Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1996-07-10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , JULY 10 , 1996 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 10 , 1996 , 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 The Coddington Road Community Center , Appellant , Anne Morrissette , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 Q of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 24 ' x 40 ' open o pavilion at the Community Center located at 920 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax E Parcel No . 47- 1 - 11 . 3 , Residence District R- 30 . The Center is not a specifically p permitted use in a R- 30 zone . A "10 "A HmatheN h hittemevn a►r K 0e61a Meyere , APPelianto , *m004o 4nv vow; ,�aes from P Article V , Section 21 and 23 as promulgated by Article XI , Section 51 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a property which does not contain d a yard fronting on a Town , County or State roadway, located at 289 Hayts Road , Town of E Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1- 41 . 8 , Agricultural Zone ( R-30 regulations apply ) . As a land D locked parcel , lot dimensions cannot be met . APPEAL of John J . Augustine , Jr . , Appellant , requesting variances from Section 280A of New York State Town Law and Article V . Sections 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be able to create a building lot which does not front on a Town , County , or State roadway , located at 109 Rich Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 50- 1- 5 . 4 , Residence District R-30 . A APPEAL of Donald Balcom and Sarah Pearson , Appellants , Bob Shaw , Agent , requesting a P P variance from Article IV , Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be opermitted to subdivide land which does not have a lot width of 100 ' , measured 50 ' from V the street line , at 1035 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 -7- 6 , Residence District R- 15 . A lot width of 86 . 7 ' + will be provided . D 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 28 , 1996 Publish : July 5 , 1996 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ` lA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS isWEDNESDAY , JULY 10 , 1996 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 10 , 1996 , 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 The Coddington Road Community Center , Appellant , Anne Morrissette , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 24 ' x 40 ' open pavilion at the Community Center located at 920 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47 - 1 - 11 . 3 , Residence District R-30 . The Center is not a specifically permitted use in a R- 30 zone . APPEAL of Matthew Whittemore and Jodie Meyers , Appellants , requesting variances from Article V . Section 21 and 23 as promulgated by Article XI , Section 51 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a property which does not contain a yard fronting on a Town , County or State roadway , located at 289 Hayts Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 - 41 . 8 , Agricultural Zone ( R- 30 regulations apply ) . As a land locked parcel , lot dimensions cannot be met . APPEAL of John J . Augustine , Jr . , Appellant , requesting variances from Section 280A of • New York State Town Law and Article V . Sections 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be able to create a building lot which does not front on a Town , County , or State roadway , located at 109 Rich Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 50- 1 - 5 . 4 , Residence District R- 30 . APPEAL of Donald Balcom and Sarah Pearson , Appellants , Bob Shaw , Agent , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to subdivide land which does not have a lot width of 100 ' , measured 50 ' from the street line , at 1035 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 71 - 7 - 6 , Residence District R- 15 . A lot width of 86 . 7 ' + will be provided . 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 28 , 1996 Publish : July 5 , 1996 • FINAL • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA WEDNESDAY , JULY 10 , 1996 7 : 00 P . M . 1 . Appeal of Coddington Road Community Center at 920 Coddington Road . 2 . Appeal of Matthew Whittemore and Jodie Meyers at 289 Hayts Road . 3 . Appeal of John J . Augustine , Jr . , Appellant at 109 Rich Road . 4 . Appeal of Donald Balcom and Sarah Pearson at 1035 Hanshaw Road . 5 . Adjourned appeal of EcoVillage Cohousing Cooperative at 1323 Mecklenburg Road . Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273- 1783 • Dated : June 28 , 1996 • • TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I . Dani L . Holford , being duly sworn , depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary , Tompkins County , New York ; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper , The Ithaca Journal . Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York on Wednesday , July 10 , 1996 ? commencing at 7 : 00 P . M . , as per attached . Location of sign board used for posting : Bulletin board , front entrance of Town • Hall . Date of posting : June 28 , 1996 Date of publication : July 5 , 1996 Q Dani L . Holford , Building anA Zoning Department Secretary , Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5th day of July , 1996 , Laj' k6 0 NoCri P tic 97 BETTY F. POOLE NOTARY PUBLIC STATE Of NEIN YORK # 4646 427 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSEDate. , FINAL WEDNESDAY, JULY 10. 1996 The following appeals were heard by the board on July 101 1996 : APPEAL of The Coddington Road Community Center, Appellant , Anne Morrissette , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 24' x 40' open pavilion at the Community Center located at 920 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47- 1 - 11 . 3 , Residence District R-30 . The Center is not a specifically permitted use in a R-30 zone . GRANTED APPEAL of Matthew Whittemore and Jodie Meyers , Appellants , requesting variances from Article V, Section 21 and 23 as promulgated by Article XI , Section 51 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a property which does not contain a yard fronting on a Town , County or State roadway, located at 289 Hayts Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24= 1 -41 . 8 , Agricultural Zone ( R-30 regulations apply) . As a land locked parcel , lot dimensions cannot be met . GRANTED APPEAL of John J . Augustine , Jr. , Appellant , requesting variances from Section 280A of New York State Town Law and Article V, Sections 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be able • to create a building lot which does not front on a Town , County, or State roadway, located at 109 Rich Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 50- 1 -5 .4 , Residence District R-30 , ADJOURNED TO AUGUST 14 , 1996 APPEAL of Donald Balcom and Sarah Pearson , Appellants , Bob Shaw, Agent , requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to subdivide land which does not have a lot width of 100' , measured 50' from the street line , at 1035 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -7-6, Residence District R- 15 . A lot width of 86 . 7' + will be provided . GRANTED APPEAL of EcoVillage Co-Housing Cooperative ( adjourned from June 26 , 1996 ) , requesting a variance from the requirements of Town of Ithaca Local Law #7 , as amended , " Requiring Sprinkler Systems to be installed in buildings , " to be permitted to construct a "common house" without a sprinkler system installation , at 1323 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -26 . 2 , Special Land Use District #8 . Said common house will serve as an area of assembly for cooperative members and their guests . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS • FILED FDate N OF fTHACA FINALTOWN OF ITHACA �� • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS clerk WEDNESDAY. JULY 10. 199fi PRESENT: Chairman David Stotz, Edward King , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Ronald Krantz, Director of Building and Zoning Andrew Frost , Attorney for the Town John Barney . OTHERS: John Augustine , Jr. , Jodie Meyers , Matthew Whittemore , Sarah Pearson , Anne Morrissette , Bob Shaw, Claudia Weisburd , Jerry Weisburd , Liz Walker, Deena Berke , Nancy Brown , Susan McGreivy , Joan Bokaer, Marcie Boyd , Pamela Carson , Jay Jacobson , Mary Webber , Bill Webber, Jen Bokaer-Smith , Maria Gasser, Jared Jones , Calvin Smith , Tom Bennigson . Chairman David Stotz called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p . m . , 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 The Coddington Road Community Center, Appellant; Anne Morn ette, Agen4 requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be • pennitted to construct a 24' x 40 ' open pavilion at the Community Center located at 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47441.3, Residence District R-30. The Center is not a specifically permitted use in a R 30 zone. Anne Morrissettte , Director of the Coddington Road Community Center, said that she is representing the appeal for the building of a pavilion to be built by the Youth Conservation Corp . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Morrissette where she resides . Ms . Morrissette responded at 1058 Coddington Road . Mr. Frost said the Board should have a copy of a memo , bascially the Community Center is not a permitted use under the current R-30 zones , therefore , any change made to the property involving use of the property requires special approval under Article XI I , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordnance. Mr. Frost said this appeal was on the agenda for the Planning Board last night , which was not necessary for the Planning Board to review, so the Zoning Board of Appeals action tonight is for approval under Article XII , Section 54 for the addition of a 24 feet by 40 feet pavilion on the back property . Mr . Frost passed photographs around to the Board Members Ms. Monissette said that Ernie Bayles did the final plans for the pavilion . Ms . Morrissette said the storage area at the end of the pavilion is going to be oriented a little bit differently. Ms . Morrissette said she left the plans with the storage area on them with the Planning Board last night . Ms . Morrissette said the storage area instead of being all across one end , will be slightly smaller and to the back and turned the other way , that' s the only difference . • • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 JULY 10, 1996 Chairman Stotz asked Ms. Morrissette which property line side would the storage area be . Ms . Morrissette said that the storage area would be on the northeast portion of the pavilion . Ms . Morrissette said the storage area would be turned along the long side of the pavilion towards the back of the property , which was changed by the architect , based on the Center's needs . Ms . Morrissette said the pavilion would be used by the community as well as youth programs that need better shelter. Chairman Stotz said in the request for this appeal , Ms . Morrissette mentioned that the pavilion is needed because the Center holds a summer program for children and youths , and there is an issue when it rains or when it is too hot and sunny, they have to cancel . Ms . Monissette said that was correct. Ms. Monissette said we have a very small pavilion , which is about one quarter the size of the proposed pavilion . Ms . Morrissette said when it rains , that it rains right into the small pavilion . Ms . Morrissette said the playground program which is a three hour six week program sponsored by the Town and the County Division for Youth , would have to be canceled because you cannot get them in out of the rain, and this is a major inconvenience for parents . We've has to cancel it once this already this summer. Ms . Morrissette said the Community Center is looking for the survival of that program , which has been very popular in the community. We 're serving almost 60 kids this summer. Ms . Morrissette said the Community Center is looking towards being able to have a facility that other programs, such as scout troops could use or even families could even reserve an use for picnics . Ms . • Monissette said the new pavilion would be adjacent to the Town's play field , not on the play field . Ms . Morrissette said the new pavilion would be on the Community Center property , but the funding is coming from a private donation through the Youth Conservation Corp . who is ear marked for this project . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Morrissette who is the neighbor at the northeast border. Ms . Morrissette said Ann Silsbee , who was at the Planning Board meeting last night and Herbert Finch , who is on the Planning Board . Ms . Morrissette said Ms . Silsbee's and Mr. Finch' s property lines abut at the first iron pipe . Ms . Morrissette said Noel Desch owns the land behind the Community Center. Chairman Stotz asked if there was any discussion among them . Ms . Morrissette said Ms . Silsbee was supportive. She came for information . We've had the orange sign posted up front for the last month . She seemed supportive , she just wanted to make sure it wasn't going to affect her property . Ms . Morrissette said that Mr. Finch abstained on the project , but he's known it for awhile . Chairman Stotz said he didn't think Mr . Finch would have any objections to it . Attorney Barney said he didn't . Ms. Morrissette said she thinks she understands what's happening about the Public Hearing , Attorney Barney said that the Planning Board decided that she does not need to attend the second Public Hearing meeting . Mr. Frost asked Ms . Morrissette what is the height of the pavilion . Ms . Morrissette said the height is ten feet . • Mr. Frost asked Ms. Morrissette if there would be any electricity to the pavilion . Ms . Morrissette • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 JULY 10, 1996 said yes , no plumbing , just electricity. Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Morrissette what would be stored in the storage area . Ms . Morrissette said program materials , which is a problem at the present time for any existing programs . Ms. Morrissette said the Community Center is very small with two classrooms and no storage . Ms . Morrissette said there is a small shed on the side of the building , which stores chairs and program materials, so the new pavilion with the storage area would allow programs to store their materials that may meet there once a week and be able to come back with a key. They've never had to lock things up . We leave out equipment for kids to play with . Ms . Morrissette said they were starting to have problems with things being damaged . Ms . Morrissette said the storage area would be locked up , so they could store valuable things or expensive toys to preserve . Ms . Morrissette said the storage area would have Dutch doors to be able to open it for theatre group type performances . Ms . Morrissette said the Community Center would like to have the storage area to be as versatile as possible to meet the needs of whatever programming ideas people come up in the community that want to use it . Mr. Ellsworth asked Ms . Morrissette if Noel Desch was at the Planning Board meeting . Ms . Morrissette responded, no, but he is aware of the project . Ms . Morrissette said the Community Center sent out a letter to all the neighbors in early June to let them know what we had in mind and to get their Oriput . Ms . Morrissette said so far they've only had received positive feedback about it . Chairman Stotz opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 20 p . m . With no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 7 : 21 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz said the Planning Board made recommendations as far as the SEQR of the environmental document is concerned . Chairman Stotz said the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , that there is need for the proposed use in the proposed location as demonstrated by the applicant . Chairman Stotz said the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project . Chairman Stotz said the specific proposed use is in accordance with the comprehensive plan that was developed for the Town of Ithaca , and therefore the Planning Board reports its recommendation that the Coddington Road Community Center request for special approval be approved . Chairman Stotz said the environmental assessment from July 9 , 1996 states that there are no significant environmental impacts are expected consistent with the suburban neighborhood character. Chairman Stotz said the Planning Board recommended a negative determination of environmental- significance . • MOTION TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 JULY 10, 1996 By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the Coddington Road Community Center at 920 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47- 1 - 11 . 3 , Residence District R-30 , based on the review by the Town Planning Department dated June 28 , 1996 , for enlargement of a non conforming use . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES = Stotz, King , Scala , Ellsworth , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Frost if there were any setback problems with this location . Mr. Frost responded , no . • MOTIOnr By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala : RESOLVED, that this board grants a special approval to enlarge a non-conforming useto construct a pavilion with a storage shed , as requested by the Coddington Road Community Center of 92.0 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47- 1 - 11 . 3 , and that no neighbors have complained and this would be in keeping with the neighborhood based on Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Paragraphs a-h . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, King , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The second appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of Matthew Whittemore and Jodie Meyers, Appellants, requesting variances bom Article V, Section 21 and 23 as promulgated by Article Xl, Section • 51 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a property which does not contain a yard fronting on a Town, Gouniy, or State roadway, • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5 JULY 10, 1996 located at 289 Hayts Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 1-41. 8, Agricultural Zone (R-30 rog dations apply). As a land locked parcel, lot dimensions cannot be met. Chairman Stotz asked Ms. Meyers if there was a bam built prior to this proposal in the back of the house . Jodie Meyers of 289 Hayts Road said that was a garage . Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Frost if this variance should have been considered . Mr. Frost said there are copies of the 1992 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes attached to each member's packet . Mr. Frost said this was given an approval as a non-conforming use under Article XII , Section 54 , in addition to the variance being granted for the Whittemore- Meyers not having road frontage under Section 280A of the New York State Town Law. Mr. Frost said what should have happened in 1992 , was to grant a variance for not having a road frontage , which by definition is a portion of land between part of the principal building and the road . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Meyers if they would be building the addition on the back of the house . Ms . Meyers said the addition would be going on the side of the house . • Mr. Frost said this is an agricultural zone , which Section 51 refers to the R-30 regulations as applying to residential uses in an agricultural zone , therefore Section 51 would be following back onto Section 21 and 23 of the Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Frost said Section 51 makes a direct reference to R- 30 regulations . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Meyers how they access their property now. Ms . Meyers said there is a long driveway that connects to Hayts Road , Chairman Stotz asked if the driveway is on the left side if they face their lot . Ms . Meyers said that was correct . Attorney Barney asked Ms . Meyers if the driveway has a road name . Ms . Meyers responded , no . Chairman Stotz asked Ms. Meyers if the addition would be going on the side of the house . Ms . Meyers said as people face the front of the house , the addition would be on the right-hand side . Chairman Stotz asked if there would be a view from the driveway or would the garage block the view. Ms . Meyers said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Meyers if the addition would be blended in with the existing house . Ms . Meyers said the house , the addition , and the garage would be resided to blend together. Mr . Krantz asked Ms . Meyers if there are any objections from the neighbors . Ms . Meyers 4Vesponded , no . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6 JULY 102 1996 Chairman Stotz opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 32 p . m . With no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 7 : 33 p . m . Mr. Scala said the 1992 minutes refer to a building permit to build an addition to the home , but the variance is to permit to maintain a property, which does not contain a front yard . Mr. Scala asked if there is something missing here , since the variance is permit the Whittemore= Meyers to put on a building addition . Chairman Stotz said the variance is to maintain and enlarge a non-conforming property . Chairman Stotz said the addition is not the issue here , it is whether or not they should maintain the property without road frontage . Chaimmn Stotz asked Mr. Frost , if this appeal is granted , if the Whittemore- Meyers would like to modify their property in some way or build on their property as long as they meet the setback requirements , they could do that without any further action by the Town . Mr. Frost responded , yes . Chairman Stotz asked if that would enable Mr. Frost to treat this lot as any other lot . Attorney Barney said before granting this appeal , this board should identify what the front yard should be . Chairman Stotz asked Ms. Meyers if the house faces the driveway. Ms . Meyers said that was correct . is Attorney Barney asked who owns the driveway. Ms . Meyers said that they share it with the neighbor. Attomey Barney asked if they own a piece of it or do they have a right-of-way. Ms . Meyers said they have the right of-way. Attorney Barney asked who owns the right-of--way. Ms . Meyers said the Younes own the driveway. Attorney Barney asked if that used to be the MacLean property. Ms . Meyers said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked if the property line was to the house side of the driveway, by following the edge of the driveway. Ms . Meyers said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked Attorney Barney if the setback should be measured from that lot line . Attorney Barney said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked if that would be the same for the side lots . Attorney Barney said that was correct , and for future reference for this board , it should be outlined as a condition as granting this variance in terms of the front yard space to the west of the house , side yard to the space north and south of the house , and the rear yard should be facing east to the house . MOTION By Mr. Edward King , seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED, that this board grant a variance to the applicants of Jodie Meyers and Matthew Whittemore of 289 Hayts Road from the requirements of Section 21 of the • Zoning Ordinance , which specifies a front yard depth , and also this board grant a variance from Section 23 , Subdivision 3 , which specifies a maximum width of TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7 JULY % 1996 dimensional required front yard setback for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 -41 . 8 . Approval having been given to and for this subdivision to create a building lot without frontage on a public road , which that variance was given on June 24 , 1992 , but without reference to these two additional sections of the Zoning Ordinance in which apply under the variance the applicants may construct their home as indicated . The driveway to the west side of the lot would be regarded as the road frontage front yard area , and the north and south lines of the lot be regarded as side yard , and the east line be regarded as the back yard , based upon the representation that they would construct the house substantially facing the driveway in front of the house . In such construction , they would adhere to the R-30 regulations for the placement of the house , so the new front yard , side and rear yards comply with the ordinance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, King , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . • The third appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of John J. Augustine, Jr., Appellant requesting variances from Section 280A of New York State Town Law and Article V, Sections 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to create a building lot which does not front on a Town, County, or State roadway, located at 109 Rich Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 5044.4, Residence District R40. Mr. Frost said there is a slight problem with this appeal . Mr. Frost said the application and the hearing notice were based on a survey map , which the survey map showed a parcel without any road frontage . Mr. Frost said the survey map was subsequently amended , so there is 30 feet of road frontage . Mr. Frost said the Building and Zoning Department never received the amended survey map, and therefore , the appeal notice was misadvertized , and during the process it was discovered that this is a R-15 zone not a R-30 zone . Mr . Frost said this appeal would need to be readvertise . Mr. Frost said this appeal also went in front of the Planning Board . The Planning Board Public Hearing Notice was never advertised , so this appeal would be going back to the Planning Board in August and would need to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals in August as well . Mr. Frost said Attorney Barney might want to clarify this , but thought the Zoning Board of Appeals could still have the discussion on this appeal , so their actions in August could be done quicker . Attorney Barney asked the Zoning Board of Appeals members if they would like to discuss this 40appeal now or wait until August . Mr. Ellsworth said it gets complicated until the legal part is cleared • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8 JULY 10, 1996 up . Attorney Barney asked what legal part . Mr. Ellsworth said it was misadvertized . Attorney Barney said this would all be cleaned up by August . Chairman Stotz asked if the Zoning Board could make a motion pending the outcome . Attorney Barney responded , no , that there should be a corrected advertisement for this appeal . Attorney Barney said it was compounded because there was a problem with the Planning Board notice regarding the subdivision approval . Attorney Barney said the Zoning Board cannot take action without the Planning Board approval to determine whether to grant this subdivision or not . Attorney Barney said this appeal has gone before two boards ( Planning and Zoning) with two different hypothesis , as it was noticed that the Zoning Board application was for a 280A. This subdivision would have 30 feet of frontage on a public road . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Augustine if this creates a problem for him to come back in August . Mr . Augustine responded , if that is the way it has to be , there should not be any problems . Mr. Augustine said if there is any thing he could do to expedite this appeal so the August hearing would be shorter, he would like to do it tonight . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Augustine if it would be helpful to discuss the appeal tonight . Mr . Augustine responded , yes . • Mr. King said Mr. Augustine needs to consider the rights of his neighbors to know what is being requested. Mr. Ellsworth said the readvertising would state that . Mr. Frost said the readvertising is the same issue , that the section numbers may have been quoted wrong , but this appeal goes back to the fact that Mr . Augustine lacks road frontage . Mr . Ellsworth said this appeal is just like the last appeal . Attorney Barney responded , no , that the last appeal had no road frontage at all , but this appeal has 30 feet of road frontage which is to narrow. John Augustine, Jr. , of 109 Rich Road , said that he has lived at this property for 28 years . Mr. Augustine said he has purchased a new house , and that he has come before the Zoning Board of Appeals to subdivide this parcel . Mr. Augustine said the parcel has been very difficult to sell in its present condition with the garage in back of the house . Mr. Augustine said as it stands right now, he does have a purchase offer , which is contingent upon what happens with the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation. Mr. Augustine said the purchase offer is for Parcel A. He would be retaining Parcel B , and eventually the building would be turned into a house . Mr. King asked Mr. Augustine if the building on Parcel B , the garage , would be converted into a house . Mr. Augustine said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Augustine what he would be doing with the house at that point . Mr. Augustine said as it stands right now , his son would be owning that . Mr . Ellsworth asked Mr. Augustine if he would be expanding the garage . Mr . Augustine Desponded , no , that the garage is 26 feet by 52 feet . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 JULY 109 1996 Chapman Stolz asked Mr. Augustine if he has a real estate agent working with him to sell the house. Mr. Augustine responded , yes . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Augustine if he could tell the board how long the house was on the market for. Mr. Augustine said he tried to sell the house himself for four months. It has been in real estate hands for two months . Mr. Augustine said he has a purchase offer for Parcel A . Chairman Stolz said that two months on a multiple listing is not a lot of time to sell the house . Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Augustine what his plans were if this appeal was not approved . Mr. Augustine said that he does not know, because he always expected that he would like to retain Parcel B . Mr. Augustine said he bought Parcel B as a separate lot when he purchased it . Chairman Stotz said the issue for Mr. Augustine sounds like this is a financial hardship for him . Chairman Stolz asked if that would be because he cannot sell the property. Mr. Augustine said this could be a financial hardship , but it has not been . Mr. Augustine said at the same time , he is telling the board that he wants to retain the back lot . Mr. King said that on the map it is indicated that Lamphere owns the property to the westerly side of Parcel B . Mr. Augustine said that was correct . Mr. King asked if that was also a parcel that does not have any road frontage or very little road frontage . Mr. Augustine said that is what people - -- call a flag strip lot . Mr. King asked Mr. Augustine if the Lamphere' s parcel had been developed with a house . Mr . Augustine responded , yes . Mr. Frost said that the Lamphere 's have a subdivision approval on a variance . Attorney Barney said the Lamphere case is different from this , the parents were going to live in the back and the daughter to live in the front . Mr. Augustine said that the daughter lives in the back, and the parents live in the house in front . Mr. Frost said however this board decides about this appeal , the garage sitting by itself on a parcel , if the subdivision is approved , would become illegal because the principal permitted use for a residential parcel is a house . Mr . Frost said Mr. Augustine has assured him that he plans on making the garage into a residence. Mr. Frost said the board should be aware that there should be some time limit considered because as long as the garage stands on the parcel by itself, it would be an illegal use . Attorney Barney said in the Planning Board' s proposed resolution , which they could not get to because of the hearing notice not being advertised , has proposed that Mr. Augustine have a limitation of a year to convert the garage into a house . Mr. King asked Attorney Barney if the garage was not converted into a house within a year, would the garage need to be removed . Attorney Barney said the condition did not go that far, but that would be up to the Zoning Enforcement Officer to decide . Mr. Scala asked if the present flag lot , including the new property line , does not exist . Mr . Frost •said not to confuse this with the adjacent parcel , which is an illegal subdivided flag lot . Mr. Scala said the point he is getting at , is that this board cannot give open ended approvals for a potential house . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 JULY 10 , 1996 Mr. Scala asked what is this board giving approval for. Mr. Frost said the approval would be for the creation of a parcel of land that would be subdivided , which lacks the road frontage required , which is 60 feet at the front and then opening up to 100 feet , and a maximum front yard setback which is 50 feet back from the road. Mr. Scala said all he sees on the map is a 30400t strip . Mr . Frost said that is correct, but what Mr. Augustine needs is 60 feet on the street , and then 50 feet back from the street so the lot could open up to a width of 100 feet that Mr. Augustine will not have . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Augustine if he knows how long the purchase offer would be for . Mr. Augustine said when he leaves the zoning board meeting tonight , he will be giving the potential buyers four months to close to obtain financing . Chairman Stotz said this board will not being voting on this appeal until next month . Mr. Augustine said that he understands that , but this has been in process for about a month now . Mr. Augustine said the potential buyers and himself had expected by tonight he would be able to hand carry a sepia and dotted lines to have someone sign them , and this would be all a matter of record if he has the Zoning Board's approval , but unfortunately he has to wait another month . Mr. Ellsworth said the Zoning Board could give Mr. Augustine an indication on what they are thinking , but the board cannot approve anything tonight until next month when the neighbors have a Oance to come . Mr. Frost said that is presuming that Mr. Augustine gets subdivision approval from the Planning Board . Attorney Barney said he did not see a problem with the Planning Board approving this subdivision . Chairman Stotz asked what is the purpose of having a regulation that requires frontage on a road. Attorney Barney said density of land use or a number of curb cuts on a road . Attorney Barney said this board would need to look at Rich Road , and ask if this road , where a few more curb cuts than would normally be permitted , would be a problem . Attorney Barney said if they are , then this would be a reason to deny the variance , but in terms of density, the board should look at the square footage of the two lots. Attorney Barney said the question then becomes , if there is more than 60 , 000 square feet, is there a reason to preclude someone from having one house on 30 , 000 square feet , which is what the density regulation is in a R-30 zone . Attorney Barney said the answer to Chairman Stotz' s question is , yes . Mr. Scala asked if Mr. Augustine would need to return with a revised map . Mr. Frost said the revised map is in with the handouts to each member of the board . Mr. Frost said the zoning department never received the revised map until earlier this afternoon . Mr. Scala asked where is the 60 feet on the revised map . Attorney Barney said the 60 feet is not there , that is why Mr . Augustine is here requesting a variance because it is 30 feet . Mr. Scala asked when Mr. Augustine returns , this would be a satisfactory map . Attorney Barney said this map would be satisfactory for the purpose of the Zoning Board reviewing it. Mr. Scala asked if Mr. Augustine will be asking for an appeal permitting Whr the use of the road . Attorney Barney said Mr . Augustine would be asking for an appeal permitting e configuration of the lot in this fashion . Mr. Scala asked if Mr. Augustine would be showing the • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 11 JULY 109 1996 addition of the house on the map at the next meeting . Attorney Barney responded , no , the garage will be converted into a house . Mr . Frost said the principal for the zone requires , among other things , a house . Mr. Frost said Mr. Augustine could have a garage , but accessory means it is accessory to something principal. Mr. Scala asked if Mr. Frost is saying to him , that Mr. Augustine can come back with just this map without a house on it . Mr. Frost responded , yes , but this board could give a condition that the garage must be converted into a residence within 12 months . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Augustine if he had an idea where the front of the converted garage , where would he designate the front of the house . Mr. Augustine said he would probably designate the east side of the front of the house looking out at the main part of the yard . Mr . King asked if that would be toward Rich Road . Mr. Augustine responded , no , actually toward which the area is all vegetated. Mr. Frost said, in all cases though, the front of the house would be the portion that faces the road . Mr. Scala asked what the setbacks would be for this unusual lot . Mr. Frost said he would still consider and under the revised map, the front yard is facing Rich Road . Mr . Frost said he does not care where Mr. Augustine puts the front door , but the front yard is facing Rich Road . Mr. Scala said Mr. Augustine does not want to have to appeal this again , so the house has to be correct in terms of where it is placed . Mr . Frost said the garage would meet the setback requirements . • Chairman Stotz said the front of the house would be toward Rich Road , the board just had a case where the front of the house was facing the driveway . Attorney Barney said this appeal actually touches on a public road , even though it is a very narrow space touching on a public road . Attorney Barney said the other appeal does not touch on a public road . Mr. Frost said there is nothing magical about 30 feet , which if the Town zoning said people should have a 20 foot front yard , then this would be fine, too . Mr. Scala said what he is looking for is sufficient clarification that Mr. Augustine comes back, because if he comes back with just this drawing without a house showing on it , he will not know if that location of the house is correct . Chairman Stotz said the house is going to be where the existing garage is. Mr. Scala said the house will be bigger than the garage . Attorney Barney responded , no , the garage is going to be a house . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Augustine if he plans on expanding the garage . Mr. Augustine said the garage itself would be converted into a house with a thought of a potential carport on the back side of the building . Mr . Frost said Mr. Augustine could go in any direction there as long as the carport does not go too far , it would still meet building code setbacks . Mr. Scala asked Mr . Augustine if he knows the dimension of the garage . Mr. Augustine said the garage is 26 feet by 52 feet . Mr. Scala asked if there was any confusion to what Mr . Augustine needs to get approved . Attorney Barney responded , no . Mr. King asked if the garage is a two-story . Mr. Augustine responded , no . • Chairman Stotz adjourned this appeal until August 14 , 1996 for further review. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 12 JULY 10, 1996 The fourth appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of Donald Balcom and Sarah Pearson, Appellants, Bob Shaw, Agents requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance: to be permitted to subdivide land which does not have a lot width of 100 ; measured 50 ' from the street line, at 1035 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 7144, Residence District R45. A lot width of 86. 7 +/- will be provided. Bob Shaw, of 313 Roat Street , said the variance he is requesting is for Parcel A on the survey map . Mr. Shaw said he went to the Planning Board last night , which they find no environmental impact. Mr. Shaw said the reason for a variance requirement , that Parcel A and B combined originally as one parcel always had the 86 . 7 feet that was there prior to any zoning regulations . Mr. Shaw said the fact that he and Balcom- Pearson are segmenting the lot , requires the Zoning Board to grant a variance to allow this subdivision because they would be tampering with a lot that would be non- conforming . Mr. Frost said in the process of the sale of the property that fronts on Hanshaw Road , a portion �f the back yard is going to be subdivided and added to a parcel in the rear . Mr . Frost said he is reconfiguring the parcels in the process of the sale . Mr . Frost said there should be 100 feet width , but it has 86 . 7 feet width . Mr. King asked if the rear or south lot would front on Roat Street . Mr. Shaw said that was correct. Mr. Shaw said the parcel would be adjacent to his property , which would be conveyed to him and consolidated with his current property. Mr . Shaw said his current property has 15 feet of road frontage on Roat Street , and after this process he would end up with nearly 60 feet of road frontage . Mr. King asked Mr. Shaw if his property is adjacent to the west of the proposed parcel . Mr. Shaw responded , yes . Mr. Frost said Mr. Shaw's and the proposed parcel are two illegal parcels , which one would be dimensional if this is approved . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Shaw if Parcel B has frontage on Roat Street , then what would be the width from the middle pipe to the east pipe . Mr. Shaw said that would be 49 . 8 feet . Mr . Shaw said that is the road frontage of that lot currently , then Roat Street terminates the residual distance which goes along his front yard and driveway . Mr . Shaw said the process is to segment the total parcel into two parcels . Mr . Shaw said Parcel B would be consolidated with his tax parcel 714- 20 . Mr. King asked if Parcel A would front on Hanshaw Road . Mr. Shaw said that was correct . Mr . Shaw said Parcel A never had 100 feet of road frontage , and since he is tampering with Parcel A , a variance is required . • Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Shaw what the plans are for Parcel B . Mr. Shaw said that Parcel B TOWN OF ITHACA a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 13 JULY 10, 1996 would be consolidated with the property west of it which would make one lot . Mr. Shaw said through the Planning Board there is going to be some language that would be inserted in the resolution to indicate that property shall remain by never making the lot a building lot . Mr. King asked if that is the way Mr. Shaw wants it. Mr. Shaw responded , yes , because it would be consolidated with Tax Parcel No . 7147 20 . Mr. Kng asked Mr. Shaw if the Planning Board require that the land would not be built on . Mr. Shaw responded , yes , and that the Planning Board would be drawing it up in the paper work. Mr. King said there would be a forever wild clause on Parcel B . Mr. Shaw said Parcel B will be consolidated with the other lot to the west of it , and become one big lot . Attorney Barney said it is not really a forever wild or no build , it is for no further subdivision . Mr . King asked if Mr. Shaw could mow the parcel . Attorney Barney said Mr. Shaw could mow it if he wants to or he could put accessory buildings on it , but it will always remain one lot . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 10 p . m . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed at 8 : 11 p . m . 0 Chairman Stotz said there is a letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning indicating no significant impact on intercommunity , County, or State interests . Chairman Stotz said there are no environmental impact actions . MOTION By Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Hang Ellsworth : RESOLVED, that the board grant the appeal of Donald Balcom and Sarah Pearson requesting a variance from Article V , Section 16 , to permit the subdivision of the land with a lot width of 86.7 feet at 1035 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 7144 61 RA 5 District , subject to the same conditions of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's proposed resolution dated July 9 , 1996 as follows : a . Within six months of this approval , conveyance of Lot B to the owners of Tax Parcel No . 7147 20 and submission of the deed and a copy of the consolidation request to be provided to the Town Planner; b . The granting of any required variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to signing of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair; • C . That the lot created by the consolidation of Tax Parcel No . 7147 20 and Lot B may not be subdivided into two house-lots at any future time and that a restrictive • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14 JULY 10, 1996 covenant to that effect be submitted for review and approval by the Town Attorney . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, King , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. The last appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL - Continuation of Ecotrillage Cohousing Cooperative at 1323 Mecklenburg Road regarding installation of a sprinider system. Chairman Stotz said he would like to express to EcoVillage for their appreciation for the willingness to come up with the figures and to come back a second time . Chairman Stotz said he knows sometimes the machinations of Town regulations and boards could be very frustrating , especially when they are trying to go ahead to do the kind of project they are doing . Chairman Stotz said the board has received the materials on the different estimates , and asked for EcoVillage to go over the estimates briefly with the board . Liz Walker of 117 East York Street and a member of EcoVillage , said from the last meeting with the Zoning Board , EcoVillage residents were requested to come back with figures for the whole building sprinklered with a commercial application and with a residential system , and also a partial system under both residential and commercial systems . Ms . Walker said the total cost for a residential system (without pump and reservoir) which includes the main floor, attic , and the basement would be $12,933.00. Ms. Walker said the commercial system for the main floor, attic , and the basement would be a total of $30, 177 .00. Ms. Walker said if they did the partial system , which would be the main floor and the basement under the residential system , that would be $4 , 026 . 00 , and under the commercial system for the main floor and basement , that would be $9 , 394 . 00 . Ms . Walker said EcoVillage residents had mentioned at the previous meeting , that they felt even without the sprinklers , that the Common House would be quite safe in terms of the number of exits and the number of people that would be around . Ms . Walker said the residents are hoping that this board would at least consider the least expensive option, and agree with the residents that it will make the Common House safe and good for fire safety. Chairman Stotz said at the previous meeting , the board had discussed some specific areas with the residents. Chairman Stotz asked if the main floor meant the entire main floor or does it mean the • areas that were spoken about. Ms . Walker said the map of the main floor shows where the sprinklers are, and if everyone is talking about the whole system then it would be the entire main floor. Chairman • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 JULY 109 1996 Stotz asked if the dashed lines on the map show where the water would sprinkle . Ms . Walker said that was correct . Mr . Krantz asked Ms . Walker if EcoVillage residents anticipate any plans for the attic . Ms . Walker said the attic would be covered if the whole building is covered , but under the partial system . They are just looking at the main floor and the basement . Mr. Krantz asked Ms . Walker if the attic would be used for any thing . Ms . Walker said the attic is not designated for any kind of use at this point . Mr. Frost asked if there are trusses in the attic . Jerry Weisburd of House Craft Builders , said that the attic space is structural trusses , and there would be recycled cellulose insulation , which is highly unsuitable for using for storage because it is quite messy . Mr. Epworth asked Mr. Weisburd if there is a floor in the attic space . Mr. Weisburd responded , no, that there might be some planks so the people who would be blowing in the insulation could walk around. Mr. Epworth asked if the attic space would be used for storage . Mr . Weisburd responded , no , the building would be air tight and the connection into the attic space would be sealed with a orket. Mr. Weisburd said the attic space would not be an easy space to access . Mr . Ellsworth said esis involved in the sprinkler systems , so if there is any storage in the attic then it would require sprinklers in the attic . Ms . Walker said the residents are not interested in storing things in the attic as they were told by the Weisburd's that the attic could not be used , so they are not intending to use it as storage . Mr. Krantz said if someone puts insulation in the attic and there is a trap door , they are not to open that trap door because theoretically the insulation comes shooting out into the house . Ms . Walker said that they would take his advise . Mr . Ellsworth said at the last meeting there were also some other areas added , such as the laundry room and other rooms . Chairman Stotz said the mechanical room was talked about , too , and that is not included on Drawing No . CH -2 P2 . Ms . Walker said that was a mistake , that the hallway in the basement should not sprinklered , it should be the mechanical room , which was the intention . Attomey Bamey asked on Drawing No . CH-2 W3 for the whole building , how can they sprinkler a pipe chase . Mr. Frost said it depends on what way the chase is running on the shaft . Chairman Stotz asked if the lines just went through the pipe chase . Mr . Weisburd said usually the sprinklers would cover concealed spaces as well as accessible spaces . Attorney Barney asked if the pipe chase is opened from the basement to the attic . Mr . Weisburd said the pipe chase would be sealed at the attic level, so it would mostly be for the ducts . Mr . Frost asked if the pipe chase was a vertical shaft . Mr. Weisburd responded , yes . Mr. Frost said for a full building sprinkler it should be to the top of the • shaft . Mr . Frost said this would become a real significant issue because it is giving the residents a vertical communication between floors to spread fumes and smoke . Mr. Frost said it is spraying a two. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 JULY 10 , 1996 story building , he is not sure it is real critical . Mr. Scala asked what residents are proposing is shown in the partial drawings and the other drawings are for comparison in terms of cost and technical . Ms . Walker said that was correct . Mr. Scala asked who determines if the EcoVillage resident's plan is adequate . Mr. Frost said in terms of location, there are a few particulars were slightly different than how this building is proposed , what the building would require , among other things , would be the area of code of assembly be sprinklered , which is the dining area. Mr. Frost said in some cases , they have exit ways sprinkled . Mr . Frost said under New York State Building Code the requirement would be a partial installation other than the dining area and the exit ways . Mr. Frost said if this board is asking if this proposal is adequate , it is in line with what building code would require . Mr. Frost said the Town ordinance for sprinklers goes well beyond that system forthe whole building . Mr . Ellsworth said the local fire chief has the final say over the building code or anything else as to what is to be done . Mr. Frost responded , no . Mr. Ellsworth said this is different than the City . Mr. Frost said that is correct , because the fire department in the City has code enforcement responses other than the Town . Mr. Frost said the fire department in the Town , the sole responsibility of the contract is to fight the fires . Mr. King said since he was not at the previous meeting , could someone clarify to him if these So ur proposals include water in the system to sprinkle if there is a fire . Ms . Walker said that her understanding is that these proposals would be for installing sprinklers , but the water would not be there until there is water on West Hill that is easily accessible . Attorney Barney said the understanding was that the initial cost , which was quite high , included a reservoir and pumps , because the supply of water pressure at that level at that part of West Hill was not adequate to supply directly to a sprinkler head. Attorney Barney said the cost would have been $40 , 000 . 00 to $60 , 000 . 00 , so this board asked the residents to go back and come back with some proposals that would not include the pumps or reservoirs . Attorney Barney said one system being a complete sprinkler using a residential system , which is not as costly as a commercial system . Attorney Barney said the other proposals were residential for partial and commercial for partial . Attorney Barney said his understanding was there would be water in the system , but it would not be pressurized to the pressure level that would normally be required for any normal system . Ms . Walker said she meant to say was that there would not be any pump or reservoir. Attorney Barney said the sprinklers would go off, but not a strong force of water . Mr. Weisburd said part of the problem here is that the residents of EcoVillage also had to put in quite a bit of money to improve the water system because it was not adequate even for domestic water . Mr . Weisburd said there is a duplex pump station in about 3 , 000 feet of private water main serving the neighborhood , which the residents are paying for even though they have to pay for full water taxes. Mr. Weisburd said that system will supply domestic water, but under a full fire load it will not deliver as much water as might be required . Mr. Weisburd said the system works with two VItemating pumps where if there was a high demand then both pumps would go on , so then it would supply more water than just the domestic load , but it is still not what a fire pump or reservoir would be . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 17 JULY 10, 1996 Mr. King asked if the residential system proposals would be connected in with the water supply. Mr. Weisburd responded, yes . Mr . King asked if the existing water supply would be more affected on a residential system than a commercial system . Mr. Weisburd said probably , because the amount of water per head is probably less than that . Mr. Frost said it would be less . Chairman Stotz asked if that was the fundamental difference between a residential and commercial system . Mr. Ellsworth said the residential has quick response heads also . Chairman Stotz asked if there would be a greater volume of water through a commercial . Mr . Ellsworth responded , yes . Mr. Weisburd said the pipe in a residential system , is typically plastic riveted , as where in commercial it is metal . Mr. Krantz asked if this system would function better with a minimum of water pressure that they have , if they had a residential rather than a commercial system . Mr. Weisburd said that he believes that is the case . Mr. Scala said what the board is looking at is a proposal to put in a partial system with the understanding that the system would eventually be connected to available water. Attorney Barney said the water could be connected at Phase I with City water, it is just that there is not a lot of pressure there •mat is normally required by engineering standards . Mr. Scala asked if there is some future rectification on this. Mr. Frost said it is possible with a development that is proposed for the other side of the road, Saddlewood . Mr. Weisburd said that EcoVillage has also put in , from the main that they have run , water piping to the building and within the building that is fully up to the regulations of the Town inspectors. Mr. Weisburd said if a Town main were there , they could automatically switch over. Mr. King asked if the Common House would be at the south end of the neighborhood . Mr. Weisburd said that would be the west end . Mr. King asked if the houses would be on the south side of the Common House , what are the other 27 spaces for. Mr . Weisburd said that those spaces are carports and outside storage . Mr. King asked if they would be residential spaces . Mr . Weisburd responded , no . Mr. King asked if there would be any expansion of the 30 houses . Mr . Weisburd responded , no , that this is a complete neighborhood . Mr. Weisburd said there is an intention eventually to have other neighborhoods , but that would have to come up before the Town for the regular review process before that happens . Mr . King asked if this would be the same thing this neighborhood is . Mr. Weisburd said it would be similar, but there would be different architects , builders , and people involved . Mr . King asked if such additional neighborhoods would use this Common House or have their own . Mr . Weisburd said that is not the intention at this point . Mr. Weisburd said the intention for this Common House is for this neighborhood only. Chairman Stotz said one of the items discussed by this board after the previous meeting , was that the proximity of the Common House to the other houses , and that if there was a major fire where •he Common House went up quickly , that it could be large enough to set fire to the adjoining houses . Chairman Stolz said there is a concern , not just for that building , there is also a concern for the TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 18 JULY 103 1996 buildings that are close to the Common House because they are all connected . Mr. Weisburd said although the SLUD allowed for the houses to be closer than the Town's requirements , which is 15 feet in an R-15, that the SLUD allows the houses to be closer than that , although they need to conform to the State code , which they do . Mr . Weisburd said however, they did not use that separation requirement or separation allowance between the Common House and the houses , so the Common House is well over the Town' s requirement for separation of buildings . Mr . King asked if the Common House was approximately 25 feet from unit one and approximately 40 feet from unit 30 . Mr . Weisburd said that is about right , and obviously there is a strong wind that could jump that , but it is quite a bit bigger than the normal Town separation requirement. Mr. King asked how far apart the duplex units are from each other. Mr. Weisburd said they average about eight or nine feet , but because of the angles the average is approximately eight feet . Mr. King asked if EcoVillage residents thought about the fire insurance rates if the Common House was sprinklered . Mr. Weisburd said the problem is that the community is innovative , and they are really biting off a lot of really new things , all of which are wonderful , but piece by piece really add up to a numerous expense . Mr. Weisburd said the idea of sprinklering the building is a good idea , but after adding it to all of the other expenses they would have to include the very expensive water system , it just becomes a large sum of money. Mr . King said he has read the draft minutes of the last meeting , • and he is not totally unaware of the discussion , but from his own point of view, cost is not a factor. Mr. King said excessive cost is yes , and he agrees with the idea of mitigating in the hopes that the Town might improve the water flow to West Hill by other means . Mr. King said his feeling is that , he knows everybody says this is just an extension of their living room and their kitchen , but it is not , it is a collection point for some 30 , 40 , or 50 people at a time , therefore , safety should be the primary concern . Mr. King said the Chairman pointed out that a $ 15 , 000 . 00 cost amounts to $5 . 00 or $6 . 00 per loan unit over 20 years , which is not much money. Mr. King said he has seen a situation where in planning a building it comes down to where people could only afford so much money , so they do not do this and they do not do that , and then ten years later they wished they did do that while they were planning the building . Mr. King said the same thing applies to the running water pipes for the sprinklers through the building , and think that they could get them installed relatively cheap in the figures . Mr. Weisburd said he believes that most of the people agree that safety is the prime concern , and one of things that was presented at the last meeting , was that they showed how the building is laid out as far as exiting the building . Mr. Weisburd said for example , under the State code , they are allowed to go 150 feet from any point in the building to an exit before they are required to have sprinklers. Mr. Weisburd said in this situation , there is no point in a building that is more than 40 feet from an exit, so this building is far safer than the State threshold . Mr. Weisburd said he believes this building is very safe , that there are alarms in every single space and it is almost inconceivable • because of how many exits there are and how many windows there are , that even if there were a fire that it could be dangerous . Mr. King said that Mr . Weisburd is assuming that everyone is evenly • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 19 JULY 10 , 1996 spread out through the density of the building . Mr. King said what happens in a fire if there is a bunch of people in the dancing area and they use the same exit , they would end up trampling each other. Mr. Weisburd said that area has seven doors right from that area . Mr. Frost said that he does not agree with Mr. Weisburd's statement , in all due respect , that the area of public assembly given everything else the same , at a capacity of 100 or more people , that the State building code would require sprinklers . Mr . Weisburd said that is true , but EcoVillage does not have that capacity and there are other things that kick in . Mr . , Weisburd said in terms of the exits , the requirement kicks in at 150 feet, and every single space has detectors in them and there is an alarm inside and outside of the building for people to hear. Mr. Weisburd said there are people in the neighborhood all the time , it is not like people leave the building and it would sit overnight where nobody would notice a fire starting . Mr. Weisburd said this is 30 people who live in the same neighborhood , so what they have tried to show is that the Common House would be a safe building without a sprinkler system . Mr. Weisburd said he thinks that the board should consider the particulars , this board room he believes is safe even though it does not have a sprinkler system , because everyone could run out the windows or the two exit doors . Mr . Weisburd said he believes this is the same situation the residents have in the dining room of the Common House , where the outside is right there . Mr. Frost said that he is not sure he entirely agrees with that , but as an example , a fire alarm *Aem would be required in this building in areas of public assembly and in the means of egress . Mr. Frost said if the residents are providing a fire alarm system , it may be a full building fire alarm system , at least a partial fire alarm would be required by the building code any how. Mr. Frost said the building code requires multiple safety items in the building besides sprinklers . Mr. Frost said this building is being provided with a fire alarm system , but they are code required . Mr . Krantz asked if the Common House is going to have a multiple amount of cooking and doing laundry, that would increase the fire hazard . Mr. Weisburd said he does not think the laundry would so much. Mr. Krantz said laundry does , the dryers do not get vented properly. Mr. Krantz said that there has been a lot of house fires from lint in the dryers . Mr. Frost said some of Mr. Weisburd's points are valid in some instances , such as the Common House would have travel distance of 100 foot to the exit doors , but they are saying 40 foot . Mr. Frost said there are some aspects for one person to try to determine how much safer one building is to another, that he thinks there is something valid about the fact that there are multiple lengthy doors within 40 foot travel distances , but there are other components to give out which would be plain building code requirements . Mr. King said if a fire department truck went to the Common House to put out a fire and if the pumper had to use the pond , could the fire department get to it . Mr . Weisburd responded , yes , that they are putting in a dry hydrant for the pumper to hook up to . Mr. King asked if the pumper could - come between the hydrant and the pond . Mr. Weisburd said the hydrant would need to be located fairly close to the water level , because the pumper suction is limited to short distances . Mr. Weisburd 0-aid the pumper itself and the hydrant would need to be close to the pond , and from that point they could go a few hundred feet , that is not a problem . Mr. King said the pond is approximately 80 feet • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 20 JULY 105 1996 from the Common House , Mr. Weisburd said it is a lot closer because it was expanded closer to the Common House . Mr. King asked where the fire station is located for the West Hill area . Mr. Frost said the West Hill station is on Route 96. Mr. Frost said that fire station had to cut back where it is not maned during the daytime , but it is maned at night . Chairman Stotz asked what is the potential for expanding a residential system opposed to the commercial system . Chairman Stotz asked if they did a partial residential system or a partial commercial system , would they be difficult to expand . Mr. Weisburd said he expects a residential system would be easier, because new branches could be run at a less expensive cost , where a commercial system might need to be sized to handle the expansion , where a residential uses more of a conservative , less expensive pipe . Mr. Weisburd said putting in a whole new system would nun parallel to the initial system and would be easier . Mr . Frost said in some cases , one they consider a residential system is not as good as a commercial system , because a residential system is dealing with an occupancy where people are sleeping . Mr. Frost said that residential systems are limited to and allowed a certain number of people Before they would have to install a commercial system . Mr. Frost said apparently if there is a building where people are sleeping , there would be a greater risk factor than if the building is sprinkled or not . Mr. Frost said he does not think it is a significant compromise by allowing residential system standards without being much different , particularly giving what is really a single-story building with a basement . Mr. Ellsworth asked what system would be required for less than 100 people . Mr . Frost said if they were over 100 people , the code would require the a standard sprinkler system . Mr. Frost said this board has some leeway because this is a local regulation requiring it . Mr. Frost said he does not want to see this board varying State regulations which they should not be doing . Mr. Ellsworth asked how does this board limit the residents to less than 100 people and maintain that . Mr. Frost said he could issue a certificate of occupancy, which EcoVillage needs to consider if they have more than 100 people there, that there is a problem. Mr. Ellsworth said the last time this board heard that there would only be 87 people , but that does not include visitors and holidays . Mr. Frost said an occupancy permanently given could say that they cannot do that . Mr. Weisburd said there would not be 87 people in the Common House at one time . Ms . Walker said the 87 people includes approximately 20 children , so if there was a big meeting , there would be a separate place for the children to play . Ms. Walker said she does not believe that they would get that type of gathering in the Common House . Chairman Stotz asked if there were additional neighborhoods built , would they have their own Common House . Ms . Walker said part of co-housing is that each neighborhood builds their own Common House . Chairman Stotz asked if there would be a chance where neighborhoods would get � ogether for special occasions . Ms . Walker said the Village Green , the park area between the neighborhoods , could be used for that . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 21 JULY 109 1996 Mr. Krantz asked Mr. Frost if the attic needed to be sprinklered . Mr. Frost said in some cases , code would require the attic to be sprinklered without storage . Mr . Krantz said if the attic is full of insulation , that he does not see any point in having the attic sprinklered . Attorney Barney said if the attic is sealed shut , then it should be vented or opened to the e)dehor. Mr. Weisburd said it would be vented on the cold side , not on the warm side . Mr . King asked Mr. Weisburd what he meant . Mr . Weisburd said there would be no ventilation between the interior space and the attic space , it would be sealed . Mr. Weisburd said above the insulation , air comes in the eves and goes out at the ridge . Mr. Frost said there is a commercial building and again he does not deal with this often nor has he researched this , where the trusses had to have an intermesh paint applied to the trusses to avoid installing a sprinkler in the attic . Chairman Stotz said he would be going through the different scenarios one by one , and ask this board if there is anyone who would like to speak on that particular option and it will include no sprinkler system at all . Chairman Stotz said the first option would be the whole building with a residential system, and asked if any board member would like to speak in favor of a residential system covering the entire building . Mr . King said he would speak in favor of that for the reasons that have been stated already . Mr . King said he could see hazards here , that could be a catastrophe , and a eprinkler system would do well to alert someone since there would be a long response time before any fire apparatus could arrive from the fire department . Mr. Krantz said he would speak in favor of that , but he would eliminate the necessity for having the sprinklers in the attic . Mr. Krantz said he would speak in favor of having a residential system of the whole main floor and the whole basement . Mr. King asked Mr . Krantz if he thought a fire could start in the attic and spread throughout the building . Mr. Krantz said not if there is a couple feet of insulation on the floor. Mr . Scala said there would be electrical stuff. Mr. Frost said in some cases , that could be mitigated by putting a heat detector in the attic . Mr. Frost said the primary thing is early warning to get the occupants out of the building . Mr. Weisburd said there would be no wiring in the attic . Mr. Weisburd said the way they seal a building , is that they use an air vapor barrier on the bottom of the trusses , and then they would put wood purlins below that where the wiring would be going through . Mr. Weisburd said that is done this way , so the wire does not penetrate the air vapor barrier to make holes in it , so at the end there are no wires in the attic at all . Mr. Weisburd said most older buildings have a gable vent , newer constructions usually has continuous vent and a continuous ridge vent , and then the air would go through the attic to stay much cooler. Attorney Barney asked if the purlins are in the ceiling , second floor, are they not . Mr. Weisburd said that was correct . Attorney Barney asked if the sprinkler head goes off on the second floor it would not hit the electrical system . Mr. Weisburd said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked if anyone wants to speak. Mr . Ellsworth said he would like to speak in' favor of the residential system . Mr . Ellsworth said if he were to approve this , these would be the conditions : 1 ) . Less than 100 people ; 2 ) . Each new neighborhood have their own Common House ; There be no storage in the attic and the attic be locked ; 4 ) . That this Common House meet New ork State Building Code; 5) . That this Common House meet the Town 's Sprinkler Code ; 6 ) . Meet the • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 22 JULY 10, 1996 fire detection. Attorney Barney said there is not a code for fire protection in the Town . Mr. Ellsworth said there is a New York Building Code . Mr . Frost asked Mr. Ellsworth what he is looking for , because if this board allows a residential system , which the State Building Code would not allow, there would be a contradiction there . Attorney Barney said that this board would be accepting the possibility that it will not even meet the NFPA standard because of the lack of pressure . Mr. Scala said he would speak in favor of the whole building with a residential system , and that the difference of the system to consider , that as a percentage of the total investment is pathetically small. Mr. Scala said the safest way is the best way to go , which is the residential system for the whole building with the attic , as it is written . Chairman Stotz said there seems to be consensus on the whole building with residential system , but there still is discussion about the attic whether or not it should be sprinklered . Mr. Weisburd said one of the problems with the attic is that , they cannot have water in those pipes . Mr. Weisburd said that adds a whole level of complications to the system that this board does not have . Mr. Weisburd said the attic would be cold space , then the water would freeze . Mr. Frost said with a dry system, they could not have a commercial type building , and they would not be able to have plastic pipes with a dry system in a commercial building . Mr. Frost said in some ways , he feels a little Oncomfortable for allowing plastic pipe as a dry system in the attic . Mr. Scala said his thoughts are that the attic is part of the system and it cannot be ignored . Mr. Scala said there are all kinds of problems with lightning , rodents , and the potential build of higher temperatures , and they cannot ignore the fact that the attic would be closed off and not visible to inspect . Mr . Scala said the attic is part of the total complex, and it should be protected . Chairman Stotz asked if the system would be a dry one . Mr. Frost said a trade off of omitting sprinkler heads and allowing intumescent paints on the tresses etc . , intumescent paint on the trusses which significantly cuts down the spread of flame on wood is permitted . Mr. Scala said all that does is delay the time . Mr. Frost said that is correct , but it is a legal force if standards permit and this is an occupied space . Attorney Barney said the dry system is triggered when the head goes off, and asked what happens for a brief period of time, air comes out . Mr. Weisburd said that was correct . Attorney Barney asked if ultimately water would end upcoming out of the head . Mr . Weisburd said that was correct . Mr. Frost said that would be two separate setups , wet system or dry system . Attorney Barney said the cost would change with the system . Mr. Weisburd said they used an averaged out cost for these systems, so the attic would be more expensive than the warm spaces . Mr. Weisburd said this does present some technical problems with the dry system that the wet system would not have . Chairman Stotz asked if the residential system for the whole building would be over the average cost stated on the estimate sheet . Mr. Weisburd responded , yes , because he is not familiar with dry systems . 0Mr . Frost said he was not sure an occupied , unused space would be needing any direct life safety benefit to the occupant , as long as there is early warning to alert people in the building to get • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 23 JULY 109 1996 out of the building . Mr. Ellsworth said he has done sprinkler designs for apartment buildings in the City. There is no storage in the attic and they are locked , so they would not be sprinklered . Mr . Frost said those are buildings that are used for people sleeping in them . Mr. Ellsworth said he is not saying the building is not sprinklered he said the attic is not sprinklered . Attorney .Barney said what Mr. Frost is saying is that the building the City is dealing with is at higher risk in the sense that people are spending the night there . Mr. Ellsworth said that was correct . Mr. King said sleep or awake , fire is fire . Attorney Barney said he acts a little quicker when he is awake than while he is asleep . Mr. King asked Mr. Weisburd if he was considering any kind of particular type of pipe for a system. Mr. Weisburd said he was considering plastic for the residential . Mr. Frost said that PVC is allowed in a lot of commercial systems . Mr . Weisburd asked if on any system PVC could be used . Mr . Frost said for commercial , not sure about the residential system . Mr . King asked if the dry hydrant would be built regardless . Mr . Weisburd responded , yes , because that was part of the site plan approval , and they already have the fitting for the hydrant . Mr. King asked where the approximate location would be . Mr. Weisburd said they changed the Wonfiguration of the pond a little , and originally it was going to be at the east end , but they need to revisit that to see if it needs to be moved closer to the Common House . Mr. King asked if the hydrant would be included with the Common House construction . Mr. Weisburd responded , yes , and he does not think anyone would have a problem with having the attic locked and inaccessible . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED ,that this board grants a variance from the sprinkler system requirements of the Local Law requiring a system that would normally be required , allowing a residential system to provide sprinkler heads to sprinkle the basement , main floor, and attic , with the added features : having a maximum number of 100 people and that this Common House only deals with current EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative residents . That all other requirements are met as far as a dry system connecting to the present water system and the expectation of a future , more adequate water system , which applies to the EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative at Mecklenburg Road referring to the whole building , residential system as outlined in the estimate and as shown in the floor plans for the main floor, attic , and basement . Mr. King asked what residential system means , does that define the number of sprinklers in the •spacing of those sprinkler heads . Mr . Weisburd said it is defined in the terms of being built to residential standards , so it would be the spacing for residential standards and to get a sprinkler head • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 24 JULY 109 1996 for residential standards . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , Scala . NAYS - Stotz, King , Krantz. The motion was not carried . MOTION By Mr. Ronald Krantz, seconded by Mr. Ed King : RESOLVED, that this board grants a variance from the sprinkler system requirements of the Local Law requiring a system that would normally be required , allowing a residential system to provide sprinkler heads to sprinkle the basement and main floor, with the attic having heat detectors , with the added features : 1 ) . Having a maximum number of 100 people ; 2) . That this Common House only deal with the current • EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative residents at 1323 Mecklenburg Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -26 . 2 ; 3 ) . That all other requirements are met as far as dry system connecting to the present water system and the expectation of future , more adequate water system , which applies to EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative at 1323 Mecklenburg Road referring to the partial building , residential system as outlined in the estimate and as shown in the floor plans for the main floor and basement , with the attic having heat detectors being tied into the total building requirements . 4) . That the dry hydrant be constructed and finished and in place before the building is occupied . Attorney Barney said with the accordance with all the requirements , except that the flow requirements are not being met , even for the residential system , referring to the lack of pressure . Mr. Scala said that would be anticipated to be correct . Attorney Barney said if or when the Town or somebody builds a tank on West Hill would be corrected by the additional pressure , but at the present time , the standards are for residential construction exclusive of the normal flow requirements . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, King , Krantz. NAYS - Ellsworth , Scala . The motion was carried . • Chairman Stotz adjourned the meeting at 9 : 03 p . m . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 26 JULY 103 1996 Deborah Ann Kelley Keyboard Specialist/ Minutes Recorder (7` Da% id St kz/ hair a, DRAFTED : 7115196 BY DAK • M TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FINAL • WEDNESDAY , AUGUST 14 , 1996 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 , August 14 , 1996 , 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 John Augustine , Jr . , Appellant , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to create a building lot by subdivision , with a minimum width at the street line of 30 . 8 feet ( 60 feet required ) and a minimum width at the maximum front yard setback of 30 feet ( 100 feet required ) , at 109 Rich Road , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 50- 1 - 5 . 4 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of St . Catherine of Siena Church , Appellant , Reverend Ronald Gaesser , Agent , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a wood deck with a setback from the west side lot line of 10 + feet ( 15 foot setback required ) , at 310 St . Catherine Circle , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 1 - 10 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Barry and Glenda Long , Appellants , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a wood deck with a rear yard setback of 20 + feet from the lot line ( 30 foot setback required ) , at 197 Tareyton Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 11 - 51 . 121 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Louise Furnas , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a non- conforming building , at 113 Clover Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59- 2 - 12 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement will consist of a screen porch at the rear of an existing single - family home , with said home having a 9 . 4 foot building setback ( 15 foot setback required ) from the north side lot line . APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , William Gaffney , Agent , requesting a special approval under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 30 x 50 foot office building and a 30 x 72 foot pole barn to be utilized in conjunction with the College of Veterinary Medicine , at the Baker Institute on Hungerford Hill Road , off of Snyder Hill Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 61 - 1 - 7 . 2 and 61- 1- 9 , Residence District R- 30 , 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 Director of Building and Zoning • 273- 1783 Dated : August 5 , 1996 Publish : August 9 , 1996