting the requested special approval and related variances. 4. All other criteria required for granting the special approval (except for those modified by variance by this action) and all criteria required for granting the variances herein have been satisfied. The granting of the special approval and the related variances is subject to the conditions set forth below. CONDITIONS: 1. The conversion of the barn is to be accomplished in such a way that permits the occupancy of the lower floor as a garage for storage of motor vehicles, with the upper floor as a dwelling unit, and meets the 32 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES building code requirements for fire separation and any other building code elements that need to be satisfied to allow a garage with an upstairs dwelling unit to be constructed. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE ABSTENTIONS: Krantz The MOTION was declared to be carried. Mr. Krantz—I will abstain again. Chairperson Sigel—Ron abstains, OK. Mr. Krantz—If I can make just a comment, although I see the merit and the arguments for approval, I find it makes me uncomfortable to vote against an environmental assessment that uses the words "dangerous access for vehicles and a hazard for pedestrians." Chairperson Sigel—All right. Mr. Foote- Thank you for your time. APPEAL of Paul and Pamela Fairbanks, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XXV, Section 270-205 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building located at 935 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-3, Lakefront Residential Zone. Said enlargement consists of a building addition to the property's east and south sides. The existing east side setback (rear yard) is >25 feet+ and the addition will result in a 20 foot setback (25 foot rear yard setback required). The south side addition will result in a new side yard setback of 15 feet + (20 feet required, 18.5 feet + existing). A variance from Article VII, Section 270-47 is also required. Chairperson Sigel — We can return now to the appeal of Paul and Pamela Fairbanks. Sorry that was so long. Mr. Fairbanks —That's all right. Ms. Fairbanks — We talked to Chris out in the hall and one of the problems is that we weren't home when she came out, she and Mike came out, and I think that we've explained a little bit to her about how we would build this addition. It would be cantilevered off the current structure, which is one wooden posts on bedrock, with 33 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES concrete. The builder who built our house is going to build the addition and it wouldn't require any foundation or digging any closer to the creek bed. The other thing that we did do is a couple of months ago when we had a huge rain and huge flow in the creek we took a picture and then another picture a couple of days and I didn't make copies for everybody but I just wanted you to see. It's quite wide and it's quite deep and I've lived there through the two storms of 93 and 94 when the water was a foot and a half over our dock and it did not come close to coming to the top of the bank. I mean, I have never every worried about the creek flooding. And as you can see in that picture the leaves that were there from the fall before even in the worst of the rushing water were still up on the sides of the bank. Mr. Fairbanks — There's also myrtle that been (inaudible due to coughing) for quite a long time that hasn't been disturbed. Last year the culvert under 89 plugged up and they came by with a clamshell digger. The highway was flooded so that's about as much water as you can imagine being stored and coming through that pipe. It came through at full capacity and the leaves that are there are the leaves that have been there for years and years and years. There's humus there along the bank of that creek. And we're not intending to cut down those trees that are stabilizing that bank. There's one tree that overhangs our house that needs to be trimmed and potentially cut down, but that's the closest to the house anyway. We're not looking to disturbed that bank in any way. Ms. Fairbanks — And also in building the addition, the only thing that would have to be built from the outside would be the siding so the times that they would have to approach the building from the outside everything else could be done from the inside. Mr. Matthews —What is this cantilever, I'm not familiar with, I'm not a builder. Mr. Fairbanks - The rule of thumb on cantilevering it just goes out. This would be a cantilever. If this was the supporting structure, the decking would overhang the support beam. Mr. Frost—The rule is the cantilever section is generally no more than 1/3 of what's back on the other side. So if he had like a 30 foot beam, 20 foot would be supported past a post and then the 10 foot beyond would be, he hasn't gotten a building yet, but I would assume he will comply when he gets. Mr. Fairbanks — We have a ten foot section that the existing porch is on so we could cantilever safely three feet using that rule of thumb, which is as much as we really need. We had requested four feet but, three feet... Mr. Matthews — So what these folks have said to you, I take it out in the hall, you're satisfied that environmentally they won't be impacting the creek. Ms. Balestra—Well I'm less concerned about it. Staff's main concern was the stability of the creek bank. With the information that we had, we didn't know what type of construction was going to be proposed. If they were going to have a foundation which 34 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES would significantly disturb the creek itself. Or if they were going to be more posts, or what not. So, given the information that they have given me, I'm prepared to speak on behalf to say that we would suggest a negative determination of environmental significance. However, because the construction is so close to the creek bank we would still ask the Board to condition the approval on sedimentation and erosion control measure to be given to our engineering department to ensure that the bank of the creek and the water and everything is protected. Ms. Fairbanks —And we love the creek. Ms. Balestra—We've talked about that and they've agreed to that. Ms. Fairbanks —Just to be clear also one of the things that the planners have said in here is that we have so much room and why didn't we build to the north or to the west of the house. To the north of the house we have two septic tanks. When we first built the house we were not hooked up yet, the Town sewer did not go out that line. So we built in anticipation two septic tanks. We have one with an effluent overflow into the second tank, which is then pumped up. So all of the water pipes come down the west side and are even with the kitchen, the bottom floor, because it has to be below. Mr. Barney - The water pipes or the sewer pipes? Mr. Fairbanks —The sewer pipes. Ms. Fairbanks — The sewer pipes. The water pipes come down and the gas pipes come down the west side of the house. So really we would have to go way higher than the house is now and over pipes or gas lines or septic lines. Mr. Fairbanks —The other consideration when we looked at the layout of the house is on the north side of the house are two bedrooms. And so just in terms of the architectural flow in the house it's kind of complicated to set up auxiliary rooms that you'd have to walk through a basement in order to get to them. Chairperson Sigel — So then your modified proposal, I guess you could say, is to not, I think as we had talked when I was out there, to not have any posts closer to the creek, or to your lot line, than the posts currently for the porch. And then to have the structure go out an additional three feet from that post. Mr. Fairbanks —From the edge that currently exists it would cantilever three feet towards the creek. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Mr. Fairbanks —Which will leave it well inside those trees that are along that bank. Chairperson Sigel—And then you only propose to possible cut the one closest tree? 35 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Fairbanks — That's right. The oak tree that comes, it actually doubles back over the house and it has been dropping limbs. Our roof is, if you saw our roof you'd see why we have an airflow problem. We've got a lot of moss and algae. It's a 3 12 pitch so it doesn't get the real rapid runoff and a lot of hard sun to cook it. It's very shaded in there. Chairperson Sigel—Seems reasonable to me. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Matthews —You have a little area taped out with orange tape or red tape. Mr. Fairbanks —Right. Mr. Matthews —Does that quite accurately represent what the new foot print will be? Mr. Fairbanks — The footprint would be smaller than that. That was at the four-foot dimension. And when we put that up and I said look at this, Pam, and we looked at it and we said that's really close to the creek. Ms. Fairbanks — And it's also misleading because it's way down on the ground as opposed up on the level where it would be. Especially in the front. It looks like it's way down and it's up. It also steps up with the house so the bottom floor which would be on the same level as where the screened porch is now would stop before it gets to ground level. And then the next it would climb up with the next half level of the house. Mr. Fairbanks —So there will be more air flow underneath there as well. Chairperson Sigel—Any other questions or comments? Anything else you wanted to say, Christine? Ms. Balestra—No nothing else. Chairperson Sigel — We'll open the public hearing at this point. Anyone wish to speak? If not we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. and closes the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Chairperson Sigel - Can we say based on Town staff's current verbal comments of negative... Mr. Barney — I would say that based upon the information that came to Chris's attention as a result of discussions with the applicant that some of the concerns that were expressed in here, particularly the ones dealing with why the building couldn't curve to the north, the nature of the construction towards the creek, what was the third one. 36 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Fairbanks —The silt abatement. Mr. Barney—I beg your pardon? Mr. Fairbanks —The silt abatement. Mr. Barney—No. That we'll deal with actually as a condition. Ms. Balestra—Those are the only two big ones. Mr. Barney — Those concerns have been alleviated based upon information provided by the applicant. Why they couldn't build to the north and how they are going to deal with the construction on the creek side. And that based upon those changes, the recommendation is now that a negative determination be made. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. For the reasons just stated by Mr. Barney I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Paul and Pamela Fairbanks for the reasons stated by Mr. Barney and the other reasons stated in the report prepared by Town staff. Second? Mr. Krantz—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 026 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Paul and Pamela Fairbanks, 935 Taughannock Boulevard, Tax parcel No. 25.-2-3, Lakefront Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Paul and Pamela Fairbanks, based upon the findings of this board and the other reasons stated in the report prepared by Town Staff. FINDINGS: Based upon the information that came to the attention of Town Staff as a result of discussion with the applicant, some of the concerns that were expressed in the Environmental Assessment Review, particularly why the building couldn't curve to the North, and the nature of the construction towards the creek, have been alleviated based upon information provided by the applicant as to why they couldn't build to the North and how they are going to deal with the construction on the creek-side. Based upon those changes, the staff recommendation is now that a negative determination be made. Such information included information that there would not be a full foundation under the proposed addition, but rather 37 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES the addition would be built on posts, and would be partly cantilevered near the stream and lake areas, thereby reducing substantially the feared effect on those areas. It was also disclosed that building to the north, aside from not making sense from a floor plan layout, would create problems with the existing water and sewer lines and related facilities. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — And I will move to grant the appeal of Paul and Pamela Fairbanks requesting a variance from the requirements of article 25, section 270-205 of the Town Code to be permitted to enlarge a non-confirming building at 935 Taughannock Boulevard tax parcel 25.-2-3 with the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied and with following conditions: That no posts for the new construction be placed any closer to the side lot line than the posts than I guess the closest post the currently supports the porch and that, let's see what's the current setback to the lot line? Ms. Balestra—It's between 15 and 18 feet. Mr. Frost— 15 /z, I think is what we(inaudible) Chairperson Sigel—Okay, the current structure you think is 18 /2? Ms. Balestra—Uh huh. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so let's say that in no case shall the new structure be any closer to the side lot line than 15 feet. Mr. Fairbanks —Kirk can I just interject that the southwest corner will require one post up on that flat area, that's the only other post, and that would be... Ms. Fairbanks —But it's still in an east west line. Mr. Fairbanks —Right, straight line with the existing wall of the porch so that would all be cantilevered, that whole section would be cantilevered over. Do you follow me? Mr. Barney—Yes. Ms. Fairbanks —To the east as opposed to the west. 38 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Will that be any closer to the creek? Ms. Fairbanks —No, well... Mr. Fairbanks —Well the creek kind of meanders through there, but it would still be on a straight line with the existing porch. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Ms. Fairbanks — The other thing that happens at that corner is a difference between the creek bed and then the front bank, which kind of cuts this way as opposed to up and down. So you've got kind of, at the corner you've got a... Mr. Fairbanks —There's a shelf there. Ms. Fairbanks - ...kind of a cutoff, but it's not really closer to the creek. The creek is still over here it's just that it goes down towards the lake faster. [In the background] Ms. Balestra It is a little more level. Mr. Fairbanks Right. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Now your property line actually attempts to follow the creek? Mr. & Ms. Fairbanks —It's the centerline of the creek. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And it's getting further away from the house as you go towards the lake? Mr. Fairbanks —It kind of meanders up through there. Ms. Fairbanks —It actually gets closers on the west side. Mr. Barney—Could you mark on the map where the posts are going to go? Simultaneous, Inaudible comments by Ms. Balestra in the background. Chairperson Sigel — (responding to Ms. Balestra) I think they were saying it would be directly off this line. Simultaneous, Inaudible comments by Ms. Balestra regarding sedimentation control. 39 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—No, we'll definitely include that as a requirement. Maybe it would be simpler to say that no posts be any closer than 18 feet and that the house can be no closer than 15 feet and that would actually get them a little bit of extra room here probably. Simultaneous inaudible comments by Mr. Barney. Mr. Barney—Okay. So those posts, those are shown on the plans. I didn't catch it. Mr. Fairbanks —He didn't put the posts on the drawings. Inaudible. Many talkers. Ms. Balestra—I thought there would be a full foundation given the plans Chairperson Sigel —John, we could just say that no support structures be any closer than 18 feet. Mr. Barney — Well, I'm not sure you want to do that because the 18 feet, I can't quite figure that's scaled off. It's scaled off of the line. Ms. Fairbanks —This is 20 feet and this is 15 feet. Mr. Barney— 15 is from here to here, according to them. Is there 15 across there too? Ms. Fairbanks —It's supposed to be 15 to the center of the creek. Mr. Barney—From here to here is 15? Ms. Balestra—No, 19.5. Mr. Barney—I don't know what the 15 is. 19.5. And it shows 18.5 over here and you've got the creek meandering. Chairperson Sigel—That's true, but then the creek gets closer to where the new... Mr. Fairbanks - It curves back behind the smokehouse. Mr. Barney — I think if you just basically say that the posts will be on an east/ west line that does not go further south than the existing posts for the porch and that there will be four posts along that line, two existing and two additional ones. One to the east and one to the west. Mr. Fairbanks —None of them any closer to the gorge. 40 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney —And then there will be one further post it will be to the north along the lake itself, but not along the creek bed. Okay? Chairperson Sigel —Okay. How close is it getting then to the lake? To the property line along the lake? Mr. Barney—The one post they'd be, again... Mr. Fairbanks —They'd be inside the existing catwalk that's on the front part. Mr. Barney—It would be above the bank, west of the bank, the top of the bank as shown on the map here. Both of them. Chairperson Sigel—Right. I am wondering if they need a variance from the lake lot line. Mr. Barney—We're giving the variance for that for the structure. Ms. Fairbanks —Would that be part of the general area variance? Mr. Barney — I think the main thing is to condition that there are only going to be two posts and they are going to be located approximately, it looks about, this dimension is. Is it 15 feet east / west on that? Somebody marked a 15 there. Whether it's a scaled number or, certainly not the surveyor's number. Ms. Balestra—I think that, I that that it's from here to here. That's what Mike and I were looking at. It's not clear. Mr. Barney—It really looks like almost about 20 feet. Ms. Fairbanks —It looks like it's about 20 feet, yea. Mr. Barney—20 feet from the lake shore. Ms. Fairbanks —This red line is the 15 feet. Ms. Balestra—Oh. Ms. Fairbanks —Which shows that we were in compliance when we built it. Mr. Barney—What's 15? Ms. Balestra—This right here. Mr. Barney — Okay, got you. I would say that the posts could be, if you're willing to grant the variance, should not be closer than given a little room for error, 18 feet from the Lakeshore as determined by the surveyor. 41 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Okay Ms. Fairbanks — So he's done the shoreline, it looks like a bottom of a cliff, he didn't do the median high water. Mr. Barney—Well I think that's what the shoreline is. I think by definition. Ms. Fairbanks —inaudible...that it's at the bottom of the bank and the bottom of the bank it's like 10 feet 20 feet out in the winter. Mr. Barney—Yep. But they use, what is it, 380, they have a number that they use, 386 or something like that is the mean low water mark. Ms. Fairbanks —We own out to the median low water over a certain period of years. Mr. Barney — It's a long story, but there are a couple cases that are peculiar to Cayuga Lake. We do, you're right, it is the low water mark that the landowner owns to rather than the high water mark which where it is normally everywhere else in the state of New York. I would just refer to the shoreline as shown by the surveyor on the map that's submitted which is 8686. Chairperson Sigel — So where was L With the condition that no posts on the south side, no support structure on the south side be any closer to the side lot line than the projection of the line of the posts for the porch currently are. Mr. Barney—The east/west. Chairperson Sigel —Right, the east/ west projection of that line and that no posts be any closer to the lake side property line than, you suggested 18 feet? Mr. Barney — 18 feet from the shoreline as shown on the survey map submitted with the application. Chairperson Sigel —And that the house not extend any further beyond the posts than say 3 �/z feet either on the south or east side. Ms. Fairbanks —Over the posts. Chairperson Sigel — Yes, beyond where you're allowed to put the posts. With a further condition that you submit a sedimentation and erosion control plan to Town staff and that it be approved by the Town Engineer. Mr. Barney—Prior to the issuance of any building permits. Ms. Fairbanks —We can talk to you about it? 42 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—You can talk to me about it, but I'll probably refer you to Dan Walker who is the Town Engineer. Chairperson Sigel—Prior to issuance of any building permit. Anything else? Mr. Barney—Not that I can think of? Chairperson Sigel—Second? Mr. Matthews —Second. Chairperson Sigel - All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 026: Paul and Pamela Fairbanks, 935 Taughannock Boulevard, Tax parcel No. 25.-2-3, Lakefront Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Paul and Pamela Fairbanks, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XXV, Section 270-205 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building located at 935 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-3, Lakefront Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- 1. ONDITIONS:1. All support structures on the South side of the proposed addition shall be located on or north of an East-West line marked by the line between the existing posts supporting the existing deck extended east and west. 2. No posts on the lake side of the property shall be any closer to the lake than 18 feet from the shore line as shown on the survey map submitted with the application. 3. The house and related decks shall not extend more than 3.5 feet beyond the posts located on the east and south side of the building as limited by paragraphs 1 and 2 above. 4. The applicant shall submit to the Town a sedimentation and erosion control plan satisfactory to the Town Engineer to be approved by the Town Engineer prior to any construction or excavation and prior to the issuance of any building permit. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: 43 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL of Thomas Clavel, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IX, Section 270-71 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a single-family home with a 10 foot + side yard building setback(15 feet required)located at 175 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45-1-23, Medium Density Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Next appeal this evening is that of Thomas Clavel requesting a variance from the requirements of article 9, section 270-71 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a single-family home with approximately 10 foot side yard setback where 15 feet is required at 175 King Road East, tax parcel 45.-1-23 medium density residential zone. You can begin with your name and address. Mr. Clavel—My name is Tom Clavel. I live at 215 Utica Street, Ithaca. Chairperson Sigel—Just give us a brief overview of why you're asking for the variance. Mr. Clavel — I got a house plan approved by the Chase Farm Architectural review committee. The site plan initially had it pretty much as far toward the road as it could be with respect to the Town's existing sewer line easement. That puts it a little bit closer than the houses next door. I wanted to push it back so it would line up with the rest of the houses on the street to around 50 feet. It's a triangular lot and on the west side is a 30 foot wide vegetated buffer that was approved with Chase Farm Development. So what I wanted to do is push it back a little bit into the buffer, a little bit into the side yard easement. I got my approval from the Planning Department, Planning Board, I'm sorry, to get a variance to get into the buffer zone but I still want to get a side yard variance so I can mitigate the impact on that buffer as much as possible. The Chase Farm is a medium density residential area and on the other side of the buffer it's a low density residential area and in addition the house next door has its garage facing my property. It seemed more amenable to move the house in that direction as much as I could. Chairperson Sigel—Are you requesting then a 10 foot? Mr. Clavel—I'm requesting a 10 foot side yard. Chairperson Sigel—It is your plan then to get it as close to 10 foot as possible? 44 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Clavel—I don't want to have a surveyor on site when the backhoe is there. So I want to have some wiggle room, but I'm going to shoot for about 12 or 13 feet. The lot line isn't square to the house next door so I want to line my house up with the house next door. On the back part of the house it's going to be closer to the side line than the front. Chairperson Sigel—Have you spoken with the person that owns the house next door? Mr. Clavel — I haven't been able to reach him. I've talked to his daughter who lives there. He lives out of town. Mr. Matthews —Is there anybody living in that house now? Mr. Clavel—Yes. Mr. Matthews —What would prevent you from coming up closer to East King Road than the 50 feet? Mr. Clavel—What prevents me? Mr. Matthews —Staying out of the buffer, but coming ahead. Mr. Clavel — The main thing for me is aesthetic as far as having the houses, if you push that house right forward it's going to really stand out. I think it would have a negative impact on the streetscape as people drive by they'd look at it and say, whoa why is that house sticking out. I want to mitigate that. Also there's a, as it turns out the Town has a sanitary sewer line that runs up diagonally in the front that as of now there's now easement for, but since the Town's line is there I'd like to not have to cut into it. So you know, stay back from that. There's nothing really preventing me. Well there is a point in the building, there is an issue, there's a requirement at least on paper that I'm supposed to back as far as the neighboring houses although I'm informed that nobody sticks with, but anyway it didn't look good. Chairperson Sigel—I believe it's the average of the setbacks of the two. Mr. Barney—But it may not be greater than 50, so if the adjacent houses are 60 feet back you don't have to be back as far. Mr. Clavel—But they are, one is about 52 feet back and the other is a little bit more. Mr. Matthew — But he can come closer to East King Road except for his concern about the standout in line with the other houses on East King Road, is that right? Mr. Barney — I can't tell from the plot plan sketches here. I think from what I recall at the Planning Board, you could come within, yes he could come quite a few more feet closer to the 45 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—The ordinance says 25 to 50. Mr. Barney—Yea, you don't have a lot of room even with 50 feet. Chairperson Sigel —Well, a strict reading of the average of the adjacent neighbors would put him at 50. Mr. Barney—Right. Mr. Clavel—I brought an aerial photo of part of the Chase Farm development that shows that the houses there are pretty close and there are some that, to my eye at least, and I'm pretty sure they're right, there's a bunch of houses on Chase Farm that are inside 15 feet from their lot line. On the low density side, the neighbors to the west, that's a low density area and they're not 15 feet. I'll show this picture. I've got some of these circled. Chairperson Sigel — So then on your plot plan, is your plan to then have the house approximately 50 feet back given the variance you're requesting. Mr. Clavel—I'm trying to push the house back to line up with the houses next door to the extent possible given the variances that I can get. Mr. Ellsworth—And that puts you approximately 20 feet into the vegetative buffer. Mr. Clavel—As it stands now I would be about 8 feet into the vegetative buffer. And I'm trying to get a variance to move it the other way out. The vegetative buffer was put in to specifically protect the low-density neighborhood from the Chase Farm development and I'm trying to respect that. The Chase Farm architectural review committee supported my application to get this buffer line variance with the condition, with the specific understanding, that I was going to come here and try to get, move my house closer into Chase Farm and try to get this variance for 10 feet. What I'd like to do is still down with the Planning and the Zoning Board at the same time and work it out, but I didn't have that option. They supported me in going to the Planning Board and my application to the Planning Board to move the house into the buffer specifically with the understanding that I would then come here and ask you all to mitigate that by reducing the side yard to 10 feet because they felt that it was less of an impact on Chase Farm to have a 10 foot side yard than it would impact the neighbors in the low density adjacent neighborhood by going into the buffer zone so much. Chairperson Sigel—You're trying to balance three things. Your front yard set back, your vegetative buffer set back, and obviously the side lot line. Any other questions before we open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing at this point. Someone wishes to speak? Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. 46 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Kevin Howe, 173 East King Road I'm on the West side in the low density residential property and if I've got my say in it, I support Mr. Clavel tonight. My concern is the vegetative buffer zone. It provides seclusion to my property so if he can go farther over the other way, it makes sense to me and I would prefer it. Sigel — So you're an enthusiastic supporter of the variance since it gets it further from your house. Mr. Howe—Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you very much. Any one else wish to speak? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel closes the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Chairperson Sigel - It seems reasonable to me as a balance between these three constraints that the applicant has of the front, the vegetative buffer, and the side. Mr. Barney—If the variance is granted how much will it take you out of the buffer zone? Mr. Clavel—As I indicated before I'm not good at trigonometry, but a little bit less than a foot for every foot I move away from the buffer zone. I think what I'll end up having is about, I don't really know. If I moved it 5 feet to the east I might get, my math is really poor, about 4 feet back less into the buffer zone. It's pretty significant given the actual, the current shape of the buffer zone and what vegetation is currently there. It actually is, if you can see from that aerial photo, there's a big gap in the buffer and it either pushes way into that or it doesn't push so far into that and I would have to cut down more of the buffer as far as doing construction and all that. So I'd say about 4 feet. Mr. Matthews —So the buffer is visual or distance. Mr. Clavel—Visual. Mr. Barney—It's a vegetative buffer basically. Mr. Matthews —So in the wintertime does that buffer work. Mr. Barney—Depends what you vegetate with and what the deer do. Mr. Clavel—Yes, it's pretty dense. Mr. Matthews —Mr. Howe, does it work? Mr. Howe—inaudible. 47 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel —Do we actually need to do an environmental assessment for this area variance. Mr. Barney—No. Ms. Balestra — Well we included it just in case because the Planning Board had done it and thought it would be good for the Board's edification. Chairperson Sigel—Is there anything you wanted to point out? Ms. Balestra—No. Chairperson Sigel — No other questions. I will move to grant the appeal of Thomas Clavel requesting a variance from the requirements of article 9 section 270-71 of the Town Code to be permitted to construct a single-family home with a 10 foot side yard setback where 15 feet is required at 175 King Road East tax parcel number 45.-1-23 medium density residential zone with the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the applicant and Mr. Barney — Well, let me ask you, what I don't think you really want to, you're supposed to get a trade off here, a little bit. Wouldn't it be appropriate to include some sort of condition it be set at least 50 feet back from the road and that to the extent it goes back, to the extent it goes west I guess if I've got my directions right, into the setback that you basically pick up or use, I don't know whether we want to use a 1/2 a foot or something less in the buffer zone, because you've got right now an impact on the buffer of 8 eight feet at it's worst point and the trade off is to improve that. Chairperson Sigel—But won't it do that by definition. Mr. Barney —No because if you push it straight back you won't change the buffer zone. So if you take the house and push the house back you'll have the same impact on the buffer. Chairperson Sigel — Well I guess for a fixed size house we could set a maximum front yard setback. Mr. Barney — Say the house to be built no further back than 53 feet or something like that. But that also depends a little bit upon the size of the house. The object here is, I think, is to protect in part the buffer zone. It seems to me, you're really saying 3 feet really, or somewhere between 2 or 3 feet into the setback, give or take a little. Mr. Clavel—It will depend on the digger and the mason and the final. 48 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney — You worry me a little bit when you say you don't want a surveyor there when the backhoe is doing the digging. I assume you'll have a surveyor there to plot your property line before they start before they start to dig. Mr. Clavel—I've already got it staked. The surveyor has already been there so I have the stakes existing. Mr. Barney—Staked just at the corner or Mr. Clavel—No I have it staked at the 15 yard side yard setback and at the 30 foot, and at 50 feet back from the road. So the boundary of the buffer zone is currently staked. The 15-foot side yard setback is currently staked. And the 50-foot setback from the road line is currently staked. Those are going to be my tradeoffs; those are going to be my bench marks I'll set from. Mr. Barney — I mean to give him a little leeway it might for every foot that he intrudes into the side yard setback he reduces his incursion into the buffer zone by a half a foot, something like that. Chairperson Sigel—It's about a three four five right triangle. Mr. Barney—You're better at trigonometry than I am. Whatever the mathematics are. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. With the additional condition that for every foot closer to the side the house is than the required 15 then you be at least a half foot further, or that the vegetative buffer Mr. Barney—Incursion into the vegetative be reduced by a half a foot for each foot. Chairperson Sigel—The incursion be reduced by at least a half a foot. Mr. Matthews — Is the builder required to replenish the buffer with vegetation after he gets done. Mr. Clavel—Yes. The Planning Board made sure that I did. Mr. Matthews —Okay. Chairperson Sigel—Second? Mr. Krantz—Second. Chairperson Sigel - All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 027: Thomas Clavel, 175 King Road East, Tax Parcel No. 45.-1-23. 49 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Thomas Clavel, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IX, Section 270-71 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a single-family home with a 10 foot side yard building setback (where 15 feet is required) located at 175 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45-1-23, Medium Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: Requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the applicant. CONDITIONS: 1. The building shall be set back at least 50 feet from the road. 2. For every foot closer to the side the house is than the required 15 feet, the incursion into the vegetative buffer be reduced by at least '/2 a foot. 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. Clavel—Thank you. APPEAL of Ben F. Craig, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 270-59 to be permitted to construct a residence with a walkout basement and a building height of 40 feet + (36 foot height limit) at 104 Southwoods Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.45, Low Density Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Finally we have the appeal of Ben Craig requesting a variance from the requirements of article 8, section 270-59 to be permitted to construct a residence with a walkout basement and a building height of approximately 40 feet where 36 feet as the limit at 104 Southwoods Drive tax parcel 46.-1-15.45 low density residential zone. Good evening. Mr. Craig — Good evening, my name is Ben Craig and I'm the Vice President of Fine Line Homes and we're requesting this variance. The lot definitely supports a walk out basement and it would be a waste of a good walk out basement if you didn't use it. 50 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — How much will, or approximately how much will, you be changing the level of the grade at the point where you'll have a walk out. Mr. Craig —Not too much. I think it's pretty much of about a 6 to 8 foot drop from one end of that lot to the other. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. So you won't be having to remove much soil? Mr. Craig—Not a lot of dire. Most of it will be pushed up around the front anyway. Chairperson Sigel — Which side, the walk out is going to be on the side of the house facing Mr. Craig—The gable on East King Chairperson Sigel—Facing the Southwoods Road? Mr. Craig—No. Kind of facing East King Road, isn't that the name of the road up there? Chairperson Sigel—Yes. Mr. Craig — I don't really know yet until we start looking at the lot really to determine whether it would go on this end of it or maybe around the corner. It kind of depends how much the grade falls there. Chairperson Sigel—I see, you have the house sort of turned a bit on the lot? Mr. Craig—Right. Mr. Matthews —Where was the 6 to 8 feet drop you said? Mr. Craig—From like the, I guess it would be the Mr. Matthews —West side? Chairperson Sigel—Well from the Eldridge Circle Mr. Craig — South side. From the south side up the north side where the walk out basement would be. Mr. Matthews —That would be 6 to 8 feet? Mr. Craig—Right. 51 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Niefer — I don't understand how this side elevation, you showed us fits in with the site plan and the site of the building on the lot it just doesn't... I was by there today. It just seems as though you are going to have to dig out a lot of earth. What about the earth line in the rear of the house? Mr. Craig—The driveway comes in on this side. That's going to be the higher end. Mr. Niefer—Are you going to put a lot of fill in the front? Mr. Craig—Well whatever fill you take out of the inaudible. This house definitely has to set up high because inaudible. Mr. Niefer—It just seems like you have to dig into this area here an awful lot. Mr. Craig—Well this is all going to be fill, I mean not fill but grade. This is your grade line. Mr. Niefer—This inaudible going up , the contours of this lot are like that, going up. So the net result is Mr. Craig—The house is going to set up high. Mr. Matthews —In level with this part of the road versus here? Mr. Craig—It's close to level. You can't really make them level because inaudible other than that it should be pretty much, we like to make them pretty much as level as we can with inaudible Chairperson Sigel—The lot slopes down from Eldridge Circle, down to East King. Mr. Matthews —If East King is here and Eldridge Circle is here, the lot pitches like this in this direction. Sort of a northeast pitch. Chairperson Sigel — You're saying it pitches both towards Southwoods Drive and East King? Mr. Matthews —Yes. Right to that northeast corner. Chairperson Sigel — So you're saying the lowest point in the lot is approximately the northeast corner? Mr. Matthews —Northeast corner of Southwoods Drive. Chairperson Sigel—So is it your concern then that the walk out point is not at the lowest. Mr. Matthews —No, it is the lowest point. 52 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Well, approximately. It would be possibly lower... Mr. Matthews —It is probably the lowest point. Chairperson Sigel —That's the lowest side. So, any concerns. This request is a few feet, at least a couple feet, shorter than the maximum we have granted in Southwoods. At least on the face of it 40 seems pretty reasonable. Mr. Craig—We opened the box next door already. Chairperson Sigel—Given the design of homes. As I said when we had the first case I was comfortable granting further approvals. We don't need to do an environmental assessment for this. We will open the public hearing. With no one left in the room besides the applicant we will close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 9:19 p.m. and closes the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. Chairperson Sigel - I will move to grant the appeal of Ben Craig requesting a variance from the requirements of article 8, section 270-59 to be permitted to construct a residence with a walkout basement and a building height not to exceed 40 feet at 104 Southwoods Drive tax parcel 46.-1-15.45 low density residential zone with the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the applicant and with the one condition that the home be built substantially as indicated on the applicant's submitted materials. Second? Mr. Ellsworth—Second. Chairperson Sigel - All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 028: Ben F. Craig, 104 Southwoods Drive, Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.45 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal Ben F. Craig, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 270-59 to be permitted to construct a residence with a walkout basement and a building height not to exceed 40 feet at 104 Southwoods Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.45, Low Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the applicant. CONDITIONS: 53 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 16, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES The home shall be built substantially as indicated on the applicant's submitted materials. 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. Craig—Thank you very much Chairperson Sigel—And we shall adjourn. Chairperson Sigel adjourns the meeting at 9:21 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson John Coakley, Deputy Town Clerk 54