Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2007-01-22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2007 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Chairperson: Chairperson Sigel Board Members: Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Niefer and Mr. Matthews Alternate Board Members: Eric Levine and Mr. Mountin ABSENT: Board Member Mr. Krantz STAFF: Chris Balestra, Planner, Susan Brock, Attorney, Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk OTHERS: Greg Halkiopoulos, Westview Lane; Warren Allmon, PRI, Melanie Stein, Sunnyview Lane Chairperson Sigel opened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. APPEAL of Stein Trust/Melanie Stein, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain two connected residences on separate tax parcels with resultant insufficient widths at the road and insufficient widths at the required setback. The residences are located at 153 and 153 1/2 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2-39.53, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said residences received subdivision approval by the Planning Board on January 2, 2007. The lots violate the required minimum 60-foot width at the road and the minimum 100-foot lot width at the 50-foot setback. Melanie Stein, Sunnyview Lane Nothing to add, unless there is anything someone would like to ask. Chairperson Sigel — Do you know why this restriction was originally imposed on the lot when the other lots didn't have it? Ms. Stein — My understanding is that being a corner lot it's a wedge shaped property. That's the logic, as I understand it. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Chris, do you know? Ms. Balestra — We can only guess, but looking back on the materials, it was part of the original 1986 Grandview subdivision and this lot and an adjacent lot are corner lots that had insufficient road frontage to begin with, so we think that the reason for restricting further subdivision was because it would increase the ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 2 nonconformity of insufficient road frontage. But there's not really a clear explanation of why. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, and that was an explicit restriction by the Planning Board? Ms. Balestra — Yes. Ms. Brock — Also I think some contact was made, I think, with some of the people on the Board back then...I don't remember...in the research the Planning department found another rationale which was that by restricting these lots to single ownership, that would provide somewhat of a buffer between the duplexes that were owned by two separate owners and the single family residences in the neighborhood. Ms. Balestra — Which are located north of these... Ms. Stein — I wanted to say something about that...I think that if one person owns the two dwelling units, then it's more likely to be owned by a landlord that rents out both sides and if...I live in that neighborhood, and if we want the neighborhood to be as much owner occupied as possible, I think that that would be favored by having separate ownership. Chairperson Sigel — Is the restriction now that one of the units has to be occupied by the owner? (no) Just that they all.. Ms. Stein — My mother actually bought the building from John Barrett who owned about 10 duplexes on that street and her rented out both sides. Chairperson Sigel — Any questions? Ms. Brock — I will just add that I think the Planning Board, when they heard about this rationale, this buffer rationale, that it really didn't make a lot of sense to them. That when you look at the duplexes you can't tell which ones have two owners and which ones have one owner. Ms. Balestra — None of them have restrictions on rentals, we're not sure what the rationale was. Chairperson Sigel — I am wondering if it was just some attempt to shape the character of the neighborhood, but it doesn't appear to be with just two of them. Mr. Levine — How do you subdivide down the middle of a house? Chairperson Sigel — I guess just like you do on the others. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 3 Ms. Stein -- What was the question? Mr. Levine — How do you get ownership of half of a house that's only one building? How do you decide, common wall...one owner owns it and the other owner owns half of that wall? Ms. Stein — You want to know who owns the dividing wall? Mr. Levine — Yeah. Ms. Stein — Well, I hired a lawyer to make a shared driveway. She drafted the shared driveway agreement and she didn't think we needed to add anything about who owns the wall. I don't think any maintenance is going to be needed on that wall, ever. It's cinderblock. I hired an engineer and he and I cut holes together in the closet and found cinderblock. And then each person has their own wallboard covering up the cinderblock, so I don't think that's going to be an issue. Mr. Ellsworth — You find that all the time in old houses, Lancaster clear down to Philadelphia, it's all row houses. Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing, no one wishing to speak, closes the public hearing. There is no environmental assessment for this. It was unanimously approved by the Planning Board so I guess the only thing we need to determine is who is going to vote on this appeal. Mr. Matthews recuses himself because he arrived a few minutes late and felt he may have misses some pertinent discussion. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so then both Mr. Mountin and Mr. Levine will vote. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 001 AREA VARIANCE STEIN, 153 & 153 '/2 Westview Lane Tax Parcel # 58.-2-39.53 January 22, 2007 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, seconded by Mr. Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of the Stein Trust/Melanie Stein and Melanie Stein requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain two connected residences on separate tax parcels with resultant insufficient widths at the road and insufficient widths at the required setback. The residences are located at 153 and 153 1/2 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 4 Parcel No. 58-2-39.53, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said residences received subdivision approval by the Planning Board on January 2, 2007. The lots violate the required minimum 60-foot width at the road and the minimum 100- foot lot width at the 50-foot setback. Findings The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied, specifically that: 1 . The benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, that is the ability to sell each dwelling unit separately, cannot be achieved by any other means, and 2. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood as most other buildings of this type in the neighborhood already have this right, and 3. The request is not substantial, and 4. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. The alleged difficulty was not self-created by the applicant. Conditions 1 . That 153 Westview have a width no less than 22 feet at the road and no less than 30 feet at the required setback, and 2. That 153 Yz Westview have a width of no less than 22 feet at the road and no less than 25 feet at the required setback, and 3. No changes made to the footprint of the building that would further increase the nonconformity with the setback requirements. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Levine, Mountin, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Mr. Krantz — Do we have to go through this next one because it's the same situation, in fact, to create the frontage for this one, created the problem on the nest lot. The next lot got even wider and (inaudible) the setback. Chairperson Sigel — I think it's safe to say that it will move along rather quickly. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 5 Mr. Matthews — May I recuse myself from this one also because I suspect the discussion will be similar to the previous applicant and since I didn't here the arguments going back and forth, I think it would be fair to the applicant that I recuse myself. APPEAL of Matoula Halkiopoulos, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain two connected residences on separate tax parcels with resultant insufficient widths at the road and insufficient widths at the required setback. The residences are located at 155 and 155 1/2 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2-39.54, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said residences received subdivision approval by the Planning Board on November 7, 2006. The lots violate the required minimum 60-foot width at the road and the minimum 100-foot lot width at the 50-foot setback. Greg Halkiopoulos, 155 Westview Lane I am not going to say anything, I just want the same thing as the previous lady. Chairperson Sigel — In this case, that's probably all you need to say. No Board discussion. Public hearing opened...no one wishing to address the Board, public hearing closed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 002 AREA VARIANCE Matoula Halkiopoulos 155 & 155 '/2 Westview Lane Tax Parcel # 58.-2-39.54 January 22, 2007 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, seconded by Mr. Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Matoula Halkiopoulos, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain two connected residences on separate tax parcels with resultant insufficient widths at the road and insufficient widths at the required setback. The residences are located at 155 and 155 1/2 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2- 39.54, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said residences received subdivision approval by the Planning Board on November 7, 2006. The lots violate the required minimum 60-foot width at the road and the minimum 100-foot lot width at the 50-foot setback. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 6 Findings The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied, specifically that: 1 . The benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, that is the ability to sell each dwelling unit separately, cannot be achieved by any other means, and 2. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood as most other buildings of this type in the neighborhood already have this right, and 3. The request is not substantial, and 4. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. The alleged difficulty was not self-created by the applicant. Conditions 1 . That 155 Westview have a width no less than 37 feet at the road and no less than 45 feet at the required setback, and 2. That 155 Yz Westview have a width of no less than 30 feet at the road and no less than 52 feet at the required setback, and 3. No changes made to the footprint of the building that would further increase the nonconformity with the setback requirements. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Levine, Mountin, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel opens the next appeal. Eric Levine is designated as the voting Alternative Member. APPEAL of Paleontological Research Institution, Appellant, Amy N. Naim, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Sections 221-4A(2) and (6) and 221-6A(1)(a) of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to place one 40 square foot free-standing, banner-like sign at the entrance of 1259 Trumansburq Road and four 12 square foot (2' x 6') banner-like signs located on NYSEG utility poles along Trumansburq Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 24- 3-3.1 , Low Density Residential Zone. Regulated signs in residential zones are ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 7 restricted to four square feet in area. Off-premise signs and signs on utility poles prohibited in all zones. Other variances may be required. Warren Allman, Director PRI, 1259 Trumansburg Road Mr. Neifer— Kirk, I noticed that they corrected an error in the resolution that refers to NYSEG poles, in actuality they are Verizon poles. Mr. Allman — Also, we have withdrawn the 40 square foot sign at the entrance. Ms. Balestra — The public hearing notice went out at around the same time that the Planning Board meeting happened and we found out this information at the Planning Board meeting so it was just crossed in the mail sort to speak. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so you've withdrawn the request for the sign that was going to be on the lawn, at the entrance so that just leaves the 4 on the Verizon utility poles. Mr. Allman — I'll just repeat what I said at the Planning Board and that is the effect of the four banners is what we are after, so we're looking for a kind of procession feeling as you drive up and down Trumansburg Road so that's why we're asking for four rather than one or two. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, and as part of the Planning Board resolution, they required that you remove any commercial endorsers from the signs. And the sign is not conveying any other information other than simply the fact that it is you 75th anniversary and obviously that you are there. Mr. Allman — That's right. Chairperson Sigel — Any questions? Mr. Matthews — I looked at this and I looked at the pictures that were given with the application and, I'm not an artist but I have a pair of eyes that can see telephone poles, and they're not exactly beautiful and actually they obstruct the view as they are and I don't see where these signs that are being proposed are going to detract from someone's view-shed, if that's the purpose, and I surely don't see them to be big enough to be obstructive to traffic, and I wouldn't consider, from a personal point of view, these being an eyesore and I guess the last thing is I guess the community should do everything flexible they can do to support this fine institution. Mr. Ellsworth — My problem is that I don't want to see this break out to all kinds of outfits in the Town. All of a sudden the Town starts looking like a circus here. Mr. Niefer— We do have a sunset clause in here so that it ends at the end of the year, so it will be removed at that point. But you know Harry, I tend to agree with you on that point but this is a, somewhat of a special occasion. I know it's becoming ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 8 more and more common though. I mean I, Salina Street in Syracuse now, why, for block after block there are similar signs or posters, banners and of course the City of Ithaca has had banners of this similar nature too. So that it's not uncommon. Mr. Ellsworth – I just don't want it to spread throughout the Town. Mr. Matthews – We still have the vote of no. Life isn't always fair. Chairperson Sigel – I sort of share both of your sentiments. I am concerned about the possible proliferation but also I do feel that the institute does provide a service to the community and is a benefit to the community and promoting it itself is a benefit to the community as a community resource. Mr. Ellsworth – I guess what I'm getting at is we gotta make it specific to this organization so when the others start come tromping in here saying well you did it for them for their anniversary or whatever...my birthday...I just don't want to see this throughout the Town. Tax free organizations throughout the Town. Mr. Niefer– If this were for commercial purposes, I think I would definitely share you're feeling on it Harry, but as much as it's non-commercial, in as much as it has the sunset clause by which time they have to be removed and also there's a provision, I believe, for if they become torn or tattered that they have to either be removed of replaced. So the shabby appearance is somewhat covered and I would agree that identifying PRI from the road is somewhat of problem for a person non- familiar with the area because that one sign that is there is low level and so on and you can zip by it very quickly, so inasmuch as they are trying to promote their 75th anniversary and they want to draw a little more attention to their facility, why I certainly respect your position but also support the request. Mr. Mountin – I don't have any problem with it, I think the benefit of the non- commercial, there's a one year moratorium, a one year permit on it and it benefits PRI as an institution and I like the art on the telephone poles as I would drive by so, I don't have any problem. Mr. Levine – I would agree that this is easy to distinguish from other types of uses that we would normally see on poles. I think that this is fine. Chairperson Sigel – Yeah, I have...I certainly feel more comfortable about it with the lawn sign removed and putting them on telephone poles certainly seems like a reasonable way to accomplish their goal. Mr. Ellsworth—You're tax free, non-profit organization? (yes sir) how do you distinguish it from Cornell, which is in the same category? Mr. Allman – Our budget is smaller. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 9 Chairperson Sigel — I think...that is certainly something Board members should think about. If Ithaca College or Cornell or the hospital even say, came to us and said we want to celebrate our anniversary or some big event...we want to indicate this to the public for a year, would you feel comfortable approving that, or would you not want to approve that or .. Mr. Matthews — Each case stands on it's own feet and that's got to be the rule. Chairperson Sigel — That's true. Mr. Matthews — And I don't think we ought to even.. Chairperson Sigel — You don't have to answer the question, I am just saying that you should.. Mr. Matthews — I don't think we ought to even consider that... Chairperson Sigel — It's useful to ask yourself the question. Mr. Matthews -- I think each appeal stands on it's own feet and whether or not we consider it valid and worthy of granting a variance is our decision. I personally have no problem with saying no. It's never been a problem with me. Somebody might cry about it but that's too bad. Ms. Brock — If this were a request for a zoning variance, which it's not because it's a request for a sign variance, but if it was a request for a zoning variance, you would not be permitted to consider who the applicant is in determining whether or not it's appropriate to grant the variance. So you would not be permitted to say we like this institution because we like the work they do and that type of thing. This is a sign variance and our code does not set forth the criteria to consider with sign variances and that is something that we will hopefully be rectifying sometime this year by perhaps proposing some changes to the sign law, but, I think it might be a good practice for this Board to follow the same principle here, that you look at the impact on the neighborhood and on the community in determining whether or not this variance should be granted as opposed to focusing on who the applicant is and whether you feel the applicant provides a valuable benefit to the community. Mr. Matthews — Well, I understand the law and I understand what you are saying. Thank you for that, but if, for instance, an organization that was detrimental to the community, and there are a number of them that I could probably pop up with, I think we have an obligation to say no, whether or not that gets me through the court is another matter, but Ms. Brock — I don't think it would. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 10 Chairperson Sigel — We don't get to decide if something is detrimental. I don't think we get to decide if an organization as a whole is somehow detrimental. Mr. Matthews — I know we are getting into a academic discussion but I can assure you that if the Klu Klux Klan wanted to put signs up on Trumansburg Road, I would say no and gladly go to court. Chairperson Sigel — So Susan, it is your opinion that we could use that as a criteria though, in the case of a sign variance...We could use who the applicant is. Ms. Brock - No I am saying you should not. You should focus instead on visual impact, impact on the character of the community... Ms. Balestra — And the substantialness of the variances requested. Mr. Matthews — It's impact on the community. So if it's positive, we can consider that. Ms. Brock — If the banners have a positive impact? Mr. Matthews — If the organization advertising it's anniversary is a positive effect upon the community, in our opinion, we can use that in determining whether or not we grant the appeal. Ms. Brock — No. You would look at the impact of the signs. Whether the placement of the signs on the poles would have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood or the community...just the signs, correct. Mr. Matthews — Just the signs, not the .. Mr. Niefer— Not the wording on the signs... Ms. Brock — Well you can look at the wording too to determine is this going to pose a safety hazard because people are going to be craning their necks to read it as they go by or whatever or is this going to be distracting to motorist. You can look at the signs, you can look at their appearance, their placement, their size, that type of thing in making your determination. Mr. Krantz — What's the definition of a sign? Permanent or temporary? Ms. Brock — Well our sign law covers both. It defines a temporary sign a s a sign that is in place for 30 days or less and because they want these signs to be in place through the end of the year, these would not be considered temporary signs. And there is a definition for sign, which is very broad that says... "A device for visual communication publicly displayed to identify, advertise and/or convey information." So these are signs. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 11 Mr. Matthews — Are you suggesting that our rationale for what I believe to be a unanimous approval by the members of the voting Board here is invalid? Our rationale being that we think the institute ought to be supported, I think that's kind of summing it up, that is an incorrect evaluation, is that what you're saying? That we should be determining it only on the visual impact and that's it? Ms. Brock — Well, I think it would be the visual impact, whether the variance is substantial, whether there is an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. That type of analysis should be done. That's by belief, yes. Mr. Ellsworth — If I recall, this organization had some temporary construction signs draped across the trailers that we made them take down. Is this so much different? In my eyes we are kind of skirting the sign law here, which was put in place just for situations like this. Nothing against PRI, I'm just stating a fact that this is where to me this seems to be going. Mr. Niefer— Of course that banner that was on the trailer, I believe that had some commercial aspect to it too as far as advertising some contractor that was doing the work so that was a little bit beyond the pale of what we are talking about. Chairperson Sigel — That's a valid point although when you say we are skirting the law, you could say that everything we do is, by definition, skirting.. Mr. Niefer— I am saying that the sign law was made for situations somewhat akin to this wasn't it. Ms. Brock — But there is also provision for variance and that's why they're here tonight. And I don't want you to construe my remarks as indicating that you should vote a particular way on this. I'm just trying to guide you to focus on certain factors when you make your decision. I was not trying to say, no, I think you should deny this or yes, you should grant it. I was just trying to get you to focus on the factors that I think would be legally defensible. Mr. Matthews — Why don't you go through, Sue, the whole criteria. Ms. Brock — Well the problem is the law doesn't set out the criteria, it just says that there can be variances granted. I think that it would be appropriate to apply the area variance criteria that we apply to zoning variances, which you have on your cards. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so let me try and split things a little finer. I know that it's your recommendation that we use the area variance criteria but do you believe that it would be wrong, given that criteria are not specified, explicitly, to essentially not strictly follow the area variance criteria. To justify it based on something similar but not quite the same as the area variance criteria. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 12 Ms. Brock — I guess I'd need to know what your other criteria are. Chairperson Sigel — I am inclined to use the non, well really the educational function of the institute and the promotion of that being a benefit to the community as part of the justification. So promoting a resource, which is open to the public, which I believe the public would benefit from by more people being aware of it and that's what they are trying to do is create awareness. I was there just yesterday with my kids and, the times I've been there, to be honest, it could be utilized more. They have room for more people in there at a time and, being an educational resource, I think it would be a benefit if they could get more people in. Ms. Brock — We are in un-chartered waters. Chairperson Sigel — Do you know any, is there any sort of basis for a Board setting its own criteria, I guess, when the criteria are not clear? Ms. Brock — Well, the law is supposed to give you the criteria, you're not supposed to legislate, you're supposed to apply the law and unfortunately here the law doesn't tell you. That's why I think the safest thing would be to use the area variance criteria if you feel that you can justify your vote based on those criteria alone. If not, Ms. Balestra — Both the use variance criteria and the area variance criteria authorize the Board to grant the minimum variances necessary to achieve the results and to impose reasonable conditions. I think that would be reasonable to put on this Board. Even with the sign law being a little bit vague, if this Board is the enforcement board for the laws in the Town so it would make sense to me to consider the variances that are being asked for and to consider the minimum variances necessary. That's where I would discuss things. Chairperson Sigel — It...it's incumbent upon us to grant the minimum variance in every case. Ms. Balestra — Right. That hasn't been part of the discussion yet tonight, rather we have been focusing on the institution. Chairperson Sigel — Discuss what is the minimum variance needed to achieve their goal, which is to promote the fact that they've existed for 75 years. Ms. Balestra — Right. Can that be achieved through 2 signs? Three signs? Four signs? One sign? This institution will probably be coming before this Board again for additional signs that are in other areas on the building. Chairperson Sigel — Of course with signage it is difficult to try to determine what is the minimum. You could always argue that you could shave a few square inches or a few square feet off of a sign and people could still read it. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 13 Mr. Neifer— These are semi standard type banners. If you look at them around the area, they all fall very close to the same length and width so that they are not atrocious as far as size wise. Mr. Ellsworth — Many Towns use stuff like this for holidays or whatever Mr. Matthews — I'm a little bit troubled that this seems to be turning into some sort of picky determination, and it's a temporary, it really is, for a year, I can't consider, by any stretch of my imagination that this is having an adverse environmental effect visually on the neighborhood unless you like the site of leaning telephone poles, in which case it certainly is detracting from that lovely view. I would request that we get on with it, as I might say, and make a decision and I don't think the community is so foolish as to challenge our decision to allow this institute to advertise it's anniversary in this way. I have that much faith, for once, in Ithaca. Chairperson Sigel — I don't know...I've heard that that massage school can get pretty ornery and may contest this if we approve it. Ms. Balestra — There was an individual that contested it at the Planning Board. Ms. Brock —And two Planning Board members actually voted against this. Chairperson Sigel — Yes, it wasn't unanimous. Ms. Brock — Going back to your question to me...If one of your rationales for wanting to include a criteria that looks at the benefit to the community of allowing the signs, if you believe that that will help you distinguish this particular request from another request that may come in in the future...I'd be comfortable with you doing that. Chairperson Sigel — Well the overall test for an area variance is the "benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community" and we've done this in the past where we have argued, essentially, it's not a detriment, it's actually a positive. So there is nothing...we have argued in other cases where there is nothing really to balance the benefit against because it is a benefit to both. So in that, we could make that kind of an argument, it would appear, within the criteria of the area variance, that at least there is no detriment and possibly even a benefit. Ms. Brock — But then are you prepared to say for future requests from other organizations that there's no detriment to the community and not consider possible detrimental environmental impacts... Chairperson Sigel — There being no detriment and possible benefit is the fact that it's an educational institution promoting it as opposed to a car dealership. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 14 Ms. Brock — Right, but then the question is what about the visual impact and things like that where there might be a potentially detrimental impact? Chairperson Sigel — Well certainly we would want to find that the impact of these signs are minimal if any and given the character of the road, and so forth, that we find...certainly...you're right...we shouldn't approve them if we find that they are detrimental in other ways, notwithstanding the benefit... Ms. Brock — Right, you just need to make sure that you are not setting a precedent for future applications if you say here there's no potential detriment at all, then the next applicant will come in and say you found no potential detriment so you should be approving mine as well. You need to be able to preserve your ability to consider these case by case, as Mr. Matthews is saying. Mr. Matthews — Our decisions don't set precedent, do they? Ms. Brock — Well, it would be good to apply your criteria consistently. Chairperson Sigel — Well, if we decided two cases that looked very similar to a reasonable observer and we determined them oppositely, then an applicant would have a very good argument that we were being arbitrary and unfair. Mr. Matthews — Well, the next person that comes in is number 2 and we'll see. Mr. Levine — We can always say we made a mistake the first time. Mr. Matthews — I welcome that opportunity. Chairperson Sigel — Any other questions or comments before we go to the public hearing? Chairperson Sigel invites the public to address the Board. There being no one, he closed the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel — Chris, anything you wanted to point out here? Ms. Balestra — I just want to not that it is the concern and the opinion of Staff, including Building and Zoning staff, I speak for Planning and Zoning, not just Planning, that it's the concern of the precedent setting nature of granting variances for off-premises signs which are prohibited in the sign law, for signs on utility poles, which is also prohibited in the sign law, so visual impacts are not so much a concern as the potential for future proposals such as this, banners and different types of signs on utility poles. It's definitely a situation that could happen and might happen and we are just concerned about that and just wanted the Board to consider with granting the variances that are proposed, consider the potential impacts with their decision. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 15 Chairperson Sigel — Is it your property line that runs very close to where these utility poles are shown? Mr. Warren — The property line is just to the east of where the poles are. The poles are not on our property. They are on the DOT right-of-way. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, does the right-of-way extend into your property any? Or does it end at your property? Mr. Warren — That I am not sure about. When DOT came out and looked at it, they determined that it is either on their property or on their right-of-way and I don't know the legal difference between that. It's not on our property that we have total jurisdiction over. Ms. Brock -- But there is a difference. If it's just a right of way and you actually own the property then it's not an off-premises sign. Which... Chairperson Sigel — It would appear...there are pin marks shown in the line drawn just inside where the poles are...So it does appear that they are just off your property. Mr. Warren — Okay, I'm not sure. Chairperson Sigel — It is possible for you to own further but for the right-of-way to extend into what you own and then you would be severely limited in what you could do but you would technically own the property. Mr. Warren — If you say so. I don't know what the ...I don't know the facts. Mr. Ellsworth — So that the telephone company can come in and maintain their poles. Eric Levine — Do you know how many feet of frontage this is? Mr. Warren — Our frontage is over 100 feet frontage to our south is about 3X's that, the Chafsci's own the property to the south of us. These will be in front of both properties. Chairperson Sigel — So have you spoken with them? And they are fine? Mr. Warren — Yes. They are fine. Chairperson Sigel — I'm not sure if I should refer to...to blanketly refer to the environmental assessment as justification or negative determination if there are concerns stated in it by... ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 16 Ms. Brock — Well, you can make a negative determination as long as you feel there's no potential for significant adverse environmental impact. So even if you feel there's a potential for a negative impact, if it's not significant, that would be all right, I believe, I will check... Chairperson Sigel — Yea, it says on the bottom of the cover, "result in any significant adverse environmental effects... Ms. Brock — Right, okay, so even if you think the wording in Part 11 potentially points out some negative impacts, if you don't feel that they are significant, you could properly give this a negative declaration. ADOPTED RESOLTION: ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 003 Environmental Assessment Paleontological Research Institution 1259 Trumansburg Road Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-3.1 January 22, 2007 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, seconded by Mr. Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of the Paleontological Research Institution, for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form, Part 11, prepared by Town staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Levine, Matthews, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — I will move to grant the appeal. Motion dictated. Discussion: Mr. Ellsworth — I have some conditions; that it's for this organization's 75th anniversary only, which is a substantial anniversary, so the people next door come in with their 10th anniversary or whatever that...and that it's a non-profit organization, this is for one year only, and the condition that the banners have to be maintained so they're not torn... Chairperson Sigel — Well, the existing for one year and the condition was part of the Planning Board resolution I referred to. I am not comfortable making such a specific condition as to the fact that it's an anniversary.. ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 17 Mr. Ellsworth — a substantial anniversary.. Chairperson Sigel -- ...or even a substantial anniversary. I think that's getting too much into basing our decision on the content and not the merit. Mr. Ellsworth — Well I am trying to tailor it to stop the proliferation of other organizations coming in here. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I just don't feel that that's an appropriate basis, though. I understand what your goal is but... Mr. Ellsworth — Well, I'm just telling you...wait for the next few months and see what happens. In fact, it's right in the Town Planners "therefore the Zoning Board should.... Chairperson Sigel — Let me ask Susan, what do you think about mentioning that as a findings, as a relevant finding, that this is a 75 year anniversary for the institution? Ms. Brock — Well, I agree, I don't think that you should be regulating the content of the signs or basing your decision on that. Mr. Matthews — Substantial is a hard word to define. If I had a 25th wedding anniversary, that's a substantial thing to me...so I would agree with Chairperson that I would probably stay away from that word. Chairperson Sigel — Any other suggestions for the motion? Ms. Brock — No, we didn't really specify specific variances being granted, but perhaps that's not necessary. Chairperson Sigel — Actually, one thing that I wanted to make was that even though, as a part of this variance, part of the variance is for them to be off-premise signs, a mitigating factor is the fact that the poles appear to be within several feet of the applicants property and where they're located appears to be part of the applicants property and so it is different from an off-premise sign located clearly far a-field from the applicant. Mr. Mountin — Were you saying, Chairperson, saying that there was not a detriment to the health safety and welfare, being that, stating more specifically that the health might be that the height is high enough that it won't restrict vision of traffic, that safety may be that the signs are away from the road so they won't blow in the face of cars to the sense of detriment because it's an educational center?...So that's again defining more specifically the nature of a not a detriment. You talk about the health, safety and the welfare...When it comes to a sign, what other...when you come to health and safety, what do you think of with a sign...the height„ how it's made,... ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 18 Chairperson Sigel — Right, as long as it's made in a way that's actually dangerous to someone's physical well being.. Mr. Mountin — So in terms in height we're saying that a 2 x 6 sign, so maybe we can define that a 2 x 6 sign is not going to be a detriment because of it's smallness in size... Chairperson Sigel — Well, again, I would prefer to refrain from making such a specific finding which then can really set a precedent. Mr. Neifer— I think it is really reasonably covered in the Planning Board comment there, as far as.... Chairperson Sigel — Line of sight... Mr. Mountin — Yeah, line of sight...so that would not be a detriment there because of line of sight but are we talking about, I thought we were talking about defining some criteria for future cases that come along, that we should probably... Chairperson Sigel — Yeah but that's such an obvious, I feel like it's a rather basic test and not really that distinguishing of this. Okay. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 004 Sign Variance Paleontological Reseach Intstitution 1259 Trumansburg Road Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-3.1 January 22, 2007 Motion made by Chairperson Sigel, seconded by Mr. Niefer. This Board grants the appeal of Paleontological Research Institution (PRI) requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Sections 221-4A(2) and (6) and 221-6A(1)(a) of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to place four 12 square foot (2' x 6') banner-like signs located on Verizon utility poles along Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 24-3-3.1, Low Density Residential Zone. With the following: Conditions: a) The proposed sign(s) shall not exceed 48 square feet in total sign area, as defined in the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, and b) The proposed sign(s) shall not be illuminated, and ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 19 c) If the signs on the utility poles are approved, then the applicant will submit documentation from Verizon and NYS Department of Transportation that such signs will be acceptable by those organizations, and d) Such signs to be removed by December 31 , 2007, and e) If the signs become ripped or tattered they will be promptly replaced or removed, and f) Signs shall not interfere with line of sight of motorists traveling on Route 96, and g) Applicant shall eliminate any references to commercial sponsors on the signs, and And with the: Findings The applicant has met the requirements for an area variance, specifically that: 1) The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically that while the benefit sought to be achieved by the applicant, which is to promote their existence for 75 years in this community, could certainly be achieved by other means, that the one that they have presented to us is a reasonable means, is of relatively low impact and appears to be no worse, if not better, than other alternatives that they could have used, and 2) That there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this is a commercial strip along a state route, that the property is bordered by the hospital and the School of Massage and a Fire Department across the street, and 3) That the request, given what is permitted in the zone for signs, is reasonable given the speed limit and nature of the road that it is on to request that square footage for this purpose, and 4) That there will be no adverse physical or environmental effect from the signs given that they are on existing poles, they should create no additional blockage of any view-shed, and 5) While the difficulty is certainly self-created by the applicant, that nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant and indirectly the benefit to the community by the applicant's existence and promotion, does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare to the community, and ZBA 1.22.07 Pg. 20 6) Part of this variance is for the signs to be off-premise signs, a mitigating factor is the fact that the poles appear to be within several feet of the applicant's property and where they're located appears to be part of the applicant's property and so it is different from an off-premise sign located clearly far a- field from the applicant. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Levine, Matthews, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Chairperson Kirk Sigel Date Respectfully submitted: Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Date