Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1997-06-11 t� (M1 l ? TOWN • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11 , 1997 The following appeals were heard by the board on June 11 , 1997 : APPEAL of Dorothy and George Allen , Appellants, 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 576 +/- square feet of additional living space on the east side of a nonconforming single- family residence located at 138 Indian Creek Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 22-2-9 , Residence District R-30 . The building is nonconforming with a 31 . 5 +/- foot west side building setback (40 feet required) and will have a 22 . 5 foot east side setback (40 feet required) . A variance from Article V, Section 21 may also be requested . GRANTED APPEAL of Carolyn Grigoro, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article X-A, Section 50 F and H of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to create, by subdivision , a parcel of land not fronting on a Town , County , or State Highway, nor having a front yard , within the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 51 - 1 -3 . 2 off of Coddington Road . A variance from the requirements of Section 280-A of New York State Town Law may also be requested. GRANTED APPEAL of Dorothy and Robert Summers , Owner, Daniel J . Strawbridge , Appellant/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 enlarge a nonconforming residential building/lot with a 14 x 16 foot addition to be added to the rear of an existing residence at 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66-5-. 92 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building/lot is nonconforming since there is a 22 foot rear yard building setback (30 foot setback required) with said addition reducing the setback to 8 +/- feet. Additionally, the parcel is 11 , 343 +/- square feet in area ( 15 , 000 square feet required) . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of Dick and Mary Cogger, Owner, Ralph Vam , Appellant/Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an observation loft on an existing residential building at 14 Dove Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61 - 1 -8.45 , Residence District R- 15. Said building will have a new height of 40 +/- feet (36 foot maximum height allowed) . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of Jody D . And Jeffrey J . Boronkay, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2 . 01 -2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to place an "off premise" sign advertising a day care operation on Evergreen Lane, with said sign placed at 105 DuBois Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-2- 1 .2 , Residence District R-30 . The Sign Law prohibits the placement of a sign off of the property for which the sign is intended to advertise. GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS • FII.® IrO'WN. OF RHACA Osla_ • clwk�"TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11 , 1997 PRESENT : Chairman David Stotz, Harry Ellsworth , James Niefer, Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney of the Town ; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Benjamin Helber, Planning Intern . OTHERS : George Allen , Dorothy Allen , Jody Boronkay, Jeffrey Boronkay, Daniel Strawbridge, Ralph Varn , Carolyn Grigorov. Chairman David Stotz called the meeting to order at 7 : 04 p . m . , stating that all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearing had been completed and the same were in order. The first appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of Dorothy and George Allen, Appellants, 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 576 +/- square feet of additional living space on the east side of a non-conforming single-family residence located at 138 Indian Creek Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 224-9, Residence District R-30. • The building is non-conforming with a 31 . 5 +/- foot west side building setback (40 feet required ) and will have a 22. 5 foot east side setback (40 feet required ). A variance from Article V, Section 21 may also be requested. George Allen , 138 Indian Creek Road said he would like to put an addition above the existing garage due to his health . Dorothy Allen , 138 Indian Creek Road said this addition would put their living space on one level . The addition would be for one room . Chairman Stotz asked if Cayuga Medical Center's property is located across the road . Ms . Allen responded , yes . Andrew Frost said in the notice he did not describe all the non-conforming aspects of this property. The side of the house where the garage would be is required 15 foot setback, but once living space is added then 40 feet is required . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing . • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11q 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1"7 PAGE 2 • Chairman Stotz said the Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Planning Intern , Benjamin Helber. The report mentions there would be no impacts on the character of the neighborhood . It is not effecting the intended use of the property, and a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended . MOTION by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property of George and Dorothy Allen at 138 Indian Creek Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 . -2-9 , based on the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff and their review on June 4, 1997 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. MOTION by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that the board grant the special approval for George and Dorothy Allen of 138 Indian Creek Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 . -2-9 , Residence District R-30, to be permitted to construct an additional living space of 576 +/- square feet to a non- conforming building of approximately 32 +/- feet on the west side setback where 40 feet is required , and has approximately 22 +/- feet on the east side setback where 40 feet is required. These findings were met based on Article XIV, Sections 7 and 8, Paragraphs a - h of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of Carolyn Grigorov, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article X-A, Section 50 F and H of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to create, by subdivision, a parcel of land not fronting on a Town, County, or State Highway, nor having a front yard, within the Six Mile Creek • Valley Conservation District on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51 -1 -3. 2 off of Coddington Road . A variance from the requirements of Section 280-A of New York State Town Law may also be requested. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NNE 119 199 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 3 • Carolyn Grigorov, Coddington Road , said the land in question is located just off Coddington Road next to the watershed lands owned by the City of Ithaca. The South Hill Trail cuts through the middle of the Grigorov parcel . The subdivided land has been made into the Conservation Zone, and the land would be preserved . The City of Ithaca has to acquire parkland in order to alienate the Inlet Parkland they need . The City of Ithaca has spent seven years working on this , and now they have the endorsement from the State and the Federal Governments . The City would buy the 35 +A acres of land on the other side of the trail to become a passive park. The City' s Common Council passed a ruling to not use this land for anything other than a passive park, so there would not be construction done on that parcel . Chairman Stotz asked if the reason for this appeal is because the land is being subdivided , and the new parcel would not have road frontage. Ms . Grigorov responded , yes. Harry Ellsworth asked Ms . Grigorov what she needs from the State. Ms. Grigorov said she does not have to go to the State . The City of Ithaca has to have this land approved from different agencies. Jonathan Kanter said the State enacted legislation for the Park Substitution Program , and the State Legislation specifically named certain parcels in the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca that could be acquired in exchange for alienation of the Inlet Island Park parcels . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Grigorov if her land was in the attachment from the State Legislation for the Park Substitution Program . Ms . Grigorov responded , yes . The subdivided land would border the City of Ithaca's watershed land . They could access through the watershed lands to the subdivided parcel . The City also owns land from Coddington Road to the other side of the watershed land . Chairman Stotz said he could not find Article X-A, Section 50 F and H in the Town' s . Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Frost said that section is not part of the current Zoning Ordinance books because it is part of the new Conservation Zone . Attorney for the Town John Barney said this section was an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance approximately seven or eight months ago . Mr. Frost said this section is Local Law #7 of the year 1996 . • Chairman Stotz asked what is the Section 280-A of the New York State Town Law. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 25. 1997 PAGE 4 Attorney Barney said Section 280-A states that a person cannot build on property without road frontage. Ms Grigorov said it would not be desirable to build on the subdivided property. Attorney Barney said if someone wanted a building permit for that property they would need to get a variance. The understanding is nothing can be built on that property. Mr. Frost said in discussions with the City Planning Department, there are no plans for improvements to that parcel . Chairman Stotz said the Town' s Planning Department was the lead agency on the Environmental Assessment, so this board does not have to review the environmental aspects . Mr. Ellsworth asked if there were statements indicating that there was no intention to build on this property. Ms . Grigorov said it is referenced in the City Law, Attorney Barney said he does not think it is referenced in the City Law for the intention not to build . The property is referenced for a passive park for the City of Ithaca . If building happens on this property, they would need to come back to this board for a variance from Section 280-A. Mr. Kanter said a letter from the City of Ithaca indicates this parcel is part of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area , The City has adopted certain rules and regulations for properties within that natural area . This also applies to parcels that the City of Ithaca owns within the Town of Ithaca . This is a policy for how the City handles their properties . The guidelines indicate that this parcel shall remain as natural as possible . It is clear as to what the City plans to do with the property. Attorney Barney said the Planning Board' s approval for subdivision was conditional upon a transfer of ownership to the City of Ithaca within six months , and a designation of this property, be considered as park land . Ms. Grigorov said that still needs to happen . Attorney Barney said this board should also adopt the conditions that the Planning Board adopted. Chairman Stotz asked what does it mean in terms of the boundaries between the Town and the City. Ms . Grigorov said the property would still be in the Town of Ithaca , but owned by the City of Ithaca . TOWN OF n ACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11 , 199 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 5 • Mr. Kanter pointed out on an enlarged map where the Grigorov property is located compared to the Town and City boundaries. Mr. Kanter also pointed out that the City's watershed property would be adjacent to the subdivided parcel . Chairman Stotz said Article I of the Six Mile Creek Gorge commitments and policy of use is pretty explicit about what can happen to the subdivided parcel . Attorney Barney said that policy can be changed by the City of Ithaca. Chairman Stotz asked if the board could incorporate a provision to the May 211984 resolution from the City of Ithaca. Attorney Barney said that is already conditioned in the Planning Board's resolution for this property to be dedicated as park land. The dedicated property can be undesignated , but it would take an act from the State Legislature for that to happen . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing . MOTION by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer: • RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Carolyn Grigorov on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51 Al 3 . 2 off of Coddington Road, from the variance of Article X-A, Section 50 F and H of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to create a subdivision of the parcel . This variance includes a stipulation that no construction on the subdivided parcel without Zoning Board of Appeals approval by obtaining a variance from Section 280-A of the Town Law. Attorney Barney said this board should do a SEQR on this appeal . The motion should be tabled at this point for the board to make a determination to see whether there are any environmental significance. Chairman Stotz tabled the motion , and asked why would this board need to do a SEQR. Mr. Kanter said his determination was that this board would not need to do a SEQR. Attorney Barney said a Type II action includes the granting of individual setbacks and lot line variances. He does not interpret this as being an individual setback or a lot line variance. This is an elimination of any kind of frontage altogether. This is an area variance, and I do not think this board could legitimately say that this is for a single family resident. A SEQR was done by the Planning Board , and this board can use the same SEQR. This board needs make a determination that there is no environmental significance before taking a formal action . • Mr. Kanter said the Planning Board does not see any significance impact on this action . MOTION by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer: TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NNE 119 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 6 • RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property of Carolyn Grigorov, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51 - 1 -3 . 2 off of Coddington Road , based on the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on May 20, 1997 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Stotz untables the previous motion . The previous motion was based on the findings and the requirements of Town Law Sections 277 B and C for an area variance. A vote on the previous motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Niefer. NAYS - None. • The motion was carried unanimously. The third appeal to be heard by the board was as follows: APPEAL of Dorothy and Robert Summers, Owner, Daniel J . Strawbridge, Appellant/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 enlarge a non -conforming residential buildingllot with a 14 x 16 foot addition to be added to the rear of an existing residence at 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5-.92, Residence District R-15. Said building/lot is non-conforming since there is a 22 foot rear yard building setback (30 foot setback required ) with said addition reducing the setback to 8 +/- feet. Additionally, the parcel is 11 , 343 +/- square feet in area ( 15, 000 square feet required ). Daniel Strawbridge, 721 Cliff Street, said he is representing Dorothy and Robert Summers who are in England . The Summers have a bowling alley sized kitchen , and they would like to enlarge it. There is a fence that would be located four feet away from the addition . The Summers own four feet on the other side of the fence. In relationship to the house this makes the most sense for the kitchen . There are utilities already there, and the driveway is on the right side of the lot. Mr. Strawbridge said the only neighbor he had contacted was George Hassock who lives across the street. Mr. Hassock mentioned this would not affect him because it would • be in the back of the house. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 7 • Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Strawbridge if he had contacted the Washbums in the back of the Summer' s property. Mr. Strawbridge responded , no. The sign the Town Building and Zoning Department gave him was in the front yard . The Town notified neighbors of this hearing . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the Summers contacted any of the neighbors before leaving for England . Mr. Strawbridge responded , no . The Summers instructed him to contact the neighbors. He was not able to contact Mr. Washburn for his reaction to this appeal . Mr. Frost said an affidavit of service by mail shows who was notified of this meeting . Chairman Stotz asked if the neighbors to the east of the Summer's property will be screened by the garage. Mr. Strawbridge showed photographs to the board of the Summer's back yard where the kitchen would be located . Mr. Strawbridge said this would be a one story addition added to the existing house. • Chairman Stotz said the back of the addition would be approximately 15 feet from the side of the Washburn residence. Mr. Strawbridge said there would be enough setback on the side yard . The 7 . 3 feet is from the Washburn comer to the lot line . The lot line to the proposed new addition would be 8 feet. Chairman Stotz asked if there are any houses that close in this area . Mr. Frost said there are a lot of odd houses in that area. The immediate neighbors to the Summers were notified of this meeting. Also there was an orange sign posted in front of the house about this appeal . Chairman Stotz asked if the railing on top of the existing kitchen would remain . Mr. Strawbridge responded , yes . Chairman Stotz asked if the building would be extended out from that railing . Mr. Strawbridge responded , yes . Chairman Stotz asked if the roof would be used as a deck or a porch. • Mr. Strawbridge responded , no . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 199 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 8 • Chairman Stotz said the north elevation shows two windows with an awning facing the Washburn property. Mr. Strawbridge responded , yes. Chairman Stotz asked how would the siding on the addition be finished . Mr. Strawbridge said the existing siding is brick, but the addition would be done in cedar collaborate just like what the second story house has . Mr. Niefer asked with the building encroaching within four feet of the existing fence, would this affect the safety for fire truck to put a fire out. Mr. Frost said there is nothing in the code that requires four sides of access for a single family residents . Mr. Strawbridge said the Summers own the two spruce trees on the other side of the fence. Mr. Ellsworth asked what is the distance from the edge of the addition to the property line. . Mr. Niefer said the survey says eight feet. Chairman Stotz asked if there would be a door out of the addition . Mr. Strawbridge responded , yes . Chairman Stotz asked if the existing door would be removed . Mr. Strawbridge responded , yes. The existing door would be eliminated , and the slider doors would be for the exit. Mr. Niefer asked what is the precedence for allowing a building so close to a property line. This seems to be encroached really close to the property line . Mr. Niefer further asked what is the criteria for giving a variance under these circumstances . Chairman Stotz said the board needs to evaluate whether this addition would be changing the neighborhood in any way. Mr. Ellsworth asked if the Washburns would be able to see this addition . Mr. Strawbridge said the Washburns would only be able to see a piece of the addition . • Attorney Barney said the criteria for an area variance is spelled out in the Town Law. Mr. Frost said this appeals needs a special approval . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11 , 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 9 Attorney Barney said the criteria for granting a special approval are set in Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Sub-Paragraphs a - h in the Town's Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Stotz said these buildings would be located 15 feet apart. This would be the first time in the neighborhood of McIntyre Place where two buildings would be 15 feet apart. Mr. Frost said no one can access the Summer' s property from Forest Home Drive. Some houses that technically front on Forest Home Drive can access those homes through private driveways off of Judd Falls Road by driving by houses that do front on Judd Falls Road . There are homes in this area where road right-of-ways go through their house. These buildings lots are old lots, irregularly shaped , and under sized . This is the typical aspect of this neighborhood . Chairman Stotz asked if there are any adjoining properties that are that close . Mr. Frost said there may be some properties, but he does not know how many. Attorney Barney said the Bronfenbrenner's property next door has a garage located approximately 2 feet from the lot line. Mr. Frost said they had received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeal in 1973 for • that garage. Chairman Stotz asked if the addition would just be a kitchen for cooking for a couple people . Mr. Strawbridge responded , yes . Mr. Niefer asked if the sewer line vent shown on the survey map would be interferred with . Mr. Strawbridge responded , no. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz said an Environmental Impact Statement report was prepared by Planning Intern Benjamin Helber. The report states that the addition would reduce the rear yard setback to eight feet. The existing porch has the potential to extend eight feet to the neighbors property line . The property to the east should not be affected , and the addition will not be visible from McIntyre Place. Consideration should be given to the protection of the large pine trees on the rear property line during construction . Appearance of congestion along this property line is • offset by mature vegetation on the large front and west side yard , which are both beautifully maintained of landscaping . The Planning Staff recommends a negative determination of environmental significance. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 10 • Mr. Helber said after talking with the owners of the property, the owners own the trees and plan to protect them during the construction period. The only concern was the possibility of extending the porch on the flat roof of the addition . That would give them a height elevation where they could easily look into the Washburn' s property. The Summers do not plan to extend the porch . MOTION by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property of Dorothy and Robert Summers at 116 McIntyre Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-542 , Residence District R- based on the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff and their review on June 3, 1997 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Strawbridge how accurate is the eight foot limitation . Mr. Strawbridge said he feels confident that the limitation would be eight feet. There was a pin located at the northeast corner of the Summer' s property. A pin was not located at the northwest corner, but he went parallel to the existing fence that was done in relationship to the eight foot line. A current survey has not been done for the back lot line, so he used the existing pin . Attorney Barney said the concern is to have the addition done for eight feet, then at some point a survey needs to be done , and there is not eight feet like there should be , there would be a problem . Mr. Strawbridge said he would make sure it is eight feet before construction begins. Attorney Barney said the board should include a condition that the construction base be located by a surveyor before construction begins. Mr. Ellsworth asked if this would be required if the owners need to go to the bank. Attorney Barney responded , no , not if a surveyor locates the eight feet for construction purposes . The bank would require a survey if there is a loan on the property. • Chairman Stotz said the surveyor would need to locate the other pin so the addition would meet the eight foot requirement. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 1141997 APPROVED - JUNE 25y 1997 PAGE 11 • Mr. Strawbridge said if the board decided the addition would not be less than eight feet, the owner' s could get a surveyor to make sure it was not and provide a copy to the board . Mr. Strawbridge asked if overhangs count as part of the footprint. Mr. Frost said overhangs up to two feet are not counted by the Zoning Ordinance . MOTION by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that this board grant a special approval to Dorothy and Robert Summers of 116 McIntyre Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 66-542 , Residence District RA 5 , to be permitted to enlarge an non-conforming residential lot for an addition to be located at the rear of the existing residence , conditional upon the following : 1 . That no part of the proposed construction , except overhangs and other projections allowed by the Zoning Ordinance , encroach closer to than 7. 5 +A feet to the north boundary line. 2 . That the addition be no greater than 14 feet. 3 . That before construction is commenced , a licensed surveyor locate the boundary line and the foundation line for the proposed addition . 4. That before a certificate of compliance is issued by the Building and Zoning Enforcement Officer, a licensed surveyor present a survey showing the foundation relative to the lot line by confirming that it is at least 7 . 5 from the lot line . 5 . That there be no second story use of the proposed addition . 6. That the addition be used only for the intended purpose of a kitchen . 7 . That the siding on the addition match the second floor of the existing house of the same type and color. 8. That this board makes the findings setforth in Article XIV, Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-Paragraphs a-h , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard by the board was as follows: APPEAL of Dick and Mary Cogger, Owner, Ralph Vam , AppellantlAgent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an observation loft on an existing residential building at 14 Dove Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61 -1 -8.45, Residence District RA 5. Said building will have a new height of 40 +/- feet (36 foot maximum height allowed ). TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11, 199 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 12 • Ralph Varn , 12 Paragon Way , said he would be representing Dick and Mary Cogger. The Coggers are proposing to build an addition onto their property at 14 Dove Drive. As part of that addition they would like to put an observation tower centrally located in the completed house . The observation tower would be for a telescope. The reason they want to exceed the height limit is because they want to set the telescope at a certain height view over the top of the existing roof. The existing roof of the house is approximately 34 feet from the basement level . Mr. Varn said he was under the impression the height would be 38 feet from the lowest level . He was measuring from the basement floor to the top of the house. The observation tower would exceed the 38 feet by 2 feet in a six foot circle . The whole addition would still be underneath or equal to the existing house as it is now. Mr. Varn showed the board plans of the dome, and described what the dome would look like . Mr. Varn said the observation tower (dome) would not obstruct neighbors views. The property has been advertised and an orange sign has been in the front yard. There were no responses. The Coggers have sent letters to the immediate neighbors, and have spoken the immediate neighbors. The neighbors do not have a problem with the proposal. The Coggers house sits a little lower to the house to the east of them . There is no house to the west of the Coggers . The house is surrounded on the west and north sides by Cornell University' s land . Part of Cornell ' s land is where the Hungerford Heights water tower is located, which is located behind the Dove Drive Subdivision . The addition for the observation tower would allow the Coggers the extra two feet to get the optimal use of the telescope. Chairman Stotz asked if the telescope would just be for observation of the stars. • Mr. Varn responded , yes . Chairman Stotz asked how would the addition be finished , and what would people see looking at the dome on top of the house . Mr. Varn said the addition would be finished in the same siding as the house is done. There is a plan for an addition over the existing garage of 14 feet by 20 feet off the back side. All the additions would be finished in the same material that was used in the building of the original house . The dome would be silver colored . Steel would be used for the platform of the addition to help keep it still , because if the platform moves a little bit it would move the telescope. Steel construction would be done to construct the platform . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the dome would be lit up when the Coggers are using the telescope. Mr. Varn responded , no , the Coggers would be looking for darkness . There may be a small light in the dome to use to be able to move around . Mr. Ellsworth asked what the shutter would be on the dome. Mr. Varn said the shutter would be either aluminum or steel material . The shutter would • not be glass . There is no other protective layers . The Coggers do not want anything obscuring the telescope . Chairman Stotz asked if all the neighbors spoken to the Coggers about this proposal . TOWN OF URACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 254 1997 PAGE 13 • Mr. Varn said the Coggers have spoken to their immediate neighbors. There were no objections. There is not anything to object to because it does effect any of the neighbors views. Mr. Niefer said the photographs supplied by Mr. Frost shows there are children around the house . Mr. Niefer asked if there would be any prospects of school buses loaded with children coming to the house to look through the telescope . Mr. Varn said the Coggers are very open to the children , and they have a lot of children around the neighborhood . One of the purposes of another addition the Coggers want to do would be for a multi purpose room where the children would have room to play. The multi purpose room would be for their children and other children to play. Chairman Stotz asked what is located to the east of the Cogger' s property. Mr. Varn said Dove Drive Subdivision is located to the east. The Cogger's are located at the northwest of Dove Drive subdivision . Chairman Stotz asked if the neighbors further up the line are aware what the Coggers want to do. • Mr. Varn said he is not sure. The orange sign has been in the front yard for people to see . He is not sure who the Town notified of this hearing . Chairman Stotz asked if the Coggers spoke to anyone further east beyond the adjoining neighbor. Mr. Varn said he is not sure of that answer. Chairman Stotz said the environmental assessment states that the Cogger' s house is very visible in terms of the height. The rest of the subdivision further east could look west to see the dome. Mr. Varn said the neighbors views are in an oriented manner that they do not look toward the Coggers house. Chairman Stotz asked if the neighbors turn and look toward the Coggers would they be able to see the dome . Mr. Varn said only if the neighbors were in their front yards. The way the houses are set and the way their picture windows of their living rooms and porches are not set to view the Cogger' s house . • Chairman Stotz said he is concerned about the sign for the height variance which did not describe that a dome would be placed on top of the house. The sign only states that the Coggers are requesting two additional feet. If a neighbor drives by and sees the sign that says TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 199 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 14 • the Coggers want two additional feet they would not think anything of it. Chairman Stotz was wondering how people would feel about the dome after it was constructed . Mr. Niefer asked if the sun would be reflecting off the silver dome. Mr. Varn said he is not sure the dome would be silver. The Coggers have not picked the dome out yet. He is not sure what colors the dome comes in . The Coggers could probably paint the dome the same color of the house if that was an issue to the board. Chairman Stotz asked if painting the dome would effect the functioning of the telescope. Mr. Vam said the Coggers would not be objectionable to painting the dome so it would not stick out so much . Mr. Frost said if the house was short house and the Cogger had the dome for the observation tower at the height limit, the neighbors would still see the dome. Chairman Stotz said that was correct, but in this case it is two feet higher. Mr. Varn said he and the Coggers thought the addition itself and the house itself was under the height requirements . The dome would only be exceeding two feet above the height • limit. Mr. Kanter said it is hard to guess what residents will say or feel when they do not turn out for public hearings . Attorney Barney said , for the record , he has represented Mr. Varn and the Coggers in the past, and he is not representing either party in conjunction with this application . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Varn what would be the difference between the existing grade to the top of the basement floor. Mr. Varn responded , three feet. Attorney Barney asked if the addition would be 37 feet from the lowest exterior grade. Mr. Varn responded , yes . Mr. Frost asked if the ground surface from the east elevation is no higher nor lower than any of the other directions . For example, would the west side of the house be lower grade than the east side of the house . Mr. Varn responded , yes , by three feet. He took the interior dimension from the basement • floor to the top of the house . Mr. Frost asked if the basement floor is the lowest point of the building above or below grade on the west side of the property. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 199 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 15 • Mr. Varn Y responded , es. P Attorney Barney asked if the Coggers could exit the basement at grade . Mr. Varn responded , yes . There is a walk out situation in the back of the house . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Vam if he built most of the houses on Dove Drive including the Cogger' s house . Mr. Varn responded , yes. Chairman Stotz asked if the board needs to decide on two feet or four feet. Attorney Barney said the Town' s Zoning Ordinance limits height to either 38 feet above the lowest interior floor level or 36 feet above the lowest exterior grade. This proposal seems to be 40 feet above the lowest exterior grade , so the board is looking at a variance of 4 feet rather than two feet. The proposal was advertised as 40 feet, so the advertisement is okay. The actual variance would be for a 4 foot variance. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, Chairman • Stotz closed the public hearing . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz said the environmental assessment states that there is standing water in a depression located to the northwest corner of the lot in the rear yard . Care should be taken not to create or increase drainage problems during construction near the western property line. Mr. Varn responded , yes . Chairman Stotz said the environmental assessment also mentions that the Cogger's house is presently one of the tallest and largest structures of the neighborhood . The structure' s roof line could be seen throughout the neighborhood, especially from the parcels to the east. The structure' s roof line could also be seen from Snyder Hill Road and Hungerford Hill Road. The Planning Staff recommends a negative determination of environmental significance. Mr. Helber said the neighbors to the east would not see the Coggers house unless they turn very slightly. The Coggers house is the largest and tallest structure presently on Dove Drive . MOTION by James Niefer, seconded by Harry Ellsworth : • RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property of Dick and Mary Cogger at 14 Dove Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 114 199 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 16 No . 61 - 1 -8. 45 , based on the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff and their review on June 4, 1997 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. MOTION by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Dick and Mary Cogger of 14 Dove Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 61 - 1 -8. 45, Residence District R-15, requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an observation loft with a building height not to exceed 41 feet from the lowest interior level of the building or the lowest exterior grade which ever results in a lower height, based on the following condition and finding : 1 . That the dome portion be painted in the same color as the existing house to make it intrusive as possible, unless evidence is presented to the Building Inspector that the dome should be silver colored for temperature reasons of the telescope. 2 . That the dome would not be detrimental to the neighborhood . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Niefer. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. The last appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of Jody D. And Jeffrey J . Boronkay, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2. 01 -2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to place an "off premise" sign advertising a day care operation on Evergreen Lane, with said sign placed at 105 DuBois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-2-1 .2, Residence District R-30. The Sign Law prohibits the placement of a sign off of the property for which the sign is intended to advertise. Jody Boronkay, 3 Evergreen Lane , said she is the director and the head teacher of the Evergreen Nursery School . She is here to request permission to be allowed to locate a sign off- premises onto John Weiss' property , which is on the corner of DuBois Road and Route 96. • Mr. Frost asked if the sign would be located on the west side of the road opposite of Mr. Weiss' house . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11* 199 APPROVED - JUNE 25. 1997 PAGE 17 Ms . Boronkay responded , yes . The sign would not be double sided . The sign would be backed up to the evergreen trees and facing Route 96 going towards Trumansburg . Ms . Boronkay said there is a day care crisis with the new welfare reform , and in the past month two local nursery school/day cares closed . There is a task force in place to look at what they are going to do with the number of children that need some type of day care. As it stands right now, there is not the space to accommodate those children in Ithaca. Ms . Boronkay said in the last 15 years of her business , she screens families to see how they found out about the Evergreen Nursery School . She has used blurbs on the radio , which are $500 a shot with no responses . She has tried all types of different angles . The only thing that has worked was sign and location . If she puts a sign out she would be filled within a week. Ms . Boronkay said she has put a sign out advertising her nursery school , and she found out that it was illegal in the Town of Ithaca. She has put the sign on the Town's line, and found it has works. This is a matter of survival . The bottom line is that she needs to stay in business , and the community needs the human service . When she puts the sign over the Town' s line, people call and think she lives where the sign is. She tells them no, but she is not located to far from that sign . She is proposing to have a sign located near her school permanently on a main track. She lives in a relatively new development, so people do not know where Evergreen Lane is . There was a sign that existed previously in this location for Poyer Orchards , which was an off-premises sign years ago . She has contacted all the neighbors in the area , and there were no objections . Jeffrey Boronkay, 3 Evergreen Lane , said there are letters in the packets handed out to the board from some of the immediate neighbors who do not object to this proposal . John Weiss wrote a letter informing the Town he does not object to a sign on his property. Ms. Boronkay said there is a letter from the current Indian Creek Fruit Farm owner who does not have an objection to the sign . Most of the people in the neighborhood are familiar with her business . She has gone out of the way to make sure that her set up does not look or encroach on the neighborhood as an enormous day care business. The school is set back on the second portion of her property. Mr. Frost asked what would be the maximum number of children should be able to have. Ms . Boronkay said she is certified by the State , so she is allowed to have 12 children plus two school aged children . Mr. Frost asked if she would be exceeding that limit. Ms . Boronkay said she would not be allowed .to exceed the limit because the State would only allow 12 children plus two school aged children . Mr. Ellsworth asked how many children does she have now. Ms . Boronkay said she has the 12 children plus two school aged children . Mr. Ellsworth asked if she was full . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NNE 11 . 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 18 • Ms . Boronkay responded , yes . It is not a matter of advertising , but Ithaca is a very transient community , and she still needs the sign for location . That is for now because this is her busiest time for the fall . In her business she books three years in advance. Mr. Ellsworth said if the sign was installed , would the sign be comparable in a legal sense. Ms . Boronkay responded , yes. Mr. Boronkay asked Mr. Ellsworth what he meant by comparable . Mr. Ellsworth said the size of the sign being permanently placed and the sign she uses on the Town's line. Ms . Boronkay said the current sign on the Town's line is a little bigger than the proposed permanent sign . Mr. Boronkay said the sign being proposed would be much more appealing than the current sign on the Town' s line. Mr. Frost said within the last week the Town has observed a sign on the corner of Sheffield and Mecklenburg Roads. • Ms . Boronkay responded , yes , it is just over the Town's line. Mr. Frost said the sign is quite a ways from the school . Ms . Boronkay responded , yes, and it is probably misleading to the community. She said she has been flooded with calls because of the sign on Sheffield and Mecklenburg Roads. Mr. Frost asked Ms . Boronkay if she intends to have any other off-premises signs in the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Boronkay responded , no. She has not located any signs in the Town of Ithaca since last year's conversation with Mr. Frost. Mr. Ellsworth asked if that is why she locates the signs outside the Town . Ms . Boronkay responded , yes . She is in a business that needs to survive, and the sign works. It tells her that the community is not getting the word that there are places available within their neighborhood for care of their children . There is a need . Mr. Boronkay said the package he handed out to the board shows the proposed sign along with letters from current families of the school who are in support of this. • Mr. Frost said in his travels , one of the most common signs seen in front of residential buildings are for day care . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11 , 199 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 19 • Ms . Boronkay said the other dilemma is that Ithaca is a transient community. With Cornell University' s enrollment, and people who move in and out during various times of the year puts her in a position that makes it very difficult. The State requires a certain number of children for her because she provides extended care in the afternoon . There would be a problem financially, so she needs to stay at capacity in order to provide the quality care. Mr. Boronkay said Evergreen Lane is a cul-de-sac, . dead end street which does not receive a lot of traffic by the school . The main issue is to have a sign located at a close intersection where it would receive a lot of traffic. Logically Route 96 is one road that is heavily traveled . The sign would be one sided located at the intersection of DuBois Road and Route 96. On the sign would be an arrow pointing down DuBois Road to Evergreen Lane . Chairman Stotz said the board needs to consider if this sign is placed on Route 96, and what are the distinguishing characteristics that permit this to happen . This is a profit making enterprise that in effect argues that this school cannot survive unless there is some type of advertisement along a main road . Other businesses could make the same argument also . The distinguishing fact here is that the community has a need for quality child care. People in the community are only going to know if the school is there if someone informs them . A sign would be a way of letting people know the school is there. Maybe this could be used as a rationale for saying okay in this case, but not okay for another case. • Mr. Frost said he has had frequent conversations with real estate agents over the last six to 12 months about off-premises real estate signs . There used to be two signs on this corner, but they were to be removed . Should the board decide favorably on this appeal that the resolution should be worded carefully because he has had ongoing persistent problems with real estate agent' s signs. There are some areas in the Town where real estate signs have arrows taking people from the main road to where the house is for sale. He has struggled with real estate agents , but has achieved voluntary compliance with them . As this board considers the potential setting of a precedent, this board should word the resolution carefully. Attorney Barney asked Ms . Boronkay if there was a lawyer living on Evergreen Lane, and wanted to put a sign on the same corner for advertising of his business , would she have a problem with it. There are a lot of worthy enterprises that would like to advertise off-premises which the Town Zoning Ordinance prohibits against it. Ms . Boronkay said she understands . Mr. Frost said he has been working for the Town of Ithaca for 11 years, and there has been one sign that received approval for an off-premises sign . The Coddington Road restaurant has a sign located at the corner of Hudson Street and Danby Road by Rogan' s Comers . The sign has an arrow pointing to Coddington Road . On the same corner of the Boronkay' s appeal is there is the Indian Creek Fruit Farm sign and there is an antique shop sign . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 199 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 20 • Chairman Stotz said he understands that, but antiques and fruits are not in the same category as child care . The Boronkay' s documentation points out that a few people would not have known about the school without the sign being out. Ms . Boronkay said 99 percent of the families who she screened said they seen the sign . The other one percent of families come from two local pediatricians in town . Chairman Stotz said that is coupled with the fact that there is an apparent human service need in this community. Ms. Boronkay said that is correct. The other crucial point is that her business is a little different from most programs provided . Her business is an itinerary approved site. She can take children with special needs because that is her background and she is certified . She has a speech therapist and a physical therapist at the school . She is working on taking a child who is deaf with an interpreter. That is unusual in a private setting . Attorney Barney asked Ms . Boronkay if there is some group or body that oversees this day care facilities . Ms . Boronkay responded , yes. There is a book from the Day Care Council , which she has been listed in for 15 years . People do not know the book exists because it is not in handy places • such as grocery stores . The Ithaca Child is not out enough so that does not work. This . particular book people would need to go to the Day Care Council to get. There are parents who work 9 to 5 Monday through Friday, that they would not be able to get their hands on this book. Attorney Barney said his daughter called the Day Care Council when she needed day care , and the Council gave her names over the phone. Ms . Boronkay said the problem is that there are many non-English speaking people in the community, and they do not understand directions. Many of her families are foreigners . The Day Care Council service is available , but it is not as productive as a locational sign . Mr. Ellsworth asked if this appeal gets approved , would the sign be removed that is located on the Town's line. Ms . Boronkay responded , yes . The current sign only goes out when there are openings or if she is having an open house. That does not matter, she still needs the name out there . Mr. Ellsworth asked since she is full and she has been receiving lots of calls , how would she be able to accommodate people contacting her once the sign is installed . Ms . Boronkay said she is familiar with all the places in Ithaca. They work together in a networking situation , so she could do referrals. • Mr. Ellsworth asked if the referral business is not working well . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 199 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 21 • Ms . Boronkay said she does not have to refer to often . She accommodates people when she can . She runs two separate programs , and that is why it works so well . The program is unique, it is not like most programs . It is a nursery school program with extended care to accommodate selected people who have needs for working parents . Mr. Ellsworth asked if that would still limit her to 12 children . Ms. Boronkay said she is limited to 12 children plus two school aged children . Mr. Frost asked if the plus two children would allow her to have those children after 3 : 00. Ms. Boronkay responded , no, they must be school aged . There is no time limit on those children . There are many children in this community who are not ready for school at five years old which would be considered school aged . Mr. Ellsworth asked Ms . Boronkay when she puts the sign on the Town's line, how many calls has she received that she needed to turn down . Ms. Boronkay said she did not have to turn down any calls . She actually enrolled five students for the school , and there is a few openings in the fall . In the fall , there are Cornell people who have switched jobs or who have lost their jobs . There are Ithaca people who have been transient for one reason or another. Because of that she would not get an opportunity unless she has an locational sign . The current sign goes out when it is needed , and when it is out it works . With the local day cares and facilities operated by the State would go on a sliding scale fee in order to get in . Those children could go but do not qualify financially. She deals with middle class working families that do not have a place for day care. Ms . Boronkay said she has talked about opening a pilot place in a different location as well as this one, and being the go between . She would need to see what this sign does for the school first. Mr. Ellsworth asked Ms . Boronkay when would she be expanding . Ms . Boronkay said she cannot expand in the present location . There is no school in the Town that could have more than 12 children plus two school aged no matter how many adults are there. If she chose to eliminate her extended care in the afternoon then there are no requirements from the State. Chairman Stotz said right now there is a shortage of quality day care . Chairman Stotz asked if she was willing to take the sign down if the rationale behind putting the sign out changes. Ms . Boronkay said she would choose not to because she would need it more then . The location is crucial for her. There is nothing in this immediate area that she could compete with in any way, shape, or form . There is no grocery store that would be able to get the word out. • There is a pediatrician ' s office in the area that refuses to allow it. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 22 Chairman Stotz said he thinks the day care situation would continue to get worse in Tompkins County. Ms. Boronkay said she does not have the overhead that most people have. She has not raised her rates for five years because people cannot afford it. She raised her rates this year for the first time in five years, and she did it in two steps to help families . There was a small increment in the fall and a small increment in January, so the families were not hit all at once. That is very different from the cost the parents are paying when they put the children in bigger day care situations . Attorney Barney asked Ms. Boronkay what type of rates does she charge. Ms. Boronkay said she charges $ 155 a month , which works out to $ 13. 50 a morning. The going rate is $ 18 to $20, and she provides more programming than any other place in Ithaca . Mr. Frost asked Ms. Boronkay if she could operate more than one site through a satellite some where . Ms. Boronkay responded , yes . She would need to bounce from one place to another. Mr. Ellsworth said then she would need another sign . Ms. Boronkay said she would pick an area that the sign would be on-premises . Mr. Frost asked if the proposed sign would be used to help increase the day care where she could benefit through a satellite site some where. Ms . Boronkay said she could have the option of building on the current lot, but she does not have the opportunity to build at this point. Mr. Frost asked what would be the pilot program . Ms. Boronkay said the pilot program would be another program in another location if she rented a place . She is waiting to see what happens with the sign situation . Mr. Frost asked if she has a pilot program . Ms . Boronkay responded , no. She is thinking of the idea of some day starting another program in another area . Mr. Boronkay said his wife' s idea is only conceptual . Mr. Frost said the sign at this location could get clientele that could be placed at another site . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 23 • Ms . Boronkay said her concern at this point is the location she has. Without the sign it is difficult to stay at capacity. Attorney Barney said the sign at the Town's line serves the need when it is out. He has not seen the hardship in this case , because she has reached a solution that works and does not violate the Town' s laws . Ms . Boronkay said it is unfair to the community. Chairman Stotz asked Attorney Barney who would have the hardship . Attorney Barney said the Town' s Sign Ordinance states they are entitled to a variance. There is no real criteria of support. Typically hardship is measured as an area variance is, if the sign would be detriment to the community versus the benefit to the applicant. If this was an use variance, the applicant would have to show that they cannot make any type of an economical return . Hardship is always hardship to the applicant, but it is hardship that could be demonstrated . The Boronkay' s have a sign located outside of the Town . The sign produces to the people what they are looking for, so that proves they do not have a hardship. Ms . Boronkay said the traffic with the octopus construction has stopped parents from bringing their children because they did not want to travel through the construction . She lost a • family from Candor because of the octopus construction . Attorney Barney said the school is reasonably full to capacity right now, and there is an ability to put up a sign when needed . Ms. Boronkay said it could change at any time. She cannot rely on the Zoning in the Town of Enfield. Attorney Barney said the zoning in the Town of Enfield is not a problem right now. Ms . Boronkay said she has a human service need in the community, and she fills it. That is the main thing , and she does go through some real down falls. During the last three years she went through some hardships with the octopus construction that she contemplated closing. Mr. Frost has visited the site, and he knows that she puts her heart and soul into the school . Attorney Barney said he does not deny that, but the problem is that once the sign is installed it would set a precedent. Ms . Boronkay said the board needs to help her figure out the precedent, and how this could work so it works for the Town and her because she is doing a service for the community. Mr. Frost said there are other day care operations in the Town of Ithaca . • Ms . Boronkay said there are no other day cares in her area. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11 , 199 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 24 • Mr. Frost said there is a day care facility in the Health Department Building . Ms. Boronkay said they take in social service children . Mr. Frost said there is a day care facility at the entrance to the hospital which is the YMCA program . Ms . Boronkay said there is a big difference between her program and those day cares. Chairman Stotz said given the present state of child care availability in this community is documented by past publicity. Chairman Stotz asked why would those day cares , in view of this community situation , to be permitted to advertise also . Attorney Barney said those day cares would be encouraged if this board grants this variance. If this board grants this appeal , it should be conditioned that anybody operating a daycare facility cannot have an off-premises sign . The Boronkays have made it very clear that there is a reason for the sign because it is a big community need . The Sign Law, when it was drafted , had a provision for aberration of signs . The Town went through a great deal of effort for the Sign Law to bring actions against getting rid of bill boards . The policy of the Town is very clearly enunciated that no off-premises signs are allowed in the Town of Ithaca . • Mr. Boronkay asked if the Coddington Road Restaurant sign has been an influx of other restaurants asking for off-premises signs. The Coddington Road Restaurant probably asked for an off-premises sign because all other restaurants are on a main area. Attorney Barney said restaurants want to attract people so they build on main roads. Ms. Boronkay said she has a school . Mr. Frost said she needs to be careful because of building code issues . Ms . Boronkay said it is true . Programming wise, or she would not have been an approved site. The Town could get caught up in the numbers of the book, but the bottom line is that she is not a group day care or a day care center, she runs a Pre-K school . There is a difference . The other things is that the school is on a dead end cul-de-sac. There is no thru way. Mr. Frost asked Ms . Boronkay if she is licensed by State Aid or State Education Board . Ms . Boronkay responded , no. There are no licenses , but she is certified as a Group Family Day Care Home . Mr. Frost asked if that means she needs to reside where she provides the day care. Ms. Boronkay responded , yes. That is the technically that she resides in the dwelling . The school is off the beaten path , and she desperately needs this . This is more challenging than her classroom on a picnic. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 25 • Chairman Stotz said the Boronkays have been before the Town' s Planning Board . The motion talks about the size of the sign and the placement of the sign . There is no recommendation one way or the other for this board about approving this . Attorney Barney said the Planning Board has recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant this appeal . Mr. Niefer asked if during the past six months how many vacancy days has the school had . Ms . Boronkay said the school had three students leave mid year at a very awkward time, and that is big for the school when she could take up to 14 children . Mr. Niefer asked how long were those vacancies empty. Ms . Boronkay said once she put the sign out she filled the vacancies . within a week. Chairman Stotz asked what would the paint design look like. Ms. Boronkay said the proposed sign would be very compatible to what Audrey Eldeman's • complex has with dark hunter green with gold lettering . It would be very professional with the address , phonenumber, and an arrow. The sign would not say what she offers because she could do that by mouth . The sign would be for location for people to see where it is . The sign would be done by the man who made the Burnett Park Zoo sign . He is very talented and does nice quality work. She had a smaller version of his sign in front of their lamp post for Evergreen Nursery School . There has been no need for care of that sign . This would not be a sign where paint would be pealing off. She proposes to approximately $ 100 worth of landscaping underneath the sign . Chairman Stotz asked if the proposed sign would have lighting . Ms. Boronkay responded , no . The type of people the sign would be benefiting would be the moms who are drive in and out of Trumansburg or West Hill areas. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing. Mr. Ellsworth said he has a few ideas . The Boronkay's are licensed for an approved family day care that could be made contingent as long as they have that license. Another way would be to limit a period of time for the sign to be displayed , and then return to the board for further approval . • Attorney Barney said the Planning Board recommended a time limit of five years for the sign . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 199 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 26 • Mr. Ellsworth said approving this appeal might encourage others to put signs up. Mr. Frost said other people could not put up signs without the proper authorization from this board. Chairman Stotz said the issues are the mitigating factors of the special condition of a hardship that could be pointed to if someone else comes along asking the same thing . The board needs to decide why they approved this appeal . Ms. Boronkay said Evergreen Lane is a dead end street. Mr. Ellsworth said he has a problem with the hardship. Chairman Stotz said that in a larger contexts this board would be making an exception of this point and time that there is a need in the community for day care. It has been amply demonstrated by the appellants and letters submitted by their customers that a sign was indeed the main factor of directing them to the school . There are a lot of people who put children in front of television sets in trailer parks in the woods because they do not know other day care is available. Unless people have ample opportunity to know that those facilities are out there, they may pick one that is not desirable. • Mr. Ellsworth said he knows a person in the Town who had a temporary day care business that was strictly through the word of mouth . She was turning people away left and right. These were for pre-school children . This was strictly by word of mouth and she was constantly turning people down . Mr. Kanter said if this board grants this appeal with a five year time limit, it would give the Town time to observe the sign to see if it would be appropriate to continue . Chairman Stotz said that would be appropriate because in five years the situation could change one way or the other. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mr. Kanter said there are no significant environmental impacts anticipated. MOTION by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property of Jody and Jeffrey Boronkay at 3 Evergreen Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24-2A . 2 , based on the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff and their review . • A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Niefer. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 27 • NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. MOTION by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Jody and Jeffrey Boronkay of 3 Evergreen Lane, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2 . 01 -2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place an off-premises sign at 105 DuBois Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 24-2- 1 . 2 , Residence District R-30, granted based on the findings and conditions as follows : 1 . That a time limit of five years be granted . At the end of five year period, from June 11 , 19971 that the Boronkays would need to appear before the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for an extension . 2 . That the approval be granted only in the light of the fact that there exists at the current time an apparent lack of quality day care facilities in Tompkins County. It is apparent from the appellant' s documentation that advertising the availability of this day care center to alleviate that situation . 3 . That the location of the home is on a cul-de-sac without opportunity for much traffic to observe an on-premises sign . 4 . That the size and shape of the proposed sign would be the minimal amount necessary to demonstrate or to be visible to provide the desired information regarding the location of availability of day care from a high volume road. 5. That the location is in an area that is already commercialized by the existence of an antique store sign and a fruit stand sign . 6 . That the time limit would let the Town observe the precedent aspect of the sign and whether it promotes a number of similar requests. 7 . That this board in granting the variance repeats and incorporates the same suggestions of the Planning Board in making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals . 8. That the evidence as presented by the applicant demonstrates that the most effective way people learn of the Evergreen Nursery School is through the use of the sign and location . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 119 19 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 28 • Chairman Stotz adjourned the meeting at 9: 24 p . m " Deborah Kelley, Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recl der G David Stotz, C airm • • R a� TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, JUNE il , 1997 7 : 00 P. I . 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, June 11 , 1997, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N . Y ., COIvi1VIENCING AT 7 :00 P .M ., on the following matters : APPEAL of Dorothy and George Allen, Appellants, 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 576 + square feet of additional living space on the east side of a nonconforming single-family residence located at 138 Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -2-9, Residence District R-30 . The building is nonconforming with a 31 .5 + foot west side building setback (40 feet required) and will have a 22 .5 foot east side setback (40 feet required) . A variance from Article V , Section 21 may also be requested . APPEAL of Carolyn Grigorov, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article X-A, Section 50 F and H of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to create, by subdivision, a parcel of land not fronting on a Town, County, or State highway, nor having a front yard, within the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51 - 1 -3 .2 off of Coddington Road. A variance from the requirements of Section 280-A of New York State Town Law may also be requested. APPEAL of Dorothy and Robert Summers, Owner, Daniel J . Strawbridge, Appellant/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 enlarge a • nonconforming residential building/lot with a 14 x 16 foot addition to be added to the rear of an existing residence at 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5 -9.2, Residence District R- 15 . Said building/lot is nonconforming since there is a 22 foot rear yard building setback (30 foot setback required) with said addition reducing the setback to 8 + feet. Additionally, the parcel is 11 ,343 + square feet in area ( 15 ,000 square feet required) . APPEAL of Dick and Mary Cogger, Owner, Ralph Varn, Appellant/Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section I 1 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an observation loft on an existing residential building at 14 Dove Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61 - 1 -8 .45 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building will have a new height of 40 + feet (36 foot maximum height allowed) . APPEAL of Jody D . and Jeffrey J . Boronkay, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2 .01 -2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to place an "off premise" sign advertising a day care operation on Evergreen Lane, with said sign placed at 105 DuBois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-2- 1 .2 , Residence District R-30. The Sign Law prohibits the placement of a sign off of the property for which the sign is intended to advertise. 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: June 3 , 1997 Publish: June 6, 1997 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, June 11 , 1997, 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 3, 1997 Date of publication : June 6, 1997 Ck'MO ani L . Holford, Building and Zoning epartment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of June, 1997 . ' ' 0TryP lic f