Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2006-09-18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; Jim Niefer, Board Member; Mr. David Mountin, Alternate Board Member; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk ABSENT: Ronald Krantz, Board Member and Eric Levine, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Stacey Whitney, 200 West Hill Circle; Fumi Nagasaki- Pracel, 386 Stone Quarry Road; Brian Crane, 105 McIntyre Place; Rick Couture, Ithaca College Chairperson Sigel opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Welcome to the September meeting of the Town Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have six appeals. We will be taking them in the following order: 1. The appeal of Patricia Cote 2. The appeal of Stacey Whitney 3. The appeal of Alex Crane 4. The appeal of Frank Bettucci 5. The appeal of Ithaca College 6. The appeal of Fumi Nagasaki-Pracel The first appeal of this evening is that of Patricia Cote. Appellant requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-5(B)[1](c) and/or Section 221-6(A)[1](a) and [2] of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to replace an existing conforming sign with a sign that is larger than permitted on the St. Catherine of Siena Church property located at 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. Proposed sign, at 32+/- square feet in area, exceeds the 24 square foot maximum area allowed, and, at 7 +/- feet tall, exceeds the 6-foot maximum height allowed. Patricia Cote, 302 St. Catherine Circle Chairperson Sigel — Is there anything you would like to add at this point beyond what was in your packet? ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 2 Ms. Cote — I don't think so, no. I think it is pretty self-explanatory. I think I got everything there. Chairperson Sigel — It seemed pretty straightforward. Ms. Cote — I just need your approval. (laughter) Chairperson Sigel — So we seem to have some sort of issue with this sign and the next one as to what is the square footage... Ms. Balestra —What constitutes the sign area for a freestanding sign. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, Have you looked at this Sue, what's your opinion? Ms. Brock — I have. Well, I think that the Town historically has interpreted the sign law to include supports when they stand side by side next to each side of the sign, but when you actually read the ordinance that is not...it is not apparent to me that that is the logical interpretation to take. So, because the Town historically has had this interpretation but it appears there is some difference of opinion and some confusion on the part of applicants as to whether proposed signs comply or not, the Planning Board, at its' last meeting, requested that the Codes and Ordinances Committee look at this issue and perhaps revise the sign law to make it clear exactly what is and isn't to be included when the total square footage is measured. Chairperson Sigel — The issue with this sign and our next appeal tonight, which is also a sign variance, both are similar in that they have a support post which goes up along the copy area of the sign. Town staff has, at least in these two cases, included where the post abuts the sign as part of the sign area and I guess has done that in the past... Ms. Balestra — Yes. KC — Okay. Are you confident that that's been done that way? Ms. Balestra —Where they include the posts? Chairperson Sigel — Yes. Ms. Balestra —At least seven years, that's how long I have been with the Town. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 3 Ms. Balestra — Probably longer than that, but I know for as long as I have been here. Chairperson Sigel — In the case of this sign, I don't think it actually would put you under the square footage anyway, even if we excluded the posts. But the relevant definition of freestanding sign area says inclusive off decorative appendages but exclusive of supports. So... Ms. Brock— And the Town's historical interpretation has been that these posts on either side, when placed in the type of configuration that you see here, are decorative, that they appear to increase the visual impact of the sign. I believe that was the opinion of the prior Attorney for the Town. I have been Attorney for the Town for the last eight or nine months and we're reviewing a number of things like this for the future but the applicant was requested to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals to get the variance tonight. Mr. Matthews — Once again I'm confused. Ms. Balestra — Many people are regarding the sign law. Mr. Matthews — I didn't say that, she said it. Chairperson Sigel — So it just affects...In this case it affects how large a variance they need. In the next case it actually affects whether they will need a variance or not, for the next case. Mr. Matthews — Your question is whether or not they need a variance? Chairperson Sigel — In this case, they definitely need a variance, the question is just how large. In the next case, the issue is whether they need one at all or not. Mr. Matthews — Okay, in this case, that cleared a little bit up, we are talking about a 6-inch post, but we're talking about an area that is approximately 2 additional square feet? Ms. Balestra — No not this one. Thirty-two square feet in area and 7 tall, where a 24-square feet is allowed and 6 feet tall is allowed. Mr. Matthews — Okay, but the post themselves add to the sign how much? Chairperson Sigel — Probably about 2-square feet, so one thing we could do is we could decide that the posts are not to be included or we could simply grant the larger variance and defer ... Why don't we just go ahead and proceed with this case and we can potentially discuss it more with the next one where it makes more of a difference. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 4 Mr. Ellsworth — This will be consistent with what has been done previously on posts and support and...I certainly would agree that we go with the past practice because this (inaudible) Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any questions or comments? Chairperson Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. With no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Sigel closes the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Chris, any comments about the SEAR? Ms. Balestra — We don't see any negative environmental impact with it. It is going to replace an existing sign, its not going to impede traffic or views or sight distance at all and its in character with some of the other signs in the area. Ms. Brock— There is a correction to Part 11 of the EAF. Section C 2 says the new sign is made of wood, its' actually made of high-density urethane carving material. The current sign is made of wood the new one is made of a different type of material that can still be carved. Just to have an accurate description in here, it seemed important to make that change. Board makes the motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-056: EAF; PATRICIA COTE, ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA CHURCH, 302 ST. CATHERINE CIRCLE, TAX PARCEL NO. 71.- 1-10 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form completed by Town Staff for the appeal of Patricia Cote, Appellant, St. Catherine of Siena, St Catherine Circle, Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-10 to replace an existing conforming sign with a sign that is larger. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Sigel and Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Board makes the motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 057: AREA VARIANCE; PATRICIA COTE, ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA CHURCH, 302 ST. CATHERINE CIRCLE, ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 5 TAX PARCEL NO. 71.-1-10 RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Patricia Cote, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221- 6(A)[1](a) and [2] of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to replace an existing conforming sign with a sign that is larger than permitted at St. Catherine of Siena Church at 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, specifically. 1. That an undesirable change in the neighborhood will not occur because of this new sign. 2. The request is not substantial. 3. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects. 4. While the alleged difficulty is self-created, nevertheless, the benefit to the Applicant does outweigh the detriment to the community. CONDITIONS: 1. The sign shall not exceed 32 '/2 square feet; 2. The sign shall not exceed 7 feet tall. 3. The Conditions of Planning Board Resolution 2006-082, except for condition 1a, the granting of this sign variance. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Sigel and Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel — The next appeal this evening is the appeal of: Stacey Whitney, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-6(A)[1](b) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to place two identical signs, approximately 28+/- square feet in area and 5.8+/- feet tall for the Overlook at West Hill apartment complex, located on opposite sides of West Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 6 Tax Parcel Nos. 24-4-14.23 and 24-4-14.24, Multiple Residence Zone. Proposed signs exceed the 24 square foot maximum area allowed. Chairperson Sigel — Please start with your name and address for the record. Stacey Whitney, Overlook at West Hill, 200 West Hill Circle. Chairperson Sigel — In your case you are looking for either clarification about the law, whether you actually need a variance and then if necessary, the appropriate variances. Mr. Whitney— Right. Chairperson Sigel —And these two signs are on separate lots? Mr. Whitney— Right. Chairperson Sigel — And a portion of the apartment complex is on each of those two lots? Mr. Whitney— Right. Two parcels, about 64-units on each lot. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any questions? Mr. Ellsworth — Why is it necessary to have two signs if they're both by the d riveway? Mr. Whitney — The... Rout 89 runs north and south and coming down West Hill you wouldn't be able to see both sides of the sign. One side of the sign, so you have to put one on each side of the driveway because coming up you can't see it until you get past the ... There's trees in the way, there's telephone poles, light poles, a farmer's field... We just have two thin patches of land down both sides of the road and you can't position the sign to see it both sides, north and south, you have to put one on both sides of the driveway. Mr. Ellsworth —And what consultant has given you that opinion? Mr. Whitney — Myself, Holt Architects was one that said you just... we met with several people, even the Town said that you wouldn't be able to see it, just the way everything is positioned there, there's no... Mr. Ellsworth — Do we have any pictures from the standpoint of road ...view from the road, the main road, of this entry way that supports your position? Mr. Whitney — No. No, the Town Planning Board went up and actually made a visit to the site... ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 7 Mr. Ellsworth — Does the Planning Board support... Ms. Balestra — The Planning Board does support...they do... Ms. Brock — They asked the same questions that you are asking at their meeting last week or the week before and they concluded that in fact, two signs would be necessary. Mr. Ellsworth — A Planning Board person or the Planning Department went up there and did a field observation of the situation? Ms. Balestra — The Planning Department staff will always do a field observation of every project and their conclusion was the same as the applicants and the Planning Board. Ms. Brock — I believe Jonathan Kanter himself went, is that correct...and maybe Kristie Rice who is the Code Enforcement Officer also went and did a site inspection to determine compliance with site plan requirements. Chairperson Sigel — When I was there it did seem...I am sure you could get a sign and position it so that you could see both sides but it would get closer to the road and there might be obstruction issues with seeing oncoming traffic and ...they have them back from the road a little bit now and angled so they don't really obstruct your views when you pull up to the traffic light there but the way they have them placed that way, it is the case, at least the one that's there, you certainly can't see the backside of the... Mr. Whitney — We actually purchased the first sign double-sided to put out next to the road so you could see it heading north and south. We positioned it there and you could not see it. To spend $5000 for a sign and have it so couldn't see it was absurd to us. That's why we purchased a second sign going on the opposite side of the road so you could see it coming down the hill and up the hill. There's just so much on that corner that there's no way to position it except to put it out next to the road which would obstruct traffic...it would be a safety issue if you put it to close to the road. Chairperson Sigel — In this case there... each sign is actually on a separate lot. Mr. Ellsworth —Well I recognize that part, I know you need two... Chairperson Sigel — Two signs are actually completely legal, it's just the area... ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 8 Mr. Ellsworth — The fact that there are two signs is not a violation of the ordinance? Chairperson Sigel — No, because they are on separate lots and each lot...each sign pertains technically to the use on that lot so it's not ... Mr. Ellsworth — We should be discussing the size of the sign and not the matter of two signs, is that correct? Chairperson Sigel — That's true, yeah. It's all relevant in a way to the issue but... Mr. Ellsworth — So the question now becomes whether or not each of the two signs exceed the ordinance. Is that correct? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, and in this case, the sign minus the posts, does comply, and the issue is that when you include the portion of the post next to the sign, then it exceeds the square footage. The applicant, from their statement, believed that they were complying with the signs but... Mr. Whitney — Yeah, I actually handled the sign myself at first and came down to the Town Code Enforcement and they handed me the Town Code and said if you follow this there will be no issues. So I followed that, ordered the signs, actually I was under the impression that we already had the permit but we had a temporary permit for a temporary sign, I installed the sign and then the Code Enforcement Officer comes up and says I am out of... I am not in compliance and it ends up being the actual posts...the sign is under the square footage but the posts are not. If you add the posts to the sides of the sign they are not in compliance. But the code says excludes supports and there's no way to hold that sign up without these two posts. Mr. Ellsworth — Without you standing out there...and if you stand out there (inaudible) ...will exceed the square footage. (laughter) Chairperson Sigel — I think the Towns position is that you could potentially bury the posts behind the sign or within the sign... Mr. Whitney — That was Jonathan Kanter's ...He said that's what we should do but it just takes away from the value of the sign or the looks of the sign. To have a sign like that, put the posts behind the back of it, you don't see that anywhere and the posts look nice coming up the sides. Mr. Ellsworth — Somewhat decorative... ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 9 Mr. Whitney — Somewhat decorative but those two things are also...both parts of the code wash each other out. If they say excludes appendages or decorative appendage but doesn't include supports, they are both saying the same thing or just the opposite thing, let's put it that way. Ms. Balestra — It ends up being to subjective. Mr. Matthews — It seems to me a six...4 x 4 post... Mr. Whitney — They're actually 6 x 6 ... Mr. Matthews —Another two feet... Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, in this case I am not concerned about the additional area and I also believe that a reasonable interpretation of the code would conclude that the posts would not be included so... Mr. Matthews — So which way do we go here tonight? Chairperson Sigel — I think ... Mr. Matthews — It doesn't amount to a lot of... Chairperson Sigel — For now I think it would make sense to grant the variance for the additional square footage and put off the question of how the posts are dealt with... Mr. Matthews — Until the next person gets confused. Chairperson Sigel — Well, we can wait and see if the Town Board will change the law to clarify that. Mr. Matthews —Will they address this issue? Ms. Brock—Well, we certainly will be recommending it. Mr. Matthews — But the applicant, in good faith put up these signs thinking that he was in compliance...(yes from numerous people) and I think that ought to be our guiding light tonight. Mr. Ellsworth — I think we have approved some signs along there that are bigger than what's allowed. Chairperson Sigel — Oh yes. (Off microphone banter about different signs and their locations) ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 10 Mr. Whitney -- Again, We followed the code as far as we are concerned. Chairperson Sigel — Chris, any comments? Ms. Balestra — No. Chairperson Kirk Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m. and with no one wishing to speak, closes the Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m. Board makes the motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 058: EAF; STACEY WHITNEY, APPELLANT, OVERLOOK AT WEST HILL, WEST HILL CIRCLE, TAX PARCEL NO. 24.-4- 14.23 AND 24.-4-14.24. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Stacey Whitney, for the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town Staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Sigel and Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Board makes the motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 059: AREA VARIANCE; STACEY WHITNEY, APPELLANT, OVERLOOK AT WEST HILL, WEST HILL CIRCLE, TAX PARCEL NO. 24.-4-14.23 AND 24.-4-14.24. RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of Stacey Whitney, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221- 6(A)[1](b) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to place two identical signs, approximately 28+/- square feet in area and 5.8+/- feet tall for the Overlook at West Hill apartment complex, located on opposite sides of West Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 24-4-14.23 and 24-4-14.24, Multiple Residence Zone. FINDINGS that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the applicant, this Board having found that: ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 11 1. The Applicant can not achieve the desired means by any other reasonable way 2. There will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood, specifically that there are other signs in the area that are actually larger than this sign 3. The requested variance is not substantial 4. Will have no adverse physical or environmental effects 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created but arose from the confusion over how to interpret the Sign Law. 6. The benefit to the Applicant does outweigh the detriment to the community. CONDITIONS 1. Each sign not exceed 29 square feet in total sign area and, 2. Each sign not exceed 6 feet in height and, 3. The proposed sign can not be illuminated and, 4. The applicant must obtain signed permits prior to installing the signs. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Sigel and Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Kirk Sigel announces the next appeal of: Alexandrine Crane, Appellant, Ernie Bayles, Architect, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Sections 270-71 and 72 of the Town of Ithaca Code, and Sections 270-205 and 208, to be permitted to construct a kitchen bay addition and a second floor addition to a home located at 105 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-6-2. The proposal exceeds the minimum dimensional requirements of the Medium Density Residential Zone in terms of front, side, rear yard setbacks, and building area. The existing lot and home are also non-conforming and the additions may increase the non-conformities Chairperson Sigel — Please start with your names. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 12 Ernie Bayles, 209 Utica Street and Brian Crane, 105 McIntyre Place Chairperson Sigel — I just want to begin by saying that I know both of the gentlemen here. In the case of Ernie professionally and in the case of Mr. Crane personally and I don't think that that is going to influence my voting but I want to get that on the record. Mr. Matthews —Are you recusing yourself? Chairperson Sigel — No. Ms. Brock — And for the record, I am going to be hiring Mr. Bayles as an architect to work on a home project for myself as well. Just so you know that. Chairperson Sigel — Is there anything that you would like to add at this point other than what was in your packet? EB — This is a complicated thing in that there is a variety of variances and we...just one thing about the Planning Department Memo is there is one small typographic error that will offset the typographic error that I made in my presentation but basically the ... be clear that the existing structures make up approximately 24.5% of the building area so we are already beyond that. The amount that we are increasing that doesn't actually increase that number...I mean it does increase the non-conformity but not in a significant number. So, essentially the situation is, as you can see, is an under-sized lot with a house that pretty much violates every setback that we have and very little room to move and the two project which we would ask to be approved simultaneously but certainly we are open to discussions of each as separate projects for the purpose of the variance. BC — I would add that I have a letter here signed by our three neighbors, one on each side and also across the street, saying that they have no objections to the plans. And I have an e-mail from Cornell who borders us on the back side also saying that they don't object to the changes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, great. So the second story addition is not generating any new footprint? There is no overhang at all. So that is all within the existing footprint? EB — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — And then the kitchen is adding approximately 20-square feet? EB — Is that what it is... ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 13 Chairperson Sigel — 2 x 10, and is that actually going to touch the ground or is it cantilevered? EB — Well that's still up for discussion. I think for the purposes of this meeting we should assume it is probably going to touch the ground. It might not, but... Chairperson Sigel — I don't think it makes any difference to us... Mr. Ellsworth — What's the big driving factor for that pump-out in the kitchen? Just to get a bigger kitchen? EB — If you look at the plan of the kitchen you'll see that what happens is that there is a door that actually, in the existing plan, there's a door that leads to a basement stair that needs to...that kind of cuts the corners off of the two counters and so by pushing that out we get to get a straight channel through. So it essentially enlarges the kitchen and gives us a more usable work area along that wall and that's essentially the ... BC — To come into the kitchen now you sort of have to weave around the two tight corners and by moving out the width of the counter top we would just have a more easy access. Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah, you move those sinks down or cut the counter space back...I just wonder if you really need that much larger a kitchen. EB — It's always one of those questions that's difficult to ask and answer. Essentially I think that clearly the house has a kitchen that served the owners and occupants for many, many years and so I think to say that it is an absolute requirement would be false but I think that the addition that is being proposed does increase the utility of that area somewhat and makes an aesthetically more beautiful space to work in as well. Mr. Ellsworth — You mean its an architectural requirement not an owner requirement? EB — No I think it was generally owner generated but architecturally refined so... Chairperson Sigel — What's that structure that sits behind where that kitchen is going to bump out on your site plan? There's something... EB — There is an existing little porch that is currently used as a kind of off season storage and recycling. It's a 5 x 7 bunk, it sits on little mount piers, it's not very... ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 14 Mr. Mountin — Does it have a foundation? Mr. Ellsworth —And that's going to remain? EB — For the time being, I think that in the future that may be rebuilt but we are still having some discussions about that. Mr. Matthews — Excuse me Harry, maybe tonight's my night to be confused, but the kitchen is not changing the floor footprints ... EB — The kitchen is the addition that changes the footprint of the building so it increases the non-conformity of the lot coverage as well as protrudes into an existing non-conforming side yard. Mr. Matthews — But the kitchen is where the kitchen was...what you're doing is breaking down walls... BC — There's an alcove that is being added... EB — This is kind of a before and after picture... Mr. Matthews — This piece here.... EB — The last two pages of my handout actually show it... Mr. Niefer— Question, what's the current status of the garage? BC — The current status? It's a single car garage, there is a office area above it and its ... the garage is unheated, the space above is heated. Mr. Niefer — Where the garage door currently is, you're going to cut windows into that area and make it part of the house? According to the sketch anyway... BC — Yes, the idea was to have the second story bedroom connect, if you again look at... probably the side picture would probably be the easiest to see...but the connect area over the garage to the main house. So the impetus for this second story is that we have three bedrooms in the upper part of the old house and we'd like ... Mr. Niefer — But presently there are no windows on the front of the garage which is designated as a bedroom so my only question was will you be putting windows in the front of what used to be the garage and is now the bedroom on the ground floor. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 15 EB — I think there might be some confusion here. I think that if you...this is what we are seeing existing ...this is the garage...there is an office space above that and what we are proposing to do is that stays intact, there is still a garage, windows above...the addition is this piece back in here...so there will be no change to the function of the garage or the office space at all...all the addition is this piece up here and this is roof which connects across .. Mr. Niefer— The proposed first floor plan shows the garage as a bedroom, is it currently a bedroom... BC — There might be some confusion... EB — There's confusion because there's the garage...the bedroom is on the half-level above the living space, but I've drawn those...okay so that's what's not clear... There is actually a garage beneath that and so that would be the confusion there. Mr. Niefer— So you are still going to end up with a garage. EB — Yes, exactly. The garage stays. Mr. Niefer— Okay this wasn't particularly ... Chairperson Sigel — You treated as above the garage as the first floor in the drawing. EB — In the drawing. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, okay. Any other questions? Mr. Matthews — This house is facing the street...is that correct? Is it facing Fall Creek? EB — No, it faces McIntyre Place, which is perpendicular to Cayuga Lake. BC — Right, so the house faces north, pretty much directly north. Mr. Matthews — So there is no one that lives behind... EB — No that's Comstock Knoll, Cornell Plantations the (inaudible) garden is .. Mr. Matthews — So no one's view is being blocked. Okay. Thank you. Chairperson Sigel — And the height of the second story is below the apparent roofline? ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 16 EB — Yeah, that's a... yeah I think that's the current plan. Chairperson Sigel — It looks like it. EB — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Chris, any... Ms. Balestra — There is no SEAR review on this one because it's a area variance for individual outlines and set backs. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Mountin — Just a comment... EB —What did you say? Ms. Balestra — There is no environmental review for this particular project because of the nature of the variance. Mr. Mountin — I don't have a question, I was just going to comment that I think the design is really nice and it fits in with the neighborhood appeal, the neighborhood, and I think it's nice that the house and the remodeling addition that you are doing is gonna add to that appeal. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Chairperson Kirk Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 7:43p.m. and with no one wishing to speak, closes the Public Hearing at 7:43 p.m. Board makes the motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 060: AREA VARIANCE; ALEXANDRINE CRANE, 105 MCINTYRE PLACE, TAX PARCEL NO. 66.-6-2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of Alexandrine Crane, Appellant, Ernie Bayles, Architect, Agent requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Sections 270-71 and 72 of the Town of Ithaca Code, and Sections 270-205 and 208, to be permitted to construct a kitchen bay addition and a second floor addition to a home located at 105 McIntyre Place, Tax Parcel No. 66-6-2. Proposal exceeds the minimum dimensional requirements of the Medium Density Residential Zone in terms of front, side, rear yard setbacks, and building area. The existing lot and home are also non-conforming. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 17 FINDINGS that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the Applicant. Specifically that: 1. The benefit to the Applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that their lot is small and their home encroaches on all the setbacks and any modification would encroach on some setback. 2. There will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. 3. The request is not substantial being approximately 20 square-feet additional footprint total. 4. There will not be adverse physical or environmental effects. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. The home pre-dates zoning. 6. The benefit to the Applicant outweighs the detriment to the community. CONDITIONS 1. The footprint of the home increase by no more than 30 square feet and, 2. The new kitchen bump-out area be no closer to the side lot line than 9 feet The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Sigel and Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel — The next appeal is that of: Frank A. Bettucci, Appellant, requesting a modification of the previously granted variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 60 and 270- 62 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an 18 x 20 detached garage located adjacent to a residence at 970 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-1-9, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed garage will have a rear-yard building setback of +/-33 feet (50 feet required). Original variance approval was for a residence with attached carport and a rear-yard building setback of +/-18 feet. A variance from Section 270- 203 may also be required. Chairperson Sigel — Please state your name for the record. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 18 Frank Bettucci, 970 Taughannock Boulevard Chairperson Sigel — I am just going to take a moment here. We got a letter here from the New York State Office of Parks...I am going to take a moment to read it. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, Mr. Bettucci, would you like to add anything to ... Mr. Bettucci — Concerning this...? Chairperson Sigel — That or anything else that you submitted. Mr. Bettucci — Well let's talk about this letter first. This letter is a complete misrepresentation of the true facts and what I have done to try and correct the problem. I've hired a contractor to do some road work for me and in the back of my house I had a slope of approximately 30 — 35 feet from the center of the road of the Black Diamond Trail that came down to a slope to my house and I hired a contractor from Pennsylvania to do excavate the road and put in a temporary road for me. I didn't know it at the time and what happened was that he had...he took his bull dozer and went in the back of my house on this slope that I am talking about and he bull dozed the whole back end of that slope. Part of it was done for a back fill of the house, which I thought he was going to do in bringing some dirt in to back fill that, but what he did, he took the bulldozer, without my knowledge and bull dozed the whole back end of that and he exposed the roots of about 5 trees in that area and approximately 3.5 feet into the Park Service property. The length of that, I don't know, I would say it was probably the length of my house, about 68 feet, and that, that really concerned me...and what he did, he took a ...he was doing other... this...he was not hired by me to do this and he was not working for me at the time. He was doing work for other people along the lake and he was doing a driveway about 2 houses from me down on the lake side. He was taking out big slabs of concrete and what he did, he took 8 loads of that stone and he dumped it on my land, alright, without my knowledge. I addressed him...I asked him about that and he said well, alright, I'll get rid of it, I'll take it away. But what I didn't know was...I live down in Arlington and I come back from time to time to Ithaca and when I am down in Arlington, he calls me on the phone to see if I am down there and when he know that I am down in Arlington, what he had been doing, he had been dumping truckloads and truckloads of dirt on my property, he did it gradually, but what he did, he raised the level of my land by 6 feet on either side of the house and I didn't know about that until I came back...I came back unexpectedly one Monday morning and here were these 8 loads of concrete that he got from anotherjob and he dumped them on my property. Well, what I did first...I got in touch with the environmental person here in Ithaca, part of your Town of Ithaca office I believe, and I related this whole problem to him about him bulldozing the back of my house and dumping this excess dirt and ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 19 stone on my property. Unfortunately, he told me he couldn't do anything about it but I said, this is an environmental problem, I would think that you should get involved in this and he just told me that he couldn't do that. So then I went to the State of New York, the Department of Transportation in Cortland. I asked them to come out and look at it and they did. They looked at the stone and his answer to the problem was to take his bulldozer and bulldoze it into the ravine, for the water runoff and it is still there and the State of New York came out and they looked at it and they said well we'll get in touch with the State Environmental Department and that's over a year ago and I haven't heard anything about it. So I got no response from them and I went to the Park Service. I called them, they didn't call me. They didn't identify the fact that this problem exists, I went to them, two or three times. Finally a person came out and looked at it and said okay, we'll get in touch with you. About 2 weeks later, he calls me and say we're going to have a meeting on such and such time out at the Park Service and we'd like you to attend. I said, sure I'll be there. Well, I didn't realize what type of meeting this was but, when I went there, there were 7 guys sitting at this table and I am sitting in a corner addressing all their questions an no matter what I said about not hiring this guy, this fella came in and did all this work on his own, against my wishes, they refused to accept that and this is an example of what I had to go through. I would like to say that this has nothing to do with my construction. It had nothing to do with the construction of my house, it has nothing to do with construction of the garage. I am going to write a letter back to them and reply to this and I am in the process of actually suing this contractor who did all this work to me because that's my only recourse. I can't get help from anybody else so I am going to the court and do it myself. So that's a story about this. Chairperson Sigel — Did this dumping by this contractor... Mr. Bettucci — It's illegal dumping... Chairperson Sigel — Did that happen after your house was built? Mr. Bettucci — The house was up, yes. The house was up. Chairperson Sigel — So his work there... Mr. Bettucci — He wasn't working for me... Chairperson Sigel — ...to prepare the site was completely done... Mr. Bettucci — No, he didn't have anything to do with preparing the site. He only did the ... he brought in some stone for the driveway and the parking area in front. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 20 Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Bettucci — So that's the story of this letter and I'm, I'm really surprised to see this because I thought there might be some more sympathy for my plight than trying to condemn me on this letter. But on the basis of the garage, the original plans showed that the garage was attached to the house and in this case, what I've done is I've taken the garage and moved it approximately 10...16 feet from the south end of the house to the left when your facing the house from the highway, and then I moved it another approximately 24 feet forward from the 18 foot setback on the back end of the house. So it is probably 24 plus 18 feet on the construction of the garage. Does that sound right...I don't have my plans in front of me.... Ms. Balestra — No, it's confusing me. Chairperson Sigel — Well your plan shows the new garage location about 33 feet from the rear lot line. Mr. Bettucci — It's not quite 33 feet, its ...I talked with Kristie about that and I told her well its not quite 33 feet and I mentioned its probably more like 20, 24 feet from the back end of the house in moving the garage forward. Chairperson Sigel — From the back edge of the house or from the rear lot line? Mr. Bettucci — From the rear of the what? Chairperson Sigel — Are you talking about from the rear edge of your house or from the rear of the lot line. Mr. Bettucci — From the rear end of the house, right. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, well this...your drawing shows from the rear of the house, the rear of the garage being about 14 feet. Mr. Bettucci — Alright, that's 18 from the set back is 18 plus 14, 1 think its more than that but that's alright, let's say 14. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, and what's your motivation for moving the garage forward like that now. Mr. Bettucci — Well, I I have a railroad tie wall in front of the house and then I have a deck platform with a deck around it that's 10 feet from the house and I didn't want to...the main reason was that if I go back to the back end of the house, I have a slate mountain that comes down starting, really, at the back end of my house and coming forward maybe 15 feet and I didn't want to dig that slate ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 21 out of there, number 1, and number 2, 1 have during a rainstorm or after a rainstorm, I have quite a bit of water seeping through that slate so I wanted to move that forward so that I could get down into the soil a little bit and put in some real drainage there so I won't have any problem with that water coming down or having to go through the expense of having to dig out about 6 feet of slate. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Is...do you know at what elevation the floor of the garage will ...will it be at about the same elevation as your basement? Mr. Bettucci — It's going to be level with the driveway. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, and is that approximately level with your basement floor? Mr. Bettucci — No, that's way down. The basement floor is up I'd say about 10 foot up in the air. Chairperson Sigel — From where the garage will be. Mr. Bettucci — From the garage. The garage is...I have...If you look on the map you will see the driveway coming up and the garage is at that location but that's about level with the driveway. Because the way the house was...the house was built up on a...and that's...there's a lot of slate under the house...but the house was built on a little plateau and just to address the mountain of dirt I had there, I built a ...it's got a stone wall up in front of it now but I put up a railroad tie wall barrier there plus the stone wall. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I'm just curious, is that stone wall you built...is that intended to be a structural retention of the dirt or is that essentially just a facade in front of the... Mr. Bettucci — Facade... Chairperson Sigel — So the railroad ties are still... Mr. Bettucci — The railroad ties is the support. I've got them staggered so that step in, into the house... Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any...anyone else have any questions? Mr. Ellsworth — I gather then that the peak of the garage will not exceed the peak of the house. Mr. Bettucci — Oh no, no way. If it gets beyond the basement ceiling, I'll be surprised. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 22 Mr. Mountin — I'm just curious...I was by your house this afternoon and there's a drain pipe that looks like it would go right where the garage would go. You have...there's an open ditch and then there is like a 4 inch drain pipe...it looks like a drain pipe... Mr. Bettucci —A 4-inch drain... Oh, you mean the yellow one... Mr. Mountin — Yeah, the yellow one. Mr. Bettucci — I've got that exposed because that's where my footers are going to go so I didn't want to cover it up and then dig it out again. So I told the person who put the black top in to leave the drain the exposed. Mr. Mountin — That's a drain tile. Mr. Bettucci — That's a drain the from the house. Mr. Mountin — All right. It's a drain the from the house or a drain the from the garage? You going to tie in the garage to the... Mr. Bettucci — Well what it actually is ... its actually a 100...more than a 100 feet...It goes the whole length of the back end of the house, alright, along the slope of the house or the land then its comes down around and then it goes about, I'd say about 15 feet beyond the house and then comes down that little hill there which you see exposed. I am going to put in, besides that, when I dig out the footers, I'll have some more drain that will be on the lip of the footers so ...I'll take care of any of the seepage that comes from that slate wall that I've got back there. Mr. Mountin -- Is this your house...do you use it all year round or is it a seasonal house? Is this a seasonal home or are you going to use it all year round? Mr. Bettucci — On the run... Mr. Mountin — The house... you'll be in it all year round or is it a seasonal house. Mr. Bettucci —All year round house, yes, yes. Mr. Mountin — All year round. I just...it's pretty steep there in your driveway...is any of the water runoff going to come down that driveway and create ice in the winter? Mr. Bettucci — The girl that...the company that did the driveway sloped it all the way to the bank there, that whole bank that runs down the right hand side, the south side, so all the water goes right down the sewer portion. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 23 Chairperson Sigel — Anyone have any further questions or comments? Chris, any comments? Ms. Balestra — This, unfortunately, also doesn't require a SEAR determination. The status of the parcel changed in April. This became part of the overall Conservation Zone so unfortunately it is no longer in the Low Density Residential Zone its part of the Indian Creek Slope's Conservation Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Is that...that was approved in April? Ms. Balestra — That was approved in April. Mr. Bettucci — Does that mean that anyone in that zone can never build anything? Ms. Balestra — Not exactly. Mr. Bettucci — Not exactly? Ms. Balestra — No, it doesn't mean that you can't build anything... Chairperson Sigel — It increases the lot requirements and some other things. Mr. Bettucci — The what requirements? Chairperson Sigel — The lot size requirement. Ms. Balestra —Well the rear yard...you can't put any structures less than 200 feet from the rear yard, as far as the setback. Mr. Bettucci — From the rear... Ms. Balestra — From the rear yard whereas you have now 33+/- feet for the garage, if you were to build this garage again or rebuild a house, for example, you could not, with the width of your lot, you couldn't build anything there. You'd need 200 feet in you rear yard for the setback. Ms. Brock — Well it's a nonconforming lot and he'd need to get variances because it's a nonconforming lot. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, and even as a low-density lot it still doesn't meet any of the requirements. Ms. Balestra — Correct, it's a lot closer with the Low Density requirements though than the Conservation Zone requirements. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 24 Ms. Brock — The scope of the requested variance is greater because it's in a Conservation Zone. Chairperson Sigel — So why wasn't this advertised as being in Conservation Zone? Ms. Balestra — Error on the part of Staff. Chairperson Sigel — Oh, okay. So it is Conservation Zone now. Ms. Balestra — That's correct. Chairperson Sigel — So then I assume the Section numbers are wrong. Ms. Balestra — That's a correct assumption. It'd be Section 270 — 17. Chairperson Sigel — So just 17. Ms. Brock— Yes, the relevant Section number would be 270- 17. Mr. Bettucci — Can I ask a question to the Board? Chairperson Sigel — Yes, sure. Mr. Bettucci — Is there anyone who can answer the question...What type of a relief does an individual get for property that has been identified for 50 or 60 years as being a particular size or zone when the thing was initially set up and carried on the books of the Town for many, many years and then along comes a change in the zoning laws, is there anything that grandfathers' a person into a situation where what your talking about doesn't apply? Chairperson Sigel — Well and existing structure or an existing use becomes, at least ordinarily becomes, a nonconforming, a legal nonconforming use. So, you know, your house there, for instance, your house wasn't conforming even when it was Low Density Residential... Mr. Bettucci — I'm talking about the land itself. Chairperson Sigel — The land was never conforming either, I mean, the depth of your lot was never conforming... Mr. Bettucci — Well that's before, I'm talking about before you guys came up with the new changes. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 25 Chairperson Sigel — I'm saying even before we had any changes...I mean as far as I am aware, for many, many years that, the zoning was such that that lot did not conform with the depth. Mr. Bettucci — For many, many years but for many, many years before that it was because it was broken into 50 foot lots that 1, in fact I in 1987 or 1977 1 came to the Town of Ithaca and wanted to put a motel up there and the individual I was dealing with at the time actually drew me a plot and a map for 21 room motel at that property. Chairperson Sigel —Well, I mean at this point all we can deal with is... Mr. Bettucci —What the law is and what's going on. Chairperson Sigel — Is what the County has recorded as your parcel and that I believe is recorded as one single parcel. Mr. Bettucci — Well, that's another issue. I never agreed to that and I don't think there's anything in the record that even shows that. Chairperson Sigel — Well I know that when you were given your last variance it was stated that this Board was in no way acknowledging those 50-foot parcels. Mr. Bettucci —Well that's alright, you can... Chairperson Sigel — We didn't say that they didn't exist but we didn't say that they do exist. We didn't take any position with regard to the subdivision. Mr. Bettucci — That's fair. Chairperson Sigel — We, I think made it clear to you that that is an issue you can pursue with the Town and the County but as far as we were concerned, we were granting you a variance for the one large lot. Which at the time, even the large lot, while it had plenty of lot area, it did not have the necessary depth and it didn't then and it doesn't now. Mr. Bettucci — I think the depth was something about 100 feet that I ... Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, when you take the rear yard requirement and the front yard requirement you end up with no room left to build a house and now that it's Conservation Zone, those requirements are even larger. Mr. Bettucci — Yeah, that kills everything. Chairperson Sigel — I don't know that that has a big impact for you since you weren't conforming before. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 26 Mr. Ellsworth — To install this garage, are you going to be doing any further grading?...To the west of the garage? In other words towards NYSEG right of way or the Black Diamond Trail? Is there a slope there? Mr. Bettucci — No. What I was planning on doing, in fact the area that this fellow gouged out toward the park, I was going to put up another railroad wall back there and take some of the stone that is on the left hand side of the house for the garage and put that along the railroad ties to cover up some of the property he took away. Mr. Ellsworth — I guess what I am getting at is I think if we approve this there needs to be a condition that your going to be taking any more material in that direction... Mr. Bettucci — No, if anything I am going to be adding some to it to relieve the problem. Mr. Matthews — It seems to me that...Are you done Harry? I agree with what your saying. It seems to me that the backyard set back has already been violated when they put the house in and the appellant wants to put a garage in that is even further away from the backyard setback. Fairness and logic says, says we gave approval for the house, something that is giving a greater amount of backyard setback should also be approved. That's the way I look at this. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Matthews — And agreeing with what Mr. Ellsworth said, about not encroaching on the Trail, the support of the Trail as it where, because I think that hill is quite steep, to dig any more ends up with the trail in his kitchen. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah and I agree essentially with both of your statements, and I too would like to encourage some kind of improvement in the rear but I am not quite exactly sure what kind of condition would be appropriate for us to impose. Mr. Bettucci — Well I am going to have to do something back there because I hate looking at those tree roots. In fact, he took so much dirt out of there and half the tree roots are exposed and there are a few fairly large trees there that are going to fall on my house sooner or later. Which has me concerned. Ms. Balestra — I have a comment from Sue Pavorti of New York State Parks. I spoke with here today and she requested a condition that if there is any more bulldozing or back hoeing done, which she doesn't know if there is, but if there is, she would like to see or the State Parks would like to see a clear designation between what the State land and what your property line, Mr. Bettucci's property ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 27 line, so that there is no question where the property is and so that the contractor or whoever comes in and does the work, avoids crossing the property boundaries again. Mr. Bettucci — What I did back there, is that I took...I have a stake up on the other side of the creek and I have a marker on the south side of my building and I took a red line, a red chalk line and I had that up for ever back there even when he came back and started digging and I said this was my property line because he was coming down through the back end of the Trail a few times. I said this is my property line and you can't encroach on it in any way and apparently what he did, in the process of taking out the ...exposing the tree roots, he took the line with him and I am in the process of putting another one up so I know exactly where the line is. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. We could certainly put...it would seem reasonable that a condition that any work that ...maybe behind the rear edge of the house require that the rear property line be clearly marked...identified and that way as you say, you won't be disturbing anything behind that area then you won't need to do it. Mr. Bettucci — I have no reason to go back there, actually, other than improving it and it doesn't...it's very unsightly right now. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Chairperson Kirk Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 8:17 pm. and with no one wishing to speak, closes the Public Hearing at 8:17 pm. Board makes the motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 061: AREA VARIANCE; FRANK A. BETTUCCI, 970 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TAX PARCEL NO. 21.-1-9. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of Frank A. Bettucci, Appellant, requesting a modification of the previously granted variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-17 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an 18 x 20 detached garage located adjacent to a residence at 970 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-1-9, Conservation Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, specifically: ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 28 1. That it does not appear that the Applicant can achieve the desired means by any other feasible way given that the depth of the lot is so short, and 2. There will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, and 3. While the requested variance is substantial, again, the Applicant has no other feasible means and that while the request has the potential to have adverse physical or environmental effects, the Applicant has stated that he will in fact be trying to improve the current physical condition of the property as part of this garage building, and 4. The alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the lot was created before zoning was imposed and not granting this variance would deny the Applicant the ability to build any garage at all, and 5. The benefit to the Applicant does outweigh the detriment to the community. CONDITIONS: 1. The garage be no greater than 19 feet by 21 feet in size. 2. The setback from the rear of the garage to the rear lot line be no less than 30 feet. 3. The setback from the front of the garage to the front of the property be no less than 33 feet. 4. In all other respects the garage must conform to the zoning requirements. 5. If work will occur behind the rear edge of the house the Applicant will clearly identify the rear property line through markings in the field before conducting the work. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Sigel and Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Kirk Sigel announces the next Appeal of Ithaca College, Appellant, Robert J. O'Brien, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70 of the ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 29 Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a new administrative building that exceeds the maximum permitted height, located on the Ithaca College campus, 120 Alumni Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. Building is proposed to be 74+/- feet tall from the lowest exterior grade, where the Code permits a maximum height of 36 feet from the lowest exterior grade. Chairperson Sigel — Please state your names for the record. Rick Couture, Ithaca College; Quay Thompson and Tom Ward, Holt Architects Chairperson Sigel — If you want to give us a brief over view and anything beyond what was in your packet. Mr. Thompson — I can give you a brief summary of what the project is. Essentially all that we are looking for this evening...can you hear me without the microphone?... Ms. Brock— No, please hold it for the recording, electronic recording. Mr. Thompson — Okay ... Essentially what we are looking for this evening is a height variance for the campus for the new Admissions building which is also coined the Gateway Building. If you're familiar with the campus it will simply sit north of the Dillingham Center. This is a ma, north is up so the lake is up here on the map, this is Route 96B and the main entrance to Ithaca College. So this is the circle when you get into Ithaca College, Dillingham the Center sits right here. Part of the master plan is to develop this main pedestrian street through campus. It was started by the Business School which sits north of Job Hall, the Gateway Building which is the Admission Building, welcoming new students and interviewing and things will sit in front of Dillingham Hall, creating that main street and also creating a sort of north-south access plaza with a view of the lake from the fountain. So it's creating a ... it's just sort of building off the master plan. The...this is sort of a axion and metric view, perspective view of the new Gateway Building. This is the Business School and back here is Dillingham and fountain. So you can see the back of the building, the south side, is comparable in height to Dillingham. It is three stories on that side of the building. On the north side back toward the lake, the grade slopes off as it goes downhill, it becomes a four story building and then out the top and the dimension that we are measuring that 74 feet to is a light monitor that sticks up above the building and collects south light down into the building and I have a sort of section illustration that will help you understand that a little bit better. In terms of the scale of the building, it's very comparable to other things that have been built on campus. Comparable in height to Dillingham and adjacent ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 30 to the proposed Business School that is in construction right now. This is a view looking up across the fields sort of 96B comes up here and you enter the campus up from over on this side. This is that plaza looking at the fountain and you can see the fountain, when you are looking at the campus, is really framed by the new Business School and the Gateway Building which are both comparable in height. And then finally, this is just sort of an illustration that begins to speak to the technical requirements of the height as defined by the zoning ordinance of the Town. This side of the floor is the 3-story side with a garden level sort of as a basement and the mechanical room is on the backside. Three stories, about 40 feet, adjacent to Dillingham, and then as we step down this grade line as the exterior slope grades away, we are measuring from the Garden Level, the lowest level at grade up to the top of that light monitor which as you can see from the earlier illustration, kind of just pokes out of the middle of the building but we thought it was kind of appropriate to record that as the datum, is a 74 foot, 74 foot building. I think, Tom, you had a few words that you wanted to add as a sort of formal... Mr. Hord -- Well first, if you have any questions for quay...what he's just gone over...none? Mr. Niefer— Is this going to be the tallest building on campus? I see you just approved a business building at 72 feet. Mr. Thompson — You can see the...of course there are the Towers up there and in fact...Dillingham, if you look up here, while we're comparable in height to this piece of the building that is adjacent to Dillingham, certainly even the building that is right next to it has these supply towers that are significantly higher. Chairperson Sigel —And how high is the light portion above the roof? Mr. Thompson — It's about a story, it's almost 10 feet that it sticks up but what it's doing...this is a LEAD ... we're presumably gold certification on this project, so there are a lot of natural features...One is bringing in this north light into this...there's a two-story atrium space...extends down to the garden level and then has this light monitor that extends up through the third floor and grabs light for all of those spaces and we are also looking at the possibility of sort of natural gravity fed ventilation into the garden level and out there. So there are a lot of features that this sort of integrates in terms of the sustainable strategies of the building, but also creating this environment in the atrium that is very naturally lit, even in the middle of the space. Mr. Mountin — Did you say it was LEAD certified...green certified...or gold... ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 31 Mr. Thompson — Soon to be gold. Mr. Niefer— So the glass is just on that one side there? Mr. Thompson — The glass is... Mr. Niefer— Facing west...facing 96? Mr. Thompson — The glass is not facing 96, it is facing south. There is, obviously, glass that faces 96, but it's all the glass of the offices. Other questions? Chairperson Sigel — It all seemed very reasonable to me and obviously a nice design. It's nice to see Ithaca College pursuing such environmental efficiencies. Mr. Thompson — It's great to work with a client that pursues such environmental efficiencies. Mr. Ellsworth — This is a green building then? Mr. Thompson — It is very green. In fact we...you really shouldn't get me talking about the building but, we have green roofs on two sides of the building. We just resolved about a week ago that we will be looking at a geothermal energy system. Mr. Mountin —Would you explain the LEAD Certification process, what that means and what you're doing to get it LEAD certified. Mr. Thompson — Briefly, LEAD is a program that sort of tracks...it's a way to measure how green a building is. There are components of it that are sort of recycled materials, regional materials...there are components that measure energy efficiency of the building, there are components that sort of measure the quality of off-gassing of materials that you put into the building, I didn't bring the whole reference manual but...Essentially they're...things that are identified in the LEAD...it was really a measurement tool that was set up, are good practices for green building but they are sort of structured a little bureaucratically in a way that lets you measure it against other buildings and sort of document the things that you are doing. So while many projects can be very green and take advantage of a lot of the...do the right thing, LEAD sort of takes the next step and says document it...prove it... and they stamp it and certify it. (Tapes were changed due to a malfunction and the comment from Mr. Mountin was not recorded and therefore cannot be transcribed verbatim.) ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 32 Mr. Mountin -- ....environmental quality. Mr. Thompson —Was my explanation reasonable? Mr. Mountin — Yes. I am assuming there is the ability to do some water recycling, water re-use from rain... Mr. Thompson — Yeah. We are...in fact our roof is sort of backwards pitched, it's sort of a butterfly roof. All the water is sort of connected at the valley in the middle and we're collecting it for non-potable uses like flushing toilets. We are also taking advantage of some site concepts like porous pavement and native grasses to really minimize the amount of water that we are feeding back into the storm system. Mr. Mountin —Another big issue with these buildings is the lighting. There's a big thing about no trespass...lighting doesn't create any more trespass, so the down lighting for any exterior lighting is really important as altering trespass and a strong criteria for LEADs and so forth. As far as Towns would go, anybody who built a LEAD building all the time would fit all the criteria's for (inaudible) except the height. (Laughter) Mr. Niefer— There is also a requirement that you are supposed to keep the transportation miles down and building materials ... Mr. Mountin — Yes, 30 miles... to keep fuel usage down... Mr. Thompson — Yea and again, all these things are points that you maybe go after and you may be able to achieve some and not others but to et a gold rating you need to get a majority of them. Mr. Mountin — Not going to go for platinum huh? (inaudible) Mr. Matthews — It was in the narrative here...some reference to the fire department, I think it was the statement was generally approved...Is there some reservations they have? TH — I'm not sure. We did meet with Tom Parsons early in the process and we sort of reviewed with him our strategy for fire department access to the building. His reservations, I believe that he has noted in an e-mail that I had seen at one point, was more in relation to access to Job Hall, one of the existing buildings on the site. We actually met with both our design team and the design team of the business school this morning in our office, preparing to ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 33 go back to Tom Parsons to go back to these issues but we'll need to have those in place before we get final site plan approval. Mr. Couture — I think the reference that you are speaking of is the...where we say the site provisions for emergency access are being worked out with the Ithaca Fire Department and the Town Department of Building and Zoning and it is sort of an odd thing because the Town ids the authority having jurisdiction but the fire department is the ones who need to know where their trucks can go and maneuver and so we are working with both. Mr. Matthews — This is more for my continuing education than anything...the ordinance says that, states that 38 feet is the maximum height, right? Mr. Thompson — The code is ... Mr. Matthews -- ...shall not exceed 38 feet in height from the lowest grade. Ithaca College has a number of buildings that exceed 38 feet. What is the reason for the 38 feet? Mr. Thompson — You're supposed to know. Mr. Matthews — Pardon? Mr. Thompson — You're supposed to know. Mr. Matthews — I don't. Mr. Thompson — The Town Board has decided that that is as high as buildings should be in a residential zone. Mr. Matthews — Because... Mr. Thompson — Because they don't want them higher. (Laughter) Mr. Matthews — The comedy hour. That's it. Mr. Thompson — I'm not on the Town Board, I ... Mr. Matthews — Okay, but we have a few acres here that have buildings that are far in excess of 38 feet. Mr. Thompson — Yes. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 34 Mr. Matthews — Having said that, 38 ...the height of these buildings is not imposing, I think, on any residence viewpoint of the lake or of the city or of the big American flag that's flying or anything like that. Ms. Balestra — No. Mr. Thompson — No. We found that with the Business School that it being in the main campus of Ithaca College and the Town has elected not to create a special zone for Ithaca College or Cornell where they might allow significantly higher heights and so... Mr. Matthews — That would be a nice fix wouldn't it. Chairperson Sigel — It has some advantages, but it also has some disadvantages and so they are in a residential zone where their use is allowed but obviously heights that are typical of their use are not allowed. And so this Board has found that the increased heights are reasonable in other cases and I think it is safe for us to assume that if the Town Board felt that that was unreasonable that they would have done something about it by now. Say create a zone especially for them; say repeating the height and making it very clear that it is not to be exceeded. Mr. Matthews — Thank you for answering my question. My continuing education. Chairperson Sigel —Anyone else. The SEAR was done by the Planning Board? Ms. Balestra — Correct. The Planning Board completed the environmental review and granted preliminary site plan approval for the project on August 15t". If the Zoning Board grants the height variance, then the project will go to the Planning Board again for Final Site Plan approval scheduled October 17th but that's not definite. Chairperson Kirk Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 8:35pm and with no one wishing to speak, closes the Public Hearing at 8:35 pm. Board makes the motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION 2006 — 062: AREA VARIANCE; ITHACA COLLEGE, ROBERT J. O'BRIEN, AGENT, ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS, 120 ALUMNI STREET, TAX PARCEL NO. 41.-1-30.2. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 35 RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of Ithaca College requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a new administrative building that exceeds the maximum permitted height, located on the Ithaca College campus, 120 Alumni Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the Applicant, specifically- 1. pecifically:1. While the benefit that the Applicant seeks could be achieved through another means, the means they have chosen, which is to build a taller building which is more energy efficient, is a laudable goal and is in itself actually a benefit to the community, and 2. There will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, and 3. While the requested variance is substantial, it serves beneficial goals to the Town and to the community, and 4. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. While the alleged difficulty is self-created, the benefit to the Applicant overall outweighs the detriment, if any, to the community. CONDITION: 1. The height of the building not exceed 76-feet. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Sigel and Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Kirk Sigel announces the next appeal of: Fumi Nagasaki-Pracel1, Appellant, requesting Special Approval pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-57(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to operate a catering/lunch delivery business out of her home located at 386 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38-3-12, Low Density Residential Zone. Said use is considered a home occupation, which is an allowed use in the LDR zone with Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 36 Chairperson Sigel — Could you please begin with your name and address. Fumi Nagasaki-Pracell, 386 Stone Quarry Road Chairperson Sigel— Is there anything that you would like to add that was not in your packet. Ms. Nagassaki-Prace l — No. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Chris did we get information about the total square footage of the house? To check the 25%. Ms. Balestra — I thought it was 25% or 500 square feet, whichever was less. Chairperson Sigel — I assume it must be more than 4 times the 339. Chairperson Sigel — Do you know how many square feet your house is total? Ms. Nagassaki-Prace l — — I believe it is 2800. Chairperson Sigel — 2800? Okay. It would appear to easily meet the various criteria for a home occupation as far as employees and such. You will be the person doing the work? Ms. Nagassaki-Prace l — Yes. Chairperson Sigel —Anyone have any questions? Comments? It seems pretty straight forward. We have a number of criteria that are supposed to be met; no more than 25%, no more than two persons outside, owner lives there, everything that is offered is created assembled or reconditioned, no sign ......traffic..... Chairperson Sigel — Chris, any further comments? Ms. Balestra — Environmentally? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, or anything. Ms. Balestra — No. Staff doesn't have any concern environmentally. The use is not going to generate a significant amount of traffic, if any traffic at all. It's a delivery service. Very small scale. It's an allowable use and it doesn't...the use does not require Health Department approval other than for the existing sewer system so commercial kitchen operation is not required. It's very low intensity use for the property. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 37 Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And this does...it does require a SEAR determination for special approval. Ms. Balestra — It does. Chairperson Sigel —We have to satisfy both these special conditions (inaudible)...and the general special approval...is that true? Ms. Brock— Yes. Section 270 — 200 or the Requirements for Special Approval. Chairperson Sigel — Is it your opinion that we should enumerate all those? Ms. Brock— I think we can state that they have been met and perhaps highlight some of them. And I am also prepared, once you...if this Board is inclined to grant the approval, I can set out the conditions which need to be complied with to assure that this home occupation meets the requirements of the code for home occupation. So I am ready to set out what all those criteria are as conditions. Chairperson Sigel — Conditions for approval? Ms. Brock— Yes. Chairperson Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 8:43pm and with no one wishing to speak, closes the Public Hearing at 8:43pm. Board makes the motion(s) and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 063: EAF; FUMI NAGASAKI-PRACELL, 386 STONE QUARRY ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 38.-3-12. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Fumi Nagasaki-Prace II for the reasons stated in Part 11 of the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town Staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Sigel and Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel — I will further move to grant the appeal of Fumi Nagasaki- Pracell requesting a special approval under the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-57(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, be permitted to operate a ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 38 catering/lunch delivery business out of her home at 386 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38-3-12, Low Density Residential Zone. With the Findings that the requirements for the Special Approval have been met by the applicant. Specifically finding that the: The operation as represented by the Applicant is of a small scale preparing lunches in her existing kitchen by herself only; no other employees either residing at the house or from the outside, and; It is not anticipated that this activity will create any visible change in the house or property from the outside, and; will have a negligible, if any, impact on traffic coming to and from the house, and; in all other respects does meet the requirements A through L of the considerations for Special Approval. Do you want to add... Ms. Brock— Insert right before section A through L, Section 270-200, to make it clear what section you are referring to. And add the following: This approval is granted with the following conditions- 1. onditions:1. All on-site business operations shall be conducted wholly within the dwelling and/or accessory buildings by an owner and resident of the dwelling and the business must remain clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the property for residential purposes 2. An area of no more than 25% of the floor space of the dwelling, whether the business is conducted in the dwelling or in an accessory building, or 500 square feet, whichever is less, is used for such business. 3. No more than two persons, full or part time, outside the resident household and no more than four person full or part time, including the resident household are employed in conducting the business. 4. The owner and Chief Operator of the business is an owner and full-time resident of the property in which the business is conducted. 5. No goods are offered for sale excepting those created or assembled on the property. 6. There is no exterior display or sign except as permitted by Chapter 270 Zoning and Chapter 221 Signs of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. No exterior storage of materials, equipment, including commercial vehicles, or other items of commerce and no other exterior indication that the home ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 39 occupation or variation from the residential character of the lot, district and surrounding neighborhood. 7. No offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat, glare or electronic disturbance is produced beyond the property line of the property occupied by the business. Let me correct that, is produced beyond the boundary line of the property occupied by the business. 8. The business shall not generate traffic in any greater volume than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood and any need for parking generated by the use is met off the street and in accordance with regulations of Chapter 270 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Brock— By way of explanation, all those conditions that I just read are requirements for home occupations and what I am doing is just making them explicit conditions of this approval. So that as the business change, perhaps she gets an employee in the future, that's fine, as long as she meets the conditions that have been stated. Mr. Neifer — Question. Assuming the business is a booming business, she decides she needs some additional help...Which provision of the situation are we dealing with...She has agreed to only one person then you read in all these special conditions that permit 2 or 3 or up to 4 ...Which has precedence? Which is the one that she's bound by? One or up to 4, 3 or 4? Chairperson Sigel — I guess the way Susan read that, it would be up to 3 or 4 because I just simply made the finding that the business would not have significant impact because of it's size now. Mr. Neifer — So she has 4 people and they have 4 automobiles and so on, parking in there and the road... Ms. Brock—Well the parking ... Mr. Neifer — I think that the Special Condition situation opens Pandora's Box as compared to what she is indicating... Chairperson Sigel — It might be reasonable to condition it on, with the condition of say the addition of just one additional employee. Ms. Brock— Well the conditions I read said that any need for parking generated by the use is met off the street. Is that your concern? Is parking... Mr. Neifer — Well parking is a question. I don't know how much parking there is there. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 40 Chairperson Sigel — I think Jim's probably just concerned that it could...would grow to something significantly more that what it is now. Even though that may still fit within the confines of the law, but whether we want to approve that now. Mr. Neifer — I just raised the question now in the event that it might come up in the future and somebody...the neighbor across the street or someone else says Oh my goodness, 4 cars parked in the road and so on and so forth...it's a booming business now... Ms. Balestra — There appears to be from the photos, there appears to be parking existing...existing parking the is efficient for at least 3 vehicles. Ms. Nagassaki-Prace I — And if I get a lot of customer, I have somebody who can let me use our commercial kitchen. I go to the big kitchen to do it. My kitchen is just a ... Mr. Neifer — It doesn't make that much difference one way or the other. I just looking down the road as far as interpretation of the resolutions in the past. Ms. Balestra — Oh. Chairperson Sigel — What's your opinion, Susan, on whether we can, in fact, if we find that a business qualifies as a home business, do we have the flexibility to say even limit to less persons and what the defines the (inaudible)... and two outside employees. Ms. Brock— I think you could do it only if you had specific reasons that you feel that more than x number of people would create a burden or an impact that is unreasonable and the you have the need to limit it to a certain number. If you don't have any specific impacts that you can point to, then I would say that you need to comply with the criteria that I set out in Town Code. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Brock— So if there was a special situation that applied...some type of special limitation...then you might be able to say no, because of the special situation at this property, we need to actually further limit you more than what the Town Code says. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I think...I'm comfortable with it, but I agree, Jim, that in the future it is probably something that we maybe should pay attention to more as we do approve an ordinance. Mr. Neifer — The maximum employment is 2 people. Chairperson Sigel — Two people outside, yeah. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 41 Ms. Brock— Two people outside the resident household, yeah. And no more than 4 persons, full or part-time, including the resident household. Chairperson asks for a second and the Board votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 064: SPECIAL APPROVAL; FUMI NAGASAKI- PRACELL, 386 STONE QUARRY ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 38.-3-12. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews RESOLVED: that this Board grant the appeal of Fumi Nagasaki-Pracell requesting a Special Approval pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-57(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to operate a catering/lunch delivery business out of her home at 386 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38-3-12, Low Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for a special approval have been met by the applicant, specifically: 1. The operation as represented by the Applicant is of a small scale preparing lunches in her existing kitchen by herself only, and 2. There are no other employees either residing at the house or from the outside, and 3. It is not anticipated that this activity will create any visible change in the house or property from the outside, and 4. It will have a negligible, if any, impact on traffic coming to and from the house, and 5. In all other respects does meet the requirements of Section 270-200, A through L of the considerations for Special Approval. This approval is granted with the following CONDITIONS: 9. All on-site business operations shall be conducted wholly within the dwelling and/or accessory buildings by an owner and resident of the dwelling and the business must remain clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the property for residential purposes ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 42 10.An area of no more than 25% of the floor space of the dwelling, whether the business is conducted in the dwelling or in an accessory building, or 500 square feet, whichever is less, is used for such business, and 11.No more than two persons, full or part time, outside the resident household and no more than four person full or part time, including the resident household are employed in conducting the business, and 12.The owner and Chief Operator of the business is an owner and full-time resident of the property in which the business is conducted, and 13.No goods are offered for sale excepting those created or assembled on the property, and 14.There is no exterior display or sign except as permitted by Chapter 270 Zoning and Chapter 221 Signs of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. No exterior storage of materials, equipment, including commercial vehicles, or other items of commerce and no other exterior indication that the home occupation or variation from the residential character of the lot, district and surrounding neighborhood, and 15.No offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat, glare or electronic disturbance is produced beyond the boundary line of the property occupied by the business, and 16.The business will not generate traffic in any greater volume than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood and any need for parking generated by the use is met off the street and in accordance with regulations of Chapter 270 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Sigel and Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel — Dan Walker, the Town Engineer called me, I think last Friday or Thursday and the comfort station at the Tutelo Park that we approved some time ago to not need a sprinkler...the...that was represented to us as having a concrete roof and when they made it larger...I guess the building is now coming with a wooden truss roof instead of a concrete roof, even though he said it would still have a fire-rated sheet rock skin below it and he didn't think it had any real material impact on safety...since it is such a small simple building, but it is ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 43 different than what was represented to us when we approved the sprinkler variance. Are you familiar with this at all Susan? Ms. Brock— No. This is the first I've heard of it. Ms. Balestra — I just barely heard of it. Chairperson Sigel — Do you...I didn't get the impression one way or the other from Dan whether this really needed to be done at this meeting or not...I told him that we could consider it at the end of the meeting and that he didn't need to come but... Ms. Balestra — There's a ...I think the urgency is that there is an opening ceremony and dedication for the Tutelo Park...I got the impression...Again, I have limited information...He came up to me and said this shouldn't be a problem...I spoke with Kirk so...It's just an interpretation of the variance, the prior variance or something. A re-affirmation of the sprinkler variance. Chairperson Sigel — We could essentially...He wasn't sure if it was a significant enough change to affect whether the variance was valid. Ms. Balestra — Right, and I think... Chairperson Sigel — ...and I wasn't sure. Ms. Balestra — I think he was hoping to leave it up to the Board to decide. Chairperson Sigel — I think he was hoping I would just say it's fine, like nothing had happened, but it didn't seem that it... Mr. Ellsworth — I think they applied...in fact, what they're doing...this is the artificial insemination barns and their trusses and they applied a fire retardant material to the wood. Mr. Neifer — and that's what I would suggest. Chairperson Sigel — I think...my guess is that it is already up...right...there's not... Ms. Balestra — Right. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think they'd want to change anything. But...he said the sheet rock roof...the interior ceiling has a one-hour fire rating and it's just a bathroom so it's not really much issue in how long people would have to get out. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 44 Ms. Brock— So Kristie Rice, the Code Enforcement Officer, is saying that a certificate of occupancy can not be issued for the building until either a compliant sprinkler system is installed or a new variance is obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Dan Walker is asking that the ZBA affirm the sprinkler variance for the building. Apparently when the ZBA granted the variance, it was with the representation that the roof would be substantially concrete, therefore the sprinkler variance was appropriate for that reason and the roof now isn't substantially concrete, its...it has a truss system with asphalt roofing. I think the problem is if we want to modify the variance...but if we aren't really modifying the variance, per se, what we're saying is that even with the change in the roof material, the variance is still appropriate. Chairperson Sigel — I'm not sure if in the variance we made that a specific finding, about the concrete roof. Ms. Brock— Yeah, there's no copy of the resolution. Does anybody have that? Ms. Balestra — Not off hand, I would have to... Ms. Brock— If in fact the resolution ahs to be modified, I guess I have a question as to whether there would need to be a public hearing. This needs to be public notice with the public hearing. Ms. Balestra — That was my question when I talked to him as well. Mr. Mountin — It's one little bathroom, right? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. Mr. Mountin — And the other half of it is just storage. I see the Town guys go in there all the time. But it's just a little 5foot by 5 foot bathroom. Ms. Brock— Well let's look at the resolution and see whether in fact the ...that roofing material is referenced in any way in the resolution. Mr. Neifer — I don't think we would have referenced it. It would have been in the Town's presentation. Ms. Brock—Well it might be that the variance said this needs to be built as shown on the plans. Something like that. If in fact it hasn't been... Chairperson Sigel — Or as part of the justification for giving the variance, we might have stated the building is mostly concrete or something...including the roof. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 45 Mr. Mountin – The Town built it right...the Town built this building right? So they changed it from the concrete plans to the truss plans. Chairperson Sigel – I'm sorry, what? Mr. Mountin – The Town built the building right? And it was originally for a concrete roof and then they did it to wood trusses. Chairperson Sigel – Yeah, I think the problem was they were originally going to get a smaller building that was going to come with concrete roof and then they decided to get a bigger building and they got a modification of the variance for the bigger building, but I think they didn't realize that the bigger building would then come with trusses instead of concrete. Mr. Mountin -- The bigger building is bigger by what, 10-feet by 15-feet. Chairperson Sigel – No... a lot bigger. Its not (inaudible) but because it was a change, they got a modification (inaudible) and I suspect some place in the resolution, somewhere we used the concrete as justification so... I don't think we could really modify the variance because modifying is the same as re-issuing so we would have to have a hearing for that. Unless what they wanted was just an opinion from us that no change was needed. Mr. Matthews – How does the County do that. Somebody should be taken to task for that oversight. Ms. Brock– This is the Town. Chairperson Sigel – This is the Town. Ms. Brock–All Town. Mr. Matthews – The Town is only a spelling, but somebody was operating the ordinance, let me put it that way. Mr. Matthews – Seems to be at least the fire department representative aught to be brought in to give some sort of a blessing ... (inaudible, laughter) Mr. Matthews —Ithaca Fire Department ought to be brought in Mr. Mountin – I mean, it's just a little building...you've seen it on Bostwick there...it's just this teeny little shed thing... ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 46 Ms. Brock— It's 19 feet by 32 feet. So that's actually the size of some people's houses. I mean it's not that little. Mr. Matthews — The only thing you can burn is the grass and the pine trees. But that's made out of metal. Mr. Mountin — So Dan is looking for a variance because the wood trusses now... Ms. Brock— Dan is just saying...asking that the ZBA affirm the sprinkler variance. Mr. Mountin — They don't want to put a sprinkler system in a building with trusses, basically. Ms. Brock— Right, which may or may not be appropriate. I mean, I don't know, but I think...I'm not sure we can affirm the variance. I think that it would probably be that this was not built per the requirements of the variance and so because there was a change in the construction, it's coming back to receive a variance for the construction as it occurred, is what he's looking for. But I...it seems to me that that would have to be public notice and have to have a hearing, a public hearing, which we can't do tonight. Ms. Balestra — Okay, the ZBA resolution for it. Ms. Brock—Which one is this? Ms. Balestra — This is for the comfort station and pavilion at 151 Bostwick Road. Ms. Brock—What's the date on it? Ms. Balestra -- May 16tH Ms. Brock— Okay, so that's the most recent one? Ms. Balestra — It appears to be. The Findings were that; the requirements for obtaining a sprinkler variance have been met, the building is made substantially of concrete and is 19 feet by 32 feet, it's a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship based upon the cost vs. the benefit to be obtained in requiring the variance, sprinkler system. Chairperson Sigel — It's still probably substantially of concrete. I think the walls are still concrete. Ms. Brock— I am just going to take a look at the minutes really fast to see how much discussion there was about the ... ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 47 Mr. Neifer — Is there any reference to any plans or specifications or any other documents by reference that ... Chairperson Sigel — It doesn't appear in the resolution itself that we said that it had to be done as indicated. Mr. Neifer —We made a finding that it was substantially concrete. Chairperson Sigel — We made a finding that it was substantially concrete but I think the walls are still concrete. Mr. Matthews — Well, yeah, but I think that the roof is probably more area than the walls. Mr. Neifer — The floor's concrete. The four walls that are cinder block, so that's 75% of the exposed surface is concrete or cinder block. Chairperson Sigel —When is this dedication? Ms. Balestra — Oh, you know...this weekend. (laughter) Ms. Brock— This is interesting. There was a variance granted in November 2004 and then another one in May 2005 because the building's size increased and so there is some discussion in 2004 about what the building is made of and whether it would be appropriate to give the sprinkler variance or not and Creig Hebdon, who is the Assistant Town Engineer, said "We'd like to be relieved from putting sprinklers in a concrete building." and Mr. Matthews says " No sprinkler, it's a concrete building." Mr. Hebdon "yeah." And Chairperson Sigel — "Yes the sprinkler ordinance would otherwise require it to be sprinklered." Mr. Matthews said "Even if it's a concrete building." Mr. Hebdon " Yes, because it's an occupied space and someone is going to be occupying it." So...there was some discussion about why they needed the variance and then there is some discussion about the roof itself. Andy Frost said "Extremely low fire load." And Attorney for the Town John Barney said "What's the ceiling or the roof made of there? It is a wood frame roof?" and Mr. Hebdon said "No, actually it's a concrete roof. They are just going to have a wood frame over the top. Just to make it blend in a little more but the wood frame roof built has got to go through 9inches of concrete before it gets to the actual building." Mr. Barney, " I think you can safely make the point that there is not much jeopardy to human life by omitting the sprinklers." Chairperson Sigel, "I mention the concrete." And then there was the finding that the building was made substantially of concrete. So there would be a concrete roof with a wood frame over it. But there was ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 48 discussion that you would have to burn through the concrete before you got to the frame roof. Chairperson Sigel — Well it seems that we will have to actually modify the variance. Ms. Brock— Yes, and I think there was actually just enough discussion there and that appeared to be a factor. Mr. Ellsworth — There has to be a public hearing? Chairperson Sigel — It would have to be advertised, I think, to modify the variance so... Ms. Brock— Is there anything that could be done on a temporary basis, Christine? So that they can actually use that building at the dedication? Ms. Balestra — I think they have... Ms. Brock— Can they get a temporary CO? Ms. Balestra — I think that they have...I don't know. (inaudible) Ms. Brock— That's what I am talking about. Whether they can issues a temporary certificate of occupancy. Ms. Balestra — I don't know, with the sprinkler issue. Ms. Brock— They're ability to do that would be... Ms. Balestra — I have a Memo from Kristie Rice to several people; I would like to remind everyone that there is no Certificate of Occupancy for the Tutelo Park site. There are quite a few outstanding issues. And then a comment about us being in violation by having the Town picnic and having, and she having concerns about the upcoming, two-day event. Which is this weekend. Ms. Brock—When is it? Is it this weekend? Ms. Balestra — September twenty... Friday and Saturday. Ms. Brock— They couldn't even have a special ZBA meeting because you have...would a 5-day public notice.... Ms. Balestra — No, you'd be in violation... ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 49 Ms. Brock— I'm just thinking about what the public notice requirement would be... Ms. Balestra — Five days. Probably five days. Ms. Brock—And so we can't even meet that, if we were to try ... Chairperson Sigel — It's 5-days or as soon as practical, I think. Mr. Matthews — Can we issue a temporary approval? Ms. Whitmore — It has to be at least 5 days and not more than 10. Standard public hearing. Chairperson Sigel — But I think that if you were going to have a meeting... Ms. Whitmore — The Supervisor can call a meeting with-in 24 hours but that's for Town Board business. I am not sure of the requirements.... Mr. Matthews —Are we bound to do something because we know of the violation. Chairperson Sigel — No, we're not enforcement officials. I don't think there is anything we can do tonight. I don't think we can make a motion to modify the variance because there hasn't been advertised. So there is nothing we can do. What the Town does, I don't have any opinion on the legality of what they are or are not going to do. Mr. Matthews — You can bring in Port-A-Johns. Chairperson Sigel — To dedicate a bathroom, they'll have to bring in portable bathrooms. Ms. Brock— Town Law Section 267-A says that the Board of Appeals shall give public notice of hearings, for the hearings of appeals by publication in a paper of general circulation in the Town at least 5 days prior to the date thereof. And it doesn't say anything about the ability to shorten that 5-day timeframe. That's the State Law. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. We've beaten this enough. So if there isn't any other official ... Mr. Matthews — You weren't at the last meeting and I don't know if you are aware of this but, they are about to pass a law or something that requires 4 hours of continuing education training for people. Chairperson Sigel — The State Legislature...yup. ZB 9/18/06 Final Minutes Page No. 50 Mr. Matthews — Your aware of that? Chairperson Sigel — I am aware that they have been considering it. Has it actually passed? Ms. Balestra — I don't think it has passed yet, but in the Planning News Bulletin there was an article about it. Mr. Mountin —And they will grandfather in... (laughter) Mr. Mountin — I have an announcement for everybody here, and actually I made an announcement to the Town Board and to the Planning Board but, October 7 Saturday is the Tompkins County Solar Home Tours Open House Day, it happens every year, the number of people's homes that are opened up for people to view and see what is going on in terms of the green building or solar or whatever they've done...I am meeting a group...I am going to have a van...if anyone is interested in joining this tour, I will be taking a vanload around, leaving from Cooperative Extension at noon on Saturday, October 7 th, and probably see 3,4 houses and get an idea and I am going to bring another solar expert with me so...This invitation is open to everyone on the Board and public officials to tour the solar green homes we have in the community. I have been on it before and I have been part of it in the past. It's pretty good, it's got education. You could see some of the ground-mounted systems. So if your interested, please come on Saturday October 7t", around noon at Cooperative Extension and I will have a van there. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9:12pm. Chairperson Kirk Sigel Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk