Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1999-12-08 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS '��1 �C WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8 , 1999 7 : 00 PM APPEAL of Rhonda Bickford , Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals as authorized Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to convert an existing barn into a home office/recreation space at 1466 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 - 15 , Agricultural Zone ( Residence District R-30 regulation apply) . Sail barn is within 5 inches of a rear property line (5 feet required ) . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of The Home Design and Build Center , Dale Stevens , Appellant , Thomas Bell , property Owner, requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct a home retail/service business at 614 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33-3-2 . 42 , Light Industrial District . Said zone permits only on - site fabrication and assembly. Additionally, a variance from Section 5 . 03- 1 of the Town Sigh Law is being requested to permit the placement of 55 . 25 square foot and 16 . 25 square foot sign panels on the property, whereby one 50 square foot sign is permitted . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of the Coddington Road Community Center , Anne Morrisette , Agent, requesting a special approval under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to add approximately 1 , 000 square feet of additional space onto the Coddington Road Community Center, located at 920 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47- 1 - 11 . 3 , Residence District R-30 . A special approval under Article XII , Section 54 is also required as the existing building , to be enlarged is 17 ± feet from the north side property line (40 foot setback required) . The new addition will be setback 29 ± feet . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant , David Lorenzini , Agent , requesting a Special Approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to renovate an existing university building and to construct a 40' x 80' storage pole barn at 798 Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 65- 14 . 1 , -5 . 5 , Residence District R-30 . Said buildings are to be used by Cornell University Arboretum Center, APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Big AI ' s Hilltop Quickstop , Michael Herzing , Owner/Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a fence with a height of 8 feet (6 foot maximum allowed ) at 1103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43-2- 1 , -2 , Business District C . APPEAL GRANTED a - s a100 CN TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, DECEBMER 8. 1999 7 : 00 PM PRESENT: David Stotz, Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member ; Kirk Sigel , Board Member; Andy Frost , Director Building/Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Mr. & Mrs . Donald Barnett , 107 E King Road ; Mark & Rhonda Bickford , 1466 Trumansburg Road ; Bill Seldin , 120 Northview Road ; Tom Bell , Curry Road Trumansburg ; Janis Graham , 1150 Ellis Hollow Road ; David Lorenzini , 330 East State Street ; George J . Vignaux, 1470 Trumansburg Road ; Christine Carstensen , 201 Humphrey's Service Building ; Ann & Robert Silsbee , 915 Coddington Road ; Don Rakon , Cornell University Plantations ; Ann Morrissette , Coddington Road Community Center. Chairperson Stotz led the meeting to order at 7 : 07 p . m . , stating that all posting , publication , and notifications of the public hearings had been completed . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Rhonda Bickford , Appellant , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals as authorized under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to convert an existing barn into a home office/recreation space at 1466 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24= 1 - 15 , Agricultural Zone (Residence District R- 30 regulations apply) . Said barn is within 5 inches of a rear property line (5 feet required ) . Rhonda Bickford , 1466 Trumansburg Road , stated that they would not be changing the exterior of the building . The building does need a new roof. They need to find a use for it in order to maintain it because to maintain a building is expensive . The space could be used for more living space . Ms . Bickford stated that they would like to use it as a home office and recreation space . Mr. Vignaux has written a letter to the board stating that he does not have any objection to the plans of the project . "Gentlepeople , We own and reside at 1470 Trumansburg Road , Tax Parcel 24= 1 - 14 . 1 Town of Ithaca . We understand that ours neighbors , the Bickfords , desire to improve the structure in their backyard . This structure was once part of the parcel we now own , now part of 24= 1 - 15 sits within a foot of the property of the line between their property and our property. It is located at some distance from any other property lines and should have no impact on any other neighbors . The Bickfords own 24= 1 - 16 . 2 the next nearest property. We have no objection to their plans and support them in their request for a variance . George & Louise Vignaux" Chairperson Stotz asked if the area would be fixed up as a recreation space . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Bickford responded yes . It would have a practice room for her husband to play folk music . They would also like to put their computer in the building . Chairperson Stotz asked if sanitary facility would be put in . Ms . Bickford stated that they would like to put a toilet and sink in . Andy Frost , Director Building/Zoning , stated that they did have discussions with regard to whether or not there would be a kitchen and how having a kitchen and a bathroom would not be permissible . It would create by definition a dwelling unit . Ms . Bickford stated that they have decided to have a toilet and a sink . They do not wish to have kitchen facilities . They do not want to create problems with the zoning laws . They only wish to have a toilet and sink for convenience . Mr. Niefer asked if the barn was included in the purchase of the property. Ms . Bickford stated that the house property lines used to be different . The stable appears to be part of a complex of other buildings . At some point the land the barn is on was sold to make the back yard bigger. Mr. Ellsworth asked what is the nature of the business in the office area . Ms . Bickford responded that it would be for personnel use . It would not be for business . They may bring work home . Mr. Niefer asked if it would be heated . Ms . Bickford replied that it would be heated , insulated , and have water and electricity. Chairperson Stotz asked if the outside of the building would remain the same . Ms . Bickford responded that it would . They are interested in preservation efforts . They try to maintain the historic appearance of the building . The doors and windows may need to be replaced for insulation purposes . They hope to find something that matches the current doors and windows . Chairperson Stotz asked if there are plans to make it a habitable building . Ms . Bickford responded no . Mr. Krantz stated that the Short Environmental Assessment Form states that the stable is located within 5 feet of the lot line . It is within 5 inches of the lot line . Mr. Frost stated that the requirement is 5 feet . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 16 p . m . , and asked if any member of the person wished to be heard . George J . Vignaux, 1470 Trumansburg Road , stated that the Bickfords are improving the property. They are not detracting from it . His property surrounds their property. This affects no one else . It is in view of nothing . Mr. Vignaux stated that they welcome the Bickfords improving the backyard . This building was formally one of four buildings that were on the property that he now owns . One of the previous owners of his property sold the building and some surrounding property so that they would have a larger back yard . He and his wife endorse what they would like to do . Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 7 : 18 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination in the matter of Rhonda Bickford, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals as authorized under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to convert an existing barn into a home office/recreation space at 1466 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 1 - 15, Agricultural Zone (Residence District R-30 regulations apply). Said barn is within 5 inches of a rear property line (5 feet required). A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer Sigel. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer . RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Rhonda Bickford, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals as authorized under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to convert an existing barn into a home office/recreation space at 1466 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 24- 145, Agricultural Zone (Residence District R-30 regulations apply), meeting the requirements of Section 77, subdivision 7, articles a -h. Said barn is within 5 inches of a rear property line (5 feet required) and will contain heating facilities and bathroom facilities with the following condition: a. That there be no stove, refrigerator or other kitchen type facilities placed in the converted barn, and b. That the existing barn not be expanded in any way to the rear. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stolz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of The Home Design and Building Center, Dale Stevens , Appellant , Thomas Bell , Property Owner, requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct a home retail/service business at 614 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33-3-2 . 42 , Light Industrial District . Said zone permits only on - site fabrication and assembly. Additionally, a variance from Section 5 . 03- 1 of the Town Sign Law is being requested to permit the placement of 55 . 25 square foot and 16 . 25 square foot sign panels on the property, whereby on 50 square foot sign is permitted . Bill Seldin , 120 Northview Road , stated that they would like to have a variance from the present Light Industrial district to retail by using the 2 , 400 square foot facility for office and displays of residential design and construction . There will not be any residential sales , inventory or construction on site . They are going from a less restrictive use to a more restrictive district . They are moving in the right direction . In 1994 , Tom Bell came before the Planning Board seeking an interpretation . The sense of the interpretation was that he had argued then that he was a legally non -conforming use . Roscoe Woodworking sought to use the 2 , 400 square foot facility for office space at that time . They had the big warehouse behind this building for use for their light industrial work. In 1994 , they received approval from the board . Roscoe went bankrupt and the warehouse was sold . Tom Bell only owns the 2 , 400 square foot building . In May of 1996 , Tom Bell came before the Zoning Board of Appeals and requested the same type of use variance for use as a convenience store and gas station . At that occasion they offered the testimony of John Vassey, who told the board that he had 45 years of experience , and described why the facility could not yield a reasonable return in a light industrial district . Mr. Vassey's basic argument was that 2 , 400 square feet was not appropriate for light industrial work. The only way to yield a reasonable economic return was to have a variance to permit a commercial use . The board granted the variance on the basis of Mr. Vassey's testimony of hardship . A condition was imposed that Mr. Bell receives additional approval from the Planning Board . In August of 1996 , Mr. Bell did receive Planning Board approval . Part of the dilemma was that DOT was putting in their new highway design . The issue came up as to whether the sight line was sufficient when exiting on Elmira Road , The Planning Board ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED agreed that Mancini Drive was not appropriate . They granted their approval subject to Mr. Bell receiving a letter from DOT stating that all the renovations to the highway were completed . In July 1999 , Mr. Bell suffered the loss of his tenant which was the Valley Corners Convenient Store . They were forced out of business by competition . Since that time , he has tried to re- let the premises . Tom Bell , 614 Elmira Road , stated that in July he lost his tenant . The main reason was that Hess expanded and went to 24-hour service . The owner of the business saw his business diminishing rapidly. This gentleman was in a position that he wanted to buy the property. Mr . Bell stated that he tried to advertise the property in many ways . He had a large sign out in front advertising for sale or for lease . All businesses interested were for retail uses . These ranged from used car lots , pizza parlor, and children ' s clothing . He has lost $9 , 000 in the 5 months from no rent . Chairperson Stotz asked why there is such a vacancy rate on Elmira Road . Mr. Bell responded that some landowners might be asking too much rent . It is hard to get approval for businesses and is too expensive for them to go through the process . There are a lot of people that have failed in business on Elmira . Many people may be afraid to establish their business on Elmira Road , Mr . Seldin stated that there is some precedent . The board had previously decided that there is some hardship on the basis of John Vassey' s testimony. It does not look like anyone in the foreseeable future is going to see this location as a good site for a convenience store . In order to get a reasonable return ; they need a use variance to use the property as a retail business . In a memo from Michael Smith , he noted that there was no adverse affect . The convenience store generated 78 trips in the morning and 87 in the afternoon . Using the same reference material , it was noted that as office space it would generate 4 . 3 trips in the morning and 4 . 2 trips in the afternoon . This is a dramatic decrease in traffic. It was concluded that the current access configuration on Elmira Road was more than adequate . The use would be consistent with the surrounding area . None of the proposed modifications would change the existing parking or circulation . Mr. Krantz stated that he feels that the rejection of Wal - Mart and the controversy that surrounded it has put a cloud over the Elmira Road area . Mr. Seldin stated that the second aspect of their application has to do with the sign variances . At the present time , there is illuminated lettering on the building above the door. It is 60 square feet . There is a security light above that . There is a pay phone on the face of the building and fluorescent lights above the building . The applicant intends to reduce the signage from 100 square feet to 48 square feet . They are going to remove the fluorescent lights , the pay phone and the halogen spotlights . There is a standing sign in front of the building . The total signage area exceeds the allowable signage area under the ordinance . The existing sign has fluorescent lights above it and is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED also backlit . They are going to remove the spotlights that shine down on the signage . The convenience store hours were 7 a . m . to 10 : 30 p . m . The new store hours would be 8 a . m . to 5 p . m . Mr. Krantz asked if the signs and pay phone were being removed because they are under pressure to do so . Mr . Seldin stated that there is not a need for it . Dale Stevens , 199 Prichard Avenue Corning , stated that they intend to remove the phone as a cosmetic gesture . Chairperson Stotz stated that the business is to be called the Home Design & Build Center, but there will be 4 individual business units located there . Mr. Stevens stated that they are sales and marketing units that will be layered on top of the actual tradesmen . They will be using the same employees to perform home building , home improvements and renovation work . Chairperson Stotz asked how are they different businesses . Mr. Stevens responded that they would each have a different name , different sales personnel and different management teams . Chairperson Stotz asked what is their relationship to Mr. Stevens . Mr. Stevens replied that he owns all the businesses . It is a single corporation with 4 dba ' s . The architectural design firm will be a form of partnership . Chairperson Stotz asked if there would be any attempt to bring traffic in from the road . Mr. Stevens stated that 90% of the appointments would be in their customer's homes . There will be kitchen cabinetry on display. The number of customer visits will be minimal . Chairperson Stotz asked if there would be an attempt to use the message board to draw traffic from the road . Mr. Stevens stated that the primary purpose of the message board and the signage would be to direct people to his website . Attorney Barney asked how essential is the message board . Mr. Stevens stated that they have 4 different businesses and the visibility of those individually would be limited . He does not have room on the street sign to adequately display the names of the 4 businesses . The names of the individual businesses will be rotated on the message board . Special ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED offerings will also appear on the message board . The passing motorist would not be able to benefit from the signage if they were to divide it into 4 separate components . It gives him a chance to highlight each business on a rotating basis . Chairperson Stotz stated that no inventory would be held in the building for carryout sales to customers . Will inventory be held for works in progress? Mr . Stevens stated that material storage is at another location . Mr. Frost asked if tradesmen would be coming in with their trucks with supplies on them . Mr. Stevens stated that it would not happen often . There might be an employee stopping in with a work truck to get instructions . Mr. Ellsworth stated that Mr. Stevens is trying to use the two up- rights to save cost . The signage could be reduced . Mr. Stevens stated that he would have to purchase a new unit . There is no effective way to modify the current sign to reform to the sign law. He will be putting new panels in the frame . Mr. Bell stated that when the convenience center was before the board , it was stated that a car going 55 mph would not be able to see the lettering if it were any smaller. People would be straining to see it and would cause accidents . Mr. Ellsworth stated that if there is a problem reading the message board from the road then the message board is useless . Mr. Stevens stated that he has tested the message board himself and the important thing is that the large sign will gain some attention . As people get close , they can glance at the message board . Chairperson Stotz stated that the Planning Board conditioned their recommendation on the sign panel not exceeding 51 square feet and the message board panel not exceeding 15 square feet . Mr. Seldin stated that they are reducing the signage in front of the building dramatically. They are going in the right direction by decreasing the amount of signage in front of the building . They are eliminating the florescent lights . Mr. Frost asked if they received a favorable recommendation from the Planning Board . Mr. Seldin responded that they had a favorable recommendation . Mr. Stevens stated that the appearance of the building would be dramatically changed from what it was as a convenience store . It will not be as glaring . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 DECEMBER 7, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated that there was an issue raised about the curb cuts and the entrance . The County expressed some concern about where the curb cut is and the site line . Mr. Seldin responded that is why he went through some of the history of the project . In 1996 , the issue was addressed and determined by the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals that the site line was sufficient with the renovations that were going to be made by DOT. The Planning Board wanted to know what they thought was going to be in place would be in place . That is why they conditioned their approval on getting a letter from DOT saying that everything was o . k . The convenience store has 50 trips a day versus 14 or 15 . The Planning Board felt that this was of not concern . There was some discussion , but there would be a dramatic decrease in traffic . Chairperson Stotz stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has to revisit the issue . Mr. Seldin responded that in 1996 both bodies did discuss it . There was concern because of the convenience store operation . Chairperson Stotz stated that there is the concern that the County Planning Department has about the site distance from the southern driveway. They are asking whether one of two things could happen . The entrance could be designated at the northern end of the driveway and not the southern end . Mr. Stevens stated the he has left the building by way of Mancini Drive . The visibility is much worse than either of the exits to the existing parking lot . The mailboxes on Mancini Drive prevent from seeing up towards the traffic light . Mr. Frost stated that the elevation on the south side is slightly higher than the north side . Chairperson Stotz asked if it was in the realm of possibility that the northern portion be the entrance and exit . Mr. Seldin stated that they hate to restrict it because it is not a problem with the amount of traffic that exits and enters the parking lot . If the restriction imposed now, it will be imposed forever. He would like to see the use of the building take advantage of both options from the north and south side . It does not pose any hazard with respect to its use and operation given the assessment that was done . The Planning Department has taken a hard look at it . The County's letter also concluded that the present configuration does not propose a problem . He does realize that this board does have to make their own determination . Mr. Frost stated that heading north on Route 13 ingress onto the property is better from the south driveway and into the storefront . It is safer. Chairperson Stotz asked if there were many accidents while the convenience store was opened . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Bell responded that there were two accidents in the area during the ten years the store was open . The accidents were because the cars were turning to go into Mancini Drive . Since the stoplight was installed , there have not been problems . It has slowed traffic down and made it easier to enter and exit . Mr. Krantz asked if the building will be illuminated at night . Mr . Stevens stated that there is a security light on the building and he would like to leave the light . The building has been vandalized since it has been vacant and the security light has been off . Mr. Ellsworth asked what the primary method of getting business . Mr. Stevens stated that they are hoping that the visibility of the building will help . They are also going to do direct mailings . The website would be effective . Mr. Ellsworth asked how much business the sign will generate . Mr. Stevens stated that his experience has been that his business did quite well when it was located on Market Street in Corning . He lost his lease at the location and business tailed off . Mr. Ellsworth asked if he had a sign at the Corning location like the proposed sign . Mr. Stevens responded no . It was in a visible location . Visibility makes a great deal of difference . Route 13 is a great location for this business . Chairperson Stotz asked if the sign will be lit all night . Mr. Stevens stated that he does not see any need to keep the sign illuminated passed 10 : 00 p . m . Mr. Niefer stated that the sketch of the floor plan shows kitchen and bath sales and display areas . It was mentioned that there will be four different entities working in the building . Mr. Stevens stated that there is a home building company that specializes in additions , kitchens and bathrooms . The architectural interior designs are another business . There will also be a general home improvement company. Mr. Niefer stated that there were gasoline pumps at this location . Are the tanks still in the ground ? Mr. Bell responded no . Mr. Niefer asked if any other avenues were used besides the for sale/for lease sign in the front of the building . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 DECEMBER 7, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Bell stated that he advertised in the paper. They did have an auctioneer try to lease it for them . He has many clients that he tries to lease their buildings or auction the buildings for them . Attorney Barney asked if it was listed in a multiple listing . Mr. Bell stated that he did not have any realtors involved . He could not afford to pay commission . Attorney Barney stated that he used his own personal activities to advertise the building . Mr. Bell stated that he has 10 years experience in being a commercial realtor. Attorney Barney stated asked if he was trying to rent the property for himself. Mr. Bell replied that he has rented properties for others . He was licensed broker. Attorney Barney stated that the applicant needs to show a financial hardship . He has not heard what the finances are of the property. Mr. Bell stated that the rent is $ 1800 a month . Valley Corners leased the property for 3 years . He vacated the property the first of July. It has been vacant since . Attorney Barney asked what expenses are there related to the property. Mr. Bell stated that there are taxes , insurance , and utilities . He lost $9000 in rent . Mr. Seldin asked what the mortgage payment is . Mr. Bell stated that they mortgage payment is $ 1100 per month . Taxes are $4000 a year. The utilities for the convenience store were high because of the coolers and the lighting . A new heating unit was put in and the cost of heat has decreased dramatically. The electric heat was $2000 per month . The utilities for this type of operation are about $300 a month . Chairperson Stotz stated that the building has been vacant since July 1 st . Is it unusual for this type of building not to be leased or sold within a 5- month period ? Mr. Bell stated that it is common on the Elmira Road . The buildings have been vacant a long time . People prefer retail out of this location . It has high traffic and high exposure . Many interested persons backed away because of the process they would need to go through to get a variance . Attorney Barney asked if anyone of the manufacturing business has expressed interest . Mr. Bell stated that the size is the determining factor. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Seldin stated that there were not any interested commercial or light industrial users . It was dictated by the size of the space . The space is not large enough to support light industrial use . Mr. Bell stated that he has had several comments from neighbors surrounding the property that they would like to see this type of business go into this area . This business generates less traffic. Mr. Seldin stated that they established as part of the record in 1996 through expert testimony the bases for the use variance to the convenience store . There are not going to be any light industrial enterprise wanting this location . The track record of the location speaks for itself . This can only be a good thing . There is a decrease in traffic and in signage . Given the history of the area , this store will lye dormant for a long time if the variance is not granted . Chairperson Stotz stated that Zoning Board of Appeals did approve the use of a convenience store . This is a retail establishment . It does carry less traffic . This is a step up . The convenience store was also a use that was permitted that has now terminated . The board has to consider what the original intention was . Regardless of the other points that are being made , it is not just a matter of going from a convenience store to a use with less impact , it is one of considering it is zoned for industrial use . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 05 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 06 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Michael Smith , Planner, stated that this is a developed site . There are not any anticipated impacts . Chairperson Stotz asked Mr. Smith if he had any views on the site line concerns . Mr. Smith stated that the proposed business is a lot less of an intense use . There will not be the same amount of traffic . There have been a lot of improvements to the road . Mr. Krantz stated that the question is if the board should allow a clean business that will decrease the amount of traffic to go into a depressed area that has numerous vacancies . He does not know how the board could possibly turn down the application . Chairperson Stotz stated that he agrees , but it is still a use variance for an area that is zoned for light industrial use . They have to decide if there is a financial hardship for the board to make an exception . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sigel stated that he does agrees with Chairperson Stotz . The requirements are strict for a use variance . The type of financial evidence required is greater than what has been presented . The evidence presented has been antidotal . He does agree that this is a good business to come into the area . He wishes that this area was already zoned for this type of business . It is more appropriate than light industrial . Chairperson Stotz stated that he was not on the board when they wrote the zoning regulations that made this area light industrial . One of the considerations is to avoid a proliferation of retail establishments along Elmira Road , Light Industrial areas are not usually cited along heavily trafficked roads . Mr. Sigel stated that they have received more evidence of financial hardship than they have receive in other cases . Chairperson Stotz stated that he does not have a basis for comparison in telling if this building is being considered to be vacant for a long period of time . Maybe on average this type of establishment is vacant for a year. Attorney Barney stated that the issue is not so much the vacancy as the determination that this board made a few years ago. At that time , the building could not get a reasonable return for a light industrial use . It might not be necessary that the applicant show the board detailed financial information . The previous board has already made that finding . The board is being asked to switch one use to another use . Mr . Sigel stated that he has a concern about the change in the sign . Since he has been a member of the board , this board has become stricter about sign laws . The sign laws are present for a reason . He does not see a reason to allow a change . Attorney Barney state that there are two variances before the board . One is a use variance and the other is a sign variance . Chairperson Stotz stated that a message board to advertise a website is not necessary. It is a limit use of the sign . Mr. Sigel stated that the website address is going to be on the permanent sign . Mr. Stevens stated that the purpose of the message board is to advertise the businesses on a rotating basis . It is impossible to enumerate 4 businesses on the message board . MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of the Home Design and Building Center, requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article Vlll, Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct a home ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED retail/service business at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33=3-2. 42, Light Industrial District. Said zone permits only on -site fabrication and assembly. Additionally, a variance from Section 5. 03= 1 of the Town Sign Law is being requested to permit the placement of 55. 25 square foot and 16. 25 square foot sign panels on the property, whereby one 50 square foot sign is permitted. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Stotz asked what would be stored on site . Mr. Stevens responded that there will be cabinetry on display. There will be window and door samples on display. There will be nothing for carryout or retail sales . Mr. Frost asked what is the possibility that there will be a window or hardware on order that will be delivered to the store . There will be some limited amount of materials going in and out . Mr. Stevens stated that there may be small deliveries made to the building . Large orders go directly to the job site . There may be individual units that they store in the back of the building . Chairperson Stotz asked what is the period of time it would be kept on the premises . Mr . Stevens replied only a few weeks . It would depend upon construction schedules . Mr. Frost stated that there may be construction materials that are intended for delivery for a specific site . They are not there to be sold . Mr. Seldin stated that in the ordinary course of business that they are not seeking to store building materials as part of the business . Chairperson Stotz stated that this is a business for remodeling . They may get something in that is the wrong size . They are not going to charge the customer but it may be needed for another time . It will end up on the property. Mr. Stevens stated that they have a storage unit for materials and tools . His intention is to keep it distinct from the sales function . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of the Home Design and Building Center, requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article Vlll, Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct a home retail/service business at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33=3-2. 42, Light Industrial District. Said zone permits only on-site fabrication and assembly. The difficulty of obtaining a reasonable financial return for light industrial use, the board feels is a financial hardships based on the following findings and conditions: a . That this board has previously found that the property did not yield a reasonable financial return as limited to a light industrial use, b. There has been evidence that costs and prospective revenues indicate that the revenue stream is a hardship if there is not rental to some kind of enterprise and it appears that only retail enterprises are those enterprises that seem to be responding to possible ads and possible rental of it, C, That the hardship relating to this particular property is unique. It is a small building on a small parcel of land and not well fitted to use as an industrial type of activity. The requested use variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighbor as other types of industrial and commercial types of uses surround it, d. That the alleged hardship has not been self created. The building has been present for a long period of time. No current action has been taken to create the hardship that exists, e. That there be no exterior storage of building material on the premises, f. That the exterior sign not be lit between 10: 00 p. m. and sunrise. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of the Home Design and Build Center, requesting a variance from Section 5. 03- 1 of the Town Sign Law to permit the placement of the 51 square foot and 15 square foot sign panels, whereby one 50 square foot sign is permitted, located at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33=3-2. 42. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: Stotz, Sigel. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 DECEMBER 7, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED The MOTION was declared to be carried. The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of the Coddington Road Community Center, Anne Morrissette , Agent , requesting a special approval under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to add approximately 1 , 000 square feet of additional space onto the Coddington Road Community Center, located at 920 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47= 1 = 11 . 3 , Residence District R-30 . A special approval under Article XII , Section 54 is also required as the existing building , to be enlarged , is 17 ± feet from the north side property line (40 foot setback required ) . The new addition will be setback 29 ± feet . Claudia Brenner, 632 West Buffalo Street , stated that she is the architect for the project . Currently, the building has a storage feet that is 17 ± feet . It is also the site of the addition . They would like to extend the building out to the rear approximately 48 feet . They would also like to go in front of the building 10 feet . They are labeled as proposed addition . They are both located at 29 feet from the property line . The entire facade will become 29 feet from the property. The storage shed will be torn down . The site plan shows several reasons why they chose to expand along that face of the building . The most important one was to provide the handicap entrance and parking that is being provided on the other face of the building . The other important reason was to make construction simple by meeting the roofline . The old school house has a higher roof and elevation than the concrete block building that they are attaching to . The floor plan shows the logical of the addition matching the 29M foot section . It will commit them to having a true handicap entrance . They would like to have parking up above to service the population that cannot make the climb from the parking lot into the building . Mr. Frost stated that the application called for a one-story room addition of 1 , 000 square foot including the covered entry. The topographic map shows the closed room in the rear and the proposed addition in the front . The survey map shows the new room in the back . How did the small addition in the front come about ? Ms . Brenner stated that when they got into the design process they decided to add the addition on the front of the building to accommodate some program needs that the center has . A decision was made to begin to consider a program option of some after school care . The square footage that they have remaining in the block building was not big enough to house a reasonable number of children for the after school program given the ratio of staff to children required . The current exterior wall is the wall that connects the classroom to the new kitchen and handicapped bathroom . Mr. Frost stated that the plan shows a stairway. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Brenner stated that they are the existing concrete stairs and they would like to remove the stairs . They would like to have one entry. The entrance is into the toddler room or directly into the room labeled classroom . There is no hallway or office space . One of the modifications is to have one central passageway. Mr. Frost stated that on the short Environmental Assessment Form is it described as a 1400 square foot addition . Ms . Brenner stated that there was a long period of time between the initial application and the actualization of these plans . The plans are the most up to date proposal . The application should be changed to reflect the correct number. Anne Morrissette , Director of Coddington Road Community Center, stated that this has been a two-year process that originally had a feasibility study done by Schickle Design that was a much large plan than this . They were going to propose a much larger community after school program room . It would not have allowed for parking for the handicapped . The cost was more than they thought they could raise . It will be financed through grants and loans . They have received a couple of grants from the State in support of their goals . They had to modify their goals to include all the needs . Those were office and resource space . They are also demolishing the old kitchen and the storage shed . The way they propose to meet these obligations is additional programming that they have determined is needed in the community. The program would be limited to 16 children . It is an alternative to some of the large programs available . Many of the children that will use the program are ones that went to the early childhood programs . They also use the summer camp program . Sixteen children were the smallest reasonable numbers that was allowed with the required ratio . It would be legal to have up to 20 children and 2 teachers . The program is for children in kindergarten through 4th grade . They are trying to design the program to meet the needs of children who need a break from a school environment or do not fit into the after school programs offered by the school . Ms . Brenner stated that she would like to clarify the square footage . The main addition on the back is 1392 square feet . The entry addition is 157 square feet . The addition in the front is 104 square feet . This is a total of 1653 square feet . Ms . Morrissette stated that the kitchen they are demolishing is about 200 square feet . The storage shed they are demolishing is about 100 square feet . Chairperson Stotz stated that if there are more children being enrolled , there will be more cars . Ms . Morrissette stated that their maximum use is during the summer. The summer camp is licensed for 44 children in addition to their year round program of 30 children per day. This is less than half of the numbers that are coming and going in the summer. It is additional that they are adding months of programming . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Brenner stated that the children would come by bus after school . They are anticipating that many, if not all , of the those children will be picked- up by parents that are picking up other siblings from Coddington Road . There may be 8 more trips in the afternoon to pick- up children . Chairperson Stotz asked if neighbors have expressed any concern about the traffic . Ms . Morrissette responded that some neighbors did come to speak . A neighbor that is not present sent a letter to the board concerning the renovation of the parking lot . She was supportive of the programming , but her house was directly across the street from the parking lot . Chairperson Stotz stated that he has a day care center across the road from his house . There are a lot of cars . Ms . Morrissette stated that they have been there as a child care program since 1985 . It has not changed since then . The Community Center has been in operation of a community center since 1950 . Chairperson Stotz asked if there is any problem that this was advertised as 1 , 000 square feet and it is 1 , 400 square feet cause a problem . Mr. Frost stated that he could have advertised this without the square footage . Ms . Brenner stated that they are waiting on construction documents . They are anticipating spring construction . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 44 p . m . , and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard . Anne Salsby, Coddington Road , stated that they live across the road from the Coddington Road Community Center. They also own the small lot adjacent to the boundary. She thinks that the Community Center is a good neighbor. It is important what they are doing and the do it very well . She is concerned about the traffic. There may not be a great deal more traffic . They do not like it , but they can accept it . Ms . Salsby stated that they will eventually have to sell their small lot . It will be difficult to sell because it is squeezed in next to the Community Center and other neighbor. The addition is needed . It will not change the appearance of the building a lot from the outside . It will be attractive . Chairperson Stotz stated that the neighbor is concerned about traffic and the fact it will make the small lot less marketable , but is supportive of the goals of the Community Center. With no other persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 47 p . m . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated that he does not understand the language in the advertisement . It states that the existing building is to be enlarged 17 ± feet and the new addition will be setback 29 ± feet . Mr. Frost responded that the building is non - conforming because it is too close to the property line . They are enlarging a non -conforming building use , which requires a special approval under Section 54 . The addition is not making it any closer because the addition will be 29 feet from the property line . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Chairperson Stotz stated that the Environmental Assessment Form states construction of 1400 square foot addition . Mr. Frost stated that this has gone before the Planning Board and received approval . Mr. Krantz asked what is the appraised value on the small parcel . Mr. Salsby, Coddington Road , stated that the tax appraisal is $22 , 000 . Ms . Brenner stated that they are continuing to encroach on the 40 foot setback , the neighbors also recognize that the storage shed being removed and the look of the building will improve the appearance of the building . Chairperson Stotz asked how the addition would be finished . Ms . Brenner stated that it would be finished with wood siding . The north elevation is seen from Coddington Road . The western elevation would have the addition . Chairperson Stotz asked if the Coddington Road Community Center is used for other activities . Ms . Morrissette stated that it is the Coddington Road Community Center Incorporated . It is a non -for- profit corporation that was established in 1949 . Chairperson Stotz asked if the addition will be used for other activities other than classrooms . Ms . Morrissette responded that the addition would be a new preschool room . The old preschool room , labeled classroom , will be the new the after school program . They are hoping to make the space available for other community groups . They have been doing a little intergenerational programming with HOSPICE . The children are able to go up and see the residents and plant flowers . They are hoping to have a place to have the seniors come to our site . It would enable them to exchange programming . It focuses on the children and their programs . Chairperson Stotz asked if they are planning to hold weddings there are weekends . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 19 DECEMBER 7, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Morrissette responded no . Those events happened before the primary use developed . It was a small and open hall . It does not lend itself to that type of use . They are hoping to be able to put storage cabinets in . Scouting groups would like to have a place to meet . If someone is doing something within the purpose of child education and recreation and needs a meeting place they open the discussion as to whether it is appropriate . Chairperson Stotz asked if an addition of this size would increase the requests . Ms . Brenner stated that this addition would barely make the programs that are going on . They are functioning with little square footage . People are walking through classrooms . The offices are located in the kitchen . There are parent and teacher conferences in the kitchen . The net increase in space is going to be minimal in terms of how it is used . Ms . Morrissette stated that they do not rent the center for that sort of thing . Groups occasionally use the pavilion . There was a graduation party in the pavilion . They will not allow any of these types of activities . It is not designed or furnished for it . She stated that they are not interested in using the building for other uses to make money other than their own planned programming . Mr. Niefer asked if the school bus would drive into the driveway or would children get off on Coddington Road , Ms. Morrissette stated that the bus will not drive into the driveway unless it is a smaller bus for special education classes . They have had kids come to after school . There was an after school program from 1985 to 1988 . The bus stops on the road and the teacher meet the bus . The bus driver will not let the kids off unless the teacher is there . It is an understanding that they have with the district . Mr. Niefer asked if there is any standing procedures regarding where parents will pick- up and drop-off their children . Ms . Morrissette responded that parents must bring their child into the building and sign them in . The parking lot was renovated recently. It under an easement to the Town of Ithaca as part of the contract for the playing field . It is much safer. The entrance is marked one-way. There is signage for the exit . It is dictated how the traffic must flow. The parking spaces are painted . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Coddington Road Community Center, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add approximately 1 , 400 square feet of additional space onto the Coddington Road Community Center, located at 920 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 20 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47441 . 3, Residence District R-30. A special approval under Article Xll, Section 54 is also required as the existing building, to be enlarged, is 17 + feet from the north side property line (40 foot setback required). The new addition will be setback 29 + feet. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Coddington Road Community Center, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add additional space not to exceed 1700 square feet and be no closer than 28 feet to the north side property line onto the Coddington Road Community Center, located at 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47- 1 - 11 . 3, Residence District R-30, and meets the requirements of Article 7, Section77, subparagraphs a -h with the following conditions: a. That the addition consist of 48 foot x 30 foot extension on the southwest side of the existing building and a 10 foot x 11 foot extension on the northeast side of the building and the related office entry be constructed as shown on the plans dated November 19, 1999, b. The shed that is presently approximately 17 feet from the northwesterly boundary line be removed so that the entire building is not closer to the 28 feet to the north. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. ABSTENTION: Krantz The MOTION was declared to be carried. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant , David Lorenzini , Agent , requesting a Special Approval under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to renovate an existing university building and to construct a40' x 80' storage pole barn at 798 Dryden Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 65- 1 -4 . 1 , -5 . 5 , Residence District R-30 . Said buildings are to be used by the Cornell University Arboretum Center. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 21 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED David Lorenzini , Hascup Lorenzini Architects , stated that they are asking for a special approval . They are doing some work to the Cornell University bus garage located on Dryden Road just east of the Cornell University Apple Orchards . They are doing interior work to the project . They will be doing some painting , putting down new flooring , and making the bathrooms handicap accessible . The outside will painted and a new roof will be put on . They will also be paving some of the parking lot . Mr. Lorenzini stated that they are proposing an addition on the pole barn , 40' x 80 . It will match the existing pole barn and will be for cold storage . To the east of the pole barn they plan to build storage bins for mulch and tree bark. The large bins will be for that purpose . They fall within the caged area . The smaller bins will be used for crushed stone . They will have graded stone in them . The area is used for that purpose now. The storage bins will organize the property. New paving is being proposed in the area where the equipment is loaded . The traffic goes out the north entrance . The workers come in the morning and they are dispatched in the morning . They get their assignments and leave . There will be a small crew that stays in the area . For most of the day the area is relatively unoccupied . The traffic burden to Dryden Road will be fairly minimal and will occur only at the early morning hours and later afternoon . The Arboretum crew will provide additional landscaping in the front of the building . There will be no signage . They are not changing the site . There is no vegetation on site at present time . The site is not be altered . They are using it in the same way. The Arboretum crew presently uses it . The use is not be changed . They are providing additional hedgerow along the neighbor's drive for screening . The site lighting is not changing . There are 3 or 4 security lights on the site . They are not proposing to change it . They will add small entry lights at each end of the building for security purposes . Chairperson Stotz asked what is in the heated storage . Mr. Lorenzini stated that part of it will be heated . They will be putting a small wood shop in that makes signs for the Arboretum . Mr. Sigel asked if the this facility only supports the Arboretum . Mr. Lorenzini replied yes . Chairperson Stotz stated that there were questions raised about the slight increase in run -off . Mr. Lorenzini stated that they are providing catch basins around the perimeter of the pole barn to mediate the run -off . They will provide a sedimentary sink on the west side of the barn . Mr . Sigel asked what types of current vegetation are there . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 22 DECEMBER 7, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Lorenzini responded that there are some trees , shrubs and grass . Mr. Niefer asked where is the closest residential property. Mr. Lorenzini replied that there is a motor cycle repair shop and house nearby. Chairperson Stotz stated that the site would look much nicer. The deteriorating asphalt is being repaired . The additional vegetation will improve the site greatly. Mr. Lorenzini responded that the Arboretum crew will do a good job in keeping it neat . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 9 : 15 p . m . , and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 9 : 16 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Chairperson Stotz stated that the Environmental Assessment Form does not state any impacts . The State Environmental Quality Review has a negative determination recommended . Mr. Smith stated that the drainage is addressed with the catch basins and sink . Chairperson Stotz asked how the exterior was going to be finished . Mr. Lorenzini stated that it will match the existing barn . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination in the matter of Cornell University, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to renovate an existing building and to construct a 40' x 80 ' storage pole barn at 798 Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -4. 1, -5. 5, Residence District R-30. Said buildings are to be used by the Cornell University Arboretum Center. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Cornell University, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to renovate an ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 23 DECEMBER 7, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED existing university building and to construct a 40 ' x 80 ' storage pole barn at 798 Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 465- 1 -4. 1, -5. 5, Residence District R-30. Said buildings are to be used by the Cornell University Arboretum Center and that this plan be approved based on the plans submitted, meeting the requirements of Article 7, Section 77, subparagraphs a -h and the following conditions imposed by the Planning Board: a. Submission of an original mylar copy of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca . b. Granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the required Special Approval for the proposed project, prior to the issuance of any building permit. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The fifth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Big AI 's Hilltop Quikstop , Michael Herzing , Owner/Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a fence with a height of 8 feet (6 foot maximum allowed ) at 1103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43-2- 1 , -2 , Business District C . Mickey Herzing , 1103 Danby Road , stated that as per plans they were to put up a stockade fence , which was to be by code 6 feet high . At the request and pursuance of Mr. Peter, he built an 8- foot fence knowing that it was out of code . The fence was built so that if he was not granted the variance he can take two feet off the fence . Mr. Peter was very adamant in having the 8-foot fence . Mr. Peter was in his establishment everyday. Mr. Frost stated that Mr. Peter is the adjacent neighbor. Mr. Herzing stated that he built the fence at the request of his neighbor. Mr. Herzing also feels that it is necessary. Eight feet does a lot more than the 6 foot . Mr. Frost stated that the original site plan showed a fence , but did not show the height of the fence . The site plan that went to the Planning Board only showed the fence . The Zoning Ordinance does limit the height of the fences to 6 feet . During the course of final inspections , it was discovered the that the fence was 8 feet . Chairperson Stotz stated that it is a big fence . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 24 DECEMBER 7, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that he did not anticipate the impression the picture would give when he took it . The perception in the picture would be the same if it was 6 foot . Mr. Herzing stated that he was required to put in 45 evergreen trees on the other side of the fence . He planted 67 trees to try and create a buffer for Mr. Peter. Mr. Sigel asked how close to the property line is the fence . Mr. Herzing stated that it varies as it gets closer to the road . At the nearest point is it 35 to 40 feet and at the furthest point it is 60 to 80 feet . Mr. Sigel stated that all the trees are on Mr. Herzing 's property. Chairperson Stotz stated that the fence goes along the border, but it also curves . Mr. Herzing stated that it also separates a property that he owns . Chairperson Stotz asked if that portion was also 8 feet high . Mr. Herzing responded that the majority of the fence is . There is a 6-foot section where the 8 feet was not necessary. Chairperson Stotz stated that there is a slight grade elevation . Mr. Herzing stated that there is a big grade in the back corner, which gives the perception of the fence looking taller. Chairperson Stotz stated that the Peters' property sits higher than the Mr. Herzing's property. Mr. Herzing stated that they felt that their privacy was infringed upon . Mr. Krantz stated that he finds it irritating that Mr. Peter would put pressure on someone to build a fence knowing it was illegal and then not having the courtesy to come before the board . Mr. Herzing stated that it was an immense pressure everyday. He leaves in October to go to Florida . Mr. Peter did send a letter to the board . Chairperson Stotz asked where the border for Business District C is located . Mr. Herzing stated that it is the south border. His business is the last part of the district . Chairperson Stotz stated that it is a border between the residential district and the Business C District . It seems that there would be a need for a fence at this type of border. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 25 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sigel stated that there is not a lot of buffer. Chairperson Stotz stated that it could be a mitigating factor. It is a border between two different zoning districts . Mr. Niefer asked if Mr. Herzing bought some property from Mr . Peter . Mr. Herzing responded that he did . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 9 : 28 p . m . Don Barnett , 107 East King Road , stated that he and his brother own the residential property adjacent to Mr. Herzing' s rental property. It has been determined by several real estate agents that without a fence along the property line , they are going to be unable to sell the home of his parents . In 1998 , his parents deceased . He and his brother have real estate and they need to sell the house . The Peter boys are very abrasive . Mr. Peter did lose his brother last week . He could not have attended this meeting . Without a fence it will be impossible to sell the property. Everyone has the same problem with assessments . The house is assessed at $82 , 000 . If they are able to get $60 , 000 out of the house they will be doing well . It is a case of a residential zoned area bordering a commercially zoned area . A buffer of some sort is needed . There are a lot of deliveries of fuel . Mr. Herzing has a great business . He requests that at whatever height , that a fence be placed on the property line . The store is more to the south . The fence would be between his parent's house and the rental property. The height is not relevant . Chairperson Stotz asked Mr. Herzing if it would be possible to build the fence . Mr. Herzing responded that he would be able to build the fence when there is better weather. Mr. Barnett stated that he would like a fence from the road to the garage . Mr. Herzing stated that the fence between the store and the rental property is 8 feet . He does not know that if an 8-foot fence between the rental property and the Mr. Barnett's property is going to do any more than the first 8 feet . It is not going to deter anymore headlights . The first 8 feet will do that . It will break the two properties and create a buffer between the two properties . Mr. Herzing stated that this is not part of the site plan for the Quikstop . If it is built on Mr. Barnett 's property it will not be an issue . Chairperson Stotz stated that if they decide to build a fence it will need to be 6 feet . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 26 DECEMBER 7, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Herzing stated that he has no hard feelings towards Mr. Peter, but he was very aggressive during the construction stages . Mr. Frost stated that he has voiced his opinion to Mr. Frost that he is very happy with the way things turned out . Carol Barnett , 107 East King Road , stated that the main reason for the fence is to cut back from the smell of the gas and food . Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 9 : 38 p . m . Chairperson Stotz stated that the fence is the boundary between a residential district and a commercial district . There is elevation between the two properties that would allow someone to look over the fence and for light to spill over if the fence is 6 feet . He would approve the appeal based upon those two mitigating factors . Mr. Ellsworth stated that if the other fence is built over 6 feet , then they will need to come back to the board . There is already a 8-foot fence parallel to it . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: MOTION made by Chairperson Stotz, seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Big Al's Hilltop Quickstop, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article Xlll, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a fence with a height of 8 feet (6 foot maximum allowed) at 1103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-24 , =21 Business District C. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Big Al's Hilltop Quikstop, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article X111, Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a fence with a height of 8 feet (6 foot maximum allowed), at 1103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-2- 1, -2, Business District C based upon the following finding and condition: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 27 DECEMBER 7 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED a. That this fence is on the boundary of a Business District C zone and a residential zone and that the elevation is such that it adds impetuous to this request. b. That this fence remains in good repair. c. That this board grants the appeal conditional upon the Planning Board approving the site plan with the 8 foot fence. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Frost stated that the next meeting is January 12 , 2000 , Chairperson Stotz stated that the board needs to make a recommendation to the Town Board for the chairman of 2000 . Chairperson Stotz asked if any member of the board would consider chairing in 2000 . Mr. Sigel stated that he would not be able to chair in 2000 . He does not know what will happen when he and his wife have a child . In the initial few months he does not know if he would have the extra time . Mr. Niefer stated that he would not be interested . Mr. Krantz stated that he is not interested . Mr. Ellsworth stated that he is comfortable with the way that things are . Chairperson Stotz stated that he feels it is appropriate for other members of the board to chair also . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Kirk Sigel. RESOLVED, that this board recommends to the Town Board that David Stotz be the chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2000. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. ABSTENTION: Stotz. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 28 DECEMBER 7, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-- APPROVED - APPROVED The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Attorney Barney stated that they need to elect a vice-chair the first meeting in January. Mr. Krantz stated that his term expires on December 31 , 1999 . He sent a letter to Mrs . Noteboom requesting he be reappointed . David Stotz adjourned the meeting at 9 : 47 p . m . Da id Stotzn Ch irperso Carrie L. Coates , Keyboard Specialist .