Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2004-03-15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, March 15, 2004 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andy Frost, Director of Building/Zoning; Randy Marcus, Acting Attorney for the Town; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED: Ronald Krantz, Board Member OTHERS: Dan Kathan, 307 Roat Street; Lillian Kelly, 1478 Mecklenburg Rd; Mark Thompson, 144 Whitetail Drive; Bonnie Mathers, 909 Taughannock Boulevard; Marilyn Patterson, 909 Taughannock Boulevard; Chris Ufford, 199 Taughannock Boulevard; Pam Williams, 9 Townline Road Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. APPEAL: Student Agencies, Inc., Appellant; Dan Kathan Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XI, Section 51 and Article V, Section 18 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to continue the use of a general storage building by Student Agencies at 1482 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 27-1-24.32, Agricultural District where (R-30 regulations apply). Said zone does not permit storage buildings as a principal use on parcels located in agricultural zones. Chairperson Sigel - Ok, Mr. Kathan could you state your name and address for the record? Dan Kathan, 307 Roat Street— Sure. My name is Dan Kathan. I live at 307 Roat Street, Ithaca, New York. Chairperson Sigel — Ok. Could you just give us a brief overview of what it is you're asking to do? Dan Kathan — Certainly. Student Agencies operates a small portfolio of businesses that are run by Cornell students. And in my role as General Manager, I provide some oversight and mentoring to that group. I have been with Student Agencies for five years at this point. The particular business that we operate is a storage service that we provide to the students and primarily that is for summer storage for students who live out of town. So there is a peak period where we collect their belongs at the end of the school year, the main time frame, and store it for the summer period. And then at the end of the summer, there's a corresponding peak where we deliver the goods and those are the.... that's the primary period of activity. Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Chairperson Sigel - Okay. And you were granted a variance in 1987. Is that right? Dan Kathan -A variance was granted for the use. I'm not sure whether it was... It was well before my time and I'm not sure if it was granted to Student Agencies or the previous owner of the name Belcore, I believe. Chairperson Sigel - I think we did mention Belcore in the minutes. Mr. Frost - As they were the owners at the time and it was intended though to be use of the building by Student Agencies. Chairperson Sigel - Ok. Yeah and the variance at that time it is a little bit unclear as to what the board at that time intended as far as the renewal went. Whether Mr. Frost was suppose to just sort of ok it every 2 years and whether it had to come back to this board or not. Mr. Frost -You can see from the mail out there where a couple of letters—and I did actually report to the zoning board and it was never really clear whether we would need to come back to this board and things kind of like got buried and here we are tonight. Chairperson Sigel - Ok. I'm just going to take a moment to read this letter that we got here. Mr. Frost - The woman who wrote the letter actually just walked in. Chairperson Sigel - Ok. Do you have a copy of the letter? Do you have a copy of the letter? Dan Kathan - No. I don't. Mr. Niefer -Andy is it correct? I noticed the material that you gave us indicates that the owner of the property is Student Agencies Property, Inc. So it's not a leased property then? Mr. Frost - Right. At the time when they appeared before the Zoning Board, in '87, the property was up for sale and the real estate agent at that time were the principal people appearing at the Zoning Board at that time. Chairperson Sigel -Any other questions from the board at this time? If not, we'll open the PUBLIC HEARING. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7.11 p.m. 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Chairperson Sigel - Would anyone like to speak regarding this appeal? We do have a letter here from Ms. Lillian Kelly given to the board. She has some concerns. One of which is whether the variance will convey if the building is sold. Another concern suggested a fence between their property and her property. And dealing with an expansion. There's no expansion of use here proposed, right? Dan Kathan — No. This is the first time I've seen the letter. I've quickly read it. It seems like a reasonable letter to me and I think I could speak to some of the concerns raised here. If that's helpful. Chairperson Sigel — Go ahead. Dan Kathan - First of all, I think it is very unlikely that Student Agencies would be inclined to sell the property. I think it fits well with our mission. But I also understand the concern expressed and there's no way of guaranteeing that so that's probably within the board's jurisdiction to try to address that issue. It doesn't sound to me as though it would be problematic to address that in some way from our prospective. To the point about the organization you've mentioned that by design there's sort of a frequent turn over and that's a valid point. Throughout most of Student Agencies' history, not all of it but the majority of it; and certainly the last 20 years or so, it truly was purely a student-run organization. They created my position 5 years ago because I think they came to the conclusion that there needs to be some permanent over site for continuity. And while we really try to empower the students, some reasonable empowerment boundaries are needed. And so I think that's a big part of my role and so we've been working hard to build institutional memory and to develop guidelines that not only help them be successful in running their businesses but to be good citizens. And you're pretty kind in your remarks and I think for the most part we've managed to do that. Certainly if there were issues, I would be a good contact person and we would work very hard to work it out. Another comment is since the time I've been on board, we've also done things outside of the building to try to improve the aesthetics for the neighbors. So these all seem like very reasonable concerns. I think for the most part, we've been pretty good at being good neighbors certainly that would be our intent and we would certainly work hard to address any of the issues. Lillian Kelly— This is just so you know. I'm actually a couple of houses down. I'm the immediate neighbor. I was just more curious than anything else. I'm actually the writer of the letter. Just wanted you to know. Mr. Kathan — Ok. So I don't see any issues or concerns from our end in trying to comply with these things. Chairperson Sigel - Would you be willing to put up a fence? As suggested. 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Kathan - First of all I report to a board of directors, so I probably would need to get concurrence but conceptually I don't see a problem with that. Maybe the only thing is we are an organization that works very hard and makes a modest profit. So funding might be the issue. I don't know what a fence might cost but we'd certainly consider that. Female voice — Can 1 comment or... Chairperson Sigel —Actually if you could...let's see...we're kinda short on microphones. But if you could... Female voice - Well l have a big, booming voice so...(laughter) Chairperson Sigel —We're trying to record the comments. So if you could try to move over and give us your name and address for the record. Lillian Kelly 1478, Mecklenburg Road — My name is Lillian Kelly... Chairperson Sigel — Lillian why don't you just pull your chair up to the table there. You won't have to squat. Ms. Kelly - I live at 1478 Mecklenburg Rd. And I've been the neighbor of this storage barn now for 12 years; and as I did mention in the letter, I think overall they've really been good neighbors. And when I was talking about the fence. You might have a picture of the property...right here...See it's a long skinny building and they unload and load kind of right in the middle here. And one of the things that happens is you know you have students out there and they come waiting for the trucks to come or so there can be these waiting periods. And sometimes during the waiting periods people venture out on little adventures and they don't know where the property line is. They don't necessarily know where somebody else's land starts. And I guess when I suggested the fence, I wasn't thinking of, you know, some great big, huge institutional thing; but just something that define the boundary so that you know like...Last year a couple of kids found some golf clubs and they decided to do some practice with the golf clubs well some of those balls had some error in some kinds of trajectory and so you know (laugh) if it's just that you know that's the edge, it's a helpful cue. Chairperson Sigel - How about instead of a fence some landscaping be put in? Maybe just some... Ms. Kelly - Out there this is just a ...if you were on a farm field and somebody had a few pine trees, I mean it might be helpful for a reference point but I don't know as if ...I don't know. It's negotiable that might be an easier thing than a fence. 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Frost - Something like a wire weld fence though which is certainly a whole lot cheaper than a picket fence or a split rail fence. That you could probably...those are like $40 for a 50 foot roll Mr. Kathan - Yeah and we can...I'm certainly comfortable to commit that we could do that no problem. Mr. Ellsworth - Have the students put it up. Ms. Kelly - Even if they just put it up when it was loading and unload season; just so that there was some kind of mental note that you know that's the edge, that would be really nice. So it wasn't like a huge construction project. Mr. Frost - So you're not looking for something that would cut the view like an eight-foot picket fence or anything or stockade fence. Ms. Kelly - No. I'm just So that he can say to his students, "That fence is the property line." That's it. Chairperson Sigel -Anyone else have any comments? No? Mr. Frost - I just actually wanted to ask Dan. There is no plan for expansion? I know you're talking about fixing the inside but... Mr. Kathan - No. We just actually won a contract with Cornell, with the university, to provide additional storage for some of the dorms. And we actually are renting space from Bill Duthie. It's I think East Shore Storage may be the name of it. But so we're expanding the business but through that avenue. Mr. Frost - They would need actually to come to the Zoning Board if they were to apply for a building permit to expand anyhow. Ms. Kelly —Well they actually said last year something about putting a second story on that storage barn. Chairperson Sigel - That wouldn't happen without at least a public hearing also. Mr. Kathan - I certainly couldn't preclude us ever wanting to do anything different there. But we certainly don't have any immediate or short range plans to do that. In fact what we have done is worked out an arrangement as I said with the gentleman named Bill Duthie who owns Storage. Again we... Our primary use is a 3- month period. So it's pretty hard to justify and do a pay back on it. Mr. Niefer - Ok. I think Kirk maybe we should consider a 3-year extension from this date for this variance. Perhaps also making it clear that the variance does not convey with the property. That any subsequent property owner would need 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 to apply for continuation of the variance. Maybe that's implicit in sales transaction, I don't know. But I think for the purposes of our variance we might state it so there's no ambiguity about it. Mr. Marcus — Kirk, if I could just jump in it sounded like there may be a couple of points that I should just comment on and before I do, I want to note for the record that our firm had acted as counsel to Student Agencies for actually quite some time. I don't believe that's still the case. I personally haven't done any work for them. But John Barney had and so if any of the board members or if Student Agencies was uncomfortable with my participating in the discussion, you know, speak now or forever hold your peace. But as is usually the case that nobody really minds if I put my 2 cents in. It is possible for you guys to condition the granted variance on either a time period specified as in years or specified by the ownership of the property. If you didn't condition the variance that way, it would remain in effect as the property transferred ownership from this time on forward. So you would want to specify that as a limitation or condition on the grant. Mr. Niefer - Note that maybe we should specify that there should be no outside storage. Just assume for a moment that someone decided well I want to park a car or boat or RV or something there for the season when they're gone. I don't think that's contemplated or was contemplated in the past but the vagueness of the situation might be such that someone might conclude and I don't believe you intend it. But on the other hand those are the things that could be adverse it seems to the character of the neighborhood if it became an outside storage area too. Mr. Frost - Just for the record I've never I'm not aware of... Mr. Niefer - I was very impressed with the fact that you painted the roof and it's a very apparently neat operation externally. So that.. Mr. Kathan -Mr. Frost had a chance to see it inside. It's pretty good inside and out. Mr. Niefer - From the picture of the tax roll verses what's out there today why you're to be commended for the maintenance of the property. Chairperson Sigel - Thank you. I think I'd like to try to word the variance so that it was sort of a continuation of what was granted. Rather than necessarily have to justify a use variance at this point. Mr. Marcus - I think you're best off doing it that way because.. -And just sort of add some conditions. Would you have a strong recommendation for or against going, making it so that Andy can just sort of renew it in the future? Or should that have to come back to the board. 6 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Frost - I could just give a report and actual report to the board without a public hearing. There's nothing wrong with that. Chairperson Sigel — Ok. But if we do set a time limit, then something has to be done at that point. Either Andy has to do something or we have to re-approve. Mr. Frost - I think what was lacking in that original grant was what should happen after that 2 years point. It wasn't exactly clear whether they needed to come back for another hearing or. Chairperson Sigel - I think that their intent was actually just to have Andy inspect and approve. Mr. Frost -And I, in fact, did that for the first few years and with the passage of time, well it just like I said fell by the wayside. Chairperson Sigel - Any other comments or questions? Mr. Ellsworth - The only other thing I was gonna say is that I thought they could work the fence thing out with Andy. We don't need to get into try to qualify that as far as style and length and all that stuff. Mr. Frost - Do you want to add a condition that some form of fence be added to mark the line? Chairperson Sigel - Or if you want to word it that some form of property delineation occur. Chairperson Sigel - Fence or landscaping. Chairperson Sigel - It looks to me like the..I mean we're talking about the east side of the property. Mr. Frost - Your house is on the west of the.. Chairperson Sigel - No the east side. Ms. Kelly— Um hum. Chairperson Sigel - I mean according to the plan here it looks like...I mean the chicken...I mean we're talking about the thing labeled chicken house. Dan Kathan - Yes. Ms. Kelly - Yeah. Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Chairperson Sigel - And that's only close to the east property line right. Ok. Ms. Kelly — It's a concrete block. It doesn't look like a house. (laugh) Chairperson Sigel —All right, I will move to renew and modify the variance granted on May 27, 1987 by this Board for the property located at 1482 Mecklenburg Rd, Tax parcel 27-1-24.32 with the following further conditions: That the variance only be valid only as long as Student Agencies owns and operates the service there substantially similar the what they're doing now. Second condition, that a fence or some type of landscaping barrier sufficient or satisfactory to the town code enforcement officer be erected within three months. Mr. Frost - Along the easterly line. Chairperson Sigel - Oh yeah I'm sorry. Along the easterly line. What the entire length of the chicken house? The entire length of the building? Or Mr. Marcus - How about to such an extent as to provide a physical barrier. Mr. Niefer - Seperation. Mr. Marcus - or marking of the line physical demarcation. Chairperson Sigel - at least half the length? Ms. Kelly - Yeah. Just this area right here. Maybe. The property line is 514 feet. Maybe just the last 200 feet here or 150 or something. Chairperson Sigel - So less than the length of the building? Or about the length of the building? Ms. Kelly— The (comments inaudible). Mr. Frost - How about just to the satisfaction of the adjoining property owner? Ms. Kelly - The entrance to the building is in the middle of the building and that's where all this waiting and unloading and truck activity occurs. So it'd be kind of like that's where you need it is where the people are kind of standing around. Way up here going up to the road, no. No problem. Chairperson Sigel — Ok. Mr. Marcus- So at least 75 feet to either side of the building entrance? North and south of the building entrance? Chairperson Sigel —Yeah. That seems reasonable. g Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Kathan -And maybe that should say truck entrance. There is sort of a pedestrian entrance on this end. Chairperson Sigel — Ok. Truck entrance. Mr. Kathan -Yeah and that would. That sounds fine. Chairperson Sigel — Ok. And then shall we change it to three years? You think. The variance is valid for three years to be automatically renewed upon satisfactory inspection by the town code enforcement officer and finding that all conditions of the original variance and this new variance are met. Mr. Niefer -And no outside storage Chairperson Sigel - Yeah thank you. Further condition that there be no outside storage. Ok. Second? Mr. Niefer — Second. Chairperson Sigel -All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004-006: STUDENT AGENCIES INC, 1482 MECKLENBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA, TAX PARCEL NO. 27.4-24.32, AGRICULTURAL ZONE, R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board renews and modifies the variance granted on May 27, 2987 by this Board for the property located at 1482 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-24.32, Agricultural Zone (R-30 regulations apply). CONDITIONS- 1. ONDITIONS:1. The variance is only to be valid as long as Student Agencies owns and operates the service substantially similar to its present use. 2. A fence or landscaping barrier, satisfactory to the Town Code Enforcement Officer, is to be erected along the east side property line within three months from the date of this meeting. The fence or landscaping barrier must extend at least 75 feet north and 75 feet south (total length at least 150 feet) of the truck entrance. 3. The variance is to be valid for a three-year period to be automatically renewed upon satisfactory inspection by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Officer. 4. No outside storage is to be permitted. 9 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer NAYS: NONE ABSENT. Krantz The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Ok. Thank you. Dan Kathan — Thank you very much. Chairperson Sigel — Thanks. Did we need to do SEAR on that? We do actually. Mr. Frost— Hold on a second please. Chairperson Sigel —We don't need them. Dan Kathan — Ok. Chairperson Sigel - Just a formality. We have one more motion. I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment form prepared by town staff dated February 3, 2004. Second? Mr. Niefer — Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 005 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : STUDENT AGENCIES INC, 1482 MECKLENBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA, TAX PARCEL NO. 27.-1-24.32, AGRICULTURAL ZONE, R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Student Agencies Inc., Appellant, Dan Kathan, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XI, Section 51 and Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to continue the use of a general storage building by the Student Agencies located at 1482 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-24.32, Agricultural Zone (R-30 regulations apply). Said zone does not permit storage buildings as a principal use on parcels located in agricultural zones. This motion is made for the reasons stated in the undated Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff. 10 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer NAYS: NONE ABSENT. Krantz The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Ok. APPEAL: Seventh Day Adventist Church, Appellant; Mark Thompson, Agent requesting variances from Sections 3.02-1 and 5.04-3 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to place a 24 square foot self-illuminated sign with copy change components at 1219 Trumansburg Rd., Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26-4-42, District R-15. The Sign Law does not permit self-illuminated copy change signs in residential zones. Chairperson Sigel opened this segment of the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Male voice — Good evening. Chairperson Sigel — Hi. Mark Thompson, 144 Whitetail Drive — My name is Mark Thompson. I live in Ithaca on Whitetail Drive, 144. Chairperson Sigel —And could you just give us a brief description of how you got to this point and what it is you want to do? Mr. Thompson — Ok. The sign that we had was built in 1980. There was an approval for a sign at that time. It was constructed with internal illumination, which was not granted in that proposal but by mistake it was added after that and it happened to be built into it. And there's a picture in the pamphlet somewhere that shows that there's two fluorescent bulbs on the inside for illumination. At any rate that sign was struck by a car in August and irreparably damaged. So to move ahead and replace it with something that looks like the previous one, we came up with some designs that included two lines of copy text and internal illumination. And so our goal is just to replace the sign with something that looks similar to what was there before. Aesthetically pleasing and yet to have the change of the copy text. Mr. Frost— There is a temporary sign that's been put up since the first one has been destroyed. So if you drove by there and see the sign, that's just temporary and that's not illuminated at this particular time. 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Thompson — No, it's not. Chairperson Sigel — So the old sign was internally illuminated but did not have copy change text? Mr. Thompson — That is correct. Mr. Frost— I don't know if you've had an opportunity to look at your Sign Law. We really went around in circles in that the Sign Law defines internal illumination, self-illumination, and I think direct-illumination. And the zoning, well the Sign Law does actually permit some of that illumination but there seems to be some contradiction between the terms that are used. Therefore, since the church was coming here for the copy change which seemed to clearly not be allowed, we threw that in as the illumination part just to cover all the bases. This has gone through the Planning Board and did have a favorable recommendation. The Planning Board being the Sign Review Board. Mr. Thompson — The background for the changeable copy text was we looked at some options to advertise changes in times of services. Perhaps an upcoming meeting. We looked at putting out you know a separate stand-alone sign before the event and we looked at an other options of getting temporary permits every time we wanted to hang a sign out on front of it and this seemed to be the easiest way. The most, the least intrusive way to produce that message. Mr. Frost— I think at the same time many signs of churches have that kind of thing just because there is a change in their agenda from week to week. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. That's true. Mr. Frost— It's not uncommon for churches to have copy change. Mr. Niefer — The previous sign. Was that continuously lighted during the dark evening hours or did it have some type of a time clock on it that would shut off at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock? Mark Thompson — It was on a timer that was changed twice yearly to vary with the actual daylight hours. So that it would come on at dusk and go off at dawn. Mr. Niefer— Roughly, went off at what, ten O'clock? Mr. Thompson - It would I actually I don't know that. I was assuming that it stayed lit until dawn. I'm not sure. Mr. Frost — I live right there just down the road and I don't recollect seeing it. 12 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Niefer — Because the Planning Board you know indicated method illumination to be consistent with illumination used for the previous signboard. I don't know. I didn't see anything in the record as to indicate what the period of illumination was on the previous sign. Mr. Smith — They weren't concerned with that a section there on the condition wasn't necessarily to the time that it was lit. But just how it was going be lit on the inside. It wasn't clear at the meeting whether the lighting, how it was being situated inside. It was just fluorescent tubes or how it was being lit internally. That was more to how it was being lit not the length of time. Mr. Thompson — And that I can speak to. Because what was in there before were two 40-watt bulbs hung at the top on a kind of a shop light. A do it yourself kind of thing. And from the manufacture I have learned that what this sign. What they like to put in this signs are 40-watt bulbs four of them. Producing about 9000 lumens. I don't know how that relates to the town code recommendation of ten-foot candles at four feet. But I know that some of these signs can be kind of bright. And what I am planning on doing if granted permission is to put in 20 watt bulbs instead which their engineers who I briefly talked to said was a very reasonably way to go. And reduce the lumens by about half. So to about 4000 lumens. The other options is to put only two bulbs in instead of four but four of them at 20 watts should be a pleasant not dim but it should be a pleasant level of illumination. It shouldn't be distracting. And certainly there's no street lights around so it's not necessary to have it brighter. Chairperson Sigel —Well I mean at looking at the section for residential and Ag. Districts it seems pretty clear at least to me when it says. And this is getting to what you had said Andy you know about not allowing self-illuminated. You know I assume that to mean internally illuminated. At least that's the way I read it. Mr. Frost - But then if you look at the definitions in the back of the Law you'll find some contradictions. Chairperson Sigel - Is there? Mr. Frost -Yeah. You look under the section that talks about light illumination; they allow some of that illumination in all districts. Chairperson Sigel - Where it says self-illuminated sign it says an internally- illuminating sign. Mr. Frost - If you can look at the back lit I think. Chairperson Sigel — Back lit? Mr. Frost— Yeah. I think there may be a definition in there. 13 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Chairperson Sigel — Back-lighted sign. Sign or graphics silhouetted by a light source not directly visible. Mr. Frost —Which when you put a bulb inside the panel it's inside the sign itself and then if you look under internal illumination, there's also a definition. Chairperson Sigel — So do residential and Ag Districts allow back-lighted signs? Mr. Frost— Yeah. If you just want to for the moment look up and see if there is a definition of internal illumination as well. Chairperson Sigel — Just illuminated. Indirectly, indirectly illuminated sign...reflections. Ok. Mr. Frost— If you want to look at section five something or other talks about sign illumination. You'll see some items that talk about allowed in all districts. I think. Chairperson Sigel — Sign illumination 6. prohibited sources..."direct illumination so that's presumably not internal, indirect..." Mr. Frost— I don't know. Chairperson Sigel — Back-lighted letters... it is pretty confusing. Indirect illumination including back lighted letters. It might mean for the solid letters with white lighting. Mr. Frost— The light is illuminating an opaque background Chairperson Sigel - so the letters are almost in shadow. It could be taken to mean though that means internally illuminated. This may be something for the Codes Committee to work on. Chairperson Sigel - Okay. Well maybe I'm not quite so opposed then since it's pretty confusing. Mr. Frost —We've never had any complaints no matter how the illumination was. Mr. Marcus -And that's been the case for quite a few years now, right? I mean you said the sign was put up in 1980 Mr. Smith — 1980. Mr. Marcus — That's 20 some year's opportunity if somebody were to complain. Chairperson Sigel — Ok. Any comments or questions? 14 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Niefer — The thing that strikes me we've had discussion in the past about what constitutes the size of the sign. And you know there you have the sign and then you have the supporting structure that goes with it. So that in effect they're if the illuminated part is 6x4 ok that's 24 feet but then there's the what appears to be the brick supported structure that adds quite a few more feet to the so called size of the sign and in the past we've talked about well you measure from the tallest part to the ground level and the other direction of the length from the extremities so that determines the size of the sign. Mr. Frost - But the law's clear that the supports are not counted into the equation. Mr. Niefer— It's clear that way? Chairperson Sigel —Yeah, if the supports are clearly separate from the sign then you don't count the supports. We have had cases where it's sort of an integrated monolith and where to strictly adhere to the Sign Law we've had to count the entire area. Not just where the text was Mr. Frost — But there seems to be supported with the four points to the brick facade with light shining through the panel itself. It's a valid question, but it's clear in my mind that the panel is 24 square foot, which is permitted. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:38 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m. Chairperson Sigel - Okay. Any other questions or comments? All right let's open the public hearing at this point. Anyone wish to speak? If not we'll close the public hearing. Mr. Niefer — Did you say there were no comments regarding the previous lighted sign. No written verbal or otherwise comments from the neighbors. Mr. Frost — For this appeal I don't believe we've received anything and since I've been the Zoning Officer and it's been 18 plus years. I don't recollect any complaints. Mr. Smith— No one was at the Planning Board either. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I will move. Mr. Niefer — Do you want environmentals? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. I'm gonna do that thanks. Where were you last time Jim? I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of the Seventh Day Adventist Church for the reasons stated in the 15 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Part 2 Environmental Assessment Review prepared by town staff and apparently undated. Second? Mr. Ellsworth — Second Chairperson Sigel —All favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 007 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, 1219 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 26.-4-42, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Seventh Day Adventist Church, Appellant, Mark Thompson, Agent, requesting variances from Section 3.02-1 and 5.04-3 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to place a 24 square foot self-illuminated sign with copy change components at 1219 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26-4-42, Residence District R-15. The Sign Law does not permit self- illuminated, copy change signs in residential zones. This motion is made for the reasons stated in the undated Part 11 Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer NAYS: NONE ABSENT. Krantz The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — I will further move to grant the appeal of the Seventh Day Adventist Church requesting variances from Sections 3.02-1 and 5.04-3 of the town's Sign Law to place a 24 square foot self- illuminated sign with copy change components at 1219 Trumansburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 26-4-42, District R-15 with the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied and with the conditions as set forth in the Planning Board Resolution 2004-008. 1 think they limit it to two lines of copy change. And I think we will further set a condition that the sign either be illuminated by no more than four 20-watt tubes or two 40-watt fluorescent tubes. Mr. Thompson —And instead of Right. And we're willing to work with that too because they do make lower wattages and if it's reasonable we certainly can switch to a lesser one also. There's no need for it to be an exact you know. I want to do whatever is most pleasant for everyone. 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Chairperson Sigel — Yes. I mean you can go on and do that at most four twenties or two forties. Mr. Thompson — Ok. Mr. Frost - And did you want to pick up on Jim's comment on any limitations on the hours of illumination or? Mr. Niefer —Well. It's just total darkness illumination before all through the night why. Chairperson Sigel — Is there a reason to have it on beyond say eleven o'clock at night? Mr.Thompson — The way that it is currently there's this little floodlight and before I believe now that I'm thinking about it, I believe it did go off somewhere around midnight or 1 am. I'm pretty sure it did. Maybe somewhere around there Mr. Frost— I think for the neighborly aspect and the fact that it might be a late hour shutoff something like eleven or twelve o'clock. Chairperson Sigel — I think in a residential district 11 would be reasonable. Mr.Thompson — Ok. Chairperson Sigel — So we'll add a condition there that it be turned off at 11 each night and turned on at approximately sunup. Greg Kaseski? —What about in the morning? I'm not suggesting that it needs to be on again in the morning. I'm just raising the question. Chairperson Sigel- There are times of the year when it's dark fairly late into the morning, do you have things early when you'd want to turn it on? Say six a.m.? Mark Thompson — In winter time when it's cloudy, when early service starts it would be nice to be able to turn it on during the early parts of the day. Chairperson Sigel — Is six a.m. early enough? Mark Thompson — It wouldn't need to be earlier than that. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So we'll say just six a.m. till eleven p.m. is when it's allowed to be on. Mark Thompson — Okay. 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Frost— Excuse me. Do you feel Mark that if there was a special event might be taking you to eleven or twelve o'clock at night like Christmas eve or something I don't know exactly Mr. Thompson — I can't see a need to go beyond eleven. Mr. Frost— Night service? Christmas. Chairperson Sigel — Presuming people would have arrived by then. Mark Thompson — I don't stay out that late. Chairperson Sigel — I think that covers it. Second? Mr. Frost— Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004-008: SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, 1219 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 26.4-42, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Seventh Day Adventist Church, Appellant, Mark Thompson, Agent, requesting variances from Section 3.02-1 and 5.04-3 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to place a 24 square foot self-illuminated sign with copy change components at 1219 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26-4-42, Residence District R-15. FINDINGS: 1. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- 1. ONDITIONS:1. As set forth in Planning Board Resolution No. 2004-008. 2. The sign be illuminated by no more than four 20 watt fluorescent tubes or two 40 watt fluorescent tubes to be placed behind the sign panels. 3. Sign is to be illuminated only between the hours of 6 am and 11 pm. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer NAYS: NONE 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 ABSENT. Krantz The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel —All right you're all set. Mark Thompson - Thank you. APPEAL: Bonnie Mathers, Appellant; requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a roof over an existing non-conforming patio/porch that is located at the property line (15 foot setback required) at 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax parcel No. 25-2-9, Residence District R-15. Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — If you could state you name and address for the record? Could you give us a brief overview of what you're asking for? Bonnie Mathers, 909 Taughannock Boulevarvd- We're requesting a variance on the setback line to be waived. We already have a patio area there that's been living on a slate main entrance section. What we want to do is build a porch dormer roof over that. Would be like two poles and a roof area. Not enclosed at anytime ever. It would be approx. 6" off the property line give or take a few here and there because it's a crooked property line being a non-conforming. Part of the old patio is grand fathered on the neighbor's property. But we don't use that section. We don't use it. It's not ours. This will be built on our land. It borders 911 Curt and Amanda's house. The lot there non-conforming so we kind of set right on top of each other already. This is our main entrance to our house on that side and we are at the south of their house. We face the south of their house. Between their house and our house there's less than ten foot already. It's a weeded area. The only thing there is kind of a bank and their central air conditioning unit. Reasons for this is we set right against the bank so we have a ditch behind the house and we have a ditch on the other side which is our dead side which faces the south side and the north side of our other neighbors but there's no ditch or anything on that side and being the patio area and with stairs coming to the house and stairs going down to the lake, we get a real fast water through that slate down by the foundation wall. I'm always patching it in there and there's really nothing we can do that we can't do a ditch or anything because it's living space and it's a staircase going down to the lake that way. That's one of the reasons we'd like it. The other reason safety issues. It's bad in the wintertime. And there's not a whole lot of space there for snow and ice. It all builds up and stuff and then it melts and freezes and drifts back onto the slate right in front of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 the patio door. It's uncomfortable living. And not to mention it's tough with the ice. The other thing would be quality of life issues. I smiled because I grew up with a porch. And I don't know if you all have porches. But picture yourself without one coming into your main entrance. Snow everything blows in. That would eliminate that. The other thing is we're on a private access road but there's four houses and we sit in the middle. And you can see from our kitchen door up to 89. Well we have a little hot tub out there too and you kind of feel exposed at times and then you have a lot of traffic in the summertime with people coming and going looking straight right down at you. There's absolutely no privacy whatsoever. People walk their dog. Hi. You know. That would be another issue. In the summertime also because we have such a small house that if you have company just myself I love to sit out when it's raining. And you just can't do that here. I mean you're just cooped up inside for days with Ithaca weather at times. We're year rounders. We've been trying to fix the house up. As Andy will contest. I'm probably his no.1 phone caller half the time. And we play tag back and forth because of our jobs and hours. Chairperson Sigel — Have you spoken with your neighbor to the north about this? Ms. Mathers — Yes. They're here tonight. I don't think he was very thrilled about it at one point in time. Again it's gonna be on ours. It's gonna be right on the boundary. It's gonna be approximately eleven to eleven and a half feet. The survey line is there. It's pointed out. I thought about breaking it down. Making it smaller but it's already $4500.00 for a roof and two poles. And to break it down you're talking like $3000.00 for absolutely nothing. It's a11..weather's gonna blow in. There's not gonna be anyplace to sit under it. It will answer none of our difficulties. And it will not flow with the property. It will not look good. You take eleven-foot space and then cut it down to eight foot it looks choppy. Mr. Ellsworth — You're lot's only 37' wide? Ms. Mathers — 37 to 38 or something like that. It varies at different points. It sets on an angle. Mr. Ellsworth — Other lots along there about that size? Ms. Mathers — No they're lucky. Each side of me has got 60' 1 believe. I'm not sure. Mr. Ellsworth — That answers your privacy problem. Ms. Mathers — Oh yeah. Well what's fortunate though is each house has it's own area on the backside of another house except for the decks in the front. Chairperson Sigel — Is the existing patio/porch is that at grade or above. Is that somehow or other built up from the grade level there? 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Ms. Mathers — I would dare say, Andy may correct me on this. It's on a bank. So if you're asking if it's built up, the people before us put a slate patio there with a header in a round. Mr. Frost— It's filled to reach a given grade. Chairperson Sigel — It's classified as all one grade. It wouldn't be raised. Mr. Frost— It's not a structure. Mr. Smith - There's no space underneath it Ms. Mathers —And it would just be that slate area that it would cover. Mr. Niefer — Do you have a fence along the north side of the patio now? Ms. Mathers — Yes. We would take it just to that fence. Here's a picture. Chairperson Sigel -Any other questions? Mr. Niefer — You've said that under no circumstances would this be enclosed in anyway in the future. Not any screening or anything else. Ms. Mathers — No. Absolutely not. Screening? No because you can see the lake with that there. With the screening, what I'm thinking is like a canvas with a wrap up at some point in time with the ?? by the doors coming down. Like canvas. I would think of adding maybe that if it's blowing in on the left side, backside, which would be this, is the north and south. This would be on the east and west. Again that would be like a canvas thing or something that you would just. You know the kind that would flop down to keep the weather out on a bad day. Chairperson Sigel — If there are no further questions- Ms. Mathers —Could I ask, now, when he says with the screening, what I am thinking, would a canvas with a wrap-up at some point in time, for the winter, by the doors, coming down, like canvas. I would think of adding maybe that, if it's blowing in on the left side, back side, which would be on the east and west. Again, that would be a canvas. You know those kinds that would flop down to keep the weather out on a bad day. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Chairperson Sigel - Do you want to pull the chair up to the side and pull the microphone your way if you don't mind? 21 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Chris Ufford — I didn't know I could send letters like the previous party did. Could you pass these up? I have them. Chairperson Sigel — If you have them. Thanks. I'll take a moment and read this. Mr. Ufford - I was actually going to read it so that if you prefer to do it that way that'd be fine. Chairperson Sigel — Ok. Well we'll read it and you can add any comments you want after we're done. Ok. Did you give a copy of this too? Okay good. Is there anything further you would like to add? Mr. Ufford— No I think I tried to put it all in here. Chairperson Sigel — Personally I'm very sympathetic to your view and agree with many of your points in that it is a very undersized lot and you know, basically this would exacerbate the problem even more. I don't know how the other members feel. Mr. Niefer - I'm personally reluctant to grant a variance for an extension right up to the property line. These extension situations are common along the lake and so often they come to us after the fact or it's property that was built before zoning took place or something like that and it does tend to have a you know to go ahead and grant it at this point and time to encroach right up to the property line I think is really stretching it. If for instance, I noticed that their house is five feet from the property line for instance if the people making the appeal were extending the roof to within five feet of the property line that might be somewhat acceptable to the proposal. In other words, each party is gonna have a house coming or a roof coming to within five feet of the property line. One balances to some extent out the other. I don't particularly like it but on the other hand it helps to meet a need for one and is not overly extensive as far as the other. I do have some reservations about the full extension to the property line. Chairperson Sigel — So if you were to subtract off five that would leave six. Mr. Niefer— Yeah, six foot out cover over the entry way for the protection of the entryway basically what it amounts to would I recognize on the other hand it doesn't fulfill what the appellants are asking for but then on the other hand we do have sight law set back situation here. Chairperson Sigel - My inclination would be actually closer probably to what Mr. Ufford suggested possibly setting that to three feet and just as sort of a covering to the doorway but in this case since the lot is so narrow and the houses are so close together I don't see how I could justify having anything come out substantially. 22 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Smith — The survey does show that the 909 house on the southern side is already cross the property line. Mr. Ellsworth — I feel the same way. Ms. Mathers — Nobody has to look at this but us. This is our main entrance. If we do what you ask, you chop the only 11 foot patio that we have on the side of our house in half. You can't put a chair under it. You got post you're walking into. You have stairs coming down. The stairs are gonna be here. The post is gonna be here. The deck going out on the side of the house the post will be in front of that or between that. You're asking almost the ssible. Because I've looked at it. You're talking about flow and the way things are gonna look. It's going to look hideous as far as I'm concerned on our property view. And we're the ones who have to look at it. It's at the back of his house. Chairperson Sigel -Well but I think that your neighbor does have a legitimate concern. I mean it's a legitimate concern to not want it to appear that there is this sort of roof going across you know almost that entire area between the two lots. I mean, your lot is very undersized and you have to assume there are going to be some restrictions because of that. Mr. Frost - Bonnie, you have an entrance on the lake side on the lower level and you have some kind of a flat area and you could come back to this board with a request to approve construction which would be necessary because it is non conforming lot but you could come back to the board with a different plan showing a porch on the down hill side the lake side and you'd still be able to maintain probably setbacks and still be able to get a porch. But as I see it because it is a non-conforming lot before you can change the footprint with a porch addition on that lakeside you would still need to come back to this board anyhow. Chairperson Sigel - How steep is it at the backside of the house? Would you be able to put in a patio or would you really need to put in a deck. Ms. Mathers — Now, when you say backside you're talking the lake is the backside? Yeah there's a tiny little the deck area there but that's not an entrance that we use constantly. Mr. Frost— I understand that but it provides you with a mechanism to be able to sit outside which sounds like part of what your desire is. It would just be in a different position. Ms. Mathers - That would be the third out of the three. Privacy issue was another biggie on that side of the house because their stairs come down, you're setting right out on your patio... 23 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Frost— I'm just trying to help you out here. Ms. Mathers — I know you are. And Andy I have looked at that too. I have looked at that but it's a waste of money. I mean this area in this spot is essential for all of the above. I'm not saying I wouldn't come back you know. But it's like... Mr. Frost - But when you bought the property you knew there were limitations. Ms. Mathers —Absolutely I did and I just I had no idea that I would be confronted with issues with neighbors on both sides constantly trying to do something every five minutes. I didn't know that I would be confronted with the fact that for safety issues and privacy issues that everybody would have a say on something that I own now and it's hard because before I got there you see all these things are up and people have these quality of life things before the zoning came in and it's some of the same people that don't want me to do anything. They had the opportunity to do it. Curt's house for example before he bought it, the guy bought it from an owner that had it for twenty years. He put a deck on the front of that house that completely stole our privacy and you can look from that deck into our bedroom windows. We never said a word and he had to come here for a variance for a 10' set back. Never said a word because we're neighbors. And that we don't get the same thing back. It's hard. And we're full time residents there where nobody else is there now for six months. Chairperson Sigel- I certainly understand you frustration and sympathize, but going right to the lot line on something like this. Ms. Mathers - I've been confronted with the neighbor on the other side when I wanted to do a loft and I never pursued that. He has five different kinds of dormers come out of the side of his house but he didn't want me blocking a window three quarters of the way back of his house so we put that on hold. Now I come for a porch on this side and the other neighbor is at me. Chairperson Sigel —Well I mean your property basically touches both property lines I mean that puts you in a terrible bind. Ms. Mathers — Do I say anything when central air conditioning units are going on both sides of my house? Not a word. Sorry. Chairperson Sigel —Would you be interested in a variance to allow something three feet out? Ms. Mathers — You're gonna walk into your poles there. Chairperson Sigel — I mean it would be to just sort of address maybe your concerns about the foundation. 24 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Ms. Mathers — I have a two foot roof now coming off that. We're talking...I looked at possibly eight feet, but because the stairs come down on the outside of the porch lot you're gonna bring the porch to here and you gonna have the treachery of the stairs. And then you have the stairs, you have the porch roof and then you have the fence. The area that you're walking down the stairs to turn into will not be covered. Mr. Frost - Does the deck Bonnie wrap around the front of the house too. Ms. Mathers - Um it comes around with a retaining wall. Mr. Frost - So do you have a deck on the upper level there facing the lake too or not? Ms. Mathers - Yes. See that's why the poles are strategically it's hard because you come out the kitchen door you make a right you've got stairs going down to the lake and then you have a landing that goes out to a deck on the side of the house and you have to put the pole not in front of the stairs going down to the deck and not in front of the stairs by the deck I mean and not in front of the stairs going down to the beach. So basically for it to not look hideous on our view point constantly living there every day you take it to the end over the area that we're already living on. Chairperson Sigel-Well it sounds like something less won't meet your needs. Ms. Mathers — If you grant me an eight foot I would think about it. Chairperson Sigel - I was actually talking about three feet from the house not eight feet from the house. Ms. Mathers — So I pay $1000.00 for another foot and the poles and the ditches and stuff like that you know and... Chairperson Sigel- Yeah, I mean I'm just asking you if that's something you wanted. Because that's what I could support. Ms. Mathers —At this time no. Chairperson Sigel — Ok. Would you like to withdraw your appeal or we could move to deny it, if you prefer. Ms. Mathers — I want to hear you deny it. Mr. Marcus — Just to draw if from the legal perspective that the situation is, I would say, almost impossible for the Board the way that the state law applies and 25 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 the town law fits into the state law, if you have any neighbor object to the grant of variance the board would have to have overwhelming basis on the applicants part to override an objecting neighbor. The whole nature of the board's decision it's a balancing act sometimes described as a scale and you know if the applicant puts all their weights on the one side of the scale there's no objection you guys probably heard it from John in different words but you guys have virtually no way of denying it if there's no objection. If the applicant has a good reason and there's no objection you virtually have to grant it. But if the applicant puts their weight on the one side of the scale and you have any objections that even balance that virtually prevents you from granting it the way the state law applies. Ms. Mathers -What are the variances to a canopy then? Mr. Marcus — I'm not sure what... Mr. Ellsworth — You're talking about a temporary canvas roof. Chairperson Sigel - I didn't think about that. I don't know, Andy would have to check on that. Mr. Niefer —A retractable canopy..come out unrolls and rolls back up. Ms. Mathers — The neighbor on the one side did put one out and they have one. Chairperson Sigel — I would think a retractable awning would be ... Mr. Frost - I'd rather not commit. Ms. Mathers - And I'm not even thinking retractable because you have to have the side arms down and again you can't walk to the lake or you can't walk up the stairs or something like that I'm thinking more of a metal rods and the canvas awning out. Chairperson Sigel - Yeah I think Andy will have to check. If it required a variance the same as the roof then I think you'd have the same opinion but if it was legal then you could do it. Mr. Niefer - Being non permanent would be the distinction. Temporary. Chairperson Sigel —Well I'm not sure without looking through the ordinance. Okay, if there are no further questions or comments I will move to deny the appeal of Bonnie Mathers. 26 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004-009: BONNIE MATHERS, 909 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 25.-2-9, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board denies the appeal of Bonnie Mathers, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a roof over an existing non-conforming patio/porch that is located at the property line, where a 15 foot setback is required, at 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-9, Residence District R-15. FINDINGS: 1. The requested area variance is substantial, seeking to reduce a 15 foot setback to zero. 2. Granting of the variance would be detrimental to the neighboring property. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer NAYS: NONE ABSENT. Krantz The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL: Kirk Sapa, Appellant; Pamela Williams, Agent; requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create by subdivision a building lot that does not contain sixty continuous feet of road frontage, not 100 feet of width at the maximum front yard setback, at 621 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29-8-5.1, Residence District R-15. Chairperson Sigel — Hello. Pam Williams, 9 Townline Road — Hi. I'm an architect practicing in Ithaca and hired by Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center to design a house at their proposed lot on Coy Glen Road. Would you like me to describe the land and what they want? Chairperson Sigel — Sure, a brief overview would be good. 27 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Pam Williams - This is their property. Coy Glen Road is here. Elm Street Extension is here and the property is a very odd shaped piece. It has some narrow lanes up to Elm Street Extension and then comes over here to Coy Glen Road. It's 5.2 acres all together and with 100 feet of road frontage here and 50.27 feet here and 48.53 on this part here. And in 1984 Kirk was granted an area variance okaying the 50 foot road frontage and a lot split from the zoning board. At that time he was proposing to divide his land into two parcels that were roughly more equal in size; that's what this dotted line is here. In fact this map is from the 1984 appeal. So that would have allowed this road frontage here as well as the two lots. The variance was granted but the subdivision was never completed. Kirk decided not to build his proposed house here and so the variance expired after one year. So now what he wants to do is divide off a smaller parcel . The one on Coy Glen Road here which is a half- acre lot and that would leave all of this as his house is located here now. I forgot to say that. So that would leave this road frontage and this one here so not a continuous 60 feet road frontage as I said 50 and 48 and the 180 feet of road frontage here for the proposed half-acre lot which would be here. Mr. Frost— One of the standards that has changed Pam since that original approval is the ordinance now requires that the lot open up 100 feet at 50 feet setback line and I don't think you have any where near that so. Ms. Williams - That well what he has is a 50 feet going about 200 feet back from here to here is that rear. Mr. Frost—Yeah from 50 feet back from the property line the lot's required to open up to a hundred foot width and you've got 170 something feet maybe to go before it starts to open up and so.. Ms. Williams- That's his driveway all the way back to here but, yeah, it doesn't open up to it. Chairperson Sigel — So the smaller lot that you're purposing to create that will be completely conforming? Ms. Williams- Yes. Chairperson Sigel — It seems fairly reasonable. Mr. Frost - I really had to look hard because they do have kind of 100 feet length along the road or close to. It is not continuous, but it's that 60 feet set back that I think that there was no way around that. So it is a rather benign request, but nonetheless it's necessary. Ms. Williams- Andy, the 60- foot set back what is that? 28 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Frost - That set back from the need to open up to the 100 foot at the 50 foot set back from the road right of way. Like I said, the two portions that front on the road, while are continuous do give you 100 foot, but it's that set back issue which became part of the zoning ordinance I think somewhere in the early 90s. Chairperson Sigel -What do the two portions on the road add up to? Mr. Frost—Actually I got 99. 1 think it's 49 on one side and - Ms. Williams - 48.58 plus 50.27. Ninety-nine something. Chairperson Sigel - So is it your opinion that you can combine those to meet the street requirement? Mr. Marcus — I was under the impression that that is yet another variance. I thought the frontage requirement was contiguous or continuous frontage. I forget what the word is. Ms. Williams- I think it is. It should be continuous. Mr. Marcus- The Ordinance I thought it was 100 foot in a run. So I just thought that was part of what was being requested in the way of a variance Chairperson Sigel — Is there any intention by Mr. Sapa to further subdivide the larger portion? Ms. Williams — Not that I know of. Mr. Niefer — Not at this time? Mr. Frost — Pam I don't know if you mentioned that he's retiring. Ms. William - He's retiring right and he wants to build a house here as a rental but it is a very high end house so he wants to do it well and it's his retirement project to do some building. Chairperson Sigel- Okay. The reason I asked that is the lot has such an obvious split. I mean you have two driveways into the lot. It's a pretty big lot. Not that I'm saying the Board would necessary be opposed to it. Mr. Frost - There's also a really wonderful pond down in back there that's almost in the middle there. My sense is it's such a nice parcel and such a nice house with the pond there. Ms. Williams- That's why he's not splitting it where he wanted to before. 29 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 Mr. Frost- It's really a lovely site. Chairperson Sigel - Okay, it looks like the Planning Board gave it a unanimous approval. And we have no Environmental Assessment. Mr. Ellsworth —Are you going to do the Public Hearing? I know there is no one here. Chairperson Sigel - I just realized that I forgot to ask Mike if he had any comments on every case thus far and I'm very sorry for that Mike. Mr. Smith- It's okay, I've added when I need to. Chairperson Sigel - Do you have any comments on this extremely controversial case? Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 8:19 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004-010 : KIRK SAPA, 621 ELM STREET EXTENSION, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 29.-8-5.1, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Kirk Sapa, Appellant, Pamela Williams, Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create by subdivision a building lot that does not contain sixty continuous feet of road frontage, nor 100 feet of width at the maximum front yard setback, at 621 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29-8-5.1, Residence District R- 15. FINDINGS: 1. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. 2. The property is 5.2 acres, substantially larger than a standard lot. CONDITIONS- 1. ONDITIONS:1. The lot will have no less than 50 feet of road frontage. 2. The lot will have no less than 50 feet at the maximum front yard setback. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: 30 Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes March 15, 2004 AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer NAYS: NONE ABSENT. Krantz The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. All set Ms. Williams — Thank you. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the March 15, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 8:30 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chair 31