Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2001-12-17 FILE , _ , - a G� DATE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2001 7 : 00 P.M. APPEAL of Brian Keith Barfield, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section . 18 and Article XIV , Sections 75 and 76 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place a storage building and recreational vehicle on a parcel of land , which does not contain a permanent residential building as a primary use at 201 Sand Bank Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 35 -2- 13 , Residence District R-30 . APPEAL DENIED APPEAL of Nextel Partners, Appellants , Kristin Campbell , AICP, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIIi , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to place and co- locate telecommunication equipment on a water supply storage tank owned by the Town of Ithaca and located on Sapsucker Woods Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 10-2, Residence District R- 15 . A height variance is also being requested from the requirement of Article IV , Section I i of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit a structure with a height greater than 36 feet . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Independent Wireless One, Appellant , Harris Beach LLP, Agents, Cornell University , Landowner, requesting a special approval from the Zoning .Board of Appeals under Article XIII, Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to co- locate telecommunication equipment at a Maple Avenue utility substation , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63 - 1 -5 , Residence District R-30. A height variance is also being requested from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 to permit a structure with a height greater than 36 feet . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Ivar and Janet Jonson , Appellants, John Bowler III, Agent , requesting modifications of conditions of approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 12 , 1989 and November 15 , 1989 regarding the reconstruction of a single-family residence, after fire damage, at 934B East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5 -9, Residence District R- 15 . Specifically requested is an approval to allow for a continuation Of use of an interior building loft and exterior window dormers . APPEAL WITHDRAWN APPEAL of Orlando Iacovelli , Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article III, Sections 7 and 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of the New York State Town Law , to be permitted to construct a single-family residence at 380 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-7-33 , Residence District R-9 . Said parcel of land , created in 1897 , does not front on a Town , County , or State highway and is lacking, by definition , a front yard . APPEAL GRANTED ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FILE -7 MONDY, DECEMBER 17 , 2001 - - J 10 7 : 00 P . M . DATE PRESENT : Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member ; David Stotz , Board Member; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andy Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner; Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk ALSO PRESENT : Brian Barfield , 170 Bullock Road , Richmond , NH ; Tim Frateschi , Harris Beach LLP , 240 State Street , Syracuse , NY ; Kristin Campbell , Nextel Partners , Syracuse , NY ; Chris Cinagnart , Christopher George Rd ( incomplete address) ; Christiann Dean , 330 West King Road , Ithaca , NY ; Jimmie Stober , 382 Main Street , Johnson City , NY ; Bill Seldin , 120 Northway Road , Ithaca , NY ; John Bowler, ( no address given ) ; Don Weir, 930 East Shore Drive , Ithaca , NY ; Larry Fabbroni , 127 Warren Road , Ithaca , NY . Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p . m . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL : Brian Barfield , 170 Bullock Road , Richmond , New Hampshire — When I purchased this property , I was under the impression that it was a buildable lot . I purchased 5 acres and I needed a place to put a shed so that when I came over, living out of town , I wanted to do some work on the property . Mr. Sigel — Is it your intention to build a house on the property? Mr. Barfield — I was under the impression that it was a buildable lot when I purchased it . I ' m finding a lot of discrepancies on the deed , on the tax maps , and on bordering properties , that abut this property . Right now I have a survey that' s being done and an abstract that is being prepared . Mr. Sigel — So the appeal before the board tonight is for permission to maintain the storage building ? Mr . Barfield — Pretty much , yes . Mr . Sigel — And to maintain a recreational vehicle ? Mr. Barfield — When I come over from New Hampshire , I don 't have a place to stay so this was my purpose was to have a camper there . There used to be a camper there when I had a , for years . was under the impression that that' s what the property was used for . Mr . Frost — You do have a handout of a letter that was sent to Mr. Barfield November 2 . 1 hope you have a chance to read it . Mr. Sigel — Let' s take a moment to read this . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr . Stotz — Do you have a particular time frame in mind that you ' re going to try to build a permanent dwellin'g -kan- th°e 'Site. • Mr. Barfield — I would love to be able to put a building on that property , it ' s a beautiful place . Right now I ' m just trying to figure out what actually I have there for land . Mr . Stotz — Andy , can you comment on what , if any problems there are ? Mr . Frost — There may be problems with getting utilities to the site . The old trailer that was on the site goes back many , many years ago and was something that we had pursued and sought removal . Eventually we did get removal . I can 't tell exactly when we verified that the trailer was removed . The trailer that was on the site that Mr . Barfield referred to was something we had cited as a violation . Mr. Stotz — Was that removed prior to his purchase ? Mr. Barfield — Yes . Mr. Stotz — What' s your intention ? Do you want to travel over from New Hampshire occasionally during the buildable months and live in the RV , store your materials and tools in the shed and build a house ? Is that your intention ? Mr. Barfield — Sir, I was very frustrated after learning that I was going to have such a hard time doing anything with this property . Andrew had called me and told me that the property didn 't meet a certain footage from the road that was a buildable lot . Now , I ' m getting all kinds of different stories . First I was told that it was supposed to be 200 feet from the road , now I hear from a surveyor that ' s telling me that was turned over a few years ago , or something where someone had claimed that was too much and it went back to 150 feet . Now I don 't understand , even like right now , I don 't understand the property that I bought I thought it was a buildable lot and I feel that I invested in that property and I should be able to have . . . Mr. Frost — I don 't think my office has made the claim that it' s not a buildable lot , I think the issue that we 've cited you for is , 1 ) placing a storage building on a site without a building permit Mr. Barfield — Yes sir. Mr. Frost — and I ' m not sure why that happened . And then secondly , you couldn 't just maintain the storage building or park an RV there as a principle use which is what my letter cites you for. We had some question as to when this lot was created and , I think , we had determined that this lot was created prior to the Town ' s subdivision regulations . But again , I don 't recollect that we told you that the lot couldn 't be built upon . What we told you is that you couldn 't use the lot the way you were currently using it , or the way you were , in the near future , proposing to use it . Mr . Barfield — I still don 't understand why that was such a big thing . I mean , I don 't live there . explained what I was going to do . Bring my camper over , have a place to park my camper to stay . 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr . Frost — What we told you November 2nd by way of a letter was that you couldn 't use the land that way as a principle use without having the house there first . Mr. Barfield — Principle use , I don 't understand that . What is a principle use ? Mr. Frost — The Zoning Ordinance sets forth certain uses that you can use for land . As a principle use in that area of the Town of Ithaca you can have a house that you live in . And then you have accessory uses there . You can 't just have a parcel of land with a storage building and then park an RV there . I think I talked with Jeff Coleman , was your attorney . Mr . Barfield — Okay . Mr. Frost — Is he ? Mr. Barfield — Yes . Mr. Frost — I had talked with him about that as well , so I don 't know what kind of subsequent conversations you had with Jeff , but we did speak as well . Mr. Barfield — I guess the reason why , you tell me , if I have to get that shed taken off , to me that is no biggie . I ' m in the process of buying another piece of land in Danby . All I ' m here trying to do is understand the rules and regulations of this town , but I still believe that I have a problem with my lot in that its , the boundaries are wrong , and I ' m in the process of taking care of that . Mr. Stotz — The boundaries on your property is outside the purview of this board . That ' s something you are going to have to determine on your own . But I think the board would like to work with you on this , but one of the things we have to know is what your intentions are . If you say to this board that , for example , you ' re going to be living here on weekends and building this house , actively building the house , and it will be completed by such -and -such a day , that gives the board a little bit more to go on to make an exception , perhaps . I ' m not speaking for the board now . Unless we know that from you , we ' re in the dark , we can 't work with you on this . Mr. Barfield — Well , what am I supposed to do? I really don 't understand because my only intention was , at first , when I bought the property , was to be able to use it as a recreational property . Mr. Stotz — Well , Sir, as the Zoning Officer pointed out to you that the Zoning Ordinance and , incidentally , it might be well worth your while to pick up a copy , precludes you from putting a shed on that building unless a residence is there first . Mr. Barfield — Okay . Mr . Stotz — And it also precludes you from putting an RV on the property . Now this board would be empowered perhaps , you know , again work with you on that if you have certain plans . But we have to know what those plans are . 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Barfield — Well it seemed like I was really rushing into this . When Andrew called me he was like saying , "Okay , you have to have a building put up" . Now financially I ' m in the process of buying another piece of property , putting a home on that . I may end up turning around and selling this property . All I ' m trying to do is work within a timeframe . Mr. Frost — When we first had the discussion it seemed that it wasn 't necessarily his intent to put a permanent structure on there , and then as our conversation went on all of a sudden you were suggesting that you would put a permanent structure on there . Mr. Barfield — Sure . Mr. Frost — It was soon after that conversation that I had a call from your attorney and we went through essentially what we ' re discussing here now . I think what the board has been asking you , and maybe what we ' re hearing based on what the board has asked you , is that you don 't have any initial plan and that perhaps you ' re willing to remove the storage building and then you ' re done with the violation if you have a vacant piece of land . Mr. Barfield — At this time , yes . I would only need to have time to take and remove that shed for the period of , probably up until the spring when I can get it on my other piece of property , but again that ' s really where I ' m at . I ' m only trying to find out , things happened so quickly with this for me . Mr . Sigel — I think what David was alluding to and I was trying to express , maybe in a slightly different way , is possibly if you were coming to the board with plans to build a house , and you said to facilitate my building of the house I ' d like to put a shed on there and I ' d like to have camper on there before the house is actually built , that ' s something the board might allow , if you were actively building the whole time . But if not , I ' m guessing that the board would not want to see a shed just left there indefinitely , and a camper left there indefinitely . Mr . Barfield — Certainly . Mr. Frost — I was going to suggest if the board is willing to allow him to keep the shed there until April 1St with no parking of any other vehicles on the side of the shed , to be maintained until he can . . . Mr. Krantz — You can say that you plan to build a permanent house in the spring . That' s fair enough to me . Mr. Barfield — I may turn around and want to do that . The thing is that I was kind of forced into doing everything that I 've been doing . I wanted to have a place to come to for a place to stay . I started out as a camper with a shed , you know . I found out I couldn 't do that . I recently found out , a property came up that I was interested in purchasing . I purchased it . Or, I haven 't purchased it , I ' m in the process of doing that . Come to find out I can 't do that unless I put a ' residence on it , build it into a financial package like that to purchase the land . So , my intentions were , when I found out about the property and being able to put this shed on was , okay I have to do something so when I talked to Andrew I said I ' ll probably try and put a house on this place . And that ' s' kind of what started the whole thing . I did the , applied for the variance . From that point on I ' ve found all kinds of problems that were coming out with it . I got frustrated . And I was looking to do something . The other property came up . 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Stotz — Just as an aside , it' s one heck of a good - looking shed you have there . It would seem your intentions are not really to spoil or detract from that property . It' s also probable that if you ' re going to build there you ' re not going to be building in the winter months ; it ' s something for the spring . Again , can 't speak for my fellow board members ; I wouldn 't be averse to letting you keep the shed on the property until a certain period of time in the spring . Not the RV , the shed . And then you can , if you want to extend it you can come before the board again . Hopefully by that time , you ' ll have plans . Mr. Barfield — That would work for me . Mr. Krantz — Perhaps six months might be more than adequate time . Chairman Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p. m. Christian Dean , Buttermilk Farm , West King Road — Our place adjoins the place in question . For the last several years we 've had lots of trouble with poachers from New Hampshire on our land . We have 350 posted signs on our place . I ' ve had Marvin Mobs , the Conservation Officer up there many times and it seems likely to me that the main purpose of this building in question is because of hunting . The application states that it' s for recreational purposes . Now hunting , of course , is a legal thing to do . But poaching is not a legal thing to do . I was just speaking with Mr. Barfield just before you opened the meeting and asking him where he hunts and he said , Oh , at somebody' s place on West King Road" I 've lived there twenty years and been paying taxes there for twenty and I 've never heard of that person and he said he is hunting on his land , cause I think he ' s hunting on our land . So that ' s one thing I want to say . Another thing I want to say is that , what if I were to put up a barn and just forget to go to the zoning , like we ' re building a sun space onto our house now for raising seedlings . It took us quite some time to get through the whole building application process and we were happy to work with Andy on that and meet all his requirements . How would you have treated me and my husband if we were to just get one of these metal barns and just plunk it up there on West King Road and say 000ps we forgot to get a permit . How would you have treated us , people who have been paying taxes here for twenty years ? I wonder. That ' s not a rhetorical question . I ' m asking you . How would you have treated that ? David Stotz — Can 't answer a hypothetical . Ms . Dean — But you see my point here . It seems to me like good citizenship is doing what we did on our sunspace that we ' re putting up to be able to grow seedlings . We had to go through the hoops that everybody has to jump through and we didn 't mind doing that because that ' s what you do . And you pay for the building permit and you go through all the process , but it seems like Mr. Barfield has circumvented that . I also want to express some compassion for Mr. Barfield because I ' m afraid Bill Turk sold you a bill of goods , cause he tried to sell it to me too . That place is , there ' s no water and sewer on it . The soil type is such that it would be really difficult to get a perk test for a septic system on that place . It' s very steep slope and you can 't get electricity on it . The only way you can get electricity on that place is to bring it across my land or bring it across Dan inaudible land , and we ' re not planning to permit that and you ' ll have to ask Mr. Torrence if he ' s planning to permit that . So there doesn 't seem a likelihood of actually being able , this let me call it an evolving plan of Mr. Barfield ' s to perhaps build a house there . It doesn 't seem like it' s a very realistic plan given the soil 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED type , the fact that there ' s no water and sewer, there ' s no electricity on that place . So , I ' d like to go on record as respectfully requesting that you deny this variance . Daniel Tourance , 221 Sand Bank Road — I have a couple of the same concerns that Christie Ann expressed . One is that there has been a problem with illegal hunters from New Hampshire over the years that have been hunting on my land without my permission , and I suspect that he ' s one of those hunters . The other thing is , I question what the ultimate intent here is . Is it to build a house ? Or is it to keep a storage shed and an RV there ? I don 't think you can build a house there . There ' s not enough room for a septic system with the required clearance from the road and the adjacent property owners . Also , I 've notice the storage building is apparently just resting on cinder blocks . It ' s not bolted down and I have concerns about things like that . In a high wind the storage shed or parts thereof could end up on someone else ' s property . Sewage is another concern . If there' s an RV there and somebody' s living there , what is going to be done with the sewage ? That ' s it . Mr. Sigel — Does anyone else wish to speak to this matter? There was no one and Mr. Sigel closed the public hearing at 7:38 p. m. Mr. Stotz — Mr. Barfield , can you tell us what is in that shed currently? Mr. Barfield — Nothing , sir. Mr. Stotz — What do you intend to put into it ? Mr. Barfield — Well , I was planning on putting a generator, some tools , lawn mower, Mr . Stotz — Any heat in it ? Mr. Barfield — No . Mr. Stotz — Place to sit? Mr. Barfield — No . Mr . Stotz — Strictly a storage for equipment and materials ? Mr. Barfield — Yes , sir. Mr . Stotz — There ' s nothing in there now? Mr . Barfield — There ' s been nothing in it . Mr. Stotz — Are you going to put anything in this spring ? Mr . Barfield — At this point I have no plans to do anything with it . On the other part , with you making those accusations , you should be very careful on that , on calling me a poacher . 6 ZONING BOARD OFAPPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Sigel and Mr. Frost — Please just address the board . Mr. Krantz — Have you investigated about the problems with water, electricity , septic . Mr. Barfield — Yes . I still have not found out whether or not I can get electricity on there . I have talked with the electric company . They weren 't sure . He said there was a possibility that it could come up from the end of the road through the park , but there would have a process with that , that I ' d have to go through . When the Zoning Office called me about septic , that was one of the things that I was concerned about with the size of my lot and I ' ve been investigating that and trying to find out why there ' s a difference between the deed and the property that has been posted on the back side . And how long ago all this occurred . They sized down the property from what the deed is saying . These are the things that I ' m trying to deal with on this . Mr. Frost — Did you have discussions with your lawyer before you purchased the property? Mr. Barfield — When I purchased the property I purchased it without a lawyer. Jeff Coleman handled the sale for Richard Turk . Mr. Stotz — You reside now in New Hampshire ? Mr. Barfield — Yes , sir. Mr. Stotz — Is it your intention to move here when you have the building built , assuming that you build a building on that site ? Or is this going to be a recreational . . . ? Mr. Barfield — A second home , sir. Mr . Stotz — A second home ? Mr. Barfield — Yes . Mr. Stotz — Can you tell me when you plan on occupying it as second home , what periods of the year? Mr. Barfield — Talking with the other property , I probably will end up doing that with the property on the Danby one . That ' s going to occur within 60 days to sometime in March . Mr. Stotz — You have a second piece of property? Mr. Barfield — Yes . Mr. Stotz — And again , assuming you put up a structure that is habitable , what times of the year would you plan on being in that building and living here in Ithaca ? 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr . Barfield — Springtime , summer , fall , and winter. I ' m semi - retired . I get to go around where I want to . Mr. Stotz — Meaning you would come on weekends , that sort of thing ? Mr. Barfield — Yes , sir. Mr. Sigel — Mike , any comments on the Environmental Assessment Form ? Mike Smith — The main concerns in here dealt with the RV and that ' s not an issue . I ' d like to mention the main issue that we ' re looking at was with how the sewage is going to be disposed of . Whether it ' s just going to be let go out there with the RV ? . . . We didn 't have any information dealing with that . Mr. Sigel — If there are no further questions or comments , would someone like to make a motion . RESOLUTION NO. 2001 - 85 — Brian Keith Barfield, 201 Sand Bank Road, Tax Parcel No. 35. - 2- 13, December 17, 2001 MOTION made by David Stotz , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this board denies the appeal of Brian Keith Barfield , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 and Article XIV , Sections 75 and 76 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to place a storage building and recreational vehicle on a parcel of land , which does not contain a permanent residential building as a primary use at 201 Sand Bank Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 35 -2- 13 , Residence District R-30 , based upon the following : Findings : a . Applicant has failed to present to the board any concrete plans for building a permanent residential building b . The placement on the parcel of a shed and RV are contrary to the zoning regulations of the Town of Ithaca c . The placement of a shed and RV at this location is not in keeping with the general nature of the area The vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer. NAYS : None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr . Sigel — I ' m sorry but the appeal has been denied . Mr. Barfield — That' s all right , but with my shed , how about a little bit of a time for me to get that off from there ? What I was look for, I really don 't have a place to put it right now . Mr. Frost — If the Board is willing I wouldn 't have any objection to an April 1St deadline for removal . Mr. Krantz — How long do you think you want to get rid of the shed ? Mr. Barfield — I plan on getting it over to the Danby property sometime after all my financing is done . I have till March 1 st to have everything in place . Mr. Frost — Did you suggest that you thought 30 to 60 days ; I thought I heard you say . Maybe that would be resolved up there , in Danby . Mr. Stotz — Can we amend that motion to have an additional caveat that says that the shed is to be moved by March 1St Mr. Barney — Actually , I ' m not sure you have to take any action at all . Andy can just defer enforcement proceeding until March 1st Mr. Sigel — It is the intention of the Board to allow the empty shed to remain until March 1st The second appeal to be heard was as follows: APPEAL of Nextel Partners , Appellants , Kristin Campbell , AICP , Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to place and co- locate telecommunication equipment on a water supply storage tank owned by the Town of Ithaca and located on Sapsucker Woods Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 10-2 , Residence District R - 15 . A height variance is also being requested from the requirement of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit a structure with a height greater than 36 feet . Kristin Campbell , Representative of Nextel Partners at 1001 West Fayette Street , Syracuse , New York — Nextel Partners is requesting a special approval and also a height variance to add for omni whip antennas to an existing water tank on Sapsucker Woods Road . In addition there ' ll be a 10 by 20 equipment shelter near the base of the water tank to house our equipment . All utilities will be underground and there will be an access road extended from the existing road that the Town maintains to the water tank . Mr. Sigel — Included in the packet was a nice color representation of what the antennas will look like . Ms . Campbell — The existing water tank is 69 ' right now and with the clamps on them and the antennas on pipes it will be approximately 94 ' in height . The antennas themselves , they' re about 2 and 1/2 inches in diameter with the clamps . Then approximately 25 feet above the existing height . Mr. Sigel — The antennae would certainly be less noticeable if they didn 't stick up as high above the water tanks . I assume that there is a reason they' re that high ? 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Ms . Campbell — I ' m sure you guys are aware that we need line of sight in order to reach our coverage objective and there is an existing treed area around there . We ' re trying to hit Route 13 and 366 , and hit both our objectives that way and then link into our existing facilities in the City of Ithaca and in Dryden and this fills in our gab . Mr. Stotz — In your agreement with the Town of Ithaca , is there a provision that if that equipment should become obsolete or redundant you will remove it ? Ms . Campbell — Yes , we will remove it at our cost and we 've submitted a bond already for $ 507000 . 00 . Mr. Niefer — In connection with a presentation that was made to the Planning Board , did you make a representation to the Planning Board that the facilities would be conforming to all federal / state laws and all applicable rules regulations promulgated by the FCC , FAA , and any other federal agencies having jurisdiction ? Ms . Campbell — Correct . Mr. Niefer — Your organization made that representation to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board ? Ms . Campbell — Yes . We said that we would fulfill FAA and FCC regulations . Mr. Niefer — You said that you would fulfill them , but there ' s just your promise that you will fulfill them ? Ms . Campbell — One of the conditions of the Planning Board is that we ' re waiting for the FAA still to come through and they' re a bit delayed right now . Obstruction studies are low on their priority list . One of the conditions of the Planning Board is we wouldn 't put the antennas higher than the existing water tank until a letter came from the FAA and then they' d be slid up to the appropriate height . Mr. Barney — Is that on the approach path ? Ms . Campbell — I ' m not sure . Existing , the water tank' s already higher than it should be . Mr. Sigel — And that was just relating to whether you have to put lights on top ? Ms . Campbell — Correct . We notified them and computer models say right now we just have to notify them . But the FAA is the final determination . Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 43 p . m . There was no one present to speak on the matter and the public hearing was closed at 7 : 44 p . m . Mr. Sigel — Mike , any comments on the Environmental Impact data . Mr. Smith — The only thing I would mention is make sure you ' re referring to the part II in visual prepared by Town Planning staff because there is also a part II that the applicant submitted . 10 ZONING BOARD OFAPPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Krantz — A question for you Andy , this is a pretty large water tank with a bunch of antennae on it which well may wind up having lights , although maybe they won 't . That will involve a large number of homes in the area . Have these people been given reasonable notice . Mr. Frost — I think they've been given notice as required by law and what we would do with any other zoning case . Mr. Krants — I would imagine that this does not include a lot of the houses that would see the water tank . Mr. Frost — No , it does not . Mr. Smith — When it was at the Planning Board , the Planning Board notifies everyone within 500 feet so that it gets more than just adjacent parcels . Mr. Niefer — Has the determination been made whether or not any aircraft warning lights need to be placed on this structure . Mr. Sigel — It has not been made . The applicant has submitted a request , and apparently the FAA is backlogged . Mr. Barney — The consultant' s report seems to indicate dual white day , red night lighting . Ms . Campbell — From John Alan ? Mr. Barney — Yes . Ms . Campbell — That was the application letter you have . It doesn 't say that we would need them , don 't believe . Mr. Barney — If you don 't need them , why would you be applying for them . Ms . Campbell — You have the letter in the back , let me double check . Mr. Barney — I just have the air space consultant form letter. The box is checked where it says marking and lighting and talks about dual white day , red night . Ms . Campbell — Let me see your copy . Mr. Barney — Sure . Ms . Campbell — That is our application letter , it isn 't the reference back from John Alan and I ' m not sure what that means , having that box checked on it , because we haven 't received anything yet and was told that the preliminary shows that nothing is needed , just notification . 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr . Barney — My understanding is that you have to be 200 feet . before you trigger the automatic requirement for lighting . Ms . Campbell — Yes , but there is a program that you can run that spits out potential lighting or marking requirements for the heights near flight paths . Mr. Barney — I frankly don 't think this is anywhere near the flight paths . Ms . Campbell — Well the trees are already higher than the antennas would be or approximately the same . Mr. Barney — I ' m sure the flight path is to the east . Ms . Campbell — We' re anticipating a response in the next couple of months . That ' s the best we can get out of the FAA right now . Mr . Barney — It ' s up to you . What you may want to do is condition any approval , should you choose to give approval , on there not being any light , and if the requirements call for lighting that they come back and explain why the light is necessary . Mr. Sigel — Well the explanation would simply be that the FAA requires it . Mr. Barney — Well , the FAA requires it , but that' s a function also of height and a few other things . So that it may very well be by reducing the height . Our water tower is there and I ' m pretty sure the water tower doesn 't require the lighting right now , so if they kept their antennas below the top of the water tower it ' s a little difficult for me to see how the FAA requires . . . Mr. Krantz — It ' s the antennas that will have lights . Mr. Barney — What they' re talking about doing , as I understand it , is putting the antenna up only to the height of the water tower. The way it is shown is not the way it is going to be initially installed . Mr. Krantz — The top 9 feet will be only the whip antennas . Mr. Barney — Yes , but when they install it that 9 feet is going to be no higher than the top of the water tower. Mr. Sigel — Until they get the FAA clearance . Mr . Smith — There is a condition 3 in the Planning Board resolution which deals with pretty much the same issue about additional lighting that would be approved by the Director of Planning if required by the FAA . Mr. Sigel — I think I ' m getting the Board ' s sentiment that if it requires lighting that might be a substantially different request from the standpoint of area neighbors . And it might be reasonable to require another approval for that . 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Krantz — It also might be , if lighting is required , be a nice gesture to notify more people who are going to see that lighting . The amount of people in the area that have to be notified as required is a lot smaller, but if you ' re going to have this big water tower with these lighted antennae a wider swath of homes should be notified . Mr. Barney — I think that ' s something you could request should that become an issue . Again , it depends on how the lighting is located . The lighting is presumable designed , if it' s required , to notify planes . Planes are not on the ground so it could be directed in such a way that the ground is not going to be terribly effected by it . Again , without having something specific to look at and react to it is difficult to know what ' s appropriate . I think the point that the lighting might be required is one that' s a legitimate issue that you want to deal with , if and when that becomes a requirement of the FAA . Mr. Krantz — I keep thinking of Cornell ' s soccer field . Mr. Barney — The lighting there , however, is considerably more than the lighting on this thing here . Mr. Krantz — You know , you ' re going to put up these big strobe lights and they' ll be on these flimsy antennas and they wave back and forth . Mr. Barney — I ' m not quite sure that' s where the lights will be . Mr. Krantz — And it will look like Christmas . Mr. Sigel — Any further comments or questions ? RESOLUTION NO . 2001 -86 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT — Nextel Partners , Sapsucker Woods Road , Tax Parcel No . 70 . - 10-2 MOTION made by David Stotz , seconded by Ronald Krantz . RESOLVED that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Nextel Partners , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to place and co- locate telecommunication equipment on a water supply storage tank owned by the Town of Ithaca and located on Sapsucker Woods Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 70- 10 -2 , Residence District R - 15 , based on the environmental assessment form completed by Town staff . Such negative determination is conditioned upon the understanding that no lighting is going to be on the facility . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer NAYS : None 13 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Krantz — There was mention of a light on the doorway , which would be fine . RESOLUTION NO . 2001 -87 — Nextel Partners , Sapsucker Woods Road , Tax Parcel No. 70 . = 10-2 , December 17 , 2001 MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by David Stotz RESOLVED that this board grants the appeal of Nextel Partners , Appellants , Kristin Campbell , AICP , Agent , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to place and co- locate telecommunication equipment on a water supply storage tank owned by the Town of Ithaca and located on Sapsucker Woods Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70 - 10-2 , Residence District R - 15 . A height variance is also granted from the requirement of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit a structure with a height greater than 36 feet . The appeal is granted subject to the following finding and conditions : Finding : a . That the requirements of Article XIV , Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , subparagraphs a- h have been met . Conditions : a . The height of the telecommunication equipment shall not exceed 95 feet . b . At this time , there will be no lighting on the tower , and if the FAA were to require lighting it cannot be installed without coming before this board for approval . AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Niefer NAYS : Krantz The motion was declared to be carried . Mr. Krantz — I oppose this on the basis that we ' re going from an allowance of 36' to 95 ' and the neighborhood doesn 't even know it . The third appeal to be heard was as follows: APPEAL of Independent Wireless One , Appellant , Harris Beach LLP , Agents , Cornell University , Landowner , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to co- locate telecommunication equipment at a Maple Avenue utility substation , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63- 1 - 5 , Residence District R - 30 . A height variance is also being requested from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 to permit a structure with a height greater than 36 feet . 14 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Tim Frateschi , attorney for Harris Beach , 300 South State Street , Syracuse , NY — We represent Independent Wireless One , a telecommunications company with headquarters in Albany . We ' ve submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special approval of telecommunications equipment on an existing pole in a NYSEG substation on the Cornell campus on Maple Avenue . Our application that we have submitted , we ' re also requesting a variance from your zoning law on the height of the pole also . It' s a 60 ' pole . There will be three antennas that we will place on the pole . The application , hopefully , speaks itself . We tried to go through your zoning law and telecommunications law and address each point in your telecommunications law . We provided photo simulations of what the site will look like after the antennas have been placed on the pole . If there are any questions , I ' ll be happy to entertain them . Mr. Sigel — Are the antennas going to go any higher than the poles , generally ? Mr. Frateschi — No they won 't . Mr . Sigel — So the variance is just because the pole is currently that high ? Mr. Frateschi — That ' s correct . Mr. Krantz — Do you know why the pole is that high ? Mr. Frateschi — I don 't know why it is . The wires that go to the pole are below the height of the pole . I don 't know the answer to the question . Mr. Frost — I kind of stuck that appeal in there , for the height as well , just to be on the safe side . Mr. Frateschi — There is not lighting on this , by the way , either. Mr. Ellsworth — I ' m kind of glad , as I ride from here to Syracuse and here to Elmira , and see all the towers , I ' m kind of glad to see that we ' re utilizing existing structures . Mr. Frateschi — I appreciate that . Let me mention that Jimmy Stover from Stover and Crauther LLC was the site acquisition person involved in finding sites and what Independent Wireless One tries to do first and foremost is find structures , existing structures , high structures to co- locate , to minimize to the greatest extent possible any obtrusiveness of our antennas . So I appreciate your comments . Thank you . Mr. Ellsworth — It seems like every time I take a trip 1 see more of these . Mr. Frateschi — For the service that we are providing here , we are primarily servicing the Cornell campus , and the height that we ' re using here meets the needs . Mr. Ellsworth — Is this cell phones ? Mr. Frateschi — This is Sprint PCS service . 15 ZONING BOARD OFAPPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr . Stotz — Any agreement you have with Cornell , you would remove the equipment in the case it becomes obsolete ? Mr. Frateschi — We have not completed our lease with Cornell . We intend to do that within the next or so . That will be part of the agreement that we reach with them . Mr. Ellsworth — Are these calculated or estimated power levels . . . Mr . Frateschi — In terms of the power density study that we 've provided ? I think they' re done through a modeling program that we have . Maybe Jimmy could answer that question better than I . Jimmy Stober, Stober & Crauther , 382 Main Street , Johnson City , New York — I was the site development acquisition person on this site . The power density studies will be done afterwards on this site . Essentially because they are not an issue . Actually , we have the reverse problem here . If we turn the power up too high we ' ll blow through another cell . As you can see the pole is a very minimal installation , it ' s essentially the cover. And by itself it wouldn 't but because of how it connects and so it ' s very delicately placed in terms of how the cells , as you know we have to have the radio signal not be too strong or it will push through into another caller like the old amps system used to . You used to get cross calls . So we have to be careful about how we engineer our system . We do a check . Actually we call it a sweep . After we install it we turn it on and then we do sweeps to make sure that all the cells have integrity and they' re not going where they' re not supposed to go . Mr . Ellsworth — There ' s no problem with the fields around that transformer? Mr . Stober — There would be no problem there . Mr. Frateschi — I just have one comment and that ' s on the Environmental Assessment Form . We made one change on that at the Planning Board meeting and the application I sent to you , I don 't know if that was reflected in the application , for the record I want to make that change . I think it was question 17 , Exhibit D . The question is , " Is the site served by existing public utilities ? " We had put no for the answer in the application we sent . But the accurate answer is " it is Mr. Sigel opened the public hear at 8: 07 p. m. There was no one to be heard and the public hearing was closed at 8: 08 p. m. Mr . Sigel — Mike , any comments on the Environmental Assessment Form ? Mr. Smith — I ' d just mention the same thing , the positive aspect of the co- locations . Mr. Sigel — Any other questions ? Mr. Ellsworth — I ' ll make an observation , you ' re going to be seeing some coal dust on your equipment . 16 ZONING BOARD OFAPPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED RESOLUTION NO . 2001 -88 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT — Independent Wireless One , Maple Avenue Utility Substation , Tax Parcel No . 63 . -1 -5 , December 17 , 2001 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Independent Wireless One , Appellant , Harris Beach LLP , Agents , Cornell University , Landowner, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to co- locate telecommunication equipment at a Maple Avenue utility substation , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63- 1 - 5 , Residence District R-30 , and requesting a height variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 to permit a structure with a height greater than 36 feet , based upon the environmental assessment prepared by Town staff dated November 2 , 2001 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer. NAYS : None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -89 - Independent Wireless One, Maple Avenue Utility Substation, Tax Parcel No, 63. 4 -5, December 17, 2001 MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Independent Wireless One , Appellant , Harris Beach LLP , Agents , Cornell University , Landowner, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to co- locate telecommunication equipment at a Maple Avenue utility substation , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63- 1 -5 , Residence District R -30 . A height variance is also granted from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 to permit a structure with a height greater than 36 feet . Finding : a . That the requirements of Article XIV , Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , subparagraphs a- h have been met . Conditions : a . That the height of the structure not exceed 61 feet . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer NAYS : None 17 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . The fourth appeal was heard as follows: APPEAL of Ivar and Janet Johnson , Appellants , John Bowler III , Agent , requesting modifications of conditions of approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 12 , 1989 and November 157 1989 regarding the reconstruction of a single-family residence , after fire damage , at 934B East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5 - 9 , Residence District R- 15 . Specifically requested is an approval to allow for a continuation of use of an interior building loft and exterior window dormers . Bill Seldin , counsel to Dirk Galbraith who represents a prospective purchaser of both properties that are owned by Ivar and Janet Johnson . I also represent Ivar and Janet Johnson . When Dirk got stuck with a trial he called upon me to fill his shoes tonight . The history of this has been somewhat convoluted and torrid , both literally and otherwise . Janet and Ivar bought the property 985 and then bought the other property next door to it , which is the subject of tonight' s proceeding back in ` 85 . No sooner had they purchased it , it burned down . They got permission from the board to rebuild and they did not build according to the plans . The building was 4 inches too wide according to the footprint , and it had a loft , and it had a dormer. Now the property in question , many of you are familiar with these properties down by the lake . The property in question , 934 B , is shown in this picture right here . This is from the roadside looking at the backside of the property . The lake would be on the other side . This is the bigger house , 934 E . And this property right here is the property next door, owned by Shirley Valenza . This is a picture taken of the property that we ' re talking about tonight from the lake , so you can see the 93B and this is Shirley Valenza' s property next door. This , again , is a picture taken between the two properties , but note the dormer and the window providing ventilation and light to that loft area . The problem is this . They got a purchase offer to sell both these properties . Mr. Bawler is here tonight . The Johnson ' s were able to knock 2 inches off the side of the house . I don 't know whether they removed moldings or whatever they did they did . So that now , it ' s my understanding and hopefully Andy can confirm this , that the house , at least the footprint of the house , is back where it was originally authorized after a special hearing . Mindful that this is an application for a special permit pursuant to section 77 sub 7 . It' s our contention that after 12 years of using this place as a glorified beach house , it' s never had a CO and it' s not been authorized to be occupied in any way shape or form . So they haven 't been able to rent it out . They haven 't been able to do anything with it beyond going in there . It ' s got a couch , I think , and a table and some chairs . The loft area , incidentally , is 10 by 12 feet . The bottom floor, the first floor, is 400 square feet . So we ' re not talking about a lot of building . Mr. Bower, if we ' re successful tonight , will use it to rent out to 1 or 2 people . Obviously it' s only fit and suitable under the ordinance for single family , but we ' ll consent to 1 or 2 people as being the maximum occupancy for this structure , as a condition . Now , it' s of interest to note that , before this property burned down , the original structure had a bunch of windows facing , on the first floor by what was a kitchen , facing the Valenza property . Now there are no windows on the first floor , and there ' s only the window on the loft area which we suggest is necessary for both light and ventilation , cross ventilation . The other thing I would note is that this property is no taller than the original structure , and the footprint is now almost identical 18 ZONING BOARD OFAPPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED to what it was before it burned down . In terms of section 77 , I ' m not going to reiterate each and every criterion . I think Dirk did an excellent job of that in his application . Bottom line here is that this property is no different than it ever was for a long , long period of time in terms of its location and its juxtaposition to the other properties . I ' m going to suggest that one picture is worth 1 , 000 words . That this property is very good to look at . It assimilates in the neighborhood . It' s hard to imagine that it depreciates the value of any property in the neighborhood . And if anything , I would think that it appreciates , or increases the value . I think the structure itself in juxtaposition to Mrs . Valenza ' s property speaks for itself in terms of its effect in having any decrease in her property and the value of it . And after 12 years of lying dormant it is the hope of the purchaser, it' s Janet and Ivar' s hope that they' re now going to be in a position to move on so that it can be used in a fashion that is acceptable as it was initially intended . The dormer and the loft are the components that did not comply with the plans that were submitted 12 years ago . We suggest , and we 've rectified the area part of it , the footprint part . We suggest that if you apply the criteria of 77 sub 7 that it ' s consistent with all of those conditions . I ' d be pleased to answer any questions that you have . Mr. Stotz — Are you saying that this house has never been occupied in 12 years ? Mr. Seldin — I ' m saying that they've never rented it out . They've never had a CO . Did they walk in it ? Sure . Did they sit in it ? Absolutely . To my knowledge , according to them , they haven 't been able to rent it out . They haven 't been able to enter into a lease agreement of any kind , and they certainly haven 't been able to sell it , and they will not be able to sell it absent a CO . They' re not going to run afoul of the law . And that' s the dimension of the problem . Mr. Sigel — So , the other house that they apparently own is the white colored house in that photo which is to the south ? Is that correct ? Mr. Seldin — Yes . Mr. Sigel — They' re selling both properties at the same time ? Mr. Seldin — Yes . Mr. Sigel — I don 't know how other board members feel , and maybe our Town attorney can correct me in my opinion , but I don 't feel that the elements of 77 subsection 7 are really relevant here . You ' re asking us to substitute our judgment for the judgment of board members 12 years ago . It was extremely clear in the minutes that they did not want the loft . I feel that I have to uphold that . Mr . Seldin — Permit me to suggest that after 12 years , having made the accommodation in terms of those two inches , that we have a right to come back before the board and ask your consideration of these same elements . I don 't think there' s any , I ' m happy to invite John ' s wisdom on this , but don 't think there is anything legally that would prevent you from reconciling this application with the prevailing conditions in 77 given the fact , John , especially that we have made one change and that is the footprint of the building . We ' ve knocked off two inches . 19 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED You have the right to use your own judgment and consider these facets and to make a determination based upon what you consider to be appropriate . Mr . Stotz— What I have difficulty with , and I understand what you are saying that at least part of the requirements that were set forth 12 years ago have been met , namely changing the footprint . But if the board makes the determination that something should occur or not occur and somebody simply says well I ' ll wait and then I ' ll come back and say , "Well , because of the passage of time you should reconsider this" . Where does that leave us ? Do we say to people , "Okay , you can or can 't do this , but in ten years come back and maybe we ' ll change our minds again on it" ? Mr. Seldin — We hope there ' ll be new members who weren 't there at the first hearing . First of all , that ' s not the case here . There was no intent to consciously or otherwise to say , "Okay , we ' re going to wait this thing out and reapply" . The other point that you make is most worthy of consideration , namely what kind of precedent do we set . I ' m here to suggest that you have the right to consider all things at this point . Now , the fact that it has been there for 12 year without incident , the fact that its been there in a controlled environment , if you will , and there hasn 't been any difficulty . Should Janet and Ivar, and the prospective purchaser now be prevented from making their case , because if that ' s true and you ' re thinking prevails and that' s the prevailing opinion of this board , then there will never be a CO that will be granted to that building absent some extensive and expensive reconfiguration and reconstruction . So that kind of begs the questions . Well , if we took off the dormer which would change , as you can see , significantly the building which would be expensive and we just had the loft would that then be okay? Or would we still be concerned about the board ' s initial thinking some 12 years ago . I ' m not sure where we end up with this . All I know is that as I look at 77 , that I don 't think you damage the conditions that have preceded this hearing ; I don 't think you mar the ability to create a precedent otherwise by allowing permission to be given at this point in time . Mr. Niefer — One of the things that ' s somewhat troubling for me in this situation is that when the applicants came before the board before , they made certain representations to the board that they would do certain things , i . e . no loft , no exterior windows . The applicants made that representation to this board , and the board granted the approval that they did at the time on those representations . Those representations have never been met . Is the applicant now saying , well they' re retracting those representations? How are you addressing that issue ? Mr. Seldin — Now you can 't possibly expect me to go back and answer that because I wasn 't around then , number one . I ' m not going to sit here and say that that was right or that was wrong . But I will tell you this , that if we ' re going to say that this application should not go forward because of their misrepresentations as you have characterized them , and I ' m not prepared to concede that . But if that were the case , Mr . Bowler is the applicant at this point . He ' s asking you for permission to approve this so that he can purchase this property . He wasn 't privy or party to that . Unfortunately , I also represent the Johnsons and Dirk has invited me to appear on his behalf and that' s part of the difficulty that I bring with me , no question about it . To suggest that Mr. Bowler is not going to be able to purchase this property because he can 't get a CO is then to penalize him . And it ' s to penalize Janet and Ivar who after 12 years have not been able to use this property . Again , I hearken back to the issue of whether or not , in your judgment , you feel that this is in 20 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED compliance with 77 sub 7 . You ' ve brought in a lot of ancillary things that I have no great answers for. Mr. Krantz — I sort of understand where Jim is coming from . It ' s sort of the sequence that is out of step here . 12 years ago certain rules are put down . If these rules were followed out and then you came here and said , " Hey , we 've followed out the rules of 12 years ago , but we haven 't been able to rent it so there ' s a real hardship now , we ' d like to modify it and do what has been done" , that would seem a lot more reasonable . Mr. Seldin — Except that we ' re not applying for a use variance so we can 't really make that argument . What we have to say and what we are limited to saying is whether or not the conditions under 77 are appropriate here , and whether or not we comply with those conditions . So we don 't really have , I don 't believe , the opportunity to come in and say , " Look it ' s an economic hardship , it can 't yield a reasonable return" , and all of those cogent arguments that one would make for a use variance . We ' re limited by the essence of the application to 77 , and by 77 we should be looking at things as whether or not it' s a detriment to the community , whether or not it violates the health and the morals , and all of those things that appear in that section . Now , I don 't know what the mindset of the board was 12 years ago , I wasn 't privy to that . All I know is that Mr. Bowler wants to buy this property and I can 't imagine how this loft and this dormer interfere with the mandates that I think all of you should be guided by under section 77 . If you start talking about the history of this , obviously I 've got my work cut out for me and that may be insurmountable . I concede that , I readily concede that . But if you ' re going to focus on 77 and whether or not there ' s compliance with 77 , 1 submit that that should be rather facile and an appropriate jump for you to make . I , in the same breath , am not insensitive to the fact that if I were sitting on this board , I ' d be certainly concerned about what I do and how that affects future applications . But I ' m here to suggest that this does not tarnish the result that was achieved 12 years ago . It is Mr. Bowler' s application and it ' s my hope you ' ll agree that it ' s appropriate . Mr. Niefer — In this structure that we ' re talking about , it now has a kitchen , a bath , and so on . Is it subdivided in any way as far as rooms? Mr. Seldin — It ' s just one open space downstairs , and a loft upstairs . Mr. Niefer — Is there a kitchen with all the facilities associated with a kitchen ? Mr . Seldin — Yes , sir. Mr . Niefer — Is there a full bath ? Mr. Seldin — Yes . Mr. Niefer — It ' s all connected to the public utilities ? Mr. Seldin — It ' s all municipal water and sewer. Mr . — It' s a dwelling unit by definition . 21 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Sigel — I personally think it would undermine the board ' s authority to essentially overturn the decision made . If you read the minutes from the meeting 12 years ago , it is clear that the board members at that time wanted this house to be built exactly the way that they wanted it built and the questions were asked not once but several times about whether there would be a loft , where windows would be . Things were extremely specific because the board members were concerned about there being such a small lot and I don 't think it would be appropriate to substitute my judgment for theirs . I have to assume that they made a reasonable decision . Mr. Niefer — I agree with that and I further reiterate that the applicants agreed or reiterated that they made certain representations . Those representations have not been met , so it's a situation where , I think the board generally speaking takes representations that are made by applicants rather seriously when we grant permits , and if they don 't follow the representations that are made they do so at their own peril . Mr. Seldin — Of course the application tonight is Mr. Bowler' s . Mr . Sigel — Asking us to overturn the decision of 12 years ago . Mr . Seldin — He ' s asking you to apply the conditions set forth in section 77 and determine whether or not the building , as configured , complies with those conditions . Mr . Stotz — Obviously , they didn 't comply with the conditions satisfactorily 12 years ago . I ' m just wondering about what conditions have changed in the last 12 years . I understand what you ' re saying ; it' s a whole new application , a whole new proceeding , a whole new consideration . The Supreme Court does that too , they overturn their previous decisions , but there have been changes , there have been cultural changes , there have been lots of different changes that have caused them to do that . I ' m just wondering in this case what conditions occurred or what conditions exist that were caused by events in the past 12 years that the board should now consider, that are different from 12 years ago . Mr . Seldin — Well , for one thing they have the property sold if this board grants its approval . Now that may not be the best answer for you in the world , but let me suggest this , that I haven 't heard anybody here tonight say that they feel that the dormer or that the loft in and of themselves run afoul of section 77 . What I have heard is that the Johnsons should be penalized because of their alleged misrepresentations 12 years ago . I 've heard that there is nothing new and therefore we can 't revisit it . Of course , I struggle with that because my sense of this is that they are entitled to reconsideration , they've reconfigured the footprint of the building and it now Mr. Bowler who seeks this approval . Would I not be raising the same questions were I sitting where you are ? Of course I would . That' s the honest , candid answer . But if we are going to apply the law tonight , if we ' re going to abide by the zoning ordinance , then I think they' re entitle to a look , a fresh look , at whether or not the loft and the dormer run afoul of 77 . Mr . Frost — May I ask something and in all due respect to the board because I ' ve worked with you guys a number of years and I don 't mean to show any kind of disrespect whatsoever, listening to what Mr . Seldin was saying I would wonder if the loft was never built , and the dormer was never 22 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED built , Mr. Bowler bought the property and decides he wants to put a loft in and a dormer and made an application for a special approval to make those additions to the building , would it be much different than what is being asked for tonight ? Mr . Sigel — I think that is potentially a good question . Mr. Frost — Because then I think one would be applying , and Mr. Barney has been terribly silent through this whole process , I would wonder then that with the argument that requirements of section 77 would come into play . Mr. Barney - Let me take a slightly different tack to it . I think the board asking for the representations was concerned about the fact that you have two buildings relatively close together, and you ' re rebuilding another building far in excess of what would have been normally permitted in terms of lot coverage under the zoning ordinance as it was in effect then . The reasons for the representations related to the section 77 considerations insofar as they were looking at the bulk of the building and the location of building relative to 2 existing builds on each side of it . While I would sort of agree with Bill that you look at this somewhat anew , but you don 't because you ' re also looking at it , what were the concerns that gave rise to the request several times for the assurances as to what the construction of that building ' s going to be . Having said that , you ' re certainly free to make your decision as you see fit tonight . But the board at that time I don 't think was ignoring section 77 or going after Mr . and Mrs . Johnson in any particular way . They were concerned that there was going to be what was then an empty lot was going to have something rebuilt on that lot that was going to have an impact on the houses on each side of it . Mr. Seldin — That having been said , the board did not have the advantage of seeing the fruits of Mr. Johnson ' s labor or the lack of it . We now have that property constructed and one has to ask whether or not , in its present configuration , as it' s built , having been there for 12 years , whether the dormer and the loft , again , run afoul of section 77 . 1 keep coming back to that because I think that has been and should be your ultimate consideration . Now the board when they initially granted the approval did not have the ability to see the final result . I think it is relevant that it has been there for 12 years , and without incident . Mr. Barney — I don 't buy that , Bill . It' s not there in the way that it was approved , so the board has never had an opportunity to see what the approved building would be . It ' s been there in violation for 12 years without incident . I don 't know whether without incident , that ' s a fine of $250 . 00 a week , which we haven 't chased for, reasons that I won 't go into to go after Mr . and Mrs . Johnson on . But the fact is , the building never complied . Mr. Seldin - . . . that should be taken is to look at this and say whether or not it runs afoul of 77 , is that a consideration ? Mr . Barney — That was the approach that was taken 12 years , and a building without a dormer and without the loft was found to be acceptable . Now you ' re suggesting that the envelope ought to be expanded a little bit and say today 77 would allow a dormer and the loft . Mr . Seldin — Do they have the right to look at this today and revisit those issues ? 23 ZONING BOARD OFAPPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr . Barney — I ' d have to go back and research this , whether the change of bringing the building into conformity with what had originally been required is a change which gives you now a right to say we ' re coming to you with a changed set of circumstances . Unfortunately , your clients built it too large in several dimensions . The fact that they've brought one dimension into compliance doesn 't necessarily mean that they are entitled to a review denovo as to whether the other dimensions should be . . . Mr. Seldin — But you can 't say the reverse of that . Mr. Barney — Typically when you have a board making a decision to reverse that decision without any new evidence , you need a unanimous vote of the board . Now whether that holds true over a 12-year period , I ' m not as certain about . Typically a rehearing , which is really what you ' re asking for, a rehearing before the board can even hear it , is supposed to vote and if you don 't get unanimity on the rehearing , you don 't even listen to it . They've gone a couple of steps beyond that and I ' m not suggesting that they apply that rule here because of the12 year hiatus . Mr. Frost — I would wonder , Mr. Johnson ' s a builder, and you and I have had discussions about the desire to perhaps maintain light by way of the dormer. The thought I ' m having is whether the board would consider some adjournment and perhaps for you to come back with a plan that removes the dormer and you can always propose , say , a skylight which the board may not see as a significant deviation from what the original intent was . And then perhaps ask for maintaining the loft , which , if you took it out or doubled the size , unless someone was inside we would never know what had happened . So I guess what I ' m suggesting is whether they would be some consideration of an adjournment and you can come back with a newer plan . Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 8:40 p. m. Shirley Valenza , 938 East Shore Drive and I own 936A , which is a cottage adjacent to the cottage under discussion . I would like to read and then submit to you a letter that I have and also go back to some facts that make some of the discussion of tonight really unnecessary . Ms. Valenza read her December 17, 2001 letter to the board (Attachment # 1) . Ms . Valenza — I would like to add to that that much of what has been said tonight is based on figures , which are not true . For instance I cannot for the life of me see where 4 inches is anything . The house was originally , the footprint of the house which it replaced , was 11 foot wide plus a small space about this high , and wide enough to accommodate 2 garbage barrels . To get at them for the 10 years that I lived there preceding the Johnsons they had to go on my property , with my permission , to use that . It should not have been bundled in as part of the original footprint and I believe it was . Another thing , it seems pretty ridiculous to be talking about the part of the house that is in the eves . The things that we have seemed , well it shouldn 't be restricted for that . The problem is that unlike what I heard tonight , there was not a Cubby up there before and , in fact , now the actual measurements are of a house 12 feet high plus 1 '/2 to 2 feet where it' s built up from the ground . So that is far above . And next to Johnsons own home , which is essentially a three story one , and illegal , it makes the travesty , the lack of concern of the Town of Ithaca , very apparent . I don 't think that things have been 24 ZONING BOARD OFAPPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED treated equally . I think that there may be something else that I wanted to tell you . I need maybe to come back . Thank you for hearing me . Mr. Krantz — I ' d like to address some of the comments you made . There are five members on this board and all 5 , plus the town attorney , have made relatively negative comments about approving this and for you to suggest that there has been a collusion going on doesn 't make any sense . Ms . Valenza — I ' m sorry that it came across that way . Mr. Krantz — Out of all of us , nobody has made a positive comment about approving it . Ms . Valenza — I ' m sorry . I didn 't expect you to be that reasonable . I feel I haven 't appreciated what I didn 't expect . I do appreciate it and I think that you are right . Mr. Frost — I ' d like to add something if I may and I take a little bit of offense at the statement that we 've been in secret negotiations . I have a copy of a letter that we wrote Mrs . Valenza back on October 23rd in response of a letter that she wrote us a few weeks prior to that . This matter was discussed with the Town Supervisor. I do have this letter , which I can share with the board where we pretty emphatically state that there were no secret negotiations going on . I don 't know if you remember this letter of October 23rd . One of the statements that we made to her that the Town has been in contact in recent months with an attorney representing the property owner and the Town and the property owner were working to resolve the issues . There was never any use of the word negotiations or secret negotiation . I just want it to be clear by way of this public hearing that this allegation was brought up back in October and was , I think , well addressed in communication and the letter is available to anyone in the public or the board if they chose to read it . Ms . Valenza — I ' m sorry if I said the word negotiations incorrectly . If you have there the letter written by your assistant to me after she had inspected the various sites and problems in the area . I feel I must apologize if I used the words negotiations . That' s what I thought she said , and I think in truth that is what they were . Do you have the record there ? The letter that your assistant wrote ? Mr. Frost - My letter of October 23rd also makes reference to the letter that Kristie Rice sent you . And again , this information , including a letter from Mrs . Valenza dated October 12 , is available for anyone . . . Ms . Valenza — I ' d like to apologize if I said anything wrong . Would you read the sentence in Ms . Rice ' s letter? Mr. — "The Town has been in contact in recent months with the attorney representing the property owner and the Town and the property owner are working to resolve those issues . . . " Mr. Stotz — Might I suggest that if there is an issue about that that maybe you would want to contact Mr. Frost or the Town Supervisor and discuss it further so that we can get on with . . . Ms . Valenza — Well it seems to be the definition of word negotiations . 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Stotz — It is obviously a misunderstanding . Mr. Sigel — Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? Don Weir, 930 East Shore Drive — I was the prior owner of the lot in question . I want to correct a few things that were said here and also make some comments . 1 ) The height of the house is higher than the original house . The other is that it has been rented recently as Ms . Valenza had said . I further vouch for that . As far as whether it improves the quality of the neighborhood , I think begs the question that a contractor can build what they want after consultation with the board in spite of the board . I find that distasteful as a citizen . And then to throw it on a potential new owner as the board ' s responsibility to bail out an illegal act . I don 't want to cause any problem to the person that wants to buy the property . It ' s a very pretty property , but it was illegally built . Both properties were . They were supposed to be built in - kind . They were not . The board 12 years ago knew that and called them on it . And they ignored it . That bothers me . Thank you very much . If there are any further questions , I ' d be glad to speak to those . Ms . Valenza — It' s hard to feel that there has been any deprivation to the Johnsons because they could have brought this matter up 10 years ago , 12 years ago , if they had wanted to . It' s been their choice . Well we all know something about taking off in taxes sometimes is an advantage in a business . So it' s very hard to be very sympathetic about that . And I do want to say that the measurements of the house , and maybe you can understand why I ' m very weary of the Town because while it seems to us that its just a matter of two rather unimportant things , that' s our subject of discussion now because Mr. Frost letter when he broke the bad news to the Johnsons saying other than that you ' re alright . But they weren 't and are not now . The measurements are much too big , they' re not smaller than the original , they are much larger. Mr. Sigel — I think that the house , other than the 3 issues , one of which I believe has been corrected , is in compliance with what the board granted 12 years ago . Whether that was larger than what was originally there could possibly be argued , but nevertheless the board 12 years ago did see fit to grant permission to build a house of a certain size . That size may be larger than what was there before , but that was that board ' s decision at that time . Thank you very much for your comments . Ms . Valenza — Thank you for hearing me . Mr . Ellsworth — This building has never received a certificate of occupancy yet it has had tenants in it ? Mr. Frost — I was not aware of that until the recent letter from Mrs . Valenza . Mr. Ellsworth — Two neighbors say that is the case . Mr. Frost — I first of heard of it October 12 and I was told that the person had moved out . It does seem that clearly someone was in there and we did not know about that . Mr. Niefer — (to Mr . Seldin ) — Do you feel that you can represent both sides in the issue ? The people who are appealing here plus the owners of the property ? 26 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Seldin — If I felt that there was a conflict of interest , I wouldn 't be here tonight and Dirk wouldn 't have asked me . Mr . Bowler knows that as well . There ' s been full disclosure . They' re unified in interest at this point . Mr. Stotz — Is there a possibility for the dormers to be removed ? Mr. Seldin — I don 't know . Mr. Stotz — In the original discussions 12 years ago , Mr. Johnson said that there would be no dormers and that he would put skylights in . Mr. Seldin — I would like to revisit that issue with Ivar and Janet . Mr. Niefer — In the past there was concern about fire from one building to the next building and that may have been one of the reasons that they wanted no windows on the sides because of the close proximity of one building to the other and fire going from the other building through the window . Mr . Frost — We don 't have any fire limits in the town , which allows buildings to get that much closer. I ' m not so sure that while the building may be larger, that it is any closer to the house . Mr. Weir may correct me . Mr. Weir — I didn 't take measurements at that time . I would imagine that I probably have the old survey . Mr. Barney — We know the house is 2 feet wider. Mr. Seldin — I would like the opportunity to revisit the issue . As I said before , I appreciate the consideration of the board . I would note for the record that aesthetically , in that neighborhood , it ' s a good - looking building and if there is a way to preserve it and make it work , I think that Ivar and Janet should have that opportunity . Whole bunch of things I want to say about the notion of this dormer and the loft and section 77 , but I can 't quarrel with your right to come back and say , "Well , we ' re not going to be unmindful of the history" . I ' m not getting a real sense , however, from this board that if something was done with the dormer where that would leave them . I don 't know what their options are at this point . Some things I 've heard tonight are new . Some things are not . Mr. Stotz — I ' ll tell you how I feel about it . In looking over the minutes from 12 years ago , it seems that one of the primary concerns was the visual impact of this building . The height of the roof and the addition of dormers . It was not satisfactory in terms of the way it appears , sort of a monolithic structure in close proximity to another building so that the two of them together present a lot of mass . That is not in keeping with what , visually , people want to see by that lake . And I happen to agree with that . Mr. Seldin — But it is in keeping with what is there . I mean all those houses are clumped together. Mr. Stotz — If you wanted to be considered as a new action under article 77 , my feeling would be that visually it is inappropriate for this location . 27 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Seldin — Period ? Mr. Stotz — Yes , period . Mr. Seldin — Okay . It' s good to know that up front . Mr . Frost — One of the nice things in what ' s happening , is often my office gets involved with situations where things are done without permits . In this particular case the legal action to make sure the conditions were met , that never happened . Sooner or later things do come back and justice is done eventually . Mr. Sigel — I would echo David ' s comments . If this house had been constructed as specified and you came before us now with a request to put in a loft and put in dormers , given the comments from the neighbors , given the very small size of the lot , given how close it is to the lines , I would not be inclined to vote in favor of enlarging a house that is that non -conforming . Mr . Seldin — Just so I understand the sense of what you ' re saying , if they came back and they had lopped off the dormers and had just the roof there as it was originally intended but there was a loft in there , that would be inconsistent ? Mr. Stotz — We don 't know we haven 't revisited it . Mr. Seldin — Well I thank you all for your consideration . I think I ' d like an adjournment so that I can have a moment to speak with Ivar and Janet about this . Mr. Barney — Want to leave an adjournment until you contact Dani and request to be put back on the calendar. Mr. Seldin — That would be most appreciated . RESOLUTION NO 2001 =90 — Ivar and Janet Jonson , 9348 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No . 54. -7-33 , December 17 , 2001 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that upon the request of the applicant this board adjourns the appeal of Ivar and Janet Jonson , Appellants , John Bowler III , Agent , requesting modifications of conditions of approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 12 , 1989 and November 15 , 1989 regarding the reconstruction of a single -family residence , after fire damage , at 934B East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 18-5 -9 , Residence District R - 15 . Specifically requested is an approval to allow for a continuation of use of an interior building loft and exterior window dormers . This appeal is adjourned until the applicant requests that the matter be rescheduled . The vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer 28 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED NAYS : None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . The fifth appeal was heard as follows: APPEAL of Orlando lacovelli , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article III , Sections 7 and 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of the New York State Town Law , to be permitted to construct a single-family residence at 380 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-7-33 , Residence District R -9 . Said parcel of land , created in. 1897 , does not front on a Town , County , or State highway and is lacking , by definition , a front yard . Larry Fabbroni , 127 Warren Road — I ' m representing Orlando lacovelli in the matter. I ' m his engineer / surveyor. Basically this lot doesn 't front on a Town highway and there ' s a problem to not be able to build on a lot that doesn 't front on a street . Section 288 of Town Law invites a procedure whereby you can allow that . Last year you may remember the lacovelli ' s built on 2 lots right across the paper street from where we are talking about . We went through a procedure with both the Planning Board and this board , with this board over the same matter of those 2 lots that came out of the subdivision process . Not fronting on a Town highway . So all the same issues are before us . We eventually worked out an agreement with the Town whereby the lacovelli ' s maintain the access way to those 2 homes and , I guess , the major issue would be the same one here . That same 16-foot drive would serve as access to this lot . This lot is directly across the street , so to speak , on the paper lot . It ' s a lot easier access to both water and sewer for this particular lot than we had last year where the sewer had to be developed down behind the houses all the way down to Kendall Avenue . Here the water and sewer sit both in this paper street right of way so there is direct access down hill to the sewer and the waterline runs in front of it . Historically , the one large owner who owns lots on both sides of the street , the Martins who are east of this property , have no interest in this street going through . That' s what creates a dilemma of not being able to complete what was originally intended to be the road in 1897 . The direct impact , in terms of access to this lot , is passed 2 houses that the lacovelli ' s also own . Essentially they own the 4 properties most directly impacted by this approval . The lot to the west of this lot pretty much serves as an access to a larger parcel that is behind or south of this lot . And there are several other of these legal lots that are east of the lot in question . I don 't know what the intentions are for those lots at the current time . There ' s no reasonable alternative access to the one presented to you . I ' ll stop and field questions . It is the same exact issues that we looked at for the 2 lots across the way . It ' s basically the issue of how we can get access to this lot to build on it . Mr. Stotz — Is it going to be a duplex that is going to be built on this lot 36 ? Mr . Fabbroni — It ' s not a duplex , it' s a two-family home . It' s an up and down . It ' s an identical building to the ones that are across the street . It' s the identical building to three other homes in the area . This would be the 6th one of the same exact buildings . Mr. Stotz — These others don 't front on any street ? 29 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr . Fabbroni — The other two that were built this past summer front on the same paper street . They' re north of the street . This lot is south of the street . Mr . Niefer — Is there going to be parking in the front yard ? Mr. Fabbroni — Same as all the others , yes . Mr. Niefer — Across the street the parking is in the front yard ? Mr. Fabbroni — It would be the same . If you ' re familiar with 210 Pennsylvania Avenue , it is on this uphill side the same , and 244 another similar building in the neighborhood . Mr. Stotz — How is that road holding up ? At 381 , 383 ? Mr. Fabbroni — That ' s the lacovelliIs responsibility to maintain in all ways . Mr. Stotz — Can fire apparatus get in there ? Mr. lacovelli - We made an agreement with the Fire Department . They came and looked at the place . Mr. Stotz — It' s being maintained at that level in that condition ? Mr. Fabbroni — They were satisfied with 16 -foot wide approach . There is a fire hydrant very near the property , with 70 feet of the property on the north side of the street . So again , the public utilities historically were built as if it was going to be a street . I think I mentioned the last time somewhere in the late 70s a developer, Bill Hilker , who actually sold this lot to the lacovellis , tried to have the street put through and at that point the Martins really weren 't interested . They since then consolidated more of these lots into their homestead , which sits at the end of Kendall Avenue . At least for the foreseeable future they have no interest in a Town highway . Mr . Niefer — Is this going to involve some fill for this location or is he just going to build it to grade ? Mr. Fabbroni — Just build it into the grade that ' s there . The land slopes from south to north and on the east end of the lot , roughly , there ' s a culvert crossing onto this road that goes between the two properties they developed last year and down to Kendall Avenue . So it pretty well sits into the natural slope of the land . Mr. Niefer — Who is responsible for the so- called housekeeping of the street area there , the non - public street ? Mr. Fabbroni — The lacovellis have an agreement with the Town . Mr. Niefer — The housekeeping , not the snow plowing , not the maintenance of the surface , but the housekeeping of the area ? 30 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Fabbroni — They' re responsible as well , in general , for all their properties in the same regard . Mr. Niefer — Being a student area the prevalence of evidence of parties is quite pronounced in the area . I know a lot of people were troubled when they were talking about building Burger King and the debris and so on that would flow from Burger King . I realize that this situation that we ' re dealing with here , I don 't know whether we have any leverage over housekeeping the area of these properties , but I would encourage somebody to pick up the debris out there because it doesn 't look very nice . Mr . Fabbroni — We ' ll take that as constructive criticism . I also point out to you that it tends to be something repetitive and if you did it last week , if you ' ve been up there to visit it recently , it could all have occurred in the last 2 days kind of thing . Mr. Sigel — Mike , do you have any comments on the Environmental Impact Statement , Mr. Smith — I really didn 't have much to comment on . The one issue with the road access . Any more additional houses put into that paper street area , the town may want to consider having a road put in , but it appears that the existing driveway is adequate for this additional house . Mr. Stotz — Are there any future plans to get the road over to the Town ? Bring it up to Town standards , and try to deed it to the Town ? Mr. Fabbroni — The problem right now is that it' s a 50 ' right- of-way . A road could be built straight in there within the 50 ' , but it wouldn 't have even a turn around on it . Without having some control over one of those lots where you could develop that turn around , it' s kind of impractical to go in there and make a dead end out of it . The thing that makes the most sense given the length of Kendall Avenue is to have it go down all the way through and around like it was intended to in the first place . Short of condemnation , and this is kind of where I defer to John , we don 't know how to accomplish that . Nobody really owns anything other than access to their lot over this right of way . To clean up the whole to title I think it was determined back then that condemnation was the way to go , but nobody was much interested in it . The way of resolving it all seemed to be through this maintenance agreement . It' s up to the lacovellis right now and it was left open in that agreement that if other third party owners wanted access , they would become a part of that maintenance responsibility . But the simplicity of this , it will be all the lacovellis responsibility still for the three properties . Mr. Barney — What ' s the topography to the west of 381 where they show the paper road going north ? Mr . Fabbroni — It ' s all the same , the misnomer to looking at this map where you see a street to the north of Pennsylvania Avenue that kind of wraps around . For all practical purposes that ' s another paper street called Maryland Avenue that is really only one lot . On Pennsylvania Avenue there ' s many of these lots , but on that particular lot because of consolidation over the years , there ' s only one . . . 31 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Barney — What was going through my mind , Larry , is whether it would be possible to construct a road with sort of using that paper road as either a backing area , not doing the whole road , but doing 50 feet or 100 feet into it . 100 feet this way would give a public road . Mr. Fabbroni —Ledger owns the lot to the east , and Bolsby owns the lot to the west . Bolsby' s lot is really more access to what you have in brown on your maps there . They own a large parcel that ' s this strip all the way up behind all . They use this lot to access their back . . . Mr. Barney — topographically , would it be a problem ? Are they going up a steep hill here ? Mr. Fabbroni — No . It ' s all pretty much a plane once you get to that road that we ' re speaking of and driveway we ' re speaking of to the east . Orlando lacovelli , 347 Coddington Road — The Maryland Avenue would be prior to the house . To back up into the main road would be the same distance as to going down that paper street . Mr. Barney — These are 50 ' lots , right? So it would be basically making a turn around and going in here 50 feet or so which would allow your snow plow to push down here 75 feet or so , creating access to 383 , 3812 380 , and the lot to the east of 380 . Then being able to back out . Mr. lacovelli — I think the person that I have to take care of that has a skidder that picks up the snow and moves it . I don 't anticipate any problems with the snow . In terms of the fire , I spoke to them and they would drive in and just back out . And the fire hydrant is . . . Mr. Barney — My concern , ultimately , is that it probably ought to be a Town road . Mr. Fabbroni — I would suggest in time it might make more sense , John , rather than do it there , if that access on Maryland Avenue sort of becomes unnecessary to anything then the last lot down could be swapped for that 50 foot . The turn around would end up down at the end where it should be . Mr. Barney — How many lots does Martin have ? Mr. Fabbroni — These three lots are just two lots right now on this map . This 50-foot lot Mary Raponi and then the Martin lots start with this large parcel here and , I believe , comes across to where there are two other lots east of the lot we ' re talking about . There ' s at least three other lots beyond the lot we ' re looking at tonight , if not four . Mr. Sigel — Does Mr, lacovelli own any of those ? Mr. Fabbroni — No . Mr. lacovelli — No , I do own two of those lots that are deep down in there . I can 't even tell you exactly where they are . Mr. Sigel — So this is the last house you will build in the area , at least for a while ? 32 ZONING BOARD OFAPPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. lacovelli - That' s correct . Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 9:25 p. m. There was no one to be heard and the public hearing was closed at 9:26 p. m. Mr. Sigel — Any other questions or comments ? There were none. RESOLUTION NO . 2001 -91 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = Orlanda lacovelli , 380 Pennsylvania Avenue , Tax Parcel No. 54 . -77-33 , December 17 , 2001 MOTION made by David Stotz , seconded by James Niefer RESOLVED , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Orlando lacovelli , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article III , Sections 7 and 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of the New York State Town Law , to be permitted to construct a single-family residence at 380 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 -7-33 , Residence District R-9 . Said parcel of land , created in 1897 , does not front on a Town , County , or State highway and is lacking , by definition , a front yard . This approval is based upon the environmental assessment form completed by Town staff dated December 11 , 2001 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer NAYS : None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr. Niefer — Point of information , I thought I heard him say it was going to be a two-family residence , two unit house . There is only going to be one unit ? Mr . Barney — Only one unit , no apartment at all , it will be just one house , one dwelling unit . RESOLUTION NO . 2001 -92 — Orlanda lacovelli , 380 Pennsylvania Avenue , Tax Parcel No . 54. -77-33 , December 17 , 2001 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Orlando lacovelli , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article III , Sections 7 and 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of the New York State Town Law , to be permitted to construct a single -family residence at 380 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 54 -7-33 , Residence District R - 9 . Said parcel of land , created in 1897 , does not front on a Town , County , or State highway and is lacking , by definition , a front yard , based upon the following : 33 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Findings : a . The board finds that the requirements of an area variance of Town Law section 276a are met and , in particular, that there are already several properties in the area that do not have frontage , arrangements have been made for such other properties to be usable and have buildings constructed on them , and the problem was not self-created in that it originated out of a subdivision mapped in the early 1900s , and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that the application for a variance pursuant to Town Law section 280a is herby granted with the board adopting the findings set forth above and further finding that the proposed arrangements for plowing and maintenance of the unconveyed portion of Pennsylvania Avenue are satisfactory to assure access by fire and emergency medical service vehicles . The vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer NAYS : None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . OTHER BUSINESS Meeting date changes : Mr . Sigel proposed changing meeting dates form the January 2002 and March 2002 meetings as follows : 1 . Change January 14 to January 28 , 2002 2 . Change March 18 to March 25 , 2002 The board agreed to the changes . Draft Zoning Ordinance : Mike Smith distributed copies of the new , revised Zoning Ordinance for Board review . Included were a copy of the Executive Summary , the new text , and the new zoning map , along with other maps depicting the changes . Mr. Smith relayed the request of the Codes and Ordinances Committee to have comments back by the first week in February . Mr . Smith asked the board if they wanted to submit comments individually , or as a group . He further asked that , if comments were to come from the group , should it be an agenda item or separate meeting for their discussion ? He offered a presentation of the draft ordinance by the Planning Department . Mr. Barney suggested that the Board meet on January 28th , and consider the first Monday in February for a special meeting . Representation on the Codes and Ordinance Committee : Mr. Sigel volunteered , if no one else was interested , to serve as representative to the Codes and Ordinance Committee . Mr . Barney asked that Tee -Ann Hunter let Supervisor Valentino know that Mr. Sigel would be willing to accept appointment as representative to that committee . 34 ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS DECEMBER 17, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED Alternate Zoning Board Member : The Board discussed appointment of an alternate member. Mr. Ellsworth stated that the comprehensive nature of the minutes would serve to keep the alternate informed of previous thoughts and actions of the board . Mr. Barney reported that it was a slightly controversial proposal in the ordinance and it may not pass . Mr. Krantz asked if the town attorney could serve as the alternate . Mr. Barney stated he would not want to do so . There being no further business to come before the board , the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 40 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk 35 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2001 7 : 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, December 17, 2001 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M. on the following matters: APPEAL of Brian Keith Barfield, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and Article XIV, Sections 75 and 76 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place a storage building and recreational vehicle on a parcel of land, which does not contain a permanent residential building as a primary use at 201 Sand Bank Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35-243 , Residence District R-30. APPEAL of Nextel Partners, Appellants, Kristin Campbell, AICP, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII, Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to place and co-locate telecommunication equipment on a water supply storage tank owned by the Town of Ithaca and located on Sapsucker Woods Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 7040-2, Residence District R45 . A height variance is also being requested from the requirement of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit a structure with a height greater than 36 feet. APPEAL of Independent Wireless One, Appellant, Harris Beach LLP, Agents, Cornell University, Landowner, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII, Section 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to co-locate telecommunication equipment at a Maple Avenue utility substation, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 634 -5, Residence District R-30. A height variance is also being requested from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 to permit a structure with a height greater than 36 feet. APPEAL of Ivar and Janet Jonson, Appellants, John Bowler III, Agent, requesting modifications of conditions of approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 12, 1989 and November 15, 1989 regarding the reconstruction of a single-family residence, after. fire damage, at 934B East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5-9, Residence District R45 . Specifically requested is an approval to allow for a continuation of use of an interior building loft and exterior window dormers. APPEAL of Orlando Iacovelli, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article III, Sections 7 and 9 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280A of the New York State Town Law, to be permitted to construct a single-family residence at 380 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-7-33 , Residence District R-9. Said parcel of land, created in 1897, does not front on a Town, County, or State highway and is lacking, by definition, a front yard. 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: December 10, 2001 Published: December 12, 2001 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 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on Monday, December 17, 2001 , commencing at 7 : 00 P. M ., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of posting: December 10, 2001 Date of publication: December 12, 2001 I Q n I S Ncc& x Dani 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 l Oth day of December 2001 . Lv Notary Public DEBORAH KELLEY Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 KE6025073 Qualified in Schuyler Countyo > Commission Expires May 17, 20 �