Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2005-11-21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2005 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; Jim Niefer, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner. ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: John Rancich, Ithaca, NY; Nancy and Roger Battistella, 1553 Slaterville Road; Colleen Shuler, 1319 Mecklenburg Road; George Frantz, 604 Cliff Street; Paul and Pamela Fairbanks, 935 Taughannock Boulevard; John and Joy Stanton, 941 Taughannock Boulevard; Ron Knewstub, 180 Calkins Road. Chairperson Sigel opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Welcome to the November meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have four appeals, that of Colleen Shuler, the Appeal of Nancy Battistella, the Appeal of Luke Bowes and the Appeal of John Rancich, and we will be taking them in that order. APPEAL of Colleen Shuler, DBA City Lights Antiques, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Sections 270-54 and 270-55 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain an antique shop located at 1319 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.4-26.6, Low Density Residential Zone. An original, time-limited variance to allow the antique shop was granted in 1990 and extended in 1995. The most recent variance extension of December 13, 2000 is set to expire on December 13, 2005. Chairperson Sigel - The first Appeal is that of Colleen Shuler Doing Business As City Lights Antiques, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article 8, sections 54 and 55 of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an antique shop located at 1319 Mecklenburg Rd, Tax Parcel 28.-1-26.6, Low Density Residential Zone. A variance was originally granted in 1990, 1995 and 2000, each of those was for 5 years, and the current variance is set to expire in a couple of weeks. Is someone here for this appeal? Ms. Shuler- Hi. Chairperson Sigel—Please have a seat and just begin with your name and address. Ms. Shuler- Yes, Hi, I'm Colleen Shuler at 1319 Mecklenburg Rd. Chairperson Sigel—OK, and give us a quick overview of what's been going on and what you're asking for now. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Shuler - Well we would like to continue with an antique shop at the property, 1319 Mecklenburg Rd, there is a large building in the back that has been an antique shop, like you said, since 1990, and we would like to continue to use that space for that. Chairperson Sigel—Is everything the same basically as the last time you were here, as far as what you are selling and how much area you are using for the business and such? Ms. Shuler- It's exactly the same, yes. Chairperson Sigel—And has ownership changed? Ms. Shuler- The ownership of the property changed to me three years ago. Chairperson Sigel—And now you are running the antique shop? Ms. Shuler- Yes, well I would like to. Chairperson Sigel—OK, I assume we haven't had any complaints. Ms. Balestra—Not that I am aware of, we haven't had any in our office. Chairperson Sigel—Any questions, comments? Mr. Ellsworth—Are these conditions here still being met? Chairperson Sigel—That's a good question. Mr. Ellsworth — She answered the first one, but the second one is that the property is occupied by one of the principals of the business. Ms. Shuler- Yes. Mr. Ellsworth — I can go through this, but have you seen this? There were a bunch of conditions that were with this permit before. Rather than go through them one by one. Ms. Shuler- Can I just look at it real quick. Man—I apologize, we don't have that. Mr. Ellsworth—You can keep that one. Ms. Balestra—You did not receive that memo with the information in it? Ms. Shuler- I did not see it, no. But it won't take me long to look at it quickly. 2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — I believe that at the bottom there is a summary of the conditions of the last time you received approval. Ms. Shuler - The only one I'm curious about is the no advertising of any nature. Is there a reason? Chairperson Sigel—I believe that was actually modified at one point. Ms. Shuler- Because it does not seem to make sense. Ms. Balestra — That is a condition that was carried over from 1995, I think some of the board members at the time were concerned about advertising, because it's in a residential zone and not a commercial zone, and they didn't want to have a heavy amount of traffic going into or out of the site. But there is a sign that advertises the business, so I think other than that particular sign, I think the board was concerned they didn't want any more signage. Chairperson Sigel—Actually in 2000 though, that was lifted. Ms. Balestra—Was it? Ms. Shuler- Yup. Chairperson Sigel — In the last approval, in 2000, it says, all conditions of the previous approval will continue except that the stipulation against no advertising shall be modified to permit the placement of advertisements in publications of the applicant's choosing. Ms. Balestra—So in publications but not actually on the site. Ms. Shuler- That's fine, that's great. Mr. Matthews —Publications but...? Ms. Balestra —Not actually on the site, so not on the road but in the Ithaca Journal, for example. Chairperson Sigel—Originally, they were permitted to have their one sign out front. Man—It's still there. Chairperson Sigel—In their original variance, they were allowed to have their one sign. Ms. Balestra—Right, right. Ms. Shuler- We agree with all of these stipulations. 3 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — So I suppose the question is to grant this as another time-limited variance, or make it longer, or make it permanent. Mr. Matthews —What would your recommendation be? Chairperson Sigel—It's been here for a while. Mr. Matthews —Ten years. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, maybe ten years it's had the same owners —it changes ownership. Chairperson Sigel —Well, actually it wasn't stipulated on the previous owner, it was just stipulated that it had to be owner occupied, because it actually has changed owners since the last variance, I think. Mr. Niefer—Is there any Public Hearing person here to speak for or against it? Chairperson Sigel — That's a good idea. OK, we'll open the public hearing in regards to this case, if anyone would like to speak for or against, and if not, we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Matthews — one question I have, Kirk. The sprawl seems to be heading towards the West Hill area of Ithaca. That area where this business is is experiencing some growth, too. What kind of problems would ensue if we gave an extension of this and then in five years it became suburbanized, what impact would this business have on that? Chairperson Sigel—Your guess is as good as mine. I don't know, I mean it doesn't seem to have had an impact thus far, but of course it's pretty rural. Mr. Matthews — It has been rural, I understand that, but it's now changing. Is that something we have to consider or should consider. I thought I saw somebody lived ten years or something like that, but in ten years from now, who knows what it's going to look like. Mr. Krantz —The Trumansburg Road has an antique dealer too, and that area is similarly changing, almost identically actually. Chairperson Sigel — I mean it's not, I wouldn't foresee problems, personally, it's not a business that generates a lot of traffic. Mr. Ellsworth—Are you refinishing furniture? Ms. Shuler-No, that business has stopped. We don't refinish furniture. 4 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—There's all kinds of antique shops among residential areas. Ms. Balestra — That antique business that is there and then the one across the street are not huge traffic generators, and I think even if the area is to become a little bit more suburbanized which is not going to be much more than it is, I don't believe it's going to affect that area negatively. It's not a high traffic use. Mr. Krantz—There are 72 more units going up. Ms. Balestra—That's true. Mr. Matthews —That itself will bring traffic. Ms. Balestra—How many people living up and down Mecklenburg road are going to be really interested in buying antiques. It's a commercial use, it is commercial, and that's why you're considering the Use variance in a residential zone, but it is a somewhat light commercial use. It's not like a fast food restaurant or a retail store, or an establishment that is known to generate a lot of traffic. Mr. Matthews —right now it's zoned non-commercial, correct? Ms. Balestra—Right now it's zoned low density residential. Mr. Krantz—I would be in favor of giving them a permanent easement. Chairperson Sigel—Do you know Christine, what the one across the street has? Ms. Balestra — They also have a time limited use variance, that's going to be coming up to the next meeting. That's expiring in December as well. Chairperson Sigel — So, maybe consider that as well, the one right across the street is in the same situation, so we're probably inclined to do the same thing for them that we do for City Lights here, but like I said, I don't have a problem making it a permanent variance. Mr. Matthews — Are you sure you would want to go permanent? If it becomes a full blown residential area, are we doing those folks a favor by having a commercial business in the midst of them? Mr. Krantz—probably a residential area would bring more traffic in the... Mr. Matthews —I understand that, but a business is one thing and kids playing is another. I'm not against business, that's for sure. I guess I suggest we be conservative in our approach rather than open the door completely. 5 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney — The reason for the time limited variance is because it does give you the ability at periodic intervals to take a look at it, and see whether the neighborhood is drastically affected, adversely or not by it, which is I think the reason it was done with a time limit. Mr. Matthews —Give it a time limit, is that what you're saying, suggesting, John? And I agree with that. Mr. Barney—That's the rationale for it. Chairperson Sigel — Well, we could obviously do 5 years again, we could consider 10 years. Mr. Niefer—Sure, I would go for 10. Mr. Ellsworth—2015. I won't be here. Mr. Matthews —It's a minor inconvenience for these folks to have to come down every 5- 7 years, but we're pleasant people to deal with. Chairperson Sigel — That seems like a reasonable option. OK, I will, in regard to the appeal of Colleen Shuler, I will move to make a negative determination. I assume, Christine that you didn't have any other things that you wanted to highlight as far as environmental concerns? Ms. Balestra—No, not environmental concerns. Chairperson Sigel — I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in Part 11, Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff. Second? Mr. Niefer—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 057 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Colleen Shuler, DBA City Lights Antiques, 1319 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.6 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer RESOLVED that in regard to the appeal of Colleen Shuler this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in Part II, Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff. 6 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — And I will move the variance, or the motion made in the December 13, 2000 meeting of this board with the same findings and with the only change be that this approval is now for a ten year period commencing on this day. Second? Mr. Niefer—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 058: Colleen Shuler, DBA City Lights Antiques, 1319 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.6 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Colleen Shuler, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the operation of an antique sales and restoration business in a 9,640 square foot accessory building, located at 1319 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-26.6, Residence District R-30, based upon the following findings and conditions- FINDINGS- 1. onditions:FINDINGS:1. The appellant depends entirely upon the operation of this business for her livelihood. To deny her this appeal would cause her an unacceptable degree of financial hardship. 2. There do not appear to be any complaints from neighbors concerning the operation of this business. 3. The operation of the business will be substantially the same as that operated for the past five years. 4. The business is located on a busy highway in a rural area and is relatively isolated from inhabited adjoining properties. CONDITIONS- 7 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES 1. All of the conditions stipulated in the previous approval will continue to apply except that the stipulation that no advertising be permitted shall be modified to permit the placement of advertisements in publications of the appellant's choosing. 2. Approval is for a ten year period commencing November 21, 2005. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel—OK, you're all set. Maybe we'll see you in ten years. Ms. Shuler- Thanks so much. APPEAL of Nancy Battistella, DBA Six Mile Creek Vineyard, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-66 and Section 270-71(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to modify an existing vineyard/winery with a building expansion, located at 1551 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56.-2-1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said vineyard has previously been granted a use variance to allow its use in a residential zone. An area variance is being requested as the proposed building addition encroaches on the western site yard setback. An interpretation is being requested for consideration as to whether "receptions" are a normal function of a vineyard. Otherwise, a request for a modification of the previously approved use variance is also being made. The Zoning Board of Appeals referred the matter to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for a recommendation at their November 15, 2005 meeting. Chairperson Sigel — The next appeal is that of Nancy Battistella, doing business as Six Mile Creek Vineyard, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 66 and Section 71(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to modify an existing vineyard/winery with a building expansion, located at 1551 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56.-2-1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said vineyard has previously been granted a use variance to allow its use in a residential zone. An area variance is being requested as the proposed building addition encroaches on the western site yard setback. In addition, an interpretation is being requested for consideration as to whether "receptions" are a normal function of a vineyard. Otherwise, a request for a modification to the previously approved use variance is also being made. This Board referred the matter to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for a recommendation at their November 15, 2005 meeting. And we have received it back, I 8 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES assume. Ms. Battistella, if you'd like to come and begin with your name and address for our records? Ms. Battistella- I'm back. Nancy Battistella, at 1553 Slaterville Road. Chairperson Sigel — And if you wouldn't mind, give us a summary of sort of what's happened since you were here last. Ms. Battistella - Well, as you just said, it was referred to the planning board and all we are trying to do really is enclose an area of the back rear deck that is going to be extending out about 7 more feet, and this is for a gift shop and an area inside the winery, so that we can hopefully increase sales somewhat with that. And it will also help with production underneath because it will raise the area. We're needing to use forklifts and need more space. Not forklifts, forklifts, I get them mixed up, those machines that lift up casks. And then the interpretation for the winery having functions as part of a normal procedure and I have information or I can answer any questions. I'm not sure where we want to go from here. Chairperson Sigel—Anyone have any questions? Mr. Matthews — I'm just not clear on the western side yard setback, according to this diagram that we have. This diagram here. Ms. Balestra — That was additional material for the... so that it would illustrate the site plan. Your packets, you previously got a packet that included more detailed drawings on what they were proposing. Ms. Battistella - I might have some extras here if anyone needs them, but I'm not sure that that shows what he's asking. Chairperson Sigel — So, what's the current setback of your barn? The structure that you're expanding? Ms. Battistella - I'm not sure what you mean by setback, I can't answer that. Chris, can you help me out with that. Chairperson Sigel—It looks like it's... Mr. Battistella- Excuse me, I'm Roger Battistella. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Battistella- By setback, are you referring to the adjoining property line? Chairperson Sigel—Yeah. 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Battistella - Nothing has changed, we're just going out seven feet further, but the existing setback will be maintained. There will not be any further encroachment. Mr. Matthews —You're not going against the property line next door? You're going back towards the vineyard? Mr. Battistella- Back towards the reservoir, right, right. Chairperson Sigel — And it looks like from the survey, the barn is quite close to the property line... Mr. Matthews —But that's been there since [inaudible] was a puppy. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, I mean it looks like, I'm guessing, maybe a couple feet? Mr. Battistella- That's correct. Chairperson Sigel—And you're extending it to the south? Mr. Battistella- Correct. Mr. Matthews —And what does that have to do with us? Anything at all? Chairperson Sigel —Well, to expand, they're expanding the structure within the required setbacks, so that requires an area variance. Mr. Matthews —OK. Chairperson Sigel —And then, so there is that issue, and then there is the issue of events, and receptions and such. Mr. Ellsworth—How many wedding receptions did you have this year? Ms. Battistella- We had only about 4 large ones, that were anywhere from 50-100 people down below. Inside the winery, we had maybe 15 or so that were smaller groups of people, altogether it was about 27. And of course, it's only when the weather is fairly nice, so it's not very many considering the whole year. Mr. Ellsworth — But, you're expecting to expand that? That's when you get the big volume? Ms. Battistella - We just needed to make sure what we're doing is OK, and it probably won't expand that much, we're not planning to do much more. But the main reason in also to have another source of income, and in speaking with other wineries and I have some testimonials if you want, that it's a pretty normal function of most of the wineries in order to help subsidize a business, that we are subsidizing ourselves right now. 10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel —I should probably say that I got married at a vineyard, so I can't say that it's that unusual. Mr. Krantz—Parking is no problem? Ms. Battistella- I'm sorry? Mr. Krantz—I said,parking is no problem there? Ms. Battistella - No parking is not, most of the information is in there and it seems to be very adequate. Mr. Ellsworth — It was nice you included these pictures, because it gives us a good idea of what's going on. Ms. Battistella- Yeah, you don't get pictures too often? Chairperson Sigel —John, can you think of any concerns involved with the board making the determination that wedding type events are a normal function of a vineyard. Mr. Barney — I always get a little uncomfortable with interpretations, quite frankly. To say that wedding events are a normal function is probably true if there are a modest number in the course of the year. If you turn it into an Elvis Presley wedding chapel and have three or four events each weekend, you would wind up with a different. I'm not so sure I would want to call that a typical winery accessory use, if I could call it that. So, my preference would be probably to focus more in terms of a variance for expanding the use variance likely to allow some number of events, and then put a cap on it, so you don't change the character from a true vineyard to something completely different. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, what are we really talking about? We're talking about the outdoor wedding events? Mr. Barney—You're probably talking about both outdoor and indoor aren't you? Ms. Battistella- We do have indoor, too. Mr. Ellsworth — The bulk of what they have is indoors, they only had four outdoors so far. Ms. Battistella - And that's just the winery, I think the major concern was the outdoor ones. Mr. Barney — Well, the indoors aren't necessarily, as I recall, an adjunct of the winery either. Again, you have them from time to time, but if you have them in large numbers, you can have what amounts to a Lakewatch or something like that, which is really a 11 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES function type of situation... [inaudible] Actually, there is one out your way, it's not called Lakewatch, it's called... Ms. Battistella- Celebrations. Mr. Barney—Celebrations. That sort of thing. Ms. Battistella- That's for very big events, we don't have that capacity at all. Chairperson Sigel—So, you did give us a sheet here indicating how many events you had of various types. Ms. Battistella - We were guessing about 22 this year, most of them are the small family parties or receptions inside the winery. The other things are a harvest festival we have once a year. Some of the wine trail events that are two or three a year. Mr. Matthews —Do these events go into the evening hours, dark, after dark? Ms. Battistella- Some of them do. Some of them in the evenings are out the door at nine or ten, and depending. The only one we really had was my son's wedding and a fellow that works for me, he got married down there. But we're very careful about that, we don't want the noise to be an issue or music or anything. It's never been a problem, and it's not something we want either, because, as I said, it's right in our backyard. Mr. Krantz — I'd just like to point out that the Six Mile Creek Winery is classified as an agricultural establishment by this Town, and as such, it's our tradition to usually give agricultural settings more leeway. Mr. Barney—Yes. Mr. Krantz—We allow them farm markets and such. Mr. Barney—There are some that have taken advantage of that leeway. Mr. Krantz — We allow them to make different noise at different times. That's in the tradition. Mr. Barney — There have been some that have been given leeway and have turned what have been farm stands into grocery stores. Chairperson Sigel — I believe you've pointed that out in the past, Ron. Did the Planning board comment on the event use? Mr. Battistella- They found it a normal function of wineries. Ms. Battistella- They clearly stated that in their... 12 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—OK. [pause] Mr. Matthews — This second consideration, is this something that we should be deliberating on and answering? Chairperson Sigel—Well, it is something that the board has the power to grant. Mr. Matthews —We do? Chairperson Sigel — Yes. We have the power both to decide if we wanted to that such functions are a normal part of a vineyard, or we could grant a specific variance just for this vineyard, that they are permitted to have such functions. Which is what John, if we wanted to allow it, it is what John recommends that we do. Mr. Battistella - The likelihood of any additional vineyards being established in this county, let alone Ithaca, is very very remote. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, I think that's probably a fair statement. Mr. Matthews — So, let us say we approved it, we're setting a precedent for only our jurisdiction? Mr. Barney—That's true. Mr. Matthews —Is that correct? Mr. Barney—Yes. Mr. Krantz—It's the only winery in the town. Mr. Matthews — So we're not opening Pandora's Box for the next county or something, the next vineyard up the road. Mr. Niefer — There are many vineyards that have lots of wedding receptions, so this is nothing unusual at all. In the contemporary understanding of a vineyard incorporates wedding receptions, tasting, even snacks and meals. Maybe the original intent of a vineyard was one thing, but the contemporary interpretation of a vineyard today is significantly different, and it's more all-encompassing of a public... Mr. Barney —When you think about most of those vineyards. The policy call is yours — I'm not arguing one way or the other as to what you should do. When you think about most of the vineyards in the area, very few of them are right smack dab in the middle of a residential area with a fair number of residents around, which makes this a little different. 13 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Niefer — That's true, but we have a noise variance and so on that's applicable in the town, so that if there is any problem there, that would be dealt with through the normal statute for the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Barney—For amplified noise, that's correct, not for crowd noise. Mr. Niefer—Music noise. Mr. Barney—Amplified sound, yeah. Mr. Matthews — In my uneducated opinion, I don't see where allowing this vineyard to have receptions as a normal part of its business is going to hurt the community. It's certainly not going to hurt the wine industry, and that's all to the good for this area. It's just another light on the Christmas tree as far as I'm concerned. Chairperson Sigel — have there been any complaints that you're aware of, from any neighbors when you have such functions? Ms. Battistella- No, the neighbors kind of like it. They always comment about how nice it is, and they've enjoyed it. Chairperson Sigel—No complaints to the Town? Ms. Balestra—Not that we have in our files. Chairperson Sigel—How many outdoor events do you anticipate wanting to have? Ms. Battistella- That's hard... Mr. Battistella- It's hard to say... Chairperson Sigel—I'm getting the... I think the board would like to have a limit,just so that it doesn't turn into something that it hasn't been so far. Mr. Battistella - What we can say is that it's very seasonal. People aren't going to be down there any later that October through May, there will be no activity there. Chairperson Sigel — Well, that we can be pretty confident of. So, I guess I would ask you, what do you think would be a reasonable number of outdoor events? Ms. Battistella - Well, for the number that we've done, if you think about the summer months, and you have one every weekend, or two every weekend for July and August, September... Mr. Battistella- That's pretty much it. May is generally too cool. 14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Battistella- And that would probably never happen, but that might be... Mr. Battistella- Ad September, you may get a week or two and that's about it. Ms. Battistella- 25 or 30 events? Chairperson Sigel—That strikes me as sort of a lot. I don't know... as a cap. Ms. Battistella- I'm just counting weekends thinking you could have... Chairperson Sigel—Sure. Mr. Ellsworth—What are we calling an event? A wedding is one thing, what's the rest of it? Chairperson Sigel — We could just specify an event over a certain number of people outdoors. I'm not as concerned about events indoors. Mr. Matthews —It's awful hard to police, if Cornell has a reception there, which they do, every once in a while, or some department does, that's an event. And they're usually up in the barn, as it were. And this is sort of a rural area, and it's in my backyard, or my front yard, by about a crow's flight over the valley... Mr. Ellsworth—Well, I'm two blocks away. Mr. Matthews — It's blocked by trees and blocked by hills and everything else, that the noise is not going to come out of that bowl too easily. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I agree, but I think also it would be wise to set some reasonable limit. Mr. Ellsworth —If you set limits, when the next case comes up, it's got to be the same to get automatically passed and meet the same conditions, that's what's going on here, so if we set some conditions. Mr. Matthews —Well, I'll say this —these folks have been good neighbors, exceptionally good neighbors. They've improved the neighborhood, they've been quiet, they make a good product, they've been responsible business people. And I'd leave it up to that myself. If they want to go crazy and have 30 receptions a summer, they'll be tired out by the end of the year. And they may make a lot of money, but they're going to be so tired out they don't want to do it the next year, so I opt to let them determine what business they want to get, because I don't think it's very intrusive. Chairperson Sigel —Well, my concern, as John suggested, is that, if it was a reception, if it was very frequent, then it would be, basically a very different character than, say, a few during the summer. And remember that the variance goes with the property, not the 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES owner, so they may sell the vineyard, someone else may come in, and have a different idea of what kind of intensity of use they would like to use that outdoor space for. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, you can control that by saying owner occupied. Mr. Matthews —it's down off the road considerably, and the only ones who are going to be disturbed when they have a wild wedding, are the skinny dippers in six-mile creek. Mr. Battistella- Once again, we have to keep in mind, it seems to me, the highly seasonal nature of what we're talking about. You're talking about the optimal period is probably 8 weeks maximum, closer to 6, it's not like this is a year round activity. Mr. Barney—I don't think the sense is that people don't want to give you the opportunity to do it. I think I differ with you Dick, I think, this was granted a use variance, for a winery, and I think most people's conception of a winery is some fairly quiet vines growing grapes, and a relatively quiet processing of those grapes into a wine, with some visitors coming in for tasting and that sort of thing. Now, if you say, we'll have weddings, that's fine. I think that's true, that is a custom now, not only weddings, but events, parties of one sort of another at a winery, and they build buildings particularly for that use. But if you are going to turn it into something that happens a lot, you've gotten quite a ways away from what the original conception of a winery was, and then you ought to look at what your use variance criteria are for allowing people to do that. It isn't simply because somebody wants it. You have to basically demonstrate that there's an economic reason that they can't make money unless they do it, and it's an unreasonable limitation of the return on what they can make on their property. That's the criteria you have to have in order to grant a use variance. I'm cautioning you a little bit, because I hear you saying they ought to do it and they won't get tired, or they'll get tired. That's all irrelevant to my mind, legally what you're looking at is, what's the economic return here, and can they get a return without changing it. If the answer is yes, you're probably almost duty-bound to deny it. However, I don't see a problem by interpreting, or I should say modifying, the prior use variance that you've already granted by somebody finding at that point in time, that you have the economic criteria, to say yes, some weddings and some parties are acceptable within that use variance which we've previously granted. But if we're going to say we're going to give carte blanche, we have a different story, it seems to me. Because you are now giving another use, as of right that is not limited in any fashion. Ms. Balestra—Just as an aside, you have the criteria for the use variance in front of you to look at, and the other side is area variance criteria. Chairperson Sigel — It sounds to me, from what the applicants have said, that it seems pretty unlikely that you would do more than 15 outdoor events per year, which is triple what you've done so far, and to me, 15 seems like a reasonable number as what I would think if as an accessory use to the winery. Mr. Matthews —And we have to go back to what Harry asked, what's an event? 16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Well, I think that's pretty easy to define, we could say, an outdoor gathering of people that they have that's over a certain number of people, say 50 people. Mr. Matthews —Is that on the back patio of the barn, does that include that when people walk out there and look at the view and have a glass of wine? Is that an event? Chairperson Sigel—Well, I think that's a different type of event for them. Mr. Krantz—They can't fit 50 people in that patio. Mr. Matthews —Well, I don't know. Mr. Barney—What kind of events do you have other than weddings and receptions? Mr. Battistella - You have graduation things. You have small parties, like the women's club would come by and have a luncheon. Chairperson Sigel —And that's inside your building? And you've indicated that you can have up to something like 45 people inside, and say 50 or more you'd have to have outside. So, I think it would be reasonable to limit the gatherings of 50 people or more that are outside to some limit per year. Mr. Matthews —Outside beyond the building? Outside on the patio or what? Ms. Battistella- Well, outside on the grounds somewhere. Mr. Matthews —On the grounds down at the pond? Ms. Battistella- Right, right. Mr. Matthews —So we're not talking about that's happening around the building, right? Chairperson Sigel — Well, if it's less than 50 people, it would not qualify, whether some of those people happen to go outside or not. Mr. Battistella- I'm getting confused. Mr. Ellsworth—So am I, you've got 45 on the deck and 5 off the deck. Mr. Krantz—That's OK, it's got to be more than 50. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, more than 50 people, 15 of those per year. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, now so 15 events is acceptable? 17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Battistella- Well, if you limit it just to the outside, that makes that much sense, but if it included the inside, than it wouldn't give us enough to make it worth it. We need the income. Mr. Battistella - An economic return on what we put in that thing is a very important consideration, we've been subsidizing that operation. And we just can't continue to subsidize it to the extent that we have in the past. It has to be a commercially viable entity. Mr. Ellsworth — And that was my next question... with what you've invested outdoors, down at the pond— 15 events would take care of this hardship, financial hardship? Ms. Battistella - I hope so, I don't know. I'd have to bring numbers to you, but it's certainly something that we need to do. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, if we said 20. Ms. Battistella- It would probably be better, but I don't know how many we would do. Mr. Krantz—I go for 20. Mr. Ellsworth—I'm trying to follow the rules here. Mr. Battistella - These are events that would only occur on the weekends, we wouldn't have them in the course of a weekday. Chairperson Sigel — I would agree with 20. And then the indoor events would be unlimited. Mr. Barney—50 or less people. Chairperson Sigel—50 or fewer people. Mr. Matthews — One of the factors we're concerned about in limiting the numbers, and I heard what John said, is and correct me if I'm wrong, the noise and disturbance to the neighborhood? Is that right? Mr. Barney—Character of the neighborhood. Mr. Matthews —I'll go back to my original point, taking into consideration what the good counselor advised us. If they're successful and they get many wedding parties, because it's a delightful place to have a wedding party or an anniversary party, if they stay within the confines of the noise ordinance and so forth, what does it matter how many they have? 18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney —Cars, traffic, large number of people talking. Put this in a slightly different context, put this building right next door to your house, and how many times would you like to have people in the house next door to you have groups of greater that 50 people there even if they keep their radios tuned down enough that you don't get the decibels in excess of the noise ordinance? 50 times a year, 20 times a year, 30 times a year? Mr. Matthews — It's a different story if there are people living around there, but there's not that many people living around there. Ms. Balestra—There are people living all up and down Slaterville Road. Mr. Matthews —This is woodchuck country, folks. Chairperson Sigel—It is a residential district. Ms. Balestra—It's zoned medium density residential. Mr. Matthews —When it becomes heavily residential, I'd be concerned, but there's about six houses between there and Burns Road, I think. Mr. Niefer—Let's open the public hearing and ... Mr. Battistella - You might also want to consider the fact that the property borders the watershed on two sides and then on the other side it's the land trust. So there really isn't much development, and we are down in the bowl which contains the noise considerable. It's highly unlikely that we're talking about a situation where we're really creating a tremendous amount of stress on the neighbors. Ms. Balestra—Another thing to consider is that only a small portion of this property is in the residential district, the vast majority of it is in the conservation zone. Mr. Matthews —It's watershed. Ms. Balestra—Correct. Mr. Matthews — You might have thought I was kidding, and I was serious, the only people you're really disturbing are the skinny dippers in the cemetery. Ms. Balestra — But, if you are considering environmental factors, not just neighbors, additional parking lots, additional parking all within the conservation district, that was one of the major concerns. Additional runoff... Mr. Matthews —I'm not in favor of imposing the limitation on the number of events they have. 19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel- OK, at this point we'll open the public hearing, if anyone wishes to speak. If not, we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Well, I agree with you Dick that I don't think that each individual event is going to be a problem in this are, but I think the totality, if they were to have a lot of events, I think it would potentially add up to a significant change in that area, in that neighborhood. And so, I'm just trying to set a limit, which basically corresponds with what the applicant is telling us they anticipate using, just so that it doesn't turn into something other than what was advertised to us, basically. Mr. Niefer — So, well, should they find that for reasons of economic purposes or something, they needed to have more events, they could come back to us and ask for a modification of that restriction. Chairperson Sigel—Exactly. Mr. Niefer — So it's still an open item, and I agree with Kirk, as far as the number [inaudible] seems to fit with their situation at the present time. Chairperson Sigel — And presumably if they were to come and ask for an additional amount, if they ask for an additional number it would be because they had presumably booked 20, and then we would have seen. Mr. Matthews — I can respect what Jim is saying, and I can respect what the counselor has said. Can we set the number sufficiently high by taking into account that, I'll say it again, these people are responsible people. I'll say that with the strongest emphasis I can say that with. Mr. Barney — Suppose they sell it. No reflection on you folks, mind you, but suppose they sell it and the next people aren't so responsible. Mr. Matthews —Then put that in our ... for the present owners. Mr. Barney — You can't do it. You can't do that. Your variance is related to the land. Dick, take a look at these criteria, the little card that the Planning Department is kind enough to supply to you. These are the statutory criteria, if you grant the variance in violation of these, somebody could challenge you. And if these criteria are met, a person is entitled to a variance. You don't have a freedom to say, I like this or I don't like it, and therefore I'm going to grant it or I'm going to deny it. There are rules that apply to the granting and denial of variances, these are the rules. Mr. Matthews — OK, but correct me if I'm wrong, in our previous appeal, there were provisions put in there, providing the people live in the house, the current owner, and so forth. 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—There was a restriction that it had to be owner occupied. Mr. Matthews —It was lifted based on those conditions. Mr. Barney—I'm sorry? Mr. Matthews — The appeal was granted to this antique restoration operation, provided they lived on the premises and so forth and so on. And can't we do the same thing with this, and say "providing"? Chairperson Sigel—I don't think they live on the property. Mr. Ellsworth—Yeah, they live right next to the winery. Ms. Battistella- We live right next door, it's all one... it's not one parcel. Mr. Barney—It's two separate tax parcels. Mr. Battistella- For all practical purposes, we do live on it. Chairperson Sigel—They live next door, but it's not on this... Mr. Battistella- It's hard to get away from it. Chairperson Sigel—It's not on this actual property, though. Mr. Matthews —You can't put a provision in there providing to the current owners only, or something? Chairperson Sigel—The variance really goes with the property. Mr. Barney —You could, yes, the answer I think, from what I understand the question, is you could put a condition in there that the operation of a winery can only occur as long as the owners of the property are the ones operating the winery, which is really what the antique business variance was on the prior application. I don't think that was required in prior iterations of this variance. I don't remember seeing that, and I'm not sure these folks would be very comfortable with that, because it may force them to stop the operation of the winery or move into the barn, so I'm not sure you want to impose that condition. What you got to look in your mind, Dick, is what is the impact, not necessarily of these folks operating it, what is the impact of some not as meticulous or not as nice group of people got their hands on it and operated it under the conditions that you allowed them to operate it. Mr. Matthews —And that's why I was asking can we put a proviso in our approval. 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney —Not to limit to these owners, only to limit it to be owner-occupied, which I think creates more of a hardship in this particular circumstance... Mr. Krantz — Under the heading of practicalities, if you have more than 20 events with more than 50 people in addition to selling the wine and in addition to having as many events as you can indoors, you're not going to really exceed that. You've only got three going now. That's 7 times more. Mr. Matthews —You haven't given us a number that you're comfortable with. Mr. Krantz—They said 20. Ms. Battistella- I think 20 is... Mr. Matthews —You said 20? Ms. Battistella - It's a little hard to say really, but if you put a limit on it and then something happens and you wanted to do more, would you come back and say... Chairperson Sigel—You could come back. Mr. Battistella - I personally would feel more comfortable if we had 25 if we're going to put a ceiling on it. Ms. Battistella- Yeah, if you're going to put a ceiling on it. Mr. Battistella - We're talking about June, July, August, maybe a week or two in May or September. I think 20 would be somewhat restrictive. Mr. Matthews —And I'm fine with that. Mr. Barney—I guess the question one might ask is where is the economic rationale? Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, do you... Mr. Barney — That's really where we're skirting very far wide of this... don't get me wrong, I'm a great one for weddings at wineries, my kid had the reception at it, so it's not like I'm against them in principle, but I just caution you by going too far in what is a residential neighborhood. And look, one of the criteria is for the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. And Dick, I don't know exactly where you are getting your numbers from on the residences, but I look at this tax map, and the road is covered with residences up and down... Mr. Ellsworth—Across the street. 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney — Yeah, across the street and up and down, so there are a number of residences there that would be affected by an untoward operation of this in some fashion, should other people choose to operate it in that way. And you still come back to the first criteria which is you can't make a reasonable return without the variance. And I'm not hearing anything other than I'd like to have 20 or 30 or 25. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, but they said they'd been subsidizing. Do you want to clarify what subsidizing means? Does that mean you're there a lot, or it hasn't shown a profit? Mr. Battistella- That means it hasn't shown a profit. Mr. Ellsworth—OK, and you feel you need the 25 events to turn that from red to black? Mr. Battistella - That's a goal that I feel we should strive for. We don't collect any income from it. We put in probably about 30 or 40 hours a week or more, in addition to my other job, so it is heavily subsidized. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, we've got this hardship clause, I'm trying to... Mr. Battistella- Right. Ms. Battistella- It's definitely a hardship. Mr. Barney —Keep in mind, it's also competent financial evidence is what you prove the hardship with. Dollars and cents. What's your income, what's your expense, how is this going to change it, where is it going to wind up? We haven't always insisted on that, Mr. Ellsworth—An accounting ledger, you know. Mr. Barney -but that's the test by which it's supposed to be... Chairperson Sigel — Well, personally, I'm comfortable up to the 20, and if the applicant actually achieves that goal and can show that that's not, that does not provide them with a sufficient return for their property, then they are welcome to come back and ask for a further modification. So, that doesn't mean that someone else can't propose another motion and we can have a vote. If you'd like, we can sort of take a step back and deal with the area variance, which I think there's probably less disagreement if any over. Now, it's coming out like, did you say 8 feet to the South? Mr. Battistella- Seven. Chairperson Sigel—Seven feet to the South, and no closer than the current structure Mr. Battistella- Correct. 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel - to the west lot line. OK. So we don't need to do an environmental assessment for... Ms. Balestra—Not for the area variance, no. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Do we have a sketch of what's going on there? Mr. Barney—I'd probably do the SEQR on everything. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Barney — I unfortunately grabbed the wrong book when I came over tonight, and I don't have my SEQR regs with me. Chris has bailed me out here. Ms. Balestra—I think it only applies to residential. Mr. Matthews —The line that it's imposing on, is that reserve property? Is that watershed property? Ms. Battistella-No. Chairperson Sigel—Where the vineyards are? Ms. Balestra—No, where the enclosure is? No, that's in the residential zone. Mr. Matthews —There's a house next door. Ms. Balestra—There is a house that appears to be about... Mr. Matthews —About 50 yards away. Ms. Balestra—Right, it looks to be 100 feet or so. Mr. Matthews —The barn has been built right on the line shall we say... Ms. Balestra—Very close, right. Mr. Matthews — So that line is a demarcation between personal property, or is it city property? Ms. Balestra — That's a demarcation between two separate properties, so they have property and then the barn is right along the property line and then the house next door has their property. Mr. Matthews —And that's another individual's property line? 24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—Correct. Mr. Matthews —Because here it says "reserve". Mr. Battistella- We have written approval from those neighbors. Mr. Matthews —The neighbors, are they here tonight? [inaudible] Ms. Battistella- There was a letter in your packet. Mr. Battistella- There was a letter submitted with the application. Chairperson Sigel—Yeah, we have that, they indicated support. Mr. Matthews —Their support? Chairperson Sigel—Their support, yes. Mr. Matthews —OK, that was my question, took me a long time to get there, I'm sorry. [inaudible conversation] Chairperson Sigel—OK... should we combine the use and area variances? Mr. Barney — Actually, it's a lot line variance, and that you can do on a commercial property without SEQR, so you can deal with that if you want to, and then deal with SEQR on the use variance. Chairperson Sigel — OK, alright. I will move to grant the appeal of Nancy Battistella, requesting, let's see which of these sections cover... yeah, I wanted the section of the code. Requesting a variance from section 270-71(C) of the Town Code to be permitted to modify an existing barn, I guess it is, located at 1551 Slaterville Road, tax parcel 56.-2- 1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone with a finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, with the condition that the extension extend no further to the South than 8 feet... would give you some leeway. And would extend no closer to the western property line than the current barn currently extends. Mr. Barney—Which is one foot, if I read the map correctly. Mr. Battistella-Not much. Mr. Barney—Not much. 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — OK, which is, according to the map, approximately one foot. OK, second? Mr. Niefer—Second. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 059: Nancy Battistella, DBA Six Mile Creek Vineyard, 1551 Slaterville Road, Tax Parcel No. 56.-2-1.1 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Nancy Battistella requesting a variance from section 270-71(c) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to modify an existing barn located at 1551 Slaterville Road, Tax Parcel 56.-2-1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: 1. The extension shall extend no further to the South than 8 feet. 2. The extension shall extend no closer to the Western property line than the current barn currently extends, which is, according to the map, approximately 1 foot. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel—Any further discussion about the use variance modification? Mr. Matthews —Could we crank it up to 25? Mr. Krantz—What about 22? Chairperson Sigel —Well, I was comfortable with 15, so I really feel like 20 is my limit, and I would be surprised if they hit that, and if they did, I would welcome them to come back and show us that that is not enough to make it economically viable, and I would be happy to re-evaluate it then. Mr. Matthews —And each count is 50 people. Chairperson Sigel—Yes, for events of more than 50 people. 26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — Now, this is going to be looked upon as a smart aleck question, and it may well be, but who is the wedding police who counts. Ms. Battistella- Me. Mr. Barney—It's an honor system. Chairperson Sigel — It's not something that is easily enforceable, I would agree, but if it got to be in obvious excess of 20, then I would think it would be something that the Town could do to enforce it. Ms. Balestra—A lot of times these come about being enforced by complaints. Mr. Matthews —OK. Mr. Krantz—Make it you can have 20 of not more than 50 guests. Chairperson Sigel—How is that different? Mr. Matthews —What's the difference between the guest and the guy who got married? Mr. Krantz —We're talking about the people who were there including the waitresses and waiters and personnel. How about not more than 20 events of 50 guests? Chairperson Sigel—That's fine. Mr. Barney—Yeah, 50 non-employees or staff. Chairperson Sigel — For a minute I thought you were trying to include non-humans or something. Mr. Battistella- Could I ask for clarification? Chairperson Sigel—Sure. Mr. Battistella- I'm getting a little confused here. Are we saying 20 events consisting of 50 or more people? Mr. Krantz—Yes. Mr. Ellsworth—50 or more guests. Mr. Barney—Not staff people. Chairperson Sigel—Right. 27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Battistella- Thank you. Mr. Matthews —Up to 50. Up to 50, right? Mr. Barney—50 or more. Mr. Niefer—50 or more. Mr. Krantz—You can have as many as you want... Mr. Matthews —So clarification, if they have 49, that's not an event? Mr. Barney—Not this... Mr. Matthews —Oh, well just have small parties. Chairperson Sigel—Right. Mr. Matthews —Limit the wedding to 49 guests. No bride and groom, that's 48. Mr. Barney—Just one, one or the other. Chairperson Sigel—OK, so we do have to do the SEQR for this. Ms. Balestra—Oh yes. Chairperson Sigel — OK, I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the use variance appeal of Nancy Battistella regarding the request to allow receptions as a function of their vineyard, for the reasons stated in the, what's the latest one? There's a more recent one here? Ms. Balestra—It's a little more expanded. Chairperson Sigel — For the reasons stated in the Part 11 form prepared by Town Staff, dated November 2, 2005. Second? Mr. Ellsworth—I'll second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 060 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Nancy Battistella, DBA Six Mile Creek Vineyard, 1551 Slaterville Road, Tax Parcel No. 56.-2-1.1 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth 28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the Use Variance appeal of Nancy Battistella regarding the request to allow receptions as a function of their vineyard for the reasons stated in the Part II Form prepared by Town staff dated November 2, 2005. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — And I will move to modify the motion made by this board on February 27, 1985 with regard to this vineyard to allow up to 20 receptions or events per year that contain 50 or more guests, where a guest is someone who is not an employee of the vineyard. Mr. Niefer—And these are outside the structure. Mr. Ellsworth—Right, outside. Chairperson Sigel — Yes, well, I think it's sufficient to just say greater than 50, because they've indicated that they can't handle 50 people inside. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, he's getting away from the deck. Chairperson Sigel — Do we need to really say more than we're just modifying the previous motion? Mr. Barney—No, and then I think probably that all other conditions... Chairperson Sigel—And that all other findings... Mr. Barney — All other findings and conditions of the previously granted use variance will continue in full force and effect. Chairperson Sigel—OK. Mr. Matthews —Again clarification? Chairperson Sigel—Yes. 29 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — The 50 do not include people who are in the barn or on the back deck, we're not including that at all? Mr. Barney—I don't know what exactly the thought is, it seems to me... Mr. Matthews —There's a barn and then there's a back deck. Mr. Barney—Yeah, but I don't think you want to set a limit tied to how many people are standing outside versus how many people at the same event that are standing inside. I think it's the size of the event that determines it. What these folks have indicated is that up to 50, they can pretty much handle it inside. If it's more than 50, it's going to require some overflow, whether a1150 are outside, or whether 3 of the 50 are outside. Either way it's now an event qualifying and subject to the cap. Mr. Matthews —It is now an event? Chairperson Sigel—Right. Mr. Barney —That would be subject to the cap, as I understand it. I don't know whether that's... Chairperson Sigel—Right. 50 or more people, 50 or more guests. Mr. Matthews —Anywhere on the premises? Chairperson Sigel—Correct. You get 20 of them per year, I mean otherwise it gets to be too complicated. It becomes musical chairs. Ms. Battistella - If I could just clarify a little bit, too, the events are special events, and the winery operations are separate, so we're just talking about events. Chairperson Sigel—Right, if you happen to have more than 50 people, unrelated visitors, visiting the winery at any one time, that would not be an event. Mr. Niefer—Are you comfortable with that? Ms. Battistella- Yeah, that's pretty much how it would work. Chairperson Sigel—OK, second? Mr. Niefer—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 061: Nancy Battistella, DBA Six Mile Creek Vineyard, 1551 Slaterville Road, Tax Parcel No. 56.-2-1.1 30 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board modifies the resolution made by this board on February 27, 1985 with regard to this vineyard to allow up to twenty receptions or events per year that contain fifty or more guests, where a guest is someone who is not an employee of the vineyard or owner. All other findings and conditions of the previously granted use variances continue in full force and effect. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel—OK, thank you. Ms. Battistella- So, can we build now? Can we build now? Chairperson Sigel—I think if you... Ms. Balestra—If you get the building permit. Ms. Battistella- That's all we have to do, right? OK, thanks. Mr. Battistella- Great, thank you. Mr. Barney — Actually, you probably want to stick into that resolution a condition that any site plan modifications should be referred to the Planning Board, and should come before the Planning Board for approval before they install... Chairperson Sigel—Oh, that was a recommendation... Ms. Balestra — That's right, I forgot to mention that the Planning Board had a couple of conditions that they recommended be added. Should be in there. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, we forgot to condition it on what the planning board in their review, suggested as conditions, which is submission of a site plan... Mr. Niefer—Is it proper for us now to impose it as much as the applicants have left? 31 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney—You can amend it. Ms. Balestra—The applicants know about these conditions. Chairperson Sigel—These are conditions that were from the Planning Board. Mr. Barney—They'll get a copy of the resolution in three or four days. Mr. Niefer—We don't necessarily have to accept those recommendations. Mr. Barney—That's correct, you do not. Mr. Niefer — And those recommendations would have been more properly made years ago. We were only dealing number 1, with variance, and number 2 with definition of weddings versus, so on, so a big, full blown site plan is really questionable as to whether it's necessary for those two items that we were dealing with. Ms. Balestra — The reason that the Planning Board imposed those conditions is because the property has increased in use incrementally without having any approvals, and they were approved for the use variance to allow an agricultural use, and now that they are adding parking lots, especially in the conservation district, and outdoor events like weddings, that was the reason why they needed to have the modification of the use variance to include weddings as a normal function. But the Planning Board, at looking at what is actually on the site, saw that there were not only, there were structures that never received building permits. There was one building in particular that was on the site that the code enforcement officers never even saw, so one of the conditions that they wanted to have put on this approval, was that the applicant submit a site plan showing the existing conditions of the site, as it is today, so that if they continued to put buildings up without building permits, we can at least track that. Mr. Niefer—Are you expressly saying then, that the applicants agreed to provide this site plan? Ms. Balestra — Yes, I can provide you with the minutes from the meeting from the Planning Board. Mr. Niefer—Because a full-blown site plan is a fairly costly item. Mr. Barney—I don't know that we require in this circumstance, full-blown in the sense of topographical maps, and... these kinds of things. Ms. Balestra—No, nothing like that. Mr. Niefer— That becomes a question of, sometimes we ask for pretty detailed site plans and so on, so... 32 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney—Keep in mind that if this project were in a commercial area, which is where they technically belong, they would be required to have a site plan. If they were in an agricultural area and they take some steps, and here it's a little bit different because the agricultural zone is a little more relaxed in that are, but even in that circumstance, there are times that site plans are required. So, I don't think the Town is imposing any greater burden on them here then they would be if they were in the proper place. Here they are in a residential zone which makes it even more imperative it seems to me to have a known status today, versus what it may be tomorrow, next week or next year. We've had what basically are illegal additions added over the course of the years that nobody has known about in part because there wasn't a site plan requirement that they come in and show why they should be able to do it. Mr. Niefer—I hope that they are aware that they can get by with a plot plan without a lot of topo... Mr. Barney —It's not exactly on the back of an envelope but it's not necessarily going to be a topo to two feet elevation. Ms. Balestra—They would be speaking to me, and also to Kristie or Steve in the building department before they get their building permit. Chairperson Sigel — OK, I will move to amend the previous motion to include the two recommended conditions from the Planning Board resolution number 2005-104. Mr. Barney —And I suggest, and the planning department may jump on me, because this does specifically say prepared by a licensed architect, surveyor or engineer. I would suggest putting in the word preferably before then, prepared by a licensed... so that we can get something that's not quite as rigorous that we have the authority to do it. Ms. Balestra — If the board wants to, however discussions amongst planning and engineering and zoning staff sort of created this condition, this suggested condition so that there could be an accurate plan showing the existing conditions. Mr. Barney —I think then that Jim has a legitimate point, because once you go to one of these licensed folks, you're talking substantial amounts of money, so... Ms. Balestra—OK. Chairperson Sigel — Could we say "prepared by a licensed person, or if not, then to the satisfaction of Town planning staff' Ms. Balestra—Or even building and zoning staff. Chairperson Sigel — OK, so I will modify condition a to offer the option, if not prepared by licensed architect, surveyor or engineer, then it must be to the satisfaction of Town planning or zoning staff. So, if they can do it without a licensed person... 33 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney—I think we better pick one or the other, since one could go one way and one could go another way. Ms. Balestra—You mean planning or zoning? Chairperson Sigel—Oh, planning or zoning? Mr. Barney—Yeah. Chairperson Sigel—which one would you suggest? Mr. Barney—It's really a building and zoning... Ms. Balestra—It would be more of a building and zoning... Mr. Barney—Town engineer. Mr. Krantz — Since they've left the room and this is kind of not quite satisfactory, couldn't we just say "the Battistellas have agreed to provide a satisfactory site plan to the Planning Board"? Chairperson Sigel—Well, that's basically what we just said, I think. Mr. Krantz—Without amending or anything else,just put that sentence in. Chairperson Sigel — Well, I do think we need to amend our... it doesn't really have any teeth unless we condition our approval on their fulfillment of this requirement. OK, second? All in favor? Opposed? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 062: Nancy Battistella, DBA Six Mile Creek Vineyard, 1551 Slaterville Road, Tax Parcel No. 56.-2-1.1 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board amends the previous motion to include the following conditions: a. the submission of a site plan to the Planning Department, prepared by a licensed architect, surveyor, or engineer or otherwise to the reasonable satisfaction of the Town Engineer, indicating the existing site conditions, including all existing structures, natural features, ponds, and parking areas, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the deck enclosure/addition, and 34 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES b. the requirement of site plan approval by the Planning Board for any future development of structures on the property (i.e. parking lots, additions to the building, pavilions, etc) The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: Krantz The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel—OK. APPEAL of Luke Bowes, Appellant, Ron Knewstub, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of chapter 270, Article XII, Section 270-45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an open pile dock that exceeds the maximum 8 foot width and the 300 square foot surface are required by the Code. The proposed dock will be 8' x 60' with a 10' x 24' "L" extension at the end and a 14' x 24' covered boatlift, and have an overall square footage of 1056 square feet. The property is located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel No. 25.-2-1, Lakefront Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel - OK, the next appeal this evening is that of Luke Bowes, appellant, Ron Knewstub, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of chapter 270, Article XII, Section 270-45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an open pile dock that exceeds the maximum 8 foot width and the 300 square foot surface are required by the Code. The proposed dock will be 8' x 60' with a 10' x 24' L extension at the end and a 14' x 24' covered boatlift, and have an overall square footage of 1056 square feet. The property is located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel 25.-2-1, Lakefront Residential Zone. Mr. Knewstub - Good evening. Chairperson Sigel—Hi. If you could begin with your name and address please. Mr. Knewstub - My name is Ron Knewstub, I reside at 180 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca. Chairperson Sigel—And maybe give us a brief overview of what the latest developments are with regard to the dock. Mr. Knewstub - The latest developments are Mr. Bowes wanted to address the concerns of John and Joyce Stanton, so we have modified the design of the dock. We reduced the length by 10 feet. I don't know if you have a copy of the plan, but the dock now goes out 35 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES 30 feet and goes north for 24 feet, and then goes east again for 30 feet and then north for 24 feet. The effect of this is to greatly increase the access for the Stantons to the North for their dock. Ms. Balestra — This original proposal went to the Planning Board and the night of the Planning Board meeting, the planning board received a letter which you have on your desk from the Stanton's, from the next door neighbors and the Planning Board adjourned their decision for site plan and SEQR review until they could hear from the neighbors, because there was some concern about navigation ability from the North because of this proposed dock. So, tonight, you have a modified version of what they're proposing. Chairperson Sigel—And it appears that the... Paul and Pam, are they the neighbors to the North? Mr. Knewstub - They are the Stanton's neighbors to the south. Chairperson Sigel—To the south... Mr. Knewstub - I believe they came here because the Stanton's weren't able to attend the Planning Board meeting. Paul and Pam Fairbanks came here to represent the Stanton's. Chairperson Sigel—OK, so are they further to the South, than the Stantons? Mr. Knewstub - They are further to the South. Chairperson Sigel—Than the Stantons? Mr. Knewstub - Than the Stantons are. Two doors down. Chairperson Sigel—OK. So it appears now that the Stantons are pleased with the current design. Mr. Knewstub - I believe they are... Chairperson Sigel—As indicated by their e-mail here. Mr. Knewstub - Right, you have a copy of that, that's my reading of it. Mr. Matthews —This over here, is this the dock we're talking about? Mr. Knewstub - That's the Stantons' dock and boathouse. So just north of that is the proposed dock. Mr. Matthews —Here? Mr. Knewstub - That's correct. 36 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — You don't have an overview, a sketch overview of the new dock in relation to the neighbor's docks? Is there, an overview? Mr. Knewstub - Well, you need... I put them on two 81/2 x 11's and then you mash them together to see what the effect is. [Mr. Matthews examines the drawing]. Mr. Matthews — So your dock is sticking out it looks like 30 feet beyond the neighbor to the south? Mr. Knewstub - Yeah, maybe, I'm not really sure, it's something like that. The shoreline changes there, so the shoreline. Mr. Matthews — But I think your neighbors concern is about navigation getting to their dock. Mr. Knewstub - Right, but we've addressed that concern. Mr. Matthews —May I ask how you did that, what you did? Mr. Knewstub - Well, do you have the original drawing? The original dock went straight out 70 feet, and the boathouse was to the south of that line, and so... Mr. Matthews —You kinked it to the left? Mr. Knewstub - Correct. Mr. Ellsworth—You made that jog. Mr. Matthews —You took a jog to the left, and then went out, Mr. Knewstub - Correct, so we... Mr. Matthews - and that gave them navigation coming in a little better, from the North. Mr. Knewstub - Right. Mr. Matthews —Right? Mr. Knewstub - Correct. Mr. Matthews —Thank you very much. I'm clear. Yup, yup, I'm clear. Chairperson Sigel—OK, so the code permits 30 feet from the shore, is that right? 37 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—Right, 30 feet in length, although the planning board modified the length according to the code, and Zoning Board would modify any width, it's an 8 foot maximum width, there is a section that they are proposing that is 10 feet wide. And 300 square foot overall area, and they are proposing — the original proposal was for 1056 square feet, this proposal is for a little bit more. Chairperson Sigel — OK, do you know, have you figured out the square footage of the new proposal? Ms. Balestra—I calculated 1336 square feet. Mr. Knewstub - Sounds good to me. Ms. Balestra — And this was the first dock proposal that the Planning Board had seen since the Zoning Ordinance was updated. Previously there was no regulation on docks, other than the army corps of engineer permits, they didn't even get building permits. Mr. Krantz—And it was updated to just 300 square feet? Ms. Balestra—That's correct. Mr. Krantz—And how long ago was that? Ms. Balestra—2004 was when the Zoning Ordinance was passed. Mr. Krantz—and this is going to be 1336 square feet? Ms. Balestra—That's correct, and from my observation and other staff observation, many of the docks along Cayuga Lake that are existing, exceed the regulations that the Town put in place. Mr. Krantz—Why did they pick such a low number? Ms. Balestra—I don't know. It was the Codes and Ordinances committee. I don't know what justification they had. But, a lot of these docks, it appears as though they have to be a certain length at least to get a certain water level. Mr. Krantz—Yeah, that's the purpose of a dock. Ms. Balestra—Right. Mr. Knewstub - How many square feet did you have? Ms. Balestra— 1336, and admittedly my Math skills are not perfect. 38 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Knewstub - OK. Chairperson Sigel—Does that include the boat? Is there still a boat lift area? Mr. Knewstub - Yes, you included it I think. Ms. Balestra—Yes. Mr. Knewstub- I guess my math isn't good, because I came up with less. Chairperson Sigel—I'm coming up with less than that. Ms. Balestra—It's still over 1000 square feet, though, right? Mr. Knewstub - I have 1072. Ms. Balestra—OK, you're probably more right than I am. Chairperson Sigel—somehow I come up with 800. Mr. Knewstub - Well, I don't know... Chairperson Sigel—This is it, right? Ms. Balestra—No. Chairperson Sigel—Which parts am I missing. [they examine the drawing]. Chairperson Sigel—OK, I have 1136. Mr. Knewstub - We get a different one every time. You go out there's an 800, so that's 240 square feet. And you go north for the width of the boatlift and that's 8 feet wide by 12, and that would be 96, correct? And then you go east again for 800, no I'm sorry that's 808, and then you go North 10x16, so... I always use a calculator. I didn't bring it this time. Chairperson Sigel—It's not so much the calculator part as just covering all the pieces. [pause] Chairperson Sigel—We're pretty sure it's 1136. Mr. Barney—Now the e-mail said they were going to shorten. 39 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — This is the shorter. Because it goes out a total extent of 60, instead of 70, but the jog adds considerable. Mr. Knewstub - Yeah, I have 1136, is that what you have? Chairperson Sigel—Yeah. Mr. Knewstub - OK, good. Chairperson Sigel—Well, they're coming back to the Planning Board anyhow, right? Ms. Balestra—They are. Chairperson Sigel—For site plan approval. Ms. Balestra—That's correct. Chairperson Sigel —We have a problem in that it was advertised for 1056 square feet and the new plan is 1136 square feet, which is more than advertised, so even though it wouldn't appear to make a very material difference, it still is technically an increase of what we advertised. Mr. Krantz—Can we say plus or minus 80 feet? Chairperson Sigel—you might. Mr. Matthews —You say advertised, what do you mean? Mr. Barney — The notice of public hearing advertised it as the dock will be 1056 square feet. Chairperson Sigel—This gets posted in the newspaper. Mr. Barney — So the people coming — there might be a lot of people out there that don't object to a 1056 square foot dock, but do object to an 1136 square foot... Mr. Knewstub - Hordes. Mr. Matthews —Who know where people draw the line. Chairperson Sigel—Which Planning Board meeting are they on? Ms. Balestra—November 29 Planning Board meeting, it's an additional meeting that the Planning Board added. Chairperson Sigel—And our next meeting is, must be mid-December? 40 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra—December, 19th I want to say. Chairperson Sigel — Could be. Were you planning to try to resume construction in December? Mr. Knewstub - We work year round, so whenever we can, sure. Chairperson Sigel—You're not really there, now? Mr. Knewstub - I've moved the rig now down in Aurora, so we couldn't get back right away anyway. It would be, realistically, I think at this point it would be a month before we can get back. Chairperson Sigel — OK, I think maybe what we would like to do is just adjourn this to our next meeting, so we can advertise it legally. Mr. Knewstub - Sure. Chairperson Sigel —We could try to address any issues the board has now, I don't know that the applicant would necessarily have to return in person? Mr. Barney—Up to you, we could probably do it that way, as long as you remembered. Chairperson Sigel — We will open the public hearing now, if you would like to come speak. Please just begin with your name and address. Pam Fairbanks, 935 Taughannock Blvd My name is Pam Fairbanks and I live at 935 Taughannock Blvd. My husband was here, but he had to go bowling. Attorney Barney—He has his priorities right. Mrs. Fairbanks — We are in agreement. We did come last week and we talked to the Planning Board because our neighbors, the Stantons, who are here tonight actually they were out of town. They did send us a letter and we delivered it to the Town and the Bowes have been incredibly willing to compromise and work out a resolution of the problems that we saw as neighbors. We live two doors down. The Stanton's property is very narrow so we are quite close even though we are two addresses away, but we would be in support of the new plans. Is there any other information that you would need from me? Attorney Barney—You have seen the... Mrs. Fairbanks —Yes, we got that a couple of days ago. 41 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—Anyone have any questions? Mr. Matthews —Your dock is how far or is the next dock adjacent to this dock? Mrs. Fairbanks —We have a dock at 935 and we have about 166 feet of frontage. Then the Stantons have 55 feet and they have a dock. Then there would be the new dock. There is one dock in between us and this one. Mr. Matthews —You don't know what the person to the left of the dock has to say, right? Mrs. Fairbanks — That's Wally Wiggins and his area...he has kind of a seawall area that goes around the corner after a creekbed. He is totally facing a different direction. He is facing north and there is a treeline coming down the creekbed. His whole property is oriented away from this area and the old dock on the Bowes property is up on the north side and its pretty decrepit and I think part of what they are asking to do is to take that out. It is practically useless as it is. Mr. Ellsworth—About how much frontage does Wally have? Mrs. Fairbanks — I don't know, but I know between him and his son, they have several docks and boathouses themselves, but probably at least 150 feet up away from this property. We can see Wally's lights through the trees, but we can see all three of our areas, but that is it as far as what we actually visually see from our property. And just so you know, our dock, which is not terribly large as docks go as Christine was saying. After the last meeting, Paul went out and measured our dock. Our dock is 67 feet out and the Stanton's is about 60 feet out. So 70 feet sounds like a lot, but given the different shape and contours of the beachfront, it sounds like more than it is. I would say the average, the 30 feet just doesn't make any sense. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Thank you very much and thank you for your comments. Mrs. Fairbanks —So you would have our comments on the record and we would not have to come back? You would record us as being in support? Chairperson Sigel—Yes. Attorney Barney—You are always welcome to come to these meetings. Mrs. Fairbanks —John, I appreciate that. And my husband gets a kick out of hearing your comments. Attorney Barney—I'm sure he does. Chairperson Sigel—If you didn't have anything new to add, then...thank you. 42 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —So did I understand the woman's comments that this dock right here that looks like a reverse 7 is in a decrepit condition and maybe demolished? Ms. Balestra—That is part of the proposal. Mr. Matthews —Is it on the same property? Ms. Balestra—Yes. Mr. Matthews — So the people who are proposing this dock will probably be removing this? Ms. Balestra—Yes, and it is in the process of being removed. Chairperson Sigel—Please just begin with your name and address. John Stanton, 941 Taughannock Blvd John Stanton, 941 Taughannock Blvd, we are the ones who live next door to the Bowes and we are here tonight to support their revised proposal for their dock and we think it addresses our concerns we expressed to them and to the Planning Board last week. They have been very accommodating and we think what they have done is very good and we do support their new request. Chairperson Sigel — Great. Thank you very much for coming. Okay, if no one else wishes to speak, we will close the public hearing. Anyone have any further questions for the applicant? Basically, we just need to re-advertise it and vote at the next meeting. I guess in fairness to the applicant, does anyone have any concerns as to why they might vote against the proposal? Attorney Barney—Did you close the public hearing? Chairperson Sigel—Yes. Attorney Barney — I would actually suggest that you keep the public hearing open. Adjourn the public hearing. That way what has been said tonight will be clearly part of the record at the next meeting. So I would assume not closing it if it's all right and keeping it open for that purpose. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. I'll reopen the public hearing and keep it open. Attorney Barney—Rescind the closure of the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel—Rescind the closure. 43 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —So what do we do? Put a tape recorder in the room while we are gone? Chairperson Sigel — The whole time, yeah. So it doesn't appear, Mr. Knewstub, that it would be necessary for you to come to the next meeting unless you really wanted to, the next Zoning Board Meeting. You still might need to go to the next Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Knewstub —I plan to do that. Chairperson Sigel — All members have indicated that they have no further questions of you and we will just have to re-advertise it. Attorney Barney — I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, a motion to adjourn the public hearing on this matter to be continued at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. Do we also need to adjourn the case in general, or just... Attorney Barney—I think just adjourn the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. So moved. Second? Mr. Ellsworth—Second. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. You'll be hearing from us after the next meeting I guess. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 063: Luke Bowes, 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel No. 25.-2-1 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board adjourns the Public Hearing on this matter to be continued at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 44 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES APPEAL of John Rancich, Appellant, George R. Frantz, Agent, to modify the conditions of a previously granted special approval (9/23/02) to continue a gravel pit mining operation, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road approximately 500 feet west of the intersection with West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27.4-14.2, Agricultural Zone. The previously granted special approval was issued for a three-year period and expired on October 1, 2005. The Appellant requests that the special approval be extended through August 31, 2008 to coincide with the expiration date of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Mining Permit that was issued. The Appellant also requests the modification of two other conditions of the previous special approval: 1) to permit the use of crushing and conveying equipment on the site to process the mined gravel for use in the planned street and infrastructure system on other portions of the property (where the previous approval included a condition that there be no processing or crushing of any of the material at the Project site or any lands adjacent to the site at any time...), and 2) to increase the maximum number of truckloads of gravel permitted to be removed from the site from 32 to 64 truckloads per day, and from 4 truckloads per hour to 8 truckloads per hour (where the previous approval included a condition that there be no more than four truck trips per hour, one trip being ingress and egress, and no more than 32 truckloads removed per day. John Rancich, Ithaca & George Frantz, Ithaca Mr. Frantz - We are here tonight to request an extension of the special permit that was granted on September 23, 2002 as well as some modifications to the conditions of that special permit. Essentially, the way we would like to modify it is to permit continuation of the mining of the gravel on the property to August 31, 2008, which is the date the mining permit that was issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation expires. That is roughly another 2 years, 10 months. Mr. Rancich would also like to process the gravel on the site through the use of crushing and screening machinery and also conveyor belts. That type of machinery was actually excluded from the original permit. So we would like to expand the types of activities that would be permitted on the sites, include actually processing the gravel beyond using the permitted stationary screener. The reason for the request to process it is Mr. Rancich's long term plans are to actually develop the property for residential use and that residential use will be somewhere in the vicinity of 225 new townhouse, condominium units on the property and possibly 40 to 50 single detached homes on the property to the north that he is at this time acquiring. These future plans for the development we estimate will be far between 35,000 and 40,000 cubic yards of crushed stone to be used in the various streets, walkways, foundation, water/sewer line trenches and the like. Essentially the idea is to utilize the resources on the site in order to produce the crushed stone that would be needed for this future development and in the process eliminate the need to transport an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 dump truck loads of gravel over local streets and highways and 45 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES eliminate the equipment that would be between 500,000 and 600,000 ton miles of transportation and fuel consumption and the pollution that would be associated with it. Again, this is what we estimate would be involved in the transportation of the crushed stone for construction on the site from the two nearest gravel pits in Tompkins County at this point, which is the Paolangeli pit in the Town of Newfield or the University Sand and Gravel out in Brooktondale. This would also reduce the potential amount of truck traffic both through the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca neighborhoods. Two issues that have come up in the discussions of this proposal. The first is the question of noise impact. What we did for the Planning Board is prepare a diagram that shows what we call the noise gradient and what it is is this light area here, this area image is the actual mine site as permitted by the DEC and the previous special permit. Mr. Ellsworth—Where is the crushing machine? Mr. Frantz—The crushing machine? All the equipment will be inside the mine. Mr. Ellsworth—Okay, now are they down below grade in a pit or are they at grade? Mr. Frantz — Eventually...at this point it is a few feet below grade. They have started...essentially they have stripped the topsoil. Mr. Rancich — I'm at 6 feet below grade right now. My mine floor is at 990 feet. I am right now about 15 feet above the mine floor. So the 6 feet that it is down right now, we can go down probably another 12 to 15 feet. Mr. Ellsworth—What grade is the crushing equipment going to be? Mr. Rancich—It should be at the mine floor. The roll of the land, this part of the mine is where I expect to have the crushing equipment and right here the land rises up considerably. Mr. Ellsworth—That direction is toward the Linderman Creek development? Mr. Frantz — The Linderman Creek development is right here and rather than get into the more complicated calculations the assumption in the preparation of this noise gradient was that the crushing machine would be essentially at the surface and this is a flat site. Mr. Ellsworth—So they should be less than those numbers. Mr. Frantz —Yes. This is literally the worse case scenario. There is no berm or obstacle between the mine site and the surrounding properties. What we find is that the noise essentially drops by 10 decibels for every 200 feet of horizontal distance. So what we see within the mine here, it is possible that there be noise immediately adjacent to the machinery in the range of 100 to 105 decibels. 46 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—Where did you get this data from? That is down here at the bottom? Mr. Frantz — Yes. Actually the noise generated by a gravel plant that information came from the British Columbia, Canada Workmen's Compensation Board. Mr. Ellsworth—That is similar type crushing? Mr. Frantz — Yes. They did an extensive study of essentially hearing loss due to construction equipment. Mr. Krantz — Is that dba of 100 to 105 the way the gravel pit is now or the way it would be after the crushing and conveying equipment is installed? Mr. Frantz — Well, actually some of the equipment in the pit probably reaches in that range some of the heavier construction equipment, but again our assumption is that this would be an increase from let's say...for instance a diesel truck is 88 decibels. So within the mine site itself there may be an increase in the amount of noise. Mr. Rancich — I don't believe it will. We have been operating some pretty noisy equipment in the mine now with no problems or no complaints. The reason for asking for this special permission is that my existing permit prohibits me from having this type of equipment. It doesn't prohibit be from mining or operating backhoes or dozers, but I can't have this kind of equipment there under this permit. Mr. Ellsworth—Is your present equipment below grade? Mr. Rancich — My present equipment is on grade and below grade according to where it is. Mr. Frantz — The purpose of this is to just show that by the time we get out towards where the residence are, the decibel level is down to 40, to 50 decibels. Chairperson Sigel —I assume on the chart you meant to indicate less than for all of those values rather than greater than. Mr. Frantz—Actually no, from this point inward... Chairperson Sigel — Oh, you would experience greater than. But that doesn't imply that outside of that zone you would experience less than. Mr. Frantz — Outside this zone you would certainly experience less noise from the mine operations however, outside the zone and in fact in this area the ambient noise area level is probably around 60 to 70 decibels simply because of the highway traffic on Route 79. Chairperson Sigel—Okay. It was just more of a technical point. 47 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—I have a question for the Town. Is Linderman Creek fully developed? Mr. Rancich—It is not further developed. Mr. Ellsworth—Is there another area that is going to be closer than this? Mr. Rancich —Linderman Creek is stalled because they need a second means of egress. I have been working with Jon Kanter on the Planning Board and with the Linderman Creek people because I have recently purchased... I own this blue square, so to speak, here. I recently purchased this land up here... Mr. Ellsworth—That is your future development. Mr. Rancich —And this is the old Perry Farm and there is a road dedicated to the Town that comes through here and goes through Linderman Creek. Linderman Creek, I don't know if it is stalled purely because of the second egress, but that is one of the reasons. I don't expect this crushing and screening equipment to operate for very long. I'm going to put a screen there and then probably run the screen until I stop piling up material. The crushing equipment I except to bring in, run for 3 days and send back out. I own the screening equipment, but I don't own the crushing equipment. Mr. Ellsworth—The higher noise is the crushing equipment not the screening? Mr. Rancich—Exactly. Mr. Matthews —Why was it not granted before this? Why...? Mr. Rancich—I don't know why. I purchased this farm with the permit intact as it stands from the Eddys. I don't know what their relationship was with the Zoning Board, but my impression from Alfred was that it was less than amicable. Chairperson Sigel—Their intention was to truck it out so I don't think they objected at all to the condition that there be no crushing because they had no intention to and so we were more than happy to include that restriction just to try to eliminate a source of a potential problem. Mr. Matthews —They restricted because? Chairperson Sigel —We all just basically recited their intention. They presented to us as they wanted to just excavate the material and truck it out. So we gave them an approval for what they requested, which did not include any request for... Mr. Matthews —So you didn't deny them crushing. Chairperson Sigel—I don't believe that they asked for it and we denied it, no. 48 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—That's not quite right, is it, John? Attorney Barney—I don't think that they ever asked for crushing. Chairperson Sigel — No. The whole things was initially denied, but I don't think it included a request for crushing. Attorney Barney—That is correct. My recollection is that it was strictly digging. Chairperson Sigel — Because I think if they had requested permission for crushing it probably would have been overturned along with the rest of the decision by the... Mr. Matthews —Why? Chairperson Sigel—It went to court. Mr. Eddy sued the Town. Attorney Barney — The Board voted 3-2 to deny the permit. That decision was challenged in the Courts and the Courts overruled the Board saying that the permit should have been issued. It was then issued, but it was issued with the conditions that had been agreed upon before the Board took its final vote on the matter and one of those conditions was no crushing machinery. So that is the history of it. Mr. Matthews —The crushing equipment keeps coming back and back to what we see the reluctance... Attorney Barney — Two or three quite vocal neighbors came and objected basically on a noise issue. I think Mr. Eddy probably in an effort to try and pacify the neighbors in part agreed no crushing equipment because that would reduce the level of noise produced. He also basically agreed to the number of trips in and out per day and that sort of thing, I think also as a mechanism to try to encourage people to be less concerned about his proposal. Mr. Matthews — So where have those neighbors gone? Have they taken flight? They're not here tonight. Chairperson Sigel—I don't know. They should have been notified. Attorney Barney — One neighbor was Don Crittenden, who is an attorney. I'm not sure whether he still lives there or not. Mr. Matthews —So to get back to the basics, there are no neighbors here tonight. At that time there were neighbors upset about the possibility of the noise. There has been no reduction in number of residents surrounding that area at all? There has been no building going on? Mr. Frantz —If anything, there has been an increase. 49 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —Are those protesting kind of people or is that Linderman Creek a social housing? Mr. Frantz—The mine has been in operation for several years now. Mr. Matthews —Yeah, but not crushing though. So there are buildings that have gone up, right? Mr. Frantz—Yes. Mr. Matthews —And those people have been notified shall we assume? Chairperson Sigel—What is the notification requirement? Ms. Balestra—Contiguous within 500 feet of the proposal. Chairperson Sigel—So it would be within 500 feet of the property boundary. Mr. Frantz — It would include City Lights. It would include EcoVillage, possibly Peter Trowbridge and Nina Massa to the west at 1345 Mecklenburg Road. Of course, the Perrys, Bob Drake to the west. Mr. Matthews — So you have to notify people within 500 feet of the basic operation , is that right? Ms. Balestra—Of the property boundary. Mr. Matthews —And people live 800 feet beyond the notification point. Ms. Balestra—That is correct. Mr. Matthews —Get what I'm hearing. Can you show us where that 500 feet is from that outer noise dba line? Mr. Frantz — It would be roughly across there. This area and then it would include Shalebrook or Perry Lane. I forget the name of the one street. Again, this is the 40 decibel line. Mr. Matthews —I understand. Chairperson Sigel—So you are making the claim that at that point the noise will be 40 db or lower at that line or beyond? Mr. Frantz—Yes. 50 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews —What is 40 dba? Mr. Frantz—Our conversation here is 55 to 65. Mr. Ellsworth—Dust and dust containment. Mr. Frantz — Dust containment. The DEC permit specifically states that all dust generated during the operation shall remain within the mine area. So there is to be no migration of dust outside the mine area. Mr. Ellsworth—How do you do that? With water? Ms. Balestra—That is one of the ways. Mr. Rancich — You could do it with water or you could do it by not mining when the conditions are that dry. Mr. Ellsworth—You are running crushing equipment right now, right? Mr. Rancich —I am not operating crushing equipment now. I am here to ask permission to do that. I have been operation just loaders, backhoes and... Mr. Ellsworth—Well at these other locations, how is it done? With water? Mr. Rancich — Yes. If I needed to keep the dust down, I have a huge farm pond here. I'm hoping that I won't have to do that. Mr. Frantz —I have seen crushing equipment where actually they hose down the gravel as it is going through the equipment and again... Mr. Ellsworth—Whatever you have to do is part of the DEC permit? Ms. Balestra—That is correct. Mr. Frantz reads the requirements from the DEC permit. Mr. Ellsworth — I'll tell you where I am going. My concern is that, and lets hope it doesn't happen, that once this starts then the Town is going to be getting calls from people wondering why they got all this dust on their cars and laundry and whatever and I would rather not see us get in that position. Mr. Rancich—Then I would have to address the dust according to my DEC permit. I am obligated to address that dust and I would deal with it with sprinkler equipment, just to keep the dust down. I am still planning to stockpile this material on the site for use by Town roads that will be on that site. 51 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth—That is true, but none of that is approved yet. Mr. Rancich—I understand. Mr. Frantz — In response to the current concern about people calling to complain to the Town about dust and their cars, the nearest house is over 1,000 feet away. Mr. Ellsworth—Linderman Creek is due west of this site. Mr. Mathews —Due East. Mr. Ellsworth - Linderman Creek is right here and again it is 2, 4, 6, 8 , 1000 feet to the corner of that development from the edge of the mine. Mr. Frantz — If it is westerly winds, then it is going to go...again, I don't know a dust from a mine ever migrating 1000 feet. It is not the fine type of dust that I know you see elsewhere, especially off farm fields. We are talking about a much coarser type of material that is going to be excavated here. I don't think you will be getting any complaints or I should say I don't think Christine is going to be getting any complaints. Mr. Rancich — And if we do, we will have to address them. I mean if I was getting a complaint from my existing mining operation I would be forced to address those complaints, but I haven't had any complaints. Mr. Ellsworth—Well, yeah, but you are going into a different operation. Mr. Rancich—That is for sure. There is no doubt about that. Mr. Matthews —Do you have any complaints about truck noise now? Mr. Rancich—No. Mr. Niefer — Where is the development that is in the talking stages as relative to the mine? Mr. Frantz — The proposed development, the proposed townhouse development is to be on the 95 acre parcel. Mr. Niefer—Is it on the same site then? Mr. Rancich—The mine is inside the development site. Mr. Frantz — Actually, the DEC permit requires that the mine be reclaimed for agricultural uses upon completion of the mining. However, this area is actually incorporated in the preliminary site plans for the new development. 52 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Niefer — Then why are you going to be needing to have so many trucks leaving the site then if the crushed stone and so on is going to be used on the site? Mr. Frantz — The development, the mine permit is up to 90,000 cubic yards and the proposed development would use up to roughly half of that. So we would like the option... Mr. Niefer—To sell the balance? Mr. Frantz—To sell some of the balance at least. Mr. Rancich—I have the option to sell what is coming out of there now, except it's a less valuable product because I'm only permitted to scoop it out of the bank, load it into the truck and haul it off. I haven't roomed soil off the site yet because I believe it is more valuable to me there than it is trucked down the road. I don't want to get $3 to truck it out and pay $6 to truck it in. Mr. Krantz—Will you be able to complete successfully with Newfield and Caroline? Mr. Frantz—I don't think we want to. Mr. Rancich—We don't want to compete. Mr. Frantz—Those operations are so much larger than really what we are proposing here. Mr. Rancich—We are not looking at this as a viable gravel business. I'm looking at it as I own the gravel that is there now. I need to use the processing equipment to make it acceptable as item 4 for the Town road bases as number 2 stone and number 1 stone. So my plan is to just stockpile it there and when I get permission to do what I am looking to do, I've got the gravel on site. Mr. Ellsworth—But, if your development doesn't get approved...? Mr. Rancich—Then I will want to sell it. Mr. Ellsworth —And those number of truck trips is included with what you are asking for here? Mr. Rancich—Well, we asked to up the truck trips, but the Planning Board recommended against that. So we are not asking for anymore than what we originally had. All we are asking for is to screen and crush the gravel so that we can make a more valuable product, right in the already approved mine. Chairperson Sigel — So, the request is for the crushing equipment, as stated, and also obviously to extend the permission because the approval from the Town has expired. So 53 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES they are asking to extend the approval as it was made to coincide with the expiration of your mining pit and they are asking for the one change to allow crushing equipment. Mr. Rancich—Crushing and screening. Chairperson Sigel—Crushing and screening equipment. Mr. Matthews —And the crushing equipment will be just for a few days? Mr. Rancich—Well, I believe the screen will be set up there for a longer period of time. I believe that the screens will be there as a permanent fixture in that mine site while the mine is permitted operate. The crusher, since I don't own one, they are expensive to lease. I will, once I stockpile a big pile of bone rocks, I will hire crusher guys to come. They will bring it in on a tractor trailer. We will crush the material, three days later they are gone. Another month, we've got more stuff, they come back. So I expect the crushing, which is the loudest part of the thing, to be a smaller part of the operation. I don't have enough stuff to run a crusher 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Mr. Matthews —Screening is not noisy? Mr. Rancich — Screening does develop some noise, but not like your crusher. The screener is just a belt and a shaking grate that does make a little noise, but not to the extent that the crushing machine does. Mr. Matthews —But you are already doing that? Mr. Rancich — We are not allowed to screen or crush. We are just operating heavy equipment. Mr. Matthews —So the screening runs 6 days, 5 days a week. Mr. Rancich — The screening doesn't run at all now because I am not permitted. Once I get permitted, I will run it as I need to. Mr. Matthews —Which is? Attorney Barney—Excuse me. I would say permitted from who? From us or DEC? Mr. Rancich — From you. Screening is not permitted from you. Screening with a conveyor belt, let me put it that way. You are allowing screening through a standing, stationary grate. I can take it and dump it through a stationary grate. That doesn't give me a very good product. I am asking for your permission to run a screen that goes up a conveyor belt and is a vibrating screen that separates material into different piles. 54 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Attorney Barney — But don't you have to get it from DEC first? The DEC application that was submitted to them was for no processing, so one of the questions it asks considerably on the application is, is there going to be processing and the answer was no. Mr. Rancich —I am under the impression that the DEC is allowing me process. I talked to the DEC and they said they don't care so long as I don't violate their.... Attorney Barney — I'm looking at the permit application signed by Alfred Eddy back in 2000 and the mine land project where they are describing has a whole series of questions with yes/no. One of them is will there be on site processing of mining products eg, crushing, screening, washing. No is checked. Then in the write up that Mr. Foster did, he says that the processing was removal of bankrun material such material is expected to use as subbase. It may be necessary to dump the material through a grate to remove oversized cobbles and boulders. No other processing or use of process is anticipated. So I'm a little perplexed as to how you are going to go and do something that DEC clearly, at least in my view, did not anticipate that you were going to be doing. It goes on to say elsewhere, I don't remember where... Mr. Rancich —Mr. Barney, the only thing that I can say to you is that in your analysis of how the Eddys got this permit and in terms of what they agreed to do or not do in town, that they did the same thing that mentioned to the Town and put it on the DEC permit. Mr. Frantz — I think though John, that the Town can grant it special permit, but we are still talking to the DEC. Right now John has been talking to them and they are indicating, at least, that there doesn't appear to be a need to modify the permit. But if there is a need to modify the permit, then that is going to be our next step. You are right in that the Town can grant the special permit. The Town can grant modifications to permit the use of crushing and screening equipment and conveyor belts, but if the DEC says no then... Attorney Barney—Its really a question of the horse and the cart here. I think whether the Town should be...because this is not an area where the Town maintains the same great level of expertise that we anticipate that the DEC is supposed to have. So if the DEC says yes, it makes it a little bit easier for the Town to say, okay, yes. The DEC says no, it makes it moot what the Town says any way because if the Town says yes, you can't go against the DEC permit. Mr. Rancich—If the DEC tells me yes, the Town has told me no. Attorney Barney—That's right, but at that point we then have the DEC saying you can do it and this board has the benefit of that expertise saying that that is not going to be much of a problem. Mr. Frantz — I guess my sense is that we are not putting the cart before the horse here because the type of equipment that we are proposing is the type of equipment that the DEC routinely permits in any normal gravel operation. 55 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Attorney Barney — I'm not saying that they won't grant it. I'm just simply saying that right now we are faced with a permit. You are asking us to grant you permission to do something, which in my unexperienced, naive way in reading the plain language says you can't do under the DEC permit. So I have a little difficulty advising this board to grant something that DEC has not yet passed on. Mr. Frantz—So I guess then my question is then do you just grant it conditioned upon the DEC permit? Attorney Barney —But you are looking, also, is to basically continue the existing permit, which allows you to take your gravel out of there because ours has expired and then have you come back when you get your DEC approval and say that they have approved it, will you approve it. Mr. Rancich—When I was talking to DEC a few months ago, they said that the Town has prohibited that and not us. They said to get the Town's permission then... Attorney Barney — It says specifically, John...I mean this is what puzzled me. The permit has a whole series of conditions in it. One of those is very expressly, "all work will be done in accordance to the plans submitted". Mr. Rancich—Right. Attorney Barney — Item 7 on their permit, "all activities must be in strict conformance with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part of the permit application". It goes on somewhere else to say something all done in accordance with the mine...the second one is, "the permittee shall not deviate or depart from the approved mine land use plan without approval by the Department of an alteration or modification". That is pretty explicit and this document that is submitted is the mine use plan that Mr. Foster prepared. Mr. Ellsworth — John, what do you recommend? I mean you said there are two ways. What do you prefer? Attorney Barney —I guess my sense is that I think John has a legitimate concern because he can't do anything right now because the permit has expired. So I would certainly recommend consideration of extending the permit to the 2008 date. As to whether you modify the terms of it, that is a little different and I, quite frankly, if I were sitting in your shoes would really want to hear what DEC has to say about it. You could go to DEC and they may say fine you can do screening, but you can't do crushing. I mean I'm speculating here. Mr. Rancich — In my conversations with the DEC and with what experience I have with other mines, DEC does not object to any of that. They have given a permit based on plans submitted to them by some others than me. This plan that was submitted to the 56 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES DEC was tailored to the Town's requests or maybe not the Town's request, but Alfred Eddy's agreement with the Town. The DEC in my conversations over the phone with the women said, "I don't know why these are in, we allow this in all our mines; it's the Town of Ithaca that has prevented you from doing this". Attorney Barney —That's BS, whoever gave it to you. This stuff was prepared before the Town got involved in it. So it wasn't the Town who said to do it this way. Mr. Rancich—I don't know the history on that so... Mr. Frantz — Again, what the DEC does when it generally reviews...(tape flipped)... erosion and sedimentation problems, sedimentation of streams, impact on the water table, insuring that the mine face is the...the gravel is actually extracted in a safe manner and then also what are the plans for restoring the site to useful purpose afterwards. Again, I don't think that they are really that interested in what happens to the gravel after it is in the scoop of the front end loader. Attorney Barney — That maybe so, George, but I am looking at a document, which is the under pinning for your permit and that is what it says. You are telling me something different from what this says. Also, quite frankly, to pick up a phone and call DEC and you can get an answer. Then you can pick up the phone and call the DEC the next day, you can get a different person and get a different answer. It is when they have to commit something to writing that they actually sit down and focus on what they are saying and whether they are going to get hoisted by what they say. It is useful for this board to see, in writing, what it is. I don't have a problem if you want to go forward and if you do, I would suggest conditioning on anything you do, specifically getting an amendment for the DEC permit or an indication in writing from DEC that no such amendment is required to allow them to do something that you are allowing them to do is different than what DEC is not authorizing. Mr. Matthews —To save steps, business wise and otherwise, can't we say and say we do go affirmative, its okay by us, but DEC is the big Kahuna here. Right? Attorney Barney—Well, what I'm saying... Mr. Rancich—That would be acceptable to me. Mr. Matthews —Can't we do that? Attorney Barney—That's what I just said. Mr. Matthews —Oh, you did? Mr. Ellsworth—He said that there were two ways. That's one. 57 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Do we have specific requirements for granting special approval for mining? Attorney Barney—I think an engineer has to approve...(comments not audible)... Mr. Frantz—We do have a fill permit. I've seen that in the paperwork. Attorney Barney — What Kirk is asking is what our requirements are for a fill permit. They are, I believe, in the Administration... Mr. Ellsworth — John, if we were to make you get approval by the DEC first, how does that impact your plans schedule-wise? Mr. Rancich — I need to get the DEC permission anyways. Again, Mr. Barney is right. What is said on the phone is sometimes a lot different when you have to get...but I was told I need to go to the Town first. It is the Town, okay. I do have the document, and I don't have it with me, from the Town talking about the restrictions in this permit and the year...the ones on the DEC permit. Now I don't know which one was first because I wasn't here for that process. All that I know is that I have a permit that I purchased with the land. Back to what John Barney mentioned is that if the Zoning Board would grant me my special request contingent on the DEC approval of it, I think that would keep me from having to come back to the Zoning Board and I just have to deal with DEC. Mr. Ellsworth—I have dealt with them. So I know where you are going. Mr. Frantz — We get the letter that says, yeah its okay from the DEC December 201' and then when can we get on the next Zoning Board meeting. Chairperson Sigel— 10 to 12 months. Mr. Rancich—Your permission contingent upon the DECs permission would probably be fabulous. Mr. Ellsworth — Let me ask another question. You would probably like to have your crushing and screening in place by April? Mr. Rancich —I would actually like to have it in place now so I could do it in the winter when there is no rain and there is no dust. The cold weather is harder on the equipment, but in terms of the amount of fugitive dust is about zero. So I would like to get started right away, which I was told by the DEC that this was the first step. Chairperson Sigel — I mean, I would be comfortable granting approval conditioned upon the applicant providing the Town with evidence that they have either gotten a variation to the DEC permit or a letter stating that they require no change. Basically, some 58 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES verification that it is legal. Now, how many does a month would you speculate that you would be doing the crushing? Mr. Rancich —I would have to say probably 5 days a month, but I don't even know if it would be that much. I don't really want to get into what happened with the vineyard. When I hire the crusher to come there, we are going to crush everything that I have piled up and then they are going to leave. So if that takes 3 days or if it takes 8 days, I don't know because I don't know what kind of pile I am going to make. Mr. Matthews — But according to the presentation, crushing is not going to impose on anybody's ears. Mr. Rancich — According to the presentation, it was the opposite way around. The screening was less noisy than the crushing. Crushing would be the noisiest part of the job. Mr. Matthews — According to the presentation, crushing is not going to impose on anyone's discomfort. Mr. Rancich—No you are right. Mr. Frantz — Using the language of SEQR, I can say that the noise from the operation would have a small to moderate impact. Some people might hear it, but it is down to 40 decibels within range of the nearby houses and again, the closest home here at Hub's Place is being hit with 60 to 70 decibels from the traffic on Route 79. Chairperson Sigel — How many yards a day approximately does the crushing equipment process? Mr. Rancich—I don't know which crusher I will put there. I haven't hired one. Chairperson Sigel—Do you have an idea of what sort of a reasonable range is? I have no idea. Mr. Rancich— Some of the bigger portable crushers can make 300 tons of material a day. You need a lot of equipment to keep supplying those. I don't believe you will use one that big. Chairperson Sigel—Do you know how many yards that is? Mr. Frantz—400 to 500 cubic yards a day. Chairperson Sigel—So a smaller one might process a couple hundred a day? Mr. Frantz—Yeah. 59 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel—So 200 to 500 yards a day maybe. Mr. Rancich—I guess. Providing that it is working all day. Chairperson Sigel — I am just trying to get a feel for how many days of crushing that the potential of 90,000 yards is. Mr. Rancich — It is so hard to say because I don't know out of that 90,000 yards I am going to mine out of there, I don't know if I am going to have a 1000 yards of material to crush or 10,000 yards of material to crush. I don't know until I start pulling it out. There is no reason to pull it out before I can screen and sort. Like I said I am hobbled right now. I've got a mining permit that only allows me to pull bankrun out and sell it for $3 a yard. Mr. Frantz — 32 10-wheeled dump trucks is actually roughly 400 to 450 cubic yards. So actually, a crusher could accommodate... Chairperson Sigel—A truckload. Mr. Matthews —I am known for asking painful questions on this. I spent my career and I lost my hearing in the punchpress industry. I had it damaged. I am asking the question...is there not technology available since you said this material came in on a flatbed truck to have sound barriers mounted around it? Mr. Rancich — I don't know the answer to that question. I know that when you are working the mine and when you are working that close to the crushing and screening equipment, you are wearing earmuffs. Mr. Matthews —I know that you are. I'm talking about the neighbors. Mr. Rancich —I am anticipating using the fact that the crushing and screening equipment is down in a hole as a sound barrier. Mr. Matthews —I understand that. Mr. Frantz — I found some of this stuff... actually they are experimenting with this in British Columbia, I believe that is where I read it, but there are especially when they are doing work in urban locations and they have a crushing machine and pile drivers, etc., there are noise barriers that will reduce the amount of noise, maybe 5 to 10 decibels. What the report was saying was this works in urban areas and there are actually companies out there that are marketing exactly what you are talking about. Really the primary source of noise is going to be the engine exhaust because the crusher, I believe is run by... Mr. Rancich—Diesel engine. Well usually the crushers are run by big diesel engines that generate electricity. The crusher's belts and screens themselves are run by electric 60 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES motors. So the diesel engine in the crusher runs the generator and the generator runs the motors. Mr. Frantz —What they have actually been finding out is deal with the exhaust noise and you take care of a lot of the noise generated by most construction equipment. That is really where the industry has been going. Mr. Rancich—That is the noise we are dealing with, with the equipment that I have there now. Mr. Matthews — So what you are saying is, you don't know if they have this on the equipment coming in? Mr. Rancich—I don't even have the equipment coming in. I haven't even shopped... Mr. Matthews —Your advisor hasn't looked into that? Mr. Rancich —No because it is premature. We don't have permission to have that stuff so I don't like to get the salesmen to come down and say that this will cost you $20,000 a week and I go, well I don't have permission to do anything so you have to go home. Mr. Matthews —So all we can go by is your diagram of sound. Chairperson Sigel — We can condition approval that that performance be met. That the noise be no greater... Mr. Rancich—I think that is what the Planning Board said in their resolution some place. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. The Planning Board basically has a condition that the sound be no greater at those distances. Working on a resolution? Attorney Barney—Mmm hmm. Chairperson Sigel —Well we will open the public hearing and with no one being present other than the applicant, we will close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opened and closed the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Chairperson Sigel - So there's no further discussion or questions? I'll move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of John Rancich for the reasons stated in the revised environmental assessment for prepared by Town staff dated November 21, 2005. Second? Mr. Ellsworth—I'll second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? 61 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Board—Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 064 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : John Rancich, Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-14.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of John Rancich, for the reasons stated in the revised Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated November 21, 2005. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel—Do you want to start off or do you want me to kick it off? Attorney Barney — Go right ahead. What I was going to actually was going to take and amend the specific provisions of the prior permit that you were doing. So the first one actually is to amend Section 1 of the resolution adopted by this board in 2002. Why don't I tell you what I'm doing and then I'll write it out a little more clearly for John. But it will be Section 1 be amended to require the applicant to provide copies of amendments to permits or other documents from DEC authorizing the operation of the mining to include screening and crushing operations or submission of written statement from DEC that no such permits or amendments are required by DEC. The second would be, I don't know if we want the Town Engineer to look at the thing again with this operation. Chairperson Sigel—Did the Planning Board require it? Attorney Barney — The Planning Board requirements are basically drawn to the prior version of the BZA. I don't know whether you want the Town Engineer to have a voice in this at that juncture. Certainly item 3 would be amended to provide that the permit expires on August 31, 2008 rather than when it presently expires. The volume of material to be excavated from the site shall not exceed 90,000 cubic yards. Has that changed? Forget that one then. Paragraph 6 be modified subject to DEC approving that the operations can include screening and crushing. Chairperson Sigel—And conveyor belt and all that. 62 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES Attorney Barney — Item 10, I think the Planning Board has recommended modifying to permit operations year round on weekdays and ...were the hours changed? Ms. Balestra—And that the hours of operation be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays only. Attorney Barney—That is what is was originally. Ms. Balestra—Right. They just eliminated the April I"to October I". Attorney Barney —Then iteml3 would be amended to say not only the materials, but the original application to say...(not audible)... Then the Planning Board recommended a condition that the noise be limited to the decibel levels shown on that graph as presented. Then they actually added a requirement of no processing of material outside the mine area as determined by the DEC permit be allowed. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So the summary is basically the motion is to extend the deadline to what the applicant has requested and to approve conveying and screening and crushing conditioned upon getting approval from DEC. Second? Mr. Krantz—Second. Chairperson Sigel—All in favor? Board—Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 065: John Rancich, Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-14.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED that the resolution granting a fill permit to Alfred Eddy adopted by this Board on September 23, 2002 be modified as follows- 1. ollows:1. Section 1 be amended to require submission to the Town Planning Department copies of any New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter DEC) permits or documents amending the DEC permit dated September 22, 2003, authorizing the operation of the mining to include screening and crushing operations, or written statement from the DEC that no such amendment is required. 2. Section 3 be amended to extend until August 31, 2008 when the current DEC issued mining permit No. 7-5030-00110/0001 expires. 63 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 21, 2005 APPROVED MINUTES 3. Section 6 be amended to allow crushing, screening and conveyor as part of the mining operation, provided DEC authorizes such activities under its permit. 4. Section 10 be deleted, and a new section 10 be inserted reading as follows: "That no processing of material be allowed outside the mine area as determined in the DEC permits." 5. Section 13 be amended to add that operations also be in accordance with the representations and materials in the application submitted for the amendment to the Town's fill permit. 6. The following condition be added: "That the sounds emanating from the mine not exceed the decibel levels at the distances shown on the document entitled "Noise Gradient John Rancich Gravel Pit" submitted to the Planning Board as part of the application." The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9:44 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson John Coakley, Deputy Town Clerk 64