Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1986-05-14 i FILE® TOWN Of ITHACA Date • � 8 8 Clerk m • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS '. MAY 14 , 1986 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , May 14 , 1986 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward N . Austen , Edward W . King , Jack D . Hewett , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , John C . Barney , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Richard P . Ruswick , Esq . ( Town Attorney ' s Office ) , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary . ALSO PRESENT : David B . Collum , Attorney Shirley K . Egan , Attorney L . Richard Stumbar , Suzanne Hecht , Gary N . James , Audrey R . Geiselmann , Harrison Geiselmann , Laing E . Kennedy , Joan Sabin , Lanie Wilmarth , Alice B . Johnson , Warren T . Johnson , Carolyn Koch , Hedwig . M . Grant , Susan Schell , William F . Millier , Sylvia G . Wahl , Jaime Hecht , Robert H . Wahl , Timothy Martin , Eric F . Dicke , Joan Carlson , Merritt E . Hartz , Robert G . Bland , Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 05 p . m . and • accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on May 6 , 1986 , and May 9 , 1986 , respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the properties under discussion , as appropriate , upon the Clerk of the Town of Dryden , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants and / or Agent , as appropriate , on May 8 , 1986 . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM APRIL . 16 , 1986 ) OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , ERIC F . DICKE , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDOOR EQUITATION ARENA HAVING A HEIGHT GREATER THAN 30 FEET AND REQUIRING SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , ON BLUEGRASS LANE OFF HANSHAW ROAD , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 69 - 1 - 1 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 4 , ARTICLE V . SECTION 16 , AND ARTICLE XIV , . SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF I: THACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared Board consideration of the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 06 p . m . and pointed out that the Public Hearing in the matter had been closed at 10 : 15 p . m . at the last meeting on the subject which was on April 16th . Mr . Eric F . Dicke , Cornell Architect was present , as was Mr . Laing E . Kennedy , Director of Athletics , Cornell University . • Attorney L . Richard Stumbar approached the Board and stated that he was appearing on behalf of an ad hoc neighborhood committee with Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - May 14 , 1986 • respect to this proposed development . Attorney Stumbar stated that he believed the Board does not have jurisdiction over this matter and that he would raise the following objections . Attorney Stumbar stated that , first , to his knowledge and investigations over the past week , the matter before the Board at this time concerning the Cornell University Polo Arena was not referred to the County Planning Board under Section 239 -m of the General Municipal Law , Attorney Stumbar stated that , according to his investigations , a notice was sent to the County Commissioner of Planning , Frank Liguori , that is , the same notice sent to the neighbors , however , under Section 239 - m , the County Planning Board , in a project such as this fronting 500 feet on a County road , in this case , Hanshaw Road , when there is such a situation existent such as that , the matter needs to go first to the County Planning Board and with materials as set forth under Section 239 -m . Attorney Stumbar stated that , under Section 239 -m , all the materials submitted as part of the application by Cornell University are required to go to the County Planning Board which has 30 days to act or not act on that issue . Attorney Stumbar stated that , as part of their investigation , he believed that what was sent to the County was such that they were not able to act and , so , the Town Board of Appeals cannot act without such a referral . Attorney Stumbar stated that this would , of course , be a decision by the Town Attorney , and he could not give the Board a legal decision , however , he thought the law was pretty clear . Attorney Stumbar stated that he would ask that the Board adjourn the matter because it has no jurisdiction . • Chairman Aron asked if what Attorney Stumbar was alluding to was that before coming to the Town Planning Board , the County Planning Board would have to make a response . Attorney Stumbar responded that the County Planning Board has to have materials , they do not necessarily have to act . Attorney Stumbar , commenting that as City Attorney he has seen that they do not in reality respond , but , unless one jumps through that hoop , the Board has no jurisdiction since this is within 500 feet of a County road - - Hanshaw Road . Chairman Aron , commenting that Attorney Stumbar appeared to be saying that property should not go up within 500 feet of that road , asked Attorney Stumbar if that were what he was saying . Attorney Stumbar replied that he was saying that if a project is within 500 feet of a County road , or less , it has to go the County Planning Board , adding that , certainly , there is no question that this building is within 500 feet of a County road . Attorney Stumbar stated that he was asking that this Board refer this matter back to the County Planning Board , adding that , for the Board to act at this time would be without the legal process because of the lack of jurisdiction . Attorney Stumbar stated that , bearing in mind this question , he would like to go on and speak to procedural problems having to do with three issues that mandate returning the matter to the Town Planning Board , Attorney Stumbar stated that one of those has to do with misstatements and incompleteness in Part I of the EAF . Attorney Stumbar stated that , procedurally speaking , with respect to some of • these errors , he will have to rely on the good graces of the Board to open up the hearing on the environmental review . Attorney Stumbar stated that he would request of the Chairman , noting that the Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - May 14 , 1986 • has mentioned that the public hearing was closed , however , we are at a public meeting , and he had read the Minutes of the April. 16th meeting quite closely . Attorney Stumbar stated that the public hearing was opened by the Chairman and closed on the EAF , again , there was not a public hearing on the special permit or review . Attorney Stumbar stated that he thought when the Chairman said that the public hearing was closed , there was a public hearing only with respect to the EAF , although there was no question that it kind of wandered into other areas , the Chairman specifically said " on the EAF " . Attorney Stumbar noted that the question is , if in fact it is not closed , or the matter has not been heard on the issues surrounding the special permit or the variance with respect to height , he thought they have an unlimited opportunity to , within reason , be heard . Attorney Stumbar stated that , with respect to the EAF hearing , they do believe that they have some new evidence , commenting that the neighborhood was at a disadvantage when it appeared a month ago . Attorney Stumbar noted that the scope of the review is within the Cornell University neighborhood but not what Cornell was given to say about the scope or type of considerations . Attorney Stumbar stated that , in fact , after the hearing and after research , a lot of the statements made by Cornell both in the EAF and at the hearing , were not in any regard complete , adding that they have put together many errors in the EAF , some of which were pointed out at the hearing and some of which they have found out only since , particularly on the • scope of the project . Attorney Stutbar stated that he had evidence to present which indicates the actual number of polo games and the number of practices , adding that they can show that the scope IS many times greater than what the Board was lead to believe at the initial hearing . Attorney Stumbar stated that other evidence he has will indicate Cornell ' s inability to handle horse waste on site - - horse manure on the fields rotting and decaying , in spite of the best processes available . Attorney Stumbar stated that history will show that they have not been able to do that at Equine Research , therefore , they cannot do it here . Attorney Stumbar stated -that he has a list of errors which will be attested to , and with the Chairman ' s consent , will be entered into the record , adding that it is , therefore , important to refer the matter back to the Planning Board for re - review based on this new information with respect to the EAF , particularly on the scope of the use , which would require reconsideration by the Planning Board . Attorney Stumbar stated the second issue which he had previously mentioned , having to do with going back to the Town Planning Board , concerns changes in scope of the project . Attorney Stumbar stated tht the Planning Board referred this project to the Zoning Board of Appeals with certain recommendation and certain findings , thus , if the scope is changed they would have to reconsider those . Attorney Stumbar stated that they do have evidence that the scope has changed requiring reconsideration by the Planning Board . Attorney Stumbar stated that two areas that they show a change are - - bigger stables • than what was presented to the Planning Board , and , the other being something they just found out about this week which is that the engineer working on the project this week indicates a new access road Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - May 14 , 1986 • change with Bluegrass Lane changed from the access . Attorney Stumbar stated that they believe that is significant , adding that that and the change in stables would require that the matter go back to the Town Planning Board , Attorney Stumbar noted that this is all in addition to the matter of jurisdiction . Attorney Stumbar stated that if the Board does find it has jurisdiction , he would like to present evidence under the Zoning Ordinance , Section 77 , with respect to paragraphs c , d , and f , which would show that this proposal is seriously offensive to the neighbors in the devaluating of property and in its general effect on the community as a whole which would increase the traffic load , adding that the building is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood . Attorney Stumbar stated that all of these things abide here and are important to the giving to Cornell of a license for this particular use . Continuing , Attorney Stumbar stated that there is no need for this project in this particular location , adding that , internally , one of the Cornell University people was asking to move it closer to Freese Road , Attorney Stumbar stated that there are other locations also , not just this one , which would be suitable and not impactful on the neighborhood , which were not considered by Cornell , although at the last hearing it was indicated that the Freese Road side was too steep , however , their analysis shows it to be less steep than presented , that is , a gradient of approximately 10 feet over 500 feet , and , the project is now on a gradient more than that . Attorney Stumbar commented that the upshot of this and the reason why Cornell finds it necessary to go through with this is called a boot - strapping • arrangement , and added that Cornell has put thousands of dollars in this rather than in proper investigation , and , with this much money spent there is , therefore , hardship , resulting in this being bootstrapped into that location , and they have evidence that will show that . In conclusion , Attorney Stumbar stated that they were asking rulings on their requests . Chairman Aron addressed Town Attorney Barney and stated that the question was whether or not the County Planning Board has been properly notified and whether or not the County Planning Board has made their recommendations to the Town Planning Board . Chairman Aron asked if Town Attorney Barney could counsel the Board on this matter . Town Attorney Barney stated that , out of the blue , he would say that the County Planning Board has thirty days to comment, or they have indicated that they are not going to comment . Town Attorney Barney stated that he did not think anything stops the Board of Appeals from hearing the matter subject to his looking at that , adding that he could not really answer that legal question at this moment . Chairman Aron wondered , if they have had that opportunity , would they not have replied . Town Attorney Barney offered that he could not say if the public notice is sufficient , however , his recommendation would be to go ahead and hold the public hearing and hold decision in abeyance until he could advise the Board more intelligently . Mr . King asked the Secretary what had been sent to the County • Commissioner of Planning , with Mrs . Fuller responding that , to her knowledge , notification was sent in the usual manner . Mr . King stated that he thought the Board should take its Counsel ' s recommendation and Zoning Board of Appeals - 5 - May 14 , 1986 • proceed with the Hearing and take whatever information the Board wants to consider , based on Counsel ' s recommendation . Mrs . Reuning wondered about the changes and the statement that it should go back to the Planning Board before this Board :hears it , and asked if there were some validity to what Attorney Stumbar suggested . Continuing , Mrs . Reuning asked if the Planning Board has seen this new drawing since March 4 , 1986 , and pointed out that the Planning Board , on March 4th , had " resolved " , among other things , " That minor site changes , such as rotation of planned buildings , which do not increase the scope , scale or extent of the facility will not require further site plan review . " Town Attorney Barney offered that he thought it is something for the Board to decide whether this change , which staff decided was not a significant change increasing the scale , should have further site plan review . Mrs . Reuning commented that it appears the Planning Board is saying that it is up to this Board . Mr . Austen asked about the location of the new proposed roadway , wondering if that were something that the Planning Board would have jurisdiction over . Ms . Beeners offered that it is up to this Board to determine if that increases the scope , although it is the opinion of the staff that it is not such , in that the actual relocation of the drive improves the relationship of it to Salem Drive and also places it between two houses opposite rather than facing directly upon a house . • Chairman Aron , speaking to Ms . Beeners , stated that this road was not in existence on the plans which this Board saw at the April meeting , adding that he realized that this " new " access road was proposed to take the load off Salem Drive . Ms . Beeners agreed . Chairman Aron stated that he did not see any physical changes , really , only a different road access has been added , rather than using Bluegrass Lane . Ms . Beeners stated that it was her understanding that there actually have been some buildings eliminated - - such as the hay barns east of Bluegrass Lane - - and located in back of the access road . Ms . Beeners stated that staff felt that the new location , as shown in the new map , was also a better location in regard to the first neighbor on the west who would have had to bear the brunt of any traffic if Bluegrass Lane were used . Mrs . Reuning commented that her question , in that regard , with Bluegrass Lane as the access , they would have used Freese Road and Bluegrass Lane with the busses . Ms . Beeners offered that the staff saw Route 366 , Freese Road , and Hanshaw as the route . Attorney Stumbar , asking if he might address the Chair , stated that he was concerned that we were having a usurption of the Planning Board ' s discretion with the staff making decisions about " better " and " worse " , but under the law that is a Planning Board function and not a staff function . Continuing , Attorney Stumbar stated that , from the notes of the first hearing in this matter , Mr . Dicke indicated that there is a slightly larger stable than in the programme presented to • the Planning Board , in other words , the building is not just a change in rotation , there is also a change in construction , and also an increase in scope or scale - - admittedly , not a large change , but it Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - May 14 , 1986 is a change . Attorney Stumbar noted that , under the Resolution of the Planning Board , it is stated that only " minor site changes , such as rotation of planned buildings , which do not increase the scope , scale or extent of the facility will not require further site plan review . " Attorney Stumbar stated that there is clear indication that the scope is being changed , and that determination is not up to the staff . Mr . Dicke stated that he would like to make it very clear that the stable has not increased in size from that presented to the Planning Board . Mr . Dicke stated that he believed his statement should be read as merely indicating how the structure is changed from the presently existing Oxley Arena , Mr . Dicke stated that the size had been consistent throughout the presentation . Chairman Aron stated that that clarified that question . Chairman Aron stated that he would like to ask the Board if it were interested in opening the Public Hearing , Mr . King stated that he thought the Board probably ought to hear what evidence they want to offer about the inadequacy of the EAF , adding that whether the Board takes any final action or not remains to be seen . Mr . King noted that the Board had before it both the Resolutions of the Planning Board and the Minutes containing the discussion by the Planning Board and their recommendation on the special approval which this Board may or may not grant , however , this Board ' s speaking to the special approval is required regardless of any Planning Board site review . Mr . King stated that he thought the Board should assume that it has jurisdiction and hear the matter . Chairman Aron stated that he was hereby opening the Public Hearing for all matters , and , speaking to Attorney Stumbar , stated that the Board is talking about SEQR and the Facility . Cornell University Associate Counsel Shirley K . Egan spoke from the floor and added that the Board was also looking at the request for height variance . Chairman Aron responded that if a special use permit is denied the Board does not have to talk about height , adding that the Board could not put the cart before the horse - - pun intended . Attorney Stumbar stated that he would like to pass out letters . Mr . Jaime Hecht , 1446 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he would like to inform the Board about some information they have received from the Polo coach . Mr . Hecht stated that the program includes 20 " boarders " with a waiting list of 18 , in addition to the ones owned by Cornell . Mr . Hecht stated that riding lessons are available at $ 15 . 00 per half -hour . Mr . Hecht stated that the number of games played during the 1985 - 86 academic year are : Varsity Men ' s 24 and Women ' s 21 . Mr . Hecht stated that there is something called the " Old Men ' s League " which plays every Friday night . Mr . Hecht stated that there are practices four nights a week . Mr . Hecht noted that , adding up the Men ' s and Women ' s and the Old Men ' s , there are 77 games played , adding that , by simple calculation , between • September and April , there are 96 polo practices . Mr . Hecht stated that during that same time period the Polo Club held seven horse shows . Mr . Hecht stated that , if you read the newspapers , the Zoning Board of Appeals - 7 - May 14 , 1986 • Intercollegiate Play Offs were at Oxley from February 19th to the 23rd , including Sunday . Mr . Hecht stated that he would refer the Board to Item # 4 on Page 1 of the EAF which has been filled in , as the Board can see on the original , " small classes ( approximately 10 people ) for Phys . Education and occasional indoor Polo matches . " Mr . Hecht noted that at the last meeting there had been talk of 25 meets with occasional " doubleheaders " . Mr . Hecht stated that there was a considerable discrepancy here . Mr . Hecht stated that another indication of the hours is that these facilities are open from 6 : 30 a . m . to 11 : 00 p . m . - - every day , not just when there is a game . Referring again to the EAF , Mr . Hecht noted that Item # 12 , on Page 2 , having to do with parking , the spot for " traffic generated / day " is not filled in . Mr . Hecht referred to Item # 16 on the EAF , Page 3 , having to do with materials to be transferred to / from the site , their frequency , and the mode of transportation , is marked " N/ A " . Mr . Hecht stated that there could be 800 tons of horse manure generated annually . Mr . Hecht referred to Prof . Samuel W . Sabin ' s letter , a copy of which each of the Board members had received , where he states that " The average equine of the size to be used in conjunction with this sports complex will produce approximately 8 tons ( 16 , 000 pounds ) of waste products . It is anticipated that a minimum of 35 equines would be maintained in the complex with a maximum of perhaps as many as 80 . This would mean disposal of 280 to 640 tons of animal waste each year plus the bedding • associated with the waste . " Referring to Item # 43 on the EAF , Page 5 , Mr . Hecht noted that the applicant had indicated that there would be no dust , however , there will be horses exercising out of doors . Mr . Hecht stated that the applicant did indicate that there would be odors , however , stated that the odor from horse manure would " not be detectable off site - - collected daily from stable . " Mr . Hecht stated that the neighbors were curious where this manure is conveyed and how it is conveyed . Mr . Hecht stated that if you live on Hanshaw Road the wind blows from the south and they are concerned with the relationship of this facility and a prime residential area . Mr . Hecht stated that he did not know how Cornell University will take care of this manure , however , he would show the Board how it is done now and how it is stored , adding that it is stored in open fields . Mr . Hecht submitted several colored photographs depicting a large field with a large mound of what he stated was horse manure . Mr . Hecht now referred to Item # 44 on the EAF , Page 5 , and noted that the applicant had indicated " NO " to the question - - " Will there be changes to existing noise or vibration levels due to the proposed action or its resulting activities ? " Mr . Hecht stated that he could hardly imagine that whoever said " no noise " was serious . Mr . Hecht stated that there will be noise from cars , from trucks bringing horses , from trucks taking manure , from the loudspeakers , from the polo games , and from the practices . Continuing , Mr . Hecht referred to Item # 53 on the EAF , Page 6 , where the applicant had said " NO " to the question - - " In your judgment , will the proposed action result in a significant environmental impact during construction and / or during use after completion ? " Mr . Hecht stated that the answer from the neighbors is " YES " . Mr . Hecht stated that there will be noise , there Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - May 14 , 1986 • will be odors , there will be increased traffic , and there will be visual impact . Mr . Hecht now referred to Item # 55 on the EAF , Page 7 , and stated that the applicant had indicated " None " to the question - - " Sources of Public Funds ( if any ) for proposed action . " Mr . Hecht stated that he believed the facility is to be built on State land and State tax dollars are not mentioned . At this point , Mr . Hecht stated that the EAF does not ask any questions about financial impact . Mr . Hecht stated that they asked a recognized realtor to make an appraisal , adding that there very well may be others who have done the same and will also present information on that to the Board . Mr . Hecht stated that he would not read the whole thing because he knew that time is precious . Mr . Hecht proceeded to read portions of a letter , the entirety of which is set forth below . " Century 21 Tilley Realty , Inc . 306 North Cayuga Street P . O . Box 792 Ithaca , New York 14851 May 1 , 1986 Mr . and Mrs . Jamie [ sic . ] Hecht • 1446 Hanshaw Road Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear Mr . and Mrs . Hecht : I am submitting this in response to your request for me to evaluate the effect on the value of your property at 1446 Hanshaw Road , Ithaca , New York , resulting from the proposed construction of the Cornell Equestrian Complex on the land directly across Hanshaw Road from your property . It is my understanding that the construction of the complex will be carried out in two distinct phases . The first phase will consist of the construction of a sizeable indoor polo ring approximately 44 feet in height and 27 , 500 square feet in size . Attached to the back of this building will be a series of barns for housing Cornell owned animals and surrounding the building will be parking lots for spectators and participants in the various activities which will take place in this building . Phase II of the complex will be the construction of outdoor facilities consisting of one or more polo fields and supporting parking areas . This phase of the construction will be almost directly across from your property on Hanshaw Road . It is my understanding that there will be a 300 ft . buffer strip between Hanshaw Road and any part of the complex constructed during Phases I and II . • On the positive side , Cornell University , when undertaking any type of construction , has always made every effort to have the buildings blend in with the surrounding area and properties , so as to minimize the Zoning Board of Appeals - 9 - May 14 , 1986 • ' sore thumb ' effect it would have on the neighborhood . I believe that they have already told you there would be a natural barrier all along the 300 ft . buffer strip to conceal as much of the complex as possible and maintain the pastoral view that you presently enjoy from the front of your property . On the other hand , the introduction of a commercial facility such as a sports complex of this type into a predominately residential neighborhood will almost certainly have a detrimental affect [ sic . ] on the adjoining properties , affecting not only the value of the properties , but also the salability of the properties . The detrimental affect [ sic . ] will come mainly from changing the character of the neighborhood from purely residential to a mixture of residential and commercial . Further affect [ sic . ] on the value and salability of your property may result from the noise arising from the various activities which will be taking place in the complex , from the dust generated by horses in the outdoor practice areas and polo arenas , from the additional traffic which will be placed on Hanshaw Road , much of it in the evening hours when most of the residents will be at home , and from the odor and fly problem which could arise from improper disposal of animal wastes . You , and your neighbors , should make every effort to see that realistic estimates are made as to the potential for the above problem • areas and see that proper attention is paid to solutions for those problems before they arise . My professional opinion is that even if the peripheral problem areas are addressed fully and minimized to the point of no affect [ sic . ] , your property will still be negatively affected in both its value and salability resulting from the introduction of the sports complex into a prime , residential neighborhood . The exact amount of the affect [ sic . ] on value and salability is a difficult one to assess without extensive research into similar neighborhoods which have undergone the same type of change . I would strongly recommend that you retain the services of a professional appraisal concern such as Northeast Appraisals , who have access to statewide data relating to situations such as we have here . They would most likely be able to evaluate the affect [ sic . ] in terms of a specific dolar amount as opposed to the general terms of my evaluation . Thank you for the opportunity to be of service . Very truly yours , Century 21 Tilley Realty , Inc . ( sgd . ) Edmund J . Dellert • Manager " Mr . King asked if what Mr . Hecht was reading from was a report , Zoning Board of Appeals - 10 - May 14 , 1986 • with Chairman Aron responding that it was a letter from a real estate person . Mr . Hecht submitted the letter for the record . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hecht if Northeast Appraisals had been hired , with Mr . Hecht responding , yes . Mrs . Lanie Wilmarth , 1442 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and read aloud the following letter . " North East Appraisals & Management Co . , Inc . 515 West Seneca Street , Ithaca , NY 14850 Mrs . Lanie Wilmarth Hanshaw Road Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear Mrs . Wilmarth : I am writing in response to our recent telephone conversation regarding the proposed equine sports complex on Hanshaw Road . The impact of this proposed development on nearby properties is difficult to quantify , but is one that could be very significant . Your concern regarding how this development may influence property values in the area is understandable . • It appears from the site plan provided that the proposed development has been designed to mitigate potential negative influences on residential properties on Hanshaw Road ( via setback , screening , access roadways , etc . ) . However , any development that is inconsistent with surrounding properties , alters the characteristics of the neighborhood which is one of many considerations that is involved in the ' market process ' . Certainly , this development will result in a negative influence as far as some people are concerned and could result in difficulty in marketing residential properties along Hanshaw Road . Odor , noise , traffic , etc . all are negative factors which tend to decrease residential property values ( or at best limit the appreciation of values ) . I suppose that a limited segment of the market could be attracted to residential properties near this development which may be a positive influence on values . ' Horse lovers ' may pay a premium for property depending upon the availability of the facilities to the public ; but this segment represents only a small portion of the market . One other point that I feel should be mentioned is that while the proposed development may be a negative influence in this area , there are many other types of development that have a much greater impact on surrounding property values . Very truly yours , • North East Appraisals & Management Co . , Inc . Zoning Board of Appeals - 11 - May 14 , 1986 • ( sgd . ) Kenneth V . Gardner II President " Chairman Aron asked Mr . Dicke to respond . Mr . Dicke stated that he would just briefly show the Board a drawing to show the Board in greater scale the modifications that the Board has . Mr . Dicke stated that this is an educational facility - - that is the intent of it - - that is what it will be used for . Mr . Dicke stated that it is in the record what the changes are that they have briefly talked about . Mr . Dicke stated that as , he thought , the Board members were all aware , the major change in terms of the property is the shifting of the access drive to " this " direction [ indicating on the drawing ] and not using Bluegrass Lane which , they feel , increases the off - set on " this " side of Hanshaw Road , and is mitigated with the plantings . Mr . Dicke stated that , in terms of plantings , in this particular project there is $ 25 , 000 . 00 of funding . Mr . Dicke stated that what you see here is the entire master plan for the site , adding that , by having this entire planning process , this impacts any future development on this property , therefore , the State , which does own the land , is precluded from doing anything else - - for example , dormitories or other housing which is permitted . Mr . Dicke pointed out that they have also gone through and done a drawing showing the building and its relationship to the neighborhood . Mr . Dicke indicated the equine research farm which is in operation in " this building " , and stated that , in keeping with the neighborhood concept , equitation will be on one side and equine research on the other . With respect to setback , Mr . Dicke offered that the building can be set back even farther , noting that the building is now 420 feet from the center line of the road . Mr . Dicke pointed out the driveway and noted that the building height has been kept down such that the average height above grade is 37 feet . . Mr . Dicke stated that this is an existing educational project which will be run professionally in a manner that Cornell and the neighborhood would be proud of . Mr . Dicke pointed out that open spaces have been maintained , commenting that , of course , it is not quite as open , but this project will preclude future development . Mr . Dicke described the project as a symbiotic blend of development between Hanshaw Road and Equine Research , Mrs . Audrey Geiselmann , 1452 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and , referring to the plantings , asked Mr . Dicke how high the plantings are that are supposed to conceal the parking lot , commenting that it looked like low shrubbery to her . Mr . Dicke stated that , if the Board would like , the landscape architect on the project could expound on that . Ms . Bonnie Majestic , of Fred H . Thomas Associates PC , the landscape designer , appeared before the Board and stated that the plantings were chosen on the / basis of their growing fast and their suitability to the neighborhood . Ms . Majestic stated that she went up and down the street to see who had planted what so that the plantings chosen do not stand out like a sore thumb . Ms . Majestic stated that purchasing will be at the largest available heights . Mrs . Geiselmann asked if the plantings will be all evergreens , with Ms . Majestic responding , no , and adding that the plantings will be evergreens mixed with arrowwood , periwinkle , blue holly , gray dogwood , European cranberry , and red flowering dogwood . Ms . Majestic , commenting on Zoning Board of Appeals - 12 - May 14 , 1986 " picking up the red " , described October Glory Red Maples , speaking of their outstanding fall color and rapid growth . Ms . Majestic stated that , around one area of the parking lot , there will be a mixture of fast - growing shrubs , 3 to 4 feet high , which will max out to 5 to 6 feet , and , on the other side of the parking lot , a mixture of Austrian pines , white pines , and Norway spruces which will be purchased between 10 and 15 feet and , depending on the variety , would be 50 to 70 feet at maturity . Ms . Majestic stated that the maples will get between 60 and 70 feet in height , adding that there will be a mass of the denser evergreens to screen the service yard at the back . TSIs . Majestic displayed an artist ' s drawing of the facility . Mr . Dicke stated that Cornell is very much aware of the community relationship , adding that the planting plan being discussed is not a master plan for all the plantings , it is for the first phase only . Mr . Dicke now displayed three more drawings and explained how a 37 - foot high building from 400 feet away becomes 8 feet high , and how 250 feet becomes 50 feet across the roadway . Mr . Dicke! pointed out the way the combination of plantings , the lowering of the building , and the setback of over 400 feet all work together to have a positive impact and not so much of a negative impact . Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Dicke if , in looking at the perspective drawing , he could expand on the original location proposed for the second arena building and Cornell ' s position in this new layout . Ms . Beeners stated that , as she recalled , the second equitation arena in the back , in the long - range plan , was going to be somewhere else . Mr . Dicke explained that , initially , the rendering showed the facility in a line , and now , it is a lot better because of putting the building in the back , allowing for an enclosed walking area and better maintenance . Mr . Dicke noted that there will be a 250 - foot building " here " and a 150 - foot one " here " , and a 700 - foot buffer , so the scale has been reduced on the street . Ms . Beeners inquired about the use of the fields fronting on Hanshaw Road and where the horses would be turned out . Mr . Dicke stated that the present use of this land is as a productive hay field with the crops used in the farm management division for Cornell , adding that it is their intent that that not change . Mr . Dicke stated that the turn - out area under this project would occur right where the second barn would be built if it were built . Mr . Dicke pointed out the location of the paddock area , commenting that it was not unusual , and stated that in the future it could be moved to " this " area , adding that it basically is screened by the grade dropping in this area . Mr . Dicke pointed out an area where there will be no keeping of horses and stated that that area will be kept just the way it is now . Ms . Carolyn Koch , 1432 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she lives right across from the new proposed road . Ms . Koch stated that somebody said that road would be between properties , however , her property was right there and the cars would be directly in front of her house . Ms . Majestic stated that she had made that • drawing on Friday and she realized that it was in front of her house . Ms . Majestic stated that the road can be moved over a little bit and it will be between Ms . Koch ' s house and another house . Ms . Koch Zoning Board of Appeals - 13 - May 14 , 1986 • wondered if it would be opposite her driveway , with Ms . Majestic describing the 75 feet there and the roadway of 20 feet , and stating that the new road will be in the space between . Ms . Majestic stated that it would be helpful to have an exact location , but she will not have that until she gets a survey . Ms . Koch expressed her concern about traffic from two points now , busy Hanshaw Road and trucks . Ms . Koch suggested that the facility be put up on the Freese Road then the traffic would be only half that because it could go over Hanshaw or toward Varna . Mr . Warren Johnson , 1444 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that the drawings were very pretty and a credit to the person who made them . Mr . Johnson , commenting that he wanted to speak to the matter of plantings , stated that the plantings at this time are just throwing the neighbors a bone without any meat . Mr . Johnson stated that he would like to make two points about the trees proposed - - deciduous trees are no good for noise or visually in winter , adding that we have mostly winter . Mr . Johnson stated that his other point was maturity , adding that none of the neighbors is likely to be living when those trees have reached maturity height , so the landscaping will not be there for them . Mr . Hecht wondered how tall one would have to be in order to see that building the way it is shown on the rendering . Ms . Majestic responded that the vision point was 150 feet , adding that it was done • that way to show the whole site . Mr . Hecht commented that none of them is that tall , nor is their house , and , noting that Mr . Dicke had stated that this facility would be developed in a professional way , asked Mr . Dicke if he felt the Equine Lab were run in a professional way . Mr . Dicke stated that he could not answer that question , adding that he was an architect . Continuing , Mr . Hecht stated that they have manure in the Equine Lab and asked what they could expect here , adding that he had yet to hear an answer . Mr . Laing E . Kennedy , Director of Athletics , Cornell University , spoke from the floor and stated that the proposed Equitation Facility is the facility that is in question . Mr . Kennedy stated that the proposed facility would be under the management and control of Athletics , adding that he could not violate equine research . Ms . Susan Schell , 1434 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and entered the following letter from Connie Lewis Real Estate , Inc . which Chairman Aron read aloud , as follows : " May 14 , 1986 . . . To Whom It May Concern : This is to inform you that I have been requested by Susan L . Schell of 1434 Hanshaw Road to do an appraisal of her property located at 1434 Hanshaw Road . Mrs . Schell has informed me that Cornell University has • proposed a polo facility and stables to be built just off Hanshaw Road , across the road from her property . Zoning Board of Appeals - 14 - May 14 , 1986 • I have been in the real estate business for over three years ( two in this area ) , and have been familiar with prices for property bought and sold in this area for many more years , having been a resident of the Ithaca area for eighteen years . In addition , my broker , Connie Lewis , has been consulted in this matter and agrees with the conclusion herein . She has been in the real estate business in this area . for over twenty years , possessing both the Certified Residential Specialist and Certified Residential Broker designation from the National Association of Realtors , and she is a graduate of the Realtors ' Institute . It is my opinion that the proposed plans which involve; putting the main entrance to the facility right across the road from Mrs . Schell ' s property , would substanitally damage an occupant ' s quiet enjoyment of the property at 1434 Hanshaw Road , and thus negatively affect the property ' s market value . I therefore ask the planning board , on Mrs . Schell ' s behalf , to reject the location of the polo facility and the polo facility ' s driveway as presently proposed , on the basis that it will substanitally lower the purchase price that Mrs . Schell can expect to receive from the sale of her house and property . Sincerly , ( sgd . ) Bryan Mundell • Licensed Sales Associate Connie Lew Real Estate , Inc . " Chairman Aron asked Ms . Schell how soon she wanted to sell her house , with Ms . Schell _ responding , soon , adding that they were planning on selling anyway . Chairman Aron , commenting that this interested him , asked Ms . Schell if she were in the process of selling , to which Ms . Schell responded , yes , adding that she had indication that selling would be very difficult . Ms . Schell stated that they had planned to sell without a realtor because they do have a nice view now . Ms . Schell explained that it so happened , next door to them , that Dick Shulman of Village Realty , gave them figures which would be taken off the property value while this facility would be under construction and after . Ms . Schell stated that it is apparently hard to find someone to buy while something is under construction . Ms . Schell stated that their house should go within a couple of days but if construction is started in a couple of months ,, it will be difficult to sell . Attorney Shirley K . Egan , Associate Cornell University Counsel , spoke from the floor and stated that she had really planned on being quiet and just listening , commenting that the Board does pretty well without too many lawyers talking . Attorney Egan stated that in a hearing framed such as these before a Planning Board and a Zoning Board of Appeals , normal rules of evidence are dispensed with , however , she has been hearing evidence of brokers not here tonight • with no way of vouching for accuracy . Attorney Egan stated that she has been hearing it stated that this facility is " just: off Hanshaw Road , and asked if the neighbors really do know that it is over 400 Zoning Board of Appeals - 15 - May 14 , 1986 • feet back from the road . Attorney Egan stated that she has been hearing that this is a commercial facility . Attorney Egan stated that she was really concerned about what information these brokers were given , noting again that they are not here , adding that she wondered what they may have been told . Attorney Egan stated . that she was not objecting on an evidenciary basis because of the normal suspension of the rules of evidence , however , she suggested that the Board take some of these statements with a grain of salt and as self- serving . Professor William Millier , 1419 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he did show the broker the plan and that - he also has a letter . Professor Millier stated that he was the unfortunate owner of the house just west of the facility . Professor Millier presented the following letter from Connie Lewis Real Estate , Inc . for the record . " May 9 , 1986 . . . To Whom It May Concern : This is to inform you that I have been requested by Mr . William Millier of 1419 Hanshaw Road to do an appraisal of his property located at 1419 Hanshaw Road , Mr . Millier has infomred me that Cornell University has proposed a polo facility and stables to be built just off Hanshaw Road , with the only driveway accessing this • facility to be located next to Mr . Millier ' s property , over what is presently used as a farm road . I have been in the real estate business in this area , and have been familiar with prices for property brought and sold in this area , for over twenty years . I possess both the Certified Residential Specialist and Certified Residential Broker designation from the National Association of Realtors and am a graduate of -the Realtors ' Institute . I have inspected the proposed plans for the above mentioned polo facility . The use of the present farm road as access to this facility ( as proposed ) would substantially damage an occupant ' s quiet enjoyment of the property at 1419 Hanshaw Road , and thus negatively affect the property ' s market value . I therefore ask the planning board , on Mr . Millier ' s behalf , to reject the location of the polo facility and the polo facility ' s driveway as presently proposed , on the basis that it will substantially lower the purchase price Mr . Millier can expect to receive from the sale of his house and property . Sincerely , ( sgd . ) Connie Lewis Broker , GRI , CRS , CRB " • Professor Millier stated that he also had , for submission to the Board , a copy of the site plan with an overlay of the contours , and , also an early photo of the site . Town Attorney Barney asked where the Zoning Board of Appeals - 16 - May 14 , 1986 • access road was at the time of the preparation of Mr . Millier ' s submission . Professor Millier stated that it was over by his house , adding that , yes , he did not know of the change in location of the access road . Professor Millier proceeded to display an aerial photo and his overlay , and stated that this shows the size of the project . In addition , Professor Millier showed how the facility would look in some place else near Freese Road , Professor Millier spoke about septic systems and stated that there would be no problem over there because the use is there already , adding that NYSEG would cooperate . Professor Millier indicated , using his map and overlay , how the polo field and the race track would fit in in a location near Freese Road , and also pointed out how the main large building would follow along the contour lines , commenting that the land is practically level with only a ten - foot elevation difference . Professor Millier stated that it appeared that a 1 , 000 - foot line is required in an agricultural zone and noted that the Freese Road location would meet that . Professor Millier stated that a Freese Road location would be a better site , adding that travel would be from Varna along Hanshaw Road out to Langmuir , adding that this would also provide more transportation for students . Professor Millier stated that , Dr . Roger Morse , at the bee lab , has indicated that it would be good for those students also . Professor Millier stated that this area is available and would make very little difference to Cornell ' s ability to develop the equitation facility as far as the site plan goes . Professor Millier stated that the facility does not have to be in R- 30 . Chairman Aron pointed out • that the land under discussion is zoned R- 30 , not Agricultural . Professor Millier stated that if a 1 , 000 - foot buffer is required in an Ag district , it should be the same in R - 30 . Mr . Warren Johnson spoke again from the floor and stated that this is a matter of siting it a farther distance from affecting these people . Professor Millier spoke again about Dr . Morse and the bee lab and asked if that site had been overlooked , adding that it would provide the same function but not as beautiful a view . Mrs . Sylvia Wahl , 1426 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she was greatly relieved that the facility has been moved away from her driveway . Mrs . Koch interjected that she was not . Mrs . Wahl stated that she has been talking with Ms . Majestic and has been informed that the road will come out right where the fire hydrant is , so , these letters from realtors could probably be even stronger . Continuing , Mrs . Wahl , utilizing Professor Millier ' s drawing , pointed out " the " manure pile and showed it on an aerial photo . Mrs . Wahl referred the Board to pictures of manure which she stated were two years old . Chairman Aron wondered how big the pile might be . Mrs . Wahl pointed out that Mrs . Sabin was standing by it and it was higher than she is . Mrs . Wahl also referred to a long photograph which was submitted , and spoke of the Freese Road area . Mrs . Wahl submitted to the Board advertisements from the Ithaca Journal in February 1986 , noting that there are two important items that these ads reveal - - one being the number of games played and the times , and the other being that the matches are not sponsored by the Athletic Department ; they • are sponsored by the Cornell Polo Club , a private club . Mrs . Wahl submitted a red bumper sticker reading , " Cornell POLO , Saturday Nights , 8 : 15 , University Riding Hall . " Mrs . Wahl spoke of Sunday 1 Zoning Board of Appeals - 17 - May 14 , 1986 • horse shows commencing at 9 : 30 a . m . and described big trailers coming in . Chairman Aron asked how many times a year this occurs , with Mrs . Wahl responding , at least four , and Mr . Hecht interjecting , six . Continuing , Mrs . Wahl referred to the Item # 46 on the EAF which indicates that there will be three employees , and stated that she would raise a question about that number since in the stable alone there would have to be grooms - - one per six horses ; there would have to be maintenance people ; there are work / study students . Mrs . Wahl noted that the facility opens at 6 : 00 a . m . Mrs . Wahl stated that another item which she would like to speak to has to do with dust , commenting that there is just a fog of dust going across " that " field , and described areas where horses have worn off the grass . Mr . Hecht asked to speak again . Chairman Aron stated that he would like to point out to all of those present that the Board has heard a lot of things , and asked people to , please , not repeat what has been said . Mr . Hecht stated that the neighbors appreciated the opportunity to be heard . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hecht if he had anything different to tell the Board . Mr . Hecht stated that he thought the point was a good one as to what kind of information the realty agents received . Mr . Hecht , noting that the Board all got a copy of Professor Sabin ' s letter and the plans , stated that that is what he gave to Mr . Dellert , and , in order to allay the fears of the Board and of Attorney Egan , North East Appraisals was given the same thing . Mr . Hecht stated that he would also like to point out that • this is not a self - serving matter for a realtor to say that the sale price would be less when , in fact , they make a commission . Mr . David B . Collum , 550 Warren Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he was moving to 1456 Hanshaw Road , and asked what the Board ' s role was here , commenting that the law says you can build this polo barn . Chairman Aron stated that that was not correct and pointed out that Special Approval of the Board of Appeals is required . Mr . Collum , commenting that that special approval can be granted if you fill the intent of the law , stated that he did not think: Cornell has filled this , adding that the neighbors do not live in polo barns . Mr . Collum stated that it was his understanding that the law is overlooked , or , you get away with it because of the origin of self -difficulties . Mr . Collum stated that his point was that if Cornell can show this is their only chance , they will get it . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Collum were alluding to Cornell showing a hardship . Mr . Collum stated that they have not shown that they have done their best ; they have not shown the least effort to place the polo barns anywhere else and this bothers people for this to proceed because their argument is built simply on a string of promises on the way it will be run . Mr . Collum stated that , quite frankly , what Cornell wants will be done and the only chance is a court of law . Mr . Collum stated that his best chance is to butt the Board here because he cannot afford a court of law . Chairman Aron stated that Mr . Collum was out of order . Mr . Collum stated that the law is designed to protect the people and if the Board bypasses the law , it does not • protect them . Attorney Stumber spoke from the floor and , referring to Cornell Zoning Board of Appeals - 18 - May 14 , 1986 Attorney Egan ' s statements , stated that he would point out that the burden of proof is on Cornell , Attorney Stumbar stated that Cornell has to prove that there will be no devaluation of property , not the neighbors . Attorney Stumbar referred to what they have put together on fairly short notice , and asked - - what about the dung piles - - three of them from Equine Research , where research should be the best in the world ? Attorney Stumbar asked what Athletics is going to do with the manure , noting that under Public Health Law it cannot be moved on public highways , Attorney Stumbar stated that we have not heard how this is going to be alleviated , Attorney Stumbar stated that evidently the Board is in the situation , literally , where Cornell puts the burden on the neighborhood . Attorney Stumbar stated that the neighbors have proved what the record has been in this regard and the burden is on them . Attorney Stumbar stated that the EAF is riddled with inconsistencies . Attorney Stumbar stated that he objected to the laissez - faire attitude of Cornell which seems to be , " They will not oppose because we are Cornell University . " Mr . Laing E . Kennedy spoke from the floor and stated that he would like to address some of the questions which have been raised , Mr . Kennedy stated that the Polo Club is , in fact , part of the Athletic Department , and yes , Cornell does host intercollegiate tournaments which amounted to four playing dates on a Thursday , a Friday , a Saturday , and a Sunday , Mr . Kennedy stated that , with respect to employment , they do have a director of the equitation center , Mr . Kennedy stated that they do have a polo coach / stable hand one person , and an instructor , Mr . Kennedy stated that students are involved , particularly the polo students , and they do a tremendous amount of the stablehand work . With respect to their manure handling system , Mr . Kennedy stated that they do not store manure ; they handle it with " Crops " ; it is removed on a daily basis by truck for conveying to their field areas , Mr . Kennedy stated that , yes , the facility is underway early in the morning in terms of the care and feeding of the animals on a daily basis . Mr . Kennedy stated that he would also make available for the record the log that shows their fall schedule and their spring schedule together with the log for horse shows in 1985 - 86 , that is , polo tournaments and playing dates . Mr . Kennedy stated that this is a teaching facility . Mr . Kennedy stated that the freshmen polo team practices two times a week , Monday and Friday , from 5 : 30 to 7 : 30 ; the Varsity polo team practices two times a week , Tuesday and Thursday , from 5 : 30 to 7 : 30 . Mr . Kennedy stated that there are 29 home playing dates for polo with some being doubleheaders . Mrs . Joan Sabin , 1450 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and , commenting that she would be directly across from the polo field , asked how far that field is from the road , adding that it seems to be a whole lot closer than the barn . Mrs . Sabin expressed her concern about spectators and bleachers being terribly close to the road . Mrs . Sabin expressed her concern about balls hitting the houses and horses thundering up and down the field . Mrs . Sabin reiterated her question • as to how close the field is to the road , and asked if there were no barriers , Zoning Board of Appeals - 19 - May 14 , 1986 • Ms . Bonnie Majestic responded to Mrs . Sabin ' s questions , stating that the polo field has not been designed ; it is shown merely as a layout on the master plan for information purposes . Ms . Majestic stated that Mrs . Sabin ' s concerns were important and will certainly be considered in the eventual design , commenting that as it is drawn the distance from the road is 75 feet . Mrs . Sabin asked if the field could be turned , with Ms . Majestic responding that a north / south orientation is important for the rider . Mrs . Sabin reiterated her concern with loudspeakers , noise , and the need for buffers . Mr . Warren Johnson stated that one point that makes him most anxious about this facility is that he just learned about this , commenting that he had been on sabbatic leave , and he had only read the Zoning Board Minutes of April 16 , 1986 . Mr . Johnson stated that , on Page 31 of those Minutes , Mr . Kennedy " spoke of Cornell University ' s policy of commitment to the community , and stated that they would like to extend their facilities to the community . . . " Mr . Johnson stated that this phrase bothered him the most and that is the most unknown thing about this . Mr . Johnson expressed his concern about there being a rodeo there to pay the bills , somewhat like the hockey rink for which they collect rents and pay the bills . Mr . Laing Kennedy responded that , generally speaking , Cornell University Athletics extends their facilities to the community , adding that , with respect to Lynah Rink , he would love to charge what it • costs him to run that facility , however , he does not - - and that goes also for the football stadium for the 4th of July celebration for which they do not collect rent . Mr . Kennedy stated that they generally have a good neighbor policy when they feel it is appropriate , for example , with respect to horse shows , the polo arena has been , on occasion , used for one show per year by the 4 - H . Chairman Aron asked Attorney Stumbar if he had anything more to add , with Attorney Stumbar responding that he would like to present a summary . Attorney Stumbar stated that , basically , starting with the EAF , he believed the form was rife with inconsistencies and they have pointed out those inconsistencies . Attorney Stumbar stated that Cornell University has not submitted anything to refute that form , nor a positive vote as far as impact . Attorney Stumbar stated that as far as visibility goes , the fact that this location was chosen with no appreciation of the neighborhood and no attempt to look elsewhere since the last time . Attorney Stumbar stated that Cornell has said that a lot of money has been spent on this particular site , adding that he was sure that a lot of money had been spent on " these " artistic renderings . Attorney Stumbar spoke of boot- strapping again and offered that Cornell was using this as a justification for approval of the project . Attorney Stumbar stated that the contour maps show very clearly that the site one -quarter of a mile away is preferable with no impact on any neighbors at all . Attorney Stumbar asked how much can the neighborhood be made to pay relative to a slight impact to Cornell . Attorney Stumbar spoke of the devaluation • of the properties impacted by this development , and the unnecessary strain on the neighborhood when Cornell has another site available . Attorney Stumbar stated , with respect to devaluation of properties , Zoning Board of Appeals - 20 - May 14 , 1986 • that the neighbors did not produce witnesses because the burden is on Cornell . Attorney Stumbar described the problems for the neighborhood with respect to the proposed planting of trees which will take 50 years to give ample screening . Attorney Stumbar stated that he agreed with the plan for plantings , however , that begs the question . Attorney Stumbar stated that the neighbors are here to determine whether that site will be used , and then , plantings become relevant . Attorney Stumbar stated that Cornell has spent money and they say this is the site , which is not appreciated . Attorney Stumbar stated that Cornell has not done their homework , adding that there is no reason to have this facility here . Attorney Stumbar described the three manure piles at Equine Research about which nothing has been done . Associate University Counsel Egan spoke from the floor and stated that she was dismayed by what could be called a " knee - jerk " reaction , commenting that one says something , then the other does . Attorney Egan offered that the devilish question is something very easy to say , however , it is speculative and not quantified . Attorney Egan stated that this is vacant land , sitting opposite these places , and , when one buys opposite vacant land , the owner takes the risk . Attorney Egan stated that she would like to point out from the Town Ordinance that a farm is permitted , as of right , a hog farm is permitted , as of right - - with no going before the Board - - one hundred feet from a residence district . Attorney Egan offered that manure could be there 100 feet from the street , lot line , or roadway . Attorney Egan stated that when • it comes down to devaluation neighborhoods say they have the right to have their view protected from anything they do not like . Attorney Egan stated that this facility is an educational use and is permitted under Town Zoning upon Special Approval , and it is not meant to be an exception , there is no special zoning . Attorney Egan stated that , with respect to whether Cornell had to show less research or the best place , the requirements for special approval are the same for every applicant . Attorney Egan , commenting that Attorney Stumbar had spoken of Cornell ' s boot - strapping this project , stated that the Board is intelligent enough to realize that an applicant has chosen a site before coming to the Board for approval . Attorney Egan stated that it has been charged that Cornell has given no reason for siting this facility as proposed , and , no reason for not moving it . Attorney Egan stated that both questions can be answered by stating that we do not want to move it because this is where they want it . Attorney Egan stated that it is the owner ' s preference as to what Is before the Board and not some site in Dryden . Attorney Egan stated that that concluded her , more or less , rebuttal , adding that she would leave the matter to the good judgment of the Board . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 15 p . m . , and turned the matter over for Board discussion . Chairman Aron stated that the Board members have heard a lot of discussion in the matter , adding that he had one question for Mr . Dicke . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Dicke , with respect to the land across • Hanshaw Road , if there were nothing on it except grass , and , what else can it be used for . Mr . Dicke responded that Counsellor Egan had pointed out a number of uses , adding that it is owned by the State of Zoning Board of Appeals - 21 - May 14 , 1986 • New York , Mr . Dicke stated that it could be used for a hog farm , R - 30 residences , dormitories , etc . , adding that the State could also decide to dispose of it and sell to a developer . Chairman Aron asked if that were likely to occur . Attorney Egan responded that they cannot speak for the State . Chairman Aron asked how the State Dormitory Authority fit in , with Mr . Dicke responding that the State of New York owns it . Attorney Egan stated that the Dormitory Authority is a funding mechanism , adding that Cornell did not see the Dormitory Authority involved with this piece of land . Mr . King stated that , as for environmental assessment , numerous questions have been raised as to its completeness , adding that he had those questions even before the Board had this hearing as to whether the Board had a sufficiently detailed presentation in the EAF . Mr . King stated that he was also influenced by the fact that the Town Zoning Ordinance indicates in Section 51 that in an Agricultural Zone you can have a riding academy but no closer than 1 , 000 feet from a residence district . Chairman Aron pointed out that the area under discussion is zoned R- 30 . Mr . King responded that he was aware of that , but , if you cannot have a riding academy within 1 , 000 feet of a residence district , you have to be equally careful about one in R- 30 . Mr . King stated that he was aware that the ordinance is not wholly consistent , for example , a hog farm , as long as you do not feed them garbage , you can have a hog farm 100 feet from a residence district . Mr . King stated that he thought there is more speculation as to what • other uses might be in place , but that is not the question before the Board . Mr . King stated that he did not think Cornell University has to go out and show this Board 15 different locations - - they show us one and ask us - - " Will you permit it ? " Mr . King stated that , in view of the inadequacies in the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted , he was prepared to offer a Motion . MOTION by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a positive declaration of environmental significance with respect to the equitation proposal so that , if the Board is to proceed , the applicant would be required to submit a draft environmental impact statement . Chairman Aron stated that Mr . King has pointed out the holes in the EAF and that he has moved a positive declaration . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . King if he were not basing that motion solely on the holes in the EAF but also on the evidence , with Mr . King responding , yes . The MOTION was seconded by Mr . Edward Austen . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . • Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Hewett . Nay - None . Zoning Board of Appeals - 22 - May 14 , 1986 • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . The Board members discussed the scope of the matters which needed to be addressed in the DEIS , and determined that odor , traffic , noise , dust , and manure were items to be dealt with further . Chairman Aron stated that he would think the next thing to do is determine whether the use should be allowed . Town Attorney Barney offered that he did not think the Board can do that until after it gets the draft EIS . Chairman Aron advised Mr . Dicke to get together with the Town Planner , Susan Beeners , Mrs . Reuning stated that , even though Mr . King had indicated that the Board should not speculate on uses , she would like to say that she thought it would behoove the neighbors to be aware of what alternatives could happen on that property . MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the matter of the Appeal of Cornell University for Special Approval of the proposed Equitation Facility on Bluegrass Lane , off Hanshaw Road , be and hereby is adjourned sine die . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Hewett . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the proposed Cornell University Equitation Facility off Hanshaw Road duly adjourned at 9 : 28 p . m . APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , SABRA PETERSON , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION , SIXTY FEET ( 601 ) IN HEIGHT , TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ( CHILLED WATER PLANT III ) ADJACENT TO THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HEATING PLANT LOCATED OFF ROUTE 366 , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 63 - 1 - 8 . 2 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 44 , PARAGRAPH 4 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Merritt E . " Ed " Hartz , Director of Plant Operations , Cornell University , and Mr . Robert G . Bland , Cornell Engineer , were present . • The following documents were before the Board . I Zoning Board of Appeals - 23 - May 14 , 1986 • 1 . Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Henry E . Doney , under date of May 1 , 1986 , reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to construct a building addition because of height , at Cornell University , Chilled Water Plant III , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63 - 1 - 8 . 2 . . . The structure is required to be approximately sixty ( 60 ) feet in height to accommodate the chiller equipment and cooling towers . " 2 . Site Plan , entitled " Key Plan , showing existing Chilled Water Plant No . III and new extension . 3 . Elevation Plan , entitled " Chilled Water Plant III Expansion " , dated April 1986 , by W . P . London and Associates , Niagara Falls , Ontario , Canada , 4 . EXCERPT from the Minutes , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , May 6 , 1986 , reading as follows . " PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Edward Mazza , James Baker , Barbara Schultz , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY CHILLED WATER PLANT NO , III , LOCATED IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT , ON DRYDEN ROAD , NYS ROUTE 366 , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 63 - 1 - 8 . 2 , AND , CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE NECESSARY TO SUCH EXPANSION AS PROPOSED , CORNELL UNIVERSITY , OWNER / DEVELOPER , MS . SABRA PETERSON , AS AGENT , MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza : WHEREAS : 1 . This project is the proposed expansion of the existing Cornell University Chilled Water Plant No . III in a Light Industrial District on Dryden Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 63 - 1 - 8 . 2 . 2 . The environmental review for this action has been completed by the State University of New York Dormitory Authority , 3 . Cornell University has provided the Planning Board with a • " Key Plan " and with a conceptual elevation , " Proposed Expansion , Chilled Water Plant III , April , 1986 " , describing the location and elevation of this structure . Zoning Board of Appeals - 24 - May 14 , 1986 • 4 . This structure is necessary for Cornell University to meet growing Campus needs for space cooling . 5 . Due to existing topography , vegetation , and adjacent structures , the proposed expansion will not adversely affect the existing and potential future character of the neighborhood . 6 . This project has been reviewed at a Planning Board Public Hearing on May 6 , 1986 . THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Site Plan Approval for the expansion of the Chilled Water Plant No . III as shown on the above - referenced documents , said grant of Site Plan Approval being condtioned on the granting by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals of a variance from the 30 - foot height requirement set forth in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Aye - May , Mazza , Baker , Schultz , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , 5 / 7 / 86 " Mr . Hartz stated that , unfortunately , Ms . Sabra Peterson was unable to attend this meeting , however , he and Mr . Bland would do the best they could in her absence . Mr . Hartz appended large copies of the drawings before the Board to the bulletin board and stated that the proposed expansion involves a building , off Route 366 , which , with the coolers on the top would be 60 feet high . Mr . Hartz pointed out the location of the Humphrey ' s Service Building , Route 366 , a coal pile , and Maple Avenue , Mrs . Reuning wondered about some construction occuring in that area , which Mr . Hartz described as a parking lot on both sides of the Service Building , Mr . Hartz stated that there are some trees on the site which will remain and displayed three photographs of the site looking south . Mr . Hartz stated that the existing plant is 28 feet high to the roof , with the existing cooling tower being approximately 55 feet high , adding that the new ones will be about five feet higher . Mr . Hartz drew the Board ' s attention to the plan view which they had before them . Mr . Austen asked if the extension of the building will be the same height , with Mr . Hartz responding , yes . Town Attorney Barney asked how many coolers are on the existing building now , to which Mr . Hartz responded , one , adding that they are • adding four more silos - - one on the existing building and the rest pretty much on the new building on the back . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Hartz to point out what he was talking about on the Zoning Board of Appeals - 25 - May 14 , 1986 • photograph . Mr . Hartz obliged . Mr . King spoke of a series of louvres and described water trickling down . Mr . Austen asked about the relationship in height and spoke of the filling of an oil tank . Mr . Bland stated that it is the somewhat higher and to the east . Chairman Aron offered that it was quite an impressive building , adding that , personally , he did not have any qualms about it . Chairman Aron stated that he thought the Planning Board ' s assessment that the structure is necessary for Cornell University to meet growing Campus needs for space cooling was correct . Mr . Bland stated that the expansion is needed mainly because of new buildings , adding that Cornell is adding more building and noting that there are three central chilled water plants , this being number 3 . Mr . Bland stated that there is one at Beebe Lake and one on campus . Mr . Austen wondered if this facility will take on the new performing arts center , to which Mr . Bland responded , no , adding that that is not on the central system . Mr . Cartee asked what the weight of the building is , with Mr . Bland responding that they have not bought the cooling towers yet as they are not " specked " out . Mr . Bland stated that they have preliminary numbers , adding that he was sorry that he did not have them in his head . Mr . Bland stated that start - up is planned for July 1987 , adding that the chiller will be on order in June and , with a six -month delay , they hope to start construction in late Fall on the civil part of it . Mr . Bland described the use of stainless steel , commenting that a lot of the weight comes from the water . • Ms . Beeners stated that she had talked briefly with Ms . Peterson about landscaping and their intentions . Ms . Beeners noted the pine or spruce trees that do mask the existing tower , and asked if there were intentions of further plantings with similar evergreens . Mr . Hartz stated that there is no developed landscape plan for that , however , they do plan , actually , to add pine trees in front of the parking lot at Humphrey ' s , but as for this particular location , they have no plan right now . Mr . Hartz mused about various plantings which could be installed , and stated that they have no plan to present to the Board tonight . Mr . Hartz stated that all he could give the Board is assurances and if that is not satisfactory to the Board , he could submit a plan . Ms . Beeners stated that , knowing Mr . Hartz ' record on this , she , herself , would have no problem . Mr . Hartz stated that he could assure Ms . Beeners and the Board that they will have a plan and will develop that plan and he would be happy to give that to Ms . Beeners , Mr . Austen asked if there would be any visual effect from Maple Avenue , with Mr . Bland responding , none , and indicating on the map how far away that would be . Mr . Austen noted that Mr . Hartz had talked about the coal pile . Mr . King offered that the coal pile cannot easily be seen from the Maple Avenue view as you drive around ; it would be almost invisible , except from Route 366 , Mr . Edward King stated that , based on the presentation and what • the Board knows of the site , the proposed expansion of Chilled Water Plant III will not adversely impact the area , therefore , he would MOVE that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does 4 Zoning Board of Appeals - 26 - May 14 , 1986 grant the height variance for the structure to accommodate the chiller equipment and cooling towers , as requested , and further , as far as any building permit may be concerned , he would add , subject to the University presenting a replanting plan to the Town Planner , Susan Beeners , and , on her say so , the permit could be issued without the matter coming back to the Board . The MOTION was seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Hewett . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the proposed expansion of Cornell University ' s Chilled Water Plant III duly closed at 9 : 45 p . m . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the May 14 , 1986 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 47 p . m . . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Henry Aron , Chairman