Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1995-07-12 FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , JULY 12 , 1995 7 . 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , July 12 , 1995 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of Bradley Corbitt , Appellant , Michael Moseley , Agent , requesting authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an enclosed walkway on the north side of a non- conforming building / lot at 907 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 10 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it is , among other items , 8 + feet ( 15 foot setback required ) from the north side property line . Appeal of Denmark Development Inc . / Bridges of Ithaca , Appellants , Elizabeth and Patricia Classen , Agents , requesting a variance from Section 4 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place a sign 10 square feet in area ( maximum 4 square feet allowed ) , stating " Bridges of Ithaca " at 704 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -4- 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Appeal of M . Susan and Scott Hamilton , Appellants , requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article XII , Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be emitted to maintain a truck rental service at the Judd Falls Plaza , 12 Judd Falls Road , own of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 - 1 - 3 . 2 , Business District C . A truck rental service is not allowed in a District C zone . Appeal of Cornell University , Owner , Scott Whitham , Agent , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to make parking and site improvements at 120 Maple Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63- 1 - 5 , Residence R- 30 . The project will take place virtually in the City of Ithaca , with a small portion of the site work occurring in the Town . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 ; 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs , as appropriate , will be provided with assistance , as necessary , upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : June 30 , 1995 Publish : July 7 , 1995 0 TOWN OF ITHACA FILED FINALZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7OWN OF 17HACA WEDNESDAY, JULY 12r 1995 Date ( _ Glen coo , lAo*qoc�1. • The following appeals were heard by the Board on July APPEAL of Bradley Corbitt , Appellant , Michael Moseley , Agent , requesting authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an enclosed walkway on the north side of a non- conforming building / lot at 907 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25- 2 - 10 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non-conforming since it is , among other items , 8 + feet ( 15 foot setback required ) from the north side property line . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Appeal of Denmark Development Inc . /Bridges of Ithaca , Appellants , Elizabeth and Patricia Classen , Agents , requesting a variance from Section 4 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place a sign 10 square feet in area ( maximum 4 square feet allowed ) , stating " Bridges of Ithaca" at 704 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31-4- 2 , Residence District R- 30 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Appeal of M . Susan and Scott Hamilton , Appellants , requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article XII , Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to maintain a truck rental service at the Judd Falls Plaza , 12 Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 - 1 - 3 . 2 , Business District C . A truck rental service is not allowed in a District C zone . GRANTED . Appeal of Cornell University , Owner , Scott Whitham , Agent , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V . Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to make parking and site improvements at 120 Maple Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63- 1 - 5 , Residence R- 30 . The project will take place virtually in the City of Ithaca , with a small portion of the site work occurring in the Town . GRANTED . 1 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS tDate � Q 0 �q JULY 12 , 1995 • Cler cc> PRESENT : Vice Chairman Edward King , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , David Stotz , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Director of Building and Zoning Andrew Frost , Town Planner Jonathan Kanter . OTHERS : James and Bonnie Warren , Michael Moseley , Scott Hamilton , Patricia Classen , Elizabeth Classen , and Scott Whitham . Vice Chairman King called the meeting to order at 7 : 13 PM stating that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in order . The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Bradley Corbitt , Appellant , Michael Moseley, Agent , requesting authoriza- tion by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an enclosed walkway on the north side of a non-conforming building/ lot at 907 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25-2- 10 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it is , among other items , 8 ± feet ( 15 foot setback required ) from the north side property line . Mr . Michael Moseley stated that they had measured the distance between the existing property and the neighboring property . It is 12 ' , instead of 5 ' which is on the maps . They are going to eliminate the chimney and get a special blower for the furnace downstairs , so there will be an 8 ' distance from the existing neighbor ' s house to the new addition . Vice Chairman King asked if that would be the neighbor to the north . Mr . Moseley replied yes . Vice Chairman King then asked if the neighbor ' s cottage is about 2 - 3 ' north of the south common property boundary line . Mr . Moseley stated that the neighbor ' s cottage is 12 ' from the lot line . He further stated that his lot line goes underneath an addition which the neighbor has put on his house . Vice Chairman King stated that is on the east side . Mr . Frost stated that the existing house , on the north side , is 8 + ' to the property line . Mr . Moseley said it is 12 ' . Mr . Frost said the deck may be 12 ' , but the notice is simply saying that the house is non-conforming due to an 8 ' property line . Mr . Moseley added that they are 12 ' at the point by the chimney . They are only coming out 4 ' because they are eliminating the chimney . When they finish they will be 8 ' from the walkway staircase to the property line . Vice Chairman King asked if that is from the new addition . Mr . Frost said that the 8 ' mentioned in the hearing notice is one of the non- conformities about the house that is now being changed . Vice Chairman King asked if that is at the closest point . Mr . Frost said yes . Mr . Moseley stated that the reason they are doing this is because in the northeast corner of the house there is a trap door that opens up . Then there is a little tiny spiral staircase that goes down . It ' s extremely dangerous . They had the washer and dryer in the entryway closet . They would like to remove them in order to be able to use the closet and they would put the washer and dryer downstairs . That ' s the reason for the enclosure . Vice Chairman King asked if the enclosure would be on the outside of the building . Mr . Moseley answered affirmatively . Vice Chairman King asked how wide the • enclosure will be . Mr . Moseley replied that they are going to try to keep it to a maximum of 4 ' . Mr . Stotz asked if the stairs would be inside the enclosure . Mr . Moseley answered yes . Mr . Frost asked if they had determined the width of the stairs they would be able to get in . Mr . Moseley said they would be a full 3 ' . dTown of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 Mr . Stotz asked if there had been any reaction from the neighbor on the north side . • Mr . Moseley said there has been no reaction at all . Mr . Frost stated that the neighbor has been residing for the last month in Alabama . He would have received a notice at the Ithaca address . Mr . Moseley added that he believed the neighbor was going to be at the present meeting because his addition is on Bradley ' s line , it actually crosses the line . He also added that he believes there are also some water problems . Vice Chairman King asked where the stairs will start in relation to the existing chimney . Mr . Moseley replied about 2 ' west of the chimney . Vice Chairman King asked if that is toward Taughannock Boulevard . Mr . Moseley replied yes . He continued by saying that they will be putting in a doorway where there is presently a window so they can exit the house , go down the stairs and back in the basement . Vice Chairman King asked if it will be totally enclosed . Mr . Moseley said yes . There will be a door on the west side so one can enter if he / she wishes . Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Moseley if he is saying that the north side of the new addition will , at its closest point , be 8 ' from the common property line . Mr . Moseley answered affirmatively . He added that the far end of the addition will be at 15 - 20 ' because the property line goes a certain way and the addition goes straight down as shown on the drawing . Vice Chairman King opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Kanter to give the Board his highlights of the • environmental assessment review . Mr . Kanter stated that the assessment was prepared by JoAnn Cornish , and it seems that most of it is descriptive . Under C2 , JoAnn does indicate that the proposed staircase appears to be in character with the existing structure . He added that JoAnn goes on to mention that there are a number of non- conforming building lots with structures located within setbacks in that area . The property to the north will be somewhat changed by the proposed addition by vegetation and topography . JoAnn also mentioned that the property to the north has a patio and deck on the north side of their property . This means their outdoor living space is actually opposite the proposed staircase . Vice Chairman King asked if that means immediately opposite . Mr . Kanter said it means on the other side , so they would not even see the staircase from their outdoor living space . Mr . Kanter said they recommend a negative determination of environmental significance for the action proposed . Vice Chairman King asked for any questions / comments . He then asked for a motion on the environmental assessment . MOTION by Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals adopt the findings of the Town of Ithaca Planning Department and , accordingly , make a negative declaration of environmental significance for the proposed action of the appeal of Bradley Corbitt , requesting to be permitted to construct an enclosed walkway on the north side of the building lot at 907 Taughannock Boulevard , even though such proposed action would result in reducing the north side yard by an additional 5 ' . Vice Chairman King then asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala , Stotz . NAYS - None Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 • The motion was carried unanimously . Vice Chairman King then reiterated that the lot is non- conforming because the side yard is not within the required 15 ' criteria . He then asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION by Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the request of the appellant , Bradley Corbitt , of 907 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 10 , District R- 15 , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . The current structure of the house is somewhat unsafe with the small stairway , and this will provide a safer means of exit for both the upstairs and downstairs . 2 . There is no other practical location in which to place the stairway . 3 . The view of the neighboring property is not impeded in any way . 4 . There will be an 7 ' 6 " clearance , at its nearest point , between the house and the north property line , within which will be the enclosed walk . 5 . Upon completion of the construction , a licensed surveyor will provide a survey showing the dimensions . • Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows ° Appeal of Denmark Development Inc . /Bridges of Ithaca, Appellants , Elizabeth and Patricia Classen , Agents , requesting a variance from Section 4 . 01- 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place a sign 10 square feet in area ( maximum 4 square feet allowed ) , stating "Bridges of Ithaca" at 704 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31-4-2 , Residence District R-30 . Ms . Elizabeth Classen stated that they would like a sign variance approved at this time . They would like the sign to be larger than what is presently allowed . The total square footage they are asking for is 10 . 35 ' on the sign that faces Five Mile Drive , and 10 . 6on the sign that will be facing Bostwick Road . Vice Chairman King asked about the difference in sizes - - he thought they were identical . Ms . Classen said it is because the "Assisted Living for Seniors " sign is a little bit longer than " 704 Five Mile Drive . " She referred the Board to a drawing in order to inspect the signs . One sign has more wording . Mr . Scala then asked if the sizing includes the posts . Ms . Classen stated that it does not . She continued by saying she is sure the Board is aware that the Classens have already presented this before the Planning Board . They did things in a different order than is done normally . • Mr . Scala pointed out that the appeal states 10 square feet , but the drawing shows 12 . 5 square feet . Ms . Classen said that the information that came to the Board is wrong . Someone did not write in the total square footage . .Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 Mr . Frost clarified by saying that the lower sign doesn ' t count . The Sign Law • permits there to be a sign that indicates the property number . In his notice , he excluded that lower sign . He basically squared off the upper panel that says " Bridges of Ithaca . " He also stated that his notice isn ' t written perfectly clear . The Sign Law only permits one sign for a permitted use in a residential zone . They ( the Classens ) are , of course , proposing two . He added that , in business zones , a corner property is allowed two signs . That might be something the Board wants to consider in granting this variance . This is a corner property . For residential districts , corner properties are not allowed two free- standing signs . Mr . Scala asked why the sign is so much bigger than what is allowed . Ms . Classen informed the Board that it was designed bigger than what is normally allowed because they wanted to have a little better visibility of the sign in order that passers-by will be able to see it . The speed limit at that spot is 45 /mph . People usually go a little bit faster and , typically , the people that will be going by will be elderly folks who are coming to visit their friends . She continued by saying that it has been their experience , from the Jacksonville Evergreen Home , that 98 percent of all the visitors are in their ].ate 701s , 80 ' s and 90 ' s . They just felt a larger sign would be better and more visible for their visitors . Mr . Scala asked Ms . Classen if they had also requested a larger than normally allowed sign at another facility . She agreed . Vice Chairman King stated that it makes sense . On a 45 /mph road , when people are looking for a specific place , there isn ' t much time to find the address when driving by . Ms . Elizabeth Classen said that Ms . Patricia Classen brought up a good point when she said that the allowable 4 square feet sign , in proportion to the building , would not be aesthetically proportionate . She asked that the • Board also consider that fact . The sign they are now asking for won ' t be an outstanding fixture in relation to the size of the building . Vice Chairman King asked if the maximum height above ground is 6 ' . Ms . Classen responded; affirmatively . Mr . Stotz asked about the size of the sign on Trumansburg Road . Ms . Classen said it is under 6 ' . They did not go over 6 ' , and they wanted it a little more into the ground . After looking at it , they decided it should have been sunk into the ground a little more . She believes it ' s about 5 - 5 . 5 ' . Mr . Stotz then asked about the width of the sign . Ms . Classen asked him if he meant the Classen Home Health sign . He said he did . Ms . Classen stated that it ' s about 9 square feet . Mr . Scala asked if the new sign would be about the same color as the other signs . Ms . Classen said they have not yet decided on the colors , but it will be gold leaf in lettering with a dark color for a background . The same designer will be used . It will be a wooden , carved sign , as is the sign at Classen Home Health . Mr . Stotz asked if the sign will be lit at night . Ms . Classen replied that they would like it to be lit at night . They believe that is very crucial , especially for the evening visitors , for identifying the facility . Mr . Stotz asked if they planned on having lights on the ground to provide the sign lighting . his . Classen stated that is probably what they would do . Mr . Stotz then asked if the neighbors are aware that the sign will be lit at night . Ms . Classen replied that the neighbors know exactly what the sign looks like and how large it is . As they were going around to collect signatures , the neighbors were shown the sign . As far as being lit at night , she indicated that it • never occurred to them to talk to the neighbors about that . Ms . Patricia Classen stated that the Shipmans would be the ones affected by that . Ms . Elizabeth Classen agreed with that . She then said that the Shipmans are right across the street from the facility . She then said that Mr . Bacon keeps those lights on all night long . Every window . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 • presently has a light in it and so she does not anticipate any problems from the neighbors . She added that the Shipmans have been very supportive and they are the people mostly affected by the facility . Mr . Frost asked if any part of the application stated that there would be an illuminated sign . Ms . Classen said no . Mr . Frost said they have Section 3 . 02 - 1 of the Sign Law that talks about signs that may be put up in a residential district without a permit . There ' s a line there that says " one wall sign , as needed to identify the buildings or activities of houses of worship , libraries , museums , nursing homes or similar institutions and one free- standing sign on the premises , not to exceed 24 square feet , nor to be greater than 6 ' in height . " The beginning of the paragraph talks about the fact that those signs may be put on the property without a permit if they are not self- illuminated . He then asked if the signs the Classens propose will be self- illuminated or if they will have indirect lighting . Ms . Classen stated that it would be indirect lighting . Mr . Frost stated that he believes a definition of self- illumination would be a back- lit sign . Ms . Classen said a neon sign would be considered self- illuminated . Mr . Frost suggested , for the purpose of the hearing , that one of the signs is a permitted sign and one requires a variance . Attoxney Barney ( after looking up the definition ) stated that a self- illuminated sign is an internally- illuminated sign with graphics displayed on a translucent face . Ms . Classen said she is curious about the 24 square feet . What sign is that allowed on? Attorney Barney replied that it is allowed on one free - standing sign . • Vice Chairman King asked if the sign would be parallel to the road . Ms . Classen said it would be perpendicular to the road because the house is situated so close to the road . The sign that would be facing Five Mile Drive would have to be perpendicular because of the road being so close to the house . Vice Chairman King said it would be a two- faced sign in order to be seen from either direction of road travel . The sign that faces Bostwick Road would be parallel . Mr . Scala pointed out that the drawing also shows that sign as being perpendicular . Ms . Patricia Classen stated it was in question due to the fact that the landscape architect wanted to fit the sign in with the landscaping on the Bostwick Road side . Mr . Scala asked if there is something in the Sign Law concerning parallel versus perpendicular . Vice Chairman King replied there is not . It ' s all a matter of obstruction , etc . Mr . Frost said the talk about the non-permitted sign does not go into location detail . Where they get into the free- standing permitted sign , they are looking at being located between a sidewalk and a street , no closer than 2 ' from the sidewalk or 3 ' from a building or structure , and not closer than 15 ' from the side lot line . Ms . Classen indicated that she needs to make a correction . Both signs would be perpendicular . Mr . Scala pointed out that the only concern would be the distance from the edge of the road . It now shows 16 ' to the center of the sign from the edge of the road . Mr . Frost said that is true for Bostwick Road , but it doesn ' t appear to be the case on Five Mile Drive . Ms . Patricia Classen stated that it measures 33 ' from the middle of the road on Bostwick Road . Mr . Kanter pointed out that one of the Sign Review Board conditions is that the sign on Five Mile Drive be relocated so as not to encroach upon the road right-of-way . On Five Mile Drive , the road right- of-way actually goes almost all the way up to the porch • of the house . Vice Chairman King added that it might , therefore , be an impossible condition. . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 Mr . Stotz asked what is the rationale for having it outside the road right- of-way . • Mr . Kanter said it would probably require some sort of special approval from the State Highway Department to install a sign . Mr . Stotz reminded Ms . Classen that the sign on Trumansburg Road encroaches on the road right- of-way . He asked if she had to , at that time , get permission from the State . Ms . Classen responded no , they did not . Mr . Stotz continued by saying that , if he is understanding correctly , you can do that - - it ' s just at your own risk . If the State comes along and decides to do something with the right-of-way , you lose your sign . Ms . Classen agreed and said that is what was decided at the last meeting . She just needed her memory refreshed . Her understanding is that , if the State should need to do something with the right-of-way , it would be at the Classen ' s expense to move the sign . Mr . Frost stated that they have made a point of keeping the signs off the pavement , but he ' s not so sure the ordinance actually regulates it from being in the road right-of- way . Perhaps it should , but it doesn ' t . Mr . Stotz noted that if the Classens are willing to accept the risk of losing the sign , it shouldn ' t be an issue , unless it ' s an obstruction to traffic or if it should be a garish sign that would make the road unsafe . Mr . Scala noted that the drawing shows an 8 ' setback but he ' s not too clear whether it ' s to the center of the sign or to the edge of the sign . That would make a difference . He asked Ms . Classen if she knows . Ms . Classen stated that it would be , she believes , to the center of the sign . Mr . Scala said that means the edge of the sign is going to be about a 5 ' setback . Mr . Stotz asked if there is going to be an entrance on Bostwick Road . Ms . Classen • answered affirmatively . Vice Chairman King asked if this is the main entrance . Ms . Classen responded yes . Mr . Stotz assumed they want to put that sign there because it ' s near the driveway but , since this is a triangular- shaped piece of property and he believes they are putting in some screening , some shrubbery , would it make any sense to put in a single sign at the corner of the property? It would then be set in from the right-of- way . Ms . Classen said that you can ' t really see anything until you are almost right on the house because of the spruce . She thinks the sign at the corner could be an idea . She prefers that it mark the main entrance . Mr . Kanter noted that another consideration is that the intersection at Bostwick and Five Mile Drive is being reconfigured by the County . He ' s not sure what ' s happening with that . Sometime in the fall it will become somewhat more of a straight intersection . Vice Chairman. King stated that it ' s a good idea to have a sign on each road so people coming from either direction have enough time to see they are at the place they are looking for . tor . Kanter said he has no problem from an aesthetic or visual viewpoint . He wonders if there is any problem in considering the Planning Board ' s recommendation for where it is . Vice Chairman King asked for the Planning Board ' s recommendation . Mr . Stotz added that if you put the sign outside of the right-of-way , the sign would be inside the building . Mr . Scala asked if the right-of-way is a total of at least 30 ' . Vice Chairman King said it varies with the lot . The State usually claims 66 ' . Mr . Scala explained that what he is getting at is the edge of pavement doesn ' t really mean anything . Mr . Scala asked where is the edge of the property . Mr . Frost said • there is a survey map upstairs from when they got the approval at the last meeting to have a building . His recollection is that the property line , or right- of-way line , is 9 ' from the front porch facing Five Mile Drive . Mr . Stotz ' s personal opinion is that it doesn ' t make much sense to put a sign of that size that close to the building . As you Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 push the sign back to clear the right-of-way , you have a big sign that ' s crowding right • against the building . Mr . Frost stated that the Turback sign is in a similar position . Ms . Patricia Classen said there was some concern about not having the sign too close to the well . There ' s been some confusion concerning the location . Mr . Scala asked if they have a landscape artist . Ms . Classen replied yes and he ' s going to help place the sign , especially on the Bostwick Road side . Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board wanted to make sure the historical sign is not obliterated . Vice Chairman King asked if there is a historical sign there now . Ms . Elizabeth Classen replied no , there is not . There is a sign that says " Old Hundred . " It ' s not deemed an historical site , but it is in their eyes . Vice Chairman King asked where that sign is located . Ms . Classen said it is shown on the map as " existing sign and post . " They plan to take that sign and mount it in the home and have a little blurb about the history of the home , etc . Vice Chairman King asked if there were any more serious questions . There were none . He then opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Vice Chairman King noted that the environmental assessment is informational only . He read the letter dated June 14 , 1995 from the Tompkins County Planning Department . Mr . Scala said he notices that the last line on C2 recommends that the sign on Five • Mile Drive be relocated so as to not encroach upon the road right- of-way . Vice Chairman King told him that it seems to be an impossibility , unless they put it on the roof of the building . It ' s a nice idea but , for this particular location , it doesn ' t seem to be feasible . Mr . Scala said they could put it right by the porch , they have 5 ' . Vice Chairman King informed Mr . Scala that it wouldn ' t do them any good ; you have to be able to see the sign from the highway . Mr . Scala stated that he understands the significance of the sentiment that a sign that size interferes with the view of the corner when it ' s close to the road . Vice Chairman King said that is not necessarily true . Mr . Stotz said it may interfere with the view of somebody approaching Five Mile Drive from the west . Someone may look toward the north to see if there was anything coming down Bostwick Road . The sign could potentially interfere with that view . Mr . Scala said that if you put the proposed sign where the existing sign is , or nearby , then it ' s going to interfere with the view , just like the recommendation says . Ms . Patricia Classen noted that the elevation of the ground is very much steeper where the existing sign is . It sits up on a hill , so the road is down three or four steps and the sign is up level with the house . Mr . Frost noted that the existing sign is much smaller than the proposed sign . Ms . Classen agreed with that . Mr . Stotz noted that the proposed shrubbery and spruce tree would eventually grow to a height that would also impede the view . Mr . Kanter added that the spruce tree that is currently there is in poor health and will be removed soon . He doesn ' t necessarily recommend taking it out , but it will probably have to happen due to its poor health . Mr . Frost addressed Mr . Scala and said if the Board determines that this is a legitimate issue , and grants an approval with the condition that the Highway Superinten- dent or someone agrees , the matter would be settled . • Ms . Elizabeth Classen noted that if the Highway Department determines the sign needs to be moved , they will agree to that . Mr . Frost indicated that his office could communicate with the proper person to let him know what is going on . Attorney Barney said that he doesn ' t think this is a type 2 action . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 Vice Chairman King asked for a motion on the environmental review . He added that it ' s important to point out the fact that the character of the neighborhood is quasi- commercial , with governmental trucks , school buses , Town Highway Barns and it is not in a 100 percent residential neighborhood . There is a cemetery to the north . There are a few single -- and multi - family homes in the area , but the applicants seem to have written approval from most of the neighborhood up and down the road for this project . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals make a negative declaration of environmental significance as to the proposed request for putting in two signs at the Bridges of Ithaca , Denmark Development , Inc . , at the comer of Bostwick Road and Five Mile Drive . Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Attorney Barney made the point that the variance is really a variance to have a second sign . They are allowed one sign already . Mr . Scala said there are two points : one is the size of the signs , the other is the fact that they ,rant two signs . Attorney • Barney noted that they are permitted to have in a residential zone one sign , free - standing , 24 square feet in size . He agrees with Mr . Frost that this is close enough to being a nursing home so as to fall into the same category , which is covered under the Sign Law . You are not , however , allowed to have a second free - standing sign . The variance mould really be to permit the construction and erection of a second sign . Mr . Frost stated that the law exempts them from one and requires a permit for the other . He sees the sign on Five Mile Drive as being the one that needs the variance . Mr . Scala noted that the Notice of Public Hearing refers to a maximum of 4 square feet . Mr . Frost agreed and added that is what you can have for a maximum size for a permitted use in a residential zone , which they are . Then they have the exempt sign on Bostwick Road and the Board is not dealing with that issue . The street number below the exempt sign is also clearly exempt . As he sees it , the only issue is the other sign . Attorney Barney stated that what Mr . Frost is doing is salvaging his Notice and making it clear . Attorney Barney suggested a resolution that states that the Board grants a variance for the erection of a second sign , no larger than 10 square feet facing Five Mile Drive . Ms . Eliz&.eth Classen said they have to redesign the sign so that it is 10 square feet . Is the Board saying that the. small sign hanging belo.J ;does not count? Attorney Barney said it is exempt dose to the fact that it contains the address . Vice Chairman King then asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . Tovm of It;haca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1. 995 • RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the appeal of Denmark Development , Inc . / Bridges of Ithaca , requesting a variance from Section 4 . 0- 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , to be permitted to place a second sign on Five Mile Drive , in a size not to exceed 11 square feet , with the following conditions : 1 . The sign be placed on the recommendation of the Town Highway Superintendent , 2 . The sign be constructed in a way that is in keeping with the character of the building in accordance with the submitted plans . 3 . The sign not be self- illuminated , but be indirectly illuminated only at night . Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows ° AYES - Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz . NAYS - None . The notion was carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Aral of M . Susan and Scott Hamilton , Appellants , requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article XII , Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to maintain a truck rental service at the Judd Falls Plaza , 12 Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62-1-3 . 2 , Business District C . A truck rental service is not allowed in a District C zone . • Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Hamilton if this appeal is in connection with the running of a hardware store at the Judd Falls Plaza location . Mr . Hamilton answered affirmatively . His address is 201 Christopher Lane , Town of Ithaca . He is the ovmer of that property , He is asking for the variance for his own property and to enable one of his tenants , Judd Falls Hardware , to conduct the actual business of the truck rental service . He believes the Board is in receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Board , including plans and diagrams . He indicated he would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have . Mr . Hamilton reiterated that he is appearing to receive a variance to allow them to conduct an activity that is currently not permitted under Section 34 , Vice Chairman King noted that it ' s a business C zone . He continued by saying that the application was to permit the operator to have one small truck up near the hardware store . He then asked if that would be on the east side of the building , facing close to Judd Falls Road . Mr . Hamilton answered affirmatively . Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Hamilton if he had given any thought to placing it on the north side . Mr . Hamilton replied that the reason they chose the east side is because it ' s in closest proximity to the store for purposes of handling . It ' s merely being used as a return spot and also for advertising purposes . Primarily , it would be assigned as a return portal for rental trucks . The suggestion was initially made to keep all the activity in the rear of the property , but that creates some problems from an administrative standpoint for the store . In order to do that , they would have to have another person placed out back . Vice Chairman King asked if that store was on the northeast corner of the building . Mr . Hamilton answered yes . Vice Chairman King then asked if they had access to a back door • out to the westerly part of the property . Mr . Hamilton said that is correct . Vice Chairman King asked how many people are generally in attendance at the store . Mr . Hamilton replied that currently there are two . It ' s a husband and wife , who are Present at the meeting - - Bonnie and James Warren . Sometimes there is only one person _ Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 in attendance , depending on the time of the day . It would create a real handicap if it • were mandated that they have to be physically off- site to deal with the truck rental . Vice Chairman King asked if the sign-up for the truck is done inside the store . Mr . Hamilton said it is . The computer and all of the administrative paper work is inside the store . Vice Chairman King asked about the return of these trucks . Does someone have to come to the store to do that? Mr . Hamilton said they do . Mrs . Warren said it ' s necessary for them to come into the store to obtain and sign the contract and to pay for the rental. . Mr . Stotz asked if they are anticipating any additions on the building to accommodate the business . Mr . Hamilton said there is no space to do that . Mr . Stotz asked if there is any need for them to do any maintenance on the trucks . Mrs . Warren said that Ryder provides for any maintenance . It is all done off- site . They use the Citgo across the street for gas purposes for the rental trucks . Mr . Hamilton noted that they have been undergoing the business for the past ten weeks and they have had the opportunity to physically cork with the situation . Logistically , it has created no problems . In fact , it ' s been a positive factor for most of the other tenants as it has created additional traffic flow . Mr . Stotz asked how many truces are involved . Mrs . Warren said that it varies , but there are currently three there . Mr . Warren said they are allowed four trucks and Ryder picks them up if they have too many on-- site . Vice Chairman King asked if they have different sized vehicles . Mr . Warren replied affirmatively . Mrs . Warren said they have 10 ' , 15 ' , 20 ' , and 24 ' vehicles . Vice Chairman King asked if people can return the trucks at night when the store is • closed . Mr . Warren said the one -ways sometimes are returned at night and the keys are placed in a locked box out front . Vice Chairman King asked if the key drop is on the store . M::s . Warren said it is . Vice Chairman Tang asked if they have to walk out front to return the key if the trucks are parked out back . Mrs . Warren said that is correct , but there has been no problem with that so far . Mr . Frost said that the Board could see in the pictures three junk vehicles off to the right of the picture , near the Ryder truck storage . His office has given the owner of those vehicles , another tenant , until the end of the month to remove the vehicles . Vice Chairman King asked if the vehicles had been there for a long time . Mr . Hamilton said yes and he has asked repeatedly to have them removed . He stated that Mr . Frost had been very helpful in getting this done . Mr . Frost noted that he had experience with that tenant before in that it took about one week more than the tenant had promised to remove a freezer from the sidewalk . Mr . Hamilton stated that he has made arrangements to have them towed . Mr . Hamilton referred to a drawing that was changed at the Planning Board nearing . Mr . Kanter said that at the Planning Board it was discussed for a while and it was decided that from a visual perspective , it would be better to use the existing gravel parking lot in which to store the trucks rather than the open grass area . Mr . {anter said that the Planning Board discussed the parking space in the front of the building along Judd Falls Road . It was a condition of their approval that the space be designated as a truck return aresa . Also that the trucks be taken to the back as soon as possible after their return . • Mr . Stotz asked if there had been any reaction from the neighbors across the road . Mr . Hamilton replica that he has had no negative reaction from anyone . Town of Ithaca 11 " Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 Mr . Frost asked Mr . Hamilton if he knows who owns the large 18--wheeler parked doom • the road . Mr . Hamilton replied that a summer student , who is here for the week , owns it . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mr . Scala referred to the environmental assessment form . In C2 of the environmental statement , it refers to proposed site planning . Approval was conditioned on screening the trucks from the road along Mitchell Street . Mr . Hamilton noted with the change in the location , there was no suggestion made to physically follow through with it because it wouldn ' t affect the screening . Mr . Kanter stated that he ' s not sure the Planning Board intended that the condition be eliminated . He thinks Mr . Hamilton will find when he goes back before the Planning Board that they would like to leave the condition in just to generally screen the view of the parking area from the roadway . The trucks are , to some degree , still visible . Vice Chairman King asked if that visibility is from Mitchell Street? Mr . Hamilton said yes . Mr . Scala asked if the Planning Board put in the recommendations for planting certain trees and bushes around the property . Mr . Kanter asked if he meant on the former site plan?' Mr . Scala said he means on any plan . Mr . Kanter said yes . Mr . Kanter said he thinks the point is to get some screening in that area . Mr . Scala said that his question is : Does that have to be included , or would it be accepted if the Board accepts the recommendation - •- would that be in there ? Mr . Kanter said he doesn ' t believe the Board has to make a specific reference to it because the Planning Board addresses it . Mr . Frost said they are going back to the Planning Board to finalize this anyway . Vice Chairman King asked shat financial justification Mr . Warren has for requesting • this extension of use in a business C Zone . Mr . Warren said they wouldn ' t be around much longer without the added income . Vice Chairman King asked if the hardware store didn ' t provide enough income . Mr . Warren said they won ' t be able to survive much longer . Mr . Frost said he thinks it ' s noteworthy that the Warren ' s took over from the previous owner of the hardware store , whom went under . Vice Chairman King added that he has done business there and finds it convenient to have a hardware store there . He can see where a hardware store is not too lucrative in a small neighborhood . He takes notice of the financial hardship . Mr . Scala asked if they have any plans for the rental of other equipment . They are usually s+- a.n together . Vice Chairman King noted that there is not room in the store for the rental of other equipment . Mr . Frost informed the Warren ' s that , if the Board grants approval , they will need a permit for the existing ;Ryder sign . Vice Chairman King opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . He then asked for a motion on the environmental review . Mr . Kanter read portions of the staff recommendations on the environmental assessment form . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . • RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals , based on materials submitted , make a negative determination of environmental significance regarding the appeal of M . Susan and Scott Hamilton , requesting a use var ance from the requirements of Article XII , Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a truck rental service at the Judd Falls Plaza , 12 Judd Falls Road . Tow. of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 • Vice "hairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : nYES Ellst�orth , King , Scala , Stotz . NAYS -• None . The motion was carried unanimously . Vice Chairman 1:i:ig then asked for a motion on the variance . MOTION By 11r . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the request for a use variance as appealed by 11 . Susan and Scott Hamilton of 12 Judd Falls Road , Judd Falls Plaza , Parcel 62 - 1 - 2 . 2 , Business District C . to maintain a truck rental service as shown in the plan , with the follouving findings : 1 . It is understood that this will go back to the Town Planning Board with more details with respect to final site approval . 2 . The hardware store will not survive without the truck rental service . Vice Chairman King then asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz . • NAYS - Nonc . The motion was carried unanimously . The final appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Appeal of Cornell University, Owner , Scott Whitham, Agent , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Crdinance to be permitted to make parking and site improvements at 120 Haple Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63 1- 5 , Residence R-30 . The project will take place virtually in the City of Ithaca , with a small portion of the site work occurring in the Town . Vice Chairman King noted that Section 18 is for special approval for educational usCs . He then invited Air . Whitham to speak . Mr . Whitham asked if everyone knows where the site is located . Mr . Frost :oted that if anyone were to drive through Maplewood Park in the opposite direction , they would end up on Mitchell Street . Vice Chairman King asked if that is immediately west of. the old railroad bed . Mr . Whitham said it is actually within the old railroad bed . He then indicated a line on the map where the old rail line used to go . Mr . Frost noted that basically it ' s the landscaping that ' s in the Town of Ithaca . t-Ir . Frost, stated that he had wondered whether this even had to come before the Zoning Board , but here they are . a11r . Whitham noted that initially the plan was to move more into the Town . Vice Chairman King asked him if by moving that he meant putting in parking spaces . Mr . Whitham said what he meant was making a larger lot . Mr . Kanter said also proposing a new entrance off of Maple Avcnue . Town of Ithaca 13 OZoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 Mr . F :=ost asked if there had already been final approval from the City . Mr . Whitham answered yes , as well as from the Town Planning Board . Vice Chairman King asked Mr . Whitham if he is before the Board presently to see if they will allow him to grow some trees on the east side of the property line . Mr . Whitham answered affirmatively . Mr . Kanter said it ' s pretty much a matter of coordinating site plan review between the City and the Tom . And as it got more in the City and less in the Town , they still stayed with the process . Vice Chairman King noted that the planting may be important to screen the parking lot anT-Yay . Mr . Kanter added that the sidewalk that ' s on the right , parallel to Maple Avenue , hopefully will ultimately connect with the Town of Ithaca ' s walk- way/ bikeway that goes down Maple Avenue . Mr . Whitham noted that it was added at the request of the Town . Mr . Frost referred to the electrical power station to the east . He then asked if it is owned by Cornell . I-fr . Whitham said the land is owned by Cornell , NYSEG owns the station . Mr . Frost asked if NYSEG has provided any input? He ' s curious from a safety standpoint . Mr . Whitham replied that there are some lines involved . Mr . Frost reiterated that there was a need to be careful in order that no metal comes in contact with those wires , etc . Mr . Scala asked if there are buildings there that involve maintenance or will have people in them during the construction . Mr . Whitham said there are a couple of Cornell shops there , but the power lines are quite a distance away from those buildings . Vice Chairman King asked if the buildings are all off to the west of the new parking structure . Mr . Whitham answered affirmatively . Mr . Frost asked if access to the Chilled Water Plant would now be in back of the parking lot . Mr . Whitham showed on the plans where the access would be . • Mr . Scala clarified that this is permission for parking and site improvement , but Mr . Wlhitham is only asking the Town for site improvement . So , the Board is only concerned with the site improvement , which consists of trees and shrubs . He then asked why Mr . tTilitham is required to come to the Board for approval . Mr . Frost explained that he had tried to clear that up a few minutes ago . When he saw the final version , he didn ' t feel it should go to the Zoning Board . But , it had already gone to the Planning Board , so perhaps it ' s just a formality . Vice Chairman King opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mr . Kanter stated that the Board has the environmental assessment form , so there ' s no need to go into further detail . Based on the submitted material , they recommend a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed action . Vice Chairman King asked for a motion on the environmental assessment . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . • RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals make a negative declaration of environmental significance as to the appeal of Cornell University , requesting a special approval under Article V , Section 18 , Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to make parking and site improvements at 120 Maple Avenue , Town of Ithaca , Residence District Rft - 30 . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1995 • Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Vice Chairman King asked fo;. a motion or. the special approval appeal . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the request for special approval under Article V . Section 18 , for Cornell University , Omer , Scott Whitham , Agent to be permitted to proceed w1th the plans to make perking and site improvements at 120 :Maple Avenue , Toon of Ithaca , Tax Parcel 63- 1 - 5 , Residence R- 30 , with the following finding : 1 . That the prcposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a-h . Vice Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES -• Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz . NAYS - None . • The motion was carried unanimously . The meeting was adjourned . � O Debbie Raines , Recording Secretary C Vice Chairman Edward 19 u r G •