The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2007-04-30 TOWN of ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 30, 2007 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairperson Kirk Sigel; Board Members Harry Ellsworth, Dick Matthews, Alternate Board Members David Mountin and Eric Levine Staff: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Engineering; Chris Balestra, Planner; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Excused: Board Members Ron Krantz and Jim Niefer Others: Fred Noteboom, Town of Ithaca, Public Works Facility George Sheldrake, Caulkins Road, Ithaca Marla Miller, Caulkins Road, Ithaca John Bartelotti, 101 North Clinton Street, Syracuse Evan Monkemeyer, East King Road, Ithaca James Kerrigan, Chairman Sigel opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Tonight we have 3 appeals, that of the Town of Ithaca, the appeal of Ronald Knewstub and the appeal of Evan Monkemeyer. We'll be taking them in that order. Appeal of the Town of Ithaca, requesting modification of a previously granted sprinkler variance from Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code for an omission of a sprinkler system for the 27'8" x 21'8" Tutelo Park comfort station located at 151 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-4- 6.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The original approval included a finding that the comfort station be "substantially concrete," as indicated on the original plans. The building, as built, contains wooden roof trusses and a wooden roof deck. Fred Noteboom, Town of Ithaca Public Works As Kirk so well put forth, the building is still substantially concrete. We put in fireproof sheetrock on the ceiling, there is...the only flammables in the building is toilet paper in the comfort station that will not be used in the winter at all, and there are heaters in there to keep it about 40 degrees in the winter because the moisture would destroy the building. We are storing no flammables in the building, and for that reason, I am here to seek a variance for it. Chairman Sigel — Could you address, or have you been in contact with Kristie at all...about the comments she made in her letter...provided any additional information to her regarding the fire rating of the ceiling and access to the...I guess the roof space... ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 2 Mr. Noteboom — Yeah, there is a fire rated access door into the plumbing case. I have not talked to Kristie about her comments since she wrote them. To answer your question, a couple of the comments that she wrote are incorrect but...The double doors are on the original building, as on the original plans...I'd have to look her letter to know exactly which one... Harry Ellsworth — Have there been some changes? This whole thing has been before us before... Mr. Noteboom — Right, it's been before you 2 times and I apologize for that. There were no real changes. There wasn't an "official" plan to begin with, so we were building this building somewhat as we went. If we had indeed known that the variance was in place, which we didn't know out there, building this building, we probably would have done something about keeping a concrete ceiling on there, but we didn't know that at that time. Harry Ellsworth — But you people have been building this thing? Mr. Noteboom — Yes, we built it ourselves. Harry Ellsworth —What's the fuel for the heaters? Mr. Noteboom — Gas. Harry Ellsworth — Natural gas...{right}...Nobody is staying there though, this is just occasional use, right? Mr. Noteboom — Correct, occasional use, nobody's staying there, it won't be used in the winter, it's locked when it's not in use. Harry Ellsworth — What about this comment of hers' about things stored with fuel in it. Mr. Noteboom — For some reason they were thinking we were going to store mowers in there, which we can't. We have two crews who go around and mow all of our parks which are spread all over Town, and we actually can't afford to leave a mower parked there because they are in use all the time. I have a list of what will be stored there, if you'd like me to read it, it's 17 items long but... Harry Ellsworth — Just whatever might... Mr. Noteboom — There are the drags for the base-lines and everything, the marker, which is not motorized, for the base-lines, the scoreboards, the bags for the bases, cleaning supplies, mops and bucket, those kinds of things. Stakes, rope... ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 3 Chairman Sigel — Okay, so nothing motorized...nothing internal combustion, small engines Mr. Noteboom — No. Chairman Sigel ....But there will be natural gas heat. Mr. Noteboom — Yes. Chairman Sigel — Is that a single furnace for the whole building or... Mr. Noteboom — There will be 3 heaters, 3 small heaters in there. One in each comfort, men's room, ladies room and the storage area, to keep the moisture out in the winter. When people are using it, actually, they won't be working, but.... Chairman Sigel — Okay, so those will be completely shut off then, during the season when it's used? Mr. Noteboom — Yes, we won't need to use them then. Harry Ellsworth — It's a warm-weather use building. Mr. Mountin —What are the dates that it will be used? Mr. Noteboom — The beginning of May through, I imagine, maybe into September, but I doubt much use after that. Mr. Mountin — so about 5 months and then it's closed up the rest of the year. Mr. Noteboom — I heard you stopped over there. Mr. Mountin — Yeah I did, I inspected it a couple of days ago. Harry Ellsworth — You're quite a bit away from other buildings? Mr. Noteboom — A long ways away. The closest building is a pavilion an it's several hundred feet away. Dick Matthews — You said what Ms. Rice said here were in error? Mr. Noteboom — There were a couple of things in there. Dick Matthews — Could you tell me what those were? ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 4 Mr. Noteboom — I'd have to look at the letter to point them out. I remember the double doors...the...some of the comments on the ceiling panels are probably accurate...the approved plans are inaccurate, there were no approved plans...we didn't have a building permit when we started this, we got one later on...you make me go places I don't necessarily want to go....But we thought that was taken care of down here, and then when we got a building permit, there was no plumbing permit, so there was a lot of confusion in this building process. Dick Matthews —And we're talking about the Town of Ithaca, is that correct? Mr. Noteboom — That is correct. A little embarrassing isn't it. Dick Matthews — Ignore the sins of the father. Mr. Mountin — So Fred, you're looking for an appeal for the sprinkler, is building code still going to be requiring an alarm system? Or is there an appeal for that? I am seeing on the Memorandum here from Kristie that she says that there...so when we're talking about an appeal for the sprinkler system, is that an appeal for a fire alarm system in general? Mr. Noteboom — We are going to put smoke detectors in the building and hook them to the fire department, just as an extra safety measure. Kristie, I think, stated in her letter, that...but we already had the phone lines in there... Mr. Mountin — So it's electric, electric with battery backup. Mr. Noteboom — Right, and when I had originally written it, I had not written he phone line cost in there, she is correct about that. Dick Matthews —So you have a fire alarm system in there, you have smoke detectors, but that's not connected to the fire department is it? Mr. Noteboom — Yes. Dick Matthews — So they would be notified if there was heat in that building. Mr. Noteboom — Exactly. Dick Matthews — What's the reluctance of the Town of Ithaca not wanting to put a sprinkler system in that building? Mr. Noteboom — The sprinkler system is more expensive and it doesn't seem necessary in that building, to me I guess, since I'm appealing it. Dick Matthews — Have the Town Father's said that too? ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 5 Mr. Noteboom — I haven't asked them, necessarily. Dick Matthews — so you're making the assumption that it's too expensive for the Town of Ithaca? Mr. Noteboom — Yes, we actually talked about it a Public Works, they, the Public Works Committee, which includes some Board Members, told me to bring it here, go through the channels just like anybody else would have to. They thought the cost was a little high too, for a building that's only used occasional, in the summer months. So, did the whole Board talk about it, no. Dick Matthews — Kirk, if this building was on a private property, a citizen, a tax paying citizen, would it be required to have a sprinkler system in it? Chairman Sigel — I assume, for this use it would. Mr. Noteboom — Yes, I can actually answer that. That's why I am here, because it would be required, and they would have to do the same thing that I am doing, come her for a ... Chairman Sigel — I mean, if you are asking if someone built a similar building, say as a storage building on their property, then I don't think that would require a sprinkler system, but I think that would be a different use. I mean it's a use as a public restroom, I think, requires under the Town Code to have a sprinkler, not under State Code. Mr. Noteboom — I think the actual storage is what requires a sprinkler, not the actual comfort station, if I remember reading those codes correctly. It's the actual storage space that requires it. Dick Matthews — For the sake of argument, and I'm not in an argumentative mood, but maybe I am, if I built a building like this on my property for my swimming pools for when all my friends and relatives come on nice days, I would be required to have a sprinkler system in that building correct? Mr. Noteboom — No, residential areas are exempt. Your yard would be exempt. Harry Ellsworth — It starts with 2-families, I design sprinkler systems, in my own personal opinion is that in this case, no one is living there and so forth and so on, a sprinkler system is a waste of money. Dick Matthews — Okay, let me ask the question again then... Harry Ellsworth —what are we trying to say... ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 6 Dick Matthews — If 2 famililes had a swimming pool between them and they built a building like this and they were tax paying families, and they jointly got together and said let's build a building for our swimming pool, they would be required to have a sprinkler system, is that correct? Harry Ellsworth — I don't know about the pool, their living quarters, that would be required to have a sprinkler system Dick Matthews —What I am trying to get at here is, I don't want 2 sets of rules. Ms. Brock — The Code says that bathhouses need to have sprinkler systems. There is an exception for attached one and two family dwellings. It doesn't say if that exception applies to accessory building. Chairman Sigel — But even a 2-family dwelling is exempt. Ms. Brock — Yes, 1 and 2 family dwellings are exempt from the law if there is regular overnight sleeping by human occupants in the building. So, I haven't looked at this before, but it's possible even a poolhouse that serves just one family may have to be sprinklered under this law. I mean, it's a hypothetical and I just looked at the Code tonight, but that's what it looks like at first glance anyway. Dick Matthews —What I am getting at here is I don't want to be part of creating one rule for the Town and one rule for the taxpaying citizens. Just by principle alone that bothers me. Ms. Brock — But you have had a number of people come and ask for sprinkler variances, so I think you're right, I think you should treat the Town just as you would treat any private applicant. Harry Ellsworth — I can't remember what the actual cases were but It seems that we've had some similar things...there was one that was going to build a part-time golf and ice cream...and I think we gave them a variance... Ms. Brock — And didn't the Namgayl Monastery, didn't they have...and they also had some seasonal use cottages and wasn't there also some restrooms that they asked for the sprinkler variance...that may have been withdrawn... Dick Matthews — Okay, thanks for pointing that out, okay. No further questions. Mr. Levine — Is this variance, if it's granted, going to be condition upon non- storage of combustibles in the building? Ms. Brock — Yes, the Code allows you to set conditions "as you reasonably determine necessary to mitigate the consequences of the omission of the sprinkler system." So you may set that type of condition. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 7 Mr. Levine —And you consent to that, correct? Mr. Noteboom — Certainly. Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board on this appeal and the public hearing was closed and the matter returned to the Board. Chairman Sigel —We do a SEAR for this? Ms. Brock—We do, yes. Chairman Sigel — I will move in the regard of the appeal of the Town of Ithaca for their comfort station in Tutelo Park, I move to make a negative determination of environmental significance based on the review performed by Town Staff. Second? Mr. Ellsworth — I'll second it. Chairman Sigel —All those in favor.... ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB Resolution # 2007 — 015 SEAR — Sprinkler Variance Tutelo Park Comfort Station Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 30, 2007 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the regard to the appeal of the Town of Ithaca for their comfort station in Tutelo Park, based on the review performed by Town Staff. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Levine, Matthews, Mountin NAYS: None The motion was carried. Chairman Sigel — I will re-move Zoning Board resolution number 2005 — 023 with the change that the size of the building is no greater than 28' by 22' with the other findings being the same and with the following requirements: that smoke detectors be installed and be tied to emergency personnel for notification and that there be no ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 8 storage of any flammable materials...internal combustion powered devices or anything of that nature inside the storage area. Susan? Anything else you... Ms. Brock— Do you consider the storage of toilet paper to be flammable materials? Perhaps we should just specify... Chairman Sigel -- ...flammable liquids? Mr. Levine — Combustibles? Ms. Brock— Yeah, I think toilet paper might be considered combustible....Alright, I think it's fine. I think the minutes can reflect that the Board does not consider toilet paper to fall within the category of things that are being prohibited. Chairman Sigel —With the exception of paper products and other things routinely needed for a comfort station. Okay? Second? Mr. Ellsworth — I'll second it. Chairman Sigel —All in favor? ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB Resolution No. 2007 — 016 Sprinkler Variance Tutelo Park Comfort Station Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 30, 2007 MOTION made by Chairman Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board re-moves Zoning Board resolution number 2005 — 023 with the change that the building be no larger than 28 feet by 22 feet and the remaining findings remain the same, with the following requirements- Requirements- 1. equirements:Requirements:1. That smoke detectors be installed and be tied to emergency personnel for notification, and 2. That there be no storage of flammable materials or internal combustion powered devices or anything of that nature inside the storage area with the exception of paper products and other things routinely needed for a comfort station. The vote on the motion was as follows: ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 9 AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Levine, Matthews, Mountin NAYS: None The MOTION was carried. Chairman Sigel — I am just going to take a minute to read this letter that we received tonight...for the next case... Okay... APPEAL of Ronald B. Knewstub, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII, Chapter 270-59, Chapter 270-60(E), and Chapter 270-219.2(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a 36' x 52' (1,872s.f.) pole barn in conjunction with the operation of a home occupation located at 180 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-2- 3.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed barn exceeds the 500s.f. maximum floor area allowed for a home occupation. The proposed 16-foot tall building also exceeds the 15-foot maximum height allowed for accessory buildings in the Low Density Residential Zone, and will be located in the side yard, where accessory buildings are restricted to the rear yard. Ron and Sandy Knewstub, 180 Caulkins Road Mr. Knewstub — So, this complaint is news to us, so this is the first time I've seen it. Chairman Sigel — Yeah, this is the first we've seen it too. Mr. Knewstub — Yeah, so I'm a little surprised...It is signed by a couple of people who are not landowners on the road...Ms....I guess that's Keegan right?....Keegan and Nick... Chairman Sigel — You're saying Keegan is not on... Mr. Knewstub — at 174 is George's girlfriend, I guess... Chairman Sigel —Well, they're in the same house though... Mr. Knewstub — I guess so, it does seem to be that way. Chairman Sigel — Someone else, you're saying, is not... Mr. Knewstub — Nick....(someone from the audience explains who that is)...Oh, okay, there they are. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 10 Chairman Sigel — Okay. Well, I don't know how other Board members feel but, even before reading this letter, I felt that your proposal was rather substantial given what the requirements for home occupancy are...you know...more than triple the square footage allowed and it is, I mean, it's fairly evident from the condition of your property now that it is a significant operation, you know, which, you basically state, saying you need the space, you know, in the pole barn, and I am inclined to agree with the papers on the point that it really is not incidental, at this point.... Mr. Knewstub — Well, I need to point out though that we are currently putting an addition on our house, so, there is traffic that isn't usual there. I mean, people, carpenters are coming to work on the house, so, we do not do any dock construction at that house. Zero. Chairman Sigel —Where do you do that? Mr. Knewstub — On the lake. It's all done in place, we couldn't possibly build docks the way we build docks...we couldn't prefabricate them, it's just not possible. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So, you're preparing things...you're cutting lumber? Mr. Knewstub — Well, what we do, we do have a pile of pilings, of poles, and when we need those we saw them to length and load them on a trailer. A tractor trailer comes up that road to deliver those logs maybe as often as 3 times a year. We could go, I don't know if you want to go through it point by point, but a lot isn't true. I mean, there's a lot of...a lot of it is exaggeration and is not quite accurate. I mean, there are some things that are true in here. There is a lot of material that is stored outside and it shouldn't be, I agree with that, but that's why we need the shop. Chairman Sigel — Well, I mean, if you...If there are things in here that you feel are incorrect, then please feel free to... Mr. Knewstub — Well we'd have to go through it point by point because there's so many inaccuracies that you'd have to go through line by line. Chairman Sigel — If you would like to, I... Mr. Knewstub — I could just give an overview....where we propose to put this shop is to the north of our house. I think it was 60 feet away from the house and approximately 60 feet away from the street. Chairman Sigel — Roughly where the tents are? Mr. Knewstub — Where the tents are. But the view shed for everybody is very minimal there, seriously. I mean, if we put a building that say, you would allow, for example a 500 square foot building, in the back yard, it would be very much in ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 11 Marla's view and I don't think she'd appreciate it, but we could do that. And it would also be in Matthew's and...what's her name...and I did speak to all these people, by the way...anyway...we could put it further back but it would be even more in their view, so....The siting of it, I do think, I really do think the visual impact of it is fairly minimal. The ultimate result would be a much better looking property. That really is the full intention of this application is to be able to deal with all this. We really prefer not to buy another property away from the home to do the work, or to store material. Mr. Mountin — How many tents are there for storage right now? Mr. Knewstub — Three. There's 3 ten by 20... Mr. Mountin —Will the tents still remain? Mr. Knewstub — No. They would go away. Mr. Mountin -- ...because the barn would be the consolidation of everything? Mr. Knewstub — Right. Chairman Sigel -- Any... Mr. Mountin — How long has this stuff been laying out side there? Mr. Knewstub —Well, it's kind of accumulated. It's been out for quite a while. Mr. Mountin — Is your intention to clean it up completely? Mr. Knewstub — Yes. Completely. Mr. Ellsworth — So this outside storage would be eliminated with this pole barn? Mr. Knewstub — Yes sir. Mr. Levine — What do you think about the comment that the traffic generated by your business doubles if not triples what would normally occur? Mr. Knewstub — I just don't believe that's true. I mean, there would only be 2, at the most, probably 2 employees working in this pole barn at any given time. Mr. Levine — And what would they be doing? Mr. Knewstub -- Well, right now I think we'd probably be making...we are trying to decide what we are going to do in the off season, but there's a lot of, sort of maintenance on equipment...there's...we do a lot of residential type of high-end sort of boathouses and roves and stuff like that that need trim material and things like ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 12 that. Need millwork done for those jobs. So the idea is to do it in the shop. We are doing it in our garage right now, but... Mr. Mountin — Is the business...I think down here...offensive noise pollution...is the business run...what hours of the day and how many days a week does the ... Mr. Knewstub — Well, there's no business conducted at the house. Very rarely do...like I said, right now there does seem to be an inordinate amount of traffic I would think. John does drive a diesel truck so, you know, diesels have a distinct noise, I guess, but, it probably wakes Marla up, but, they'll come, they'll work on the house, or do the addition, or they'll come and get boats. You know, we use a lot of hardware, we store a lot of material there. Mr. Mountin — So I guess the point, somebody's point and I guess specifically it says here "disturbing noise occurring at all times of the day." Mr. Knewstub — Disturbing noise...I'm not sure what that means. Mr. Mountin — at all times of the day and on any given days, not just Monday through Friday, 9 — 5. Mr. Knewstub — I honestly don't know what it means. I'm not sure what that's referring to. Mrs. Knewstub — Well, like he said, we are doing additions and sometimes he and I work on the weekends on the house, and...but it's not business, it's trying to build our house. Chairman Sigel — How long have you been working on that? On the addition? Mr. Knewstub — Late fall. Mr. Mountin —And what's the timeline on completing the house? Mr. Knewstub —What's the timeline on which? Mr. Mountin — On completing the house? Mr. Knewstub — That's a good question. We had ideas about doing another addition, though, on the backside, between the barn and the...in fact, do we have an application in...yeah, it's in...that's right...Steve Williams has it...I think there are a couple of questions about it, but...it's 20 x 30...a living room addition on the north side of the house... Mr. Mountin — Yeah, you have that on your survey map. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 13 Mr. Knewstub — So when that's done, so the target date is about a year from now. Mr. Levine — Concerning your business, how frequently is there loading and unloading of materials that are going out of your property? Mr. Knewstub — You mean, well, I do it all the time but of course my truck is already there, it doesn't go out. You know, I'd say maybe 10 trips a week, something like that, yeah, so, 2 times 5 days a week, that's not that frequent...I don't think it's even that much, really. Mr. Levine — And what is a load? Mr. Knewstub — Well, not a load, I mean, I will come and get poles or tools or something like that. And that's the other thing that's stored in those tents. We have a lot of tools...equipment and tools. Chairman Sigel — How many employees do you have? Mr. Knewstub — Right now I have three. Mr. Matthews — Can somebody explain to me what the spirit of the law is with regards to the definition of a home occupation. Chairman Sigel — It is what it says. It's in the definition section of the Code. Mr. Matthews — It seems to me, the home occupation definition makes clear to me, anyway, to my thoughts, that what the appellant is speaking about is outside of the commonly held definition of a home occupation. For instance, they say, "home occupation typically include architects, attorneys, career consultants, carpenters, dentists, doctors, dressmakers, editors, electricians, engineers, financial consultants, hairdressers, insurance brokers, plumbers, realtors, teachers, translators and writers." It doesn't talk about a construction business with all of its equipment and some of its sub-fabrication processes and so forth. This is a construction business. I don't care if you call it a dock business or whatever you want to call it... Chairman Sigel —Would you consider that distinct from being a carpenter? Dick Matthews — Yes. A carpenter doesn't, normally, have, having been raised by a carpenter, have 3 and 4 people in his driveway working, or in his side yard working. A carpenter usually has his tools in his car and a couple of 2x4's and such as that but certainly not on the scope that the appellant is putting on our table tonight. This exceeds home occupation in my opinion. I can read English and fairly well and this exceeds it. This is not a lawyer a doctor a consultant, this is somebody conducting a construction business in a residential area and I think that's asking too m uch. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 14 People have a right, when they have a home, to have peace and quiet without all the banging and scratching and booming that goes on building with large equipment. I think that's unfair, it's an unfair burden on the home owners in that area to bring this into their environment. I feel very strongly about that. Mr. Knewstub —We don't have any large equipment operating up there. Dick Matthews —What are the trucks coming up there? Mr. Knewstub — The 3 times a year? The tractor trailers? Dick Matthews —Whatever...sure. Mr. Knewstub — Delivering material, yeah. Dick Matthews — Okay. And that's big material for docks? Mr. Knewstub — It's not the only tractor-trailer that comes up. I mean, there's other tractor trailers that come up for other people. It's not...I mean...I don't...a tractor trailer coming up that road, I don't think is a traumatic event, in any way. I mean, it comes up.... Dick Matthews — This exceeds what the Town has said is a home occupation. I mean, we're not talking about noise or anything like that, when they talk about it, I mean, hairdressers don't make noise, they make (inaudible). Mr. Knewstub — Right but Bartholemew & Boxford Builders are on Caulkins Road and they have a home occupation. Dick Matthews —Well, that's them, that's not you. Mr. Knewstub —Well, they're nonconforming. Dick Matthews —But they haven't set a precedent. Mr. Knewstub — I beg your pardon? Dick Matthews — They haven't set a precedent. Mr. Knewstub — They do exactly what I would be doing. Harry Ellsworth —Where are they located? Mr. Knewstub — They do mill work which is what I would do. Exactly what we are proposing and storing our material. I mean, they don't have as much hardware and ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 15 they don't have as much...as many tools, but none of these tools are operated on the site. Like a welder or a compressor or all the nail guns, the fasteners, there's a long list, but they're all hand tools. Mr. Mountin — So when you get a delivery, are you cutting the materials and then hauling them off site where you are building them as docks? Are you fabricating the docks in the pole barn and then hauling it all? Mr. Knewstub — No, our deliveries are all to a barge on the lake. Mr. Mountin — So what materials are coming then? Pilings? Mr. Knewstub — Pilings. Mr. Mountin —And then you just cut those pilings? Mr. Knewstub — Cut them to length, that's all we do... Mr. Mountin —And then loading them and hauling them? Mr. Knewstub — Put them on a trailer, put them on a trailer with, you know, with an excavator which is actually very quiet. It's quieter than most peoples, cars. Dick Matthews —An excavator is quiet? Mr. Knewstub — It's a mini excavator and it's... Mr. Mountin — What else goes on in terms of the business? You're cutting your pilings...any other fabricating or welding or construction? Mr. Knewstub — No. Mr. Levine — This storage of material and debris that I am seeing in these pictures is a code violation. If you were to build only a 500 square foot building, would you be able to reduce the code violation with just a 500-square foot building? Mr. Knewstub — I don't know. I certainly couldn't store all the materials, no. I would have to do something major and...you know...to change that situation and I don't know. Mr. Levine -- Are you able to operate the business without storing these materials outside? Mr. Knewstub — I think it's in everybody's interest that these materials be stored inside... ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 16 Mr. Levine — Right, I understand that, but... Mr. Knewstub — I would certainly clean up...It certainly would be the easiest solution for us and probably the friendliest solution for the neighborhood. There's a lot of non-conforming things in the neighborhood, but maybe that's irrelevant, I don't know...but there probably is...but to answer your question, I think 500 square feet would be extremely difficult, especially if you want to house these...I have a Skidsteer and I have a mini excavator so there's two things that take up, that determine the amount of space. I have concrete forms, they take up a 10x20 space, you know, everything has a sort of designated space and then the hardware is going to take up another 10x20 so it evaporates quickly. So the whole idea is to get it all stored inside and away from you, to make it attractive and make life better for everybody. And the other thing is if we are operating a table saw or a band-saw or a drill press or something like that, then that would be housed inside a building, I don't think there would be any noise. Mr. Mountin — You mention near the...you say...a small woodshop...the building will house a small woodshop with an area for fabrication and for painting which will occupy 1,000-square feet. Mr. Knewstub — Right. Mr. Mountin — Fabricating what? Mr. Knewstub — Well, like I said, it would be for our trim and that sort of thing. For any kind of detail work...furniture, storage bins on docks and that sort of thing. People ask us for that stuff all the time. Mr. Mountin — Okay, so you are cutting the pilings but you are also fabricating... Mr. Knewstub — We're not fabricating anything right now there, we fabricate on the site. Mr. Mountin — But you will fabricate in the new building? Mr. Knewstub —We prefer to, yes, it's better in a controlled environment. Mr. Mountin — That's a new use, for the building, besides storage? It will be used for fabricating and painting. Mr. Knewstub — Yes, is it not mentioned in there? Yes, a woodshop, by that I sort of...you know, for mill work, if that's fabricating. Mr. Mountin — I am just trying to get a sense of how much of your business is actually conducted onsite. I thought originally it was just pilings and then you hauled them off. But it sounds like it's more.... ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 17 Mr. Knewstub — If we have the building, then yes, a lot more will be conducted on the site, sure, and particularly in the winter months. The idea is to get us off the lake from November 15t" through March 15t". It's pretty difficult to be out there in the middle of January, but we do it all the time, but that's part of the object too. Mr. Mountin — So then in those winter months, your business is inside the pole bard doing... Mr. Knewstub — Well that's the idea, yes, we are hoping to do that, I mean, that's not necessarily the way it's going to happen, we have to see if we can afford to do it that way and make it happen. Harry Ellsworth — Has the Town had any calls about this list and from these people? Is this all brand new to the Town staff? This letter? There's been no calls about all the storage and the noise and all the things in here? Chairman Sigel — In the past, I think Harry means. Ms. Balestra — Oh, not that we're aware of, there have not been any formal complaints made up until recently. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Chairman Sigel opens the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Marla Miller, 178 Caulkins Road I am the author of the complaint. Before I speak for myself, I have been...I know I am supposed to address his to Mr. Sigel, I have been asked by Matt Snyder, who is a current resident at 182 Caulkins Road, who is on vacation with his family, to highlight, for him, the specific concerns that he has, he's on the other side of Ron, he's on the side where this pole barn would be closest to. And he is raising 2 toddlers that he's a Mr. Mom and he would have liked to have been here, but they are in Virginia...so I don't know if that's allowed or not. I'm asking on his behalf, and in fact, it will probably be redundant because I am going to cover everything. Chairman Sigel — Is this a letter that he wrote? Ms. Miller— No, it's what he wanted me to highlight what his concerns are. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Ms. Miller— I don't...you can say no, it's just, he asked me to do this so I am going to do it, if it's okay...I am going to speak on my behalf first. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 18 1 strongly object to any variance associated with this pole barn. I have lived at 178 Caulkins Road for 7 years and I have held my tongue...(she's upset ) Chairman Sigel — Take your time... Ms. Miller — Thank you.....I want the rules and regulations of building and zoning enforced on this road. When I drove to Aurora this morning to teach my class at Well's College, they have a sign up, right as you enter Town, it says "Building and Zoning enforced" and it let's everybody know what's what, okay...So...the only reason this pole barn is being constructed is because, in association with industry. Industry that does not belong in a low density residential zone and that should be enough, because I have not exaggerated in my document. I have stated what I have lived through and I have stated what the rest of the residents, and I want you to understand, that this is a small road, this is a dead-end road, those tractor-trailers have to navigate turning around where snow plows turn around. Ithaca City buses don't even travel up this road to pick children up. This is the majority of the road here, right here, these signatures are pretty much everybody, it's a small road. I'm gonna let George go because I am too emotional. George Sheldrake, 174 Caulkins Road I've lived up there for a lot longer than anybody else on the road, just about 30 years now and it was, there was only 2 other people on the road when I moved up there and I've seen it grow a little bit. There's been a few houses popped up and some of them generate a little bit more traffic and we've had to deal with that and that's normal growth. But, what I see happening now is the industrialization of Caulkins Road. This is not a home occupation by any stretch. Somebody doing a seamstress or a lawyer or accountant or somebody just having a car coming into their driveway to come into their office just to talk to them, may be a home occupation, but this is not. I really don't have any problem, and I told Ronnie earlier, the size of the building, a foot higher, a little bigger, even 3X's as big doesn't really bother me. He's got a lot of land. However, the location of it, he wants to put it up right next to the road, that bothers me. There's no way to make a pole barnd look really good. It's a beautiful wood lot, at least it used to be, before there was all this junk strewn around all over it which is not incidental to building a house. I have built plenty of houses, I know hwat goes on outside a house and it can be kept neat and tidy. These silly little tents put up all over the woods out there, it's unkempt property and it's all, it seems to be all relative to his dock building business. Which, he does a really good business. He does beautiful work and it's grown. And it's grown from a little dock building business to quite a great company with several employees and I just think that it's time that it gets a commercial, if not industrial location because that's what's going on there. There's these truck coming on up there. I don't really have that problem with a tractor trailer creeping up that road a couple times a year, it's what they bring. They bring in these pilings, which are full length telephone poles, pressure treated, ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 19 and they dump them right along the side of the road. It's not put away on any storage off-site where you can't see them. They're right along the road. As a matter of fact, they could roll out in the road. This is next...the neighbors that Marla just spoke of, they have a couple of kids...it's really close...there's a creek between their driveway and Ron's pilings, which is dangerous...Kids climbing on it, you know a pile like blocks, it's definitely dangerous. And that is a pitiful looking building that was made up there that Paul Jacobs put his motor home in, I don't think he had a permit for that, I'm sure that's why they didn't buy the house up there either, just a great of big roof over a bus sized structure, but that's neither here nor there. This building that he's proposing, it's not to store bicycles, lawnmowers and a car or you know, a collection of cars or something like that. This is for a home occupation that is industrial use. He has table saw, which we all hear. He says he doesn't have any heavy equipment, but I think a skidsteer and an excavator, the trucks that run around there are heavy equipment and they are stored on-site. They go off to the job, quite often they are going down the road on a trailer with a bobcat on it or an excavator and they go right by our houses. A couple of years ago, and this probably wasn't incidental to dock building, but I guess he decided to put a basement in his house and he spent the whole summer....I guess he has a jackhammer attachment that goes on the front of that bobcat and it must be rock under there because he spent the whole summer jack- hammering and I was really feeling sorry for Marla there because he'd be out there from early morning, all day long, jack-hammering out a whole basement. I guess that's what he was doing. I don't know but it was loud. In the shop that he has there...well, he already has a shop, several all over the location he has there, he has all these fabricating...he calls millwork. I have a woodshop too, and it involves planning and anybody who's been around a wood planer knows that this is, it's the loudest piece of equipment in any shop. You wear ear protection when you're running it and everybody on Caulkins Road, when he starts with this planer knows it. Whether you are inside your house or not, and it's very disturbing as far as noise. I really, I've been biting my tongue too, over this. It's come to my realization that he's running a business out of his house and we'd like to keep Caulkins Road light, what do you call it, low density residential with the farms about, which I think I am just about the only farmer who owns land around there and actually farms, but when I come home at night, and I think it's nice to have a quiet neighborhood to come down to. We have quite a few kids in the neighborhood now, and quiet yards, and it's really...that is getting under my skin. If he wants to build a big building, I don't have a problem with it. Put it out of site, you got plenty of room, they could put it down there. I have a garage that's 72 x 30, it sets way down...200 feet off the road, a greenhouse, I store, it's not used for my business at all. Snowmobiles, collectable cars, stuff like that, and they're not in my yard. My yard is very clear. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 20 1 have a real problem with the Town of Ithaca Zoning enforcement. Whoever that is that's supposed to be doing that because, complain or don't complain, it doesn't matter. I filed, over the years, at least 5 complaints of our neighbor at 172 Caulkins Road, it's Estavon Thomas, you guys all know him I'm sure down here. Andy and I would go around, Andy would go up there, he was scared of the guy. There's nothing that looks as bad as this place on Buffalo Hill Road in Slaterville. Nothing. This is the worst property in the Town of Ithaca. I have filed complaints against this, as well as down at 817 Elmira...14...Philips down there. Twenty-thirty lawnmowers in your yard, junk cars....nobody does anything about it. There has to bee some enforcement. We want to live within these zoning regulations that are set for us and all the neighbors in our area do. And I don't have any problem with living within the zoning. I just wish that somebody, when we put a complaint forward, would follow through with it and go up....not that we should even have to put a complaint in for it. Down the road, this guy has stuff falling in the creek. He has 500 or a 1000 gallons of paint stored outside in his yard.... Ms. Miller— He has mental problems...it's been established... Mr. Sheldrake — Nobody's ever done anything about it and I've put that in complaints. This, this is a disaster up there and Caulkins Road, I don't know if any of you have ever come up it, it's really quiet, it's a dead-end road, there's what, 7 houses on it not including the co-op that goes on up the hill but you don't see a house at all. But, any added, this occupation that Ronnie's doing...I think he's got a great business going. But I think it's time that he takes it off site and he gets a remote location for his business, which is doing...it's outgrowing a rural neighborhood like that. Ms. Miller — And a pole barn is not going to keep sound in it is going to magnify sound. It is not going to be any quieter for me, nor for 182 and I need to, because I can't seem to speak very well on my behalf, but I can write, I need to just cover for Matt Schneider what his concerns are just because I said I would and I want to. He is concerned about violations of the zoning regulations that this business already represents that you all are already aware of some of them. He is concerned about the size of the home occupation. He is concerned about the area that this home occupation covers. This is a residence, and I do not feel, and I will say this, that I do not feel that if a pole barn is approved, that the dealings of this business are going to be confined to that pole barn. I do not have the faith or confidence that that will happen. It is still going to stretch out onto the property. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 21 Okay, painting was a huge concern for Mr. Schneider. Huge. He has 2 toddlers developing. Paint is toxic. Fumes, and we're not talking like he's far away from where this pole barn is going to be, fumes are a huge concern to him, as they are for me, but I'm speaking on his behalf. He's concerned about the workers. How many workers are coming to this site. And that basically covers pretty much what we are all concerned about. I mean, and I'm sorry but a skidsteer and a bobcat are loud and they are large equipment vehicles. They are not your normal neighborhood thing. You know, people have tractors they mow their lawns with, but I don't...I personally can't take any more and I want Ron and Faith to know that I have compassion for...this is his Iivlihood...I have tried to live with this for a very long time, and I'm older now and this is my home and I don't want to deal with this any longer. Mr. Sheldrake — I'd like to add...Marla was a tenant of mine for several years at 174 and she liked it so much up there she ought the neighbors house, between my house and Ron's house, when it came up for sale. And also add, the talk about down the road at Bartholomew's, he's built a little...it's a 2-story...it's looks just like the barn that's next to it, barn structure, stick building, it looks very nice...it's got a little wood shop in it. It's more of a hobby shop, I have never...I live close to him...maybe halfway...probably closer to Bartholemews and I have never heard anything out of that place down there. Never seen anything offensive piled up around the shop relating to there business. The house is a different story, but that just fits in with the neighborhood, a little building, and I don't think it's more than 500 square feet and it is 2 stories, may be a little bigger, I don't know, but it looks good. So I don't think it's any problem with that. And it isn't, like there's not a shingle hanging out up there. He's a carpenter, is what it is, so he has a little shop but I have a shop too, at the farm and everybody has their own shop... Chairman Sigel — Okay. Thank you very much for coming. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Chairman Sigel closes the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Any further comments or questions? Mr. Mountin — I guess I am also seeing it like Dick here. This...I think this exceeds the Town... the home occupation use. It seems to me that this is very much turned into a business, an industrial business, and doesn't justify residential zoning. I think there's also a condition here, a matter of the site, and the appearance of the site and if the site has been maintained or not maintained and in the years it has gotten to the point where it is heavily littered and I have a concern about that and the intention of going forward. If that hasn't been the case in the foregoing years, I question whether or not, even if we did allow a pole barn, what would be there to mandate the cleaning up of such a site. So I don't...but my main point is this idea that I think this isn't a home occupation use. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 22 Ms. Brock — Can I just say something here. The Town has now received the complaint and so the code enforcement officers will investigate that and do the follow up on that. Because, if in fact the allegations are true, and from the photographs we see the outside storage of materials, so you know, I think there probably is good evidence that there is a violation of the code at this point....You have not been asked to interpret whether or not the activities at the site constitute a home occupation. That isn't part of what's been public notice for tonight. What's been requested, what the appeal deals with is the request for the variances, for the size, the height, and the placement in the side yard, of the pole barn, and that's what you need to be deciding tonight. Whether to grant or deny that request for those variances. You need to base your decision on the area variance criteria. That's the way you should be proceeding tonight. Chairman Sigel — So then it is the opinion of Town Staff that this otherwise meets the criteria? Ms. Brock — No, no, that's not what I am saying at all. The code enforcement office will go out and look and they may, you know, bring an action or I guess a letter directing them to come in to compliance, and if they disagree, they may come back here for an interpretation as to whether or not this in fact constitutes a home occupation, but things haven't proceeded to that point yet. Chairman Sigel — That would require a notice of violation form the Town, if ... Ms. Brock — Right. You are not the code enforcement office. You're not to make determinations of violations, okay...You're here to hear and consider this appeal for these variances and you look at the area variance criteria, such as undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties were you to grant the variance. Whether the request is substantial. Is the amount of the variance great compared to what the requirements are. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects. Whether the alleged difficulty is self created. Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The things that we consider whenever we look at area variances. Those are the criteria that you should be considering. Chairman Sigel — But this is a variance request to exceed the allowed square footage of a home occupation. Ms. Brock— Right. Chairman Sigel — So if we decide this is not a home occupation, then we can't grant a variance for it. Dick Matthews — That's how we got into it. Ms. Brock— But you haven't been asked to make that determination. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 23 Chairman Sigel — But we can't grant a variance for something that doesn't exist. I mean, how can we grant a variance for the square footage of a home occupation if we believe that the proposal is not a home occupation? Ms. Brock—And that would be based on what? The nature of the... Chairman Sigel — Some of the requirements here are not being met. That... Harry Ellsworth — F, G, H, and I under the definition of home occupation. Chairman Sigel — That it shall not be detrimental.. Ms. Brock —But those are the same types of things you consider with an area variance criteria right. Undesirable change to neighborhood or nearby properties. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects... Dick Matthews — And the only way we can answer those questions is to find out what it's being used for. And that's how we got into the home occupation argument. Ms. Brock— Right. Chairman Sigel — But, I mean, if we just looked strictly at the square footage, then an empty pole barn doesn't produce noise or... Ms. Brock — No, you look at the proposed use of the building. You do look at that. You'll consider the operations that would take place in the pole barn. Dick Matthews — It's background, right? We can rule on the pole barn. Ms. Brock — Right you can consider the effects of this building with the operations that would be taking place within it. Using the area variance criteria, because it's tied up with the home occupation. Dick Matthews -- Right, I can't separate the two of them. So I suggest we move on. Chairman Sigel — Any other questions? We've said it all. Environmental Assessment? Ms. Balestra — Staff based their analysis for the review of the project and the environmental assessment on the area variances that are requested, not on the complaint that is before the Board. Chairman Sigel — And not specifically on the home occupation that will be used in the space. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 24 Ms. Balestra — Correct, correct. Therefore, the main concern that staff had was the outside storage and the aesthetic impact. Potential environmental impact near the stream that's located on the property. Harry Ellsworth —What about noise? Ms. Balestra — Noise was not considered. Staff was not aware, fully aware of the full operation. Harry Ellsworth — Bet you are now. Ms. Balestra — I think has staff been aware of all the implications of the home business, the environmental assessment may have reflected additional analysis regarding noise, traffic and what not...neighborhood impact, but given the area variances that are granted for the pole barn, the location of the pole barn and the size of the pole barn, we based our environmental analysis simply on that. Mr. Kanter — However, I think that the Board could certainly go ahead and consider any of the evidence that's being presented tonight to further make an environmental determination and also, realize that the finding of no significant environmental impact is not necessarily going to dictate what your decision on the variance request would be. Because the variance request has some additional criteria and those criteria may have other balances than significant environmental impact. Chairman Sigel — We've been in similar situations before, where it's been my desire to not move on the environmental impact decision if we're going to entertain a motion to deny the applicant, simply because we get into a deadlock where if you are going to find that the environmental impact exists, then are we supposed to stop right there and investigate ways to mitigate that or study further, when that's not what we want to do essentially. I mean, that's appropriate if it's something that you anticipate approving, but, it doesn't...is that something that you have thought about further Susan. Ms. Brock — This happened at a prior meeting once, and we made the determination that you would only need to do SEAR if the motion were to grant or approve the project. That if the motion is to deny it, you wouldn't need to do SEAR. Chairman Sigel — Well I am going to make a motion to deny the appeal of Ronald Knewstub, requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII, Chapter 270- 59, 270-60(E), 270-219-2a, to be permitted to construct a 36'x52' square foot pole barn in conjunction with the operation of a home occupation located at 180 Calkins Road, Tax parcel 33.-2-3.1, Low Density Residential Zone for the following reasons: 1. An undesirable change will be created if this variance were granted given that the requested pole barn will be used to store Skidsteer loader and a mini ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 25 excavator and will facilitate the storage and delivery of large pilings which are not things that are typically found in a residential neighborhood, and 2. That the requested variance is substantial, being more than three times the size allowed for a home occupation and as well as being located in the side yard rather than the rear yard which is not permitted by the ordinance, and 3. The requested variance will involve adverse physical or environmental effects, specifically, the creation of noise on the property that will be heard beyond the boundaries of the property, associated with this business. Anything you would suggest adding? Or suggest modifying? Ms. Brock — I would add a finding that the alleged difficulty is self-created and that the applicant does have other options in terms of location of business, it does not have to be at his residence. Chairman Sigel — He could locate the business off-site, correct. Ms. Brock —And also that, under, I am just trying to decide which criteria to put this under...Under the criteria that the request is substantial, Kirk, I think that you said that the request in area is not only more than 3xs what's permitted for home occupation, but also add a finding that the pole barn would allow an expansion of the on-site operations, specifically, some on-site fabrication of trim and other items that's currently done off-site... Chairman Sigel —Which would be an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Ms. Brock — Right, it really ties into that too, that that would lead to further change in the neighborhood and that this would be a further industrial activity that is being introduced with its attendant adverse environmental effects in terms of noise. Chairman Sigel — And I will add one more finding. Under the request being substantial, in addition to being 3xs the allowed size, it's also located in the side yard rather than in the rear yard, which is not permitted by the ordinance. Ms. Brock — And we would also need a statement that this Board feels that in balancing the benefit to the applicant to the detriment of the health, safety and welfare of the community, because of all these considerations, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant is outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Chairman Sigel — Okay, is there a second on this motion to deny the appeal? Dick Matthews — I'll second it. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 26 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB Resolution No. 2007 — 017 Area Variance for a Home Occupation Knewstub — 180 Calkins Road Tax Parcel 33.-2-3.1 April 30, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board denies the appeal of Ronald Knewstub requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII, Chapter 270-59, 270-60(E), 270-219- 2a, to be permitted to construct a 36'x52' square foot pole barn in conjunction with the operation of a home occupation located at 180 Calkins Road, Tax parcel 33.-2- 3.1, Low Density Residential Zone for the following reasons: REASONS 4. An undesirable change will be created if this variance were granted given that the requested pole barn will be used to store Skidsteer loader and a mini excavator and will facilitate the storage and delivery of large pilings which are not things that are typically found in a residential neighborhood, and 5. That the requested variance is substantial, being more than three times the size allowed for a home occupation and as well as being located in the side yard rather than the rear yard which is not permitted by the ordinance, and 6. The requested variance will involve adverse physical or environmental effects, specifically, the creation of noise on the property that will be heard beyond the boundaries of the property, associated with this business. FINDINGS 1. That the alleged difficulty is self created in that the applicant does have other options in terms of location of business, 2. The pole barn would allow an expansion of the on-site operations, specifically, some onsite fabrication of trim and other items that is currently done off-site, which would be an undesirable change which would lead to a further change in the neighborhood and would be a further industrial activity being introduced with its attendant adverse environmental effects in terms of noise, and 3. This Board feels that in balancing the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, because of all these considerations, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant is outweighed by detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 27 The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Levine, Matthews, Mountin NAYS: None The MOTION was carried. APPEAL Evan N. Monkemeyer, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIV, Chapter 270-128, Article XIII, Chapter 270-116, and Article XIII, Chapter 270-122(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, a 19,644+/- gross interior square foot building that will accommodate retail, commercial, and/or office tenants, associated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities. The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.2, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone (7,500s.f. by right and 10,OOOs.f. with Planning Board Special Permit). The proposed building, at 40+/- feet tall from the lowest exterior grade, will also exceed the maximum height limit of 36 feet from the lowest exterior grade. Additionally, the proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive-thru canopy and support on the north side will encroach into the 50-foot required buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides. Evan Monkemeyer, 123 East King Road I am right in the neighborhood. This property is part of my heritage, my parents farm is located at this location. It's a corner, a focal point for South Hill, it's the last undeveloped corner of the 5 corners at that intersection. It's contiguous with the Ithaca College campus and I think the variances that we are requesting tonight are keeping within the ordinance and this project will be a great asset and a landmark for the South Hill community. John Bartelotti, 101 North Clinton Street, Syracuse We're asking for 3 variances, as you stated in your letter, one for height, one for area and one for a buffer zone. And I think for us, for me to articulate this and kind of take you down the path of how we got where we are, if I can give you a few minutes of background on why we're doing this and how we feel, when we get done demonstrating this tonight, that this will actually benefit the project and enhance what we are trying to do here. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 28 We first looked at the site and said, by right, we can build 75,000 square foot building and we could do multiple ones, and then we looked at what we are trying to achieve and we said...The first thing we are trying to achieve here is a successful little neighborhood center that provides services, as the ordinance indicates, services for shopping and other services there that would not bring any major impact on traffic and would distribute some of that type of services to the surrounding neighborhoods, mitigating the traffic down into the City and intercepting some of that. So, brother and I, we looked at, and we do a lot of retail, by the way, in my firm, and the success with any project, in retail, is really generated on the type of tenant mixes that you put together, and if this was going to be a single type, tenant, convenience store or something like that, they stand on their own, you have a quick stop, but what we are really trying to create here is something that gets synergy between small tenants and small tenant like like tenants and complimentary tenants so that if you want to go down and get a dinner and maybe grab an ice cream or coffee, and there may be a card shop there, there may be a bagel shop, you can grab, or there is a little gift shop or candle shop, and that's the type of tenants that we are trying to create in here. Also, a bank...So we are looking for retail, small business and some offices in there. But the real success of that is to have a real diverse mix of those. So we took a look at the site and said here's our constraints...we can do it with three buildings, we laid it out, we got done, and it really wasn't that attractive, when we got done...Because there was three separate buildings, links together, options for links, options for level changes, but the site is also a pretty steep incline coming from the southeast corner, at the highest point near the Montessori School, down to the northwest corner where the one entrance is. Several buildings separated become a challenge for handicap accessibility and a lot of other things, and also, the parking constraints. It became one big cluster field in the center and not what we thought was inviting there. So we said alright, then we can build 7,500 times 3 with the possibility of going up to 10,000 with special permit use, so it's between 2,200 and 30,000square feet of retail is what we can do in there without a variance. Based on that... Chairman Sigel — Let me interrupt you there...Were you able to lay out three 7,500 square foot buildings and meet all of the parking and setback requirements? Mr. Bartelotti — Not very efficiently. We started (inaudible) the grade challenges became an issue for the stormwater management and issues like that and that's why we ended up saying, how can we then do that. Those were the challenges. So, we started looking at combining those and said okay, if, as of right, we can do that much square footage, then we didn't think it was an unreasonable amount to work with and we thought, from our experience and the type of tenants that we are ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 29 trying to do, that's about what we're going to need for critical mass, to make a center like this successful and it be able to sustain itself. From that, we said, okay, how do we create a building that enhances all of these activities. And we came up with, and I think some of you may have already heard this at the preliminary site plan reviews, we said we want to create a building where when you approach the building, you don't look at the dumpsters, you don't look at the service areas, there's a pretty building from every face that you look at and we have two sides, East King Road and Route 96 which are major street frontages there, and to the direct east we have the Montessori School. So we were trying to be cognizant of that and off to the north is the Hillock property which my client also owns. So we chose that as kind of the back door to the facility, knowing that we would be respectful for all the surrounding adjacencies. Based on that, we created an elevation, as you can see on the far easel, which really is pretty symmetrical all around the building. And at the end of the building is the spot where we are hoping to have a bank and would have a drive through teller there. So responding to the intent of the neighborhood community is to create a center that provides these services. And by combining these three buildings to one building, we see no undesirable condition created to this lot, it actually enhances it because now we will create much more green spaces and plaza areas all around the building that are accessible, that are undercover, that have overhangs that people can actually migrate around the building and throughout the building creating and environment where, as we say, instead of traveling across parking spaces from one to the next We didn't see any substantial difference, really, in the square footage, and all the other attributes starting stacking up, we think in support and are positive in the conditions that are created. In addition, we've, by combining hat, we were able to cluster the services that are stuck to the north, up here, so deliveries and trash and recycling will all be screened up in this area here, keeping it pretty much away from the rest of the site, so that from any of the streets you would be able to hide that and screen that. We now have distributed parking, as you see. We distributed parking along the front here, the side and the back and create green spaces, plazas all along the building and we've also inked a walkway all the way up to the college to the north. So we will bring pedestrian traffic all the way down through here and we have also been cognizant of the traffic, to try to create, get the farthest away from the intersection here, is our site access. One is here and one is here. And the Montessori School is up in here. So with that, we combined them in this nature...the aesthtic appeal that we've created gave us the ability to create something that's much more residential like. A timberframe with a craftsman's flair which we are going to further develop. Most of the building is well below the height limitation, just the very center, this piece here is ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 30 about 4 - feet above and that was generated based upon (inaudible){the microphone is being held too closely by the speaker„ therefore, portions are inaudible} ...to get it out around the plaza, so we can cover the people as they walk around the perimeter...we also looked at the elevation. Here's a dashed line that shows the height limitation that is set by the zoning ordinance and it's really just this one little peak here...from any sightline....the Montessori School is, the grade, I think, is approximately 35 feet above our grade, so they are well above any sightline there. To the north you've got the Hayloft building which is heavily screened with the trees, so you don't see anything there. So we don't see any impact in sightline that was really being impaired by that and based on the amount of snow that you get up here and the amount of pitch we're trying to keep on the building, we'd like to try to maintain that height. Last and final was the buffer zone. Let me go back to the site plan here for a minute. By creating all of this, what I just described, it was challenging, in this corner here, to try to do it with some aesthetic, pleasing structure, maintaining the correct mix of tenants that we'd like to put in here and keeping in too, what we believe is what the neighborhood and commercial neighborhood zone was trying to achieve. So we...the parking guideline here and we understand now, we questioned at the time, and the structure is a structure and the pavement is not pavement but is considered a structure, is what we've been told, through the definition through the zoning ordinance. .....between that structure and the edge of pavement, we have just the canopy of to the north is a couple of feet into that 50 foot buffer. We have about 23-24 feet from the edge of pavement to our property, However, ....we also own the property next door, and if you add the buffer zone........separating the distant structure from the existing structure here. So we felt, with all that in view of us or this property here, this buffer zone in here..................this is a zoning line in here. This is a 40 acre site, we aren't really violating what the intent of what that buffer was for. Chairman Sigel —Was this parcel recently subdivided? Mr. Bartolotti — No. Mr. Kanter— Evan has not subdivided. It is not. Mr. Bartolotti — It is not, that's correct. It's a 40+ acre site. Chairman Sigel — So the dash line that you are showing there to the east... Mr. Bartolotti — This is a zoning line going through here. Up here is residential and this is the neighborhood commercial. Chairman Sigel —Alright. Dick Matthews —Where does the line start that it's residential? ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 31 Mr. Bartolotti — Here. Dick Matthews — Right, and now go east...where's the bottom of it? Mr. Bartolotti — The bottom of it is here. Dick Matthews —That's East King Road. The property goes up a hill, where is the bottom of that property line. Mr. Bartolotti — The property is here and it goes up....the Montessori School is here... Harry Ellsworth — The northern entrance is how far from that intersection? Of 96 and East King. Mr. Bartolotti — It's about 300 feet. And this is 400 or something, about 450 feet from our building to the Montessori School is over 400 feet. Harry Ellsworth — Theorectically, to the right, as I'm looking at that plan, there is residential growth potential, correct. Mr. Bartolotti — That is residential zone, correct. Dick Matthews — Down to East King Road? Mr. Bartolotti — Everything from here to here is residential, yes. Harry Ellsworth — Jonothan, what's the speed limit there? [50mph] Yeah and you're not going to have a pull off lane along the edge of 96 right? Mr. Bartolotti — No we're not. Harry Ellsworth — It's all downhill from half a mile to the south... Mr. Bartolotti — And we went through that during preliminary and I think we got very favorable results from our traffic analysis and DOT was... Dick Matthews —Where's the entrance on East King? Mr. Bartolotti — Right here. There is a truck turn right here, opposite that. Dick Matthews — Do you have any studies about the customer base and where most of the traffic will come from? ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 32 Mr. Bartolotti — We think we are trying to draw from the surrounding areas here and back up here. There is a lot of commuter traffic that goes through here related to the City, but this is, and also right here, we've got a large residential area here, several miles up the road, which is a great intersection spot, so instead of taking the trek down to city, here's the next little hub for them to stop in at. Dick Matthews — So it will increase traffic past the Montessori School. Mr. Bartolotti — Well, I think the traffic is going by the Montessori School already.....into the city and some we are hoping to stop them from going farther and they will stop here. That is what this commercial center is supposed to achieve. To try to put some satellite services in here. We are not drawing from a distance here, people won't go here from the city, it's the surrounding circle from here is what the convenience is. Chairman Sigel —Any more questions or comments? Jim Kerrigan, 1021 West Seneca Street, Ithaca There are only two concerns that I would like to address in view of the possibility of coming back, which I know that the Board would just as soon not hear from us again if it's not necessary. One of them has to do with the request from the Planning Board, when they approved this, that there be, and the first that we have heard of this was when we were at the last public meeting on this at the Planning Board, when the suggestion, at the end of that meeting was made that the tenancy of the project be limited so that no one tenant be more than 10,000 square feet. We don't think that that's a likely possibility, we think that there will be multiple tenants smaller than that. We, as we discussed it, we thought about the possibility of asking you not to include that at this time. It seemed to us, however, at this stage, that that would raise more legitimate questions on your part than we're prepared to answer. It would seem to me that if I were a zoning board and there's a vast difference between approving a 20,000...19,655 square foot, one-tenant project, big boxish type of application that would raise a great many additional concerns on your part, which would be legitimate concerns. We don't think it's likely, so what we are suggesting and asking is that if in fact you do condition your approval as conditioned by the Planning Board, that no 1 tenant be more than 10,000 square feet, that at least it be done on the basis so that if a specific tenant, one tenant comes in that might wish to exceed that, that that tenant or the developer might be able to come back. That such a limitation would be done with leave to make a further application. If it were a national big-box chain wanting to come in there, the questions raised already about traffic might be very, very different, if it were some sort of destination project rather than what we're looking at which is s neighborhood convenience project. So that's the only request that we have at that time. So if one tenant were to come in and were to be a project of which the Toen Planning Board and the Town Zoning Board might look favorably upon, with a particular mix of one tenant services, that it would at least be able to be ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 33 considered and we would not have to put such a tenant in a situation of coming back to this Board and having this Board legitimately say, no, we did that, it's done, you should have done it way back when. The second question is perhaps an oversight on our behalf and it addresses the question of liquor. Some of the same analysis may apply. From day one of this project, we had hoped that there would be a neighborhood restaurant here, and while we thought, in conjunction with this application, that it might be appropriate to seek that approval now in the absence of a specific tenant and the specific method of operation, that it would be best to withhold that application until a specific tenant, seeking a liquor license for a restaurant would be able to answer legitimate questions as to what the use would be. I think that there would be a very different reaction to this Board if it were a neighborhood of college town or post football game sports bar being proposed as opposed to a family restaurant that might serve an occasional Manhattan or an occasional glass of wine. We can't answer those questions at this point, so again, I will only request in regard to two potential future issues is that we at least get credit for not coming in prematurely at this stage, and if it becomes appropriate or necessary, to come back to either this Board or the Planning Board or the Town at some future time with regard to those two issues, that at least there has not been a determination now that `you should have asked for it at the April 2007...We don't have the answers right now, I would suggest that it would probably be appropriate, until the right tenant comes along, to turn down a college bar, catering to college students after football games, until lam or 3 am if they change those laws at that point, and we just don't have that information, so, that is the only request that I would hope, that these minutes would at least say that, any determination that you might make, would grant us leave if and when circumstances call, to come back to you on those two issues, so that we are not foreclosed by asking for what we are asking for now. Chairman Sigel — With regard to the 10,000 square foot requirement, when I saw that I thought it was a good suggestion by the Planning Board, but, and I am perfectly happy to state in a motion that this Board has no prejudice against a future request to exceed that, though that's really not necessary. Any future Board always has the right to grant a variance, varying the decision of the previous Board. Mr. Kerrigan — I understand. But at least we are not coming back and there be a suggestion that we are trying to sneak in the backdoor what we couldn't get through the front door is what I am trying to accomplish. Chairman Sigel — No, I mean... Dick Matthews —At this time they are asking for 19,000 square feet right? Chairman Sigel — Total yeah, but the issue is that the Planning Board suggested that we condition our approval on there being no one (1) tenant greater than 10,000 square feet in the building. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 34 Dick Matthews — Is he asking for... Chairman Sigel — And he's just asking that we not, essential, prejudice a future board against that. Dick Matthews — So our problem tonight, or the issue before us tonight is the 19,000 square feet and the buffer zone and the height of the building. Ms. Brock— But you can also add the condition. Dick Matthews — I confuse easy, so I have to clear myself up, I am getting old and forgetful. Ms. Brock — But you can also add the condition that no on tenancy occupy more than 10,000 square feet. Mr. Kerrigan -- A little bit of a question mark on that paragraph is all. Chairman Sigel — Now you mention liquor, is, I haven't, I have to admit I have not read the neighborhood commercial zone law that many times. Is there... Mr. Kerrigan — It includes a restaurant. As I recall, the discussions from day one have included discussion of a restaurant and in this era, a restaurant without a liquor license may or may not be appropriate. I can think of ones that may not, but I can think of ones that the Town would like to see that are entirely appropriate to this use. Chairman Sigel — So, has someone stated an opinion that the fact that a restaurant is allowed means that a restaurant serving liquor is not allowed? Mr. Kerrigan — I wouldn't think that we would get to that and I am just trying to defer that. One of those worries that people in my profession worry about. Like.. Chairman Sigel — Unless there is a specific interpretation issue before us, I am not comfortable stating anything having to do with liquor, one way or the other because that could be construed as... Mr. Kerrigan —Approval, and that's not what I am thinking today. Chairman Sigel — Or even denial, or just something to do with the code that we are not dealing with. Ms. Brock — Kirk, to my knowledge, that issue hasn't been brought before the Planning Board either. I don't there have been any discussions between applicant and the Town on that issue. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 35 Mr. Kanter— Are there issues with the issuance of a liquor license in proximity of the school? Mr. Kerrigan — There may be. We haven't looked at them. We decided that this was not the time to do so without knowing...I can see, liquor license applications that people would be entirely supportive of. I have raised a couple of examples of liquor license type applications that people night not be entirely supportive of, that's all. Mr. Kanter — and I think also, in terms of use, a restaurant, presumably with, you know, the adjunct of serving liquor under a liquor license is something that the zoning probably contemplates but a bar, without being classified as a restaurant, probably would not be a permitted use in that zone. Chairman Sigel —Well, at that time we might be asked to make that determination. Any comments or questions at this point? Let's open the public hearing. Chairman Sigel opens the public hearing at 8:47p.m. Lisa Smith, Business Administrator of the Elizabeth Ann Montessori School I just want to remind the Board, and we have been here before reminding you of the same thing, to be thoughtful and conscious of that buffer. We have 197 students registered for school next year and it...I expect it to be in that realm for the future. So, 200 students, and they are ages 3 through 14 and our traffic...our issue is safety, and it really is as simple as that. We are concerned with that buffer and we don't own any of the land right up to our school to buffer it ourselves. Chairman Sigel closes the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Dick Matthews — To confirm in my own mind, the concern of the Montessori School, the buffer is separated by that residential block right there on the bottom of that chart. Chairman Sigel — Right, owned by Mr. Monkemeyer. Dick Matthews — Right, he can build houses there, but he can't extend that [correct] and that is how wide? Unknown — I think it's about 450 feet from the zoning line. From the commercial zoning line to the property line of the school. Dick Matthews — Olay. So there's 450 feet yet that is a buffer, actually, from the Montessori people but that could be occupied by private homes. Okay, thank you very much. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 36 Mr. Kanter — Is it okay if I ask you to describe that portion of the landscaping plan that addresses that eastern boundary...that might help, because there was actually a pretty detailed worked out landscaping plan that includes a buffer, which, for the most part, is actually to the east of the zoning line. So it's still on Mr. Monkemeyer's property but...it is part of the approved site plan, yes. Chairman Sigel — Okay, existing in the residential zone. Dick Matthews — Can only be residential. Mr. Bartolotti — These trees...a filtered zone here...30-odd feet here...so these trees will be screening this building. So we have created 1,2,3 sets of tree lines which, from all views, from looking this way, you can't really get a clear shot, view of the building. Harry Ellsworth —Are those existing trees, right there. Mr. Bartolotti — Yes. Our parcel goes all the way back to this. Chairman Sigel — Was there a specific distance specified by the Planning Board that this planting buffer zone extends into the residential zone. Mr. Bartolotti — What they asked us to do, and we kind of agree, that we would show them some 3dimensional views once we got past this point, as to what that would actually look like. David Mountin — There are pines, really tall pines, 30-40 footers, along East King. Will some of those stay or are all of those going. Mr. Bartolotti — These are existing these are existing these are existing. So we are going to be pulling out where we need to get parking and we are trying to relocate as many of those as we can. Dick Matthews — It's going to be open. Mr. Bartolotti — Yes, until we get some new in there. But we are going to be adding a lot more trees than we are taking down. Mr. Kanter — And you had copies of the Planning Board resolution for preliminary site plan approval and condition (u) under site plan requires submission of prospective drawings or view simulation showing the view from the Montessori area through the proposed landscaping toward the proposed commercial building. Because the Planning Board had that same concern and wanted to make sure that the view from the Montessori School would be appropriately buffered. Chairman Sigel — Okay, but they didn't... ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 37 Mr. Kanter — There is, actually, a landscaping plan sheet that the applicant did not bring and I don't think that you got it as part of site plan. Harry Ellsworth — That's part of site plan approval. That has nothing to do with us. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, although we do have...we have the large sheets here, if anyone wants to take a look at it but it did actually show a landscaped area to the east of that zoning line that I believe included some modification of the topography so there is some berming, some intermittent trees, shrubs and tall grasses in there. So, that was definitely a concern that the Planning Board has as well. Mr. Bartolotti — There will be plantings along that line here, instead of (inaudible)....so that wherever you go, you have a view, you can see though here, (inaudible) which is much nicer than just a hedgeline. We also wanted to create visual impact to the sight, soften it up, and that's what...(inaudible). Chairman Sigel — Do you have any signage other than what will be on the building itself? Mr. Bartolotti — There is one sign that...right here. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Any other questions? It seems well designed to me. Dick Matthews — My concern is outside, probably, the zone of our consideration. It's just the increased traffic coming past that Montessori School and there's nothing here that I can discuss. Chairman Sigel — Well I think what the applicant said, based in theory, is true. That a neighborhood commercial zone like this is intended to capture local traffic that presumably would have gone further. At least in some cases would have gone by here. This is a major corner. People who live in the Chase Farm area and those other developments, if they want to go to the City, they have to get there some how, and 96 is a pretty direct way, so they are all coming by here. Dick Matthews — There's not much you can do about it. Montessori situated their school there and they split the campus and the children have to walk across the road...They did that....I wouldn't have done that...I can't do anything about it. I want to see a business there and that's all there is to it. There's nothing wrong with that. Mr. Bartolotti — I think the time that we would be coming back through there, the school will be closed so that is an issue where (inaudible) the other issue is that the traffic is going by there to go to the City. We haven't really increased that. So when you look at the flow patterns, it is not going to increase traffic during the times that the school is in session. ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 38 Mr. Kanter — And there was a traffic impact analysis. The negative impact declaration statement that you had in your packet indicated a number of topics that the Planning Board did review and there was a full traffic impact study. It actually did look, to some degree, at the impact on the crosswalk at the Montessori School and the relative increase in traffic was fairly minor, at that point. Most of it was at the 96B direction. Chairman Sigel — If there are no further questions or comments, I will move to ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB Resolution No. 2007 — 018 College Crossings Development Area Variances Tax Parcel 43.-1-3.2 April 30, 2007 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by David Mountin. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeals of Evan Monkemeyer requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIV, Chapter 270-128, Article XIII, Chapters 270-116 and 270-122(C) to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, approximately a 19,644+/- gross interior building that will accommodate retail, commercial, and/or office tenants, associated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities. The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road and King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.2, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposed building, at 40 feet tall will exceed the largest permited height which is 36 feet. In addition, that a proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive-thru canopy and support on the north side will encroach on the 50-foot buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides. With the following specific CONDITIONS: 1. That the total interior square footage of the building not exceed 20,000- square feet, and 2. That the height not exceed 40.5 feet, and 3. That the encroachment into the buffers required by the Town Code be no greater than what is indicated on the plans submitted to this Board, and ZBA 4-30-07 Pg. 39 4. That the entire project be constructed as indicated on the applicants plans submitted to this Board, and 5. That no single tenant be allowed to occupy more than 10,000 square feet of the building. That this motion has the following- FINDINGS- 1. ollowing:FINDINGS:1. That while the benefit to be achieved by the applicant can be done by other means possible, namely, building two or three separate buildings, that the one that the applicant proposed is also reasonable and is a better fit for the site that the applicant has, and 2. That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that this is an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the total square footage of the project would be allowed, just not in one single building, and 3. That the requests are not substantial, the height being just four and a half feet above what is allowed in the total square footage being permitted on the site in separate buildings, and 4. That there will be no adverse physical and environmental effects for the reasons stated in the negative determination of environmental significance, and 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created, this is the portion of the applicants property that is in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and they are required to fit the development within those constraints, and 6. For these reasons, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Levine, Matthews, Mountin NAYS: None The MOTION was carried. Chairman Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Approved by: Chairman Kirk Sigel