Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2003-08-18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2003 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andrew Dixon, Board Member; Kristi Rice, Assistant Director of Building/Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED: Harry Ellsworth OTHERS: Clara Leonardo, 1132 Danby Road; Rich Leonardo, 1134 Danby Road; Dave Schlosser, Schopfer Architects, 1111 James Street, Syracuse; Ed Amici, 661 Spencer Road; Bernie Hutchens, 1016 Hanshaw Road; Dave Ferris, 5 Belvedere Drive; Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Welcome to the August meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. This evening we have two appeals, that of Richard Leonardo and that of the Country Club of Ithaca. We'll be taking the appeals 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. Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Leonardo, if you could come and have a seat at the microphone. Please state your name and address for the record. Richard Leonardo, 1134 Danby Road — My mother, Clara Leonardo, is the owner of this property. Chairperson Sigel — Could you give us a brief overview of what you're asking for? Mr. Leonardo —We have taken three lots on the development and created two lots, dividing one in half. One of the lots is about to be sold and Sesame Street, which is the existing public access is not quite long enough to abut this lot. So, what we need is permission to use a future street, Allison Street as a temporary drive to this lot. Chairperson Sigel — This is Lot 4 on your survey map. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Leonardo — The lots that were subdivided, on my information was 5, 6 and 7, 1 believe. Is that correct? Parcels 37-1-20.5, -20.6, 20.7. We've created two lots from those three. The first one would be the one that we are talking about. I believe it would 20.5 still. I don't know how they would have re-arranged it. Chairperson Sigel —We have a map that just shows the number "4", I'm not sure why. Mr. Leonardo — I believe that the lot that we're speaking of is 37.-1-20.5 that was expanded. Ms. Rice — These are the original subdivision numbers. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So, is it just one lot then? Mr. Leonardo —At this point, this is the only lot that we are asking and this will be the only lot we ask. By the time we sell any more lots we will have this road finished. Chairperson Sigel —And your plan is to have that become a Town road? Mr. Leonardo — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Any questions or comments from anyone. Mr. Niefer—Which lot are you selling 4 or 6. Mr. Leonardo — It would be number 4. The closest one to Sesame Street. Mr. Niefer— Is there any kind of a roadway or driveway in front of Lot 4 now? Mr. Leonardo — In the sub-development, it's actually a street that is fairly well completed, it needs to be surfaced off and blacktopped, it's called Allison Street. That's the one that we are asking to be used as a temporary drive to this lot. Mr. Niefer - Has Allison Street been graded down? Mr. Leonardo — It has been graded down, there is crushed stone on it. It's a pretty sturdy street right now, but it's not blacktopped . Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions. Mike, any comments on the Environmental Assessment. Mr. Smith — The subdivision created a little bit larger lot which helps the house construction to avoid the stream that's there and in terms of the road frontage, but no impacts are identified. The previous subdivision approval from 1995 put conditions on these parcels, where number 4 is one of the last ones to be developed before the road construction is completed and dedicated. 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So how many more, not counting Lot 4, how many more are left to be built? Mr. Leonardo — I believe there are four more. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — I think everyone should have gotten a copy of the Planning Board Resolution in this month's handout approving this subdivision. If there are no further comments or questions, would someone like to move this? Second? All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 048 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Richard Leonardo, Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37.-1-20.5, -20.6,-20.7, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of 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, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated June 30, 2003. Access to said lots will be provided for by a 60-foot right- of-way. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None ABSENT. Ellsworth The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Do you know why Article IV, Sections 14 and 16? Ms. Rice — Because it doesn't have sufficient road frontage. Chairperson Sigel — I thought that was just Section 280A. Mr. Barney— Section 16 would be frontage deficiency, wouldn't it? Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any further questions or discussions? 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Barney— Revised Lot 6 is going to front on the future Allison Drive? Am I reading that right? What is the mechanism to get to revised Lot 6 until there is a road? Mr. Leonardo —We won't be selling Lot 6 until the road is completed. Lot 6 is going to be dormant until the road is completed. Chairperson Sigel — Then it seems like the variances are for only what is labeled Lot four, even thought the description seems to include Lot 6. Ms. Rice —Andy wrote it as both, but the condition remains from the Planning Board. Mr. Barney—And that's a condition in not the most recent resolution? Ms. Rice — Not the most recent one. The '95 condition in the original subdivision. Chairperson Sigel — It seems that we only need to grant a variance for what is labeled Lot 4. Mr. Barney— Revised Lot 4. Chairperson Sigel — Revised Lot 4 because Lot 6 would be legal when Allison Drive becomes a road. Mr. Barney - I guess it probably wouldn't hurt to state it as a clear condition in your resolution, if you choose to approve this, that no construction is to occur on revised Lot 6 until such time that it fronts on a public road. Chairperson Sigel —Was that the condition? Just no construction or it can't be sold? Mr. Smith — Completion of roads and other public improvements in acceptance of all proposed dedication by the Town is shown prior to issuance of any additional building permits, except building permits may be issued for Lots 4 and 11. So, this is Lot 4, which a building permit can be issued. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so it can be. So, do you think we should still include that? Mr. Barney— Either that or just generically refer back to the conditions on August 15, 1995 Planning Board subdivision approval. So, those conditions will continue to remain in effect. I don't want any misunderstanding that by taking action now, we're doing something to change the conditions that were imposed back in 1995. We know that, but somebody else in our respective positions might not. Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Leonardo are you positive that the new, the revised Lot 4 is tax parcel —20.5? 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Leonardo — I don't have a map in front of me. Do you have the revised map in front of you? I can take a look at it. It's the only one that is directly adjacent to Sesame Street. Mr. Sigel - I think we're clear on which one it is, just what tax map number it's going to have. Mr. Barney— Looking at this map, it shows that even Lot 4 does not front, presently, on a public road. Chairperson Sigel — That is correct. That's the variance that they are asking for. Mr. Barney— It doesn't front at all on a public road. There is a gap between the current end of Sesame Street and the corner of the lot. Chairperson Sigel — Yes, but for whatever reason, the Planning Board condition was that they could build on that one because it's close, I guess. Mr. Barney— Closeness works in some areas, but it doesn't work in either zoning or pregnancy, neither one or the other. The variance is for exactly what? I'm sorry, I apologize. Chairperson Sigel- For not having frontage. Mr. Barney— For not having any frontage or not having sufficient frontage? Chairperson Sigel — Not having direct lot frontage on a Town, County or State highway. Mr. Barney— If this lot is sold, what's going to be sold with it in the way of a right-of-way to get to the current Sesame Street? Mr. Leonardo —A right-of-way. We are intending to finish the road, the temporary right-of- way would be Allison Drive to that lot. Mr. Barney— My concern is that right now what we're showing is a lot that's like that. The road is down here, there is no connection at all. Mr. Leonardo — This road, this lot goes all the way to here. This is the old Sesame Street. This is the new Sesame Street in the new subdivision. It curves right around. Mr. Barney— But, what part of Sesame Street does the Town currently own? Mr. Leonardo — The new Sesame Street looks like this. Mr. Barney— So, at this juncture, there is no way to get from this lot to a currently existing public road and you're intention is to sell this lot before or after this is dedicated to the Town? 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Leonardo — Before. Mr. Barney— So, that there needs to be some sort of an easement or some sort of an arrangement to get from this lot to the road, right? Mr. Leonardo — If that has to be done, we can do that. Mr. Barney—Well, how else would somebody, other than jumping across the 30 feet here, how would they get there? Mr. Leonardo - They would have an easement on the road. Chairperson Sigel — Right now, what is labeled "future Allison Drive" is right now a stone road, essentially a drive. Mr. Barney— I think we ought to make- Chairperson Sigel — You're saying that person is technically locked. Mr. Barney—At the moment, there is no legal right to go anywhere onto this lot. You've got a gap of 30 or 40 or whatever the width of that road is. So, I think that any subdivision probably should have been conditional, I don't know why I didn't catch it— I know why, because I wasn't there, was I? I think a variance for it to be granted ought to be conditional on the granting of an easement or right-of-way over what is shown as "future Allison Drive" to the current Sesame Street until such time as either Allison Drive is conveyed to the Town or what is shown as future Sesame Street is conveyed to the Town so that this property will have direct access to a public road. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Did you get all that Lori? I will move to grant the appeal of Richard Leonardo. Second? All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 049 :Richard Leonardo, Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37.-1-20.5, -20.6,-20.7, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Richard Leonardo, Appellant, requesting variances from Article IV, Sections 14 and 16 and Section 280A of New York State Town Law to create a building lot, 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 lot will be provided for by a 60-foot right-of-way. FINDINGS- 6 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. An easement be submitted to the Town Attorney showing the right of"Revised Lot 4"to access the current Sesame Street over what is labeled as `future Allison Drive"on the survey submitted with the applicant's packet, such easement to be effective until such time as there is direct public access to "Revised Lot 4'° b. Subject to the conditions contained in the August 15, 1995 Planning Board Resolution. c. Subject to the conditions contained in the August 5, 2003 Planning Board Resolution No. 2003-058 for subdivision approval. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE ABSENT. Ellsworth The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL: The Country Club of Ithaca, Appellant/Owner, Schopfer Architects LLP, Robert Seigart, AIA, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Sections 18.3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to expand and renovate existing facilities located at 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 68-1-1.2 and 71-7-1, Residence District R-30. Dave Schlosser, Schopfer Architects, 1111 James Street, Syracuse — Bob Seigart's partner. As we speak, he's at the Village of Cayuga Heights. On behalf of the Country Club of Ithaca, we are here requesting special approval for a renovation and expansion of the club house and parking lot. The Country Club has been in existence for over a hundred years. It is located on 105 acres, shown in green, of which approximately 92 acres, shown right here are in the Town and approximately 13 acres, which is in the Village of Cayuga Heights. The property is surrounded on the north by Hanshaw, to the west by Pleasant Grove, east by Warren Road and then to the south by Cornell University's golf course. The primary access to this site is northwest corner, off of Pleasant Grove. The two primary buildings are located in the northwest corner. The building located here is the two story club house, approximately 1,300 square feet existing, of which we are proposing 9,000 square foot addition. Then, adjacent to it, in the Village, is a one story seasonal building, the pool house of which we are proposing a 600 square foot pavilion. There is parking expansion in both the Village and the Town, as proposed. In addition to the two primary structures, the amenities on the site, obviously the 18-hole golf course. Adjoining Hanshaw are two tennis courts. Shown at this particular location is a chipping green. The driving range, just west of the pool is a 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 small play ground and then, of course, they have the two pools, one wading pool and one a full swimming pool. The zoning for the site in the Town is an R-30, which requires a special approval for an expansion. The Planning Board has issued a resolution granting preliminary site plan approval, naming themselves an lead agency for an unlisted action and issuing a negative determination of environmental significance. We've brought two photographs of existing conditions, just for reference purposes. You can see from there, basically this is the building as it faces Hanshaw Road, which presents itself as a one-story building towards Hanshaw Road opening to a two-story building towards the golf course to the south. Adjacent to it is the one-story pool building. The parking lot, looking towards Hanshaw is screened almost fully to Hanshaw, screened entirely to any residential neighbors and we've given you photographs of the views from the golf course as well as an existing irrigation pond, which is part of the 18th fairway. That will be used and what we have submitted it as storm water management report which actually shows diversion of the parking lot water to this particular pond. To show you very quickly what is being proposed. Hanshaw Road to the bottom of this sheet, south to the top of this sheet in this particular case, What's shown in light blue is the existing facility. What's shown in dark is the proposed expansion. Once again, it presents itself as a one-story building, similar to the existing towards the parking lot, a two-story building towards the golf course. The expansion of the pool house is actually elimination of the two paddle tennis courts and an addition of an outdoor pavilion for expansion of patio dining, the snack bar both on the golf and the pool side. The primary purposes of the expansion, there is an increase in dining for approximately a little of 200 to 300. They have 354 memberships currently. The majority of the added expansion is actually being used for increase in services, almost to doubling the size of the kitchen. The building was done, originally, in 1958, it has had very little expansion or renovation to it. Obviously, it has outgrown its services. The locker rooms are being fully re-done, essentially its entire interior renovation, new mechanical systems, building systems and replacements. What's shown shaded in the dark gray is the expanded parking lot. The area to the north is shown as parking right here, is actually used as over-flow parking right now. It is a grass area. Adjoining it to the north is a fully screened, the 20 and 30 foot trees that we showed you and then the Town to Village property goes approximately right through, this particular location, essentially, right through the addition. I think what's been agreed to is the Town is taking the lead on the environmental aspect and, as I understand it, basically we're here for the special approval related to the addition to the club house and it's parking and we're at the Village tonight for the pool addition. The appearance upon completion for the parking lot will be a very subdued look. This is the member's entry as one approaches from the entrance on Pleasant Grove. It's materials are stone and the NIFS and the existing brick and an asphalt shingle roof to blend with the existing. A couple of key points are that from current setbacks, the setback along Hanshaw, the building currently is 350 feet, we will remain 350 feet once the addition is done because the angles, it actually ends up to be the same on your footage. A couple of other dimensions, our closest neighbor currently is 295 feet, we will end up to be 280 feet, approximately a 15 foot difference. 190 feet separation of parking existing, it will end up to be 180 feet. All of these as well as the fact that I think our lot coverage is approximately 0.2 percent because of the golf course, we are well under and fully in compliance on all the zoning ordinance issues. One point, with respect to the Planning Board resolution, the 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 resolution of approval of the preliminary site plan approval was made contingent upon approximately nine items, which I would image you have copies of? The resolution of all those, in satisfaction of those, we will submit within two days to the Town Planning Board additional site drawings basically showing satisfaction of all those including the full and complete erosion control plan and storm water management plan and finally a letter and drawing outlining methods and means for mitigating an issue that was raised at the last Planning Board meeting relating to some errant golf balls on the 70 year old chipping green. It was suggested that the golf balls were going over Hanshaw Road. The issue is one the Country Club is unaware of until recently, but it is one that they want to resolve and what's being proposed is between the chipping green and Hanshaw Road, a berm will be created, a landscape berm with shrubbery on top of it. We have additional information showing distances and travel distances and I think it ends up to be something in the neighborhood of over 100 yards if someone chips it over Hanshaw Road. So all that information will be provided to Mike within two or three days, gearing towards, hopefully our final site plan approval. And with that, I guess, I would open up to questions. Chairperson Sigel —Anyone have any questions? Mr. Niefer— 1, for the record, will be abstaining for discussion and voting on this subject as a member of Country Club. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I had a question about the membership number. The number was quoted in the materials that we have as 354 memberships. Mr. Schlosser— There are potentially more than one person in a member ship and for that purpose, what we actually did is we gave the Planning Board two means of looking at the parking. One, we took it based on what we had actually talked to staff about, which was 354 memberships divided by five, requiring 71. Looking at it more conservatively, what we told them was that if a membership included a family or if it included potentially a visitor, there was the potential for more than one car per membership so we took an average of 1.5 cars and that comes up to be 106 parking spaces, which is within ten percent of the proposed 113 parking spaces. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Is that acceptable to you John, as far as meeting the parking space requirement. Mr. Barney— I haven't looked at it. I assume it would be, the Planning Department is very good with these sorts of things. Chairperson Sigel — The zoning law states a ratio of members to parking spaces and in this case, there's not a one to one correspondence between memberships. Mr. Barney—What is the average number of members between membership. What's your total? 9 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Schlosser— It's 354 memberships. What we basically showed is that if there was more than one car per membership we took, what we felt was a very conservative number, which is 1.5. Mr. Barney— Don't you have a number. I assume you have some records. Mr. Schlosser—Well, there's family memberships and things like that, but obviously the children don't drive and things of that nature. Dave Farris and Clyde Bennett. If one of you want to respond to that. Dave Ferris, 5 Belvedere Drive — I'm the chairman of the building committee. The membership of the Country Club, to say what the average is may be a little difficult, but maybe I can give you some idea. A family membership counts as one membership, but you can have somebody with four or five children and a spouse with cars. For example, tonight before I came down here, we played golf over there. There were three cars there. There was mine, my wife's and my son's. But some memberships can be single memberships, single individuals that join, they may be just couples. So, to try and figure out the average number might be a little bit difficult. Mr. Barney— You don't have a total number? Chairperson Sigel — Do you know how many members you have, though? Mr. Ferris — You mean individuals? Chairperson Sigel — The size of each family. Mr. Ferris — I don't think that anybody has actually totaled the total number of heads of people that belong to the Country Club. Mr. Barney— So you don't know, for example, if the family and how many kids belong through the family? Mr. Ferris — Do you keep the numbers? Inaudible voice from the audience Mr. Ferris — I don't recall anybody ever asking for them, but we could probably supply those numbers. Chairperson Sigel — The reason I'm asking is because the Town ordinance specifies the ratio of parking spaces to members of a club, not memberships. Not really allowing for a membership to include, possibly, more than one person. So, technically, it would seem that we need to look at the number of members of your club. 10 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Ferris — That's why I say that it's a little hard to define because there is only one whole member per family, like I'm the member for our family. Chairperson Sigel — But it is a family membership? Mr. Ferris — The family membership. Then under the family membership, my wife and my kids could come there and have the privileges of the club. Chairperson Sigel — So, are they considered members of the club? Mr. Ferris — The membership belongs to an individual in the family, but the families are part of the membership. I know it sounds crazy. Chairperson Sigel — So, they're members. No, it makes perfect sense. There's a family membership and it works the same way at a lot of other clubs. Mr. Schlosser— There is another way to take a look at this. You could sit there and the seating capacity in the dining space is 300, like in any restaurant if you basically took one to five, you could do a seating count that way. No matter how we structure this, it comes in and around that 100 to 113 so we are under the numbers. Chairperson Sigel —Well, we're potentially not under the number if you counted all the members. Mr. Schlosser—Well, all I can say is when we talked to staff it was discussed as memberships and it was divided up that way and then, on our own, we took the initiative to offer up the 1.5. Chairperson Sigel — I'm not necessarily saying that I think you need more space, I just want to make sure that if you need a variance, for instance for parking, that you get everything taken care of. Mr. Schlosser—All I can suggest is that we went to staff and talked to them and, from what I understood, we are not requesting or needing a variance with respect to parking. Chairperson Sigel — Do you have any idea what percentage of your memberships are family versus individual? Inaudible voice from the audience Chairperson Sigel —What do you think John? It wasn't advertised so I don't think we could necessarily grant that variance tonight anyhow. Mr. Barney— On the parking? Chairperson Sigel — The parking. 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Barney—Well, the Planning Board could also reduce the requirements of parking by up to 20 percent, I think. Mr. Smith — It probably gets a little tricky because not all the parking is within the Town either. A lot of it goes down the road. Mr. Barney— Into the Village. Chairperson Sigel — I mean, if you assume, two members to a family, then obviously one for an individual, they'd still probably be within the 20 percent that the Planning Board is allowed to adjust. Mr. Barney— See, if you had 80 percent of your 354 memberships are family. So, that suggests that at least the number of people would be 80 percent of 354 plus 354. You're really looking at about 650. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, 630 or 635. Mr. Barney—We're talking about one space by five. Chairperson Sigel — I'm not suggesting you should have any different than what you have, I'm just trying to make sure that if you need a variance for the number that you want to have, that you get that, rather than not get a variance and have someone potentially come back later and say you should have had one and that only would cause a problem for you. Mr. Barney— So about 125 to 128 would be the five to one ratio. Chairperson Sigel — 120 something. Mr. Barney—And how much do you have 113. Mr. Schlossler— 113. All I can comment on, I guess is that the same numbers were presented at the Planning Board and the conditions of site plan approval, from their respect, did not suggest a variance in parking. We presented the 354 as memberships and I don't want to hide the fact that we tried to conceal that a membership is anything less than potentially a family. Chairperson Sigel — They're certainly close if the Planning Board can vary it by 20 percent, but they didn't. Mr. Barney— But they didn't, number one. And number two, we're operating kind of blindly here because we are saying- Chairperson Sigel —We're still guessing. 12 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Barney— 630 is really assuming that all the family memberships are two person memberships and that's probably an unrealistic assumption. I assume that you have multiple — Inaudible voice from the audience Mr. Barney— I'm not arguing that statistic as much as — and I'm not arguing, I'm just basically suggesting that we look at memberships as being the individuals and have the right to enjoy the privileges. The assumption that we are making here that all family memberships are just two people is not a realistic assumption. What we don't know is whether we're looking at 630 people or 950 people or 1500 people. Mr. Schlosser— I guess one of the observations I would make is that we are asking for an expansion from 71 to 113. There is much more land available and from a variance aspect, if it was ever determined that we needed more, it could be provided on the property, obviously. So, it's not as if what we're proposing is a maxed out layout for parking. The property certainly has the potential for a great deal more. Mr. Barney— You say the seating is for 350? Mr. Schlosser— 300. Mr. Barney— In the dining facility? Mr. Schlosser— In the dining facilities. You know casual and everything else. On average they seat somewhere around, without any special event, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 100 on a weekend evening. Mr. Barney— I guess I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I think maybe you want to consider a condition that says that in the operation of the facility after it's expanded over the next couple of years, if under repeated circumstances where there is inadequate parking, the Country Club will come back in and plan. Mr. Schlosser— I guess the other point and observation we would make that obviously the primary functions of membership are pool, golf and social and they're not all running a peak hour at the same time either. You've got a pool operation, obviously, which is peak hour during the day. You've got golf, which is spread out quite regularly. The restaurant dining certainly is typical six to eight or nine o'clock at night. So, they're really all out of sync. Chairperson Sigel — You obviously have an idea currently of how much your parking needs exceed your capacity. Mr. Schlosser— They're actually parking on the overflow area, that's used right now, which I believe staff has actually observed. We're actually just paving areas that in maxed out situations, they currently park on now. 13 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — Have you experienced any situations were your proposed parking would not be sufficient? Mr. Ferris — I have been a member of the Country Club since 1982 and Jim has been there longer than I have and I can't think of a single time, at maximum capacity, where we have not had parking contained within our normal space, except parking on the overflow area, in the grass where we're proposing to continue the parking lot. Mr. Barney— That's for a facility that seats how many now? Mr. Schlosser— 200. Mr. Barney— So you're basically adding 50 percent to your facility. Mr. Ferris — There's probably never going to be a function where you would have 300 people dining at the same time. That's if we put tables everywhere we can. We probably would max out around 200 to 210 because you have to have room for that kind of a function, room for the dance floor, for the entertainment so that makes a difference. Mr. Barney—What's the 300? Mr. Schlosser— The totally maxed out seats and everything like that. Mr. Barney— So, you're saying you're providing for 300, but you're never going to use 300? Mr. Schlosser—Well, we could seat 300 if we had to. Mr. Barney— I'm just asking because I don't understand the logic of what you are saying. Mr. Schlosser— It has the capacity. Mr. Barney— You have it, if that's your max and that, to me, is what you have to provide for, in some fashion, with respect to parking. If you had a max of 200 before and you filled up your overflow on the grass, you're now expanding that capacity by 50 percent, the question that I have is don't you think that you're going to need a little more parking, if you've maxed out before using two-thirds of the space. Mr. Schlosser—We actually are. We're going from 75, up to 113 parking spaces. Actually the parking spaces that are in the Village are not overflow. Mr. Barney—And how many of over flow are over there? Mr. Schlosser— That are down in this area? 14 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Barney— No, the ones that are next to the parking lot itself. Mr. Schlosser- The expansion in that area? It's probably about 50 percent of what we are proposing to expand. Mr. Barney— And how much of that overflow are is filled at any one time? When you have a special event or something like that are they all filled? Mr. Schlosser—Yes. Mr. Barney— And that's, what, about ten spaces on each side. Mr. Schlosser— No, that actually goes down the side. There is more parking there than there is over here. This shows a small scale there. We've actually given full site plans to the Planning Board. There are probably about 20 parking spaces. The land actually dips down about five feet so we actually have to fill it. Chairperson Sigel —What's the requirement for a restaurant? Mr. Barney—A restaurant is one for every five seats, I think. So, they're well within the restaurant. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. If it does everything separately, but obviously they're going to overlap. Mr. Smith — In writing up the Environmental Assessment, it was very hard to come to any numbers for either parking or traffic. We were looking at both of those in any of our manuals or guides. It was hard with the different uses on the property to come up with one number for them. You could come up with the restaurant or the membership club and then comparing it to other golf courses, none of them are compared the same way within even the nine holes, versus 18 or not having the restaurant facility or club house. It was hard to come up with exact numbers and comparisons. Chairperson Sigel — Obviously we can't grant a variance because it wasn't advertised so we can just not grant anything with regard to parking, just not touch upon it at all. But that just seems to be leaving the, hanging there. Mr. Barney—Well, what you could do also is grant the special approval, I suppose, conditional upon an application for a variance from the parking requirements being submitted in some period of time. That would enable them to move forward with the project. Mr. Schlosser—Would we be able to go back to Planning Board to get final approval before we got that contingency resolved? Mr. Barney— It's a little tricky. 15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Schlosser— I guess I don't fully understand, I think we've basically discussed, under most scenarios, here, in all cases we come up under the 113. 1 guess I don't understand why— Mr. Barney— You don't come up under 113 if you ply the numbers. Quite frankly, I'm sorry I didn't pick this up. We have an astute Chair here, which is why we have two boards to look at this. You don't come under 113 if you use members under any reasonable interpretation of how you count the number of people that are there. If you assume every family membership is two adults, minimum. If they're like some of my colleagues who are members of the club, they also have children that are also able to drive or, as happened today with Mr. Ferris, who has a spouse and a son show up in separate vehicles. It's not clear to me that your number of parking is right. It's not clear to me either because of what your history is. You're history is based on a facility that is somewhat smaller that what you are planning to have when you are done. I'm not necessarily saying that they will require additional parking, but we're operating with imprecise numbers and it would be helpful to have the actual numbers from the club and then make a determination and part of the determination ought to be what the parking that you are recommending is probably sufficient with some sort of an agreement or condition that if it turns out not to be sufficient, that more parking would be provided. Mr. Schlosser— There are two directions, one, you can get a variance for what we've got and two, we can show the additional parking to the Planning Board and ask to defer it because we don't feel we need it. Which, basically, I think the Planning Board has the ability to do and for example, right now, if we continued that parking right on down Pleasant, we could probably get another 20 or 30 parking spaces and still hold out distances from Pleasant Grove. Mr. Ferris — There are two things. Number one, the uniqueness of the Country Club is that if we have a large function, not everyone is going to come in two cars. The couples will come together in one car. That's number one. Number two, we're trying to avoid having the entire place covered with blacktop. Mr. Barney— That's a concern of the Planning Board and the Town as well. We're not asking you to blacktop areas you're never going to need. On the other hand, they don't want to give approvals to a project that is going to compel a need and what I'm finding or feeling here is inadequate information to make a reasonable determination and struggling for some way we can proceed here to allow you to go ahead and get your project underway, but reserve that determination to a point where you can come up with the information in a frequency of time that you can use your overflow and to the extent that you have used it and give the Board a reasonable basis to make a determination. Mr. Schlosser—Would it be acceptable if our response was, if we knew what the number was, rather than go for a variance, we would show where we would provide those parking spaces and then, again, does not the Planning Board have the ability to or authority to cut 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 back on the required, if we show that we have the potential to build it, but we just don't want to construct it now? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, right. That would, almost certainly, be satisfactory. Mr. Schlosser— I guess that's what I'm suggesting we would do is, between now and our final site plan approval, we will show that absolute worst case, counting every member that we can find and we will show those parking spaces on site. We would show also, that what we would like to build is what we've proposed here. Mr. Ferris — Do these parking spaces have to be paved? Mr. Schlosser— That's what I'm talking about. Mr. Barney—What we'd normally do and I'm just trying to make sure that we can do it. The Planning Board will consider a reduction from the maximum, up to I think 20 percent, they can do without the need for variance, as long as there is an area designated on the plot plan, that if it becomes necessary, they will be paved or at least surfaced in a way that is acceptable for parking purposes. I'm just trying to make sure because I know it applied to commercial zones. Now, I've got to make sure that it also applies here. Mr. Krantz— You know, getting back to the basics on this, in our bylaws, does it specifically distinguish between individual and family memberships? Mr. Barney— It quotes in terms of members. Chairperson Sigel — It just says one space for each five members. So, members I have to assume are people. Mr. Krantz— Could members be memberships? Chairperson Sigel — You could possibly interpret it that way, that's not how I would interpret it. Mr. Ferris — I can tell you in our bylaws, it says only one vote per membership because there is only one actual member per membership. Mr. Krantz— That's a good point. Ms. Rice- So, it's more like you have one member and then you might have five or six related guests. Chairperson Sigel — The fact that you have a family membership, though — Mr. Ferris —All members of the family can't vote. The membership belongs to a specific person in the family. 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — I understand that. But it doesn't make sense to have a family membership if it's really the case that only one person is a member. You may have only one vote per family, but, obviously those other members of the family are members. You allow them to play at the course. They enjoy the same privileges as an individual member. They are functionally members, it would seem to me at least. Could we let them just proceed as they're going and essentially, it's up to them to either provide the parking or convince the Planning Board that they don't need the parking or get a variance for the parking? Mr. Ferris — I guess the issue would be that if we can't convince the Planning Board, the Planning Board would send us back here for permits. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Ferris — I guess I'm asking to — Chairperson Sigel —We can't really — there are a couple of reasons that we can't give you a variance tonight. One, we didn't advertise it. Two, we don't have the exact number of members that you have really to base it on, so you would need to provide us. Mr. Ferris — I guess I would suggest again is that what we would do is in the documents we submit to Planning Board, we would submit those proposed parking spaces that we would like to build and then we would submit the additional numbers of members and if that comes up 125 or 130 parking spaces, we will show how we will accommodate them, of which case we wouldn't be back here for a variance anyway. Chairperson Sigel — Right, and that seems perfectly reasonable. What are you looking up there? Mr. Barney—Well, the 20 percent reduction applies in the business zones, I'm not sure it applies in a residential R-30, which is really what this is. So, in effect you're making an interpretation of whether the number of parking spaces provide is in compliance with the zoning ordinance and that memberships would be interpreted as being one member per one membership is all you need to provide the parking space for and making your calculations. Chairperson Sigel —Well that's one option. One option is that we could do nothing tonight, regarding parking. Technically they would be taking some small risk if they went ahead with the project. Mr. Barney— Except you're giving special approval for the project, so, on one hand, you're saying special approval and on the other hand you're saying "wait a minute, you've got a problem with your parking but we're not going to deal with it. So, I'm a little uncomfortable giving a special approval. There's an implicit level for everything. What's your timing to get back to the Planning Board? 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Schlosser—We're on the agenda for the next Planning Board. Mr. Barney—Which is September— Chairperson Sigel — Second. Mr. Barney— Okay, not tomorrow night. This Board doesn't meet again until September— Ms. Rice — 21St Mr. Schlosser— Not that it's your problem obviously, but we need to be in the ground by the end of September because of the shut down periods of the golf and things like that. Mr. Barney— It depends on how strongly you feel about the parking. Chairperson Sigel — I don't feel that strongly. Mr. Barney— Then I'd probably go ahead and take care of your special approval and leave it alone. Mr. Smith — The environmental analysis that we did, the write up that the Planning Board looked at is based on the 354 memberships for the parking. Mr. Barney— Not the total number of people? Mr. Dixon —Anybody want to buy a bike? Chairperson Sigel — Maybe you could encourage your members to bike to the club. Anyone else have any concerns? Is everyone comfortable with, essentially, ignoring the parking issue or accepting the analysis done so far? Mr. Barney— Or you could make it conditional that the Planning Board revisit the issue and satisfy itself. That way, it's really in the hands of the Planning Board. Mr. Dixon —Where it belongs. Chairperson Sigel — Mike, any further comments on the Environmental Assessment? Mr. Smith — No, it was a coordinated review between the Zoning Board, the Planning Board and the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board. The Town Planning Board, at their last meeting, made a negative determination. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:59 p.m. 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — Anyone interested in speaking? Please just begin by stating your name and address. Bernie Hutchens, 1016 Hanshaw Road — Directly across from what I understand is the chipping green. We've had problems with the balls coming across the road for years, the five years that we've been there. We've also had trouble with the noise. The noise from their parties, they're way too loud. When we call, we get very little response. It might go down for 15 minutes and then it comes up louder. They've got a lot of bands and DJ's who presume that everyone that's there came to hear them and they've very prone to keep turning it back up. Until the management makes some effort to actually control those people, it's just not going to be done. Now, as for the ball, when I came into the Planning Board Meeting I brought one ball and I held it up to show people because I thought that defines where my property was because these are the ones that came across. Nice visual aid, but later on in the meeting as the Country Club people started talking, they were talking about that they had never heard of this. It started being called and isolated incident. I thought," well, gee the problem was there was only one ball." So, I came better prepared tonight. I've got a box full. There are fifty in here. This is a shrizon, I think those are the ones that they are using now. There are some in here, I won't bore everybody, but this one says "property of" and on the other side it says "Country Club of Ithaca", so that's where they're coming from. I also would like to return these to the Country Club. I have a receipt I made out, if they would care to sign it, they can have the box, fifty balls back, it sounds like may be able to use the money. These come across at different velocities and different ways. Some of them just dribble across the road, come down the green and they get across. Some of them come across on the fly, pretty hard. I saw one young person who was hitting balls out there one came bounced and went across at my eye level, 15 feet from me. It didn't hurt me. When I started to look, the next one hit their fence on their side and bounced back, the third one came across the road on the fly, went into the Hartman's yard, on the fly, and landed right next to where some of their kids have these toys, yard toys, slides, those kinds of things. They weren't there, the kids were not there. So, there are people that this proposed thing, this berm, plus this shrubbery, I don't really know how big that is. Maybe it's a fifty foot berm, presumably they're going to work that out with Planning. I don't know how high the shrubbery is, maybe they'll be redwoods. You've got to wait for them to grow a little bit. I don't know if that's going to work, I have no idea. It sounds like something that the problem could be solved in another way. There are people that are hitting balls over the houses. Right now there are, as I looked, there are five balls down past over at Hartman's house. So, there are some people that think it's very clever to whack a ball into the woods, well the empty woods because there couldn't possibly be anybody. Okay these fifty balls are fifty of hundreds that we've had in five years. Most of these we toss back and when I say toss back, I don't mean that as soon as I find one I pick it up and heave it across the road because that would be obviously as dangerous as the ball coming across in the first place. Neither do I, when I find one, walk over to the road and wait for it to come across and get that one and go back and get another one. What we do when we find one, is we throw it over to the side and eventually these accumulate into small accumulations and then, eventually we get around to getting them across the road in a safe manner. 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 So, when I went and I say " I think I'll bring in a ball" last time, to the Planning Board meeting, I said "I know exactly where to get one" because we've got a pile of them that's there. Earlier in there year I had thrown across a whole bunch, but we had another pile going of which I think there were 15 or 20. So I said " why don't I go out and get one off of that pile". So, I go out and I look, the pile is gone. Here we are a couple of days before this Planning Board meeting and the pile is gone, somebody has removed them. I don't know who has removed them, I have some ideas why somebody might have had motive for removing these, but of course, the Country Club didn't know there was a problem, so they say and further, if they had come across, they would have been trespassing because it was about 60 or 70 feet inside my property. So, there is some kind of a mystery about this, but I don't think there is any particular mystery about the way to fix this, to fix it right and that's to turn the green around, to hit south, rather than north, instead of trying to put up a wall, which somebody is always going to be able to shoot over. Why not turn it around and shoot south? It seems like that would even be less expensive than building this berm. So, well, the reason that they don't want to do it is because they will be shooting at themselves. They might hit one of their own members, instead of some poor little tyke in a stroller going down the road, which would be acceptable. So, it is a dangerous situation. I would like the Town to recognize this and to, when they sign off on whatever this is, that they understand that I'm thinking that the Town is partially responsible if they decide that this is something that should be allowed to go on. Now, could we let it go? I don't know when we're going to get the chance to get their attention anymore. I've called them several times about the balls coming across and "oh, yeah, yeah, yeah" they don't do anything. So, right now, that we've got their attention because they want some kind of special approval would be the time to tell them "Why don't you solve the problem, turn the green around, shoot the other way?" The other thing about this is, you've said this is R-30. This is not R- 30, this is R-15. The place where that green is R-15. 1 don't know whether that makes a difference, but it seems to me that that's the Town saying this is a more congested area, there are more people here, therefore why are you shooting balls from R-30 into the green, which is R-15, rather than turn it around and shoot from R-15 into R-30. I think that probably you should have advertised in your notice that part of this property is in R-15. Okay, that's all I have. I'm not looking for a partial fix here. We're concerned about the noise. When we complain about the noise, we get a partial fix. They turn it down for a few minutes, it comes back up. If they decide that they fix this by putting up the berm and this shrubbery and it doesn't work, then what happens? When do we get their attention again and say now you've got to do something when people start shooting over that? At what point do we tell them, turn it around and shoot south. It's simple. That's about all I have to say. Chairperson Sigel — Is there a time in the evening which you would —well, let me ask a different question. How late have you heard the music? When it has bothered you. Mr. Hutchen — They usually quiet by midnight and they don't respond to requests to turn it down. This last, I think it was two days before the Planning Board Meeting, they were very quiet. They had a party and we said "Are they having a party, it doesn't sound like it." We couldn't hear them and I thought it was very strange and we said "Oh, today we got a thing in the mail that said there is a Planning Board and they're on their best behavior because 21 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 they don't want to stir everybody up and get them down to that Planning Board meeting." It was very, very quiet until 11:15, which my guess would be someone went home that was holding the mob down. Then at 11:15 it got loud. It did not stop at 12. We did not call them, we said "It's only going to be at 12, they always stop at 12." but it went boom, boom, until 12:18. 1 know exactly when they turned it off. Mr. Krantz— Do any of your neighbors share your sentiments? Mr. Hutchens — Apparently. As it says in the letter there, when I talked to Mr. Bennett, the first thing he said was "Are you the guy who called the police the last time?" and I wasn't because I have never called the police. I called the Country Club, but apparently someone had called the police. Then finally, he hung up on me and said "why don't you call the police?" Or something like that, so I did. I called the Cayuga Heights Police Department and asked them to go up. It got quiet for a while and then it came back up. It was "We Are Family" was the song that I particularly remember, it coming back. Mr. Krantz— Have you ever spoken with any of your neighbors? Your neighborhood has a lot of houses. Do any of you neighbors feel they have a problem with the golf balls and the music? Mr. Hutchens — I don't know the neighbors that well, except the two that are on the side of me and both of those happen to be Country Club members. They're extremely nice people, we think very highly of all of them, but I have not discussed it. I have not discussed with the Hartman's the fact that that ball had come into their yard. I'm sure they must have found other balls. The other family, the Caruthers, they actually live much further down on the other side. Ms. Rice — I can't speak for the Village, but we have not received any noise complaints ever for the Country Club. We have nothing documented. Mr. Hutchens — The noise complaints, I believe, go to the Cayuga Heights Police Departments. Ms. Rice — But, because it's in the Town, a neighbor could call and file a complaint with us and we've never received any. Chairperson Sigel — Do you know, off hand, what the noise statutes are as far as time and levels? Ms. Rice — Fridays and Saturdays it is until midnight. During the week, the daytime hours is until 10 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — And what levels are they? 22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Barney— There are two, one's unreasonable and unreasonable is defined as to basically what a reasonable person at the boundary of the property would think is unreasonable. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so it's a subjective standard? Mr. Barney— Sort of semi-subjective. Then there is a flat decibel. Mr. Hutchens — If you're talking about decibels, you have to have a reference level, plus a distance at least. Now how is that defined? Mr. Barney— The decibel level is an absolute level defined at the perimeter of the property where the noise is emanating from. Chairperson Sigel —At the boundary of the Country Club property. Mr. Hutchens — How many decibels? Mr. Barney— 55 at the property line during the evening and I think 60 during the day. Mr. Hutchens — Can anybody tell me how much 55 decibels is? Mr. Barney—We're actually right in the process of investigating the requirement meter to have available to measure that. Mr. Hutchens —Well, 60 decibels is about a conversational level as people converse with each other. Mr. Barney— Quite frankly, I don't know. Mr. Hutchens — So, it's not as loud as people suppose and you have to be aware that you are talking about peak here. The peak levels are not the same as the average. The average decibel level. A thunderstorm would qualify. Mr. Barney—Well, we don't attempt to regular thunderstorms. We don't regulate anything other than amplified sounds. Mr. Hutchens — Right. Chairperson Sigel — Is the sound that disturbs you mainly on, say, Friday and Saturday night or is it throughout the week. Mr. Hutchens — It's only when they are having their outside parties. They just get out of hand. I understand exactly what happens because I've been at places like that where the band thinks that everyone came to hear them and they just get louder and louder. I don't 23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 know how the people at the Country Club can stand it. They can't even talk to each other it's so loud. Chairperson Sigel — And this has happened on nights other than, say, Friday and Saturday? Mr. Hutchens — No, I think it has always been on a Saturday night. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. When it would be allowed until midnight at an increased level. The level would decrease at midnight. Mr. Hutchens —We experience that they usually stop at midnight, but not this last time. Chairperson Sigel — Is there a level specified after midnight. Mr. Barney— This is a nighttime level period, 55, it has nothing to do with midnight. Chairperson Sigel — Is the daytime level higher. Mr. Barney— They daytime level is 65 or 60 - 60. Chairperson Sigel — The only thing that we could do there is to try to encourage the Town to actually go out and measure and enforce the statute that we have. They don't have any kind of a variance or permission to exceed the Town Law. Mr. Barney— Well, actually there is a mechanism. You could get a noise permit, which allows you to exceed the limits. That's an application that needs to be made to the Town Board and it's usually for a specific one-time event. Ms. Rice — We do not currently have a decibel meter or any way of measuring that actual level. Mr. Barney— The other prong of it is that it is unlawful for any person to use or operate any radio, receiving set, musical instrument, including (inaudible) or other machinery, device for producing or reproducing sound that during the nighttime hours as defined in the town ordinance as producing unreasonable noise within any residential zone. Unreasonable noise is defined as any excessive or unusually loud sound which, at the boundary line of the property from which the sound emanates, either annoys, disturbs, injures, endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety or a reasonable person of normal sensitivities or which causes injury to animal life or damage to property. That language comes out of a case that upheld the validity after striking down an early version of a similar ordinance. Mr. Hutchens — Could you imagine, perhaps, one way to figure out what's reasonable is what the rest of the neighbors do. None of them play any loud music. There is no amplified music, I don't know why, I'm just glad. The rest of the neighborhood, there is nobody 24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 playing loud music, so maybe that defines what the neighborhood considers to be reasonable. Mr. Barney— I don't think it's what the neighborhood considers to be reasonable. It's what a reasonable person, with normal sensitivities would consider to be reasonable. Chairperson Sigel — It's an attempt to have at least a quasi objective. Mr. Hutchens —Well, apparently the reasonable people with reasonable sensitivities recognize that it is impolite to play loud music or at least decide not to do so. Mr. Barney— I don't want to get into a debate, but what one neighborhood does is a little bit like pornography, what the national standard is as opposed to local standards is a completely different standard. It's acceptable in — Mr. Hutchens — I'm just saying with the exception of the Country Club, it's quiet. Mr. Barney— That doesn't necessarily mean they're unreasonable by this definition. Mr. Hutchens — They're just being impolite. Chairperson Sigel —Anyone else have any — Voice from the Audience —Will we have a chance to respond? Chairperson Sigel- Yeah, when Mr. Hutchens is finished. Does anyone else want to ask Mr. Hutchens a question? Mr. Dixon —Well, I'm just wondering who you should call if the Cayuga Heights Police Department isn't responsive. Ms. Rice — He's welcome to file a complaint with our office. The main amount of the clubhouse itself is actually in the Town, so he could call the Tompkins County Sheriff's Department and they would be an alternative. As I said, we've never, not just Mr. Hutchens, but we have no complaints on file for noise for the Country Club, at all. Chairperson Sigel — So you are suggesting that he should maybe call the Tompkins County Sheriff? Ms. Rice — If it's happening late at night and it's an incident where you can get a hold of the Sheriff's Department, you can call them, they have a copy of our noise ordinance and they've cited people before on occasion for loud parties. So, you are welcome to do that. He can also file a complaint with us. I believe he was told that at the Planning Board and, as of yet, we do not have that. 25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Hutchens — Yes, the Planning Board suggested I get in touch with Mr. Frost and when I called the other day, I believe I spoke with this young lady, she said Mr. Frost was not available that day, he was in the field. Chairperson Sigel — The County Sheriff will enforce our Ordinance, is that correct? Ms. Rice — They can. Mr. Barney— They can enforce it. Chairperson Sigel — They can enforce, but not necessarily will. Ms. Rice — They have, in the past, issued court appearance tickets. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any further comments. Okay, well thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak during the Public Hearing? Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 p.m. Mr. Ferris —We were very concerned about what Mr. Hutchens said. I don't know how to exactly show this, but the pitching green is right about on this side over here. It doesn't show on here, but it may show on this one. In a sense that there is the existing chipping green. Can you see that okay? After the last meeting, the Planning Board Meeting, I went out there and took a good look at that because, as I said, I've been at the Country Club since 1980, I've been the president, I've been on the Board several different times and this is the first time we've had a complaint about somebody saying the balls were flying across the road. It's a concern to us because the chipping green and pitching green, for those are you that are not familiar with golf, is not where you stand up and take hard shots. It's intended to take very precise shots, short distances to get close to on into the hole. There's about four or five flags on that green and there are little holes and people are trying to chip on or pitch on to get there. In order to hit a ball that would land in Mr. Hutchens' yard, you would have to hit a ball from the area that you are hitting from between 80 and 100 yards. That green is not designed for those kinds of shots. The chances of people taking those kinds of shots are slim to none. The property that is directly across from the chipping green and the area that the direction that people are most hitting, we checked with those people and they said they have no recollection of any balls ever arriving in their yard. Mr. Barney— Who are the people you spoke with? Mr. Ferris — Mr. Hartman. If as many balls were going across there as they say were going there, with the amount of traffic that is on Hanshaw road, we would be clobbering cars all the time. Now, it is conceivable that somebody may have hit an errant ball or two across the road that may have ended up in his yard, but to say that this is happening all the time, I just simply don't believe it for the reasons I have just given you. Plus, that chipping green, the balls lay there all the time, somebody could walk onto that thing and pick up 16 bags 26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 full of balls if the wanted and take them away. But, we are taking steps and our architect alluded to it, we have a letter all drafted to send out. The president went on vacation and hasn't signed it. Along this area, there is a rail fence, we are going to put netting along that, which would be almost invisible, we have several plantings in front of the Country Club clubhouse right now, that have to be moved for the building thing. We are going to take all of those and build a barrier right along that line as well. In addition to that, we met with the Board, discussed this with the Board, our pro-shop has been instructed to monitor the usage on that chipping and pitching green all the time and make sure that it's being used the way that it is supposed to be used for short range chips and pitches and not anybody hitting the ball really hard to try to get it off of our property. So, we believe that we have addressed the concerns of the chipping and pitching green so that these balls will not arrive into Mr. Hutchens' yard or anybody else's yard around there. Now, on the nose factor, I would like to point out that 90 percent of our events are inside. There are very few outside events where there is music. Before the construction, this area right here is where some entertainment might be heard through sliding glass doors that are there that might possibly be opened up in the summer. With this new construction, all of that is going to provide a total barrier between our area on this end of the clubhouse where the entertainment would be taking place and anything on this side of the clubhouse and we have members all along here and down here and to my knowledge, we have never had a complaint from any of them about noise from the Country Club. From Mr. Hutchens, yes, from the other neighbors, at this point, we aren't aware of any complaints. So, we think with the new construction that we've had, plus the things that we are doing to make sure to mitigate any issues with the pitching green, that we've tried to the best of our ability to address these concerns and we think that they will address these concerns. Mr. Krantz— Have you ever discussed this with Mr. Hutchens before? Mr. Ferris — I have not, no. Mr. Krantz— Has any member of the Country Club? Inaudible voice from the audience Mr. Krantz— But you did speak to him. Inaudible voice from the audience Mr. Ferris — And I was there that night at that event, when they showed up and that's exactly what they said. They said they couldn't see where the noise that we were making should really be bothering anybody. We don't have that many outside events. Chairperson Sigel —When you do have outside events are they in the back? Where are outside events? Mr. Ferris —We happened to have one that was outside by the pool area, we were having an event called our lobster fest and they did have some music going on at that time, but it 27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 was background music for the lobster fest it wasn't even for anything specific like that, like for dancing. Chairperson Sigel — Is it not feasible for some reason to simply change the direction in which the chipping green is used? Mr. Ferris — I don't think that it would work because of the proximity to Hanshaw Road. We would have to almost stand in the road and hit backwards toward the parking lot, where the cars are. The thing is, this isn't an area where you hit balls hard. Chairperson Sigel — I understand that, but people don't always hit the ball as they intend. Having played golf myself I am painfully aware of that. Mr. Ferris — Well, if I was on a driving range, I would agree with you. Chairperson Sigel — But even chipping, if you hit the ball with the bottom of the club rather than the face, it goes rather far in a line drive. Mr. Ferris — But would you not agree to travel over 80 yards and across a busy highway on a regular basis would seem implausible. Chairperson Sigel — I'm not sure. Mr. Barney— Not the way I play. Mr. Ferris — But really- Mr. Barney -No, really, I have that same problem. I am a terrible chipper. 50 to 60 percent of the time, I will hit with the edge of the club, rather than the face of the club, usually not with any consistent direction either. Mr. Ferris — But, even in that case, it would have to travel more than 80 yards on a line drive to get to his yard. Chairperson Sigel —Where do people stand to hit to the chipping green? Mr. Ferris — They stand here, hitting in this direction. Can you see that? They stand here, hitting in this direction, chipping on to it. Chairperson Sigel — So they stand near the parking lot? Mr. Ferris —Well, this is very small scale. There's a lot of room here for where they are standing. They stand about 10 yards to 15 yards off of the pitching, chipping green. I would say, maximum from here to the back of the room. Then there is all the way across the green itself, then there is about 20 to 25 yards between the end of the green and the highway, Hanshaw Road and then across Hanshaw Road. That's why I said that the 28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 person who lives right, directly across the street says that he doesn't really get balls in his yard. Chairperson Sigel — It sounds like there is more room than you would need between the green and Hanshaw Road to allow chipping in the other direction. Mr. Ferris — There is only about, from the fence, which is our border to the edge of the greens, maybe 20 yards at the most. But I'm not sure why this is even an issue. Chairperson Sigel — You said that people chip from about 10 or 15 years away. Mr. Ferris — Yeah, but then you've got to tear up and re-configure your green because of the way that it slants and the topography. It would be a major undertaking. I'm not altogether sure why this involved in this whole thing about the building, but I guess it is. Chairperson Sigel —Well, you're asking to expand your enterprise and we have at least anecdotal evidence from a neighbor of yours that you have a problem with your enterprise. Mr. Ferris — One person. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. Do you have any idea what the cost would be to reconfigure the green? Mr. Ferris - $75,000 to $100,000. Those things cost money. Chairperson Sigel — To re-do one green? Mr. Ferris — There's probably $40, 000 in just the green itself and there's drainage, there's all kinds of issues involved. Chairperson Sigel —And could you elaborate a little bit more on what your proposed mitigation is? Mr. Ferris — Yes. Right along Hanshaw Road, on our property line is a rail fence. It's about this high. We're talking about putting netting, which stops golf balls right along that, which would be almost invisible if anybody sees it. Then between the rail fence and the chipping greens, put shrubbery that we are going to move from in front of the club house. We don't think that too many of these balls are air born. If they're getting across, there would probably be a low shot that might run across the road and get to the other side. Mr. Barney— But you don't see it as a hazard to drivers? Mr. Ferris —What's that? Mr. Barney— You don't see that as a hazard? Leaving aside Mr. Hutchens' concern- 29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Ferris — We've been there for 70 years John and there hasn't been a case that we know of in all that time of anybody hitting a car. Mr. Barney— Being such an astute risk manager as yourself, I'm really surprised. Mr. Ferris — That's why I'm not concerned about it. We have no history of it and the way this thing is operating, it isn't intended that way. Mr. Barney— It's not intended that way, I agree, but, like the Chair here, I think there are people who probably practice chipping aren't putting it where they intended to put it. Mr. Ferris —We monitor the members and what's going on there and I'm telling you that we're going to monitor them even closer. It just isn't happening, not that much. MR. Barney — How do you account for Mr. Hutchens having 50 balls? Mr. Ferris — He could have walked across the road and picked them up. Mr. Barney — you're suggesting that's the only way he got them? Mr. Ferris — No, I'm just saying he could. Mr. Hutchens approaches the podium Mr. Barney—We accept that you have 50 balls there. We don't interrupt each other here. So, you're alleging that Mr. Hutchens picked those up? Mr. Ferris — No, I'm saying that it could be done. Mr. Barney— But you're in effect saying that you don't understand how he could have had 50 balls. Mr. Ferris — That's right, I'm saying I find it very difficult to believe that he would find that many balls in his yard, just because of the proximity of everything. Chairperson Sigel — If we accept their proposed mitigation, then how do we have some conditions of enforcement or verification that it is effective? Mr. Ferris — I would invite your Code Enforcement Officer to come up and walk the property and we'll show him exactly what I'm telling you tonight. Chairperson Sigel —We can't station someone there everyday. Mr. Ferris — To show the proximity of everything and what I'm talking about. 30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — No, I don't doubt your description of the distances and I also don't doubt, as Mr. Barney said, that it is very easy for a golf ball to go that distance even when you intend a short shot. Mr. Ferris — It really would have to be a really errant shot. Mr. Barney— You must be a good golfer Dave. Mr. Ferris — Even for the average golfer. Mr. Barney— It is very easy for me to have an errant shot go 50 or 75 yards and I am 15 yards off of the green. In fact one of the games I play with myself is over the green on one side over the green back the other way. Mr. Krantz— Well, it's become obvious just sitting here that there is kind of bad blood between Mr. Hutchens and the Country Club. He was nasty you said when you spoke to him on the phone. There's been pitifully little communications between you and there is obvious anger. It certainly seems within the realm of probability that somebody with a couple of beers in him hit a few golf balls over there deliberately. Mr. Ferris — I think that's — Mr. Krantz— Do you think that that's unreasonable? Mr. Ferris — With all do respect Mr. Krantz, I think that's taking a cheap shop at the members of the Country Club to think that somebody would stand there and deliberately try to hit balls into somebody's yard. Mr. Krantz— Any organization that has that many people, has some people who are not quite up to par with the others. Mr. Ferris — I'm sorry, but I would have to take exception to that. Chairperson Sigel — I would assume that very few of your members are aware of any kind of disagreement between the club and Mr. Hutchens. Mr. Ferris — I would say that 99 percent of them are probably unaware of it. Chairperson Sigel — So, I would assume that most of them would have no reason to, even if they were so inclined to go and do anything like this. Mr. Ferris — In fact, they would be foolish to do anything because it would just pour gasoline on the fire. Mr. Smith — The Planning Board did condition their site plan approval on submission of written documentation indicating what steps, if any, the Country Club has taken to mitigate 31 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 the concerns regarding golf balls from the chipping green. So they will be presenting that back to the Planning Board also. Mr. Ferris — I can assure you we don't want golf balls ending up in that yard and we are taking, what we think are reasonable, responsible steps to keep that from happening. Chairperson Sigel — And you had mentioned a berm? So you are putting up netting along the split rail fence. Mr. Ferris — We could put a berm if they want a berm, but we think that the netting and the plantings would be sufficient. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Ferris —We really do. Chairperson Sigel — The plantings are going to be densely spaced. Mr. Ferris — Densely spaced. Right behind it is going to be this netting that is designed to stop golf balls, which would be practically invisible to anybody. Chairperson Sigel —Would the plantings be significantly higher than the fence. Mr. Ferris — I don't think that they'll be that much higher. We can let them grow as high as you want. Chairperson Sigel — The fence will be the main effective barrier? Mr. Ferris — Because we think that if anything, the balls are probably balls that are more like the line drive type think that would probably be low. People aren't hitting them up in the air, they aren't trying to hit them up in the air, they're trying to hit them down low so that they go onto the green and go into the hole. Chairperson Sigel — Do you have any suggestions John for a way we could — Mr. Barney—Well, the condition we had at the Planning Board was kind of a reaction to this to see what steps can be taken to reduce it. I like your suggestion why not hit the other way because then people would be very aware that they are hitting in the direction of a populous area and maybe would control their shots a little more. Chairperson Sigel - It seems to make a lot of sense. Mr. Barney— I'm not that much of a golf course designer to know whether it's 75,000 or 750,000 or 75 dollars to do it. Looking at the site plan, actually in the packet there is actually a pretty good idea. The area or the space on each side of it is about equidistant to either parking lot as it is to Hanshaw Road. 32 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — The green could even be moved a little bit closer to the parking area. Mr. Ferris - See, this area here? This is the area that we are hitting from, not from here over. I know it's very hard to see on this scale. Chairperson Sigel —We have a drawing that shows the space a little bit better. Mr. Ferris — I don't know what you are looking at there. Chairperson Sigel —We are looking at this. Mr. Ferris — Okay. This is where the people stand and hit in this direction. Chairperson Sigel — So, you could stand the same distance. Mr. Ferris — But this is lower, much lower elevation. In other words, this you can go level. Chairperson Sigel — You probably should be chipping to an elevated green instead of one that is lower. Mr. Ferris — Then it defeats the purpose of chipping across it, believe me, take my word for it. The property line is about here, Mr. Hutchens is over here. The normal flight of the balls is in this direction. So to get over here — Chairperson Sigel —A right-handed hitter's hook would go right there. Mr. Ferris —Well, again, you're talking about hitting the ball like you're trying to hit it in the air a long distance. Chairperson Sigel — I understand. Mr. Ferris — That isn't happening, you're pitching on to here to try to hit little flags right here and make it go in the hole. This is not where you are standing here and trying to hit it way up in the air, to get across something, that driving range is this way. That driving range goes this way. This is where they hit the hard shots, this way and there is a fence all the way along, a very high fence. Mr. Barney— Do you use the same green for the- Mr. Ferris — No. Chairperson Sigel - The driving range just goes out into the fairway, I'm assuming. Mr. Ferris — The driving range goes down this way. 33 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Barney—Well, to answer your question, it is an issue. I think it's an issue that you could condition. I would not be inappropriate, if you chose to make a stronger condition than the Planning Board had. On the other hand, you may be perfectly willing to live with the condition the Planning Board had, which is basically come up with a plan that mitigates this. Chairperson Sigel — Can you think of any language to create a performance standard that, if not met, then we could say they would be required either say, stop using it or hit from the other side? Mr. Barney— The trouble is the enforcement or the performance standard. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. The Town is not going to send someone over to sit around and count balls. Mr. Barney —We don't have that kind of resources. Chairperson Sigel — It sounds like, you know, if Mr. Hutchens is correct and he has had, let's say, even a hundred over the course of the summer, that's maybe one a day. Mr. Ferris — I respectfully repeat, I doubt it's that often. I really do, just because the nature of the green and what's happening there. Chairperson Sigel — I guess we could say something like if there is evidence that balls are continuing to go across the street or are going across the street that then some condition or some provision of the variance would trigger and require them to mitigate in some way. One way, which, of course, would be to hit the other way. What do you guys think? Ron? Andrew? Mr. Dixon — I think just maybe if the resolution makes special note of the condition that the Planning Board put in there. Maybe just repeat the condition, taking out the words "if any". Mr. Barney—Well, they've come up with, I gather or are coming up with a letter, whether the Planning Board will deem that adequate, I don't know. Mr. Dixon- Well, what the Planning Board did was assert ambiguity, if any. Mr. Barney—We have two versions of what's going on and they're quite disparate versions and I don't think this Planning Board necessarily wanted to get in a role of determining who is more accurate in their recollection, one way or the other. What they were attempting to do was say "Hey, folks why don't you sit down and talk about it among yourselves and between the two of you come up with a solution." That doesn't seem to be happening. What steps the Planning Board may take, I don't know, when it comes back. The other question, I guess I have is why limit the fencing to something that is only five feet or six feet high. They, I suppose, could come in and get a variance to put up a netting that goes up 20 feet or something like that, that would be a much stronger barrier. 34 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — Then you are trying to balance the aesthetic. Mr. Ferris — We think that the measures that we are proposing will solve the problem, but, if it does not, we have the option of putting the netting up of the same height that we have along side our driving range, which is 15, 20 feet in the air, but we just think that it would be unsightly. Ms. Rice — Cornell is doing a similar mitigation problem right now. They had initiated construction on a fence that didn't meet the requirements in lieu of coming for the fence variance, they had not submitted the proposal, but I believe they are going to plant pine trees as a dense barrier instead of doing a tall fence and they have their huge legal mitigation department and, at this point, that's the proposal that they are going to go with and they believe that's going to be enough and that's after they did have a court case on Warren Road, where a person was struck. In the meantime, Cornell has prohibited use of the particular area. Mr. Ferris — Cornell's problem is a little different than ours. Theirs is where people are actually hitting it off a tee, trying to hit it down a fairway which is considerably different from what we're talking about. Chairperson Sigel — As I was saying, on the other hand, this aspect of the property is unrelated to the special approval. Mr. Barney— The special approval is to expand their use, in effect, and if you have a problem with a use, I think it is not unreasonable to be able to say that an expansion of that use is only going to exacerbate that. Mr. Dixon —Why don't we take what they are proposing and, as an acceptable minimum standard and say, this is what they will do, not what they are proposing to do, this is what you will do as a minimum standard and the Planning Board will decide if they think that is adequate. Chairperson Sigel — I would feel more comfortable having a component of it be that there be a performance, which is that balls have to stop going across the road. Mr. Krantz— How about just a provision of landscaping and netting if errant golf balls crossing Hanshaw Road continue? Chairperson Sigel —Well, I'm going on the assumption that it is a problem. Mr. Barney— I think maybe that one condition be that you will set up the fence, you will do the landscaping and then a second condition being that if it is necessary (inaudible) Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Yeah, that seems satisfactory to me. 35 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 Mr. Ferris — Our concern isn't just Mr. Hutchens, with all the traffic and cars that go back and forth on Hanshaw Road, we don't want— Chairperson Sigel — I understand. Mr. Barney - You're not alone with that concern, we have the same concern here and we have, as a town, now somebody and the balls may be crossing in that area. I'd hate to be driving down Hanshaw Road and have one of those balls come out exactly the same time that I'm driving by. As a town, once we have notice about the potentiality, it becomes a town issue. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think there is really, it doesn't seem like there is anything we can specifically enforce. It just has to be the Planning Board. I assume we don't need to vote on the Environment Assessment. Any other questions or comments. I will move to grant the appeal of the Country Club of Ithaca. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 050: Country Club of Ithaca, 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68.-1-1.2 and 71.-7-1, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of the Country Club of Ithaca, Appellant/Owner, Schopfer Architects LLP, Robert Seigart, AIA, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18.3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to expand and renovate existing facilities located at 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 68- 1-1.2 and 71-7-1, Residence District R-30. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for a special approval have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. The Country Club implement the fence near the chipping green, as describe at this hearing, wherein a mesh screening will be attached to a split rail fence and dense vegetative screening will be planted along the fence. b. If the above implementation does not prevent balls from leaving the Country Club property and going into Hanshaw Road and properties across from Hanshaw Road that the Country Club will take further steps, as necessary, to prevent those balls from leaving the Country Club's property. c. The Planning Board review the parking requirements in light of the number of members and satisfy itself that there is adequate parking or make other arrangements for whatever additional parking may be necessary. 36 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 18, 2003 The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Dixon NAYS: NONE ABSTAIN: Niefer ABSENT. Ellsworth The MOTION was declared to be carried. Mr. Ferris — Thank you very much, I know it was a knotty situation. I appreciate your patience. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you Mr. Hutchens for coming. Do we have any other business to talk about? Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson Lori Love, Deputy Town Clerk 37