Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2009-03-16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ® MONDAY, MARCH 16 , 2009 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 , March 16 , 2009 , in Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street , Tioga Street Entrance , Ithaca , NY , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : GRANTED APPEAL of Robert N . and Virginia D . Powers , Owner/Appellant , requesting a use variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article IX , Section 270-66 , Permitted Principal Use , of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted a commercial use of a building located at 1458 Slaterville Rd . Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel No . 58 . -2 -28 . Property is zoned Medium Density Residential ( MDR) where commercial use is not permitted . RULING RULED A SHED / NO VARIANCE NEEDED APPEAL of William Desch , Owner/Appellant , Noel Desch , Agent , requesting a use variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article VIII Section 270 - 54 , Permitted Principal Use and Article XXVII , Section 270 -220 , Building Floor Area , of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to construct a land management camp at 131 Updike Rd . Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel No . 47 . - 1 - 11 . 4 . Property is zoned Low Density Residential . ( LDR ) GRANTED APPEAL of Cayuga Medical Center , Owner/Appellant ; Louis J . LoVecchio , Agent , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 -6 B ( 2 ) ( b ) , of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , to be permitted to maintain a second free -standing sign at 101 Harris B . Dates Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24 . -3-2 . 1 , Property is zoned Office Park Commercial . ( OPC ) GRANTED APPEAL of Daniela Bocioaga and Max Buckholtz , Owner/Appellant requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article IX Section 270-71 A , Front Yard Depth requirement , of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to construct an addition that will encroach upon the front property line at 106 Pineview Terrace , Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel No . 53 . - 1 - 15 . 24 . Property is zoned Medium Density Residential . ( MDR ) 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 . Bruce W . Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273 - 1783 Dated : March 6 , 2009 Published : March 9 , 2009 TOWN OF ITHACA ® ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SIGWIN SHEET DATE : March 16 , 2009 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS / AFFILIATION v L D S C H 3 L( lr l2 lk, jU A - L .?✓ j �v' i L L / /-� -F-� je/ t, 2 F7 !� 116 e/ c c /'/ s U Ci .C- /r te>/�i�� 644= I�Zi2 I 72., AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) I , Paulette Terwilliger, being duly sworn , deposes and says , that deponent is not a party to the actions , is over 21 years of age and resides at 90 Liberty Street , Spencer, NY . That the 91h day of March , 2009 , deponent served the within Notice upon : Powers Appeal — 1458 Slaterville Road Herzog , Karen 107 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Mize , Ron & Chris 1447 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Jensen , Larry R 24 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Lindsay, Kelly 23 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Yon , Kennedy 1476 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Taggart, David 109 Pine Tree Rd ' Ithaca NY 14850 Cameron , Shane K 29 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Clark , Andrew G Anderson , Barbara 308 Hunt Hill Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Lawrence , Joyce E 27 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Commonland Comm Residents Po Box 694 Ithaca NY 14851 Attn : Debra Statton Boutros , Edward O 112 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Reamer, William B 26 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Valentine , Deborah A 6 Castle Rd New Gloucester ME 04260 Stanard , Linda 30 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 ® Howser, Arthur D Sr 1469 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Liu , Richard C 44 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Edginton , Charlotte 2330 Cumberland Rd San Marino CA 91108 Pobric , Belma & Faruk 42 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Higgins , Burt , Cynthia & Carter 41 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Shimabuku , Annamaria 40 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Powers , Robert & Virginia 106 The Parkway Ithaca NY 14850 Rimmerman , Craig 46 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Lin , Li - Hung 45 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Thompson , Darla 38 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Walker , Barbara & Bird , Jeremy 47 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Krook , Lennart & Nancy 113 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Strong , Le Norman J Strong , Bernice 49 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Stewart , David & Levy, Janice 119 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Truscello , Roberta 50 Penny Lane Ithaca NY 14850 Parker, Daniel S & Cheryl 1471 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY' 14850 Wilson , Marijo S 25 Penny Ln Ithaca NYO 14850 Murray, Janet 37 Penny Ln Ithaca NY' 14850 Maxwell , Deanne 36 Penny Ln Ithaca NY' 14850 Riley, Erin 35 Penny Ln Ithaca NY' 14850 Yasuda , Koji & Hidemi 48 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 ® Mecenas , Hermogenes & Joy 105 Pine Tree. Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Cimini , C & McLaughlin , K 10 Lilybrook Rd Pittsfield MA 01201 Zhu , Tao 20 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Jones , Daniel W 111 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Garin , Scott N 108 Pine Tree Rd Apt A Ithaca NY 14850 Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 3/_ 16/09 Slavens , Mark 39 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Churchill , Geraldine & William 258 Kent St Brookline MA 02446 Williams , Eric & Cynthia 12 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Yusof , Jamaludin Mohd 129 Lugar De Oro Santa Fe NM 87501 Marion , Robert & Kay 1463 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850 • Thomas , Malcolm G 1467 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Anderson , P Scott 421 Nelson Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Launer, Justin 2630 North 83rd PI . Scottsdale AZ 85257 Schwager, Steven J 111 Donlon Hall , Cornell Univ Ithaca NY 14853 The Sarai Zur Trust PO Box 392 Ithaca NY 14851 Ithaca Baptist Church 1462 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Reynolds , Harold A & Mary 1452 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Loewe , Deborah H 22 Penny Ln Ithaca NY 14850 Ayers , Lorraine P 116 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Wahl , David & Olivia 118 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Sciore , Lucia A & Jones , David 124 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Shreve , Kevin & Lynn 115 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Carmichael , Mary Margaret 122 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Grahamm , Meredith 1450 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Larrabee , Kathryn M 1446 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Ludington , David C & Aletta M 1456 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY 14850 William Desch Appeal — 131 Updike Road : . Shaw , Gregory & Fine , Susannah 102 Updike Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Desch , Noel & Janet 132 Updike Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Coddington Rd Comm Center 920 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Desch , William E PO Box 5033 Hanover NH 03755 . Nicholas , Robert A & Elayne C 107 Updike Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Hall , Jeffrey W & Tracy J 922 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Villareale , Anthony 29 Shinnecock Rd Hampton Bays NY 11946 Smith , M Gale Livingston 930 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Rivchin , Marilyn 950 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Bruce% Thomas .& Constance 915 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Bocioaga and Buckholts Appeal — 106 Pineview Terrace : Smith , David B & Barbara 121 Northview Rd . Ithaca NY 14850 Zaitlin , Milton W/LU 111 Northview Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Swensen , Thomas C & Susan M 113 1 /2 Northview Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Brainard , Linda L 113 Northview Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Cotts , Barbara 115 Northview Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Hinkle , Peter & Maija 117 North View Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Mulrooney, Joseph & Gertraud 119 Northview Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Seldin , Wm S & Amy M 120 Northview Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Daniel , Cletus & Helen 114 Northview Rd Ithaca NY 14850 lacovelli , Orlando & Helen M 347 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Raponi , Mary 341 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 O'Connor- Evans , Mary 337 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Krasnoff , Stuart B Dickin , Katherine 108 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Weiss , Michael L Kwinter, Michelle 110 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 • Li , Che-Yu 112 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Gerard , Carmine & Lucille 103 Hickory PI Ithaca NY 14850 Walker , Calemeze D & Glenda R 105 Hickory PI Ithaca NY 14850 Kinsella , Kevin & Uniit 107 Hickory PI Ithaca NY 14850 Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 3/ 16/09 Parker, Michael P 109 Pineview Terrace Ithaca NY 414850 Bergeron , Thomas C & Brenda R 111 Pineview Terr Ithaca NY 014850 Pancharoen , Angsana 216 E State St Ithaca NY 14850 Ehrhardt, Steven Werbizky, Lydia 109 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 x� Proujansky , Philip & Rochelle 333 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Stojanovic , Nikola & Jelena 101 Pineview Terr Ithaca NY 14850 MacLeod , Donald & Leah 104 Hickory PI Ithaca NY 14850 Sever, Joseph P & Magdelynn 113 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Fang , Jin 1 104 Pineview Terr Ithaca NY 14850 Buckholtz , M & Bocioaga , D 106 A Pineview Terr Ithaca NY 14850 Mills , Marguerite O 108 Pineview Terr Ithaca NY 14850 Fiero , Kenneth P 110 Pineview Terr Ithaca NY 14850 Schack , T & Lustyik , K 112 Pineview Ter Ithaca NY 14850 Smith , Gerald L & Martha 101 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Dolker, Perna & Dorjee , Karma 135 Linn St Ithaca NY 14850 Benjamin , George & Joan 329 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 lacovelli , Paul & Virginia 327 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 101 Harris B. Dates Drive — Cayuga Medical Center. Cayuga Medical Center Accts Payable 101 Harris B . Dates Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 Cayuga Professional Center LLC 323 N . Tioga Street Ithaca , NY, 14850 Cornell University Real Estate Dept . Box DH , 15 Thornwood Drive Ithaca , NY _ 14853 County of Tompkins DPW Buildings & Grounds 170 Bostwick RoadIthaca ;,dNfY;, y1, 485,0� l ,t,. John & Katherine Finn 132 Indian Creek Road Ithaca , NY 14850 , . ® . Future PRI , LLC c/o Daniel Shulman 250 S . Clinton Street, Suite 502 Syracuse , NY ' 13202-;,. : r Theresa Gangl 140 Indian Creek Road Ithaca , NY . 1485.0 Sophia Gluck 152 Indian Creek Road Ithaca, NY 14850 " John & Nancy Gould 102 Happy Lane IthacaANY 14850 .: . Salvatore & Rosalind Grippi 9 Orchard Hill Road Ithaca; NY, 14850 Gerald & Patricia Hall 1307 Trumansburg Road Ithaca ; Ng" ._ 148510 Dorothy Hillyard 138 Indian Creek Road Ithaca , NY / :14850 Holochuck Homes LLC 7 Brightside Avenue East Northport , NY11731 John & Anne Krupa 156 Indian Creek Road Ithaca , NY' 14850 Song Ja Kyong 220 Highgate Road Ithaca , NY' 14850 Roy Luft & Nancy Emerson 1317 Trumansburg Road Ithaca , NY' 14850 Edward McArdle 1600 East Main , Suite B St, Charles , IIL 60174 NYS Electric & Gas Corp Attn : Utility Shared Services 70 Farm View Drive Freeport New Gloucester , ME 04260 Overlook at West Hill Housing Dev Fund Corp 31 -87 Steinway Street , Suite 4 Astoria , NY 11103 Paleontological Research Institute 1259 Trumansburg Road Ithaca , NY' 14850 Carol Theobald P . O . Box 450 Ely , MN 55731 West Hill Cemetery Assoc . Attn : Kris Alling 111 Woolf Lane Ithaca , NY' 14850 Wayne & Shirley Woodward 169 Blakeslee Hill Road Newfield , NY 14867 Cayuga Medical Center Louis J . LoVecchio , Asst . Vice President 101 Harris B . Dates Drive Ithaca, NY' 14850 Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 3/ 16/09 Edward C . Marx , Commissioner Tompkins County Departments of • Planning and Public Works 121 E . Court Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Gary J . Stewart , Assistant Director Cornell University Government & Community Relations 110 Day Hall Ithaca , NY 14853 By depositing same enclosed in a post-paid addressed wrapper, 0 a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department with ' th St to Pf New York. Pau ette Terwilliger Sworn to before me this 9tYi day of March 2009 . Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New York No . o1 WH6052877 Tioga County & /0 Commission Expires December 26 — - l 4 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Paulette Terwilliger, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Deputy Town Clerk, 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 the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on March 16, 2009, commencing at 7 : 00 PM, as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of posting: March 6 2009 Date of publication: March 9, 2009 �\ Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of March 2009 . Notary Public ; CARRE WHITMORE Noiary Public , State of New York No . 01 WHc052877 Tior_la County Commission Expires December 26,446/ v L ` als .' Cf 1050 ; 131 Updike' Rd. Towri . of t Ithaca, .Tax Parcel No. s zoned11 o Property i- I zoned Low Density Resi- dential. (LDR) t f APPEAL of Cayuga Medi- i calCenter, r j Owner/Appellant; Louis- J. 1 LoVecchio, Agent, request- ing variances from the re- quirementsof Chapter iI 2211 Section 2216 i B(2)(b), of the -Town • of f Ithaca Sign Law, to be per- F mitted to maintain a sec- I, and free-standing sign at t 101 Harris B. 'Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel f, j No. 24.-3-2 . 1 , Property is d zoned Office Park Com- d mer6ol. (OPC) sf I A P P E A L of Daniela b i .Bociooga and Max I B u c k. h o I t Z -B I Owner/Appellant request- b 1� mg a variance from the re- B f uirements of Chapter t! 270, Article ' IX Section F --, , -I-, rV7 270-71 A, Front Yard s TOWN OF IIII THACA Depth. requirement, of the ZONING BOARD A Town of Ithaca Code, to I be permitted to 'construct i APPEALS - an addition that will en- I NOTICE OF PUBLIC- croach upon the front I HEARINGS pproperty ' line at 106 MONDAY, MARCH 16, Pineview Terrace, Town of 2009 Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. I 1 7:00 P.M. 51-1 -15. 24. Property is �a i direction of the Chair- zoned Medium Density y Residential. (MDR) man of the Zoning Board ;of HEREBY als . N '�OTICEhat IS Said Zoning Board of Ap- Hearings will be b ppeals will at said time the Zonin Board of A - 7:00 . p. m ., and ,said j 9 p place,' hear all matterr. r I ;peals of the Town of Ithaca 'support of such matters or , Ion Monday, March 16, objections thereto, Per- 2009, in Town Hall, 215 sons may appear by agent North Tioga Street, Tioga or in person. Individuals , Street Entrance, Ithaca; with visual . or hearing ' ;NY; COMMENCING AT impairments , or other spe- 7:00 P.M., on the follow- tial needs, as appropriate, ling matters: will be provided with assis +APPEAL of Robert N. and tante, as necessary upon I request. Persons c esinng `Virginia ' D. Powers, assistance must make such (Owner/Appellant, request- , a request not less than 48 jirg a use variance from hours prior to the time of the : reqquirements of Chap- the 'public hearing. ter 270, Article IX, Section II , 270.66; • - Permitted -Princi- Bruce W. Bates +pal We; 'of' the Town of Director of Code Enforce- _ Ithaca Code,,.to be permit- ment "{L ted a commercial use of a 607-273- 1783 'building located- at 1458 Dated: March .6, 2009 c Slatern le Rd. :Town of Itha- published: March 9, ICot Tax �Parcel l No.58.2- 2009 t28. Property .isLzoned Me- 3/9/2009 idium enstly Residential _ - ,- - —; i(MDR) where commercial j ` fuse is not permitted. j APPEAL of William S' (Desch, Owner/Appellant, e' Noel Desch, Agent, re- rr (questing ; a use variance ' R' from the requirements - of bi Chapter 270, Article VIII 1 jSection 270-54, Permitted B jPrincipal Use and Article 1 iXXVIISection . 270-220, + iBuildng floor Area, of the o Town. of . Ithaca Code, to a be permitted to construct a d Mand management camp at Tt � L j FILE DATE Zoning Board of Appeals ® 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Monday, March 16 , 2009 7 : 00 PM Present Board Members : Kirk Sigel (Chairperson ) , Harry Ellsworth , Ron Krantz , James Niefer, David Mountin , Susan Mann (alternate , excused at 7 : 25 p . m . ) . Staff Members : Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk ; Susan Brock , Attorney for the Town ; Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement ; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning . Others Noel Desch , Noel Shaff , Ed Boutros , Kate Doerge , Lou LoVecchio , Paul Levesque , Robert and Virginia Powers , Dirk Galbraith , Chris Anagnost , Marty McElwee , Max Buckholtz , Daniela Bocioaga . Call to Order Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p . m . He welcomed everyone to the March meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals and announced there were four appeals before the board . The appeals would be taken in the following order: 1 ) Daniela Bocioaga and Max Buckholtz ; 2 ) Cayuga Medical Center; 3) Robert and Virginia Powers ; 4) William Desch . ® APPEAL of Daniela Bocioaga and Max Buckholtz, Owner/Appellant requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX Section 270=71 A, Front Yard Depth requirement, of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an addition that will encroach upon the front property line at 106 Pineview Terrace , Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No . 53 . -1 -15 . 24. Property is zoned Medium Density Residential . ( MDR ) Daniela Bocioaga and Max Buckholtz came before the Board and Chairperson Sigel asked if they wanted to add anything to their packet information . The applicants did not have anything to add . Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Bates what he determined the required front yard setback to be . Mr. Bates explained that a 25 foot setback is required for the front yard and the proposed porch would encroach 6 feet into the setback . Chairperson Sigel noted that the front yard setback would then be reduced to approximately 19 feet . Board Member Mountin asked if the front entrance was the primary entrance to the house . Mr. Buckholtz indicated that it was . Board Member Niefer stated that he drove by the house and it looked as if it were undergoing a major interior renovation . He asked the applicants if the proposed front porch would be an enhancement to the property . Mr. Buckholtz and Ms . Bocioaga felt Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 16 , 2009 Final that it was . Board Member Niefer asked if the proposed porch was similar to other houses in the neighborhood . Ms . Bocioaga responded that the house across the street has a similar porch . Mr. Bates added that the same type of structure can be found throughout the neighborhood . He noted that if it weren 't for the variation in the road , the applicant probably would not need an area variance . Board Member Niefer agreed ; he felt the proposal was not inconsistent or detrimental to the neighborhood . With no further questions or comments , Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 11 p . m . and invited . the public to address the Board . There being none , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 12 p . m . Chairperson Sigel noted for the record that there was no SEQR review for the appeal . He then moved to grant the appeal of Daniela Bocioaga and Max Buckholtz with the conditions that the front yard setback be no less than 18 feet , that the porch be constructed as shown on plans submitted to the Board , and with the findings that all requirements of an area variance had been met , specifically listing how each criterion was satisfied . Board Member Niefer seconded the motion . Vote—Carried Unanimously . ZB 2009-006 APPEAL of Cayuga Medical Center, Owner/Appellants Louis J . LoVecchio, Agent, ® requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 -6 EI (2)(b)5 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , to be permitted to maintain a second free- standing sign at 101 Harris B . Dates Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24. -3- 2 . 1 , Property is zoned Office Park Commercial . (OPC) Lou LoVecchio and Paul Levesque appeared before the Board . Chairperson Sigel stated that the applicant was before the Board to "cleanup" the February approval . He then asked Attorney Brock if the appeal can be remedied by making changes to the February resolution . Attorney Brock recommended adopting a separate resolution for the appeal . Chairperson Sigel clarified that the Board was discussing sign " B" , which was the sign located along the private drive . He explained that the purpose of the appeal was to cleanup an inconsistency that Code Enforcement staff pointed out after the February meeting . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 18 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 18 p . m . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center with conditions on sign square footage and configuration , and finding that all requirements of a variance had been met , specifically listing how each criterion was met . Board Member Krantz seconded . Vote—Carried Unanimously , Page 2 of 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 16 , 2009 Final i ZB 2009 -007 APPEAL of Robert N . and Virginia D . Powers , Owner/Appellant, requesting a use variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270=66 , Permitted Principal Use , of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted a commercial use of a building located at 1458 Slaterville Rd . Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel No . 58 . -2-28 . Property is zoned Medium Density Residential ( MDR ) where commercial use is not permitted . Dirk Galbraith and Robert Powers came before the Board . Mr. Galbraith proceeded to explain the appeal and stated that the property was previously a non -conforming use . The building was originally constructed as a barn and during the 1950s it served as a paint store . He noted that there were a variety of other commercial uses in the building until the time Mr. and Mrs . Powers bought the building . In 2006 , Mr. and Mrs . Powers closed their business and retired . The downstairs portion of the building was not used for more than a year and as a result lost its grandfathered rights for commercial use . Mr. Galbraith explained that there are two residential apartments in the upstairs portion of the building , which continue to be rented . He stated that the rents from the apartment would not sustain the carrying costs of the building . Mr. and Mrs . Powers have attempted to sell the building , but have not been ® able to sell it in its current condition . Mr. and Mrs . Powers obtained an estimate from McElwee Builders for renovating the building into a residential building with an accessory apartment . They have also provided the Board with an economic analysis , which indicates that the cost of converting the building to a conforming use at this time is not economically viable . Mr. and Mrs . Powers would like to obtain a use variance for the building to permit the downstairs to be rented for office use , which requires minimal interior construction . Chairperson Sigel asked if Mr. Galbraith knew how many employees could reasonably work at the property . Mr. Galbraith thought 4 offices would be appropriate . Chairperson Sigel felt that 5 or 6 employees could work at the property . He thought the proposed use of the building was relatively light and would not generate a lot of visitors per clay . Mr. Galbraith agreed ; the proposed light office use typically does not attract walk- in customers . He added that the property has sufficient on -site parking . Chairperson Sigel asked what would be the hours and days of use . Mr. Galbraith responded that the professional office -type use they are thinking about is typically open Monday through Friday , 9 am to 5 pm . Mr. Powers proceeded with the presentation by explaining that he first visited the building in 1953 when it was Mandeville ' s Paint Store . The building later became a ® restaurant . During Mr. Powers ' s tenure on the Zoning Board , the Board denied permission for the restaurant to continue . The building then became offices and Page 3 of 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 16 , 2009 Final _ ® workshop for a homebuilder. Mr. Powers stated that he and his wife bought the building in 1973 and ran their business there from 1973 to 2006 . Their intent was to sell the building upon retirement , but they have not been able to do so . Mr. Powers then asked if the Board had any questions . Board Member Niefer asked who would be maintaining the exterior of the property . Mr. Powers responded that they presently farm landscaping services out . Board Member Niefer commented that the exterior is well - maintained . Mr. Powers stated that there is one gentleman who mows the yard and another gentleman takes care of the pruning . Chris Anagnost then came before the Board and stated that the Powers contacted him in May of 2007 to list the property for sale . He noted that it has been difficult to sell the property as a result of the economic downturn and the expiration of the grandfathered commercial use of the building . The building has been advertised extensively and the price has been reduced . Mr. Anagnost asked if it would be possible for a business in the building to have Saturday hours . Martin McElwee came before the Board and briefly explained the renovations that: would be needed in order to convert the lower section of the building into livable space . The% estimated cost of renovations was $334 , 415 . Chairperson Sigel thanked Mr. McElwee for his comments . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 40 p . m , and invited the public to address the Board . Kathleen Doerge came before the Board and stated that she did not oppose commercial use of the building , but wondered if the use variance would be a permanent variance . Chairperson Sigel said that it would be a permanent change and would go with future owners . Ms . Doerge expressed concern over retaining the row of trees that serves as a buffer between her backyard and the parking lot of the Powers ' building , and the possibility of a more intensive commercial use of the building . Chairperson Sigel responded that if the Board granted a variance , it probably would grant a variance that was specifically tailored to the current configuration . Ms . Doerge reiterated that it was important to her to retain the barrier of trees between the two properties . She thought that lighting may be a problem in the future depending upon the use of the building . Chairperson Sigel explained that the Town has an outdoor lighting law that governs glare from lights , how lights can be pointed , etc . Mr. Kanter added that any change of use of the building would trigger site plan review by the Planning Board . The Planning Board would look at site plan issues during its review . Chairperson Sigel asked if a change in tenant would trigger site plan review . Mr. Kanter responded not necessarily . He explained there was a provision in Town Code that requires site plan approval for any commercial use or change of commercial use for which no previous site plan exists . Chairperson Sigel confirmed that the Powers would need to receive initial site plan approval for commercial use of the building . The Page 4 of 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 16 , 2009 Final ® building would then need to come back for modified site plan approval if the use of the building changed . Board Member Krantz was supportive of the variance . He felt it was needed for at viable business , but that there needed to be restrictions put on use of the building . Board Member Mountin asked if the intended use was to sell the building or to redesign and lease it for office use . Chairperson Sigel thought the applicant would try to simultaneously lease and sell the building . Mr. Galbraith confirmed that was the ease . Board Member Niefer thought the Board should keep in mind that the applicant was asking for office occupancy . He added that it was reasonable and if a future owner wanted to do something different with the building they would need to come back to the Zoning Board for another variance . Board Member Niefer favored granting the variance with the restriction that its use relate to office occupancy . The Board then discussed the thresholds that trigger site plan review . Chairperson Sigel noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone else wished to address the Board . Li - Hung Lin came before the Board and stated that she tried to purchase the building ® several times in the past . She was not ready to buy the building at this point , but was planning to use it for a real estate agency . Ms . Lin thought the building was wonderful because of the large back parking lot , and the distance between the neighbors and the building . Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 59 p . m . and solicited comments and questions from the Board . He stated that the appeal was well -qualified for a use variance . He thought the applicant met all of the criteria for a use variance . Chairperson Sigel noted that a number of items on the SEQR form stated that there was not enough information for staff to make a recommendation . Mr. Kanter stated that if the Board decided to limit the use to office use , he looked up numbers from the Trip Generation Report that could be used for SEQR . The Institute of Transportation Engineer' s Trip Generation Report , 7th edition , volume 3 indicates that for general office use , the weekday peak am hour generation by employee is 0 . 48 vehicle trips per employee ; the weekday peak pm hour trip rate is 0 . 46 vehicle trips per employee . The daily weekday rate ( over a 24 hour period ) is 3 . 32 ,vehicle trips per employee . Mr. Kanter explained that if 6 employees were permitted on site then the Board could expect the following traffic impacts : weekday peak am hour -3 vehicle trips , weekday peak_ pm hour-3 vehicle trips , and approximately 19 vehicle trips per day total . Mr. Kanter noted that the estimated Saturday vehicle trips per day were much lower. He said that a typical single -family residence will generate approximately 10 trips per day . Page Ej of 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 16 , 2009 Final Chairperson Sigel thanked Mr. Kanter and turned to SEAR review of the appeal . Attorney Brock suggested that Chairperson Sigel modify Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form before the Board votes on SEQR . Chairperson Sigel agreed . Chairperson Sigel proposed the following changes to Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form : Cl : Traffic will not be a problem because the anticipated number of car trips per day is approximately 20 ( if the number of employees is limited to 6 or fewer for all offices in the building) , which on the State highway is a very small number to add to the highway . No changes in air quality , surface or groundwater quality , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems are anticipated . The anticipated noise level from the proposed office use will not exceed , and will likely be less than , the noise associated with previous businesses that were more of a retail nature . C2 : The property has been used as a commercial use for at least 50 years and that this use is less intensive than some of the uses in the past , and therefore will not constitute a change to the neighborhood character. In addition , one of the adjoining properties is a church and the property is located on a State highway . C3 : No changes . C4 : Change commercial use to office use . C5 : There is no anticipated growth subsequent to development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action because the Board will specifically limit what is allowed on the site . C6 : No additional long -term , short-term , cumulative or other affects not identified in C1 -05 . C7 : No other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy . The Board agreed to suggested changes . Chairperson Sigel then moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form as modified . Board Member Krantz seconded the motion . Vote—carried unanimously . ZB 2009 -008 Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Robert and Virginia Powers with conditions on business use , hours of operation , number of employees , vegetative screening , and site plan approval , and finding that all requirements of a use variance had been satisfied , specifically list how each criterion was met . Board Member Ellsworth seconded . Vote—carried unanimously . Page 6 of 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 16 , 2009 Final APPEAL of William Desch , Owner/Appellant, Noel Desch , Agent, requesting a use variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article VIII Section 270=54 , Permitted Principal Use and Article XXVII , Section 270=220 , Building Floor Area , of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to construct a land management camp at 131 Updike Rd . Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel No . 47. -1 - 11 . 4. Property is zoned Low Density Residential . ( LDR ) Noel Desch came before the Board and stated that his son , William , was retiring and moving back to the area . He would like to construct a land management camp at 131 Updike Road . The land management camp would be used by William as he prepares the land for building a house . William planned to establish a nursery , plant fruit trees and establish a vegetable garden on the property . Mr. Desch noted that a nursery is a permitted use in the zone . He added that there were no commercial activities planned in conjunction with the nursery . Mr. Desch further stated that the Adirondack Park; Agency Regulations for cabins permit a similar use . Mr. Desch outlined that the appeal meets the hardship criteria as follows : 1 ) The Zoning Ordinance does not allow the applicant as a non - resident to realize a return on his investment in the property until his home is constructed on it ; 2 ) The hardship is unique to the property and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood because it is already partially developed as a low density residential area ; 3) The propose use variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as documented in the three supporting letters from the nearest neighbors ; 4) The hardship is partially self-created due to the economy and the applicant ' s move the Ithaca . The location of the cabin is dictated by the applicant ' s desire to avoid crossing the creek . The hardship is also dictated by the availability of storage of raw materials in the cabin ; 5 ) The approval of the use variance will avoid growing or more serious hardships related to the cost of owning the land and by putting pressure on the owner to sell or subdivide the property . Noel Shaff appeared came before the Board and stated that William Desch is his uncle and he would like him to be able to move back to Ithaca . He said that William needed the camp in order to take care of his land and thanked the Board for their consideration . Mr. Desch then provided the Board with photographs of the proposed cabin , partially under construction . Chairperson Sigel expressed his concern with the cabin meeting building code requirements . He wondered what Mr. Desch 's plans were to bring the cabin up to code Page 7' of 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 16 , 2009 Final if need be . Mr. Desch referred . to the documentation in the packet from the Adirondack Park Agency , which specifically limits the requirements for compliance with New York State Building Code . He stated that the cabin is not considered to be a dwelling unit according to the Adirondack Park Agency technical bulletin . Attorney Brock asked if the regulations applied only to structures under the jurisdiction of the Adirondack Park Agency , Mr. Desch stated the regulations apply statewide , but Mr. Kanter did not believe that was the case . Attorney Brock and Mr. Desch continued to discuss whether the regulations applied to structures outside of the Adirondack Park area . Attorney Brock did not think it mattered because the Zoning Board did not interpret State regulations or definitions ; the Zoning Board needed to interpret the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance and determine whether the proposed structure would be considered a dwelling . She stated that the Board should be looking at the definition for dwelling and dwelling unit , finding out what is being proposed and whether it meets that definition . Mr. Desch stated that the application made clear that the structure was not intended to be a dwelling unit . Attorney Brock asked if people were intending to sleep in the structure and Mr. Desch said that William may upon occasion . Attorney Brock then asked if William would be eating at the structure and Mr. Desch responded that he may be eating outside . They tend to bring their lunch and eat while they' re working . The site ® would not have cooking facilities . Chairperson Sigel confirmed that there would not be food preparation or sanitation provisions . Board Member Niefer asked if it would be easier to deal with the question if the Board considered the structure a storage facility . He thought the issue was being clouded by calling it a camp . Mr. Desch stated that was the primary intent and why he made reference to it being a nursery . He called it a land management camp because tools and materials will be kept in the structure . Chairperson Sigel stated that if the structure was a shed normally associated with a house , then it would not be a permitted use because a shed is only allowed as an accessory use to a house . He noted that there is a permitted principle use of a nursery in the LDR zone . He confirmed that part of the property would be used as a nursery . Chairperson Sigel stated that in that case usual farm buildings would be permitted as part of a nursery as a principle use . Attorney Brock agreed and looked up to definition of nursery . She then asked if anything would be sold from the nursery because the definition of a nursery requires items to be sold . Mr. Desch replied no . Attorney Brock determined that it would not meet the definition of a nursery because trees and shrubs would not be sold in conjunction with being grown , cultivated or stored . Chairperson Sigel pointed out that the structure would be permitted in conjunction with any lawful farm purpose . Attorney Brock then reviewed and read the definition of a farm Page . 8 of 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 16 , 2009 Final to the Board . Chairperson Sigel noted that there would be fruit trees and a vegetable garden on the property . Board members agreed that the proposed structure would house tools needed in the cultivation of fruit trees and vegetables . Attorney Brock stated that the Board could entertain an interpretation that the property was a farm and then a use variance would not be needed . Chairperson Sigel noted that the building would still need to comply with State Code if the Board made that interpretation . Mr. Desch asked if a use variance would be granted to allow sleeping at the structure by calling it a farm camp . Chairperson Sigel did not think the appeal met the criteria for a use variance ; not getting a variance did not impose a financial hardship to the applicant if the variance was simply to allow sleeping in the structure a few nights per year. Mr. Desch stated that it would be permitted if the Adirondack Park regulations applied . Mr. Kanter was 99 % sure that the regulations did not apply outside the jurisdiction of the Adirondack Park . Attorney Brock reiterated that the Board was only making a determination of what the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance permits ; it does not have jurisdiction to interpret State Code . Mr. Desch thought it was important for the Board to research the applicability and the record with respect to the Adirondack Park Agency , Attorney Brock stated that under State building code sheds were classified as Group U occupancy . Chairperson Sigel stated that the Town would like to refer to the structure as a shed , which the State building code considered to be Group U occupancy. Mr. Kanter clarified that it was an agricultural shed on a farm . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 51 p . m , and invited the public to address the Board . Raymond Mayo came before the Board and stated that he managed the South Hill Cemetery , which abuts Mr. Desch Is property . He expressed concern regarding the location and size of the shed , and how much water it would shed . Mr. Mayo explained that there have been water problems in the past and wanted to know if it would create a greater watershed . Chairperson Sigel stated that the shed was less than 150 square feet and Mr. Desch clarified that the shed was located on the southeast side of Updike Road , which was a different drainage area than the parcel abutting the cemetery . Mr. Mayo was satisfied that his questions had been answered and . did not have a problem with construction of a shed . Ghoul Coleman came before the Board and expressed support for the appeal . He felt that there would be a positive residential impact and that the neighborhood would improve as a result of the shed . Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 56 p . m . and asked if there was further discussion or comments . Mr. Kanter pointed out that the shed was located at the top of a stream and that the Town was working on a new stream setback law . The provisions do not apply to the shed at this point , but he wanted the Board to know that the stream Page 9 of 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 16 , 2009 Final setback law would place restrictions on what landowners can do within designated stream setback areas . He noted that the shed may be located within what may become the designated stream setback area . The steep slopes in the area may also cause the stream setback buffer to be extended . Mr. Kanter added that the shed may require a Simple Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan , Mr. Desch asked Mr. Bates and Mr. Kanter to look at the site because he believed the shed complied with the new ordinance . Mr. Bates asked what type of foundation the shed had and what was on the ground before the shed was there . Mr. Desch stated that one tree within the footprint was cut down and two trees next to the footprint were cut down to be used in the construction of the shed . He noted that there was no change in grade and that the foundation was placed on igneous boulders . Mr. Bates explained that even though the structure was determined to be a shed , it was still subject to provisions of the Code . The Code states that the site is suppose to be properly graded so that water does not run into the foundation etc . He noted that grading may need to be done to keep the water from running under the building and into the footers . Chairperson Sigel stated that the Board did not need to complete SEQR review for an interpretation . He then moved that the Board determined that the property meets the definition of a farm and therefore the shed is an allowed use based upon the findings that fruit trees and organic vegetables will be grown on the property and the property is larger than 3 acres . Board Member Krantz seconded . Vote—carried unanimously . Mr. Desch asked if the Board would make reference to Group U occupancy . Attorney Brock stated that it was not in the Board ' s purview to do that . Chairperson Sigel agreed and stated that the Board did not have the power to determine the occupancy rating of a dwelling . Mr. Desch thought he heard that the occupancy rating of a' shed was Group U occupancy . Chairperson Sigel replied that the occupancy rating is stated in the State building code ; the Board was treating the structure as a shed for the purposes of making a finding that it was an allowed structure . He added that it was the Code Enforcement Officer that determined if a shed was Group U occupancy . Chairperson Sigel stated that if the Code Enforcement Officer determined that the shed was not Group U occupancy then Mr. Desch would need to appeal the determination to the State . Attorney Brock added that the Zoning Board 's interpretation goes back to the Code Enforcement Office and the Code Enforcement Officers were bound by the interpretation . Mr. Desch asked that the minutes reflect that since the property was considered a farm shed that the structure meets the building code requirements for Group U occupancy . Chairperson Sigel stated that the Board stated it was their belief that it would be Group U occupancy and reiterated that it wasn 't the Board ' s job to make that determination . Mr. Bates added that the occupancy was Group U under New York State Uniform Fire Page 10 of 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 16 , 2009 Final and Building Code ; however the Town ' s rules and regulations do not have a provision for determining State regulations . Mr. Desch thanked the Board . Adjournment With no further business , Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9 : 10 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ,A � arrie Coate' . hitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk Page 11 of 11 FILE 'S DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO , 2009=006 Area Variance Daniela Bocioaga and Max Buckholtz 106 Pineview Terrace Tax Parcel No . 53 . =1 -15 . 24 March 16 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Daniela Bocioaga and Max Buckholtz requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article IX Section 270- 71 A , Front Yard Depth requirement , of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to construct an addition that will encroach upon the front property line at 106 Pineview Terrace , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 53 . - 1 - 15 . 24 with the following : Conditions . 1 . That the front yard setback be no less than 18 feet , and 2 . That the front porch be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Findings . That this Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community . Specifically : 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve , that is a covered front entryway and the aesthetic enhancement of the front of their house , cannot be achieved by any other means feasible , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that other houses are similarly close to the road and have similar designs , 3 . That the request is not substantial , 4 . That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental affects , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , but never-the - less the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-006 PAGE 2 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer , Mountin NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca. , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of March 2009 . First Deputy own Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE e4k4b DATE 02.2 - 1y -7Jy7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO , 2009=007 Sign Variances Cayuga Medical Center 101 Harris B . Dates Dr Tax Parcel No . 24 . -3-2 . 1 March 16 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 -6 ( 13) (2 ) ( b ) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain a freestanding sign at 101 Harris B . Dates Dr, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 24 . -3-2 . 1 , Office Park Commercial Zone , with the following : Condition : 1 . That the sign , which is labeled Sign B on the Zoning Board ' s documents , be no greater than 40 square feet and be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant both at the February and March meetings of this Board . Findings : That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve does outweigh any detriment to the healthy , safety , and welfare of the community . Specifically : 1 . That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that a hospital must be well labeled with effective signage within the facility to direct people to the appropriate departments , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that there has been a sign similar to the proposed sign within the facility , which has not caused a problem , 3 . That the request is not substantial , 4 . That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental affects , 5 . That the alleged difficulty is self-created by the nature of the applicant being hospital , but never-the - less the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , 6 . That because the sign is located within 15 feet of the edge of the pavement of the private hospital drive , that Sign B has already received a variance pursuant to Town Code Section 221 - 7 (C) 4 , and ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-007 PAGE 2 7 . That the reflective material on Sign B is necessary for safe navigation of the hospital grounds and that it is a matter of public safety that the public be able to quickly locate the emergency department and other appropriate entrances at night , and 8 . That the granting of this variance is allowing a second freestanding sign on one tax parcel . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Mountin NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of March 2009 , LGkw 4 ? First Deputy own Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE �c _ DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2009=008 Environmental Assessment Use Variance Robert and Virginia Powers 1458 Slaterville Road Tax Parcel No . 58 . =2-28 March 16 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form as modified at the March 16 , 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer , Mountin NAYS : None : Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of March 2009 , 4UL First Deputy flown Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2009=009 ® Use Variance Robert and Virginia Powers 1458 Slaterville Road Tax Parcel No . 58 . -2-28 March 16 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Robert and Virginia Powers requesting a use variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article IX , Section 270 -66 , Permitted Principle Use , of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted an office use of a building located at 1458 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58 . -2 - 28 , with the following : Conditions . 1 . That the portion of the building used for office use not be expanded beyond what is currently configured for office use , which is to say the first floor and no portion of the second floor is to be used for office use , 2 . That there be no more than six (6 ) on -site employees ( including on -site owners) among the currently five (5 ) offices or however many are configured within the first floor space , 3 . That the normal hours of operation of whichever businesses are in there must be within the hours of 8 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday and 9 am to 5 pm on Saturday , 4 . That the office uses be limited to business professional , administrative , or governmental offices , but excluding a medical or dental clinic , not including any retail sales except for incidental sales related to the business , 5 . That the applicant maintain to the greatest extent possible the vegetative screening currently on the property that buffers the property from surrounding residential properties , and 6 . That site plan approval must be obtained for any initial occupants of the office space and that further changes in occupancy would be subject to the thresholds for possible subsequent site plan approval that are contained in the Town of Ithaca Code . Findings . 1 . That the applicant has shown that they cannot realize a reasonable return on the property for every allowed use and that this has been shown by competent Is financial evidence , namely that they have shown evidence from a builder of what it would cost to convert the property into an entirely residential use and that the ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-009 PAGE 2 cost of that amortized over a reasonable number of years would mean that the property would operate at a loss for those years , but that if the property is operated as office space as proposed by the applicant that the property would then provide a reasonable return , 2 . That the applicant has shown that the hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood , this property has been used for commercial purposes for at least 50 years and therefore makes it unique within the neighborhood , and the specific physical configuration of the first floor makes it very difficult to rent for residential purposes without substantial and costly renovations , 3 . That the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood given that the property is located next to a church , across the street from condominiums which have extensive traffic into and out of that development and on a busy State highway so the traffic and noise impacts of allowing this property to be converted to office use will not affect or alter the essential character of the neighborhood , and that the site has been used for commercial purposes for at least 50 years so continuing that at a lower level of intensity than has been permitted in the past will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood , and 4 . The alleged hardship was not self-created given that the applicant operated a Alk business here for many years as a legally nonconforming use and that upon retirement was not able to rent the property within the year allowed before the use expired , that was not a self-created situation . For all of the reasons stated above , that this Board finds that the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship for this property. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Mountin NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of March 2009 . , ® First Deputy - own Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2009-010 Interpretation William Desch 131 Updike Rd Tax Parcel No . 47. - 1 -11 . 4 March 16, 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that with regard to the appeal of William Desch regarding his property at 131 Updike Road , Tax Parcel No . 47 . - 1 - 11 . 4 , that this Board finds based on the materials submitted to this Board and testimony provided at the March 16 , 2009 meeting by the applicant' s agent that the proposed use of this property does meet the definition of a farm and therefore that the shed proposed by the applicant is an allowed structure on the property in connection with its use as a farm . To support this interpretation , this Board makes the findings : 1 . That the applicant plans to grow fruit trees on the property and the applicant stated a plan to do organic raising of vegetables , and 2 . That the parcel of land on which the shed is located exceeds three (3) acres . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Mountin NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of March 2009 . Gt;{� A/6'GU��G � First Deputy- own Clerk Town of Ithaca