Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2004-01-26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, January 26, 2004 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; James Niefer; Board Member; Andrew Dixon, Board Member; Andy Frost, Director of Building/Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS: Victor Somma, 120 Burns Road; Sue Gillis, 112 Burns Road; Al Gillis, 112 Burns Road; Jim Clark 301 Old Gorge Road; Tim Atsedes, 196 East King Road; Jim Atsedes, 104 Crest Lane; Herb Engman, 120 Warren Road; David Harrick, 1 Winners Circle. Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Welcome to the January meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have two appeals. The first of Jim Clark and the second appeal of Claire Wiedmaier. We'll take them in that order. APPEAL : Jim Clark, Appellant; Jim Atsedes, Agent requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Section 18.10, Section 21 and 22 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A if the New York State Town Law, to be permitted to construct a single-family home with a building height of 42 +/- feet (36 foot height limit) at 301 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.37, Residence District R-30. Said property will temporarily not front on a Town, County, or State highway as the Old Gorge Road is under constructions. Access is provided by the newly constructed Southwoods Drive. Chairperson Sigel — Is there a representative for this appeal? You can come sit at the desk right here, at the microphone. Please state your name and address for the record. Could you give us a brief overview of what you are asking for? Jim Clark, 923 West Broad Street, Horseheads — Actually, we have a little bit of a revision from when I filled out this application. Originally we were asking for a height variance of the building height to be 42 feet. When I filled out the application, I didn't actually have the set of prints back from the New York State architect and his revisions brought the building in at 39 feet. So we are actually asking for a little bit less than what we originally were asking for. Chairperson Sigel — Less is good. Mr. Clark — I'm kind of representing that part. John Mclnster is going to represent the road part because he put the roads in the development so he could explain this better than I could. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Mr. Frost — You may want to start, Jim, just by stating, basically, the walk-out basement is creating the height increase. Actually, when we scaled, the original plan was about 41 feet, I tend to give you an extra foot, when I advertise this for the meeting. This is why it said 42 feet. Mr. Clark— I actually have a set of prints here back from the architect, if you want to take a look at his revisions on those. Would that help or no? Chairperson Sigel — I guess we need one copy of that for the record. We'll take one copy. Mr. Clark - I've submitted a copy to the Code Office for the permit, so there is one there. Is that sufficient or do you need another one? Chairperson Sigel —What we have is sufficient. So the new height is 39 exactly? Mr. Clark- 39 foot 6 is what it is. Chairperson Sigel — So 40 foot would be sufficient? Mr. Clark- Yes. Chairperson Sigel —And is it just the rear of the building that will exceed..... Mr. Clark — That is the only part that exceeds the height limit. Every place else I scaled the building out and it is well within the 36 foot height frame. Chairperson Sigel —What is the status of the road. Mr. Mclnster — The road, right now, I'm just waiting for the engineers to give us some rough layout on the clearing limits for phase two. Right now, we've actually got a turn around at the, I guess the Southwoods end of it, is what it's called. They just named the road, so I am not really familiar with what they're calling it. We are actually at stage 1100, which doesn't mean anything to you, but if you had a lot map, we are actually going to construct the property on lot 37 or is that lot 39? Okay, lot 37. The turn-around that the Town has instructed us to build there is partially in the middle of his lot right now, so basically, we extend the road another 60 feet and we are well within the property lines. What we want to do is get the road cleared, get the underground in and potentially; we'd like to start that as soon as the weather permits. We'll start the clearing and then the road construction will start as soon as we get our work together. Mr. Frost — At what point do you anticipate the whole Gorge Circle being completed? 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Mr. Mclnster — As early as we possibly can get it done. With the weather right now, I couldn't tell you. Under normal conditions, I'm going to say probably eight to nine weeks from start to finish. It's just a loop at the end. Mr. Frost— Is it the anticipation then, that the road will be done before your house is built. Mr. Clark— Yeah. Mr. Mclnster- Or at least extended past his lot, where his lot is now. It's about to the middle of it now. Mr. Frost — That's the way I understood. I think the issue is, when we issue the permit, if that construction hasn't started, then we're issuing a permit without the frontage. So it is kind of a formality. Since we're here anyhow for the height variance, we are covering two bases. Chairperson Sigel — So we could make the variance not continue once the house is sold or occupied and that should be okay? The road will be in before the house is finished then? Mr. Frost — I guess what we are saying is is that it is conceivable, they have granted the variance, but it won't extend once the house is complete and going to be occupied without the road being there. Mr. Clark- That is correct. Mr. Frost—And you are comfortable with that? Mr. Clark— Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Anyone have any questions? Seems pretty straightforward. Mike, any comments on the Environmental Assessment? Mr. Smith — No, not really. The SEAR primarily refers to the road frontage, since the height is an area variance, but I mentioned both items in the SEAR as just being temporary. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m. Environmental Assessment: ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 001: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Jim Clark, 301 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.37, Residence District R-30. 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Jim Clark, Appellant, Jim Atsedes, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Section 18.10, Section 21 and 22 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to construct a single-family home with a building height not to exceed 40 feet at 310 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46.4- 15.37, Residence District R-30. Said property will temporarily not front on a Town, County, of State highway as the Old Gorge Road is under construction. Access is provided by the newly constructed Southwoods Drive. This motion is made for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated January 12, 2004. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously Resolution: Chairperson Sigel — Would it be easier to just set a time when that expires. We were going to have the frontage variance expire before the house was completed or occupied? Mr. Barney- I would probably do both. I would say, the earlier of the application for a Certificate of Occupancy or at some finite date. How long will it take to get the road in? Chairperson Sigel — Six months? Mr. Mclnster — Six months is more than enough time, especially because it is all weather permitting at this time. Mr. Clark— We can't start until March or so. Mr. Mclnster — We don't want that six month time to start ticking today is all, we can't dig. Chairperson Sigel —Well, it would be from today. Mr. Barney— When would the road be in? 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Chairperson Sigel — End of the summer? Mr. Mclnster - The road will be in, whether permitting, we're actually starting clearing here, hopefully within a week or two. I hope to have the road done several months before he is done with the house. I think six months from now would be sufficient. Mr. Barney— You know the road has got to come back to the Town for approval? Mr. Mclnster — Right. We dealt with the Town on Phase 1 which is the most difficult phase. The second Phase is pretty straight forward, there are not pump stations. Mr. Frost— Jim, do you have a date on a contract to complete the house. Mr. Clark — The completion date that I had with the owner is six months after the permit has been issued because I don't know how long this process would take. Mr. Barney — Why don't you make it either the earlier or the request for a Certificate of Occupancy of nine months from today. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 002: Jim Clark, 301 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.37, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Jim Clark, Appellant, Jim Atsedes, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Section 18.10, Section 21 and 22 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct a single family home with a building height not to exceed 40 feet at 301 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.37, Residence District R-30 and to further grant a temporary variance from Section 280A of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to construct home that does not front on a Town, County, or State highway as the Old Gorge Road is under construction. Access is provided by the newly constructed Southwoods Drive. FINDINGS: 1. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDI TIONS: 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 1. The variance for not having any frontage expires at the time of a request for a Certificate of Occupancy or within nine months from January 26, 2004, whichever event occurs first. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth ,Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL: Clare George Wiedmaier, Appellant: Frank Santelli, PE, Agent; requesting a variance from the requirements of Article X-A, Section 50H of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to create a building lot by subdivision with said lot having 119 +/- feet of road frontage (300 foot of frontage required) on the Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56.-4- 1.22, Conservation zone. The lot width at the maximum front yard setback line will also be less then 300 feet. Said building lot will be located both in the Conservations zone and a Residential R-15 zone, consisting of 1.8. +/1 acres, whereas Conservation zone lots must be 7 acres. A proposed house is to be located in the R-15 zone. Chairperson Sigel — Hello. David Harrick— Good evening. I'm representing both Frank and George tonight. Mr. Wiedmaier's subdivision was approved. He got both preliminary and final by the Planning Board back in December of last year with this plan. Nothing has changed since that layout was approved, but the one issue that we do have before us is that Lot 4, which is one of the residential building lots located in the R-15 Zone, has for it's legal road frontage, in order to obtain a building permit, 119 foot strip on Burns Road. The Conservation District boundary falls part way down Burns Road and most of the Lot 4 frontage is within the Conservation District, which the entirety of the building lot is in the R-15 Zone. Now, the four residential lots that are being constructed within the R-15 Zone will be accessed by a non-Town private drive. The fifth lot, which is the 12 acre parcel in the bulk of the Conservation District, it's Lot 5 over here to the left. That will also be accessed by the private drive. We are here to seek relief from those particular Conservation District requirements that would require for Lot 4 to have the additional acreage and the additional frontage on Burns Road. We feel that the plan that was presented to the Planning Board, and I think fairly well received, in concept by the board, does the most to mitigate the influence and impact on the core of the Conservation District on Burns Road. We would like to obtain, from the Board, approval to maintain the subdivision layout plan as it was presented and approved by the Planning Board. 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Chairperson Sigel — How much area does the lot have in the R-15 District? Mr. Harrick — It has close to 9/10 of an acre in the R-15 Zone. It is consistent with the other three lots, that vary from about .85 acres to about .81 acres. So, they are all relatively large, nearly one acre lots in an R-15 Zone that really only requires 15,000 square feet. Chairperson Sigel — So, it's almost 40,000 square feet then? Mr. Harrick— That is correct. Mr. Krantz — Just a point, Kirk. If this inter-governmental agreement with Tompkins County, which we're to discuss afterwards, were in effect now, we would not be voting on this, would we? Because there are five lots and it has to be less than five. Chairperson Sigel — No, that agreement won't affect at all what we do. It will only affect what the Town is required to refer to the County for County recommendations. It in no way will eliminate any rulings that we have to make. Mr. Krantz— But we would not get this case, then. Chairperson Sigel — We would because they need variances from our Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Smith — Pretty much all the applications that come in to the Town of Ithaca are turned over to the County if they are within 500 feet of a State or County road, a park, a municipal boundary, all those types of activities have to be sent to the County Planning Board for recommendation also. Mr. Niefer — Which is what has been done in the past. It's a renewal of that agreement. Mr. Smith — Well no, that's eliminating some actions that will be sent to the County. That has nothing to do with the actions that will be before this Board. Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone have any questions or comments about the appeal? Mr. Ellsworth — What percentage or how much of that lot is in the Conservation Zone? Mr. Harrick —Well, it's 1.8 acres, about half is in the Conservation Zone. Mr. Ellsworth —Almost 9/10 of an acre. 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Mr. Harrick — Right. Again, that only serves as the legal frontage. Given the setback requirements of the Conservation District, nothing could physically be built on that strip that does lie within the Conservation District. It is 100 foot wide. The setback requirements are 50 feet. Mr. Ellsworth — So, that's a restriction on this lot, there? Mr. Harrick — Well, it is by its own nature, by its creation it physically can't have any dwelling within that area of the Conservation District. Mr. Ellsworth — Have you got that same situation with that one up to the east? Mr. Harrick— No, Lot 3 — Mr. Ellsworth — No, the one to the right of Lot 4? Mr. Harrick — No, that has frontage on Slaterville Road. Lot 1- 3 have more than the necessary frontage. Mr. Ellsworth — Part of that other lot is within the Conservation District? Mr. Harrick— No, Lot 4 is the only one. Mr. Frost — Lot 4, by itself, would be land-locked unless it had, kind of that flag pole shape to provide the frontage onto Burns Road. Chairperson Sigel — They could have, obviously, not added the section in the Conservation District to the lot and just asked for a variance for a lot not on a Town road. Mr. Frost — Due west of that Conservation Zone strip is another house dead center of the 12-acre parcel. Mr. Harrick— Correct. Mr. Frost— There are five lots. Mr. Niefer— Is there a house currently on Lot 5? Mr. Harrick— No, there are no homes on the property. Mr. Niefer — Just a matter of curiosity, rather than coming in from Slaterville Road, why was ingress to this development not from Burns Road? You've got two roadways coming into Slaterville Road. If this development had access over on to Burns Road and then onto Slaterville Road it would eliminate one more intersection on Slaterville Road. 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Mr. Harrick — Well, there's two reasons. One, Burns Road has got quite and aggressive slope there as you approach the intersection. Mr. Niefer— To get access to Burns Road? Mr. Harrick — Either turning on to, in a right direction of turning from Burns Road into the development has got a cross pitch. The second reason is that there is a fairly significant depression in the land there, across which this private driveway would have to be constructed. The owner, it was the owner's preference to have the intersection up on the State Highway, which does provide a little more user- friendly intersection. Mr. Ellsworth —And an economic decision. They don't want to do all that fill. Mr. Harrick — Well, they still need it even for this design. There needs to be some fill placed to get up to the shoulder of the highway, but at least Slaterville Road has a minimal slope to it. Mr. Krantz — This all sort of makes reasonable enough sense, by still it's a little disturbing, at least to me, we're going from 300 feet o 119 feet of road frontage and we are going from seven acres to 1.8 acres. That's really a significant shift. Chairperson Sigel — But I think mitigating it is that the R-15 portion of the lot is quite a bit bigger than it needs to be for an R-15 District and the house is going completely in the R-15 portion and it is being accessed only through the R-15 portion. It sounds, from what David has said, there is no practical way to use the Conservation section and we could even impose a restriction that it not be used for anything. Mr. Ellsworth — I guess what bothers me is that it is a borderline case and we possibly grant this one and then how far do — Mr. Barney — It seems to me the purpose of the Conservation District is to conserve land. I wonder, David, would you accept two restrictions on this parcel, one being that there is to be no construction of any nature, other than a driveway. The other being that there wouldn't be any further subdivision of Lot 4 at all. Well, you couldn't create a separate lot in the Conservation Zone. Mr. Harrick—We wouldn't be able to. Mr. Barney — Legally, the purpose of getting this is for access. You take the access away and they don't need it for anything. Mr. Frost— But does that driveway extend down to serve a potential house on Lot 5? 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Mr. Harrick— Yes it does Mr. Ellsworth — What do you mean by "development John?" Do you mean that they can't put a lawn on that section? Mr. Barney— They can't build a structure. Mr. Ellsworth — I presume some of these rules are made to mitigate runoff and fertilizer and a lot of different things. Development in the Conservation area, that's why you have seven acres. Here we go modifying the rules. Mr. Smith — This development is actually doing exactly what you just said because the house and the driveway are put up in the R-15 district and they are not building in the Conservation Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Another way to look at it is that they could have just alternately asked for a variance to build a house on a lot that doesn't front on a road. Mr. Ellsworth — They could have made that an 8/10 of an acre lot like some of the other lots. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Ellsworth —And not have any of it in the Conservation District. Chairperson Sigel — Right and then they wouldn't have any frontage. Mr. Harrick — Then we'd be here looking for— I'd be here in front of you no matter what, were it was one action or another. Mr. Barney — Is there some reason that the road that is coming in from Slaterville Road is not going to be offered to the Town as a Town road? Mr. Harrick — That pre-dated our involvement in the project, but it was our understanding that this short of a spur is of limited Town benefit. It didn't seem practical. Mr. Barney— I can't speak for the Town Highway Superintendent. Mr. Harrick — The owner did not have a desire to construct a Town road to Town dimensions and standards that weren't truly needed just for five residential structures. Mr. Barney—What standard are they building to? There still are standards. 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Mr. Harrick — Well, it's the standard that we presented to the Planning Board with the widths and slopes and materials, that hasn't changed, but it's not a Town road. We don't have a 32 foot wide pavement section. It was also reviewed and discussed and agreed upon with the fire department as well that what we are providing was an adequate means for them to get in and provide fire protection and emergency services. Chairperson Sigel —All the way back to Lot 5? Mr. Harrick — You'll have a standard driveway from the end of Lot 4 down to Lot 5. It's like any 150 or 200 foot driveway that you have off of a public street. Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions or comments at this time? Chairperson Sigel opened the Public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Please have a seat and just state your name and address. Victor Somma, 120 Burns Road — I'm right across the street from where this is. I've only been here three years. I'm from New York City so you have to understand the way I think. I'm very frustrated because I don't have a copy of this map, first of all. I don't know what you are taking about and it should be made available to everybody who comes. I feel as though I can't really respond to when he refers to the map, I can only speak from what I know. The only thing that I am concerned about is what kind of houses are going to be built here. What are the prices going to be? What is this fifth lot building? Is it an apartment house? If it is, how many apartments are going to be in it? Who is going to be renting and buying these houses? Are they low-cost developments, middle-cost developments? He hasn't given us any information about that. Will he be building a fence on Burns Road? Remember I'm coming from New York City. Is it going to interfere with my view or the other people's view that live on Burns Road in any way whatsoever? Chairperson Sigel - My only comment would be, as far as the cost of the houses, I don't know that that's really relevant to the discussion. There are no apartment buildings or anything. Are these all single-family homes, David? Mr. Herrick— These are all single-family. Mr. Frost — Zoning could permit two-family. The area is zoned for one and two family residences. Apartment buildings couldn't be built there, just because the zoning wouldn't permit it. Mr. Somma — So what is going to be on this 5t" lot? 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Chairperson Sigel — Just a house. Mr. Somma —A Two-family house? Mr. Harrick—A single-family. Mr. Barney— It could be a two-family and be legal. Mr. Somma — Are there going to be any obstructions that he is going to be building, like a fence, a noise fence of anything else or that sort on Burns Road? Chairperson Sigel — I don't know. If they wanted to build a fence, it would be limited to six feet? Mr. Frost — It is six foot at these given setbacks. Weren't talking in the Conservation Zone itself, in this Lot 4 wouldn't have anything built on it, other than a driveway. Chairperson Sigel —Any kind of fence built at the property line would be limited to six feet in height. Mr. Somma —And he is going to have an entrance on Burns Road? Chairperson Sigel — No, on Slaterville. Mr. Somma — So there is no entrance on Burns Road? Chairperson Sigel — That is correct. Mr. Somma — So all construction trucks and everything will be going in from Route 79? Chairperson Sigel — Yes. Mr. Herrick— They have to, there is no where else to go. Chairperson Sigel — None of the access on Burns Road is practical? Mr. Herrick— No. Mr. Ellsworth — Have you made any attempt to contact the Wiedmaier's or associates? Mr. Somma — No. I came back from the city when the first letter was received and it was in my mail that had accumulated, so I couldn't attend the first meeting. 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Mr. Frost—Which would have been a Planning Board meeting. Mr. Somma — Yes. So, I got this other one and I decided to come. If I could have a copy of the map. Could I have this? Thank you. My wife couldn't attend tonight and she is really concerned. We didn't really know. I think they had the wrong position where the houses were going to be built in the first memo. It said something about the southwest corner, which somebody is already living on that corner. This is going to be the southeast corner. Mr. Herrick— It's shown right there. Mr. Somma — I don't want to look at it now, but that is all the comments that I have. Mr. Frost — You have to understand that the only thing that this Board is entertaining is the fourth building lot. Three of the lots that are on that map, Lots 1 through 3, essentially Lot 5, is not before this Board. Just Lot number 4. Everything else has already been before through the subdivision process and approved by the Town. Mr. Somma —And this lot that goes partially on the other zoning. Mr. Frost— Into the Conservation. That's a bigger lot. Chairperson Sigel — The fifth lot is entirely in the Conservation Zone. Mr. Barney— Lot number 4 is the one that is in question. Mr. Somma — Thank you very much. Mr. Frost — While the Board can understand your concerns, they're just talking about one of the five lots for this particular meeting. Ms. Somma — As long as the houses are fairly decent houses, I really have no concerns. Mr. Barney— All of the houses in the Town of Ithaca are fairly decent houses. We don't allow anything else. Mr. Frost — My guess is, in this particular area, you could probably expect better quality homes, more expensive homes. Mr. Dixon — I'm so glad there is no view of the lake involved in this matter. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. 13 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Sue Gillis, 112 Burns Road — We were here in December for the original proposal. I have prepared something that I just want to read. "In the recent past, Mr. Wiedmaier requested a subdivision permit which allowed five residential units, each with potential for an additional apartment. The request was granted. One parcel was within the buffer zone, established by the Town. The request for a variance for an additional lot with frontage on Burns, we feel, my husband and I, is not reasonable. There is potential, if this is granted to have access on Burns Road. It's a nasty slope and the traffic does not go 45 miles an hour, it should be, but it never does. We believe that this request is not a hardship and does not prevent Mr. Wiedmaier from implementing his earlier plan. Most importantly, we feel that the buffer zone, Conservation Zone as we know it, adopted by the Zoning Board several years ago was meant to protect the City watershed and the Six Mile Creek corridor from development. Having a lot with 119 feet of frontage is less than 50 percent of the 300 feet required for this area. Using the 1.8 acre lot and positioning the proposed residence in the R-15 does not excuse the fact that the remaining portion falls within this buffer zone. This request for a variance, we feel, breaches the intent and the integrity of that Conservation Zone. If the variance is granted to Mr. Wiedmaier, this will set a dangerous precedent for all other lands on both sides, bordering the Six Mile Creek corridor and watershed. There are many other parcels of land in the Town of Ithaca that fall into that Conservation Zone. What is to prevent other land owners from making the same request and what is the point of having a buffer zone at all if it can be side-stepped through a variance process? We urge you to consider the original intent of a Conservation Zone and to deny this request. Thank you. Mr. Barney — Before you go, would your concerns be swayed if there was a prohibition against construction on the portion in the Conservation Zone. Are you familiar with the map? Ms. Gillis — I guess I am not opposed to Mr. Wiedmaier being able to use this land as he proposes. I'm thinking of the larger picture of all that land that borders Six Mile Creek. When you think about it, all that land that borders Six Mile Creek, going out Slaterville Road, where Common Land is and that other thing that we call Barbie Village at the base of Pine Tree Road, all the way out there, right now the development is up toward the road, but if a variance were to be granted to every person who asked on either side of the Six Mile Creek corridor, it really destroys the intent of that Conservation Zone. To answer you question, John, I feel that whatever would — I'm just trying to read this map. Mr. Barney— It is tricky, it took me a while to figure it out. Ms. Gillis — Five is completely within the zone. Mr. Barney— Lot 4, the one in question, is outlined in blue. 14 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Chairperson Sigel — The portion of the lot that they are going to use is entirely in the R-15 District. So that provides us with a clear justification, if we are going to grant the variance, to grant it, and anyone coming in in the future requesting any kind of variance to go below the seven acres in the Conservation District could easily be justified to deny if they're entirely in the Conservation District. Ms. Gillis —Why is this hardship here? Why do they need this? Mr. Barney — It's a technicality. The way that it is set up in this particular subdivision, there is no road frontage for that Lot 4 because they are using a private road as opposed to having a public road. This road, coming in from Slaterville Road is a private road. So, to get the technically required road frontage, they're putting this little spur on it that comes out of the Conservation Zone and goes up to Burns Road. Ms. Gillis — This little piece? Oh, adding the whole thing. I guess my thought is two things, one is the potential for putting another access roadway from Burns in itself is a fete. Mr. Barney — It looks to me that by dedicating this piece of land that is in the Conservation Zone, to no construction, basically saying no further construction, they are left with 12 acres and they can only put one two-family house on that. If you take that piece and add it to the 12.33 acres, you may get it close enough to the 14 acres where you can put two lots in. So by, in effect, isolating off this piece, they are making it almost a guarantee that there's no way that more than one house with one possible apartment can go in the remainder of that lot and in the Conservation Zone. I don't want to speak for you, but I — Ms. Gillis — I don't have a problem with the 12 acres, I see what you are saying, if you go to 14, what's to say seven and seven. Mr. Barney— Right, exactly. Chairperson Sigel — And another way to look at it is if only the R-15 portion of the lot, or I should say if Lot 4 were only in the R-15 District, then all they would need to ask for is a variance for a lot that doesn't front on a road. There would be no issue with the Conservation District. All they've done is add land to the lot. So, for me personally, I find it hard to justify denying the request when that's all they've done, they've added land to a lot that's already a legal lot, except for frontage. Ms. Gillis — I'm just saying look down the road and think about all along Coddington Road and where the rail road bed runs and behind the vineyard, that whole stretch of land, the same thing could come up again and somebody add a little piece. 15 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Chairperson Sigel — Well, you're right, the same thing could happen. People could put in a new road and build houses in the R-15 District on lots that are no greater than 15,000 square feet, but that's legal. Ms. Gillis — In the R-15, but if it rolls over into the buffer zone, then that's a different issue. Chairperson Sigel — Then, if the lot is entirely in the Conservation District, they would need seven acres. But this is a rather unique situation where they have a lot that is actually quite a bit larger than required for R-15, completely within the R-15, just with some extra that is in the Conservation. Mr. Ellsworth — I guess where the Board is, is that this is a borderline case. It seems that the developers or planners have done some things to mitigate future, you know what's been pointed out where they have two seven acre parcels, the Board is likely going to make some stipulations, you know no construction in the Conservation District. So, if another case comes up, we didn't just pass this thing, we've got conditions on it, they'd have to meet the same conditions, I guess. Mr. Krantz — Kirk, you said, the frontage is significantly less, it is not an insignificant matter. Chairperson Sigel — I realize that. Mr. Krantz — It's 60 percent less or so than it should be. That, in itself, to me is significant. Chairperson Sigel — And I agree and when I read that there's that much less, I immediately assume that I would be inclined to vote against it, but then thinking about it further, I was convinced that it was reasonable. Mr. Ellsworth — And yes, they've added land and that's a good thing, but the frontage is still 119 feet. Chairperson Sigel — We grant variances for homes for basically pork chop lots that have significantly under, less than the frontage. That's essentially what this is. Mr. Frost— He could make the driveway a road, but he's not doing that. Chairperson Sigel — The test for an area variance is basically, to balance the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community and I don't see- the fact that they could avoid needing the variance or require a different variance with relatively minor technical changes makes me believe that the detriment to the community is not very significant. Would you like to say anything else? 16 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Ms. Gillis- No, I'm considering what you said. I understand the reason for you wanting to do this, I'm just concerned about the future and you will have to put as many conditions on every application that comes through, to say well, you either build in the Conservation with seven or we'll give you a little piece. Once you open the door, my feeling is, once you open the door, then you create lots of problems. That's all. Chairperson Sigel — And I will just state that I am concerned as well about setting precedents. In this particular case I feel comfortable that it won't create a problem for the Board in denying applications in the future for lots that do not meet the minimum requirement for a Conservation District. Anyone else wish to speak? Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Any further comments or questions? This did pass the Planning Board unanimously, it looks like. Mr. Ellsworth — They had a bunch of conditions in there. Chairperson Sigel —And no Environmental Assessment it looks like, Mike? Mr. Smith — That is correct. Mr. Barney — We haven't figured out what the noise is. Some people think it's inside their head. It's something that causes the vibrations. It's not the church up the street. Chairperson Sigel — Can we restrict the driveway to only the planned driveway cutting across John, do you think? Or do we need to allow a driveway to go all the way to Burns? Mr. Barney— The whole purpose of the frontage is- Chairperson Sigel — Is access. Mr. Barney — I would be a little hesitant to try and sustain a Board decision that precluded the driveway onto Burns, but I think it is not inappropriate for you to consent that the applicant's representative to preclude any further subdivision so that this lot that is being created in the Conservation Zone will always remain an appendage to the lot. Mr. Herrick— That is exactly right. 17 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Chairperson Sigel — They would have to come back here anyway to get a variance for even less frontage. Mr. Frost— Unless they took that portion. Chairperson Sigel — That is correct, I guess they could take some portion not along the road. Anything else to add? Mr. Niefer— Do you want to make reference to the Planning Board conditions? Mr. Barney— I think that is a good idea. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 003:Clare George Wiedmaier, Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22, Residence District No. R-15 and Conservation Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Clare George Wiedmaier, Appellant, Frank Santelli, PE, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article X-A, Section 50H of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to create a building lot by subdivision with said lot having no less than 118 feet of road frontage, where 300 feet is required, and having not less than 99 feet width at the required setback, where also 300 feet is required on the Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22, Conservation zone. Said building lot will be located both in the Conservation zone and a Residence R-15 zone, consisting of 1.8 acres, whereas Conservation zone lots must be 7 acres. A proposed house is to be located in the R-15 zone. FINDINGS: 1. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. 2. The R-15 portion of the lot is more than twice the required minimum size for a lot in the R-15 District. 3. The house and access to the house will be contained completely within the R-15 District. CONDITIONS- 1. ONDITIONS:1. No structures be built on the portion of the lot in the Conservation Zone. 2. The lot not be further subdivided. 3. Subject to the Planning Board conditions stated in Resolution PB 2003- 100, excluding 1.a. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: 18 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 AYES: Sigel, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: Ellsworth, Krantz. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel — You're all set. AGENDA ITEM — Discussion regarding a recommendation to the Town Board Regarding an Inter-Governmental Agreement with Tompkins County Planning Department Mr. Frost — The agenda item you should have with you a memorandum and some attachments. Our astute attorney will explain what we are trying to do here. Mr. Barney — The County would like to reduce the number of reviews it has to make under sections 239 I. m. and n. under General Municipal Law. Under those provisions, the State General Municipal Law, certain applications need to be submitted to them for review and they have 30 days to review them and then respond and when they don't respond within 30 days, you are free to act any way you choose. If they do respond within the 30 days and they find that there is an inter-community issue that the action would adversely impact, then you are required to have a majority, plus one vote if you approve the action. Under the State Law, they are permitted to reduce the number of items that they look at. They don't have to look at every single one that the State otherwise would give them authority to do. And they can, by agreement with variance individual boards and municipalities, reduce the scope of what they look at and that's what they are trying to do here. They have submitted an agreement to you saying there are a number of things that they don't want to look at all anymore and the Planning Board, I think looked at it, passed it. I think the Town Board has looked at it and shipped it out to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals for your discussion on it. Ultimately, it should be signed, I think by the Supervisor rather than the chair of each of the Boards. Before Cathy and the Town Board wanted to act on it, they wanted the input from the Boards. Mr. Frost — Now, this Board, if we have a lot that is before us, say they are here for an area variance because they have 70 foot and they need 100 foot along the road, I'm just making up and example, and that road happens to be a State Highway or a County Highway, it has to go to the County for review. If it is within 500 feet of the municipal line, the parcel being involved, the County provides their input. So, we have had cases, over the years, where this review has been provided or an application has been provided to the County Planning Board and they've come back here with a response. I don't know, are they considering not doing these any of these road frontage things? Or are any of these cases going to make a difference to this Board? 19 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Mr. Barney — Well, lot frontage width or depth variance is a residential use, this would no longer go to them. Lot area variances for additions to residential usage only would be non-conforming lots. If they listed — Mr. Frost — So something, I think, like an area variances, now, if you had a use variance they probably would review it. Chairperson Sigel — Now, why wasn't the second appeal tonight not referred to them? Mr. Barney — The second appeal tonight probably was referred to them, but it was not subject to SEAR because it is an area variance for a residential use. Mr. Smith — It was referred to them as part of the Planning Board subdivision approval. Mr. Barney— The SEAR has it's own set of rules and now the GML. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So then they could have responded and they just didn't. Mr. Barney— I think they did respond. Mr. Smith — They made some comments. Mr. Barney — That's a typical response that we get probably, what 80 percent of the time. Mr. Smith — We send over for subdivision and the variances were sent over as one package. Mr. Frost — Actually some of their responses are not saying not to grant them. I've seen some responses where they are concerned about a precedent being set . Chairperson Sigel — So, they just had some comments? Mr. Frost— Yes. Mr. Smith — The comments are on the use variance and criteria to be reviewed. Chairperson Sigel —When I read it, that seemed reasonable to me. Mr. Niefer— It seems like a minor effort to reduce paperwork. Chairperson Sigel — It will be a few cases. 20 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Mr. Ellsworth — Do you have any opinions on the matter John? Do you see any dangers? Mr. Barney — I think it is a practical matter. It isn't going to change things very much because I think, in an abundance of caution, our planning staff, typically, sends everything to them and I suspect that will probably continue. So, it will just be their ability to say we won't look at this at all, opposed to sending something back with comments on it. Looking at the things here, they didn't strike me as being anything significant. Chairperson Sigel — Should we have a motion? Mr. Barney — I would think it would be wise to make a motion of recommendation to the Town Board. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 004:Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Inter-Governmental Agreement with Tompkins County Planning Department . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board recommends to the Town Board an inter- governmental agreement with the Tompkins County Planning Department. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Frost—An unofficial agenda item: it does not look like we will have a quorum for the meeting on February 23rd. We were thinking of pushing it back to the 16tH John indicates he wouldn't be available. Chairperson Sigel — Do we have cases already? Mr. Frost— I think I've got three or four already. We have had other people from your office. Mr. Barney— You will have somebody here, it just won't be me. Mr. Ellsworth — You can't go the following week? That Monday afterwards? Mr. Dixon — That's not February anymore. That will be March. 21 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 26, 2004 Chairperson Sigel —When is the March meeting? Mr. Frost— I am going to guess. Chairperson Sigel — If the room is available, we could push it into the beginning of March and then potentially cancel the March meeting. Mr. Frost— The February meeting. Chairperson Sigel — Move the February meeting to March and then we may not need the March meeting that would be two weeks later, depending on what we have. Mr. Frost— I've got two already. Mr. Frost—We could go to the 18th of February. Mr. Barney— The 25tH Mr. Frost— So, we're looking at February 25rh. Which is a Wednesday. Chairperson Sigel — That should be fine. Mr. Frost—We won't count on you Andrew. Mr. Dixon — I may not be a Town resident anymore. Mr. Niefer—We will just barely have a quorum then. Chairperson Sigel — That seems fine. Mr. Frost— I will look at the cases and if I think there is going to be a concern, I can contact all of you. Chairperson Sigel — If there is anything that might be troubling and it's not urgent, we could always push it to March. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the January 26, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 8:00 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chair 22