Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2003-07-21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JULY 21, 2003 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andrew Dixon, Board Member; Andrew Frost, Director of Building/Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS: Brenda Smith, Cornell University; Pat Holmes, 1083 Ellis Hollow Road; Mark Mecenas, 115 Pine Tree Road; Robert Champion, 232 Rachel Carson Way; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf Landscape Architects Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Welcome to the July Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of the Town of Ithaca. We have four appeals. The first of which is, that we plan to adjourn, that of Richard Leonardo, that of Cornell University, the appeal of EcoVillage and the appeal of Mark Mecenas. We will take them in that order. APPEAL - Richard Leonardo, Appellant, requesting variances from Article IV, Sections 14 and 16 and Section 280A of New York State Town Law to create building lots, by subdivision that does not have direct lot frontage on a Town, County, or State highway off of Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 37- 1-20.5, -20.6, and 20.7, Residence District R-15. Access to said lots will be provided for by a 60-foot right-of-way. Mr. Frost—We could possibly ask is anyone is here for Leonardo. Chairperson Sigel — Is anyone here in regard to the appeal of Richard Leonardo? Mr. Frost — This case is going to go to the Planning Board before it is actually heard by us, so that's why we are going to adjourn it. Chairperson Sigel — So, I'll move to adjourn the appeal of Richard Leonardo until, next meeting? Mr. Frost—After their approval by the Planning Board. Chairperson Sigel — Until after their appearance before the Planning Board. Second? All in favor? Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 041: Adjournment of Appeal of Richard Leonardo, Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 37.-1-20.5, -20.6 and - 20.7, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this Board adjourns the appeal of Richard Leonardo until after their appearance before the Planning Board. 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. Chairperson Sigel — The one was pretty quick. APPEAL - Cornell University, Appellant, Peter Paradise, Agent, requesting a special approval and variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Sections 18.3 and 18.10 to be permitted to construct university athletic fields with accessory structures, along with light poles 80 feet tall (30 foot height limit) on Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 62-2-3, -4, -5, and -6, Residence District R-30. Chairperson Sigel —As soon as you're ready. You probably assumed that you have a few minutes, since you were second on the agenda. Mr. Frost— I wonder if maybe we can just move that off, underneath the clock maybe, that way the audience can see as well. Chairperson Sigel —We actually have copies, or at least probably similar maps to what you are going to show. Mr. Ellsworth — Before we start, I have a question. Sue Ritter wrote a summary. I came down a couple of weeks ago and went through this because I had too much spare time on my hands. She wrote a summary. For the Board Members to go through all of that and digest it. Her summary was very good, it covered all the various areas. Is there some reason that we don't have that? Mr. Smith — I think you're referring to the memo and that was a memo to the Planning Board about issues that they were going to be dealing with. Mr. Ellsworth — Right, but it summarized all the various — 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Smith —A lot of those same issues are in the SEAR form that you do have a copy of. They made a negative determination and a lot of those issues that she pointed out were elaborated on in that SEAR form. Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects — I am representing Cornell University. Mr. Ellsworth — Thanks for coming down off the windy hill for this. Ms. Wolf— It's tricky getting around, you have to take a lot of detours. I was lucky to make it on time. I have prepared a presentation of the project, summarizing each of the primary points, so, if I'm telling you too much, just stop me and of course, if you want more, I'm sure you'll ask me. Cornell University is proposing to construct four athletic practice fields, plus a support building and a 30-car parking lot on Game Farm Road in the Town of Ithaca. I'll orient you. On this map, north is up. This is Ellis Hollow Road. Right here, this is the edge of East Hill Plaza here. The Summerhill Apartment complex and the seniors apartments are right here. So, this is Ellis Hollow Road, traveling east, which intersects about right here with Game Farm Road. Traveling north on Game Farm Road, there's this existing double row of high power, NYSEG transmission lines that traverse the property and then traveling further is the Cascadilla Creek. Just to the north of this map, there is a trail-head parking area for the East Hill Recreation Way. So, the proposed project is located right here, in this sort of triangular wedge, just south of Cascadilla Creek, but north of the power lines, transmission lines on the west side of Games Farm Road. All of this land is owned by Cornell University and is utilized by their Ag Services Department. The project has received preliminary site plan approval from the Planning Board and the purpose of the meeting tonight is to request two things. We are requesting a special approval for the educational use and a height variance for the light fixtures that will light the athletic fields. The Planning Board has recommended to the ZBA that you grant both the special approval and the height variance. So, first of all, I'd like to answer the question, why are the fields going here or why are the fields being built. Many of you know that the University is proposing to construct a new Life Sciences Technology Building on the central campus in the City of Ithaca. This new building will be located on the site of Alumni Fields, Alumni Fields 1 and 2. Construction on that building is planned to start in the fall of next year, so this requires that those two playing fields be relocated. So, this project will relocate those two fields and, in addition to providing replacement fields for the Alumni Fields, two additional fields are proposed to provide for current unmet needs. There currently is a greater demand for fields at Cornell, than they have space. So, what that means is that a lot of times practices have to occur during the evening hours, later times than would be ideal. In addition, for many activities, they are utilizing space off-campus. For example, some of the sports camps utilize space at the 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 High School and other locations because they don't have enough space. So, two of the fields are really replacement for Alumni Fields. The two additional fields are to meet current unmet need. The use of the proposed fields will be similar to the existing use of the Alumni Fields 1 and 2. Those fields are currently used for team practices. They are not used for intercollegiate competition and no competitions or spectators are proposed for these fields at Game Farm Road. There will be no bleachers, no amplification system. It's practice. Users of the existing practice fields at Alumni Fields 1 and 2 include women's lacrosse and women's and men's soccer teams during the fall and spring seasons. During the spring and fall season, the fields are typically used for four to six hours a day, six or fewer days a week. Practices are held in the spring from late March through May and in the fall, September through mid-November. Practices are held from 4 o'clock in the afternoon until 7:30 p.m. The stopping time is really dictated by the fact that they have to get the athletes back to the residence halls before the dining room closes so that they can be fed. I believe the dining halls close at something like eight o'clock so there is an urgency to get them back and get them fed. So that time frame is pretty well adhered to. Chairperson Sigel — You said 7:30 is when the practices would end. Mr. Ellsworth — Yet the lights are going to be kept on until nine? Ms. Wolf— That is correct. There are times when it does have to go over and so, the intention is there to provide some flexibility. The practices are the primary use. In addition, Alumni Fields 1 and 2 as well as these fields will be used for sports camps from late June to mid-August. These camps operate from 9:00 a.m until 4:00 p.m. The sports camps are primarily high school aged students. The tend to be serious athletes, this is not day care for small children. There is no use of the fields during the winter. So, from late November until mid-March, when the spring practice starts, there is no use of the fields and they are also not used for about half of the summer, before and after those camps. Overall the fields are used for about half of the year. The first phase of the project would consist of the two fields in the center and those two fields would have a fence around them and they would be lighted and irrigated. The two fields outside of the fenced area will not be lighted and they will not be irrigated. The reason for this is that these two fields, inside the fence are going to be of very high quality turf, again, to give the athletes the best possible surface for practicing. So, the first phase would include the construction of those two lighted fields, the access drive, parking lot, a support building, lighting, fencing and storm water facilities. That is planned for late Summer 2003. The two additional, unlighted fields currently have no schedule for their completion at this time. I'd like to describe the overall plan for you now. As I indicated before, the access to the site if off Game Farm Road, the loop accommodates the bus turn around. It is anticipated that the athletes would, predominantly arrive at the site with a van. Some of the camps maybe come to the site with a bus. Then, in addition, there are parking spaces for 30 vehicles. The drive has been moved as far south as we can get of the 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 vegetation around the creek for site distance while still not getting directly under the wires and there's also a sort of grading here that would require a lot of cut. So, we're sort of balancing working with this area and also we wanted the fields to be away from the high tension power lines so that the athletes won't actually be playing in the vicinity of those high tension wires, but, at the same time, trying to keep us as far south as possible. Recognizing that the Cascadilla Creek area is a unique natural area, we have maintained a minimum of a 70 foot buffer. The worst case, the closest point is that the area of disturbance is within 70 feet of the unique natural area. So, there is an enlargement, zooming in on that area. The fields are aligned to assist with vision. This way if a coach or someone is located centrally, they are able to monitor several fields at once. The fields are 225 feet wide by 360 feet, plus what is called a 30 foot runoff area so that if you have to chase a ball, there is also this shoulder. Mr. Barney— Is that on both ends? Ms. Wolf— That will be all the way around the perimeter. Actually, the black line indicates the actual field. Then the green that extends beyond that is your run-out area. The driveway and parking are gravel. There are stone walkways that then lead to the fields. There will be a six foot high chain-linked fence around the two interior fields and the south and western pieces of that will have a fabric buffer. A small support building is proposed in this location. This is the south elevation of that building that we were looking at frontally from Ellis Hollow Road, this is the view of that building. It will have a cream-colored metal siding and blue metal roof to match the Oxley Polo Arena. The building is 3,600 square feet and it will have a changing area for the athletes, a space for first aid, incase someone is injured, and storage spaces. It's a small, functional building. So, this is the south elevation, this is would be the narrow ends of the building. The building form comes from many agricultural buildings in the area have that kind, like barns and sheds, roof structure and that was sort of the inspiration for that. The drainage plan allows for the runoff from the fields to be captured in two stormwater detention basins that will then filter the water before it's released into Cascadilla Creek Gorge consistent with the new DEC regulations. It's anticipating that the runoff water quality will improve from the current conditions because of this treatment. There will be water service brought to the site from — actually there is a water service on Ellis Hollow Road and that will be extended across the field to the building. Irrigation is the principle use for the water. Obviously there will be no showers, so irrigation is the principle use. There is no sanitary sewer on the site, so there will be an on site septic field to serve the facility. The sizing of it, again because there are no showers, just to give you an idea of the magnitude of use, the sizing of the septic field is comparable to a four bedroom house. Mr. Barney—Where is the field? Ms. Wolf— The septic field is right here. 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Barney— That's the entire field with the drainage the and everything? Ms. Wolf— That's correct. I believe that's shown in more detail on the grading plans that you have, but that I don't have as an enlargement. Lighting for the project will consist of lights along the driveway and a parking lot. These will be 20 feet high. They're the low, sort of standard sharp cut-off light bulbs. The field lights, there will be six light fixtures that serve the fields and their sensors and there are sensors between the sets of fields so that they can provide lighting in both directions. These are proposed to be eight feet high. They are using what's known as the Musco, Level 8 light fixture, which is really considered state of the art in terms of lighting to minimize light spillage. The hone of influence is very directed and also the height, actually the higher you go, the more contained it is horizontally. The more you move the light fixture down, the more the light spreads out. So, the height, plus the optical characteristics of this fixture allow for very minimal spillage. Mr. Ellsworth — Each of those poles has how many lights? Ms. Wolf— Did you hear that? They're double. So, that it's 19 each. I misspoke when I said these poles light these fields. The outside fields are not lit. Mr. Ellsworth — Only by the spill. Ms. Wolf— So these banks of light are directed in, towards the field and there is no light directed towards the outside. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, that's your five percent spill. Ms. Wolf— Yes. As you mentioned, the University has agreed that the lights for the fields will be shut off by nine o'clock. That does not affect the parking lighting, just in case someone had to stay later and do some type of maintenance or something. The Chairperson Sigel - Is it Cornell's intention to leave the driveway lighting on all night. Ms. Wolf— I don't think that has been decided. It could be put on a timer. Mr. Barney— They're looking, basically for security purposes, I assume for those lights. These fields are going to be used up until nine o'clock at night. Ms. Wolf— I don't think there's really a firm decision on when these lights would be shut off. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, I think there should be because previous meetings with the Planning Board, the discussions were all over the place. The athletic director talked about on certain fields that they've used in the past, evidently, they don't feel they can use anymore, they've been on as late as eleven o'clock. 6 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Ms. Wolf—At the Planning Board Meeting, the Planning Board agreed that nine o'clock for the fields, but they did not put that condition on the roadway lights because, of course, the impact is minimal compared to the fields and, again, if someone had to be out there. Mr. Barney— I think the feeling of the Planning Board was that that's a security issue and they really weren't going to try to superimpose their judgment on Cornell. Mr. Ellsworth — I'm not concerned about the road, I'm more concerned about the fields. Mr. Barney— The field lights are very definitely nine o'clock. In fact, the arrangement that was originally suggested was that they get turned off very shortly after they cease to be used, but no later than nine o'clock. Mr. Ellsworth — That was part of the Planning Board resolution? Mr. Barney— That was part of the Planning Board approval. Mr. Krantz— Eighty feet is really a monstrous height. You could almost use those as radio towers. In the past, Cornell, I don't think they've had any poles eighty feet high and there sure have been a lot of comments about the Schoelkopf Stadium and they weren't more than sixty feet. Ms. Wolf—Well, let's just take a look at that. I know it sounds really high. Here's a photograph of the existing conditions from the Summerhill Apartments. The existing transmission poles are 85 feet high, okay? I think what helps the situation here is that the site is lower. The topography drops off as you move down into that corner. I'm sure you can visualize this, you're on Ellis Hollow Road and as you look down, this is dropping quite a bit by the time you've reached this site. The lowness of the site really helps mitigate the height of the poles and so, they will appear lower than the existing poles of the transmission wires. The bottom view then, is a view of the same photograph and then the six new poles have been superimposed in that view and again, this is from the nearest apartment in Summerhill Apartments, so this would be the worst case of someone who is living nearby. Mr. Ellsworth — Now, that's indicating 38 light fixtures? Ms. Wolf— You can see it if you look close. They are far enough away so that they diminish, but you can see that's the actual dimension. So, I think the lowness of the site really helps mitigate that. The other thing that helps mitigate it, actually from the other view, this is showing the same idea, but this is the existing view from the intersection of Game Farm Road and Ellis Hollow looking at the site. What also mitigates the appearance is the vegetation behind it. This view, again, you are seeing the existing utility pole and then here, you see the new ones added, which are lower, which will also reduce the impact of the light because you're looking down. The light source is actually 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 lower than anything around it. It isn't high, like Schoellkopf, which is higher. I think the lowness of the site does a lot to mitigate it. Mr. Ellsworth —What's that vegetation behind the light. Ms. Wolf— That's the existing vegetation along Cascadilla Creek. Mr. Ellsworth — So, that's higher than the new lights? Ms. Wolf— It goes up. See, what happens is it is low here and then it starts to go up again so that the vegetation rises. These were prepared to help you understand the visual impact of the project. We also tried to identify the sites from a distance that from which this would be visible. We did a lot of driving around, from Ithaca College, Route 96, we were not able to identify any sites that were outside of the immediate vicinity from which this would be visible and, again, that's because of the whole elevation of the site. It really is kind of nestled down there in that corner. The light level is at the fields is fifty foot candles, which is what is proposed for lacrosse and that is comparable to the existing Alumni Fields. Now, just to show you how much the light drops off as you move away, the closest receptor to the light would be someone traveling on Game Farm Road. So, if you're traveling with your car along here, you would be closer to the lights than you would be if you were in Summerhill Apartments, for example. At Game Farm Road, this has dropped from a fifty foot candle to .37 foot candles. Within 900 feet, it has dropped to .01 foot candles, which is almost imperceptible and then there is another 700 feet to the nearest Summerhill Apartment. So, from this sense, you'll see that glow, but the light will be very contained within the fields. Another thing that we did analysis was the potential for sound impacts from use of the fields. As I mentioned, there will be no amplification or spectators at the site. Whistles blowing is probably the thing that will be the greatest sound level. We contracted with Fischer Associates Engineers out of Rochester to do a noise analysis and they actually took sound level readings. They measured sound levels at the existing Alumni Fields when practices were occurring. These were taken last fall when practices were in session and the maximum average sound, while the field was being used was 60 decibels 50 feet away from the edge of the field. So, that tells us what those practice sessions can generate. So, in the worst case, we assumed that all four of these fields were being used and they were experiencing, simultaneously, the maximum average sound that had been measured at the Alumni Fields. This is then propagated towards the nearest residences. The one on Game Farm Road and the nearest at the Summerhill Apartments. The nearest Summerhill Apartment is about 1600 feet away from the field and outside of the window, the decibel level would be raise one decibel over that distance. If you are inside the apartment, that's not a sound level that you would hear. This means that residents may occasionally hear whistles or faint noises. On Game Farm Road, because of the background sound of traffic on the road, there is no change, there's no increase to the sound level at the residences on Game Farm Road. 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Then, finally, traffic, there was a traffic analysis conducted. I'm going to summarize it for you very briefly. If you want more detail, I can provide that. The traffic analysis was conducted by FRA Engineers of Rochester. They took traffic counts of existing conditions at the intersection of Ellis Hollow Road and Game Farm Road and Game Farm Road and Route 366, so they were able to identify the existing level of services at those intersections. They then conducted two analyses, one for the athletic practices and one for the sports camps. They determined that, in the existing condition, all of these intersections operate at a level of service "a" or"b" (and we're talking about peak hour traffic now, so during rush hour), except Game Farm Road, if you're traveling north on Game Farm Road and you try to take a left, that's currently a level of service "d" in the morning because it's hard to get out onto Route 366. After development of the project, well, first of all, traffic generated by the project will occur outside of the peak hour times because of the starting times and the ending times, we've missed those peak hour windows. They did overlap the practices with the worst hour, just to look at what a worst case would be. So, after development, there is no change to the level of service. Mr. Ellsworth — That's not really true of the summer camps. Ms. Wolf— I'm sorry? Mr. Ellsworth — That's not really true of the summer camps. Ms. Wolf— No, that was also true of the summer camp. Mr. Ellsworth — They start at nine and they go to four. Ms. Wolf— They go till four, the peak hour ends at 8:30 in the morning. The peak hour is 7:30 until 8:30 in the morning and 4:30 to 5:30 in the afternoon. They just miss it. Mr. Barney— Do you have any idea how many more vehicle trips would take to raise it or lower it a level? Ms. Wolf— No, that I don't' know the answer to. Mr. Barney—What was the vehicle trips. Ms. Wolf - The worst case that was analyzed, which is a worst case scenario that we don't think would actually ever be reached, but we're really trying to show the worst case would be assuming that a lot of the sports camps attendees would be dropped off. So, in the worst case scenario, that was modeled, it was assumed that all four fields were filled to capacity, which is 30 persons per field, times four fields is 120 participants and it was assumed that 75 of those participants were dropped off. What happens is that most of these students usually are coming from out of town and staying at the residence halls and they are bussed here. So, it was assumed that 75 of them were 9 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 dropped off, plus twelve coaches arriving, which would generate 87 trips to the site. That was the worst case that the traffic analysis was based on for the summer camps. Some residents did express concerns at the Planning Board Meeting regarding the bridge. Dan Walker stated that he didn't believe that this low volume of traffic would impact the bridge, but I believe he was going to have some discussion also with the Town of Dryden because there is some shared responsibility there concerning the bridge. So that completes my presentation. If you have some questions for me or there are also some representatives here from Cornell University. Mr. Niefer— You haven't commented on the residence population on the east side of Game Farm Road. Your plot plan cuts off everything on the east side. Where are the residences or small developments on the east side of Game Farm Road? Ms. Wolf— There are four houses on Game Farm Road. Here's the nearest one. This is 1300 feet from the edge of the field to the house. Over here, this is the New York State- Mr. Ellsworth — Pheasant farm. Ms. Wolf— Pheasant farm, directly across the road. There are no views, except for these residences, which will, again, because of the elevation, their view will be minimal. Any other views from the east are blocked. There's vegetation just beyond the pheasant farm. Inaudible voice from the audience Chairperson Sigel —We'll open the public hearing soon. Mr. Frost—Are you from Cornell? You'll have to wait for the public hearing. Mr. Niefer— One other question. Isn't it somewhat optimistic that, as far as the athletic teams, Cornell athletic teams and their practice, that they're going to ride buses to get out to this location? Isn't that somewhat optimistic? I just visualize students jumping in their cars and zipping out here and trying to find a place to park, rather than the riding some kind of a team bus. There are no shower facilities out here and this is kind of conducive to leave your dormitory, leave your frac house dressed to go and zip out, jump out of the car and run to the field. That's what makes me wonder if there's not going to be a lot more need for parking or more traffic by reason of lifestyle, if you will. Ms. Wolf—Well, it is anticipated that there will be some students who will choose to drive. You know, if they're late. Again, there are no spectators. That is the reason for the parking lot, to accommodate some number of persons driving to the site, but not everybody has a car and the percentages of students having cars at Cornell is about 10 percent, something like that. Certainly, there are students who would require transportation and so, it's anticipated that it would be a combination, they probably would have an athletic van and they do anticipate that the bulk of the students would 10 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 ride the van, but that, yes, some will drive and that was considered in the traffic analysis. Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions? I just wanted to confirm that there's no intention of putting up any kind of score board at all? No signage? Ms. Wolf— No. Chairperson Sigel — No advertising? Ms. Wolf— No. There might be some kind of identification signage. And possible "please pick up you litter'. Chairperson Sigel — No billboards? No big Pepsi signs or anything? Ms. Wolf— No. Chairperson Sigel — The other question was, the fence around the two fields that are being built first, will that be locked when not in use? Ms. Wolf— I believe so, yes. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Please come up to the microphone, state your name and address and tell us what you'd like to tell us. Pat Holmes, 1083 Ellis Hollow Road — I would like to thank Mr. Frost for sending this to the residents. I don't have anything specific prepared to say. In fact, we moved into our house at the beginning of February, the day after you had your first hearing of the fields being moved from the proposed site at Judd Falls Road to where they are now, so I don't really now what your rationale was, or Cornell's rationale for moving them, since there don't appear to be as many people living right at that junction as there are in this area. My house is exactly at the end of Game Farm Road and Ellis Hollow, it sits up on the hill a little ways. Whereas I can see, this project is happening, you did not address the views of people along Ellis Hollow Road. There will be considerable change. However, my major concern is, if this project is to happen, I don't imagine I can do anything about it now, is the traffic. I have also been at home for the last four weeks because I teach elementary school, so I know what the traffic is like during the day and whereas we are delighted with out house, we are very concerned about the traffic. That junction of Game Farm and Ellis Hollow is extremely busy. It is also used by large trucks, which surprises me too, coming up Route 366. As the lady said, it does take a long time. My co-owner does go down Game Farm Road and enter 366 in the rush hour, it takes a long time to get on to 366, even turning in the direction of the traffic, the easier turn. As, I say, my major concern is the traffic on the corner of Game Farm Road and Ellis Hollow because it is extremely busy and what amazes me is the screeching of 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 brakes. I don't quite know how that happens. I think it must be because traffic coming west on Ellis Hollow does not have a very big view of traffic pulling out and you're dealing with a hill, it's not a tremendous hill, but somewhat of a hill. There is a tremendous amount of screeching that happens there and then, of course you've got you people who are driving too fast anyhow and taking the corner too quickly, there's not much one can do about that. I am very concerned about the traffic because whilst I know some will be transported in busses, it's inevitable, I think, particularly for the summer camps, that children will get dropped off by parents, local children. I know a lot of our children do go to the sports camps. So, as I say, that is my concern. I'd love to see the fields not there because, while there are three or four houses on Game Farm Road at the beginning, there are continual houses on that part of Ellis Hollow, which currently are enjoying a very nice view across there. Perhaps it's too late to do anything about that, but I do feel that I wanted to point out my very deep concern about the traffic. Mr. Ellsworth — Traffic has increased on Game Farm Road because of the construction over on 366. I'm one of the ones that goes over there because you never know whether you're going to get through on 366 or whether you're going to be stopped because they're doing something out in the road. So, consequently, a lot of people this summer, because of that construction are going on Game Farm. Mr. Frost— You may, in fact see less traffic. Ms. Holmes —Whilst it may not be your concern, but the roadway is very poor going onto 366 and then, of course, you do have that bridge, which does require you to slow considerably is there's another car coming. Thank you very much for listening to what I have to say. Chairperson Sigel —Would anyone else like to speak? Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m. Chairperson Sigel - Any further comments or questions? Mr. Ellsworth — Yes. There's 25,000 to 30,000 cubic yards that's go to be brought into this site, I saw somewhere in this volume of paperwork, where's it coming from, mainly? Ms. Wolf—Actually, the project was designed to be able to accommodate the excavation that will be coming out of the building construction for the new Science and Technology Building, so that has to go somewhere. So, the idea was to try and incorporate that into this project. Mr. Ellsworth —Which way do you think those trucks are going to come from Cornell? Ms. Wolf—Well, the most direct route would certainly be down Route 366 from central campus and down Game Farm. That's what we anticipate. 12 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — Is the amount of fill produced by the building site going to be approximately what's needed here? Ms. Wolf— That's correct. Ms. Holmes — Is there any way you could require the lights to go off earlier than eleven. Mr. Barney— It's nine o'clock. Ms.- Holmes — But, I think you said the parking lights and so on would be later than nine. I don't know whether you have any jurisdiction over that. Mr. Barney— I think the thought is there that those are for security purposes and it may be advantageous to have them on all night. They're not a high intensity light. Ms. Holmes — So you don't think that they're reflect onto the houses? Mr. Barney— No, it's the eighty foot high ones that have the high intensity that we're concerned about. Chairperson Sigel — Mike, any comments on the Environmental Assessment Form. Mr. Smith — Not really. The Planning Board was the lead agency in this and you should have a copy of the neg. dec. and a copy of the part 2 that the Planning Board reviewed for information. But they did make the neg. dec. at the July 1St meeting. Chairperson Sigel —Any further questions? I would just maybe make the comment that, personally, I would expect at least the majority of the Cornell student traffic to come from 366 and not go through the intersection of Game Farm and Ellis Hollow. As Harry pointed out, actually the completion of the Judd Falls construction there on the bridge should help mitigate the Game Farm Road traffic. Mr. Ellsworth — Game Farm Road has deteriorated a lot this year due to the traffic. There are a lot of pot holes, even on the corner of 366. When you drop down and go across the bridge, you're in a blind spot from the rest of the road and also you've got a parking place there for people using the trails, so you've got kind of a bad situation there. Right Mike? There's a drop there where that bridge is so you can't see either way and then you can't see down in there until you get to it if anybody is pulling out from a parking space. Chairperson Sigel —Would someone like to make a motion? I assume we need to make a negative determination. Mr. Barney— No, with the Planning Board acting as lead agency, you don't. 13 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — So we don't need to do that, we just need to —should we have two separate motions for the special approval and the variance? Mr. Barney— Yes. RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 042: Cornell University, Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-3, -4, -5, -6, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, Appellant, Peter Paradise, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals to be permitted to construct university athletic fields with accessory structures, along with light poles 80 feet tall on Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 62-2-3, -4, -5, and -6, Residence District R-30. FINDINGS: a. The conditions for a special approval have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a. Subject to all the conditions of Planning Board Resolution 2003-046, excluding letter"a" (granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals). The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 043: Cornell University, Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-3, -4, -5, -6, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, Appellant, Peter Paradise, Agent, requesting a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to be 14 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 permitted to construct light poles not to exceed 81 feet tall at the University Athletic Fields to be built on Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 62-2-3, -4, -5, and -6, Residence District R-30. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a. The poles be constructed as indicated on the applicant's submitted plans. b. The applicant is allowed to construct no more than six poles. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. APPEAL: EcoVillage, Appellant, Robert Champion, Agent, requesting a variance from Article XIII, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place an 8 foot high deer fence (6 foot height limit) on land along West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-26.22, Residence District R-15 and R-30. Chairperson Sigel — Please come to the microphone. Mr. Frost— If you'd be more comfortable, you could also sit on the end of the table. Chairperson Sigel — For the record, state your name and address. This is an appeal being brought by EcoVillage? Robert Champion, 232 Rachel Carson Way— Yes it is. Chairperson Sigel — It's EcoVillage that owns all the land? Mr. Champion — That's right. I have a special interest in it because I'm the one who is sort of the burning soul on the orchard idea. Chairperson Sigel — If you could just give us a quick overview of what you want to do. 15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Champion — Sure. It's a relatively square block of our land that boarders Mecklenburg Road and West Haven Road. It should be the northeast corner of our property, adjacent to City Lights on the west side, City Lights Antiques. So, it is close to 3,000 lineal feet, around approximately ten acres square that boarders on the south side which is the West Haven Farm. So, they have a wonderful eight foot fence that has made their farm possible, whereas before they were chasing out deer all the time. So, with this project of developing an orchard over a number of years, we realize that it wouldn't really make sense to invest in project without first protecting it from deer. So, that's it. A wire fence, which they call a tight lock fence, where you have a narrow gage wire that might be similar to a pencil lead or something like that. It's a very small diameter, maybe eighth of an inch diameter, every twelve inches. You may notice on the pictures that I'm assuming you have. We took a picture and actually I got a call from Kristi in the office and she said "Well, you need to show what the fence would look like." And I said "well, look at the picture a little more closely". You'll notice that the fence itself is more or less transparent from any distance because the wires are so increasingly spaced and so small. So, basically the idea is that if we can have an eight foot fence where we'd ordinarily have a six foot fence, instead of having to move it back because a six foot fence would not do anything for deer, even an eight foot fence is boarder line. If we can have an eight foot fence out where the six foot fence would ordinarily go, we could pick up nearly an acre of that land that would otherwise be on the wrong side of the fence if you understand what I am saying. That's the purpose of the appeal for the variance. We'd still use the eight foot fence, but we'd put it back at the required setback, which I think is 30 feet, in general, 25 on one side and 30 on the other. BY the way, I should say that Colleen Shur, who owns City Lights Antiques said that she'd like to write something for me to bring and share that she's total in support of this. She called tonight and said that she couldn't get it written, but she wanted me to tell you that she totally supports it on her side. Mr. Barney— Is this fence electrified? Mr. Champion — No. Mr. Dixon —Well, the deer are getting taller every year. Mr. Krantz— They're also adopting to their environment so much better than we are. Six feet is our rule, but it's no longer their rule. This is the second time that we've had someone request and eight foot fence. Maybe there should be a way of changing that. Chairperson Sigel —Well, I think the concern is that if everyone was putting up eight foot fences, we'd have a lot of eight foot fences. Mr. Champion — I think what Mr. Krantz is getting at, maybe is that who puts up a six foot fence in an agricultural area any more. I'm not sure because I'm not really involved in it, but clearly, if you're trying to keep out deer, there would be no purpose. 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — That might be a good idea, but I think we clearly want to have specifications as to the type of fence. You don't want a lot of eight foot solid wooden fences. Then it looks like you're living in an area where no one wants to see or talk to anyone else. Mr. Niefer— In this request for variance, would you have any objection to a stipulation that should this parcel of land no longer be used for agricultural purposes, that the fence would be removed. The reason for the fence disappears, but the fence stays there and then it gets into disrepair . If it falls down, then the deer might jump in it and the deer might get hurt— poor deer. But, it just makes for an untidy appearance to have a fallen woven wire fence around the parcel of land that no longer is used for agricultural purposes. The one question that I would raise is there any objection on your part. Mr. Champion — There is the remains of an old fence in the hedgerow that goes along Mecklenburg Road. No, I would have no objection to that. Chairperson Sigel — How would we do the wording for this, John? Would we make it so that the actual approval expired if there were no agricultural functions for a year or two and then the fence would become illegal? Mr. Frost— The appeal is going to be granted in the name of EcoVillage? Mr. Barney— The variance goes with the land, actually I was going to raise the question is EcoVillage of Ithaca Inc. the owner? Mr. Champion — Yes. Mr. Barney— Not EcoVillage Associates? Mr. Champion — No, EVI. Mr. Barney— It's EVI. You could make it either as a condition that the variance continues only so long as the property enclosed by the fence is used for agricultural purposes. Chairperson Sigel — I assume you wouldn't object to giving them some leeway in defining continuous use. Mr. Niefer— Certainly, during that time of continuous use, the fence is all right, but when the continuous use ends, the fence would be removed. Mr. Frost— I would suggest a year's time after. Chairperson Sigel — That could be hard to establish. If you've got apple trees there and they keep growing and you just go pick a couple of appeals every year. 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Champion — My impression would be as a resident up there in a growing neighborhood or village, is that once things get started there, it just continues. So, that part of the resolution is no problem because I don't, in my lifetime, see that happening. Chairperson Sigel —As long as it gets started. Mr. Champion — Once it gets started, it will continue. Chairperson Sigel — Someone will go pick the apples, presumably. Mr. Dixon — If you plant the trees, the deer will come. Chairperson Sigel — That's right, and the fence will stay. Mr. Niefer—And it should be maintained. You don't want half of it falling down and then they're still planting things out there. Mr. Champion — By the way, the posts that are going in are, I think, six inch diameter, pressure treated pine, which will go three feet into the ground. We will have someone come out and they'll excavate the holes. So, it will be a sturdy fence. Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions or comments. Mike, anything to say about the Environmental Assessment. Mr. Smith — Nothing significant was identified. It's an open fence and the location of the EcoVillage property is in the Tompkins County agricultural district so this should help to promote the agriculture on the property. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. With no person present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 8:11 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —Would someone like to make a motion on the Environmental Assessment? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 044: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : EcoVillage, West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-26.22, Residence District R-15 and R-30. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of EcoVillage, Appellant, Robert Champion, Agent, requesting a variance from Article X111, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place an 8 foot high deer fence on land along West Haven and 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mecklenburg Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-26.22, Residence District R- 15 and R-30, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated July 2, 2003. 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. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 045: EcoVillage, West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-26.22, Residence District R-15 and R- 30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Eco Village, Appellant, Robert Champion, Agent, requesting a variance from Article X111, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place an 8 foot high deer fence on land along West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-26.22, Residence District R-15 and R-30. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. As long as the fence remains, that it be maintained in a good and workman like manner. b. This variance will expire if there are no agricultural activities taking place within the area enclosed by the fence for a period of one year. 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. 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 APPEAL - Mark Mecenas, Appellant, requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 and 16 and Section 280A of New York State Town Law to create two building lots, by subdivision without having the required road frontage along a Town, County, or State highway on the Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29-6-13.1, Residence District R-15. Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Mecenas please give us your name and address for the record. Just give us a brief overview of what you'd like to do. Mark Mecenas, 115 Pine Tree Road — I've got a flag lot that is about 1 '/2 acres and I'd like to divide that into two building lots of approximately equal size and that's it. Mr. Niefer—What do you propose to do with the other parcels that are up through here. I notice that according to this survey, you're the owner of two or three other parcels in this area. Mr. Mecenas — That's correct. Mr. Niefer—Are those going to be subdivided at some point in time. Mr. Mecenas — I have no plans for them at this time. Mr. Niefer - Could they be subdivided at some point? Mr. Mecenas — Like any other tax parcel, they can be subdivided. Mr. Barney— Subject to subdivision approval. Mr. Mecenas — Correct. Mr. Barney—Which is becoming increasingly difficult, the more that these flag lots are created. Mr. Niefer— The issue is commented about road. I can certainly recognize the road frontage on Elm Street, but as far as the development of the road into these two flag lots, is it going to be a dedicated road or is it going to be a privately maintained road? Mr. Mecenas — It's not going to be a road, it's going to be a driveway. Mr. Niefer—Well, then when the other lots are subdivided, is that driveway then going to continue, or is there going to be — Mr. Mecenas — If in fact, and you're making the suggestion that that's going to happen, okay. 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Niefer—Well, it generally happens in Ithaca. The reason I ask that is because we've had situations where narrow roads in very, very poor conditions, driveways, go into flag parcels and other parcels and it gets to the point of can a fire truck get in there. Then late on people want it to become a public highway and then people want water and sewer. So, if you don't start out with that in mind, even though at the current time, the person may not anticipate it, the way things happen in Ithaca, they eventually get developed. Mr. Mecenas — I think that the Planning Board would require any developer to make it so, although I might point out that Perry Lane didn't quite turn out that way. Mr. Frost— Perry Lane is a road. Mr. Mecenas — It is, but I don't think that anyone driving a fire truck would want to turn around in that. Mr. Frost— It should probably meet the standards of the Fire Department. Mr. Mecenas —Which it does not, I don't believe. Mr. Barney— I'm not so sure about that. There's a turn around, there's a circular turn around. That was the requirement. Mr. Mecenas — There is, but I suggest you drive your car up there. Mr. Barney— I've driven a car up there and at the time that that was approved, that was deemed adequate by the Fire Department at that point in time, whether that would be adequate today, I don't know. At the time it was done, they looked at it and were satisfied. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, anyway what you're proposing here is adequate for the Fire Department, the road into these lots? Mr. Mecenas — I have not consulted the Fire Department on it. Mr. Niefer— The way these lots are divided, it looks like there are going to be two separate driveways going in. Mr. Mecenas —Well, if you look at your maps, the access to this is not going to be off of Elm Street Extension. I submitted, I don't know, maybe 17 maps, the access — Mr. Niefer—West Haven Road, people are going to come off of West Haven Road? Mr. Mecenas — Correct. Mr. Barney— That driveway presently exists, is that right? 21 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Mecenas — No. Mr. Barney— So, you're going to create that driveway? Mr. Mecenas — I'm going to create that driveway. Mr. Frost— There was a condition from the Planning Board. Chairperson Sigel — Everyone saw the Planning Board Resolution? I assume it was handed out to everyone. Mr. Barney— The Planning Board required a condition of their approval of the subdivision, that there be a driveway created from West Haven Road and that easement language be provided for the benefit of both these lots granting access over that driveway. Chairperson Sigel — Did the Planning Board request that it come off of West Haven? Mr. Barney— The understanding in the representation from Mr. Mecenas was that it was going to come off of West Haven. Mr. Mecenas —Actually at the meeting there was a request by one of my neighbors that access be done off of West Haven Road. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Why? Do you know? Mr. Mecenas — I don't know his motivation for that, but he doesn't live here, but his 87 year old mother is a neighbor and he felt that it would preserve her peace and holy calm in her home if the driveway came off of West Haven, I guess, instead of off of Elm Street Extension. Mr. Frost—What's the running length from West Haven to the parcel number one? Mr. Mecenas — I suspect that it is one the magnitude of 800 feet or something. Mr. Frost— My only concern and I actually thought this was coming off of Elm Street Extension would be maintenance of the driveway for emergency vehicles or fire department to access that length of driveway, particularly in the winter time. I don't know what the legal liability is, John, if someone can't get there by way of that driveway. Mr. Barney— Well, it's a little confusing project because the way it's set up, the flag lots are having frontage on Elm Street Extension, but in fact, the access is going to come in from the back of the lots up to the front . I suppose, it would not be inappropriate for this Board to impose a condition that the driveway be constructed in a manner that is 22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 adequate for fire and other emergency vehicles to negotiate and have, perhaps approval from the Fire Department be obtained. Mr. Mecenas — I have no problem with that. Mr. Ellsworth —As you're coming down West Haven Road towards Elm Street, right where this would be there's a stop sign, but as you're going up Elm Street or down Elm Street there is no stop sign. Traffic is supposed to stop on West Haven when it hits Elm Street so that there's an advantage in having cars coming in and out there from West Haven. Chairperson Sigel — Because they're already slowing down. Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah, because there's a stop sign almost right there. Mr. Frost— That may very well be the case. My concern is what the Fire Department feels about this. Chairperson Sigel — Do you have a particular motivation to have it come off of West Haven? Mr. Mecenas - I'm building a house there, a friend of mine approached me and this all started because he wanted to build a house there and I said okay, I'll sell you a lot. He thought that the privacy of the lots would be better preserved if, in fact, we had access off of West Haven, versus access off of Elm Street Extension. Mr. Sigel, that was the reason behind that. Mr. Frost— I would suggest John that you check on 280A, which is the State/ Town Law, which among other things presumes that a 15 foot wide access, which I thought was off of the road on the land, and the driveway is not accessed through their land. So, I was just wondering whether how this has this really falls under 280A. Chairperson Sigel — That deals with not fronting on the town road? Mr. Barney— This is what you're granting a variance for because you are required to get a variance under 280A. Mr. Frost— I've advertised this such that they don't have the required frontage they need which is would be the 60 foot opening up to the 100 foot and so forth, but now it's a question of the access isn't even coming off of a Town or County highway. Mr. Barney— 280A says that you can't issue a building permit for construction on a piece of property for construction on a piece of property unless there is a street or a highway giving access to the proposed structure. Then it allows this Board to grant a variance from that prohibition, where the circumstances engaged do not require the structure to be related to existing or proposed streets or highway, the applicant, by 23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 special permit may appeal.. Basically, this Board is authorized under subdivision 3 of 280A to grant a variance from the requirement— There is section in here somewhere that says a 15 foot wide, access should mean that the plot on which the structure is to be erected directly abuts on such street or highway and has sufficient frontage thereon to allow the ingress and egress of fire trucks, ambulances or police cars and other emergency vehicles and fifteen feet shall be presumably sufficient for that purpose. Chairperson Sigel — It sounds like whether the lot actually has this access through that frontage may not matter. Mr. Barney— That is correct. Chairperson Sigel — So, I wouldn't think we'd need to grant it if they do have frontage on a road, even though they are not using that frontage to access the lot. Mr. Barney— I'm a little less comfortable with that interpretation because I think if you lack— Chairperson Sigel — I'm comfortable with it. Mr. Barney— If you lack the access, which you basically lack here. Chairperson Sigel — I guess the question is does access mean, do you own the land to the road or is access you have a driveway there? If is access like you can walk there on your own land or is it- Mr. Barney—Well, if you have frontage on it, you presumably have access. Chairperson Sigel —Well, they have frontage on Elm Street. Mr. Barney— That's right, but they're not using it to build a driveway. That basically says that it's presumably sufficient, but by using the turn presumably, it could be rebutted by the fact that there could be a mountain along that frontage there to prevent someone from coming in . Mr. Mecenas — If I combine this, the subdivided tax parcel with the adjacent one that I do own, that does have frontage on West Haven Road, that solves the problem, doesn't it? Mr. Frost— But it's not part of the parcel that's going to be owned by somebody else. Chairperson Sigel — If you consolidated Parcel 1 with your large parcel then, yeah, obviously the whole parcel would have frontage on West Haven. Mr. Frost—Again, my only concern is that we hear from the Fire Department, what their reaction is. 24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — I would have the same concern, that is quite a long ways. Mr. Frost— But if the Fire Department says no, does he come back here? Is this an adjourned thing? Is this potentially a conditional approval? Mr. Barney— I would suggest that if you're of a mind to approve it, to approve it with the condition that the driveway, before any building permits are issued for anything, Parcel 1 or Parcel 2, that the driveway be constructed and inspected by the City of Ithaca Fire Department and a determination made in their judgment whether this is adequate for handling fire vehicles and other emergency vehicles and provide proof of that review and approval before building permits will be issued. Mr. Mecenas — Makes sense to me. Mr. Frost— I think one of their questions, at least in my mind, would be the length of this thing is such that what about maintenance as well. Mr. Barney—Well, part of the agreement that Mr. Mecenas is going to be submitting to me to review is going to include some obligation on the part of both land owners, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 to maintain the driveway I suppose equally, unless you want some other apportion to the cost of that for maintenance. Mr. Mecenas — Now, just as a point of information, why would that be any different from anyone else's driveway? Mr. Frost— The length and the fact that you're asking for an approval for something that's not going to help. Chairperson Sigel — If you have a driveway of modest length and let's say your house caught on fire and you hadn't plowed your driveway yet, presumably the fire engines could stop at the street and they could run up your front yard. Mr. Barney— Frankly, there wouldn't be a problem if you were providing access, I think it would be less of a problem if you were providing access over the portion of the land that is tied to each of these lots, with the frontage on Elm Street Extension, but the access apparently coming from a 1200 foot road or driveway in the opposite direction across other people's property to get to your property, different tax parcels. Chairperson Sigel — I have somewhat of a concern and I don't know that there's much this Board can raise in objection against it, maybe it can and maybe it can't, but just the fact that this driveway is going through such a large lot that's not connected to either of the two lots that are being subdivided as I think someone on the Board already pointed out, just the obvious inducement for further subdivisions and sort of the difficulty of future Boards being able to say no, when a driveway has already been put in and sort of 25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 the difficulty of expanding the driveway and making it more like a real road if you had more and more homes back here. Mr. Niefer—We've got a terrible condition up there on Trumansburg Road, where that person came in for a building lot and there was a rule that driveway that went up off Trumansburg Road, this side of the hospital, remember on that side road, somebody wanted to come in and build there. That road, the driveway is just wide enough for one car. How the fire trucks would get in up there on that dead end road, in and out and I don't know if there is public water up there even on that driveway. Mr. Frost— If you're talking about the parcel that I'm thinking of, there was a requirement that they have a turn around for the Fire Department. Mr. Niefer— But they never were granted the variance to build on that lot. Mr. Frost— Maybe we're talking about a different parcel. Mr. Niefer— But, I mean, that was a bad situation that was allowed to exist or be developed and for us to replicate it is not good planning at this junction. Maybe this is not the time or place to put this on the table. Mr. Mecenas —Well, I don't know if this is the Planning Board or the Zoning Board, my understanding was that the Planning Board already approved this, but, having said that, let me ask you this, my understand is that this is R-15 zone, my understanding is that I have all the width and right-of-ways deeded to me to put in a dedicated road through there and my understanding is that in R-15 Zone, if I'm providing a road with water, sewer and gas, that I can have building lots that are no more that 15000 square feet and my understand is — Mr. Frost— No less than. Mr. Mecenas — No less than 15000 square feet I should say and my understanding is density of that nature is not something that the neighbors would like to see, but I can see how people are backing me into a corner where I would be forced to do that, Mr. Niefer. Mr. Niefer— I have no objection to the development of this, it's just the matter of being able to get in with public service vehicles. Mr. Mecenas — I understand your concern, but your neighbors, well they're not your neighbors on West Hill, but my neighbors on West Hill are opposed to the density of development that I am allowed to have there and I'm telling you that I'm not interested in living in an R-15 type density. I spent a bunch of money on this land, if you back me into a corner, - 26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Barney— Nobody is backing you into a corner, the law is the law. There's no requirement of this Board to give you a variance for what you're asking for. Mr. Mecenas — I understand that. Mr. Barney— The threat of backing into a corner doesn't carry much weight, I'm afraid. What would be more to the point is that it makes sense to grant you the variance that you're requesting and if the variance is granted, what are appropriate conditions to protect the people that you might ultimately sell those lots to, that's really what this Board, and indeed the Planning Board, is most concerned about. Mr. Frost—Are you suggesting that you are never going to develop the land. Mr. Mecenas — No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that in the foreseeable future I don't plan on doing that and if and when that time comes, I have no interest in developing it to extent of what an R-15 Zone would allow me to do, that's what I'm saying. Mr. Frost— But would you be prepared to put in a road, if necessary at that time? Mr. Mecenas —Absolutely. Chairperson Sigel — Me, looking at this map, I have to ask myself, why would someone want to run this driveway a much longer route than you could do off of Elm Street? And the obvious answer is because you would like to subdivide more parcels and have them accessed by this driveway. Mr. Mecenas —Well, I'll tell you what. It's really dollars and cents. You look at that driveway and say "gosh, that's a long driveway, that's got to cost some dollars." But coming off of Elm Street Extension, because of the grade and the drainage issues there, it's really six of one, half dozen of the other. The money that I'd have to spend on the drainage and dealing with the grade coming of Elm Street Extension, it's six of one, half dozen of the other. Mr. Ellsworth — Helps pay for the longer drive. Mr. Mecenas — Yeah, exactly. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, it's already been determined by the Planning Board that it's coming off of West Haven, right. Chairperson Sigel —Well, that's what they've approved, that doesn't mean we would necessarily have to approve it. Mr. Barney— You're not locked into what they've approved. 27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Chairperson Sigel - True, though, I think that if we approve something that they hadn't approved, you'd have to go back to the Planning Board. Mr. Frost— I think the Planning Board is approving the subdivision, but they're not approving the access, that's what the Board is doing. Mr. Barney— Yes they are. As a matter of fact, the Planning Board basically required that the access to be as showing on this map. Mr. Frost— Then that's kind of backing the Zoning Board into a position of having to approve this. Chairperson Sigel — They're just saying that's the only thing that they've approved. Mr. Barney — They've approved the subdivision plan with that driveway being there. Mr. Frost— In my mind, that's almost like backing the Zoning Board into a corner. Mr. Barney— It was quite clear from Mr. Kanter anyway, at the Planning Board that his feeling was that this driveway was the way to go. Chairperson Sigel — One, is to subdivide the larger parcel, in the future. Do you have any feel for whether that would be approved by the Planning Board, with just essentially a large common driveway and access to a number of interior, you could subdivide this into quite a few lots. Mr. Barney— Each time that he does it though, he has to come back because there is no frontage so there would be a variance required for it. Mr. Mecenas — Unless I put in a road. Mr. Frost— I'm just a little uncomfortable on, and whether it's even fair to Mr. Mecenas, I mean if the Fire Department, knowing them, comes back with a bunch of issues. For example, wanting a 300 foot diameter cul-de-sac or something like that, then than brings him back here. Chairperson Sigel —Well, that means that he needs to build a 300 foot cul-de-sac. Mr. Barney— Or come back here and get a waiver. Mr. Frost—Or, would this Board approve, if the Fire Department says put the 300 foot cul-de-sac, would this Board approve that? Does that change your opinion of granting this approval. 28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Barney— I think the main concern here would be a can a fire engine get from West Haven Road to a house that's constructed on one of the two lots. Could they get in there to fight a fire in an effective way and if the Fire Department says that yes they can- Mr. Frost— But they also have their access standards that, among other things, that require that they don't have to back out more than a certain distance. Mr. Barney— Then maybe the answer is there's got to be a turn around provided in some fashion in some place, but until we get the Fire Department to look at it and tell you what you need, I don't know that you want to start imposing conditions beyond — Chairperson Sigel — The turn around doesn't have to be a huge thing. Mr. Barney— But it should be adequately sized and adequately constructed to support the weight. Mr. Frost— I just wonder whether it's being fair to the applicant to make a decision without first getting the approval of the Fire Department, which could come with different directions. Mr. Barney— I'd kind of leave that to the applicant. Mr. Mecenas — I'll go to the Fire Department, I don't have a problem with that. I'm putting a lot of money into building a house. Mr. Barney— The question is whether you want to go to the Fire Department before this Board makes it's decision or if you want to have this Boar make a conditional decision with you going to the Fire Department subsequently before getting a Building Permit. Mr. Mecenas — If you make it conditional on the Fire Department— Mr. Frost—At some point, say the Fire Department asks for certain things that fly in the face of what's being presented to this Board, you are then putting me in a position to have to consider, at some point, issuing a Building Permit, that may not be consistent with what you've looked at or approved. Mr. Barney— I think to the extent that the Fire Department requires anything different that what's been approved here, it means the matter needs to come back to this Board for further consideration. Mr. Ellsworth — Can't we just put amendment in that, subject to the approval of the Fire Department? Mr. Frost—What I'm saying now is that, knowing the Fire Department, they can come back with a variety of different things that they may or may not want and that may affect, 29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 in some way what you are looking at in terms of a site plan. That puts me in a position of having to figure out— Mr. Barney— No, you're in a very simple position. If they require something other than shown here, you're answer to Mr. Mecenas is his option is to either persuade the Department that they don't need it or come back to this Board and say that we need a waiver from that requirement because the Fire Department is being too onerous and then this Board will consider whether to choose to grant the waiver. Mr. Frost— I just want to make it clear I am making the decision as to whether the Fire Department is agreed — Mr. Barney— The condition I'm suggesting is a written document from the Fire Department saying we approve a. the way it is constructed and b. the way it is laid out. Chairperson Sigel — I think what maybe Andy is concerned about is they may make what appear to be somewhat minor changes to the design and he's wondering whether that minor change is okay and is that what the intent— Mr. Frost— I don't want to make that decision. Mr. Barney—When in doubt, pout and bring it back to the Board. Or punt, I guess it is and bring it back to this Board. Mr. Barney— The other way to go is to go to the Fire Department, show them your layout, find out what they want and then revise your plans to incorporate that and then bring that plan back here. Mr. Mecenas — Either way, it seems like I might have to come back. Mr. Barney— Yeah, and you're here tonight anyway. Mr. Mecenas — So, if you want to give me conditional on what the Fire Department says, I don't have a problem. Chairperson Sigel — You understand and accept that if you want to further subdivide your large lot, you may be required to put in a road. Mr. Mecenas —Absolutely. Yeah. Chairperson Sigel —Anything further questions or comments? No environmental form? Mr. Barney - Did you hold the Public Hearing? Chairperson Sigel — No, not yet. Mike , there's no..? 30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Smith — No. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 8:43 p.m. With no person present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 8:44 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —Any further comments or questions? Mr. Krantz— I would think that the logical thing for us to do is to approve it contingent on the Fire Department's approval. That may mean that he has to come back, but in all probability it will work out where Mark doesn't have to come back. Chairperson Sigel — I think that's our intention. Mr. Niefer— So, the way it seems to shaping up then, ingress and egress will not be allowed from Elm Street Extension then? Chairperson Sigel — Correct. Mr. Niefer— There will be no ingress and egress from Elm Street Extension, everything will be coming in from West Haven Road? There will be no driveways from Elm Street into Parcel 1 or no driveways from Elm Street into Parcel 2? Mr. Barney— Jim, I think that's the current plan, but I'm not sure I see a reason for imposing that as a condition. What I understand is that the cost makes it more beneficial or reasonable to bring the access in from the other direction, but if somebody, in the future, wanted to put their own driveway on to Elm Street Extension, they own the land, they have the right to do so, I don't know that this Board would want to prohibit them from doing that. Mr. Niefer— That's the way Larry Fabbroni has designed it with the 30 foot access to each parcel. Mr. Barney— Right, each has 30 feet or whatever. Mr. Mecenas — Mr. Niefer, this was one tax parcel, flag lot, a fifty foot wide strip and all we're doing is trying to create that, give it a little bit of road frontage so that we can say that there's road frontage on a public road, hence getting a variance. Chairperson Sigel — So, then we need the variance because of insufficient road frontage, insufficient width at the setback and then 280A because access is not— Mr. Barney— The access is not clear. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. 31 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Niefer—Who had obtained the easement from NYSEG to bring the driveway along the NYSEG right-of-way? Mr. Mecenas — That was a deeded right-of-way that transferred with the property. Mr. Niefer— So, that whoever deeded the property to you, when they gave the right-of- way to NYSEG, they reserved the driveway? Mr. Mecenas — That is correct. I own 100 feet and NYSEG has their easement across it, but I have a deeded allowance to build a road or driveway or what have you with in that NYSEG easement. That's all recorded in the deed. Mr. Niefer—Well, I would think there would be stipulations as to where, width and height and everything else. Mr. Barney— The typical NYSEG easement says that the right to use the surface underneath it remains with the landowner, provided that the use is not inconsistent with the rights granted to NYSEG. Normally, crossing it with a road or a driveway is not typically inconsistent. Obviously, he can't be moving poles or building a bridge or something that is going to come up under the wires, but a road underneath it. We might want to make that a further condition that evidence be provided that NYSEG — Mr. Niefer— Somebody needs, I don't know whose responsibility it is I don't know, but we don't want to get caught between a rock and a hard place. Chairperson Sigel — Evidence be provided- Mr. Barney— To the Attorney for the Town that the running of the driveway along the NYSEG easement is acceptable to NYSEG or not inconsistent with the grant or the easement. Chairperson Sigel- Okay, if there are no further questions or comments, I'm move to grant the appeal of Mark Mecenas. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 046: Mark Mecenas, Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29-6-13.1, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Mark Mecenas, Appellant, requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 and 16 and Section 280A of New York State Town Law to create two building lots, by subdivision, without having the required road frontage along a Town, County, or State highway on the Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29-6-13.1, Residence District R-15. This variance also allows each lot to have a width at the street of no less than 32 feet and a width at the required front yard setback of no less than 32 feet. 32 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 FINDINGS: a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. No building permit shall be issued for any construction on Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 until the driveway shown on the site plan as running from West Haven Road to the back end of Parcels 1 and 2 is constructed with an adequate base and other characteristics satisfactory to the City of Ithaca Fire Department so as to permit ingress and egress to such lots by fire and other emergency equipment and the Town Director of Building and Zoning is provided with a written letter from such Fire Department certifying that such driveway is satisfactory. b. Evidence be provided to the Attorney for the Town that the use of the land under the New York State Electric and Gas easement for a driveway is not inconsistent with the grant of the easement to New York State Electric and Gas. Such evidence be provided prior to issuance of any building permits for either Parcel 1 or Parcel 2. 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. AGENDA ITEM : Declaration of Town of Ithaca Planning Board as lead agency in the appeal of the Country Club of Ithaca Mr. Frost— There's one more agenda item for the Board on the EAF for the Country Club of Ithaca. There is a letter, I think from Mike, is it from you? Mr. Smith — Yeah and actually I put a new copy on the table tonight because the one, at least in my packet, didn't have a back to it, which included the paragraph asking for your coordination and concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board being the lead agency for the Country Club of Ithaca. They're looking to add an addition to the club house, addition to the pool house, parking spaces, walkways, landscaping, that type of thing. It isn't only an unlisted action, but we're proposing to do it as a coordinated review because it's going to involve site plan from the Planning Board, special approval from the Zoning Board and then site plan also from the Village of Cayuga Heights. This project does cross the boundary between the two, so it's going to require approvals from three different Boards. Objection to the Planning Board being lead agency. 33 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 Mr. Niefer— Did it mention that the maintenance building facilities are also involved in this project? Mr. Smith — No, the maintenance facilities down on Pleasant Grove Road are not involved, it's just the club house and pool house area. There is actually a site plan up on the wall, if you want me to point out what is taking place. Mr. Barney— Does the lead agency status include the pool house? Mr. Smith — No, the pool house is going to be under separate, that's under Cayuga Heights. Mr. Niefer— They didn't tell you anything about the maintenance building facility as being part of the project? Mr. Smith — No, I believe the one that you are talking about is down Pleasant Grove Road. Right. That is not involved with the project. This just includes a 9500 square foot addition to the club house, an addition to the pool house, parking spaces, stormwater facilities, walkways and landscapes. Mr. Niefer— Is this a memo you received from whom? Mr. Smith — From the applicants? Mr. Barney— The Country Club. Mr. Smith — They mentioned that any changes or additions that they are doing to the maintenance facilities and stuff will be a separate project at a separate time. They're looking to get this going so that they can do the construction through the winter time. Chairperson Sigel — I assume that the Village will need to concur, also, with lead agency? Mr. Smith — Yes, they are doing that at their August meeting also. The Planning Board is looking to address the site plan at the August 5t" meeting. Chairperson Sigel — Did you want us to take a vote? Mr. Barney— You should have a Motion that we concur with the designation — Mr. Niefer— I abstain because I am a member. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. 34 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 047: Designation of Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency in County Club of Ithaca Expansion. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this Board concurs with the designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to act as lead agency in regard to the Country Club of Ithaca application as presented. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Dixon NAYS: NONE ABSTENTIONS: Niefer The MOTION was declared to be carried Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson Lori Love, Deputy Town Clerk 35 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 21, 2003 36