HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2008-01-28 Zoning Board of Appeals
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Monday, January 28, 2008
7:00 PM
Present
Kirk Sigel, Chairman; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member
David Mountin, Board Member; Carrie Coates Whitmore, First Deputy Town Clerk;
Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Christine
Balestra, Planner.
Excused
Ron Krantz, Board Member.
Others
Mary Bentley, 100 Vera Circle
Anthony Ingraham, 368 Stone Quarry Road
Elizabeth Bauman, 368 Stone Quarry Road
Jocelyn Duis, 368 Stone Quarry Road
James Clark, 923 West Broad Street, Elmira, NY
Bill Paladino, 295 Main Street, Buffalo, NY
Tim Peer, Cornell University
Steve Beyers, Cornell University
Call to Order
Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Welcome to the January meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have 5 appeals, which we will be taking in
the following order: the appeal of Mary Bentley, the appeal of Anthony Ingraham, the
appeal of James Clark, the appeal of Cornell University and 1093 Group, LLC regarding
the Rite Aid store, and finally the appeal of Cornell University regarding their combined
heat and power plant.
The first appeal this evening is that of:
Mary Bentley, Owner/Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of
Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to
convert an attached garage into living space at an existing residence located at
100 Vera Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-34.42, Low Density
Residential Zone (LDR). Town Code requires a 40-foot side yard setback for
structures other than garages in the LDR Zone (garages may be 15 feet from a
side yard in the LDR Zone). The conversion of the garage into living space is
considered an encroachment into the 40-foot required side yard setback.
Chairperson Sigel — Is Ms. Bentley here?
Ms. Bentley —Would you like me to come up here?
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Chairperson Sigel — Yes, please. You can sit there at the microphone and if you could,
please begin with your name and address for the record.
Mary Bentley, 100 Vera Circle.
Mary Bentley, 100 Vera Circle.
Chairperson Sigel — Your appeal appears pretty straight forward. Is there anything you
want to add that was not in your submitted application?
Ms. Bentley — I don't believe so.
Chairperson Sigel —Any questions?
Mr. Mountin — Yeah. I just have a couple of questions. At some point, will you be
looking to build a garage and coming back here for a variance to build a garage?
Ms. Bentley — I don't know if at some point that I'll do that. Right now the garage has
actually never been used a garage. It actually has a big patio in front of it with a 5
foot...(not audible)...since I've lived there...it is not a functioning garage so I'm not sure
if I will be building a garage on the other side.
Mr. Mountin — So I guess be mindful of the setback requirements and maybe another
variance.
Ms. Balestra — Not necessarily.
Chairperson Sigel —Well, actually, the garage only requires 15 foot and they'll have
almost 34 so you could actually put a garage further over and have it be legal.
Ms. Bentley — That was a good suggestion, David.
Mr. Mountin —Well, asking questions sometimes isn't always the right question.
Chairperson Sigel — No. It was good. Any other questions? I don't really think I had
any. It appears straight forward. It's not that far an encroachment. Okay. If there are
no other questions we'll open the public hearing (7:07 p.m.) regarding this appeal. If
anyone would like to speak please indicate. If not, we will close the public hearing (7:07
p.m.). I will move to grant the appeal of Mary Bentley, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code
to convert an attached garage into living space at an existing residence located at 100
Vera Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-34.42, Low Density Residential Zone
with the following restrictions that...or I'm sorry, conditions: that the side yard setback
be no less than 33 feet, number 1. The second condition that no further building take
place within the required 40 foot setback other than the portion of the house that is
already within that setback. And with the findings that the benefit to the applicant does
outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically,
2
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
1) that the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other
means feasible given that they have this existing enclosed space that they just wish to
convert into living space, 2) that there will not be an undesirable change in the
neighborhood given that the structure has existed there for some time, 3) that the
request is not substantial—it is an encroachment of approximately 7 feet within a 40 foot
setback, 4) that the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects, and
5) that the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the house was in this state
when the applicant purchased it.
Any suggested additions or changes?
Ms. Brock– Kirk, one of the conditions was that there be no further building other than
what you specified?
Chairperson Sigel – Maybe I should have been clearer and said other than what
is...other than the plans submitted by the applicant.
Ms. Brock–Would that preclude construction of a garage then in that area in the future
even if it complies with the setback?
Chairperson Sigel – No. I didn't intend...
Ms. Brock– Okay. So maybe we should say no other construction...
Chairperson Sigel – No other nonconforming construction?
Ms. Brock– That would be good.
Chairperson Sigel – So modify my condition to state that there be no further
nonconforming construction within the required 40 foot setback...
Ms. Brock– Other than what is specified on the plans.
Chairperson Sigel – Other than what is specified...yeah...
Ms. Brock– On the plans submitted by the applicant.
Chairperson Sigel – Correct. Thank you.
Ms. Bentley – So can I ask a question just for clarification?
Chairperson Sigel – Sure.
Ms. Bentley – So then I could build a garage as long as I maintain the 15 foot setback?
Chairperson Sigel – Correct.
3
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Ms. Bentley — Okay. Thank you for asking the question. That was my question.
Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Okay. Second on the motion?
Mr. Mountin — Second.
Chairperson Sigel —All in favor?
Board —Aye.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. You're all set.
Ms. Bentley — Thank you.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-001: Area Variance, Mary Bentley, 100 Vera Circle, Tax
Parcel No. 28.4-34.42
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by David Mountin.
RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Mary Bentley, requesting a variance
from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of
Ithaca Code to convert an attached garage into living space at an existing residence
located at 100 Vera Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-34.42, Low Density
Residential Zone with the following-
Conditions-
1.
ollowing:Conditions:1. That the side yard setback be no less than 33 feet, and
2. That there be no further nonconforming construction within the required 40
foot setback other than what is specified on the plans submitted by applicant.
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. Specifically.
1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other
means feasible given that they have this existing enclosed space that they just
wish to convert into living space,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood given that the
structure has existed there for some time,
4
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
3. That the request is not substantial—it is an encroachment of approximately 7 feet
within a 40 foot setback,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the house was in this state
when the applicant purchased it.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Krantz.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel – Okay. The next appeal this evening is that of:
Anthony Ingraham, Owner/Appellant, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-62(D) of the Town of
Ithaca Code, to legalize an existing lot created by subdivision in 1983, located
at 368 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38-3-11.1, Low
Density Residential Zone (LDR). The parcel is scheduled for consideration of
Subdivision approval at the January 22, 2008 Planning Board meeting. The
parcel has insufficient lot depth for a parcel in the LDR zone (200 foot minimum
lot depth from the highway right-of-way required).
Chairperson Sigel – Mr. Ingraham? Please come and have a seat. And please begin
with your name and address if you could.
Anthony Ingraham, 368 Stone Quarry Rd
My name is Anthony Ingraham. I live at 368 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca.
Chairperson Sigel – Thank you. And your appeal also seems to be pretty straight
forward. Is there anything you would like to add at this point?
Mr. Ingraham – Oh, only that it's just surprising this never came up before in 25 years of
selling the property. And got a couple of building permits before back in the 80s and
that there's been assessors and surveyors and title searches and so forth. So I guess
this is just something that, I don't know, for some reason came up now. But I think the
reason the lot depth is what it is because if you walk back there and you'll see that it is
pretty carefully follows the edge of the gorge. I think they looked at that and said, oh I
think I don't want to go down the cliff and put the stake down there. That's what it
looked like to me anyway. So I think that is what happened.
5
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any questions? I don't have any questions either. We will
open the public hearing (7:13 p.m.) regarding this appeal. If no one wishes to speak we
will close the public hearing (7:13 p.m.). And if there is no further question or
comments, I will move to grant the appeal of Anthony Ingraham, requesting a variance
from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-62(D) of the Town of
Ithaca Code to legalize an existing lot created by subdivision in 1983 and subsequently
given subdivision approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at their January 22,
2008 meeting located at 368 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38.-3-
11.1, Low Density Residential Zone with the following conditions: that the depth of the
lot be no less than 185 feet.
Were there any other specific conditions from the Planning Board?
Ms. Brock— No. Just granting of necessary variances by the ZBA and some standard
conditions really as to submission of subdivision plat for signature by the Chair and for
filing.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Okay so just that one condition and with the following...with
the findings that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health,
safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically that 1) the benefit the applicant
wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the
applicant wishes to be able to maintain their home on their lot and they are unable to
enlarge it 2) that there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character
or to nearby properties given that this has existed since 1983 3) that the request is not
substantial being approximately 13 feet in a 200 foot dimension 4) that the request will
not have adverse physical or environmental affects and 5) the alleged difficulty is not
self-created given that the lot was in this state when the applicant purchased it and has
existed that way through several building permits.
Ms. Brock— Through several building permits? Have there been several building
permits? If there are several property transactions, I think.
Mr. Ingraham — Both are true.
Ms. Brock— Both? So building permits is true?
Mr. Ingraham — There was an initial building permit to build a garage on the property
from which this was subdivided in 1981 that was then in 1983 a subdivision map was
submitted to the Town and a building permit request was made to convert that---change
the plan for that garage to be...to have an apartment over it. So it was a garage and
shop. That's the point at which apparently subdivided it...it clearly was because of the
map...
Ms. Brock— So was there a building permit after that?
6
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Ingraham — No. Those were the 2 building permits until mine so...there was a
Certificate of Compliance issued in 1985 for everything.
Chairperson Sigel — So I'll strike the mention of...that this existed through the issuance
of building permits.
Ms. Brock— But I think it would be appropriate to state that is has existed for over 20
years.
Chairperson Sigel — Yes.
Ms. Brock— I mean keep that as part of your finding.
Chairperson Sigel — Yes. Okay. Second on the motion?
Mr. Ellsworth — I'll second.
Chairperson Sigel —All in favor?
Board —Aye.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Ingraham — Thank you.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-002: Area Variance, Anthony In-graham, 368 Stone
Quarry Road, Tax Parcel No. 38.-3-11.1
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth.
RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Anthony Ingraham, requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-62(D) of the
Town of Ithaca Code to legalize an existing lot created by subdivision in 1983 and
subsequently given subdivision approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at their
January 22, 2008 meeting located at 368 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 38.-3-11.1, Low Density Residential Zone with the following
Condition:
That the depth of the lot be no less than 185 feet.
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. Specifically.
7
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
1. The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other
means feasible given that the applicant wishes to be able to maintain their home
on their lot and they are unable to enlarge it,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given that this has existed since 1983,
3. That the request is not substantial being approximately 13 feet in a 200 foot
dimension,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects, and
5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the lot was in this state when
the applicant purchased it and has existed for over 20 years.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Krantz.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. The next appeal this evening is that of:
James A. Clark, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter
270, Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to
construct a residence with a walkout basement located at 302 Old Gorge Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.29, Low Density Residential Zone (LDR).
Said home exceeds the 36-foot maximum permitted height from the lowest
exterior grade and 38-foot maximum permitted height from the lowest interior
grade for structures in a LDR Zone.
Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Clark? Hello. Please begin with your name and address.
James Clark, 923 West Broad Street, Horseheads, NY
Jim Clark, 923 West Broad Street, Horseheads, NY.
Chairperson Sigel —Anything you would like to state at the opening here? No. You
have been before us before I believe for this same type of thing in Southwoods?
Mr. Clark— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel —Any questions?
Mr. Ellsworth —What height do you have versus what is allowed?
8
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Clark— I'd like to add 8 feet. So I would like to be 43 feet from the basement floor.
Ms. Brock— Is that around the entire perimeter? Or is that only in one section of the
building?
Mr. Clark—At the lowest part of the walkout, which would be at the west end.
Ms. Brock— So only the west side would have that dimension.
Mr. Clark— Or excuse me. The north. The front of the house faces west so it would be
the north end...would be the lowest part.
Ms. Brock—Would the other three sides of the house meet the height limits?
Mr. Clark—Well, the grade would step up to first floor grade at the...near the south end
of the house, which would be the driveway end and as the grade would step down for
the back of the house so the lowest point would be at the north end of the house.
Ms. Brock— The reason I'm asking is I think in the past when this board has granted
some of these similar types of variances, they've, you know, put a condition on saying
this exceedance for height can be in this one location where the walkout basement is,
but the other parts of the house need to continue to meet the height requirements in the
Code and it sounds...and this typically happens where you've got a slope and you are
building on the slope. And it sounds like this is the same situation here. So you would
just need it for the...I'm sorry. I forgot already. Which?
Mr. Clark— The east side and the northeast...and the northeast end or...
Mr. Mountin —Which view is this?
Mr. Clark— That would be the south end. If you look at the back elevation of the house
all those windows are not going to be there. It would step down probably about halfway
through where that deck is in the illustration so that maybe from halfway to where the
deck is to the end of the house is what would be the tallest point.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. To which...to the...looking at this rear view it would be to
the right side of the picture?
Mr. Clark— Correct.
Chairperson Sigel — It would be the lowest point. That is the downhill side.
Mr. Clark— Yes.
Mr. Ellsworth — It shows it on the right and left elevations.
9
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Clark— Yes. That is why I noted on there it's a step foundation as site allows
because a lot of times we don't know exactly where we are going to step it until we start
laying out.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So then the front...the entire front face of the house will be
in compliance with the height, with the height limit. Is that true?
Mr. Clark— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel —And then much of the...if not the entire rear face will be exceeding
the limit and then a portion of each side will possibly be exceeding the limit.
Mr. Clark— Correct.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Walker— Is the house facing Southwoods Drive?
Mr. Clark— Yes. Very comparable to 320, which is right next to this lot?
Chairperson Sigel — The house was going to face Southwoods?
Mr. Clark— Right.
Chairperson Sigel — Oh, okay.
Mr. Walker— So it's actually going to have a Southwoods address then.
Chairperson Sigel — Southwoods goes all the way to the road? To King Road?
Mr. Walker— Southwoods starts at King Road and goes all the way to that little nub on
the end.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Clark— There's no real intersection there. I don't really know where they kind of
change over.
Mr. Walker— The circle actually starts...or Old Gorge starts at the southerly most...or
the furthest in point of Southwoods.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So Old Gorge is just a horseshoe?
Mr. Walker— Yes.
10
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Walker— I know Southwoods Drive is the highest point and slopes to the...away
from that.
Chairperson Sigel — So is that to the...is Southwoods to the west?
Mr. Walker— Southwoods is west, yes.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So the house faces west.
Mr. Clark— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel — I tend to get confused in that development.
Mr. Walker— Is the driveway going to come off Old Gorge Road then?
Mr. Clark— No. The driveway will come off Southwoods because that is the highest
elevation in the lot.
Mr. Walker— Your garage doors are on the side though?
Mr. Clark— Yeah. It's a side loader.
Chairperson Sigel —And you are requesting...did you say a 43 foot?
Mr. Clark— Yes.
Ms. Brock— 42. 42?
Mr. Ellsworth —43 is what he said.
Mr. Clark— Yeah...I think typically when I filled these out it was always 42 plus or
minus.
Mr. Ellsworth —Well, you want to be on the safe side.
Mr. Clark— Yeah. That's why I said 43 from the...
Ms. Brock—Where does it say 43 in the application? I'm sorry.
Ms. Balestra — It doesn't.
Ms. Brock— It doesn't say it?
Ms. Balestra — No.
11
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Walker— The proposed says 42 plus or minus.
Ms. Brock— Right.
Ms. Balestra —All the previous applications were for 42 plus or minus.
Mr. Walker—And this would need a variance whether it had a walkout basement or not.
The maximum elevation from the basement floor to the peak is 38 feet.
Mr. Clark— But without a walkout this house is only 35 feet.
Mr. Walker— From the basement floor? You are having a 3 foot drop off at the back
door? The basement floor...or the lowest level floor is not going to be at ground with a
walkout basement?
Mr. Clark— Yes. Yes it is.
Mr. Walker—Well then...you're asking for 43 feet...
Mr. Clark— Correct.
Chairperson Sigel — You are talking about from the lowest interior...?
Mr. Walker— Right. I mean the maximum from the lowest interior is 38 feet to the peak
of the roof even if there is no walkout.
Chairperson Sigel — Right.
Mr. Walker— You only have a 2 foot elevation difference between a walkout and the
peak of the roof based on...the Code specifies 36 from the outside grade to the peak of
the roof, or 38 feet from the lowest floor elevation to the peak of the roof.
Chairperson Sigel — Right, but does that count the basement?
Mr. Walker— Yeah...well this is a livable...yes. It is in the basement. It is the lowest
floor elevation. This is a basement not a cellar. A cellar may be the only...
Chairperson Sigel — The only exception.
Mr. Walker— I mean if you are going to finish the area...if it's going to be livable space
then it would be a basement as opposed to a cellar, which is just basically a big crawl
space.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay, well I thought that...well the distinction between cellar and
basement is how much of the...how far into the ground it is sunk?
12
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Walker—Well, it's whether or not you can use it as livable space. But no matter
what, it's from the lowest elevation. So this house would not meet the Code either way.
He needs a variance no matter what happens here and this has been an issue at COC
as far as what is a reasonable height. I mean, there are options that you can change
the roof pitch. That's a pretty steep roof he's got, but I know it fits in with the character
of the houses and everything. We have had those discussions many, many times. A
10/12 pitch I would work on that one myself, but you've got crazier people working for
you than me. So...
Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I mean basically this...we have granted all of these as you
are all aware and in this development.
Mr. Ellsworth — It's every time when you get a walkout basement that we have these
kinds of things and sloping terrain.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any other questions or comments? Okay. We will open the
public hearing (7:28 p.m.). There is no one who wishes to speak. We will close the
public hearing (7:28 p.m.). Okay. I will move to grant the appeal of James Clark,
requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59
of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a residence with a walkout
basement located at 302 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.29,
Low Density Residential Zone, with the following conditions: that the height of the home
from the lowest exterior grade be no greater than 43 feet. Also with the condition that
the front of the house, which is the west face of the house have a height from lowest
exterior grade along that face of the house no greater than 36 feet. I think that's...would
you suggest anything else regarding conditions?
Ms. Brock— Do you have any conditions you want to impose regarding height at lowest
interior grade?
Chairperson Sigel — I don't think so.
Ms. Brock— Okay.
Mr. Clark— Can I ask a question here?
Chairperson Sigel — Sure.
Mr. Clark—When you say lowest exterior grade, if I comply in the front of the house, but
with the lot ends at the road...I mean the lot really slopes down there. Is there where
you are taking the lowest for the...because that's why I was asking for 43.
Mr. Walker— It's at the house line.
Chairperson Sigel —Where the grade...
13
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Walker— It's not the far point of the back yard.
Mr. Clark— Okay.
Mr. Walker—We'd never get a house build if we had that.
Mr. Clark— Okay.
Chairperson Sigel —Where the grade actually meets the foundation?
Mr. Clark— Meets the building. Okay.
Chairperson Sigel —And along the front face?
Mr. Clark— Okay.
Chairperson Sigel — Must be no greater than 36 feet from there to the highest point of
the roof.
Mr. Clark— Okay.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And with the findings that the benefit to the applicant does
outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically,
1) that while the...finding that the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve which is
that of a walkout basement cannot be, well could be met by other means by lowering
the roof line, but the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve in both the roof and the
walkout basement cannot be achieved without this variance 2) that there will not be an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood given that there are a number
of other properties with similar variances in this neighborhood 3) that at least for this
neighborhood the request is not substantial 4) that there will not be adverse physical or
environmental affects 5) finding that the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicant.
Any suggestions of changes or additions? Okay, if not, second on the motion?
Mr. Niefer— Second.
Chairperson Sigel —All in favor?
Board —Aye.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Clark— Thank you.
14
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-003: Area Variance, James A. Clark, 302 Old Gorge
Road, Tax Parcel No. 46.4-15.29
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by James Niefer.
RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of James Clark, requesting a variance
from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca
Code to be permitted to construct a residence with a walkout basement located at 302
Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.29, Low Density Residential
Zone, with the following-
Conditions-
1.
ollowing:Conditions:1. That the height of the home from the lowest exterior grade be no greater than
43 feet.
2. That the front of the house, which is the west face of the house have a height
from lowest exterior grade along that face of the house no greater than 36
feet.
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. Specifically.
1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve which is that of a walkout
basement cannot be, well could be met by other means by lowering the roof line,
but the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve in both the roof and the walkout
basement cannot be achieved without this variance,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood given that there are a number of other properties with similar
variances in this neighborhood,
3. That at least for this neighborhood the request is not substantial,
4. That there will not be adverse physical or environmental affects, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicant.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Krantz.
15
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Our next appeal is that of:
Cornell University & 1093 Group, LLC, Owners/Appellants, requesting a sign
variance from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-4 of the Code of
the Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to maintain an existing 32+/- square foot
freestanding "Rite-Aid" sign at 330 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 62-1-3.2, Community Commercial Zone (CC). The sign is located on a
property that received Subdivision approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board on December 18, 2007, resulting in the sign becoming off-premise. Off-
premise signs are not permitted in any zone.
Chairperson Sigel — Hello.
Bill Paladino, Ellicott Development Company
Bill Paladino, Ellicott Development Company, 295 Main Street, Buffalo, NY.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. Anything that you would like to state?
Mr. Paladino — Just to them the sign...the sign in question is located here along Mitchell
Road. It was our intent, obviously, when we developed the Rite Aid Pharmacy and from
subsequent applications regarding different projects we did not have the intent of selling
the property originally when we did enter this development with Rite Aid, but because of
different circumstances we did decide to sell the property. At the end of the day it is
probably was in the best interest of the community given that Cornell has also
purchased the Courtside over here and having all these properties as one probably
makes a lot of sense. As a condition to that we did agree with the Planning Board to...if
Cornell ever does redevelop the property in whatever manner that we would consolidate
our sign into one sign there along with whatever they may do on the property and the
other signage that they may want on the property in this area.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Paladino —We definitely feel the sign is needed for Rite Aid, though, to show the
access off of Mitchell because when you come up Mitchell because of the elevation and
topography it is not real easy to see where the store is located.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So you're...I assume that you are looking for that to be
mainly an informational sign as far as letting people know you can get to Rite Aid from
there as opposed to a primary advertising source.
Mr. Paladino — Correct. I mean the sign, when they were approved, they did meet all of
Town Code and because, I guess, of the unusual rule it doesn't meet Code now once
we subdivided the property. There are easements to cover the expense and
maintenance and maintaining the sign and...along with other items that we do share in
16
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
coordination...the drainage pond and some other...lighting...and some other things that
are combined on the two properties.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Walker— Bill, you're using the existing sign that is there?
Mr. Paladino — Yeah. We are not changing what is there. It's going to stay just the way
it is and like I said, until such time as Cornell should go to redevelop the property,
assuming the board, obviously, approves our variance.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And you understand, I assume, at that time the limit for a
sign for your use and whatever future use might come would be 50 square feet for a
freestanding sign.
Mr. Paladino — Correct.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And that without a variance, at least, you would have to fit
both uses within that 50 square feet.
Mr. Paladino — Umhm.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any questions?
Mr. Paladino — The sign has been there for a few years, too, so there is
obviously...there's been no complaints in the neighborhood or is it affected in any way.
Chairperson Sigel — I was somewhat surprised that you didn't put up the maximum size
permitted.
Mr. Paladino — That was sort of a negotiation because we had a...we were looking for a
lot of signage at one time. So it is very much reduced from what we initially requested.
Chairperson Sigel — Oh, okay. So that was a negotiation with the Planning Board?
Mr. Paladino — Correct.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. They do a good job there.
Mr. Paladino —A very good job.
Chairperson Sigel — Maybe you could help me, Susan. I'm a little confused by this
request by the Planning Board to add this restriction because the way I understand it, a
new sign would have to be 50 square feet. They're only allowed one. I don't really
quite understand the point of this referring to the...to that section which deals with
multiuse lots only getting one sign total.
17
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Ms. Brock—Well, depending upon what type of development happens, lets say some
kind of development ends up attaching to the Rite Aid building, it will be considered a
multiuse facility and there is provision in the sign law that if the multiuse facility has
entrances from vehicular traffic on more than one street two freestanding signs are
permitted. That's probably...I actually I don't know if that's how Rite Aid ended up with
it now, but and so I think that...I think the Planning Board just wanted to make sure that
there would just end up being one sign on this parcel and that that sign would end
up...you know...there couldn't be more than one. And so even if there was more than
one enterprise on the parcel that just one sign post could be used and there could be
signs stacked on it. They would have to still meet the 50 square foot requirement, but
basically there could be just one location for one set of signs...
Chairperson Sigel — Right, which is...
Ms. Brock - ...for the facility.
Chairperson Sigel - ...which would be the case anyhow, I think, without any kind of
restriction on our part.
Mr. Paladino — I think they were looking for us not to come back in the future and
attempt to add more signs.
Chairperson Sigel — That's what it sounds like...is that they wanted us to sort of say we
are really serious.
Mr. Paladino — Correct.
Ms. Brock—Well, actually the Code says signs may be placed at each on premise
enterprise in business and industrial districts. So I wonder if they were trying to get
away from having...
Chairperson Sigel — That's not a freestanding, though, is it? That's like a wall sign.
Chris, don't you know the...
Ms. Balestra — I know the sign law.
Ms. Brock— One freestanding...
Ms. Balestra —And everyone knows how I feel about the sign law.
Ms. Brock— Yeah, I mean the law is just specifying that one freestanding sign is allowed
for the development as a whole regardless of the number of separate enterprises. So
right, I guess that does apply just to wall signs. I don't know...I know Jonathan Kanter
came up with that. He thought that was important to include.
18
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Chairperson Sigel — I'm just trying to understand if that is actually a...is effectively a new
restriction or if it's...
Ms. Balestra — It would be consistent with the Judd Falls Plaza sign or the Courtside
sign that had several businesses within it.
Mr. Niefer— Or Best Western.
Ms. Balestra — Or Best Western. Yup.
Mr. Paladino — I think they were just further clarifying for Cornell and for us that that's
what they intend. They don't want to see anything different in the future or any requests
for anything different in the future.
Chairperson Sigel — I mean I'm not opposed to restating that condition. I just wanted to
find out if you thought it was a new...beyond what they would be otherwise restricted to.
Ms. Brock— The Code says this. I mean they are just referring you back to the Code
requirement.
Chairperson Sigel — Right.
Mr. Walker— The only difference being that one of...if the second part of the parcel was
developed, this would still be an off-premises sign for the Rite Aid. Rite Aid would still
be off-premises from the other development and I think the intent was just to make sure
that the off-premise sign needed to be incorporated into the on-premises sign.
Chairperson Sigel — To make it clear that this was the one sign.
Mr. Walker— Right. One single sign post or pile on sign there.
Chairperson Sigel —And you need to replace it with something that has both stores...
Mr. Walker— Or use that sign and add the additional whatever onto it.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Well, that makes sense.
Ms. Brock— Thank you.
Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions, comments, concerns?
Ms. Brock— I just wanted to let you know that before the subdivision approval was given
by the Planning Board I did review a number of easements that Mr. Paladino has
referenced, including the easement for the sign to allow the sign to remain as an off-
premises sign on Parcel B for the benefit of Parcel A of the Rite Aid parcel. So that
entire agreement did receive my review and approval before the subdivision approval
19
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
and before the easement was actually signed and filed. I think Chris's memo had
mentioned...
Chairperson Sigel —And that was a concern of the Planning Board.
Ms. Brock— Right. And Chris's memo mentioned the ZBA should require the
submission of an agreement or an easement between the owners of Parcels A and B to
allow the freestanding sign to remain on Parcel B and that has already been done.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Ms. Brock— So you do not need to condition your approval on that.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And do we use the area variance criteria for sign?
Ms. Brock— No. I mean I think this board has used that as a guideline but technically
you do not have to do that. The sign law does not specify the criteria in particular that
you apply. So, you know, I think it would be fine if you want to use the area variance
criteria as a guideline for you, but you don't have to strictly adhere to that.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. We did the public hearing, right?
Ms. Whitmore — No.
Chairperson Sigel — No? Okay. All right. We'll open the public hearing (7:42 p.m.)
regarding this case. Okay there is no one wishing to speak. We will close the public
hearing (7:42 p.m.). Chairperson Sigel — I will move to grant the appeal of Cornell
University...excuse me...um, did this one have an environmental assessment?
Ms. Balestra — This one did have an environmental assessment, yes.
Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. I'm so used to them not having...any comments on the
nonanticipated statements?
Ms. Balestra — Staff has no concerns regarding the environmental...potential
environmental impacts of the project.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I will move to make a negative determination of
environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Cornell University and the 1093
Group for the reasons stated in the Part 11 environmental assessment form prepared by
Town staff. Second?
Mr. Mountin — Second.
Chairperson Sigel —All in favor?
20
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Board —Aye.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-004: Environmental Assessment, Cornell
University/1093 Group, LLC, 330 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 62.4-3.2
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by David Mountin.
RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in regard to the appeal of Cornell University and the 1093 Group for the
reasons stated in the Part 11 environmental assessment form prepared by Town staff.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Krantz.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Passes unanimously. And I will move to grant the appeal of
Cornell University and the 1093 Group requesting a sign variance from the
requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-4 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca to be
permitted to maintain an existing approximate 32 square foot freestanding Rite Aid sign
at 330 Pine Tree Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.-1-3.2, Community
Commercial Zone. The sign is located on a property that received subdivision approval
by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on December 18, 2007 resulting in the sign
becoming off-premise. Off-premise signs are not permitted in any zone. With the
following condition: that in the event that further development is approved and
constructed on parcel B of the subject site any freestanding sign on parcel B that
includes a reference to the Rite Aid or subsequent building for use on parcel A shall be
a single sign for multiuse facilities as described in Section 221-6.B(2)(b)(2) of the Town
of Ithaca Code. And with findings that the benefit to the applicant do outweigh any
detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically that the
benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means given that the parcels
have been subdivided and the applicant wishes to have a sign indicating their second
means of access from Mitchell Street 2) that there will not be an undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood given that the sign has been there now for a couple
of years 3) that the request is not substantial given that the sign for parcel B, oh I'm
sorry, any future sign for parcel B's use will be incorporated into the current sign 4) that
the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects and 5) finding that
the alleged difficulty was self-created. Second on the motion?
Mr. Ellsworth — I'll second.
Chairperson Sigel —All in favor?
21
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Board —Aye.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Paladino — Thank you very much.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-005: Sign Variance, Cornell University/1093 Group,
LLC, 330 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 62.4-3.2
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth.
RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Cornell University and the 1093 Group
requesting a sign variance from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-4 of the
Code of the Town of Ithaca to be permitted to maintain an existing approximate 32
square foot freestanding Rite Aid sign at 330 Pine Tree Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 62.-1-3.2, Community Commercial Zone. The sign is located on a property that
received subdivision approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on December 18,
2007 resulting in the sign becoming off-premise. Off-premise signs are not permitted in
any zone. With the following:
Condition:
That in the event that further development is approved and constructed on parcel B of
the subject site any freestanding sign on parcel B that includes a reference to the Rite
Aid or subsequent building or use on parcel A shall be a single sign for multiuse
facilities as described in Section 221-6.B(2)(b)(2) of the Town of Ithaca Code.
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant do outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. Specifically.
1. That the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means given
that the parcels have been subdivided and the applicant wishes to have a sign
indicating their second means of access from Mitchell Street,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood given that the sign has been there now for a couple of years,
3. That the request is not substantial given that any future sign for parcel B's use
will be incorporated into the current sign,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects, and
5. That the alleged difficulty was self-created.
22
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Krantz.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. The final appeal this evening is that of:
Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, Tim Peer, P.E., Agent, requesting
variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59,
Chapter 270, Article XIX, Section 270-148, and Chapter 225 of the Town of
Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct additions to the Cornell University
Combined Heat and Power Plant (CCHPP), located to the south of the Central
Heating Plant on Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63-1-5, 63-1-8.1
and 63-1-8.2, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 65-3-1.2 and 65-3-1.1, Light
Industrial (LI) and Low Density Residential (LDR) Zones. The proposal includes
an 18,000+/- square foot main addition to house two combustion turbine
generators, a new 1,300+/- square foot air-cooled condenser building, an
employee support addition, two new emergency diesel generators, an aqueous
ammonia storage facility, and other site improvements. The main addition, at
67+/- feet tall, and the condenser building, at 40+/- feet tall, both exceed the 36-
foot maximum permitted height from the lowest exterior grade and 38-foot
maximum permitted height from the lowest interior grade for structures in LDR
and LI Zones. The appellant also seeks a variance from the requirements of
Chapter 225 of the Town Code, to be permitted to construct a portion of the
CCHPP building and the entire condenser building without the installation of a
Town required sprinkler system.
Chairperson Sigel - Hello. Please begin with your name and address.
Tim Peer, Cornell University
Tim Peer, Cornell University, Humphrey Service Building.
Steve Beyers, Cornell University
And I'm Steve Beyers, with Cornell University, East Hill Office Building.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And what would you like to tell us?
Mr. Peer—Well, it's a rather large and complicated project so I would think a little
background information would be helpful.
Chairperson Sigel — Sure.
23
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Peer— Okay. So the existing Cornell Central Heating Plant was built in 1922 and
currently serves approximately 14 million square feet of campus buildings for all their
thermal requirements. So those buildings are fully dependent on this facility for heating
and processed thermal loads. The facility right now is dependent on coal as its primary
source of fuel. There is not adequate gas infrastructure available to use any fuel other
than coal right now. So right now we burn about 65,000 tons of coal a year, which
makes up about 90% of the overall thermal requirements for the university. The rest is
filled in with natural gas and a little bit of fuel oil. Okay?
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Peer— So this project represents a significant renewal to this piece of critical
infrastructure for the university and we are doing it for several reasons. One is renewal
because the existing facility has been around for quite a while and then on top of that
the university continues to incur growth and so we need to be able to keep up with the
thermal requirements of the new facilities that the university is constructing. At the
same time this project will allow some real fuel flexibility at Cornell. It will have a new
high pressure gas line that serves it. So gas will become a viable fuel for meeting the
requirements at Cornell. And then we also get some additional benefits associated with
having a source of what we would term emergency power. So if the grid were to go
black, we could actually keep most of the university lit. It would require some load-
shedding but we can island from the grid and power the university and critical life safety
type functions.
Then on top of that is...there is a pretty significant environmental benefit
associated with this project. Combining heat and power, which is a simultaneous
production of electricity with steam as a byproduct is about the most efficient way we
can deliver both the power and thermal requirements of the university at the moment.
So associated with that is a number of benefits. The largest being a significant
reduction in our CO2 footprint for Cornell and we will reduce the coal burn by about 50%
into the future initially. Okay?
Our variance...well first I should say if there's any questions regarding the project
that you would like to ask that we can answer for you?
Chairperson Sigel —Are these gas fire generators...are they going to be running most
or all of the time?
Mr. Peer— No. We will...there's two of them that provides 30 megawatts of power, but
the dispatch of that equipment has to be carefully balanced with the thermal
requirements of the...that the university requires at the time. For instance, during the
summer, one gas turbine, the unfired steam output associated with that gas turbine will
meet all the thermal requirements essentially through the summer. So only one will run
during the summer and then during the shoulder months, two will dispatch on and off
and during the winter two will run.
24
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Chairperson Sigel — So then in the summer would you be using any coal?
Mr. Peer— No.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Peer— No. We will be burning just one combustion turbine is the plan. Yes.
Chairperson Sigel — Do you burn coal now in the summer?
Mr. Peer— Yes. Actually a little more background on the project, I'm sorry I didn't say
this more specifically, but there's a pair of combustion turbines. They are rated at 15
megawatts each and a combustion turbine is essentially a jet engine. However these
are designed to produce rotational torque to drive an electric generator rather than
produce thrust like might be on an airplane. And the electric generation associated with
the simple cycle just from that process alone is about 30% efficient...30 to 33 and that is
about the same efficiency as which all of Milliken generates its power. So right off the
bat you have already eliminated losses associated with transmitting that power to
Cornell. The hot gas that comes out the exhaust of the turbine will be put through a
heat recovery steam generator, which will scavenge that heat to produce steam without
any additional fuel input and that's where the real thermal benefit comes from this
project. So this...from a thermal efficiency standpoint, we will approach 80% thermal
efficient while a typical power plant, and I'll use AES Cayuga for example because that's
close to home, is about 33 to 35% thermally efficient.
Mr. Mountin —What did you say...what percent of the thermal load be covered...?
Mr. Peer—With this project? This project will cover from a dispatch standpoint it will
cover probably 50% of the annual thermal requirements of the university and it will
cover approximately 70% of the power requirements. And the supplemental power will
continue to be taken off the grid from NYSEG.
Mr. Niefer—Are these hydrogen cooled generators?
Mr. Peer— No. They are not that big. They are standard, totally water air cooled
generators.
Mr. Ellsworth — On your floor plan, you show some liquid fuel purge pumps. Is that
ammonia or is that gas? What media are going through those pumps?
Mr. Peer— There is a liquid fuel backup for these generators. They are duel fuel
capable. We have a limited amount of run hours that will be permitted by the state to
use liquid fuel, which will be ultra low sulfur diesel. So that is a standby fuel so if for
some reason natural gas were not available. Okay? There is also a...so there's a
purge associated with after you do fuel switching, specifically when go from oil back to
gas you need to purge out the combustors so that you don't coat them. Now there is
25
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
other...you asked about ammonia, there's some environmental controls associated with
this project. Specifically select catalytic reduction, which is a process to reduce NOx
associated with combustion and that requires an ammonia injection as a catalyst for that
process.
Mr. Ellsworth — To knock down your NOx?
Mr. Peer— Yes. And there will be the...the project will store aqueous ammonia in the
19% concentration so we reduce that concentration as low as would be feasible for
safety concerns. We don't want to use anhydrous or some other ammonia type mixture
and it will come in the plant in a liquid form and it will be vaporized into a gas form and
injected into the gas stream.
Mr. Ellsworth — So your present use is 58 tons of coal a year will be cut in half?
Mr. Peer— 68,000 tons a year will be essentially cut in half and then all the associated
local impacts with it— truck traffic, most specifically.
Mr. Mountin — 68 tons?
Mr. Peer— 68,000.
Mr. Mountin — How many gallons of diesel fuel are you going to store on site?
Mr. Peer—We have a...700,000 gallons of storage capability. We currently store
typically 150,000-200...a smaller amount. It is very expensive to have and not use.
Mr. Niefer—Are you going to have some condenser cooling towers there of sorts?
Mr. Peer— Yeah. Do you want me to walk through the site plan here a little bit?
Mr. Niefer—Well, I just have a basic question.
Mr. Peer— The cooling towers there are...
Mr. Niefer—What are the baffles in the cooling towers? What material or don't the
cooling towers have baffles in them?
Mr. Peer— Yeah...those are just PVC filled.
Mr. Niefer— PVC baffles.
Mr. Peer— Yeah. Those are for the existing chill water plant. We are adding an air
cooled condenser which will be just steel fence because it will be a direct steam to air
condenser. That is the other little pertinent facility. No more asbestos filled cooling
towers. They are all gone.
26
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Niefer—Asbestos or wood even. Some towers have wood baffles in them too.
Mr. Peer— Right. Ours are stainless steel with PVC fill.
Chairperson Sigel — So you had said that you can use diesel in the turbines. Is burning
diesel a regular part of the plan or is that really just an emergency, you know, in case
natural gas isn't available for some reason.
Mr. Peer— Yes. The diesel fuel is about more than 2 times the cost of natural gas on a
Btu basis. So we would not burn it other than for if we did not have natural gas
available.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any other questions or should we let them continue?
Mr. Niefer—Another one. As far as the oil lines in the turbine area under the turbine,
you have high pressure oil lines, lubricated oil lines under the turbine, the generator, or
in that particular area?
Mr. Peer— Yeah. They're on board; they're on the skid and the turbine itself comes in
its own enclosure that has its own on board CO2 based fire suppression system. So I
don't know if they are high pressure. The fuel oil injection pumps are about 370 psi
because it needs to be higher than the air pressure down stream of the compressor
section of the turbine. The lube oil skid is probably only, I don't know exactly what it is
but I would imagine it is less than 100 psi.
Mr. Niefer—What if any protection is planned for the high pressure oil lines and high
pressure, if they are high pressure, lube oil lines? In the event you had a rupture of
either of those lines...
Mr. Ellsworth —Are they in an enclosure?
Mr. Peer— Yes. The lubrication is all within the enclosure that has a CO2 based fire
suppression system. The fuel oil's a 40 pumps and day tanks will have a sprinkler
based fire suppression system.
Mr. Niefer -With the lines going from those buildings or rooms to the turbines, how are
those lines...suppose one of them cracks and breaks and the oil hits a hot turbine
element and it ignites. What protection is there for that? Are these oil lines double
sized, doubled cases oil lines?
Mr. Peer— They are not doubled cased. They are designed for 150 psi and the working
pressure is about 50. So its fully welded joints and we wouldn't route them over a
turbine.
27
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Niefer— I kind of gather from the material that you submitted that the...(not
audible)...
Mr. Peer— Let me address the sprinkler part because I think that it what you are asking.
I have had some...since we've submitted this variance regarding the sprinklers on the
plant addition itself, I have had some more discussion with Kristi Rice, who's the Code
Enforcement Official, and also Tom Parsons, the Fire Marshall, and at this time we don't
think that a variance is required on the sprinkler system because we will have a code
compliant sprinkler system, which would be optimized to protect areas that need to be
protected and not have them if it would provide...if it would be some sort of detriment.
So our plan is to design that system. Review it with both Kristi Rice and Tom Parsons
for compliance before it's submitted as part of its own building permit.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So you are withdrawing the entire sprinkler variance? Even
for the chilling?
Mr. Peer— The condenser building, yeah, we would like to maintain that sprinkler
variance for that.
Chairperson Sigel — For tonight?
Mr. Peer— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel — But for the main building you are withdrawing that for now?
Mr. Peer— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel —And hoping that you won't need any variance?
Mr. Peer— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Ellsworth — Regarding the sprinkler...I don't know if all the board members read this
letter from Tom Parsons, which was brought over before the meeting, and he says he
doesn't have a problem with no sprinklers in the condenser building due to the materials
and so on.
Chairperson Sigel —And that's the only portion that they are now requesting.
Mr. Ellsworth — Right.
Mr. Peer— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel —And also Kristi expressed essentially the same. She expressed
support for that portion of the project.
28
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Peer— Now I've...if we can keep them a little bit discrete when we want to talk
about the height, I have some additional material to show you why the...what is driving
the height of this facility.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Ellsworth — I think it is shown right there.
Mr. Peer— I can show you what is inside it, Harry, if you would like to see that.
Mr. Ellsworth — No, I'm pretty familiar with what's already there.
Mr. Peer—Would the rest of the board like to see what's driving the height?
Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. Go ahead.
Mr. Peer— I do have some photo simulations. Would you like to see those?
Chairperson Sigel — Yeah.
Mr. Peer— Okay. Let's bring up the first one there at the corner of Hoy Road and Route
366. And what it does...I have some photo simulations that goes around the peripheral
of the site so you can see what the height visual impacts are. So this is at the...I didn't
bring the before and after, I just brought the after. I hope that that's okay. So this is at
the corner of Hoy Road and Route 366 looking back towards the southeast at the
existing Humphreys Service Building and you see the existing stacks for this central
heating plant and just behind the Pine Tree that Steve is pointing to are the two new
stacks and you can see the top of the air intake plenum just behind there also. Okay?
So we go around in a circle back to Maple Ave looking back towards the north. This is
at the edge of the parking lot on Maple Ave looking back into the facility. Again the
stacks are visible and also the top of the facility, which is their intake plenum portion.
Okay? Going a little bit further down Maple Ave and looking back towards the
northwest only the stacks will be visible. And in there, I would also point out in that area
there are a number of utility infrastructure. The Ithaca primary substation is located
there, the university primary substation and the...also the central heating plant. Looking
towards the west from the inner...at the beginning of the East Ithaca Recreation Way
this would be on the west side of Pine Tree Road. Looking back at the plant you can
see just the tips of the stacks are visible. Okay? Right there. Yes. And up on Kite Hill,
looking towards the south is probably the most...the largest visual impact. You can see
it there behind the heating plant. Okay?
The site behind the heating plant was... I wouldn't say carefully chosen, but we
didn't have a lot of options because the main steam lines all come from this heating
plant. This is the primary source of the steam needs for the university so building this
plant in another area wasn't much of an option because we have existing staff there; we
29
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
have existing support equipment that is already in the plant that made this the optimum
choice, but we could have put it in front of the plant on Route 366 side or behind the
plant which is in a small depression, essentially built into the hill behind the plant. And
that was good for a number of reasons. Number 1 it minimized the visual impacts.
So what is driving the height of this facility is the equipment that is housed within
it. Primarily the heat recovery steam generator itself. So this little enclosure here is
where the combustion turbine is housed inside this enclosure. And in this device here is
the piece of equipment is the heat recovery steam generator. Thank you, Steve. So
the main roof line here is being driven by the drum height for the high pressure drum.
This is a dual pressure system that has both a high pressure and a low pressure steam
generating element. So that dictates the height of the roof line for the main part of the
plant expansion. And that drum height is about 36 feet off the ground and then you
need some clearance for piping and maintenance. And on top of the facility is the air
intake plenum. And it is pretty full of the equipment and there is intake filtration. There
is inlet air cooling chill element. Is there anything else you want to point out associated
with that? So this is a section cut through the building longitudinally and we also have a
section cut...tell you what, why don't I just peel them off or you can hold it (talking to Mr.
Beyers). Here is a sectional cut through the width of the building so you can a feel for
the size of the equipment and the other supporting devices that go with it. So it's
packed in there pretty tight.
Mr. Mountin —Will a system like this have a scrubber?
Mr. Peer— I'm sorry?
Mr. Mountin —Will a system like this have scrubbers for cleaning emissions or is the
system...?
Mr. Peer— It has environmental controls for carbon monoxide and NOx, but it doesn't
have scrubbers like you might see on a coal fired power plant that have very high sulfur
content or particulate content.
Mr. Niefer— I noticed that there are some bag fillers there in some of the schematics.
Are they for the existing plant?
Mr. Peer— Yes. They are for the coal based generation.
Mr. Niefer—Are you doing any changes in that area?
Mr. Peer— No.
Mr. Niefer— They are just going to continue to operate the way they have in the past?
Mr. Peer— Except they'll operate less. There is one old base boiler that will be retired.
You may not be aware but before this project the oil capability in the plant was 6 oil,
30
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
which is sometimes known as bumper C or it's a heavy residual oil and we converted
this system this summer with another project and went to ultra low sulfur diesel. So
that's the cleanest oil based fuel available. Okay? I also have here a...
Mr. Mountin — Can you burn veggie oil in that, too?
Mr. Peer— That's a great question. ...(not audible)...fuel capability is very expensive
and the reliability of the gas system because we are building our own gas line and going
directly to the interstate is very high. So justifying the cost just for an emergency fuel
was very difficult. However, by having liquid fuel capability on the project that gives us a
true biofuel option in the future.
Mr. Mountin — Great.
Mr. Peer— So that is essentially the reason why it got built is hopeful that there will be a
cost effective option available that can further reduce emissions.
Mr. Mountin — There's a lot of fryers on campus.
[laughing]
Mr. Peer— So this is just a...it's very confusing. It is sort of a 3-D view of all of the
equipment inside the facility with the shell taken off. And the only point we wanted to
make here is, you know, it's like a typical power plant. We put it in as tightly as we can
and we have done everything possible to reduce both the footprint and the height of this
facility.
Mr. Ellsworth —What is the approximate project cost? 65 million or what?
Mr. Peer—About 80 million.
Mr. Niefer—Who did the engineering for this project?
Mr. Peer— GIE Niagara. They are out of St. Catherine's, Ontario. It's the same firm
that we used for Lake Source cooling and they do a number of our utility projects here
on campus. Now there's a couple of other elements, the stacks, for instance. Just
bring this back. The stacks associated with it are quite high and the height of those
stacks is dictated by a dispersion analysis and the permitting process by which the
Department of Environmental Conservation approves this project. So that was a rather
complicated modeling effort and that is a permitted height by the DEC.
Mr. Ellsworth — Is that a metal stack?
Mr. Peer— Yes. Now there's two smaller stacks shown here because there are a pair of
emergency diesel generators, 1000 kilowatts each. Those two generators are for black
star capability of the facility. So if the entire grid went black and these combustion
31
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
turbines tripped off, you need a power source to restart it. So there's a pair of
emergency diesel generators to restart the plant. So once the plant's restarted then you
would shut them off and they are also permitted by the DEC with fairly limited run hours.
Is there anything else you want to point out (directed as Mr. Beyers)?
Mr. Mountin — So this is all thermal? So your cooling will still come from the lake?
Mr. Peer— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel —And so the two emergency diesel generators, they, I assume, will
normally only run as part of the ongoing testing of them and...
Mr. Peer— They will run probably weekly for a test and then other than that they would
only run in an emergency situation. That's what they are permitted for.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any other...?
Mr. Mountin —Will you be giving any tours when it's done? When I was in college I
used to be a power plant tour guide.
Mr. Peer—Absolutely. We actually do a fair amount of tours now. We try to support the
education mission and with the engineering college, you know, that's now a thermal
energy program at Cornell, but there is a lot of interest for some of the basic
undergraduate course work in thermal dynamics or heat transfer, so we do a fair
amount.
I didn't say, but there is a smaller element to the facility on the side here. There
is a small office addition. The staff have a locker room and office space that's in the
middle of the central heating plant now and it's drastically inadequate for their needs.
So we are going to build some new locker room for the staff. We are going to build
some decent locker rooms for female staff and then have some new office space for the
management crew.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay so...so there is the portion that has approximately 67 foot
height.
Mr. Peer— Yes. That is the main plant expansion.
Chairperson Sigel — The main...yeah.
Mr. Peer— Yup, defined from the 847 elevation.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And then is the condenser that is the 4o...approximately 40
feet?
32
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Peer— Yes. We did...I didn't bring a panel for the condenser building; however, we
did submit an elevation in the packet. I would just like to point out there that it is sort of
hard to pick out because it is shown in the context of some existing facilities there and
the condenser building is this...is it on.
Ms. Balestra — It should be on.
Mr. Peer— Okay. The condenser building itself is this little, this one facility right here.
That's shown there. So it is lower in height than the existing facilities around it.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any other questions? All right. We will open the public
hearing (8:16 p.m.). There being no one present wishing to speak, I will close the public
hearing (8:16 p.m.). I'll make a motion for both of the height requests at the same time,
Susan?
Ms. Brock— Yeah. That's fine.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Then we'll deal with the sprinkler...
Ms. Brock - ...separately.
Mr. Peer— Excuse me. Can I ask a question please?
Chairperson Sigel — Sure.
Mr. Peer— Do the different components need to be...will they be specifically addressed
in the resolution?
Chairperson Sigel — Yeah.
Mr. Peer— Like the stacks separately from the building expansion and the condenser
building and...?
Chairperson Sigel —Well, I was going to make a motion for the two height variances
that you are requesting for the two different buildings and then deal with the sprinkler
variances as a completely separate...
Mr. Peer— I'm sorry. I was asking the stacks.
Chairperson Sigel — The stacks?
Mr. Peer— They don't require a height variance? Okay.
Ms. Brock— My understanding is the new taller stacks are located in the City so we
wouldn't have jurisdiction over that any way. And my understanding was that they meet
the City requirements.
33
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Peer— Yes. They do.
Ms. Brock— The lower stacks that you just pointed out, do you know those heights?
And where are they located?
Mr. Ellsworth — The generator stacks?
Ms. Balestra — Those are in the City as well.
Mr. Peer— No. The emergency diesel generator...they are in the Town.
Ms. Brock— They are in the Town. Do you know their heights?
Mr. Peer— They are 10 feet higher than the 67 feet we've asked for. So they would be
77 feet. If defined at that same base elevation, they are at a...
Ms. Brock— Those aren't before us for a variance.
Mr. Walker— No. I think they are exempt.
Mr. Peer— They are mentioned on page 2 of 3 of the first narrative analysis, reasons to
approve, exhibit A.
Ms. Balestra — Jonathan mentioned those stacks in his memo and he talks about the
two new 6-foot diameter exhaust stacks will extend from the roof of the facility that will
extend about 165 feet above the base elevation of the addition. And those are the ones
that are in the City.
Chairperson Sigel — Right. Which are not the diesel generator...
Ms. Balestra — Oh, right. Sorry.
Mr. Peer— On page 2 of 3 of exhibit A, on the second to last paragraph, we mention
those and we also mention they were 10 feet above the building.
Ms. Balestra —Yeah, we didn't address that in our...
Ms. Brock— Did you apply for variances for those? Let's see. They weren't advertised
so...
Mr. Peer— They were not advertised clearly up front as they could have been.
Ms. Brock— No. I'm saying the Town didn't advertise variances for those emergency
generator stacks, so I don't... but its possible...we'll need to look and see. You may not
need a variance. They might be permitted, but if their not, this board could not grant a
34
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
variance tonight for those because the Town didn't advertise this matter as including
those stacks. That's the issue. Since the Town cannot act on that tonight. While don't
we go ahead and proceed with the variance considerations that were advertised and
then before the meeting concludes perhaps we can give them more direction on the
stacks.
Chairperson Sigel — Yeah...(not audible)...if it's treated like a chimney.
Ms. Brock— Right. Exactly. That's what we'll need to look at. Why don't we proceed
with the variance for the main addition and for the condenser building?
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Ellsworth — Even though it was described in their narrative?
Chairperson Sigel — The question is on the actual Town advertisement. You know, its
10 feet above what was advertised as the height. So in theory someone could argue
that they have a major problem with that extra 10 feet.
Mr. Peer— Susan, we just, on the first page of the narrative on the items we listed for
the variance. The first one being the sprinkler, the second one being to construct a
building of approximately 67 feet total in height. The last sentence of item 2 says as
discussed here and the building also includes chimneys with greater heights. Our intent
there was...so we may not...we were not as clear as we should have been.
Ms. Brock— I'm not trying to assign blame to anybody. All I know is that when this was
advertised...that we did not advertise the variances including that, right? So that is our
issue.
Mr. Peer— If it requires a variance then we will come back.
Ms. Brock— It is possible that you had intended and actually had language in there to
do that, but we didn't advertise that way. So that...as I said we will look and see
whether in fact you need a height variance for that. There are certain exceptions for
chimneys and stacks and that is what we will need to look at. I don't want to do that at
this moment. I think I need to listen...
Mr. Peer— Understood.
Ms. Brock - ...to what Kirk is about to do with the variance request we did advertise and
then before you leave we will try to look at the Code and see what needs to be done
with the stacks, if anything.
Ms. Balestra — Might I just add, Town staff did not advertise it because we under the
impression they would be exempt; that they wouldn't the height variance.
35
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Chairperson Sigel – For those chimneys. Okay. I'll just point out, I'm sure you all
realize that this received coordinated environmental review by the State, actually in this
case, who made a negative declaration so we don't have to deal with that or do
anything with that.
Ms. Brock– Right. SEAR is complete on this. So it's not that you don't have to do
anything, but actually you can't.
Chairperson Sigel – Thank you. Okay. So I will move to grant the appeal of Cornell
University requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII,
Section 270-59 and Chapter 270, Article XIX, Section 270-148 to be permitted to
construct additions to the Cornell University Combined Heat and Power Plant located to
the south of the central heating plant on Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
Numbers 63.-1-5, 63.-1-18.1, and 63.-1-8.2. 1 assume I don't need to mention the City
tax parcels. Which are in the Light Industrial and Low Density Residential Zones? The
proposal includes an 18,000 square foot main addition to house 2 combustion turbine
generators and a 1300 square foot air cooled condenser building, an employee's
support addition, 2 new emergency diesel generators, an aqueous ammonia storage
facility and other site improvements. The main addition at approximately 67 feet tall and
the condenser building at approximately 40 feet both exceed the 36 foot maximum
permitted height from the lowest exterior grade and 38 foot maximum permitted height
from the lowest interior grade for structures in LDR and LI zones. Okay with the
following conditions: that the height of the main building not exceed 69 feet and that the
height of the condenser building not exceed 42 feet. Any other conditions you would
suggest, Susan?
Ms. Brock–Are these heights measured from lowest interior grade or lowest exterior
grade?
Chairperson Sigel – From lowest exterior grade, I'm assuming that these
measurements...
Mr. Peer– Yes. The air cooled condenser is pretty straightforward because that's
sitting in a parking area. So that one is fairly well defined. The expansion to the plant—
the plant itself actually goes to another lower elevation. So we are defining that at the
847 elevation, which would be the entrance to this addition, the lower level. The lowest
level.
Chairperson Sigel – So this is actually connecting to the existing building and becoming
a part of that building?
Mr. Peer– Yes.
Mr. Ellsworth – The existing heating plant?
Mr. Peer– Yes.
36
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so then we would need...
Ms. Brock— So the addition to the main building rather than the main building itself.
Chairperson Sigel —We could still try to word it so that we take the measurement from
they are intending. If they make it all one building then it would normally measure from
the lowest grade where it abuts any part of the building, which it sounds like there are
points in the existing building which are lower.
Mr. Walker— Kirk, can I make a suggestion? You know the elevation of the roof, right?
Mr. Peer— Yes.
Mr. Walker— So why don't we just base it that they won't exceed a certain elevation?
Mr. Peer— That would make it easiest.
Chairperson Sigel — That would make sense, yeah. What would the elevation be?
Mr. Peer— That is approximately 914 so if you could make it 915 that would be great.
Chairperson Sigel — 915 feet above sea feet above sea level.
Mr. Peer— Yes.
Ms. Brock— So are you replacing the condition that the height not exceed 69 feet with a
condition that the elevation of the roof of the main building addition not exceed an
elevation of 915 feet?
Chairperson Sigel — Yes. Okay. Everyone comfortable with that?
Board implies it is comfortable.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And I can't think of any other condition because everything
is so well constrained here. Okay and with the following findings that the benefit to the
applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
community. Specifically 1) that the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be
achieved by any other means feasible given that the equipment that they need to install
requires a certain height building to contain it 2) that there will not be an undesirable
change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties for the reasons stated in
the negative declaration of environmental significance prepared by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation 3) that finding that the request is substantial
but is mitigated by the positive aspects of the project 4) that the request will not have
adverse physical or environmental affects, again for reasons stated in the negative
declaration prepared by the New York State DEC and 5) that the alleged difficulty is
37
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
self-created given that the applicant has chosen to build this project in this location, but
again the benefits that the project will yield to Cornell and the community outweigh any
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Second?
Mr. Mountin — Second.
Board —Aye.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-006: Area Variance, Cornell University, Dryden Road,
Tax Parcel Numbers 63.4-5, 63.4-8.1, 63.4-8.2
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by David Mountin.
RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Cornell University requesting variances
from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59 and Chapter 270,
Article XIX, Section 270-148 to be permitted to construct additions to the Cornell
University Combined Heat and Power Plant located to the south of the central heating
plant on Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Numbers 63.-1-5, 63.-1-18.1, and
63.-1-8.2. Which are in the Light Industrial and Low Density Residential Zones. The
proposal includes an 18,000 square foot main addition to house 2 combustion turbine
generators and a 1300 square foot air cooled condenser building, an employee's
support addition, 2 new emergency diesel generators, an aqueous ammonia storage
facility and other site improvements. The main addition at approximately 67 feet tall and
the condenser building at approximately 40 feet both exceed the 36 foot maximum
permitted height from the lowest exterior grade and 38 foot maximum permitted height
from the lowest interior grade for structures in LDR and LI zones. With the following--
Condition-
ollowing:Condition:
That the elevation of the roof of the main building addition not exceed an elevation of
915 feet and that the height of the condenser building not exceed 42 feet.
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community. Specifically.
1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other
means feasible given that the equipment that they need to install requires a
certain height building to contain it,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties for the reasons stated in the negative declaration of
38
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
environmental significance prepared by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation,
3. That finding that the request is substantial but is mitigated by the positive aspects
of the project,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects, again
for reasons stated in the negative declaration prepared by the New York State
DEC, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created given that the applicant has chosen to
build this project in this location, but again the benefits that the project will yield to
Cornell and the community outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Krantz.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And so then you are further seeking the sprinkler variance
for the condenser building. Okay. And Mr. Parsons from the City offers his support for
this variance as does Kristie Rice. Do you have the criteria for that?
Ms. Brock— I was about to get that.
Chairperson Sigel — I never seem to have that.
Ms. Brock— I'll read them for the board. The board can grant a sprinkler variance when
the board has found 1) the application of the strict letter of this chapter would create a
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship for the applicant and 2) the omission of an
approved sprinkler system from all or part of a building will not significantly jeopardize
human life.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Is it the case...did you state that having a sprinkler system
in the condenser building would also be, actually be a danger as far as the water
hitting...
Mr. Peer— Right. There is live steam lines and electrical equipment is all that will be in
it.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
Mr. Ellsworth —Yeah, but they are all insulated.
39
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Peer— They are insulated, however Harry, we find from time to time that the
insulation gets left off so we can't count on it to provide waterproofing.
Mr. Ellsworth — That cuts down your efficiency then.
Mr. Peer— It does. Absolutely, but the ongoing maintenance we find that keeping
everything well-insulated can be a lot of work.
Chairperson Sigel - Okay. I will move to grant the appeal of Cornell University
requesting a variance from Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to
construct the condenser building without the insulation of a Town required sprinkler
system. With the findings that the requirements for a sprinkler variance have been met.
Specifically that the application of the strict letter of this chapter would create a practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship for the applicant, specifically that the equipment
inside of this building could possibly be damaged even by a sprinkler system and 2)
finding that the omission of an approved sprinkler system for all or part of this building
will not significantly jeopardize human life given that it is a building that is not normally
occupied except for purposes of maintenance. With a further finding that Mr. Thomas
Parsons of the City of Ithaca Fire Department has written a letter to this board
expressing his support for this variance.
Mr. Ellsworth — He's the Fire Marshall.
Chairperson Sigel — Yes, Fire Marshall of the City of Ithaca. With another finding that
Kristie Rice, Senior Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Ithaca has expressed
support for the granting of this variance.
Mr. Ellsworth —We also have a letter from their insurance agency.
Chairperson Sigel —And that we further have a letter from Cornell's insurance agency
expressing support for the omission of a sprinkler variance...or I'm sorry of a sprinkler
system.
Mr. Walker— I don't believe the letter actually says that from the insurance company.
Mr. Peer— Not specifically for the condenser building it does not.
Mr. Walker— I don't think it even addressed the condenser building.
Mr. Peer— No. It does not.
Mr. Walker— It was only the...and they talked about noncombustible surfaces and
things like that. I think the only thing you can say is that the building is primarily
constructed of...the condenser building is primarily constructed of noncombustible
materials.
40
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Peer— That's right and our fire protection we will review with our FM Global, our
insurer.
Mr. Walker—And you will provide some kind of fire detection system.
Mr. Peer— Yes.
Chairperson Sigel — I will strike my finding regarding the applicant's insurance company.
Replace it with the finding that the building is constructed primarily of noncombustible
materials.
Mr. Walker—And that they will provide a fire detection system.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And that the applicant will be installing a fire detection
system. Okay. Questions?
Mr. Mountin — Second.
Chairperson Sigel — Oh, second.
Ms. Brock— On the first finding, practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Your
finding was that they have equipment that could be damaged if the sprinkler system
went off, but really many, many applicants could make that argument that if you know a
computer system could be damaged or anything like that. Is there a stronger finding
you could make as to actual danger if...?
Chairperson Sigel —Well the applicant claims that it is actually a dangerous situation.
Mr. Peer— It is a potential health and safety issue associated with putting water on live
steam lines and damage to our equipment has consequential damages associated with
it because we do provide the heating needs for the entire university so the reliability,
overall reliability of this facility has other issues associated with it. So it's a little bit
stronger claim in terms of damaging equipment I think because if we can't provide heat
for the 14 million square feet on campus because some equipment got damaged, there
are other human health and safety issues associated with that.
Chairperson Sigel — I feel comfortable adding that there is a danger with having water
hitting the steam pipes as a specific and practical difficulty so I will add that to the
finding. Thank you. Second on the amended motion?
Mr. Mountin — Second.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. All in favor?
Board —Aye.
41
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-007: Sprinkler Variance, Cornell University, Dryden
Road, Tax Parcel Numbers 63.4-5, 63.4-8.1, 63.4-8.2
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by David Mountin.
RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Cornell University requesting a variance
from Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct the
condenser building without the insulation of a Town required sprinkler system. With the
following-
Findings-
That
ollowing:Findings:That the requirements for a sprinkler variance have been met. Specifically.
1. That the application of the strict letter of this chapter would create a practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship for the applicant, specifically that the
equipment inside of this building could possibly be damaged even by a sprinkler
system,
2. That there is a danger with having water hitting the steam pipes as a specific and
practical difficulty,
3. That the omission of an approved sprinkler system for all or part of this building
will not significantly jeopardize human life given that it is a building that is not
normally occupied except for purposes of maintenance,
4. That Mr. Thomas Parsons, Fire Marshal of the City of Ithaca Fire Department,
has written a letter to this board expressing his support for this variance,
5. That Kristie Rice, Senior Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Ithaca has
expressed support for the granting of this variance,
6. That the building is constructed primarily of noncombustible materials,
7. That the applicant will be installing a fire detection system.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Krantz.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay.
42
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Mr. Peer– I just wanted to add one more thought because—thank you for your time. I
appreciate that and your consideration. Susan did note that the main stacks are in the
City and I didn't show it on the site plan here, but the site plan in your packet...I don't
know if you noticed, but the municipal boundary goes right through the project with the
majority of it being in the Town. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that. So we
did do a site plan approval with the City also.
Chairperson Sigel –And what we would like to do with your request for the sprinkler
variance for the main building is adjourn the appeal.
Mr. Peer–Adjourn it. Yes. We will have a code compliant fire protection system that
will be reviewed with the code officer and the fire marshal.
Chairperson Sigel –And if you then don't need a variance you can simply not come
back, but if you do for some reason then we can reopen the appeal.
Mr. Peer– Yes. We will rely on their interpretation to decide if we think a variance is
necessary.
Chairperson Sigel – So I will move in regard to the appeal of Cornell University
requesting a sprinkler variance for the main CCHPP building that we adjourn the appeal
until such time as the applicant returns with a revised plan.
Ms. Brock– I would just amend that to say adjourn the appeal at the request of the
applicant.
Chairperson Sigel –At the request of the applicant.
Ms. Brock–With the rest of the language that you then said.
Chairperson Sigel – Second?
Mr. Niefer– Second.
Chairperson Sigel –All in favor?
Board –Aye.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-008: Adjournment of Sprinkler Variance, Cornell
University, Dryden Road, Tax Parcel Numbers 63.4-5, 63.4-8.1, 63.4-8.2
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by James Niefer.
RESOLVED, that this board adjourn the appeal of Cornell University, requesting a
sprinkler variance for the main CCHPP building, until such time as the applicant returns
with a revised plan at the request of the applicant.
43
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Krantz.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Ms. Brock—And as far as those other 2 chimneys...so Chris, the Planning staff talked
about whether those would need a variance and determined that they didn't because of
the definition of height? So...
Mr. Walker— The height definition excludes chimneys and other similar...
Ms. Balestra —Yeah, Planning staff considered that a similar protuberance.
Chairperson Sigel — I'm not sure where we would draw the line. I mean a 200 foot stack
we wouldn't...
Mr. Walker— That wasn't...the impact of that was covered under the site plan review, I
believe, by the Planning Board and then the stacks and so on, but again I think the
definition here is pretty clear to me any how. They're chimneys.
Ms. Brock—All right. So I guess at this point we are not considering that there is any
request for a variance for those before us, perhaps because they aren't needed and
so...
Mr. Peer— That's fine...
Ms. Brock— So that's how we will leave it for right now. Okay? If in fact we are
informed otherwise we will let you know.
Mr. Peer—All right. Thank you.
2008 Meeting Schedule
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. We need to approve the remainder of our meeting schedule.
Mr. Niefer— So moved.
Chairperson Sigel — Second?
Mr. Mountin — Second.
Chairperson Sigel —All in favor?
44
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Board —Aye.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. That's taken care of.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-009: Town of Ithaca Zonin_g Board of Appeals,
Schedule of Meetings for the Year 2008
Motion by James Niefer, Seconded by David Mountin
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca adopts the
following schedule of meetings for the Zoning Board for 2008.
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals will meet at 7:00 p.m. on the third Monday
of the month in the Town Board Room in Town of Ithaca Town Hall, unless otherwise
noted. The first Monday of the month will be reserved as an optional meeting date on
an as needed basis only.
THE 2008 SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS:
January 28, 2008 July 21, 2008
February 25, 2008 August 18, 2008
March 17, 2008 September 15, 2008
April 21, 2008 October 27, 2008
May 19, 2008 November 17, 2008
June 16, 2008 December 15, 2008
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Krantz.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
2008 Vice-Chairperson
Chairperson Sigel — Okay and we need to elect a vice-chairman. Would Mr. Ellsworth
like to continue in that role?
Mr. Ellsworth — Sure.
45
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Chairperson Sigel — Or be willing to?
Mr. Ellsworth —Yeah.
Mr. Mountin — I'll second that.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I'll move it and David seconds that we have Harry Ellsworth.
All in favor?
Board —Aye.
Chairperson Sigel —All right. Okay. Any other business? No.
Mr. Niefer— I will not be at the next meeting.
Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Good to know.
Brief discussion about attendance at next meeting.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-010: Nomination and Election, Zoning Board
Vice Chairperson 2008
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by David Mountin.
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals does hereby nominate
and elect Harry Ellsworth as Vice Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
year 2008.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board.
Vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Krantz.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Adjournment
Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m.
Kirk Sigel, Carrie Coates Whitmore,
46
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 28, 2008
Approved Minutes
Chairperson First Deputy Town Clerk
47