HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2011-10-24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Monday, October 24, 2011
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca
7 : 00 P. M.
Appeal of Edward and Carlyn Buckler, owners, requesting a variance from the requirements of
Chapter 270, Section 270-60E "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow an
accessory building in the front yard , located at 233 Troy Rd , Tax Parcel No. 46. - 1 -23, Low
Density Residential .
Appeal of James and Trina Bruno, owners , requesting a variance from the requirements of
Chapter 270, Section 270-60C "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted
to maintain an existing garage within the required side yard setback located at 1 .93 King
Rd E , Tax Parcel No . 44. -M , Low Density Residential .
Appeal of Ted Caldwell and Marne Einarson , owners, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=223A( 1 ) "Fences and Walls , Retaining Walls" of the
Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install a fence greater than 6 feet in height located at
202 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70.- 1 - 12 , Medium Density Residential .
Appeal of Cornell University, owner, Thomas P. LiVigne, agent, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-59 "Height Limitations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to
be permitted to construct a telecommunications tower (monopole);that exceeds the height
limitation , located on the north side of Dryden Road (NYS Route 366) opposite the intersection
with Game Farm Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65= 1 -5.2, Low Density Residential Zone .
The proposal involves the construction of a 130 +/- foot tall monopole to accommodate three
separate wireless communication antennas, with a 10 +/w foot omni-whip antenna on the top of
the tower, creating an overall height of approximately 140 feet.
Appeal of Ithaca Realty, LLC , owner, James and McKenzie Jones- Rounds, applicants,
requestion a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 144 "Permitted
Principle Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to operate a biodiesel production
business located at 614 Elmira Rd , Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-2.42, Light Industrial.
Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs, upon request. Requests should
be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings.
Bruce W . Bates
Director of Code Enforcement
607-273- 1783
Dated : October 12, 2011
Published: October 14, 2011
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SIGN - IN SHEET
DATE : October 24 , 2011
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS / AFFILIATION
1 se4 � s , eh « v
FILE
DATE
ZONING BOARD of APPEALS
Monday, October 24, 2011
7 : 00 p. m .
Board Members Present: Kirk Sigel , Chair; Jim Niefer, Ron Krantz , and Bill King .
Excused : Dave Mountin .
Staff Present: Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for
the Town ; Carrie Coates Whitmore ; Deputy Town Clerk.
Others : Edward Buckler, Paul Harris , Isaac Spencer, Tom Murray, James and
McKenzie Jones- Rounds , Shirley Egan , Sarah Dean , Ted Caldwell , Jim Bruno , Kevin
Feeney.
Call to Order
Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 :04 p . m .
Appeal of Edward and Carlyn Buckler, owners, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=60E "Yard Regulations" of the Town of
Ithaca Code to allow an accessory building in the front yard, located at 233 Troy
Rd, Tax Parcel No. 46.=1 -23, Low Density Residential .
Ed Buckler appeared before the board . Mr. Buckler explained that the proposed
accessory building is in character with the neighborhood . It is located below road
grade . He went on to explain that it is an open shed and that they do not have a good
way in the wintertime to get into the backside of the house . Chairperson Sigel asked if
the structure is currently on the property without a roof. Mr. Buckler said that it was.
Mr. Bates explained that the structure was discovered during the building permit
application process . Mr. Buckler removed the roof so that the wood shed was not
considered a building until a variance was granted .
Chairperson Sigel commented that Mr. Buckler did a thorough job completing the
application form . He asked the board if they had any questions; there were none .
Chairperson Sigel stated that the building is well screened from the road . It is below the
road so it did not seem to be very noticeable . He didn't think that the neighbors would
be able to see it very much , if any.
SEOR
Attorney Brock explained that the action is a Type II action and therefore , SEAR review
is not needed .
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 07 p . m . and solicited comments from
the public . There being none , he closed the public hearing at 7 : 07 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel moved to grant appeal the appeal of Edward and Carlyn Buckler to
allow an accessory building in the front yard , located at 233 Troy Rd , with conditions on
the location and construction of the accessory building , and finding that all criteria of an
area variance had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was met. Mr.
Niefer seconded . Vote--CU
ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -050: Area Variance. Edward and Carlen Buckler, 233 Trov
Rd. Tax Parcel No. 46. = 1 -23
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Edward and Carlyn Buckler,
requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-60E "Yard
Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow an accessory building in the front yard,
located at 233 Troy Rd, Tax Parcel No. 46. - 1 -23, Low Density Residential, with the
following.
Conditions:
1 . That the woodshed be built as indicated on the plans submitted by the
applicant, and
2. That the woodshed be located in the location approximately where indicated
on the plans submitted by the applicant.
Findings:
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 cannot be met by any other
means feasible given the fairly steep slope of the applicant's lot. The rear
and side yards are difficult to utilize for a woodshed,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given the extensive screening from the road and from
neighboring properties at this location. In addition, the shed's location below
the road grade reduces its visual impact from the road,
3. That while the request is substantial, siting an accessory building in the front
yard where it is not allowed, nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does
outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community,
Page 2 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Finai
4. That physical or environmental effects are not anticipated, and
5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicant's desire to
install a woodshed, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh
any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, and King
NAYS: None.
Motion was carried unanimously.
Appeal of James and Trina Bruno, owners, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=60C "Yard Regulations" of the Town of
Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing garage within the required
side yard setback located at 153 King Rd E, Tax Parcel No. 44.-2-6, Low Density
Residential.
Jim Bruno appeared before the board and asked for clarification as to why he needed to
come before the board for a reroofing building permit. Chairperson Sigel explained that
building permits cannot be issued to properties out of compliance with zoning . Mr.
Bates stated that the 1964 survey indicates that the property met setback requirements
at that time . The current survey indicates that setback requirements are not met.
Chairperson Sigel added that it is not uncommon for a property to go many years
without the issue being discovered .
SEAR
Chairperson Sigel noted that SEQR is not needed because it is a Type II action .
Chairperson Sigel solicited questions from the board . Mr. Krantz commented that the
house has been in existence for 40 years .
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 15 p . m . and invited the public to
address the board . There being none , he closed the public hearing at 7 : 15 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of James and Trina Bruno to be permitted
to maintain an existing garage within the required side yard setback located at 153 King
Rd E , with the condition that no further construction take place within the setback and
finding that all criteria of an area variance had been met, specifically listing how each
criterion was satisfied . Mr. Krantz seconded . Vote—CU .
ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =051 : Area Variance, James and Trina Bruno, 153 King Rd E,
Tax Parcel No. 44. =2=6
Page 3 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Ron Krantz.
RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of James and Trina Bruno, requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-60C "Yard Regulations" of
the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing garage within the
required side yard setback located at 153 King Rd E, Tax Parcel No. 44. -2-6, Low
Density Residential Zone, with the following:
Condition:
1 . That no further structure be built within the required setback without a
variance from this Board.
Findings:
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, which is to maintain the
existing structure, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given this property's existence for more than 40 years,
3. That while the request is substantial, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant
does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
community,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given
that it does not involve any new construction, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the applicant's
purchase of this property was well after it was built.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, and King
NAYS: None.
Motion was carried unanimously.
Appeal of Ted Caldwell and Marne Einarson , owners, requesting a variance from
the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=223A(1 ) " Fences and Walls;
Retaining Walls" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install a fence
greater than 6 feet in height located at 202 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70.-1 =12,
Medium Density Residential .
Page 4 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Ted Caldwell appeared before the board and Chairperson Sigel stated that Mr. Caldwell
was proposing to fence in part of his yard . The deer fence portion of the proposal
complies with zoning .
Attorney Brock asked if the supports for the deer fence were greater than 8 feet in
height ; Mr. Caldwell indicated they were not and explained that the deer fence would
have metal posts . He clarified that all posts would be a maximum of 8 feet in height.
Attorney Brock did not think the board would need to grant a variance for the deer fence
portion of the proposed fence because up to 8 feet is allowed for a deer fence . Mr.
Caldwell was certain that no portion of the deer fence would be greater than 8 feet high .
Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Caldwell to explain his motivation for the non -deer fence
portion of the fence . Mr. Caldwell stated that the primary reason for the fence is for
deer exclusion . He understood that 6 feet is not a challenge for deer to jump over so he
wanted to make the fence as high as possible to maximize the chances of excluding
deer. Privacy was the secondary motivation for the fence . Mr. Caldwell went on to say
that they have a pleasant view through where the wood fence would be so they would
like to preserve as much of that as possible .
Chairperson Sigel asked why Mr. Caldwell didn't want to use the allowable deer fence
around the entire perimeter. Mr. Caldwell stated it is for aesthetic reasons . The two
sides of the property that has the proposed deer fence are fairly wooded and the deer
fence will blend in . He added that if the variance is not granted , then he would install
deer fence around the perimeter instead . His other alternative would be a solid wood
designed fence if he could only build the fence 6 feet high because deer are less likely
to jump over something if they are not able to see the other side .
Chairperson Sigel noted that the wooden fence appears to be 50 percent open . Mr.
Caldwell agreed and said that the panels are 3 inch boards on 3 inch spacing . He
added that another consideration for the proposed fence is that it looks more open when
viewed at an angle .
Chairperson Sigel stated that Mr. Caldwell collected the signatures of several neighbors
supporting his variance request. He asked if the neighbor abutting the wooden fence
signed the petition . Mr. Caldwell said that he did ; his address is 204 Muriel St.
Chairperson Sigel solicited questions from the board and staff. Attorney Brock asked
for the distance between the sewer easement and the backline of the fence . Mr.
Caldwell estimated 10 feet from the center of the easement. Attorney Brock explained
that the typical easement is 10 feet centered on the line . She suggested that he not
build the fence on top of the easement line because if the sewer needs to be dug lup ,
then the fence would be removed .
Mr. Caldwell understood that it was up to property owners to make sure that the fence
was placed appropriately within property lines . Attorney Brock replied that is correct
Page 5 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
and went on to say that it is up to the individual installing the fence to make sure the
fence does not encroach onto the neighbor' s property. Mr. Bates added that Mr.
Caldwell might want to leave enough room to maintain the fence because he is required
to maintain it once it is built. Mr. Caldwell asked what a reasonable space would be ,
Mr. Bates said that it was up to Mr. Caldwell , but the Code generally figures that the
average person can fit within 18 inches . He tries to tell people to keep a lawnmower
width .
Chairperson Sigel added that there are a lot of people in the town that build their fences
approximately on the property line . Mr. Caldwell explained that his plan was to put the
wood fence just inside the property line . He thought it would be best to discuss it with
his neighbor and come to an understanding .
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 :29 p . m . and invited the public tc
address the board . There being no on , he closed the public hearing at 7 :29 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Ted Caldwell and Marne Einarson to be
permitted to install a fence greater than 6 feet in height located at 202 Muriel St, with
conditions on fence construction and location , and finding that all criteria of an area
variance had been met, specifically listing how each criterion was satisfied . Mr. Niefer
seconded . Vote—CU .
ZB RESOLUTION 2011-052: Area Variance, Ted Caldwell and Marne Einarson, 202
Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70. = 1 - 12
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Ted Caldwell and Marne Einarson
requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-223A ( 1)
"Fences and Walls; Retaining Walls" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to
install a fence greater than 6 feet in height located at 202 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70. -
1 - 12, Medium Density Residential Zone, with the following.
Conditions.
1 . That no portion of the fence be greater than 8 feet in height,
2. That the wooden portion of the fence have a minimum openness of 45
percent,
3. That the fence be built substantially as shown on the plans submitted by the
applicant, and
4. That no portion of the fence be built within the sewer easement located in the
rear yard.
Page 6 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safely; and
welfare of the community, specifically:
i . That while some of the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve could be
achieved by other means, which is to say a compliant deer fence, that a
portion of the applicant's benefit is to provide some screening and that portion
of their plan cannot be met by any other means feasible,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given the support of many of the neighbors, including, the
immediate neighbors,
3. That while the request is substantial, allowing an 8 foot fence where only a 6
foot fence would be allowed, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant
does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects,
5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created, the benefit to the applicant
does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community, and
6. That the portion of the fence that is a deer fence is compliant with the Code
and does not require a variance provided it does not exceed 8 feet in height.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, and King
NAYS: None.
Motion was carried unanimously.
Appeal of Cornell University, owner, Thomas P. LiVlgne, agent, requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=59 " Height
Limitations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a
telecommunications tower (monopole) that exceeds the height limitation , located
on the north side of Dryden Road (NYS Route 366) opposite the intersection with
Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65=1 -5.2, Low Density
Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a 130 +/= foot tall
monopole to accommodate three separate wireless communication antennas,
with a 10 +/= foot omni-whip antenna on the top of the tower, creating an overall
height of approximately 140 feet.
Paget 7 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Sarah Dean and Kevin Feeney appeared before the board . Ms . Dean introduced the
individuals with her—Kevin Feeney , Shirley Egan , Tom Bauw, and representatives from
AT&T, T= Mobile and Verizon .
Ms . Dean gave PowerPoint presentation outlining the project and materials submitted to
the board .
Chairperson Sigel asked what was happening with the current water tank. Ms . Dean
indicated that the water tank is being removed ; it was replaced with the water tank on
Hungerford Hill . Attorney Brock explained that it was a condition of the Planning
Board' s approval of Cornell' s water tank project that the water tank be removed .
Chairperson Sigel confirmed that the tank was already out of use for water purposes.
Mr. Bates asked about the building within the fall zone . Ms . Dean noted that it is a
metal storage shed that will be removed . Attorney Brock thought that it looked like two
buildings within the fall zone . Ms . Dean clarified that the area that looks like a building
is a concrete pad for parking .
Chairperson Sigel solicited questions from the board and staff. Mr. Bates asked for the
elevation of the monopole with the antennas compared to the existing water tank with
antennas .
Mr. Feeney explained that the three carriers operate at the same frequency band on the
water tank because they have physical separation between the transmitters and
receivers of each carrier to keep from interfering with each other. The water tank
affords the ability to mount the antennas around the curve to get away from each other.
That separation cannot be achieved on the monopole so the antennas need to be
stacked . The minimum stacking distance between carriers is 12 feet. The height of the
monopole was driven by the minimum height of the carrier the bottom could accept,
then 12 feet above and 12 feet above .
Mr. Bates concluded that the monopole and antennas would be higher than the current
level .
Mr. Krantz stated that the proposal is an obvious commercial enterprise that is being
built on Cornell land , which is not taxed . He asked if there was any benefit to the Town
associated with the project.
Shirley Egan explained that Cornell requires that the carriers pay taxes as part of their
license agreements . Ms . Dean added that the tower sites are taxed and it is reflected in
the Assessment Department records . Attorney Brock stated that the FCC has
determined that there is a public benefit to having the carriers . She said that there is a
presumed benefit to Town residents and people traveling through that they' ll be able to
use the services .
Page 8 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Chairperson Sigel asked if the area of the tower would be a separate tax parcel number.
Ms . Whitmore explained that the Assessment Department codes the tax parcel number
to allow for the cell tower to be taxed .
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 58 p . m . and invited the public to
address the board . There being none , he closed the public hearing at 7 : 58 p . m .
SEAR
Chairperson Sigel moved to make negative determination of environmental significance
based on the information in the Part I Short Environmental Assessment Form and for
the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form completed by Town
staff. Seconded by Jim Niefer, Vote--CU
ZB RESOLUTION 2011-053: Environmental Assessment, Cornell University,
Dryden Rd (opposite the intersection with Game Farm Rd), Tax Parcel No. 65. = 1-5.2
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental
significance based on the information in the Part I Short Environmental Assessment
Form and for the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form
completed by Town staff.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, and King
NAYS: None.
Motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Cornell University to be permitted to
construct a telecommunications tower ( monopole) that exceeds the height limitation ,
located on the north side of Dryden Road ( NYS Route 366) opposite the intersection
with Game Farm Road , with conditions on height, construction of tower and shed ,
approval by the Planning Board , and finding that all criteria of an area variance had
been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was satisfied .
ZB RESOLUTION 2011-054: Area Variance, Cornell University, Dryden Rd (opposite
the Intersection with Game Farm Rd), Tax Parcel No. 65. 41 5.2
.MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-59 "Height Limitations" of
the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a telecommunications tower
Page 9 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
(monopole) that exceeds the height limitation, located on the north side of Dryden Road
(NYS Route 366) opposite the intersection with Game Farm Rd, Tax Parcel No. 65. - 1 -
5. 2, Low Density Residential zone. The proposal involves the construction of an
approximate 130 foot tall monopole to accommodate three separate wireless
communication antennas with an approximate 10 foot omni-whip antenna on the top of
the tower, creating an overall height of approximately 140 feet, with the following:
Conditions:
1 . That the height of the monopole be no greater than 135 feet,
2. That the overall height, including the omni-whip antenna, be no greater than
145 feet,
3. That the shed identified on the plans submitted by the applicant be removed
to satisfy the fall zone,
4. That all construction of the monopole and associated equipment sheds and
other items identified on the plans submitted by the applicant be built as
indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant, and
5. That the applicant receives final site plan approval from the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board.
Findings:
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 cannot be achieved by any
other means feasible given the evidence presented by the applicant for the
available locations for such a tower. The location the applicant wishes to use
would appear to be the best-suited, both to meet the needs of the
telecommunications companies and to minimize the visual impact from
nearby view sheds. The Town 's telecommunications law encourages
collocation and the height of the tower is driven in part by the need for vertical
separation and there will be three carriers collocated on this facility, which
provides an advantage over having multiple towers constructed at multiple
locations,
2. That while an antenna and tower of this size will cause some change in the
neighborhood character or to nearby properties, nevertheless the benefit
does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
community,
Page 10 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
3. That while the request is substantial, the benefit does outweigh any detriment
to the health, safety and welfare of the community,
4. That while the request will have some adverse physical or environmental
effects, largely being on the viewshed, the benefit to the applicant does
outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community,
and the tradeoff of removing the water tower and erecting the new tower is a
positive benefit for the view shed from the Newman Bench at the Cornell
Plantations, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created by the need for these
telecommunications companies to provide appropriate coverage, but this
board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, and King
NAYS: None.
Motion was carried unanimously.
Appeal of Ithaca Realty, LLC, owner, James and McKenzie Jones=Rounds,
applicants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section
270=144 " Permitted Principle Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to
operate a biodiesel production business located at 614 Elmira Rd, Tax Parcel No.
33.-3-2.42, Light Industrial .
McKenzie & James Jones= Rounds appeared before the board and gave an overview of
the proposed use . Mr. Jones- Rounds explained that they were looking to bring the
operations of Ithaca Biodiesel Cooperative to the site at 614 Elmira Rd . The site is
currently zoned light industrial and it does not accommodate a refinery process.
Mr. Jones= Rounds explained that the process of making biodiesel involves the storage
of chemicals , the mixing of chemicals , and the storage of the final product. These
activities are increasingly regulated , which he thought was to the benefit of everyone .
He went on to say that the Ithaca Biodiesel Cooperative is also interested in using the
property as a distribution site as well .
Chairperson Sigel asked if the use would entail retail distribution . Would there be
vehicles driving into the property to purchase one vehicle's worth of fuel ? Mr. Jones-
Rounds responded that that would be a substantial part of their plan . He went on to say
that part of the operation would include bulk distribution away from the site to
customers .
Page 11 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Chairperson Sigel followed up by asking for the anticipated volume of production . Mr.
Jones- Rounds projected production to be between 6 , 000 and 10 , 000 gallons per month .
He explained that some seasons would be heavier than others such as potential
applications to home heating .
Chairperson Sigel stated that if the applicant produced 10 , 000 gallons per month , it
would be approximately 500 gallons per business day. He estimated that to result in 20
to 30 fill- ups per day of single vehicle tanks .
Ms . Jones- Rounds added that they were anticipating 50% of their sales would be bulk
orders that are delivered from them to the site . She did not imagine as much as 20 to
30 individual vehicles every day. Chairperson Sigel followed up by asking for the
capacity of a typical bulk sale . Mr. Jones- Rounds stated that it would be a typical tanker
truck, which is approximately between 10 , 000 and 20 , 000 gallons. He explained that in
the biodiesel industry, it is woven in with the petroleum diesel industry because very few
customers use B100, which is the name for 100% biodiesel . Typical , splash blending is
done , which means a tanker will fill an empty tank with 5% biodiesel and fill the rest in
with diesel . For example , a B5 (5% biodiesel) order to fill a tanker that was 109000
gallons would be 500 gallons of biodiesel . The bulk sales would result in a tanker
coming into the site .
Mr. Niefer asked for the location of the storage tanks for produced biodiesel . He
wondered if there would be interior or exterior storage . Mr. Jones- Rounds explained
that biodiesel in Ithaca means indoor storage . The biodiesel gels at freezing
temperatures ; it flows normally when blended with diesel . Mr. Niefer asked if the)
building was sufficient to have storage tanks of that size and the production equipment.
Mr. Jones- Rounds thought that was a good point and commented that they would
probably be limited to 2 , 000 gallons of on site storage . They do have opportunities to
have heated outdoor storage tanks if they choose to make that investment, but he felt
that would involve further discussions with the board .
Mr. Niefer asked if any part of the operation proposed would take place outside the
building . Ms . Jones- Rounds explained that none of the processing of biodiesel would
take place outside of the building , but fueling of the cars or filling a tanker would happen
outside of the building .
Mr. Krantz stated that the goals of recycling and the relatively small capacity, the: safe
guards that are built in are all admirable , but the big question for him was the statement,
"the production of biodiesel requires hazardous chemicals, storage , chemical
processes, and fuel storage ." He commented that this location is on the Elmira (Road
just outside of the city limits with an unbelievable amount of traffic going by all the time .
He thought it was a hard thing to get over and approve .
Ms . Jones- Rounds explained that the cooperative as it has stood in a previous
existence , existed between 4 and 5 years in Enfield holding the same chemicals , storing
Page 12 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
the same fuels and there were never any spills or accidents . Their facility in Enfield was
appropriately zoned by the Town of Enfield .
Mr. Krantz asked about the rest of the country and if there have been spills with other
operations countrywide . Ms . Jones- Rounds responded that there are other facilities
around the country. Mr. Jones- Rounds added that there are accidents as with any
serious production involving the storage of chemicals—fire and explosions are the main
concern and then second or superseding that are spills . He went on to say that the
spilling of oil or biodiesel certainly has a negative impact on the environment and
explained that biodiesel degrades in less than a month . It biodegrades , however, into
oils that can coat wildlife similar to petroleum , except petroleum is not part of the
biodiesel or vegetable oil risk. He explained that there is a clean up process and it is
classified as a hazardous waste . Given those considerations and the desire of the
biodiesel industry to move forward and be a legitimate and profitable venture , there is
an entire sub industry of products that cater to the safety needs of storing methanol ,
biodiesel and vegetable oil .
Mr. Niefer asked if any part of the proposal , the engineering side for example , been
reviewed by an engineer that would be involved in the design of the project and meeting
the federal , state , and local codes and ordinances . Mr. Jones- Rounds agreed that it is
a substantial venture and explained that John Valvalow is the vice-president of Northern
Biodiesel . Northern Biodiesel is the largest biodiesel operation in the state . Mr.
Valvalow will be involved with the design of their facility and will be significantly involved
in the project. He has received a referral to an engineer to do a lot of the work that
would be required to meet the NTSA and NEC requirements for a refinery regarding the
storage of flammable liquids .
Chairperson Sigel stated that the manufacturing or storage of explosives and gas , oils
and other flammable or petroleum products is listed as prohibited in the industrial zone ,
which is the more permissive zone . Mr. Bates cautioned Chairperson Sigel on the
definition of flammable versus combustible . He explained that there is a difference
within the wording within the building code and the fuel gas code . Attorney Brock asked
if this would be considered an explosive . Mr. Bates responded that it would be
considered a combustible . A combustible will ignite and spontaneous burn , a
flammable will burn , but has to have a flame to start it and keep it going . He explained
that a combustible will not explode unless it is under pressure ; it will burn , but it takes a
lot to get it to the point to burn . The ignition temperature of the product determines its
rating .
Attorney Brock asked Mr. Bates if he would consider this process to not fall under the
prohibition against the manufacturing or storage of explosives, and gas , oil and other
flammables or petroleum products . Chairperson Sigel stated that Mr. Bates' point is
that it is a combustible and not a flammable . Mr. Bates added that it also is not a
petroleum product, an explosive or a gas .
Page 13 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Chairperson Sigel commented that even if the operation fell under the prohibition , he did
not think it would necessarily be prohibitive of a favorable approval . He thought Mr.
Bates made a good point and he tends to agree that it would not actually be prohibited
in an industrial zone . Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Bates if he would interpret the
proposal as an allowable use in an industrial zone . Mr. Bates said that he would .
Chairperson Sigel solicited comments from the board . Mr. King asked if there were
other chemicals involved besides the methanol , ethanol , and glycerin . Mr. Jones'
Rounds added sodium hydroxide to the list Mr. King mentioned . He went on to say that
there are two other main categories of chemicals that could be involved in the further
refining of the biodiesel once it is produced in the case that the batch does not come out
right. He explained that there is tinkering that can be done with a strong acid or a drying
compound , which is basically a resin that the biodiesel is passed through to remove any
unconverted fatty acids . They have not ever used acid treatment in the past, but it has
been used with other operations .
Mr. King asked what would be 'the most dangerous chemical used in the process . Mr.
Jones- Rounds thought methanol would be the most dangerous. Mr. King wondered if it
was alcohol . Mr. Jones- Rounds explained that it is a simpler molecule than ethanol and
is more toxic so it has both a combustible and health hazard associated with it. Mr.
King followed up by asking about the volume of methanol on site . Mr. Jones- Rounds
explained that if they made a 1 , 000 gallon batch of biodiesel , it would involve
approximately 800 gallons of vegetable oil and 200 gallons of methanol . He said that
the methanol is usually sent in 55 gallon drums and intrinsically safe pumping is used to
prevent any sparks . He estimated that there would be a regular delivery of a couple
hundred gallons of methanol . It would be something born upon their specific process
design as to how much they attempt to make at once .
Mr. King asked if the 55 gallon drums would be stored inside . Mr. Jones- Rounds
planned to store them inside . He went on to explain that they had a separate shed with
steel piping going into the main facility at their previous site . He was not sure what
would be involved with proposing a separate structure on the site .
Mr. Bates explained that anything that was done as part of the operations would have to
meet the building code . The building code has requirements about how much can be
stored inside .
Mr. King asked for the federal code or requirement for refineries . Mr. Jones- Rounds
explained that it depends upon the scope . EPA 40CFR79 is for registering fuel and Part
80 is for registering for a refinery. DEC Part 360 applies if collecting oil . He stated that
they were considering the possibility of contracting with an oil collector to avoid the
requirement of being considered a solid waste handler. The DEC would bear on them
in the storage of hazardous chemicals and registering their storage tanks . He was not
sure if a SPDES permit would apply.
Page 14 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Attorney Brock questioned the need for a SPDES permit. She asked if they would have
a wastewater discharge going to a surface or subsurface water. Mr. Jones- Rounds
explained that one of the best practices , and legal requirements , is to prevent any
glycerin or oil being discharged , especially from an industrial scale facility such as this.
The reclamation of glycerin and wash water requires some storage of that waste and
then the disposal of that waste in an appropriate manner. He said that there are often
recycling purposes for the glycerin and the wash water would involve contracting with a
used renderer. Mr. Jones- Rounds explained that wash water is part of the cleaning of
the biodiesel after the initial chemical reaction . He equated it to bathwater; it settles out
after the body soil is made and then rinsed . The rinse water in inappropriate facilities is
sent down the drain . In appropriate facilities , such as their operation , it involves
contracting with a rendering company to remove it. That will require them to store wash
water as well .
Attorney Brock wondered why Mr. Jones- Rounds thought he needed a SPDES permit
because the permit would be for an actual discharge into the environment. Mr. Jones-
Rounds said that they may not need it, but it seemed best practice to him to have it. He
reiterated that they have no intention of sending their waste down into surface water.
Mr. Jones- Rounds stated that he will need to learn more about whether or not they will
need to have that permit given their waste disposal methods.
Attorney Brock asked where the waste would be tanked off site to . Mr. Jones- Rounds
stated that wastewater treatment plants are best suited for handling the wastewater.
Attorney Brock wondered if he had talked to any of the wastewater plants in the area.
Mr. Jones- Rounds responded no .
Chairperson Sigel asked what happened to the wastewater in their previous facility. Mr.
Jones- Rounds explained that Cayuga Compound handled all of their liquid waste ,
including the oil that they did not want. The glycerin was used to make soap .
Chairperson Sigel asked what was done with the waste . Mr. Jones- Rounds believed
that the waste was composted in an appropriate percentage in the rest of their organic
manner. He did not know if that would be feasible at the scale they are aiming for.
Ms . Jones- Rounds returned to the question of certification . She explained that the
American Society for Testing and Measurements , ASTM , has a certification for
biodiesel , which they plan to get. It requires a third party engineer to come on site or for
them to send the fuel away after they have made it. The National Biodiesel Board has a
certification for biodiesel that is meant to be sold for vehicles .
Mr. King asked if that was something they had to have or if it was something they
aspired to have . Ms . Jones- Rounds state that the National Biodiesel Board certification
is something that they aspire to have , but the ATM certification is required in order to
sell to individual vehicles. EPA registration is also required to sell fuel .
Mr. Niefer asked if the project will generate any odors in the neighborhood . Ms. Jones-
Rounds did not believe it would generate any odors into the neighborhood . She thought
Page 15 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
the building itself might smell like vegetable oil , but they have never experience any
odors .
Mr. Niefer stated that he was sympathetic to the intent of the reprocessing and aspects
of the environmental component , but was uncomfortable as far as the site plan and
usage and so forth . He commented that the board only has a thumbnail sketch of the
use of the building ; he felt that things were not that clear to him as to what was going to
be taking place . He wondered about the exterior appearance of the building , the
coming and going of trucks and transportation equipment , outdoor storage , etc . Mr.
Niefer was unsure if those were issues for the board to discuss at this point . He stated
that he was uncomfortable about it, but was not against the concept—just unsure as to
how it would shake out 3-5 years from now.
Chairperson Sigel thought Mr. Niefer had legitimate concerns. He said that one of the 4
criteria the board has to evaluate is whether or not the requested variance will alter the
character of the neighborhood . He thought some of Mr. Niefer's concerns fell under that
criterion , whether the chemical deliveries and the activities associated with the use
would alter the character of a light industrial zone .
Ms . Jones- Rounds commented that the character would be changed , but believed that it
would be changed in positive way. She felt that the outdoor appearance of the building
would be improved by them occupying it and maintaining it. She did not think that they
would add a lot of traffic to an already busy road , but thought that they would provide a
fueling place for people commuting along the road . Chairperson Sigel agreed that the
traffic to the site would not add a significant amount of traffic to the road .
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 39 p . m . and invited the public to
address the board .
Isaac Spencer spoke in support of the appeal . He felt it was important for society to
move towards more renewal and green sources of energy and that biodiesel is one way
to do that. He thought it would be phenomenal to have a local source of biodiesel .
Ithaca would serve as an example for other places in the country to start doing it
themselves . Mr. Spencer went on to say that petroleum products are bad for the
environment, especially since it comes from overseas and has to be shipped to the
United States . He added that the project would be good for the local economy. It is
good to have things that are used on a day-to-day basis coming from the local
economy. Everyone living in the area can be enriched by the project.
Tom Murray, property broker, appeared before the board and stated that he has been
working with the Ithaca Biodiesel Cooperative to find a location in the area. He said that
they have looked at various sites and 614 Elmira Road fits the use of what they ,are
looking to do at this point in time . On a side note , he thought that this would be a great
gateway business for Ithaca to have . Ithaca Biodiesel Cooperative is taking the first
steps in what could be another Ithaca Beer Company.
Page 16 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Mr. Murray went on to say that he has not had in -depth conversations about what the
group does , but it did come across to him that they know what they are doing , they are
very conscientious about doing it right, and with all things considered , this was the only
site he could find for them .
Asher Grossman , property owner, spoke to the financial aspect of the property . Ile
stated that he provided the financial information in the packet. The property has been
vacant for a very long time and they have tried for years to rent the property.
Mr. Grossman believed that this business will be an enhancement to the area . The
neighboring property, 618 Elmira Road , has recently been vandalized . He said that the
financial information clearly states the financial loses that the property has had over the
past four or five years .
Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Grossman if he planned any site improvements to the
property if he is able to lease to Ithaca Biodiesel Cooperative . Mr. Grossman explained
that he plans to rent the property as- is , except to make sure that it is ready to be used
for any tenant—meaning proper lighting , heating , cooling , etc . The custom
accommodations for the proposed use would be made by the tenant. Chairperson Sigel
said it seemed like the exterior of the building has been neglected quite a bit. Mr.
Grossman responded that in 2007 there was a much greater financial loss because
there was a potential tenant that started the process with the Town and he spent a lot of
money making interior improvements , but in the end the tenant did not work out. A
decision was made from the financial perspective that as long as they do not have a
signed lease with someone with a security deposit, money cannot be spent on the
building . He said that they intend to make sure it looks decent.
Attorney Brock asked about the assets for Ithaca Realty, LLC . She wondered if it only
included 614 and 618 Elmira Road . Mr. Grossman said that was correct, but he only
included the information on 614 Elmira Road for the packet.
Attorney Brock reiterated that the board has to apply the State use criteria and that one
of those criteria is that the hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion
of the district or neighborhood . She asked Mr. Grossman for any unique characteristics
about the property that makes it difficult for him to find light industrial tenants . Mr.
Murray responded that he has shown the property a number of times and the
competitive edge that this property has for a retail operation is low rent. The property is
just outside the prime commercial zone of the city and has factored in on a number of
interested customers . He thought this idea was a reasonable fit because it has
accessibility, not a large retail component, and a destination factor to what is being
proposed .
Attorney Brock stated that the argument that there is an over-build of commercial space
does not make this property unique . She asked if there was anything about this
particular property, such as the size of the building . Mr. Murray stated that the building
Page 17 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
is 2400 square feet and the lot is only 0 . 75 acres . He thought that one of the reasons
the original convenience store did not work on the property was because the lot was too
small for what they wanted to do .
Mr. Bates asked if the building currently had a sprinkler system . Mr. Grossman did not
believe the building ever had a sprinkler system . 618 Elmira Road has the broken
sprinkler system that requires a building permit for it to be repaired . Mr. Bates
explained that depending upon how the structure in altered internally , a sprinkler system
may be required . Chairperson Sigel commented that if this were a new building , a
sprinkler system would be required . Attorney Brock explained that the Town 's local law
is more stringent than the state law so she advised that the engineer be made aware of
that.
Mr. Grossman stated there currently is no life to the area of the property currently and
that this project will enhance the area . He noted that Ms . Jones= Rounds stated that
there may be a vegetable oil smell to the building , but he thought that would not be an
issue since there was a significant distance between the building and any neighbors .
He went on to say that the public hearing notice was sent to neighbors and there was
no one present against the application .
Mr. Grossman asked if the board had any questions. Mr. Bates suggested Mr.
Grossman review Chapter 225 , Section 2254 of the Ithaca Town Code with regard to
sprinklers. The section addresses when sprinklers are needed for existing buildings.
Mr. Bates went on to ask the applicants if they would be selling the biodiesel on site .
Ms . Jones= Rounds confirmed that they would be . Mr. Bates noted that the business
would then be collecting sales tax within the town ; the sales tax would not be distributed
to the city.
Mr. Jones= Rounds stated that he would educate himself as to the best practices for
having production and retail uses within the same building . He wanted to make sure the
safety of customers was considered in every aspect of the design . Mr. Bates directed
Mr. Jones= Rounds to the Fuel/Gas Code of New York State ; he suggested Mr. Jones-
Rounds and his engineer review that code . He noted that there is a lot to it, but it is up
to Mr. Jones- Rounds how he operates his business. Mr. Bates went on to say that all
operations in and outside of the building would have to meet the requirements of the
NYS Fuel/Gas Code ,
Chairperson Sigel inferred that the owner would not be making the investment into site
improvements. He asked the applicants if they had the resources to make the
necessary improvements and meet all the code requirements. Ms . Jones= Rounds
responded that they have an investor to help with equipment purchases and site
improvements .
Attorney Brock asked if the means of ingress and egress were sufficient for tanker
trucks . She went on to ask if the pavement was sufficient to meet the weight of the
trucks . Ms . Jones= Rounds thought that the ingress , egress and pavement were
Page 18 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
sufficient, especially since the site was previously used as a gas station . Mr. Jones=
Rounds added that he is confident that their consultant will be able to determine
whether or not the existing driveway is sufficient .
Attorney Brock asked about the existing curb cut. Ms . Jones- Rounds explained that
there are two driveways and an area in the back to pull up for deliveries .
Chairperson Sigel solicited additional comments from the public . Mr. Jones- Rounds
stated that there were members of the Ithaca Biodiesel Cooperative Board present.
There being no one else interested in addressing the board , Chairperson Sigel closed
the public hearing at 9 : 02 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel understood that the project did not require site plan approval . Mr.
Bates explained that site plan approval was not required unless changes were made to
the exterior of the building . He said that the Code outlines thresholds that trigger site
plan review. He went on to say that the applicant was interested in knowing if they
could use the property for the proposed use before they went into the expense of site
plan details . Chairperson Sigel thought that made sense , but went on to say that when
the Zoning Board receives applications that have been brought before the Planning
Board first there are engineered drawings and the board knows exactly what they are
dealing with . He said Town staff has had an opportunity to review everything and given
their opinion and the board knows all applicable codes are met. He asked if there was a
mechanism that allowed the Zoning Board to refer a project to the Planning Board for
review.
Attorney Brock was not sure and did not know what would be referred since there is not
a site plan . Mr. Bates stated that the question before the board is whether or not to
allow the proposed use . The applicants would then have to go through site plan
approval if they met the criteria .
Attorney Brock stated that the Code ( Section 270-235H) allows the Zoning Board to
refer a matter to the Planning Board before taking option . Chairperson Sigel did not
think it would be fair to consider that option if members of the board were convinced that
the applicants did not meet the criteria of a use variance . He thought it would be
appropriate for the board to discuss the use variance criteria to determine whether the
applicants have or have the potential to meet the criteria .
Mr. Krantz liked Chairperson Sigel's suggestion of referring the proposal to the Planning
Board , Ms. Jones- Rounds reiterated that they were not proposing any exterior changes
to the site . Chairperson Sigel asked how the fueling function would work. Ms . Jones=
Rounds stated trucks would pull up to the rear of the building for bulk deliveries . Mr.
Jones- Rounds added that there are devices specifically designed for biodiesel
operations given that exterior storage of biodiesel is not practical . He explained that it is
a structure that is essentially a tank with an unwindable hose similar to a gas station
fueling pump , but instead of being housed in an external structure , it is an internal
structure . Chairperson Sigel stated that it would not technically be an external structure .
Page 19 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Ms . Jones- Rounds agreed and explained that it would not look like a regular gas
station .
Mr. Niefer asked if their proposed project has been replicated elsewhere . He wondered
if there were pictures that could be shown to the board that represents their vision for
the site . Mr. Jones- Rounds responded that there are a lot of other biodiesel facilities
and many are large scale . There are some operations that sell to small volume
customers that they do not want to replicate because they are not appealing . He, said
that there are not a lot of examples , but thought if they looked harder they might be able
to find examples on the scale they are talking about. Ms . Jones- Rounds added that
their scale of an operation is kind of new. She knew that there are larger scale
operations that they can look to , but she did not think that they will be able to have a
plan like one in existence because most small scale facilities are not as rigorously
certified and as well- kept as they are aspiring to be .
Chairperson Sigel recalled that the applicants explained that the biodiesel gels in cold
conditions . He wondered if a retail customer would have to purchase a small fraction of
his/her tank's capacity in the winter. Ms . Jones- Rounds stated that they would advise
customers not to purchase more than 5% of the tank' s capacity during the winter
months . She said that for most cars year round 20% biodiesel 80% petroleum diesel is
generally what is recommended . Chairperson Sigel commented that that could
generate a lot more trips per day if each trip approximately 1 gallon . Each trip would not
be consuming much of the operation's capacity. He asked how many retail trips per day
were anticipated . Mr. Jones- Rounds did not think the number of customers would
increase based upon the season ; the pitfall would be that they would not sell as much in
the winter to retail customers . Ehrhart is proposing to substantially increase their
biodiesel offerings to customers , which would compensate . Chairperson Sigel asked if
a small percentage of biodiesel is mixed with another product for home heating as well .
Mr. Jones- Rounds said that it is and it blends just as well with home heating oil as it
does with diesel . He added that the small percentage in home heating oil is not a
problem in the cold .
Chairperson Sigel thought it was a good idea for the board to review the use variance
criteria and determine whether the applicant has met or has the potential to meet the
criteria . Mr. King asked if a granted use variance remains with the property or if it is
strictly for the applicant. Attorney Brock responded that a time limit can be placed on
use variances . It allows the applicant to seek another variance when time expires and
the board can review the use . The variance remains with the property regardless of
ownership .
Chairperson Sigel reviewed the criteria with the board .
Criteria 1 financial hardship . Chairperson Sigel thought that the applicant had provided
evidence of a financial hardship .
Page 20 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Finai
Criteria 2 uniqueness of property. Mr. Niefer stated that it is a common situation for
rental properties in the area to not retain tenants . Chairperson Sigel thought that it
would depend upon the definition of unique . He wondered if it was this property only or
surrounding properties as well . Mr. Niefer stated that the property is separate from the
bulk of the retail trade . Chairperson Sigel thought that some unique aspects of the
property is that it is a retail oriented building in a light industrial zone . The proposal by
the applicant has a retail component, but is also a manufacturing type of use . He felt
that an argument could be made either way as to the uniqueness of the property„
Criteria 3 use will not alter character of neighborhood . Chairperson Sigel thought that
the application could potentially meet this criterion , but this was where he felt hesitant
because the board does not have as detailed plans as they could .
Criteria 4 the alleged hardship has not been self-created . Chairperson Sigel felt that an
argument could be made either way. He felt that the macroeconomic forces in Ithaca
were beyond the applicants' control ; they cannot control if this area had fallen out of
favor with the traditional retail or light industrial uses . Chairperson Sigel asked Mr.
Bates if the property currently has had use variances granted . Mr. Bates stated that a
variance was granted in 1974 to permit a retail store ; variance granted in 1996 for
convenience store and self-service gas station ; variance granted in 1999 for home retail
sales business, variance granted in 2001 for internet sales business; variance granted
in 2003 to modify 2001 variance to allow walk- in customers .
Mr. Bates asked if the tanks for the gas station were still in the ground . Mr. Grossman
stated that they were not; they were removed before he purchased the property.
Chairperson Sigel personally felt that the applicant may be able to meet the criteria, but
he wanted to see more detailed plans. Ideally, he wanted to have those plans reviewed
by the Planning Board . Mr. Krantz agreed 100% . He thought that the board needed a
precise picture of the proposal before they allowed a biodiesel production use in a light
industrial zone with fast moving heavy traffic . He thought the applicants have a great
concept and that they presented it very well , but he felt that they did not have the
precise picture . Mr. Jones= Rounds thought that it was a very accurate description and a
prompt for them to go ahead and create more detailed plans. Ms . Jones= Rounds added
that they want to make sure that they have certain permissions before they move
forward with meeting with engineers and paying for their time .
Attorney Brock asked the board what the Planning Board would be looking at if exterior
modifications were not being made . Chairperson Sigel thought that the site needs
some improvements because it is so deteriorated . The back driveway would need to be
paved to accommodate the type of tanker trucks proposed . He did not think it was a
large lot and that the board should see a plan that indicates that traffic could move
through the site reasonably. Chairperson Sigel reiterated that it would be useful to have
the plans go through that process or some kind of process.
Page 21 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Attorney Brock stated that the board currently does not have an estimate of how much
traffic would be coming to the site , for example . She thought that if the board wanted to
ask the applicant to flush out the application and provide specific information , the board
might then be able to ask the Planning Board to comment on that amount of traffic .
Chairperson Sigel asked if there was a chance that any exterior work would trigger site
plan review by the Planning Board , Attorney Brock thought that the monetary threshold
was relatively low and that the change from a nonresidential building from one type of
use to another would trigger site plan review. She asked if there was a current site plan
for any of the previous uses . Chairperson Sigel did not know. Mr. Bates explained that
the property went through site plan review in 1999 . Attorney Brock and Mr. Bates
reiterated that the project would have to go before the Planning Board if it met orae of
the thresholds set forth in Town Code ; that review would need to happen before .a
building permit could be issued .
Chairperson Sigel asked board members if they saw the possibility of the applicants
meeting the use variance criteria . Mr. Niefer thought they could possibly meet the
criteria and that it was a matter of providing something more substantive to the board .
Mr. King agreed with Mr. Niefer and was comfortable with granting a time limited
variance .
Chairperson Sigel recapped that the opinion of the board was somewhat positive , but
that they all agreed that more detail was needed . He thought it sounded as if the
project would require site plan review anyhow. He explained that the board normally
sees variance applications after the Planning Board reviewed them , but understands
why the applicant needed to come before the Zoning Board first. He said , however, that
he was not comfortable with voting on the variance at that meeting .
Chairperson Sigel asked Attorney Brock if she thought it would be best to ask the
applicant to withdrawn their application or adjourn it. Attorney Brock asked if
Chairperson Sigel was talking about asking the applicant to go to the Planning Board for
a full site plan review and not just a referral . Chairperson Sigel responded yes if site
plan was required . He thought that if site plan is required than it is out of their hands .
Mr. Bates stated that if the board is not going to approve the use , then it is not worth the
applicants' time to go through the process . He thought that the applicant would have to
go back to the Planning Board for site plan approval after they appeared before them for
a recommendation . Chairperson Sigel presumed that the Planning Board would not be
able to give a meaningful recommendation without something akin to what they would
get if they were required to get an approval . It made sense to him to have the applicant
go through that process once rather than twice . Chairperson Sigel reiterated that the
site plan process is always gone through before a project goes before the Zoning
Board , but he recognized that was not required . He preferred for that to happen in this
case .
Page 22 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Mr. Bates explained that there are two ways for an applicant to appear before the
Zoning Board . One is a denial , which is the case with the appeal before the board . The
other would be through recommendation from the Planning Board .
Attorney Brock stated that the board could ask the applicant if they were amenable to
following that process. In which case the board would adjourn the appeal and the
applicant would make a site plan application to the Planning Board . Should the
Planning Board approve the site plan , it would be conditioned upon receiving any
necessary variances from the Zoning Board . The applicant would then need to come
back before the Zoning Board for its determination . She asked the applicant if they
would be comfortable proceeding in that fashion .
Mr. Murray stated that the applicants are before the board because they wanted to
know whether or not they could use the site before they started spending money on
engineers . They did not want to gamble on the use portion of the project. Chairperson
Sigel stated that he sympathized with the applicants' position and thought it was
understandable . However, Chairperson Sigel felt that the use was far enough from the
type of use that is allowed in the light industrial zone that he could not guarantee with
100% certainty that something illuminated during site plan approval would not sway him
to deny the use . He currently felt that the use seemed reasonable , but then the plans
were not as detailed as he liked . He could not guarantee that something that was
brought up by the Planning Board may not sway him or other members .
Ms. Jones- Rounds asked if the Zoning Board were members of the Planning Board .
Chairperson Sigel responded that it is a separate group of people . Ms . Jones= Rounds
stated that she did not want to be presumptuous , but she wondered if the board could
grant the use variance under the condition that the Planning Board approves it. She
explained that they will have to have detailed plans before they can use the space and
she wondered how many times they would have to come back for approval . It would be
3-6 months of detailed engineering , buying equipment, etc and they would like the
assurance that there was only one chance of it being nixed . She reiterated that they
were willing to go through the process for site plan approval if they knew that they would
not be denied a use variance after that.
Mr. Murray stated that the biodiesel industry is a new use and industry. He felt that the
uniqueness was the business itself.
Mr. Bates added that the applicants are taking the use out of everyone' s garage and
putting it into one type of use where it is bigger production . He thought that board
members could go around to several garages in the county and find where the
homeowner is doing the same process . He knew of several people in his own county
doing similar processes in their garage . The proposal brings the use to a place where it
is regulated .
Ms . Jones- Rounds felt that it would allow the Town to set the precedent for this new
type of business and the regulations.
Page 23 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Chairperson Sigel stated that Ms . Brock suggested the board try a different tack and
ask the applicants to come back directly to the Zoning Board with more information and
more detail that they request. He solicited input from the board . The board agreed to
that option and provided a list of items for the applicant to bring back to them .
Mr. Niefer listed : photographs of a larger facility that is in operation that they would try to
emulate ; information regarding pavement improvements so that it can handle heavy
equipment; outline of exterior upgrades ; assurances that equipment will be inside and
that they intend to comply with State and Federal regulations ; an outline of what the
applicant needs to do to get the business off the ground .
Mr. King was comfortable with the applicants coming back to the board with more detail
and reiterated that he was comfortable with a temporary variance . Mr. Krantz supported
Mr. Niefer's listed items .
Chairperson Sigel recapped that the board would like the following information :
• information regarding comparable facilities , including what they look like , how
they operate ;
• more detail on what will be done to the exterior as far as pavement
improvements to accommodate truck traffic , how deliveries will be made , how
chemicals will be brought in and out of the site ,
• any other exterior site enhancements to improve the look of the site ;
• reiterating assurances that all operations will be inside the building , no
external storage ,
• identify all applicable codes that will apply to the operation ; and
• more detailed estimates of expected traffic .
Chairperson Sigel went on to ask if there is enough waste oil production in the area to
meet the needs of the operation . He wondered from how far away the waste oils would
be coming from . Mr. Jones= Rounds responded that the waste oil could potentially be
coming from neighboring counties as well as Tompkins County. He explained that part
of the advantage of contracting with an oil collection company that specifically collects
for biodiesel operations is that they can lock- in a volume and price . Regular deliveries
would be made to them from the oil collection company. The average restaurant
produces 15 to 20 gallons of oil per month .
Chairperson Sigel stated that it seemed as if members of the board were encouraged
by the application and he suggested that the appeal be adjourned until such time that
the applicants have been able to prepare the additional information requested by the
board .
Mr. Niefer stated that it is one thing to have a garage operation and another to have a
commercial operation . He wondered if there were any certifications for an operator of
Page 24 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
biodiesel production . He went on to say that sewage treatment plants have to have
certified operators .
Mr. Jones- Rounds was not aware of any certification requirements as part of the EPA
approvals for being a refinery. Ms . Jones- Rounds added that certification was more on
the side of the fuel as opposed to the producers . Mr. Niefer stated that he would
appreciate it if they could explore it and come back to the board with an answer. It
would give the board some assurances that the operations would be operated by
competent people with appropriate skills . Chairperson Sigel added that he would like
more information as to how the waste ( including wastewater and glycerin) will be
handled and where it will go . He thought that it seemed to be up in the air when it was
discussed earlier. Ms . Jones- Rounds explained that there is a professor at Cornell that
uses glycerin to create different kinds of fuel and they have had discussions with
him/her. She then offered to investigate the options more thoroughly.
Mr. Jones- Rounds stated that in a number of the situations the answer to the question
will be a set of possibilities . He asked to what degree the board needed certainty about
which possibility would be used . He gave the example of coming back to the board with
the same answers given that evening , but with the backing of a professional in the
industry who may also say that sometimes the glycerin is stored and sent to a chemical
waste disposal company or sometimes it is sold to someone using enrichment for
anaerobic digestion or a soap maker. Chairperson Sigel thought that was fine and said
that if there are four different possibilities for the product and the possibilities are listed
and are acceptable legal means of disposal then it would be okay. They do not have to
state that they will always use one method of disposal .
Chairperson Sigel solicited comments from the board . There being none , he moved to
adjourn the appeal until such time as the applicants can supply the additional
information that the board has requested at this meeting . Seconded by Mr. Krantz.
Vote—carried unanimously.
ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -055: Adlournment of Use Variance Request, Ithaca Real
LLC, 614 Elmira Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33. =3-2.42
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Ron Krantz.
RESOLVED, that this board adjourns the appeal of Ithaca Realty, LLC, until such time
as the applicants can supply the additional information that the board has requested at
this meeting.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, and King
NAYS: None.
Motion was carried unanimously.
Page 25 of 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 24, 2011
Final
Mr. Jones- Rounds asked when materials would need to be submitted to get on the next
agenda . Mr. Bates stated that materials would need to be submitted by November 9th to
be on the November 21 st agenda .
Other Business
Mr. Bates stated that the only item slated for the November meeting would be the
continuation of the biodiesel use variance if materials are submitted on time . He
informed the board that he would be on vacation that week and not available for -the
meeting . Chairperson Sigel thought it would be okay for one of the other code
enforcement officers to come in his place .
Mr. Bates brought the board 's attention to the information before them with regard to
their training hours . He asked that members review the information and contact him if it
was incorrect.
Adjournment
With no other business, Chairperson Sigel adjourned the October 24 , 2011 meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 9 : 56 p . m .
i
Kirk Sigel , Chairperson
(MM 1AC&t io �
Carrie CoateiWhitmore ,
Deputy Town Clerk
Page 26 of 26
r
FI LE _
DAT
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =050
Area Variance
Edward and Carlyn Buckler
233 Troy Rd
Tax Parcel No. 46 .-1 -23
October 24, 2011
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Edward and Carlyn Buckler,
requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-60E "Yard
Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow an accessory building in the front yard ,
located at 233 Troy Rd , Tax Parcel No . 46 . - 1 -23 , Low Density Residential, with the
following :
Conditions:
1 . That the woodshed be built as indicated on the plans submitted by the
applicant, and
2 . That the woodshed be located in the location approximately where indicated
on the plans submitted by the applicant.
Findings :
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 cannot be met by any other
means feasible given the fairly steep slope of the applicant's lot. The rear
and side yards are difficult to utilize for a woodshed ,
2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given the extensive screening from the road and from
neighboring properties at this location . In addition , the shed ' s location below
the road grade reduces its visual impact from the road ,
3 . That while the request is substantial , siting an accessory building in the front
yard where it is not allowed , nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does
outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community,
4. That physical or environmental effects are not anticipated , and
5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicant's desire to
install a woodshed , nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh
any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -050
Page 2 of 2
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Niefer, and King
NAYS : None .
Motion was carried unanimously .
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA:
I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York,
do hereby certify that the 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 24th day of October,
2011 .
Id
Deputy TdWkh-blerk
Town of Ithaca
FILE _
DATE(
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -051
Area Variance
James and Trina Bruno
153 King Rd E
Tax Parcel No. 44.=2=6
October 24, 2011
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz.
RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of James and Trina Bruno , requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270=60C "Yard Regulations" of
the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing garage within the
required side yard setback located at 153 King Rd E , Tax Parcel No. 44. =2-6, Low
Density Residential Zone , with the following :
Condition :
1 . That no further structure be built within the required setback without a
variance from this Board .
Findings :
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 , which is to maintain the
existing structure , cannot be achieved by any other means feasible ,
2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given this property's existence for more than 40 years ,
3 . That while the request is substantial , nevertheless , the benefit to the applicant
does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the
community,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given
that it does not involve any new construction , and
5 . That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the applicant's
purchase of this property was well after it was built.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -051
Page 2of2
A vote on the motion resulted as follows .
AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Niefer, and King
NAYS : None .
Motion was carried unanimously .
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA:
I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York,
do hereby certify that the 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 24th day of October,
2011 .
#hw 1wWbi
Deputy Town-Clerk
Town of Ithaca
FI LE //27)
DATE v
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =052
Area Variance
Ted Caldwell and Marne Einarson
202 Muriel St
Tax Parcel No. 70.-1 =12
October 24, 2011
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Ted Caldwell and Marne Einarson
requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-223A( 11 )
" Fences and Walls ; Retaining Walls" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to
install a fence greater than 6 feet in height located at 202 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70 . -
1 = 12 , Medium Density Residential Zone , with the following :
Conditions:
1 . That no portion of the fence be greater than 8 feet in height,
2 . That the wooden portion of the fence have a minimum openness of 45
percent,
3 . That the fence be built substantially as shown on the plans submitted by the
applicant, and
4. That no portion of the fence be built within the sewer easement located in the
rear yard .
Findings .
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safely, and
welfare of the community, specifically:
1 . That while some of the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve could be
achieved by other means , which is to say a compliant deer fence , that a
portion of the applicant's benefit is to provide some screening and that portion
of their plan cannot be met by any other means feasible ,
2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given the support of many of the neighbors , including the
immediate neighbors ,
3 . That while the request is substantial , allowing an 8 foot fence where only a 6
foot fence would be allowed , that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant
does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the
community,
ZB RESOLUTION NO, 2011 -052
Page 2 of 2
4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects ,
5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , the benefit to the applicant
does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the
community, and
6 . That the portion of the fence that is a deer fence is compliant with the Code
and does not require a variance provided it does not exceed 8 feet in height.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES $ Sigel , Krantz, Niefer, and King
NAYS : None .
Motion was carried unanimously.
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA.
I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York,
do hereby certify that the 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 24th day of October,
2011 .
Deputy Town-Clerk
Town of Ithaca
FILE
DATES �
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =053
Environmental Assessment
Cornell University
Dryden Rd (opposite the intersection with Game Farm Rd)
Tax Parcel No. 65 .=1 -5.2
October 24, 2011
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental
significance based on the information in the Part I Short Environmental Assessment
Form and for the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form
completed by Town staff.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Niefer, and King
NAYS : None .
Motion was carried unanimously.
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA.
I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York,
do hereby certify that the 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 24th day of October,
2011 .
lino e
Deputy Tow fi-�Olerk
Town of Ithaca
F ! + _
DP,T
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =054
Area Variance
Cornell University
Dryden Rd (opposite the intersection with Game Farm Rd)
Tax Parcel No. 65.=1 -5.2
October 24, 2011
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Jim Niefer.
RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270=59 "Height Limitations" of
the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a telecommunications tower
(monopole) that exceeds the height limitation , located on the north side of Dryden Road
( NYS Route 366) opposite the intersection with Game Farm Rd , Tax Parcel No . 65 . = 1
5 . 2 , Low Density Residential zone . The proposal involves the construction of an
approximate 130 foot tall monopole to accommodate three separate wireless
communication antennas with an approximate 10 foot omni-whip antenna on the top of
the tower, creating an overall height of approximately 140 feet, with the following :
Conditions:
1 . That the height of the monopole be no greater than 135 feet,
2 . That the overall height, including the omni-whip antenna , be no greater than
145 feet,
3 . That the shed identified on the plans submitted by the applicant be removed
to satisfy the fall zone ,
4 . That all construction of the monopole and associated equipment sheds and
other items identified on the plans submitted by the applicant be built as
indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant, and
5 . That the applicant receive final site plan approval from the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board ,
Findings:
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 cannot be achieved by any
other means feasible given the evidence presented by the applicant for the
available locations for such a tower. The location the applicant wishes to use
would appear to be the best-suited , both to meet the needs of the
telecommunications companies and to minimize the visual impact from
ZB RESOLUTION NO, 2011 -054
Page 2 of 2
nearby view sheds . The Town' s telecommunications law encourages
collocation and the height of the tower is driven in part by the need for vertical
separation and there will be three carriers collocated on this facility, which
provides an advantage over having multiple towers constructed at multiple
locations , and
2 . That while an antenna and tower of this size will cause some change in the
neighborhood character or to nearby properties, nevertheless the benefit
does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the
community,
3 . That while the request is substantial , the benefit does outweigh any detriment
to the health , safety and welfare of the community,
4 . That while the request will have some adverse physical or environmental
effects, largely being on the viewshed , the benefit to the applicant does
outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community,
and the tradeoff of removing the water tower and erecting the new tower is a
positive benefit for the view shed from the Newman Bench at the Cornell
Plantations, and
5 . That the alleged difficulty is self-created by the need for these
telecommunications companies to provide appropriate coverage , but this
board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to
the health , safety and welfare of the community.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Niefer, and King
NAYS : None .
Motion was carried unanimously.
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA,
I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York,
do hereby certify that the 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 24th day of October,
2011 .
A
Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
FILE
DAT E
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =055
Adjournment of Use Variance Request
Ithaca Realty, LLC
614 Elmira Rd
Tax Parcel No. 33.=3-2.42
October 24, 2011
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz.
RESOLVED , that this board adjourns the appeal of Ithaca Realty, LLC , until such time
as the applicants can supply the additional information that the board has requested at
this meeting .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES . Sigel , Krantz, Niefer, and King
NAYS : None .
Motion was carried unanimously.
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS .
TOWN OF ITHACA,
I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York,
do hereby certify that the 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 24th day of October,
2011 .
Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . :
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
1, Carrie Coates Whitmore, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over
21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York.
That on the 14`h day of October 2011 , deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the
following Tax Parcel Numbers :
***233 Troy Rd
Susan Baker-Carr Robert Berkley John Blume and Drucy Glass
241 Troy Rd 227 King Rd E 242 Troy Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14820 Ithaca, NY 14850
Edward and Carlyn Buckler Marlon and Traevena Byrd Eugene and Cinthia Corbett
233 Troy Rd 212 Eldridge Cir 221 King Rd E
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Richard Hackett and Catherine Radcliffe Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc Julian and Virgina Hochberg
107 Cayuga Heights Rd 680 Ridge Rd 170 Westend Ave Apt 8E
aca, NY 14850 Lansing, NY 14882 New York, NY 10023
Neal and Patricia Howard Mark and Peggy Jasinsky John and Amy Little
309 King Rd E 216 King Rd E 159 Ridgecrest Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Brian Miller Nathanael Nerode James Semp
212 Troy Rd 174 Troy Rd 302 King Rd E
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Julie Swain Martha Taylor The Nature Conservancy
115 Ridgecrest Rd 250 Troy Rd 195 New Karver Rd, Suite 200
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Albany, NY 12205
Dana Williams David and Nancy Wilson Christine Wlosinski
PO Box 4066 232 Troy Rd 237 Troy Rd
Ithaca, NY 14852 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Florence Wrisley
202 Troy Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
*** 614 Elmira Rd
Allen Becker Burkhart Services, Inc Elmira Rd LLC
88 Hillview Rd 6917 Vista Parkway N,. Suite 6 PO Box 6437
ncer, NY 14883 West Palm Beach, FL 33411 Ithaca, NY 14851
Ferrara Realty Inc Grigorov Family LLC Iacovelli Brothers Construction
S Albany St 629 Coddington Rd 610 Elmira Rd
aca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Ithaca Realty, LLC Mancini Realty Pennsylvania Lines LLC;
1150 East 28`h St 608 Elmira Rd 110 Franklin Rd SE
Brooklyn, NY 11210 Ithaca, NY 14850 Roanoke, VA 24042-0028
People of New York State Robert & Mary Swansbrough Leo Teeter and Ann Lillie
Empire State Plaza, Building 1 15 Piper Rd 214 Wood St
Albany, NY 12238 Newfield, NY 14867 Ithaca, NY 14850
*** Dryden Rd, Cornell University Monopole
Paige Anderson & Michael Pinnisi Esther Binns — Trust Jennifer & Dara Annissi-Kivisild
340 Forest Home Dr 320 Forest Home Dr 326 Forest Home Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
John & Agnes Blakely Alan & Juila Fletcher Michael Kimball
332 Forest Home Dr 300 Forest Home Dr 97 Freese Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Michael Kimball & Peter Sarkus CUFA — CCF Matthew & Wendy Petti
186 Pleasant Grove Rd NYS Housing Finance Agency 7809 Cindy Ln
Ithaca, NY 14850 107 Humphreys Service Bldg Bethesda, MD 20817
46 Ithaca, NY 14850
Rebecca Proctor & Robert Aceto Harold & Catherine Simmons Amy & Harry Simrell
336 Forest Home Dr 836 Dryden Rd 120 Etna Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Carl & Helen Sundell Town of Dryden Charles & Nancy Trautmann
PO Box 3617 93 E Main St 304 Forest Home Dr
Arnold, CA 95223 Dryden, NY 13053 Ithaca, NY 14850
James Vanee Varna 1 Incorporated Alberta Jeanne & Gregory Vasse
316 Forest Home Dr 303 E Wacker Dr, Suite 850 618 Elm St Ext
Ithaca, NY 14850 Chicago, IL 60601 Ithaca, NY 14850
Wayne Woodward Costich Engineering Shirley K. Egan
169 Blakeslee Hill Rd 217 Lake Ave Associate University Counsel
Newfield, NY 14867 Rochester, NY 14608 Cornell University
300 Comp & Comm. Center
Garden Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14853
Art Thompson Thomas P. LiVigne Sara R. Dean
Construction Manager Cornell University Cornell University
Cornell University Real Estate Dept Real Estate Dept
PDC/Construction Management Box DH Box DH
f
Humphreys Service Bldg 15 Thornwood Dr 15 Thornwood Dr
ca, NY 14853 Ithaca, NY 14853 Ithaca, NY 14853
202 Muriel St
orman & Rosemary Adelewitz Charles & Madalyn Alridge Brian Atzberger
134 Muriel St 211 Muriel St 6 Cardinal Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Enes & Fatima Bahtic Stephen & Beryl Barr Andrew Bergstrom
515 Warren Rd 517 Warren Rd 514 Warren Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Antonio & Diane Bozzelli Brian & Tracie Corbin David Crandall
204 Tareyton Dr 205 Muriel St 513 Warren Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Laurens Drost Marne Einarson & David Caldwell Charles Ewoh
505 Warren Rd 202 Muriel St 57 Stornway Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Jackson, TN 38305
Maria Fernandez & Simon Graeme Penny Rose Marie Gaherty Mingtao Ge & Wenyan Zhu
210 Tareyton Dr 1439 Jasmine Trail 202 Tareyton Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850 Sevierville, TN 37862 Ithaca, NY 14850
Francoise Gebhart Daniel Gurvich & Deborah Lifton Wesley Hochachka &
214 Tareyton Dr 209 Muriel St Maiken Winter
�aca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 212 Tareyton Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Martin Kassabov Adam Klausner & Meredith Macleod Adam Law & Marie Jane
507 Warren Rd 409 Taughannock Blvd 16 Muriel St
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Frank & Belinda Leonardo Ofer & Gilly Leshed Yanping Li & Yun Wang
518 Warren Rd 210 Muriel St 918 Taylor St
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Albany, CA 94706
Rocco Lucente Stephen Lucente Sergey & Alla Lunkin
120 Briarwood Dr 959 Dryden Rd 535 Warren Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Glenna Margaris Gene & Martha Millman E. Kimball & Kay Milling
199 Tareyton Dr 133 Muriel St 206 Muriel St
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Rebecca Mitchell & Edith Mans Linda Mittel Michael & Lois Ocello
213 Muriel St 539 Warren Rd 519 Warren Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Lawrence & Linda Orkin Timothy Perry Anthony Petitti
132 Muriel St 520 Warren Rd 204 Muriel St
O'ca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Pond Kenneth Rosenberg & Barbara James Michael Ryan & Julie Glanville
Warren Rd 206 Tareyton Dr 208 Muriel St
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Tanya Saunders Richard Schmidt Jacqueline Scott:
516 Warren Rd 201 Muriel St 131 Muriel St
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Elizabeth Ann Shumate Roger & Cynthia Slothower Darry & Susan Sragow
231 Strawberry Hill Cir #3 208 Tareyton Dr 1701 San Ysidro Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Mark & Sandy Studin Keith Weller Taylor Constance Thomas
537 Warren Rd 509 Warren Rd 128 Muriel St
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Todd & Jill Vannelli Dennis & Page Wille
110 Purchase St 212 Muriel St
Milford, MA 01757 Ithaca, NY 14850
*** 113 Hillcrest Dr
William Avery & Janis Brown Betty Jane Berggren Candlewyck Parlt 10, LLC
1115 Trumansburg Rd 119 Williams Glen Rd Candlewyck Park 16, LLC
ca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 92 River Rd
Summit, NJ 07901
Jami Carlacio & Martin Kurth Charles Conley & Mary Wright James Eavenson
113 Hillcrest Dr 1121 Trumansburg Rd 1117 Trumansburg Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Nellie Fisher Sean & Dennis Foley Om Gupta
114 Park St 10 Hillcrest Dr 940 East Shore Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Doria Higgins Tee-Ann Hunter Steven & Lisa Lampke
2 Hillcrest Dr 107 Hillcrest Dr 15 Hillcrest Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Roger McOmber & Priscilla Omber Amy Newman & Edward Marion Alan Midura
1128 Trumansburg Rd 1125 Trumansburg Rd 1135 Trumansburg Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Daniel & Angela Pierce Darcy Plymire Jane Riggs
1137 Trumansburg Rd 13 Hillcrest Dr 1129 Trumansburg Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Carl & Marilyn Sgrecci
1130 Trumansburg Rd
Oca, NY 14850
1
how �P
rrie Coates Whit e, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
Sworn to before me this 14`h day of October 2011 .
Notary Public
E
pEBt3RAh KELt `(
Notary Pubie:,, State of ,New York
No: 01I,KE6625.073
5chuyier -cou20 _j
C.ommis'sion Expires MaY 17 ,
4
l
I(
TOWN OF ITHACA
® AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , being duly sworn , say that I a Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of
Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the
sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in
the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal:
ADVERTISEMENT : PUBLIC HEARING
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Monday , October 24 , 2011
7 : 00 P . M .
Date of Publication : Friday , October 14 , 2011
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Hall Lobby
Public Notices Board
215 North Tioga Street
® Ithaca , NY 14850
Date of Posting : Wednesday , October 12 , 2011
la
Carrie Coates`Vlkfaitrnore
Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA )
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of October, 2011
Notary Public
DEBORAH KELLEY !.
Notary Public, StatE1'af New York
No . `.01 KE6025073 =d
Qualified iri ;schuyler county; ' S
commission Expires May 17 , 20 .
I
Y
4
Friday, October 14, 2011 The Ithaca Journal •;
x
Legals 050
Ithaca Code to be permit-
ted to construct a
telecommunications tower
(monopole) that exceeds
the height limitation, local-
ed on the north side of Dry-
I den Road (NYS Route 3Q6)
opposite the intersection
with Game Farm Road.
i Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel t_
,No. 65-1 -5.2. Low Density
Residential Zone. The pro-
posal involves the con-
i struction of a 130 +/- foot
( tall monopole to, accommo-
I date . three separate wire-
less 'communication enten-
1, nas, with a 10 ' +/- foot
i omni-whip antenna on the
I top of the tower, creating
an overall height of approxi-
mately 140 feet.
Appeal of Ithaca Realty,
LLC, owner, James and !
f , - McKenzie Jones-Rounds,
TOWN OF ITHACA applicants. requesting a
ZONING BOARD'OF variance from the require-
APPEALS ments of Chapter 270,
NOT ICE.OF PUBLIC Section 270- 144 "Permit
HEARINGS ted Principle Uses' of the .
Monday, October 24, Town of Ithaca Code to be
i2011 permitted to operate ' a,'
1 215 North Tioga biodiesel production busi-i
Street, Ithaca ness. located at 614 Elmira,
I 7:00 P.M. - Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-j •
' 2.42, Light Industrial.
Appeal of Edward and
Cariyn Buckler, owners: re- Assistance will be provided ,
questing a variance from 'for individuals with special '!
the requirements of Chap. needs, upon request. Re
ter 270, Section 270-60E quests should be made not :
f 'Yard Regulations' of the less than 48 hours prior to
Town of Ithaca Code to al- the public hearings. . !
�low an accessory building
in the front yard, located at Bruce W. Bates
1111233 Troy -Rd, Tax Parcel Director of Code Enforce-
No. 46.-1 -23.. Low Density ment
Residential. 607-273- 1783
Appeal of James and Dated: .October 12, 2011
Trina Bruno, owners, re- Published: October 14,
questing a variance from 2011
the requirements of Chap- 10/ 14/2011 1
ter 270, Section 270-60C ,�
'Yard Regulations" of the
Town of Ithaca Code to be
permitted to .maintain . an !I
existing garage within the,
i required side yard setback
located at 153 King Rd E,
Tax Parcel No. , 44.-2-6,
Low Density Residential.. ,
Appeal of Ted Caldwell
and Mame Einarson, own- I
ers, requesting a variance 'i
from the requirements- of
Chapter 270, Section 270-
I223A(1 ) 'Fences and
1 Walls; Retaining Walls' of
4 the Town of Ithaca Code to
1J be permitted to install a
1
fence greater than 6 feet in
height located at 202 Mur-
, _ I iel St, Tax Parcel.No. 70.-1 - i
12, Medium *Density. Resi- �
dential. ! '
Appeal of Connell Univer-
sity, owner, Thomas . P.
UVigne, agent, requesting
I a variance from the require-
ments of Chapter 270.
Section 270-59 'Height )
Limitations' of the Town of