HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2005-12-19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2005
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Dick
Matthews, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; Jim Niefer, Board Member;
John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner.
ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Sanders, 120 Woolf Lane; Richard P. Basile, 116 Woolf
Lane; Herman Sieverding, 315 Columbia St, Integrated Acquisitions and Development;
Vincent Nicotra, 450 S. Salina St, Syracuse NY, QPK architects; Glenn Hubbell, 1308
Mecklenburg Rd, Ithaca; Tracie Evans-Sheldrake, 124 Seven Mile Dr.
Chairperson Sigel opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Chairperson Sigel — Good evening, welcome to the December meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight, we have five appeals, the first is an adjourned
appeal from last meeting, from Luke Bowes, applicant, regarding a dock. The second
appeal is that of Richard Basile. The third appeal is George Sheldrake, the fourth is
Glenn Hubbell, and the fifth is that of Cornell University. We will be taking them in that
order. The first appeal adjourned from last meeting is that of Luke Bowes, Ron
Knewstub, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article
VII, Section 270-45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an open pile
dock that exceeds the maximum 8-foot width and the maximum 300 square foot surface
area required by Code. The property is located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-1, Lakefront Residential Zone.
ADJOURNED APPEAL (from November 21, 2005) of Luke Bowes, Appellant,
Ron Knewstub, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter
270, Article VII, Section 270-45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to
construct an open pile dock that exceeds the maximum 8-foot width and the
maximum 300 square foot surface area required by Code. The property is
located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-1,
Lakefront Residential Zone.
Chairperson Sigel —Gentlemen, as you recall, we had indicated to the applicant that they
didn't necessarily have to come for this, so we have the same appeal in front of us which
was just advertised... it looks like actually you guys have changed the advertisement to
make it safer.
Ms. Balestra—Yeah.
Chairperson Sigel - So, it's advertised without any specification for square footage, so we
are free to grant approval of the applicant's plans. And I believe that we left the public
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
hearing open so we can check that as well. Does anyone have any questions, though, at
this point? Chris, do you remember exactly what it is they needed, as far as what we
have to grant?
Ms. Balestra—Yes.
Chairperson Sigel—I think it just was the square footage, right?
Ms. Balestra—It is the square footage.
Chairperson Sigel—And we figured that out.
Ms. Balestra — Right. The requirement is 300 square feet, the proposal is 1136 square
feet.
Mr. Niefer—And it was not advertised with the revised square footage. It was advertised
for something less.
Chairperson Sigel—It was advertised a little low, yeah.
Ms. Balestra — Also, there is a ten foot wide area that is at the end of the dock, and the
regulations state a maximum of eight feet, so there is a variance there too.
Chairperson Sigel—OK, the Planning Board just does the length.
Ms. Balestra—They just do the length, yup.
Chairperson Sigel—OK, so 1136 you said?
Ms. Balestra—Mmmm hmmm.
Chairperson Sigel - ... of square footage and ten feet, and eight that's required.
Ms. Balestra—Mmmm hmmm.
Chairperson Sigel—Does anyone wish to speak for or against this dock proposal? If not,
we'll close the public hearing in this appeal.
Chairperson Sigel re-opened and closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.
Chairperson Sigel—OK, do we need to do a...? There is an assessment for prepared. Do
we need to make a SEQR determination for the dock, John?
Mr. Barney—This is an area variance for a residential?
Chairperson Sigel—Yeah. It's for square footage and width.
2
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Barney — It's all area variance, I'm pretty sure you do not need to do a SEQR for
that. Let me double check.
Ms. Balestra—I think I included it just in case.
[pause]
Mr. Barney — Type II action is granting an area variance for a single family, two family
or three family residence, Type II action does not require SEQR action.
Chairperson Sigel — OK, so I will move to grant the appeal of Luke Bowes, Appellant,
requesting a variance from the requirements of chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-45
of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an open pile dock that exceeds
the maximum 8-foot width and the maximum 300 square foot surface area required by
the Code. With the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied,
and with the condition that the total square footage not exceed 1150 square feet, and that
the width of the dock not exceed 10 square feet, or I'm sorry, ten feet, at the outermost
portion of the dock indicated on the applicant's plans, that all other portions of the dock
not exceed the allowed eight feet in width, and then also we should include the conditions
from the Planning Board resolution, 2005-117, condition (b) would be the only thing
relevant. Is there anything you would add, John?
Mr. Barney—Nope, sounds good.
Chairperson Sigel—OK, second?
Mr. Niefer—Second.
Chairperson Sigel—All in favor?
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 066: Adjourned Appeal of Luke Bowes, 955
Taughannock Blvd, Tax Parcel No. 25.-2-1, Lakefront Residential Zone.
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Luke Bowes, Appellant,
requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VI I, Section
270-45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an open pile
dock that exceeds the maximum 8-foot width and the maximum 300 square foot
surface area required by the Code.
FINDINGS: The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied.
CONDITIONS:
1. The total square footage shall not exceed 1150 square feet.
3
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
2. The width of the dock shall not exceed 10 feet at the outermost portion
of the dock indicated on the applicant's plans.
3. All other portions of the dock shall not exceed the allowed 8 feet in
width.
4. The applicant shall maintain the NYS water quality standards listed in
the letter from the NYSDEC dated August 16, 2005, and the specific
permit conditions outlined in the Army Corps of Engineers permit for the
project.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews
NAYS: NONE
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel—OK.
APPEAL of Richard Basile,Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements
of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be
permitted to construct a +/- 6' x 8' porch addition along the eastern side of a home
located at 116 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23-1-11.122, Medium
Density Residential Zone. Said addition will be located within the 15-foot required
side yard setback.
Chairperson Sigel - OK, the next appeal this evening is that of Richard Basile, I hope I
said that right, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX,
Section 270-71(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an
approximate 6' x 8' porch addition along the eastern side of a home located at 116 Woolf
Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23-1-11.122, Medium Density Residential Zone.
Said addition will be located within the 15-foot required side yard setback. If you'd like,
you could come and take a seat please, and please just begin with your name and address.
Mr. Basile - It's Richard Basile, 116 Woolf Lane, Ithaca, NY.
Chairperson Sigel—And give us a brief overview of what you're doing.
Mr. Basile - Well, basically, I don't know if the front of the house faces prevailing winds
or what, but it's very very flat and very little eave over the top of it, and I open my front
door and in inclement weather I get snow and rain into the house, you're fumbling with
groceries or your keys, so I wanted to get just a small porch, six by eight, just an
overhang to give us some protection against the weather basically in trying to get in. And
4
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
we didn't realize until the builder filed for the building permit that it would actually be
within the 15 foot setback. It brings it to about 9.3 I think.
Mr. Matthews —Yeah, it's right there.
Chairperson Sigel—I see you have letters of support.
Mr. Basile — Yes. The Ketchums are the ones that have the house at the end. They, I
guess, actually own the driveway and Jim Sanders is directly across the easement from
where I am.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Both indicating their support. It doesn't seem too
unreasonable. Any....?
Mr. Matthews —He's essentially cutting off his front lawn a little bit.
Chairperson Sigel—Yeah.
Mr. Matthews —Six feet from the house.
Mr. Basile —Yeah. There is actually a small concrete step there that is probably about 4
feet out, so its really not a big difference in what I am going to see.
Chairperson Sigel—Any other questions? Comments?
Mr. Ellsworth—No.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. We will open the public hearing. If anyone wishes to speak,
if not we'll close the public hearing.
Public hearing opened at 7:12 p.m. and closed at 7:12 p.m.
Chairperson Sigel—We don't need to do an environmental assessment for this. So I will
move to grant the appeal of Richard Basile, requesting a variance from the requirements
of Chapter 270, Article 9, Section 270-71c of the Town Code to be permitted to construct
a front porch addition along the eastern side of his home at 116 Woolf Lane, Tax Parcel
23.-1-11.122, Medium Density Residential zone, with the findings that the requirements
for an area variance have been met and with the condition that the porch be constructed
as shown on the applicant's plan and that the porch be no closer to the side lot line than 9
feet. It just gives it a little extra.
Mr. Niefer—Second.
Chairperson Sigel—All in favor?
Board—Aye.
5
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 067: Richard Basile, 116 Woolf Lane, Tax
Parcel No. 23.-1-11.122, Medium Density Residential Zone.
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Richard Basile, requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(C) of
the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a front porch addition along
the eastern side of his home at 116 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
23-1-11.122, Medium Density Residential Zone.
FINDINGS: The requirements for an Area Variance have been met.
CONDITIONS:
1. The porch shall be constructed as shown on the applicant's plan.
2. The porch shall be no closer to the side lot line than 9 feet.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews
NAYS: NONE
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPEAL of George Sheldrake, Appellant, Tracie Evans Sheldrake, Agent,
requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII,
Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a +/-
12' x 18' storage room addition along the northern side of a home located at 124
Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-2-3.42, Low Density
Residential Zone. Said addition will be located within the 40-foot required side
yard setback.
Chairperson Sigel — Please come to the microphone and begin with your name and
address.
Tracie Sheldrake, 124 Seven Mile Drive
Tracie Sheldrake at 124 Seven Mile Drive.
Chairperson Sigel—Just give us a brief overview of your situation.
6
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Ms. Sheldrake—I have a 12 by 18 foot storage room I put on the north side of my house.
It is not completed yet, but it is more than partially done. I am not within the 40. I'm at
32 feet from the property line of my neighbor, not realizing that it was 40 foot that I
needed. I do have a letter from the property owner next door. I also do have a picture.
Its not the greatest, but it does show the sideline.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. So you said that you were unaware of what the
setback was when you started?
Ms. Sheldrake—Correct.
Chairperson Sigel—Did you get a building permit when you started?
Ms. Sheldrake—I had applied for one, but did not have it.
Attorney Barney — When you applied for the building permit, did you have the
dimensions of the building relative to the side yard lot line?
Ms. Sheldrake—Yes. I knew that it was going to be 12 by 18.
Attorney Barney —Did you know that it was going to be roughly 22 feet away from the,
if I'm reading this right, the property line?
Ms. Sheldrake—No, because I was unaware that it was 40 foot. I was thinking that it was
like 30 foot or maybe even a little bit less than that. I didn't think I would be anywhere
near the property line.
Chairperson Sigel — I should just say for the record that George Sheldrake, who is your
husband, he plows my driveway. I don't think it is going to affect how I vote, but I just
wanted to state that.
Mr. Matthews —Did I hear that there is a letter from a neighbor or something like that?
Mr. Ellsworth—Yeah. Its right there.
Ms. Balestra and Attorney Barney conferring on the side.
Attorney Barney —I'm looking at a little sketch that is in our building permit file. Is that
something that you did or by...?
Ms. Sheldrake—That was done by the guy who we contracted with.
Attorney Barney—By the contractor?
Ms. Sheldrake—This was actually...there should be another one in...
7
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Attorney Barney—We do have another one.
Ms. Sheldrake — This one, I believe, is the first one before we actually found the pins
from the survey, which was a rough estimate. Since, with the second one that I am
hoping that you have we located the pins.
Attorney Barney — This document is the one that was submitted, you think, with the
building permit application?
Ms. Sheldrake—I believe so. Yeah. I don't know...
Chairperson Sigel—So the one that shows 32 feet is more accurate?
Ms. Sheldrake—That is the correct one, yes.
Attorney Barney — This document that I was just talking to Ms. Evans about shows the
dimension on the side yard being 24 foot 9 inches to the edge of the construction. The
significance in it is that part of the error may lie in our internal activities because we
should pickup those side yard problems with the application comes in and we may not
have here.
Ms. Sheldrake—You did pick it up in the application.
Attorney Barney—We wouldn't be here if we didn't pick it up at some point. When was
it picked up?
Chairperson Sigel—You indicated that you started construction before getting the permit.
Ms. Sheldrake—Correct. Someone did pick it up on your side.
Attorney Barney—Before the permit was issued?
Ms. Sheldrake—Yeah.
Attorney Barney—Okay.
Chairperson Sigel—Questions? Comments?
Mr. Krantz—It is a fairly rural area there.
Chairperson Sigel —Yeah, there is quite a bit of space there is seems. It doesn't seem to
be even an impact in reducing the setback here. Okay. We will open the public hearing.
If anyone wishes to speak, and if not we'll close the public hearing.
Public hearing opened at 7:21 p.m. and closed at 7:21 p.m.
8
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Chairperson Sigel — Again, we don't need to do an environmental assessment. I will
move to grant the appeal of George Sheldrake, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270, Article 8, Section 270-60c of the Town of Ithaca Code, be
permitted to construct an approximate 12 foot by 18 foot room addition along the
northern side of a home located at 124 Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca tax parcel 33.-
2-3.42. Low Density Residential Zone, with the finding that the requirements for an area
variance have been satisfied and with the condition that the addition be no closer than 31
feet from the side yard lot line and that the...you are not planning any further outside
construction right now?
Ms. Sheldrake—No.
Attorney Barney — One issue. The 32-foot dimension, is that the point that is furthest
away from the side yard line?
Ms. Sheldrake —That is from the back corner. That would be the closest to the property
line.
Attorney Barney — Because it almost looks like your property line is a little bit on a
diagonal and it almost looks like it might be a little bit closer to the front corner of
construction with the way it is drawn.
Chairperson Sigel — We could grant it 30 with the stipulation that they cannot change
what they have and not build anymore in that setback.
Ms. Sheldrake — I am not building any more here. At some point, I will apply for..(not
audible)... Does that answer your question?
Attorney Barney—Yes. I think so. Thanks much.
Chairperson Sigel — So I will amend my motion to be no less than 30 feet from the side
yard and with the condition that the addition be constructed as indicated on the plans and
as it has already been constructed and that no further construction be allowed to take
place within the 40 foot side yard setback. Second?
Mr. Ellsworth—Second.
Chairperson Sigel—All in favor?
Board—Aye.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 068: George Sheldrake, 124 Seven Mile Dr, Tax
Parcel No. 33.-2-3.42, Low Density Residential Zone.
9
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth.
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of George Sheldrake requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VI 11, Section 270-60(C) of
the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an approximate 12' x 18'
room addition along the northern side of a home located at 124 Seven Mile Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-2-3.42, Low Density Residential Zone.
FINDINGS: The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied.
CONDITIONS:
1. The addition shall be no less than 30 feet from the side yard lot line.
2. The addition shall be constructed as indicated on the plans and as it
already has been constructed.
3. No further construction is allowed to take place within the 40-foot side
yard setback.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews
NAYS: NONE
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel—Okay. You are all set.
APPEAL of Glenn Hubbell, DBA Hub's Place Antiques, Appellant, requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-66 and
270-67 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain an antique shop
located at 1308 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.1,
Medium Density Residential Zone. An original, time-limited variance to allow
the antique shop was granted in 1990 and extended in 1996. The most recent
variance extension of January 24, 2001 is set to expire on January 24, 2006.
Chairperson Sigel—Is Mr. Hubbell here?
Ms. Balestra—He was contacted.
Chairperson Sigel—Well, we can move on and see what happens at the end.
Ms. Balestra—Okay. It would be your choice. I don't know. Is it a requirement for the
applicant to show up?
10
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Attorney Barney—Not necessarily.
Chairperson Sigel—We might as well wait.
Attorney Barney—Absolutely. Lets take Cornell and then deal with...
Ms. Balestra—Okay.
APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Integrated Acquisition &
Development, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter
270, Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to
construct a three-story, +/- 60,000 square foot office building for Cornell
University, located at 395 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1-
3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. Proposed structure exceeds the maximum
height allowed by Code.
Chairperson Sigel—Please just begin with your name and address.
Herman Sieverding, IAD
My name is Herman Sieverding. I am with Integrated Acquisition and Development.
We are a real estate development company here in Town. Address is 15 Thornwood
Drive, in Ithaca, in the Cornell Business and Technology Park.
Vincent Nicotra, QPK
My name is Vincent Nicotra, partner with QPK Design, architects for the project, 450
South Salina Street, Syracuse, NY.
Mr. Sieverding — So we are not with Cornell. We have been hired by Cornell to develop
a 60,000 square foot office building on property the University owns on Pine Tree Road
and the site is behind 391 Pine Tree Road, which is the Ciser building, the Cornell...(not
audible)...and behind the East Hill Plaza. The proposed, in addition to the 60,000 office
building a 250-space parking lot. Other site improvements include rebuilding the entry
driveway, part of which includes consolidating the two curb cuts that are there into one,
creating a divided entry with landscape and median, building stormwater management
improvements on the site.
Mr. Ellsworth—Where is that driveway? Is that the one in the back of the car wash?
Mr. Sieverding — Yes. It is the driveway that goes back to the car wash, which will be
improved.
Mr. Ellsworth—So the motel is back there behind that.
11
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Sieverding—Exactly. This is the...so the motel would be right in here. We appeared
before the Planning Board on November 29th. The Planning Board is lead agency and
adopted a resolution of negative declaration in terms of environmental impact. We also
received from the Planning Board preliminary site plan approval and one of the
contingencies for final site plan approval is appearing before you to request a variance for
the proposed height of the building. The building is located in a low density residential
zone, which allows use by institutional higher learning by special permit that is issued by
the Planning Board. However, the maximum height that is allowed within the LDR zone
is 36 feet and the proposed height of the building is 46 feet 8 inches and so we therefore
are here tonight seeking a variance of just under 11 feet.
The height variance request itself is really driven by the building program and the
resulting design. Cornell is adopting an office space standard that is really based on
having an open, flexible floor plan that utilizes low wall partitions in an environment that
is really designed to promote the well being of the occupants of the building. It does that
by in part bringing in as much natural light into the building as possible, which is a
critical component of that office standard, especially in terms of improving their
environmental performance of the building relative to energy consumption and improving
the overall quality of the workspace. So it is that program that has really driven the
design of the building and the resulting height. Vince Nicotra is the program architect
and he will sort of explain some of those design perimeters that lead us to this increased
height.
Mr. Ellsworth—What is the ceiling height of these offices?
Mr. Nicotra—They are not individual office per se, but an open office plan environment,
not to say that there wouldn't be individual offices, but the majority of the space is
intended to be homogeneous in terms of office space so that there would be no walls that
would continue to the ceiling.
Mr. Ellsworth—And you have moveable partitions?
Mr. Nicotra—Correct. Moveable workstations. The proposed ceiling height is 11 feet in
those areas. As Herman had suggested, this is really based on Cornell's desire to create
environments that are more beneficial to people that work there. This is based on studies
that are being done in terms of productivity and how people work in their environments
and the recent Architectural Record of November cites this as a factor that people do
better when there is more natural light. Another component of that is views. These two
pieces begin to drive the formula as to why we developed the building the way we did. If
you look on the outside of the building, in order to achieve natural light you obviously
need to have glass. So we've got incorporated two forms of glass. There are these
ribbon windows then there are these large curtain walls. What the taller ceilings allow
you to do is raise the height of the glass so that this height, for instance on the third floor
would be your desk height and then the upper portion here would be at about 9 foot 6, so
that you would have a 6 foot expanse of glass. What that allows you to do is it allows
light to penetrate further into the building. What we did, and you can see it here on the
12
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
site plan, instead of creating a rectilinear building that would be more difficult to reach
into the center for natural light, we created a longer, narrower building so that you can
imagine the occupants at the center of the building would benefit from windows that are
at a taller height with a taller ceiling so that more natural light can come in. the other
benefit is, if the light is coming in, I can also see out from a desk area that is deeper into
the building even with the low partitions because the idea is to connect that individual
with the outdoor environment.
This again is a driving factor in why we created these 11 foot ceiling heights.
Now beyond that, not all light can come from natural light for obvious reasons. So the
other thing that the 11 foot ceiling heights allow us to do is to use what we call a direct,
indirect pendent light. That type of light fixture, if you have seen it before, what it does
is very similar to the one you have here with some exceptions. They are longer an linear.
The central light here throws light up onto the ceiling. You can see that it reflects off the
ceiling surface. A smaller amount of light is directed down to the work surface. That
reduces glare, especially with a computer environment with an open office plan that
ability to bounce light off the ceiling reduces the amount of glare. So imagine now this
office space that has 11 foot ceiling heights with the top of the windows at 9 foot 6, it
allows about 18 inches to hang one of these pendent light fixtures so now the light
fixtures do not come into the play of your visual site lines as you are sitting on the inside
of your office and looking out. So that combination of natural light and hues with
artificial light that is being provided in a way that is reflected enhances the work
environment and there has been studies that who productivity level with people that could
connect with their office environment, whatever makes them happier, more productive,
which is ultimately what Cornell is trying to do.
The other advantage of pendent lighting fixtures are they can be adjusted, their
lighting levels can be adjusted electronically to coincide with the amount of light that is
in the space. So if there is a day with bright sunlight, then the fixture lighting levels can
be adjusted downward and that leads to energy savings. So the amount of glass, the
height of the glass and the ceiling height in combination with trying to provide the
mechanical systems creates floor heights that are a bit higher than in the standard office
building.
Mr. Ellsworth—Is this going to be lead certified building?
Mr. Nicotra—It is not intended to be lead certified, but Cornell gave us the mandate to try
to meet the environmental principles that we could. This being one of their primary goals
for the interior environment to work well. In consideration of the...one of the reasons
that we did an office building with 3 stories rather than, for instance a 2 story building, is
that the vertical height allows a smaller footprint so there is less disturbance to the site
itself. Also it lessens the amount of actual building surface, creating less impervious
surface and less stormwater runoff.
Mr. Ellsworth - ...that certification with all this glass. You've got to be 85% glass in that
wall.
13
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Nicotra—No. It's a bit misleading because, for instance, in here, even though this is
glass because the windows are at the 9 foot 6, the 3 foot 6 level, this area of glass is in
between the floors. It actually has a wall behind it that is insulated so the glass is
regulated for these areas here, but directly at the level above the desk to the 9 foot 6
ceiling height. So I don't think there is an issue meeting the energy code here in terms of
how much glass there is. These are things that need to be balanced in terms of how much
glass versus how much energy you are expending for the glass, but it is double insulated
glass so I don't believe that is an issue and we will certainly meet the energy code
requirements of the building. I think that is basically the driving principles of what led to
a taller building, the desire for the natural light to be used, the use of direct and indirect
lighting and trying to maximize the efficiency of people working in that environment.
Chairperson Sigel — What is the ground elevation going to be when you start? What is
sort of ground level because the ground level goes up quite a bit as you approach about
where the car wash is, which is and then you go passed that a little bit, which is about
where this building is. And for instance the old paddocks that you indicated would be
removed are quite a bit lower. I mean I just guessed at maybe 10 feet lower than the
ground is right now where this is proposed and so I am wondering are you lowering the
ground level there, are you going to keep it what it is?
Mr. Sieverding—The building in its current location is a little bit above the existing grade
there. I think the ground floor elevation is 742. The area where you are talking about
where the paddocks are I think are about 8 feet lower.
Chairperson Sigel—Eight feet lower than what you are proposing?
Mr. Sieverding — Right. If you are thinking, well what is the impact if you were to site
the building there, I don't think it would be an 8 foot differential between a building in
that location versus a building in the proposed location because of the elevation of the
parking lot in between, which is a bit higher. You would therefore have to raise the floor
elevation of that building in the alternate location where the paddocks are to get up above
the parking lot grades so that the difference in the end will probably be only in area of 5
feet.
Mr. Ellsworth—The north end of the hotel is quite a bit higher.
Mr. Sieverding—Yes.
Mr. Ellsworth—It's got to be nearly 15 feet higher.
Mr. Sieverding—Where motel is?
Mr. Ellsworth—The north end, yeah.
14
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Sieverding — Yeah, I mean as you go up and similar with Summerhill Apartments,
which sort of brings me, I guess, to sort of consideration is that you all need to think
about that and I would like to talk about it a little bit and that is you have 5 criteria that
you need to sort of balance and determine whether or not to grant the variance and I
guess relative to those criteria if I could suggest a few thoughts in terms of the building
and site design.
No undesirable change in character of the neighborhood, I think is one of those
criteria. I think the proposed use, as we have pointed out, is consistent with the zoning
designation for this site. Also the site is bounded on the south by the service or back end
of East Hill Plaza, by 100 foot NYSEG easement on the north, on the west in addition to
the CISER building, you also have Courtside and Ides Bowling Alley, which is going to
be significantly redeveloped for more intense commercial activity in the coming months.
Further the site was formerly occupied by GENEX or the Artificial Insemination
Cooperative. Part of what we are doing here is redeveloping an already developed site.
We are taking down these vacant and abandoned barn buildings and making a significant
improvement in the quality of the environment there. This proposed project area
generally, relative to the character of the neighborhood, is described in the Town's
Comprehensive Plan as being the largest concentration of commercial activity in the
Town and when the Town considered a pretty significant rezoning in early 2003, the
proposal was to actually rezone this particular parcel to Office Park Commercial. The
draft environmental impact statement that the Planning Board adopted at the time stated
that office use on this site was desirable and consistent with the predominant land uses
and character of the neighborhood and although the zoning has been changed back to
LDR because you can't do educational uses within Office Park Commercial, I think that
same conclusion still holds.
Mr. Ellsworth—What department is going to be in there?
Mr. Sieverding — There are no specific departments identified for this building. What
Cornell is developing here is generic office space. It is really designed to be very flexible
and adaptable to changing space needs as they occur and that was their goal. The
proposed building is nearly 600 feet from Pine Tree Road. So although it may be higher
in terms of elevation, it is nearly 600 feet back minimizing any height related impact
from that vantage point from Pine Tree Road. Further, the narrow dimension of the
building faces East Hill Plaza. That particular portion of the building happens to be
behind the highest portion of East Hill Plaza, I think minimizing further any visual
impact from that view. I think as Vince started to point out, the elevation of the building
in terms of its composition, the color, the materials that were chosen is really designed to
be lighter in mass and scale as you move up, as you get higher on the building. It is
really that upper portion that is visible when you look at this building from various
vantage points,particularly from Ellis Hollow.
Mr. Krantz —In answer to the question that was just directed at you, Cornell is putting up
this building and have no idea who the tenants are going to be?
15
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Sieverding — At this point, no. They haven't specifically identified the tenants
because what they want is a very flexible, open, adaptable floor plan. The only thing that
we have worked on in terms of the interior of the building is just the core of the building.
We have located the bathrooms, the elevators and the central entry space and that is it and
it is really blank until such time that they do identify specific users, at which time the
space will be carved up. They know that they have a need for finding administrative
office space.
Mr. Matthews —The way it sounds, there's no pressing need for this building?
Mr. Sieverding—I think there is a need.
Mr. Matthews —You think there is a need.
Mr. Sieverding — Well, we have been told that there is a very definite need for
60,000...otherwise they would not be making this substantial investment and building the
building. They are not going to build a building and let it sit there empty waiting for a
use to come along. As far as our work and development of the floor plans, no specific
tenants have been identified, but they will be administrative functions, no educational
functions, but administrative support functions in that space.
Chairperson Sigel—Of the University or?
Mr. Sieverding — Of the University. Not dissimilar, frankly, I imagine, from what is
going on at East Hill Plaza right now. Cornell University has 22,000 square feet of office
space at East Hill Plaza. It is their financial and human resource functions.
Mr. Ellsworth—Plus there is an office building scheduled to go up across the street where
the bowling alley is.
Mr. Sieverding—I think that is going to be Rite Aid.
Mr. Ellsworth — That is Rite Aid, but it is also office space also, a big portion of it. I'm
kind of amazed at the number of offices.
Mr. Niefer — With all due respect, I suspect that these gentlemen have been given a
charge to do something to construct and provide a building that they have not necessarily
been given the detail as to who's going to occupy it. That it not necessarily within the
scope of the charge that has gone to them to complete the project.
Mr. Sieverding—And in the end, when this project is complete, as I think we pointed out
to the Planning Board, it will be operated and maintained by the University.
Chairperson Sigel — So is it safe to assume that they are not going to be leasing it to
private entities?
16
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Sieverding — Absolutely. It will not be commercial space. I can tell you right now
that there will absolutely not be commercial rental space. It will be a University
function, administrative office space that will be in this building.
Mr. Krantz—We can be absolutely certain that it will be taken off the public tax levy.
Mr. Sieverding — I'm not sure that it is on right now because it is all being built on
University owned land.
Mr. Matthews —It's not on. It hasn't been on.
Mr. Sieverding—No. however, I think it is point out, as Rob from Olivia did, I think that
there is a sort of financial benefit for the public, certainly for those people who run
businesses at East Hill Plaza by bringing 250 or so employees to the site. I think we will
support all of those businesses that are in East Hill Plaza and the developer across the
street, I think he is struggling to figure out what he is going to do with the rest of that site
there. He has proposed 45,000 square feet of retail, but has only really committed to
doing with Rite Aid and is struggling to find other uses. I think that this helps with that
kind of development. I think getting back to the character of the community, I think on
the whole when you take a look at the site design, landscape design, the building design,
we believe that the proposed building will have a very positive impact on the character of
the neighborhood,particularly considering its current condition.
Alternatives to the requested variance. The benefits that the building office is
introducing as much natural lights...is possible, we believe can only be achieved by
having the tall ceilings and large expanses of glass that Vince explained. This has the
obvious affect of increasing the height of the building. reducing the building to 1 story
has a negative environmental consequence in terms of increasing the amount of
impervious site coverage and thereby increasing the amount of stormwater runoff,
increase consumption of materials and energy and raising up, I think as Planning staff
pointed out, a valuable land resource. It makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to
create the high quality work environment that has been described. So granting the
requested variance, we believe, is the only viable and feasible to achieve these very
positive impacts for the building's occupants and the surrounding environment. The size
of the variance, I mean we believe that the requested variance allows the minimum height
possible and still meets the objectives of creating this high quality, open, flexible floor
plan that is filled with natural light.
Mr. Ellsworth—Do you know the height of the bowling alley?
Mr. Sieverding — The bowling alley, I think most of the immediately surrounding
buildings are in the 25, 26, 27, 28 foot range.
Mr. Ellsworth—Do you know if the bowling alley approaches this height?
17
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Sieverding — No. However, there is a building in the area that is taller than the
proposed building and that is the Reis Tennis Center. This board granted that building as
53 feet tall, also located in LDR zone and this board granted the height variance to that
building in 1992. I think by comparison the requested 10 foot 8 inch variance that we are
requesting is significantly smaller and more in keeping, I think with the surrounding land
uses and buildings in the immediate project area.
Mr. Nicotra—Just to point something out. Herman had mentioned that the...that we used
that criteria of trying to have the solid portion of the building with the brick reflect the 2
story respect to the 2 story character of adjacent buildings. [tape is flipped]. This initially
was a much brighter color here, but when we looked at the surrounding landscape, we
toned down the top portion of the building to better blend with the background, so it's
intent is, architecturally, to emphasize the lower portion of the structure which is done in
masonry.
Mr. Sieverding - Which I think brings us to the fourth criteria which you need to
consider, which is the impact on the environment. And, I was noticing earlier, you also
have a copy of the resolution the Planning Board adopted declaring a negative
declaration, which is to say no significant impact on the environment. And that was
based on a very detailed stormwater management plan that was prepared, a detailed
traffic study, and a very detailed visual impact analysis as well as neighborhood character
analysis. And I think staff has included reduction of photos that were taken that attempt
to show how this building will fit into the surrounding environment. And if you are
interested or if necessary, we have larger boards, if you have questions about that. But
again, I think, the choice of materials, the siting of the building 600 feet away from Pine
Tree road, orienting the short end of the building towards East Hill Plaza, I think all have
the effect of mitigating that impact, and as noted by planning staff, doesn't really fall into
any particular viewshed or views that are known to be important to the public. So, I
think, given all that,we can safely say there is no significant impact on the environment.
Lastly, self-created difficulty. Always the more difficult one, I think, for you all
to deal with, as it is for us. But the project is located in the town's low density residential
neighborhood, and this proposed use is allowed by special permit. The area requirements
of the low density zone, however, apply to this educational administrative office use.
And in that sense, I think this creates a unique circumstance, where the physical
requirements of an educational office use must be weighted against the requirements of
this residential zone. In this sense, I think the difficulty is not self created, particularly
given the unique circumstances of the requirements of a university or educational type
buildings. And furthermore, I think the proposed use is fully compatible in this case with
all the surrounding land uses given that we are right in the middle of a pretty intense
commercial district. And as noted earlier, precedent has been established relative to the
granting of the height variance for the Reis center, and again, I think this one is
substantially smaller. So, in the context of all those five criteria that the zoning board
must balance, we believe that the requested variance is not only the minimum variance
possible while still meeting the objectives of providing an environmentally sensitive,
light-filled productive work environment. But also accomplishes this while having a
18
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
positive impact on the character of the neighborhood and the quality of the environment,
and no negative consequences to the health safety and general welfare of the public.
Mr. Matthews — You've obviously prepared well, with what you're saying, I think
belabors the point, that we have the tennis courts there that have a height variance and all
they're providing for is games and balls bouncing back and forth. This is something that
has a greater impact I think economically, and as I recall, not too long ago, we approved a
height variance for, I think it was sort of a meeting area, casual meeting area on one of
the barns down towards the apple orchard, as I recall, not too far away. And this is just
one more height variance, and really only 8 feet. It seems to me...
Chairperson Sigel—Well, actually ten feet.
Mr. Matthews — The economics that are being brought into the area far outweighs the 8
feet that we're concerned about or anyone is concerned about. And Cornell is growing,
and I can't recall anything Cornell has done that has been detrimental economically to the
community. Some people may have some problems with the environmental issues over
the years, but I don't think that's in the ballpark here. It's replacing a building that's
obviously run out of its use, and it doesn't smell like the previous occupant did. I hope
not.
Mr. Sieverding -No.
Mr. Matthews — It can only add to that area I believe, it's not like it's a residential area
per se. So I would unofficially or officially move that we move on this and not waste
anybody's time.
Chairperson Sigel—Any other comments or questions.
Mr. Niefer — One question, since you did mention health and safety issues, and that
actually is not necessarily part of the area variance criteria that needs to be met, but since
you did mention health and safety issues, there is one thing that was kind of pending that
I was interested in, and that was the Ithaca City Fire Department's ingress and egress and
access, perhaps by an alternative route into the location, since coming in from Pine Tree
Road is the only route. I believe I read somewhere in the material that was submitted that
you were going to get easements or rights of way through the Best Western motel or
something parking lot to have an alternate route into the location, what's the status of
that?
Mr. Sieverding - This is a condition to our final site plan approval, and as the result of a
concern of both Planning staff and when we had a meeting with Brian Wilbur and Tom
Parsons at the Ithaca Fire Department. And the thought is to have what is called a
mountable curb, where a curb comes around here at the end of the driveway, and then a
reinforced turf here, so that a fire truck could either drive straight through and get around
the Best Western motel or do it in reverse. So, Dave Herrick, our civil engineer, is
preparing a design so that we can meet with the owner of the Best Western motel and we
19
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
need to get his approval for that, and that's something that we need to do before we can
come back to the Planning Board for Final Site Plan. As a contingency.
Mr. Niefer — So the ingress and egress through the second route will ultimately be
approved by someone from the town?
Chairperson Sigel—That sounds...
Mr. Niefer—Is that correct?
Chairperson Sigel—the Planning Board.
Mr. Niefer—The planning board, someone from the Town?
Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, they haven't given final approval yet.
Mr. Niefer—That's all, you answered the question.
Mr. Matthews —Where is Pine Tree road on that diagram?
Mr. Sieverding - It's right over here, this is Pine Tree here, this is the reconfigured and
redesigned driveway, and this is the...
Mr. Matthews —Thank you, OK, thank you.
Chairperson Sigel—What is the elevation of the parking lot in relation to the elevation of
the ground where the paddocks are now? It looks like the parking lot is quite close to
where they are, so I would assume that would be pretty close to that elevation. And then,
my next question is, what is the elevation of the ground at the building in relation to the
parking lot?
Mr. Sieverding - The corner of the parking lot sort of closest to the entry driveway is at
elevation 935, and the existing paddock area is at about 933, so it is a couple feet lower.
So, therefore, my point that if you were to locate a building there, you'd have to build
that elevation up so the building is higher than the parking lot, you're not draining...
The whole principle behind our drainage plan is the parking lot is going to sheet
drain from east to west...
Chairperson Sigel—OK.
Mr. Sieverding - And then there is a swale and something that's called a bioretention
filter, it's a water quality practice, that we are going to have along this side, so to do what
you're suggesting, we'd have to reconfigure that stormwater management program, but
clearly given that there's already significant cut in this corner of the parking lot, if we're
at 935 here, and I think about 933 here, this is 933, this would have to be raised to get
that building up above.
20
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Chairperson Sigel— So then what does that make the elevation at the point in the parking
lot say closest to the entry to the building?
Mr. Sieverding - We're at about 940.
Chairperson Sigel—There's that much slope in the parking lot?
Mr. Sieverding - Yes. It's sloping from maybe southeast to northwest.
Mr. Ellsworth—Toward Pine Tree.
Chairperson Sigel — OK, so you've got 5 feet drop across the short dimension of the
parking lot?
Mr. Sieverding - Across the short dimension it's 5 feet, across the diagonal dimension it's
about an 8 foot drop.
Chairperson Sigel—OK. Is that a typical slope to get drainage for a parking lot?
Mr. Sieverding - For sheet drainage. It's a relatively wide parking lot, couple hundred
feet across at least.
Chairperson Sigel — So then the building will only be a couple feet higher than the
parking lot at that point?
Mr. Sieverding - That's right.
Mr. Nicotra- From that entrance point.
Mr. Sieverding - From that entrance point, it's 2 feet form the edge of the parking lot to
the front entry of the building.
Chairperson Sigel—OK.
Mr. Sieverding - Which meets the ADA accessibility requirements as far as a sloped
entry.
Chairperson Sigel—OK, that's just going to be a ramp, or a slope, no steps.
Mr. Sieverding - No, no, no steps, because all of our handicapped parking is actually
concentrated in front of that entry to the building.
Mr. Ellsworth—Where is the Olivia restaurant, is that the building right on the corner?
21
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Sieverding - Olivia, right is on the front corner, sort of near where it says Office
building sign.
Mr. Ellsworth—Their deck is going to be looking right at your building.
Mr. Sieverding - their deck is going to be sort of looking at the parking lot of the
building.
Mr. Nicotra- We've mitigated the visual impact with berming.
Mr. Ellsworth—Of course I understand the economics here for them, with 250 people.
Mr. Sieverding - Yes.
Mr. Nicotra - And also, I know this is not a site plan review, but we have mitigated that
are along the roadway with berms and landscaping so that quite a bit of plant material
that is going to buffer the driveway from the parking lot and the entrance point.
Chairperson Sigel—So, how much a change would it be for you, or how feasible would it
be to say change how you are doing your parking lot drainage somewhat, and have the
elevation across the whole front of the parking lot be at 935, and then have the building at
approximately 935, and then just have a slope towards the rear of the parking lot? That
would get your building 7 feet lower, which to me seems like a significant...
Mr. Sieverding - In it's current location?
Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, the building in it's current location,just 7 feet lower.
Mr. Sieverding - Well, that would be a tremendous cut. Right?
Mr. Nicotra- Excavation.
Mr. Sieverding - Our existing elevation in our current location is 941.9, if you want to get
down to around 735 there is a huge cut, and amount of material that needs to be moved.
Not only that...
Chairperson Sigel—I mean it seemed like...
Mr. Sieverding - There is substantial re-grading of everything in that area.
Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, it seemed to me that the elevation actually went up there and
then actually went lower as you went further west, no east.
Mr. Sieverding - East.
22
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Chairperson Sigel—As you went further east, at least for a little while, I mean I realize in
general it's going up.
Mr. Sieverding - Yeah, in general it's actually fairly level.
Chairperson Sigel —But there's kind of a bit of a hill right there. It sort of goes up sharp
from the paddocks,
Mr. Sieverding - From the paddock area it does increase, but once you're there, then from
there going east it stays relatively constant at between 941.9 and then nearly 5 or 600 feet
out, it's still 941.7.
Mr. Nicotra- It falls relatively sharply in this direction.
Mr. Sieverding - Right, it falls off to the north...
Chairperson Sigel—Right.
Mr. Sieverding - Because you're dropping down to the north.
Mr. Nicotra- So it's very close to what the existing grade is at the site.
Chairperson Sigel — So I guess what I'm proposing would be to just essentially push, to
push that hill that's now sort of between, well it's sort of now roughly in the middle of
your parking lot, or at the edge of the parking lot, over to the other side of the building,
you know,push that 7 feet increase to the east.
Mr. Sieverding - I think that would be a substantial practical difficulty I think to do that.
These are issues that we also, Planning Board actually raised that same point, and I think
in both our sketch plan and our preliminary site plan we discussed that.
Chairperson Sigel — Do you know if that was considered to any significant degree by
Planning Board?
Mr. Barney—I have no recollection.
Ms. Balestra—I don't recall.
Mr. Barney—Not that it couldn't happen.
Mr. Matthews —Kirk, if I may ask, what is the deleterious effect of keeping the building
as designed, rather than...
Chairperson Sigel — Well, I'm exploring a way to have, the building would be as
designed, but it would sit five or more feet lower.
23
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Matthews —And that is my question, what is the deleterious effect of having it at the
present designed height?
Chairperson Sigel — Well, it's almost 11 feet taller than allowed and it sticks up quite a
bit above surrounding buildings.
Mr. Matthews —We allowed the tennis court to be high.
Chairperson Sigel—That's a different building in a different location.
Mr. Matthews —Not very far away.
Chairperson Sigel—That's true. That was a long time ago, that was a different board.
Mr. Matthews —It's not like this is a scenic route in New York State.
Mr. Nicotra - It was actually proposed,just to answer your question a little bit further, if
you were to try to excavate this area, I think what we're trying to point out is this area is
also at a similar elevation as this, so if you had to drop the building, you could drop it to
be even with the parking lot, but you're going to bury the back part of the building,
because we can't get that grade excavated.
Mr. Sieverding - Because that grade continues, at 941
Mr. Nicotra - the grade continues at this elevation at 941 for some distance, you would
have to take off the top of that hill in order to not set the back part of the building actually
into the grade.
Mr. Sieverding - And that's just hugely expensive and just not very practical.
Mr. Niefer—I'm a little bit puzzled. You speak of 11 foot variance, the write up from the
planning group here they talk about a 8 foot 6 inch variance, how do we get 11 feet?
Chairperson Sigel—It's 10 foot 8 inch, right?
Ms. Balestra— 10 foot 8 inches.
Mr. Sieverding - 10 feet 8 inches.
Chairperson Sigel—It's ten foot 8 inch.
Mr. Sieverding - 36 feet I think is what is allowed from average grade around the exterior
of the building.
Mr. Niefer—This December 9 write up talks about 38 feet versus 46, 6.
24
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Ms. Balestra—Right.
Chairperson Sigel — That's from the lowest interior, it's 36 feet from the lowest exterior
grade. So it's whichever is lower. So I assume, so there's no basement?
Mr. Sieverding -No, it's a slab on a grade.
Chairperson Sigel—OK, so then you're exterior grade is the greater number.
Mr. Nicotra- Again, we're trying to minimize site disturbance.
Mr. Sieverding - And again, I think given the composition of the elevation, and our
discussion with the planning board relative to visual impact, also trying to minimize you
know, the impact of that additional height. Relative to these five or six vantage points
that the Planning Board had us analyze, and I think that's why you see the upper portions
of this building designed the way they are.
Mr. Krantz — You know, the other people in the plaza, like Olivia's restaurant, have an
obvious, it's obviously good for business for them to have an office building there. Not
too many years ago, Burger King went into that plaza, and half of East Hill came to this
meeting in protest because of what we were doing to their neighborhood. Have there
been any protests from the surrounding residents or residential areas?
Mr. Matthews —We don't know, we haven't opened it up.
Chairperson Sigel—Was there any opposition at the Planning Board?
Mr. Barney—I don't recall much of anything at the planning board.
Ms. Balestra—Not too much.
Mr. Sieverding -No.
Mr. Barney—There were a couple people there, but not actively...
Mr. Nicotra- We've generally...
Mr. Barney — See, this place isn't going to generate the burger king wrappers and the
burger king bottles and burger king...
Mr. Krantz—This place is a massive building that towers over everything else.
Mr. Barney —Well, except it's right in the—it's in an area that's kind of in the middle of
what is a commercial zone. Unlike Burger King, which was right on the surface of the
road, [inaudible] on the edge of the plaza, this sits back behind the plaza it's back in a
25
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
ways behind Genex. There's no question you're going to see it, I don't want to belittle it,
but it's quite the same thing as if it were sitting up where the ...
Mr. Krantz—I'm just asking if there have been no...
Ms. Balestra—No,
[several voices at once]
Ms. Balestra - The people that showed up in opposition to Burger King, it was more of a
social implication and environmental regarding the actual use of Burger King.
Mr. Barney—And it was drive through...
Ms. Balestra—Right.
Mr. Barney—And traffic they were concerned about.
Mr. Krantz—And meat.
Ms. Balestra—Exactly.
Chairperson Sigel — You guys should have put a drive through on the side of this, add a
challenge to your application.
Mr. Sieverding - This is challenging enough thank you.
[laughter]
Mr. Nicotra - I think we've gotten some good support. I think generally there was a
feeling on the Planning Board that it was an attractive addition
Mr. Sieverding - Well-designed...
Mr. Nicotra-in terms of its architecture.
Mr. Krantz —My questions have been answered, it seems reasonable to me.
Chairperson Sigel—I agree, and I do agree that it's a nicely designed building, I just felt I
should try to explore how feasible it was to lower it some, given that that is our charge...
Mr. Sieverding - I understand.
Chairperson Sigel —to try and grant the lowest possible, or mitigate anything as much as
possible. So, at this point, we'll open the public hearing, anyone wish to speak? If not,
we'll close the public hearing.
26
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Chairperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m.
Chairperson Sigel — Because Planning Board was lead agency, I don't think we have to
do SEQR.
Ms. Balestra—Right.
Mr. Barney—That's correct.
Chairperson Sigel—OK, if there's no further discussion.
Mr. Niefer—My only comment is I think that they've done a very good job in making a
case for the area variance that the increased height is reasonable and that it is well within
the neighborhood situation considering all other buildings in the immediate area, so IL
thoroughly support the concept of what they're proposing.
Chairperson Sigel—OK. All right, I will move to grant the appeal of Cornell University,
requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59
of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a three-story, approximate
60,000 square foot office building located at 395 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 63-1-
3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. With the finding that the requirements for an area
variance have been demonstrated and shown by the applicant, that the building height not
exceed ...
Mr. Ellsworth— 11 foot.
Chairperson Sigel — Not exceed let's say 47 feet and with the further condition that the
building be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans. John?
Mr. Barney — I think that probably will do it. You might add some findings that the
reasons for the need for the variance is to create internal light work zone, have natural
lighting, and exterior light to be able to get in. And that the space requirements are met
by going up as opposed to out so that you get the 60,000 square feet on a smaller
footprint. The building is somewhat more efficient by being a three-story building than it
would be as a single story building. I could go on and on probably for hours and hours,
but I think basically it doesn't alter the neighborhood character significantly, it's
basically a commercial area, and the building is more or less screened by the surrounding
properties, and while it will be visible, it's not going to be as visible as it might have been
at that height if it were adjacent directly to the road. That probably would do it.
Chairperson Sigel—Sounds good. Second?
Mr. Niefer—Second.
Chairperson Sigel—All in favor?
27
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 069: Cornell University, 395 Pine Tree Rd, Tax
Parcel No. 63.-1-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone.
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VI 11, Section 270-59 of the
Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a three-story, approximate
60,000 square foot office building located at 395 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 63-1-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone.
FINDINGS-
1.
INDINGS:1. The requirements for an Area Variance have been demonstrated and
shown by the applicant.
2. The reason for the need for the variance is to create internal light in the
work zone, to have natural lighting, and for exterior light to be able to get
in.
3. The space requirements are met by going up as opposed to out to get
60,000 square feet on a smaller footprint.
4. The building is somewhat more efficient by being a three story building
than it would be as a single story building.
5. The building does not alter the neighborhood character significantly, as it is
basically a commercial area.
6. The building is more or less screened by the surrounding properties, and
while it will be visible, it will not be as visible as it might have been at that
height if it were adjacent directly to a road.
CONDITIONS:
1. The building height shall not exceed 47 feet.
2. The building shall be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews
NAYS: NONE
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel—OK.
Mr. Sieverding - Thank you.
Mr. Nicotra- Thank you very much.
28
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
APPEAL of Glenn Hubbell, DBA Hub's Place Antiques, Appellant, requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-66 and
270-67 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain an antique shop
located at 1308 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.1,
Medium Density Residential Zone. An original, time-limited variance to allow the
antique shop was granted in 1990 and extended in 1996. The most recent variance
extension of January 24, 2001 is set to expire on January 24, 2006.
Chairperson Sigel — OK, the final appeal we have this evening is that of Glenn Hubbell
doing business as Hub's Place Antiques, requesting a variance from the requirements of
Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-66 and 270-67 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be
permitted to maintain an antique shop located at 1308 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No.
27-1-14.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. An original variance to allow the antique
shop was granted in 1990 and extended in 1996. The most recent extension of 2001 is set
to expire in January 2006. Good evening.
Mr. Hubbell - Good evening. Obviously I'm Glenn Hubbell, sole owner and proprietor
of Hub's Place. Seems like I was just here only five years ago. I've quietly enjoyed
running the business, and it's 29 years now that I've been there in that location, and I
guess I would claim the same request as I have in prior years to continue the operation as
I have done and probably for the same reasons as I've claimed in the past. And I guess if
there's hopefully any questions or something...[inaudible] to go into detail, it would be
mostly normal procedures I've gone through before. I'm certainly not a public speaker.
I've been there, and I've, to my knowledge, quietly enjoyed it, and it's my little niche,
and I have fun doing it, I don't get extremely rich doing it, but it does supplement rather
meager social security that a self-employed person gets. $600 a month isn't that much
social security, but that seems to be the norm for people who are self-employed and that's
just the way it comes out. If anybody has any questions, I will try to answer them.
Chairperson Sigel — has the nature of the business changed any since the last time you
were here?
Mr. Hubbell - No, overall it seems to be getting a little better to some degree. The sales
have actually increased since the fire in 93 when I lost the 12,000 square foot building,
actually I think people figured I better buy it today because the damn fool will burn it up.
And there was things in that building that people had purchased and they was there for
two or three years and they didn't pick them up and it was there loss. It's still run, I run it
mainly alone. I've been widowed for 9 years, I do have a significant interest, which has
proved, she has proved to be a great asset to the business. Being considered a significant
other, I qualified it as being family oriented. She doesn't get paid, she just works. And
the organization, I have many compliments on being better organized. If people can see
more, they'll buy more. And that's the main thing. My son, one of my sons lives with
me, and he is an asset, as a backup or what not in facilitating keeping the store open. Of
29
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
course, I'm only open on Saturdays and Sundays or by appointment when somebody
wants to come and pick something up. As it's been for 30 years — it was meant to be
something to retire to and supplement my old age.
Chairperson Sigel — Anyone have any questions? For, Chris, do you want to say
anything?
Ms. Balestra — Regarding the time limit, I just wanted to remind the board that the city
lights antiques was before this board at the last meeting, I believe, or the meeting before
that, and you had considered the time limited use variance and had decided on allowing
Miss Shuler to have 10 years rather than 5 years before you revisited the project again.
Mr. Matthews —We allowed ten years for that one across the street.
Ms. Balestra—Mmm hmmm.
Chairperson Sigel—Yeah.
Mr. Krantz—And this is really as identical a situation as you can get.
Ms. Balestra—pretty much.
Mr. Hubbell - I hope I live ten years. I'm sure she will. She... I intended to write a letter
or come down to her hearing, but she is a most wonderful neighbor and certainly is not
competitive in any matter even though she is daubling a little bit in antiques or something
along that nature, or intends to in the next ten years, but a very responsible compatible
neighbor, and I'm sure she probably would say the same about me, but she asked me if I
wanted her to come down and I said no, I don't think it's necessary.
Mr. Matthews — There's no news in the future that we know of about large residential
housing going up in that area in the next five years or ten years?
Chairperson Sigel—Well, the...
Ms. Balestra—There is Linderman Creek.
Mr. Matthews —Pardon?
Ms. Balestra — There is Linderman Creek that is nearby but that's, there may be
additional units with Linderman creek, but that's about it at this point.
Mr. Krantz—And further down the road the senior citizen thing is going in.
Ms. Balestra—Oh, right and then...
Mr. Krantz—The whole other side of Mecklenburg Road is getting pretty well developed.
30
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Ms. Balestra—But nothing in this immediate are.
Mr. Matthews —That's my concern...
Chairperson Sigel—Well, the gentleman with the gravel mine is...
Ms. Balestra—Sky Gardens, but that has not, I mean...
Mr. Matthews —He's not going beyond five years is he?
Ms. Balestra—Sky Gardens is
Chairperson Sigel — He's hoping to do a residential development after the gravel is
excavated.
Mr. Matthews —That's what I'm getting at is...
Ms. Balestra—Which is almost two years.
Mr. Matthews — I want Mr. Hubbell to continue enjoying his business, but on the other
hand, I wouldn't like, I could be convinced I'm sure, to go out there ten years and five
years he's surrounded by houses and residential areas and so forth and people are up I
arms over the fact that we gave Mr. Hubbell a ten year variance.
Chairperson Sigel—Well, anyone moving in would obviously know that. He's not trying
to hide his business.
Mr. Matthews — Well, I understand what you're saying, but I've heard a lot of people
move in and suddenly they don't like the smell of cows.
Ms. Balestra—There's right to farm laws for that.
Mr. Matthews —That happens all the time. Yeah, they see the cows, but anyway, I guess
I would opt to go or suggest that we extend another five years. We're pleasant people to
come down and speak to, is that correct, Mr. Hubbell? You don't have to answer that
question.
Mr. Hubbell - I can find time in another...
Mr. Matthews —So if he has to come back in five years, it's no harm done to anyone.
Mr. Niefer—I really think we should go the ten...
Mr. Krantz—I agree.
31
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Niefer - ... the ten situation, having done that for the people across the road. They
are very similar situations. This location from what I have seen has been very well
maintained, and so long as it's in the family, and they take decent care of the exterior of
the property, why I think that they're operating in a reasonable way for the character of
the neighborhood for the purpose that they're intending.
Chairperson Sigel—I agree. My intention was to support ten years...[inaudible]
Mr. Hubbell - I do have a somewhat close rapport with Mr. Rancich, in fact, he tried to
buy my place, but I said thanks but no thanks right now. That's here nor there, but 30
years ago when I bought the place, I was well aware that I was going to be encroached
upon or built around or things certainly would change. And of course, that wasn't all that
bad, because it would presumably would increase the value of my property, and at some
point, I may well come in and say I took a bulldozer to it and I've got 9 acres of clean
clear open space that would... well, first phase of Linderman Creek went on 9.5 acres
with 60 some units, and of course I never would contemplate even trying to put that
amount on mine, but the comparative of the land size in the land that I've got, I can't
conceive 66 units on my property, but the potential would be there, and I guess it is zoned
as such that it's not incomprehensible that somebody after me may want to do it.
Chairperson Sigel — Well, also I think mitigating the impact of the business there is the
fact that, as Mr. Hubbell said, it's a fairly large lot and any development around it would
not get too close to his business.
Mr. Hubbell - No, I'm pretty well buffered. To the west will never be built, period. I
mean, I think that's a foregone thing, even in the preliminary plans of Mr. Rancich, and
of course on the south side of the road, the outfit over there, never intended to go along
the road anyway. I'm pretty sure that's in their special zoning regulations that they
wouldn't build on the road. So, my daughter is on the east of me, which won't ever
change, and that's got 9 acres of buffer, and some woodland and a natural creek on the
north side, which gives a buffer between that and Mr. Rancich's thing if it ever comes to
volation (?). Nothing will never be on the west, so I'm reasonably well isolated and
being retired, I spend about two days a week mowing the lawn, which I don't have to do,
I do it for myself, because I like to look at it when I drive home. You know, you mow 6
or 7 acres of grass, and you don't have to, you just like to see it mowed.
Chairperson Sigel — OK, any other comments or questions? All right, we'll open the
public hearing, and with no one present besides the applicant, we'll close the public
hearing.
Chairperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
Mr. Hubbell - That's always good or bad, I don't know which. One or the other.
Mr. Barney — Mr. Hubbell, I assume it would be a financial hardship for you if you
weren't able to extend this for another period of time.
32
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Hubbell - With cheek in mouth I say it would change my lifestyle. Now, that's being
pretty vague, but it does supplement my income to a degree that even though some
people foresee me as being semi-wealthy, but they assume that. It's not a reality.
Mr. Barney — I guess, because one of the tests is whether it is a financial hardship here
for, anyway, I think the answer to that question...
Mr. Hubbell - The financial... Yes, I realize that, and the financial hardship might be
even greater if I wasn't able to do this. I would have a piece of property, what would I do
with it? What could I do with it, and what would I do with it, without any income from
it? Tooling it over to pure storage or something of that nature, it would be kind of
changing boats in the middle of the stream. At my age, I've got something that works for
me, I would like to continue with it.
Mr. Matthews —Sounds reasonable to me.
Chairperson Sigel — So, we need to do an environmental assessment for this. Any
comments, Chris, about that? All right, I will move to make a negative determination of
environmental significance with regard to the appeal of Glenn Hubbell for the reasons
stated in the short environmental assessment form completed by Town staff, dated
December 19, 2005. Second?
Mr. Krantz—Second.
Chairperson Sigel—All in favor?
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 070 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Glenn
Hubbell, 1308 Mecklenburg Rd, Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-14.1, Medium Density
Residential Zone.
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz.
RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in regard to the appeal of Glenn Hubbell, for the reasons stated in
the Short Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated
December 19, 2005.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews
NAYS: None
33
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel — And I will move to, actually I will, we can just re-move the motion
of this board, resolution number 2000-81, with the only change being that condition (4):
approval is for a ten year period commencing on this date. It looks like everything else is
relevant.
Ms. Balestra—I just have one quick comment.
Chairperson Sigel—Sure.
Ms. Balestra — When I did the cover memo, I sort of combined some of the conditions
that applied throughout the years...
Chairperson Sigel—OK.
Ms. Balestra— Because they have sort of been expanded on. This is more of a question
actually, if you want to continue that, or if you want to just pass the conditions from
2000.
Chairperson Sigel—Well, I think, I mean 2000 refers to all previous...
Ms. Balestra — To all of the previous ones, right. I don't know if you wanted to be
specific, or if you want to....
Chairperson Sigel —It wouldn't hurt. So you're saying that this compilation you have is
what you found from all previous...
Ms. Balestra—From all the previous ones.
Chairperson Sigel — OK. So, I guess in place of condition (1), which refers to previous
approvals, we will replace that with conditions (a) through (e), no, sorry, (a) through (d)
in the planning department memorandum cover letter. Do those duplicate any of the ones
remaining? Restricted to the main building, no family, no one other than family...
Ms. Balestra—Number two and three are duplicated by C and D or vise versa.
Chairperson Sigel — OK, sorry, we'll just add A and B from the Planning Department
memo.
Mr. Barney — A there was a little confusion about. In fact, one or two variances ago.
There was no outside storage other than display items from periods longer than three
hours, and the outside display is only during the times that the business is open. I assume
that's the way you've been operating the business?
34
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Hubbell - Well, striving to operate that... but it's kind of like their new snow
ordinances in the city of Ithaca, there's no way in the world they're ever going to enforce
them, and that would be virtually, unless you put somebody up there 24 hours a day every
weekend.
Mr. Barney—we could do that. Chris is looking for...
Mr. Hubbell - You wouldn't find 3 hours and 20 minutes.
Ms. Balestra—Thanks a lot.
[laughter]
Mr. Hubbell - I am aware of those regulations and I strive to keep within the boundaries
of reasonability.
Mr. Barney — I would change A to read there be no outside storage other than display
items, for periods longer than three hours, period. And then go on to say there is no
outside display of items being sold at the business, except during times that the business
is open, and within a reasonable period of time. [inaudible]
Mr. Hubbell - I quite often take things out and set them back that day, but I do have, at
points during the summer, things that I call artifacts, urns, flowers, which I might sell, but
I put them out for my own appreciation. So some people might conclude well, what's
that setting there? Well, if I wanted an old toilet full of bushes or flowers, to me it's an
ornamental piece, to somebody else it would be offensive. But...
Mr. Barney—Chris will enforce it within reason.
Mr. Hubbell - Yeah, you know I've got three or four tractors setting around at any given
point during the summer, and what not, and the wheelbarrow that I'm using and what not,
which is not for sale, but it would be somewhere [inaudible] around anybody's house that
has a fair amount of something to maintain. You know, it would be a couple garbage
cans here, but they would be there at every household. But I keep it in context that I'm
supposed to.
Chairperson Sigel—OK, I'm satisfied. Did I get to the end of that motion, I think I did.
[tape is changed]
Chairperson Sigel—OK, second on the motion?
Mr. Niefer—Second.
Chairperson Sigel—All in favor?
35
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 071: Glenn Hubbell, 1308 Mecklenburg Rd, Tax
Parcel No. 27.-1-14.1, Medium Density Residential Zone.
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Glenn Hubbell, requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-66 and
270-67 of the Town of Ithaca Code, for the operation of an antique and second
hand goods shop located at 1308 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 27-1-14.1, Medium Density Residential Zone, based up on the following
findings and conditions-
FINDINGS-
1.
onditions:FINDINGS:1. The appellant depends entirely upon the operation of this business for his
livelihood. To deny him this appeal would cause him an unacceptable
degree of financial hardship.
2. There do not appear to be any complaints from neighbors concerning the
operation of this business.
3. The operation of the business will be substantially the same as that
operated for the past five years.
4. The business operates 150 feet back from the roadway behind a house
and consequently does not present a visual eyesore.
CONDITIONS-
1.
ONDITIONS:1. There shall be no outside storage other than display items, for periods
longer than three hours.
2. There shall be no outside display of items being sold at the business
except during the times that the business is open and within a reasonable
period of time.
3. There shall be adequate parking provided off the highway for customers.
4. That the public be restricted to the main building where the antique sales
are conducted.
5. That there will be no employees of the business other than family
members.
6. Approval is for a ten-year period commencing on December 19, 2005.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews
NAYS: NONE
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel—OK. Thank you, you're all set.
36
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Hubbell - And if you bide with me, as a minor point, I did get a hold of somebody in
the state highway department, and I've got the old Corning-Catskill or whatnot historic
sign which used to be in the bushes down by Westhaven, put back in my front yard,
where it belongs. It was originally there 30 years ago, and inadvertently got damaged or
something, and they replaced it someplace else. But, as near as I can tell, next year my
house will be 200 years, which is validatable by a group from Cornell that did studies and
everything in the Town of Ithaca and videotapes, and they interviewed, I even at one
point had the sixth grandson of John Linderman, who was a revolutionary veteran, that
received that property as pay for fighting in the revolutionary war. And the headwaters
of Linderman Creek, and I didn't object to them naming the apartments Linderman
Creek, but the headwaters are on my property, there's dry fields all the way around it, and
I was quite intrigued when the sixth grandson comes from Colorado, and he was looking
for the house and the federal government re-dedicated all the monuments to the
revolutionary veterans, and they found his in East Hill cemetery and cleaned it up and re-
dedicated it and put a new monument on. And there was quite a few of his relatives that
came to the dedication two or three years ago. So, generally, I think my house is 206
years old, which would put it, it ought to be on some, it is logged in, Cornell logged it in
and the Town sponsored and they've got videotape and they had even a showing here in
this room a couple years ago of all the houses around the Town perimeter on Westhaven
and all that they could find out about the history of the house. The fact that the nearest
they can tell it was built in 1806, so next year my house will be 200 years old, which I
take some pride in.
Chairperson Sigel— [inaudible]
Mr. Hubbell - But I thank you gentlemen immensely, and I guess I'm done, right?
Chairperson Sigel—You're all set.
Mr. Barney—Thank you very much.
Mr. Hubbell - Thank you.
Agenda Item: Consideration of Approval of 2006 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Schedule.
Chairperson Sigel—OK, I think we need to make a motion on next year's schedule.
Ms. Balestra—Yeah.
Chairperson Sigel—Or do we do that at the first meeting?
Mr. Barney —Technically it should be done at the first meeting of 2006. Are we going to
have the same membership?
Ms. Balestra—That was the other question.
37
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Chairperson Sigel — I saw, wasn't there an advertisement for a board member in the
paper?
Ms. Balestra — There was. I think we weren't sure if one of the members was going to
continue.
Mr. Ellsworth—The letter was sent in three weeks ago, maybe it got lost.
Ms. Balestra—OK.
Mr. Coakley—We know.
Ms. Balestra—In that case, it's for an alternate.
Chairperson Sigel—OK, so you're going to continue Harry?
Ms. Balestra—All right.
Mr. Barney — Then I think we want to go ahead and vote again, but technically these
organizational things should be done by the board that is going to be meeting, and
sometimes the board changes over the first of the year. So if you want to do it tonight, I
think otherwise you do it...
Chairperson Sigel — OK, well I move that the next year's schedule as indicated on this
memorandum be our official schedule for next year. Second?
Mr. Krantz—Second.
Chairperson Sigel—All in favor?
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 072: Consider Approval of 2006 ZBA Meeting
Schedule
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz.
RESOLVED that next year's schedule, as indicated on the memorandum dated
October 25, 2005, be the official schedule of the Zoning Board of Appeals for
2006.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews
NAYS: NONE
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
38
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 19, 2005
APPROVED MINUTES
Agenda Item: Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board Re2ardin2
Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals for 2006.
Chairperson Sigel — And the other thing is a recommendation for chairperson for next
year. Which one of you guys wants to do it?
Mr. Krantz—I move that we make it unanimous that we keep that same chairman.
Chairperson Sigel—OK.
Mr. Niefer—Second.
Chairperson Sigel—All in favor?
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 073: Consider Recommendation to the Town
Board Regarding Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals for 2006.
MOTION made by Ron Krantz, seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED that this Board recommends to the Town Board that Kirk Sigel
continue to be the chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews
NAYS: NONE
ABSTAIN: Sigel
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Sigel—All right, then we're adjourned.
Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
Kirk Sigel, Chairperson
John Coakley, Deputy Town Clerk
39