Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2004-08-16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2004 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; Andy Frost, Director of Building/Zoning; Steven Williams, Code Enforcement Officer; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:15); Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED: None OTHERS: Orlando Turco, 307 Eastwood Ave; Frank Bettucci, 1011 Arlington Blvd #419, Arlington VA 22209; David Lorenzini, 4 Coventry Walk; Rick Couture, Ithaca College; Tommy and Constance Bruce, 915 Coddington Rd; Patrick Leahy, 527 Highland Rd; Jason Demarast, 409 Thomas Rd. Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —Welcome to the August meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have five appeals, and we'll take them in the following order: the appeal of Ithaca College and Tompkins County, the Appeal of Frank Bettucci, the Appeal of John Young, the appeal of Constance and Thomas Bruce, the appeal of Brenda Prince. The fi5rst appeal this evening is that of Ithaca College, and/or Tompkins county requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IX, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a communications tower with a height of 180 feet (where there is a 15 foot limit) on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. Mr. Matthews- That can't be a 15 foot limit. Mr. Frost - For Structures, yes. Chairperson Sigel — I thought it was 30. Mr. Niefer - Auxiliary structure or a tower? Chairperson Sigel — Oh, that's considered accessory? It says for all others it would be 30. Mr. Barney - It hardly makes a difference. Mr. Frost - Rick Couture from Ithaca College is here. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — OK, have a seat and state your name and address for the record. Mr. Couture - I'm Rick Couture, I live at 104 West Haven Rd, Ithaca. Chairperson Sigel —And if you could just give us a brief overview of the project, I realize it's a substantial project, but maybe just give us the highlights and mainly what you're asking for from this board. Mr. Couture - I think, as everyone probably knows, the county is looking to construct a 180 foot communication tower on Ithaca College property, where we currently have the WICB radio tower, and they are looking to have that installed because I believe it is the linchpin of their emergency communication system and this tower, according to all the information the county has supplied, would be the single most important tower that they would construct in terms of improving communication/emergency communication systems. And so, I'm here tonight to ask this board to take a look at the appeal of the height limit as set forth by the regulations of the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Frost - I might mention there is a picture going around, and we had problems with the color printer, since this is a digital camera, so you're looking at black and white pictures there. The Ithaca College tower dorms that you're all familiar with are located just to the left of where the antenna is. There is an antenna currently there that houses some Ithaca College radio stations... Mr. Couture - WICB. Mr. Frost - They're going to be relocating their antennas to the antenna now that's primarily going to be for Tompkins County emergency services. Mr. Matthews - How could there be a 15 foot limit on a tower. Chairperson Sigel —Well, there's no limits on a tower, per se. Actually the way I read it, I would have thought it would be 30, but it doesn't really make much difference. It says "no structure other than a building shall be erected, altered or extended to exceed 30 feet in height", so you could interpret it as 30. Mr. Frost - I interpreted it as an accessory structure, but the bottom line is they're still looking for a 180 foot height. Mr. Matthews - Perhaps it's a silly question since we're dealing with emergency systems, is there any danger to persons or cattle if it should topple over. Chairperson Sigel — The only thing that's within the radius is the water tower. 2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Couture - The water tower, but it's a structure —the pole itself as approved the engineers working with the county has a 75 foot collapse radius, a 70 foot, I'm sorry, and the water tower is 75 feet from where the pole is going to go up. So I believe that we've calculated in enough space for it, in the unlikely event that it does collapse, it won't hit the water tower. Chairperson Sigel — Even though it's 180 feet, it's supposed to fall within 70 feet. Mr. Niefer - That's assuming the foundation holds up and it doesn't tip out of the ground. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I guess that assumes that it breaks where it's supposed to. Mr. Matthews - May I... since I'm relatively new here, I'll take privilege, how does something 180 feet just collapse to 75 feet, I'm not an engineer. Mr. Couture - I believe, I'm not an engineer myself, but from what I understand, the way they structured it, there are certain break points along the height of the pole that automatically stop collapsing. Chairperson Sigel — OK, so for instance if the top 70 feet broke off first, and then the next 70. Mr. Williams - If I may? Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Williams -What they do is guy it so that it will break at the guy point, and then the next guy will carry the load. Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions. Mr. Matthews - That's its sole purpose, is the emergency system? Chairperson Sigel — No, in addition to the county emergency, it's going to hold the WICB radio transmitter. Mr. Couture - We'll be taking down, the plan is to take does the existing tower now, and replace it with this tower for the county, and part of the arrangement for the county is that we can co-use the tower for the radio station up at Ithaca College. Mr. Matthews - I take it there has been no hew and cry from the neighborhood. Mr. Krantz - We'll find out. 3 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel —We'll find out, yeah, when we open the public hearing, but I... Mr. Frost - Normally if there is, they will be in the audience when we open the public hearing. Mr. Niefer - I'm curious, are there other towers that go up for the 911 system, or is this it? Mr. Couture - I believe the county has a plan to put in a number of towers in different locations. Mr. Niefer - You said this was the key? Mr. Couture - According to the folks in the emergency system, this is the tallest point in the county and the key tower for them, and I believe if this tower is allowed to go up, it may even give them the opportunity to put up one les tower because it's such a... Mr. Ellsworth - I think our literature says there's space for other cell phone antennas or whatever. Mr. Couture - On the tower itself, yes. If people want to put up other microwave dishes, there is that possibility, yes. Chairperson Sigel — Is there anyone besides the college and the county that are going to be on the tower, as of now? Mr. Couture - As of now, I know of no one else, no. Mr. Frost - This has gone through the Town Planning Board and has received approval from the Planning Board. Chairperson Sigel — OK, any other questions? OK, we'll open the public hearing at this time. Does anyone wish to speak? Chairperson Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — If not, we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel closes the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —And the County was lead agency on this I believe, Mike? 4 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Smith - It wasn't a coordinated review. The county made their own determination, the Planning board made one, and you need to make your own. But the assessment form in here that the town staff usually fills out was done by the County —we use the same one. Chairperson Sigel — OK. OK. Any other questions or comments? If not, I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Ithaca College, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IX, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a communications tower with a height of 180 feet for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Tompkins County staff dated June 30, 2004. Second? Mr. Ellsworth - Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 038 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Ithaca College and/or Tompkins County, Appellants, Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Ithaca College and/or Tompkins County, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IX, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a communications tower with a height of 180 feet for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Tompkins County staff dated June 30, 2004. The vote on the a 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 grant the appeal of Ithaca College requesting a variance from the from the requirements of Article IX, Section 270- 70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a communications tower with a height not to exceed 180 feet on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41.-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. With the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been 5 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES satisfied with a further finding that because of the public safety nature of the tower, this tower is different from a typical completely commercial communications tower, and therefore meets a public need. Mr. Ellsworth -And also the old tower will be removed, per the documents. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I'm sure that must be a stipulation in plenty of places, I assume, right? Mr. Krantz - One quick question, is it possible to put a light on the top of that thing? Mr. Couture - Is it possible to? Mr. Krantz - Yeah, it's not going to be lit and it's 180 feet up. A small plane could... Mr. Couture - I also know that it is underneath the regulations for the FAA in terms of airplane coverage, because I believe the county— that's one of the first things they checked out, so I know that guideline has been met, and there was no requirement by the FAA that it be lit or painted. Chairperson Sigel — Or painted, OK. I assume the planning board must have stipulated that removal. I think they did — I don't think we need to state the removal, I think that was covered by the planning board. Mr. Smith - that was actually one of the items that the planning board waived was the security bond for it. Chairperson Sigel — OK, but to remove the old tower. Mr. Smith - Oh, the old tower, I'm not sure. Mr. Couture - We are removing the old tower, if that... Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, yeah. Mr. Couture - Yes, that's a definite. Mr. Krantz - Was the old tower lighted? Mr. Couture - No. Chairperson Sigel —Well, we could throw in a requirement that the old tower be removed within six months? 6 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Couture - Once all the appropriate approvals have been received, I know the county wants to get moving on this as soon as possible. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, within six months of the completion of the new tower. Second. Mr. Ellsworth - I'll second it. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 039: Ithaca College and/or Tompkins County, Appellants, Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1- 30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Ithaca College requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IX, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a communications tower with a height not to exceed 180 feet on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: 1. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. 2. Due to the public safety use of the tower by Tompkins County, this tower meets an important public need. CONDITIONS: The old communications tower on the above site will be removed within six months of the completion of the new communications tower. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Couture - Thank you very much. Chairperson Sigel — Thanks. 7 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES APPEAL of Frank Bettucci, Appellant, Lawrence Fabbroni, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a residence on a pre-existing parcel of land located at 970 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-1-9, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed residence will have a rear yard building setback of 18 ±feet (50 feet required) and may have a front yard setback less than the required 30 feet. A variance from Article XXV, Section 270-203 may also be requested. Chairperson Sigel — I take it Mr. Fabbroni is not. Mr. Bettucci - No, we're his representatives here. Mr. Whitney - Mr. Fabbroni went on vacation. He's been on the Jersey coast for the past three days, and it's been raining out much from the two hurricanes. Chairperson Sigel — He should have gone last week when I was there. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Mr. Bettucci - My name is Frank Bettucci, I am currently living at 307 Eastwood avenue, and my phone number is 272-2968. Actually I have a home down in Arlington, Virginia, and I'm up here to attend this hearing. Chairperson Sigel — OK, and you sir? Mr. Whitney - Erik Whitney, and I reside at 102 Franklin St, in the City of Ithaca. Chairperson Sigel — Can you give us an overview of what you want to do and why it requires the variances that you need? Mr. Bettucci - We're looking at consolidating four existing non-conforming lots that were platted, it says in the applicatioOn here 1877, it was 1899, June 24, 1899 on the map there. We're simply looking at consolidating 4 existing non- conforming lots into one residential lot. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Ummm, I mean from the tax maps, it looks to me like this was already one big lot. Is that not the case? Mr. Bettucci - No that is not the case, there was a subdivision that was filed with Tompkins County and was referenced in the deed on June 24, 1899, and in the deed, you have a copy of it there, sold to Mr. Bettucci in 1966, represents lot by lot, calling out there... Chairperson Sigel — OK. 8 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost - Our town attorney did review some of this ... [comments inaudible]. Chairperson Sigel — the whole long strip there is referred to by the county as one tax parcel, right? Mr. Whitney - On the current tax parcel maps, yes. Mr. Barney - And it has been for some time, I think, isn't it? Mr. Whitney - They couldn't find any record of when this subdivision in 1899 was not removed from the tax maps or, they found no record of that removal. Mr. Barney - I think we've always taken the position here that once it's consolidated for tax purposes, whatever subdivision was there is gone, and we're now back to one lot. And I don't know how many lots you're looking to consolidate, are you looking to consolidate less than all of the lots that Mr. Bettucci has? Mr. Whitney - Four lots, presently. Mr. Barney - Out of, how many are in the deed? Mr. Bettucci - Out of 38. Mr. Barney - 38? Chairperson Sigel — So there are 38 lots total and they're all within that one tax parcel, what the county calls that one tax parcel. OK, now, are you looking to subdivide this tax parcel, and make a lot that's just going to encompass these four? Mr. Bettucci - Right now all I want to do it get a personal residence up, that's all I want to do. Chairperson Sigel — OK, so you're not trying to split into 3, one that your house would be on and one to the south and one to the north? Mr. Bettucci - No, not right now, no. Chairperson Sigel — Not now. Mr. Bettucci - Absolutely not. Chairperson Sigel — So, John, unless you see evidence to the contrary, it would seem to me that it is just a request to build a house on the one lot, which is the 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES lot that the county recognizes. I mean, otherwise you'd be going through subdivision approval. Mr. Barney - Yeah, I think as long as it's understood that that's all that this board is granting, or considering granting, is a variance for the construction of the building at less than the required depth for the front yard and that sort of thing, but by doing that, the board is not taking any position with respect to whether this is one lot or a multiplicity of lots. The town's position would probably be that this is one lot and any further building on that would require a subdivision process before the planning board. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, just to reiterate what Mr. Barney said, by approving this we are not blessing the existence of all of these small lots, we are just giving you approval to build a house on the one big lot, and if you wanted to build more houses on that lot, you would need to subdivide it and go through subdivision approval, unless evidence could be shown that the town has lost something or something had been done incorrectly. I'm not sure where the onus is on those kinds of issues. Mr. Barney - It's usually on the applicant's to show that the consolidation wasn't at sometime as a result of the applicant's desires. I mean, typically you're paying far less taxes by having it all as one piece rather than what did you have? 38 lots, or whatever the number of lots were, because each of those lots would be separately assessed, separately taxed, and the total tax would be considerably more than what you've been paying for at least as long as it's been shown as one tax parcel, so that's why the town only takes a position once it's consolidated unless there's a clear demonstration there's been an error somewhere along the way, and the person didn't ratify the error by taking advantage of the tax benefit that flowed from that, that it's one lot. Any further construction it's going to have to be broken up into lots again in accordance with the then applicable processes. Mr. Whitney - I know talking to Larry on this, John, he went pretty far back in the county records, and they found no record of when it was consolidated, and it was probably before 66 or shortly thereafter in that time frame, when this deed was generates. This deed was obviously generated with something that was on file at the time. Mr. Barney - I don't know if it's really material tonight, Eric, I just don't want to mislead Mr. Bettucci that somehow tonight he's playing with four lots, instead of. Mr. Bettucci - No, no, I'm interested in putting up a private residence and living in that house myself. Mr. Barney - I'm not saying you couldn't get subdivision of something more if you wanted to at some point in the future, that's again the planning board's 10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES prerogative, and you've got to just make an application to go through whatever the process is. Mr. Bettucci - I understand. Mr. Frost - Eric, in talking to Larry it was clear that the new building was going to result in a rear-yard setback of 18 feet. For the front yard you need 30, but Larry kind of indicated that because of the slope he was not clear on how far back the house was going to be set from the road right of way line, so I don't know if you have additional information, but the zoning board should be clear that we're not sure what the building setback will be in the front yard, the rear yard seems clear at 18 feet. Mr. Bettucci - Well, it's a 100 foot lot, so 18 feet from the back entrance, and the house going to be 27.5 feet, so that's 27.5 plus 18 and the rest would be the frontage. Mr. Frost - Just in my conversation with Larry he shows 34 on this little survey map, which the zoning board has, but it wasn't clear. Because if it's 34 foot and he only needs 30 then he doesn't need a variance for the front. Chairperson Sigel — OK, how deep is the lot did you say? Mr. Bettucci - 100 feet? Chairperson Sigel — 100? That doesn't add up? Mr. Matthews - Deep? 100 feet deep? Mr. Bettucci - Yeah. Mr. Matthews - This diagram doesn't add up to 100. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, it comes out to more like 80. [Comments inaudible] Mr. Frost - Frank, it seemed like less than that based on my re-survey. Mr. Whitney - Larry didn't have the exact position of the right of way. That position of the right of way is exact as can be gotten from the maps, and the right of way does bop around the slope there [comments inaudible]. Mr. Frost - The first page of the written part of the application prepared by Larry Fabbroni says that attached please find materials to apply for a front and rear yard variance, and I called him on that and it seemed clear that he needed the 11 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES rear, and it's still not clear to me whether he needed the front. It seemed form my conversation from him that he was going to have some information to better clarify what the setback would be in the front. You may not be prepared for that, but he was asking for a front yard setback. Mr. Niefer -Where this is going if the board approves this is we approve those dimensions, if those dimensions are not correct than you all have a problem. Chairperson Sigel —Well, as it appears now, we don't need to grant any kind of front yard setback since only 30 feet is required, so as long as they're sure about their rear yard setback. Mr. Niefer - This is a low-density area, how many feet do you need for a building lot in low density? Mr. Frost - Thirty thousand. Mr. Niefer - Thirty thousand. And how big is this lot, the combined four lots, what's the total square feet of that? Chairperson Sigel —Well the combined four lots really isn't germane to the discussion, this is one large lot that is over 3 acres, as far as what the county... Mr. Niefer - He has a supposed survey. Chairperson Sigel —Well, this surv3ey shows lots that I guess were drawn many years ago, but that's not what the county shows, the county shows it as one long large lot that extends well to the north and south of these four lots. Mr. Niefer - So the footprint is OK? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, yeah the lot size is much bigger than needed. Now, the only issue is the rear yard setback at 18 feet instead of 50. Mr. Matthews - Can someone give me some historical reference as to why they require 50 feet rear yard. Mr. Barney - Basically buffers from other houses and other properties, just to keep houses from being built on top of each other in that zone. Mr. Matthews - I think that's kind of important in this discussion, because there's a NYSEG piece of land there, I don't know what's on it, brush or something, and then there's a recreational walkway there, correct? Chairperson Sigel — Yup. 12 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews - So if there are no houses, I don't know where the closest house is, it doesn't seem like the 50 foot requirement is really necessary in this particular case. Mr. Krantz - Especially since there's three acres. Mr. Matthews - It's not imposing on anyone else's viewpoint, or anyone's willingness to step out their front yard and touch the other guys house. Mr. Frost - Most everything from the west side of Taughannock boulevard, from the city line to the town line, I don't believe we have any structures there, till you get up to Ulysses. Mr. Matthews - So the only imposition would be that if at some future date NYSEG donated that right of way to a walkway. Mr. Smith - That portion of the right of way is owned by the state for a future black diamond trail. Mr. Matthews - So if someone were to put a walkway, a recreational walkway in there... Mr. Smith - That's the plan for it. Mr. Matthews - Then Mr. Bettucci will have people walking through his backyard. Mr. Bettucci - I could put a fence up there so that wouldn't be a problem. Chairperson Sigel — The right of way seems to be 66 feet wide, so if the trail is centered it would be about 30 feet, plus his 18 which is 48 which is almost 50, almost the setback. So obviously Mr. Bettucci could just put up a fence, he could put up vegetative screening. Mr. Frost - The color document that you have in your handout shows a rather narrow but wide parcel of land that Mr. Bettucci owns. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think we have that. Mr. Krantz - It came out black and white, and it's all black. Mr. Frost - What I will do is pass this one around. Chairperson Sigel — So the beige is the four lots, what they're calling the four lots, and then the gray is the entire tax parcel. So I would just call your attentions, and I assume you saw and read this, the letter we got from the town environmental review committee, they point out some issues that they would like 13 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES us to consider, they suggest that the driveway not be paved. Is it your intention, Mr. Bettucci to pave the driveway, or have it be stone or gravel? Mr. Bettucci - Uh, what should I have? Chairperson Sigel —Well, it's not clear what you should have... what is your initial intention? Mr. Bettucci -Well of course economics comes into it. I could either blacktop it or put concrete in there, but concrete would be pretty expensive for that long run. Chairperson Sigel — The town's environmental review committee suggested that it would be better if you made it some kind of pervious surface like gravel. I mean, personally, given the size of the lot and the size of the driveway you'll be putting in, I don't feel strongly that that seems necessary. Maybe Mike you could comment on that. Mr. Smith - The gravel is a pervious surface. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. If you had done an environmental assessment on this, would you have flagged that as an issue? Mr. Smith - I don't think so. Chairperson Sigel — They also mentioned the loss of the trees obviously that would have to come down to put up the house, the fact that it's a unique natural area, and then future subdivision, they request that we restrict future subdivision of the lot. Mr. Niefer - How are we going to be assured that at some point in time when this property is sold, there is going to be 30,000 square feet that will be dedicated to this lot. Chairperson Sigel —Well, to change this lot from the way it is now, which is over 3 acres, they would have to go through the subdivision process at the Planning Board. And I have confidence in the planning board that they would never allow them to make a lot that is too small. It seems more likely just the opposite would happen, given the narrow nature of the lot. Mr. Niefer - Larry Fabbroni's letter leads you to believe that these four lots have already been consolidated into one lot. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, right. Mr. Niefer -And if it's been consolidated into one lot, the square footage of this so called consolidated lot is not 30,000 square feet, it is considerable less. 14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — No. I think for our purposes, that's not an issue. That hasn't happened. Mr. Niefer - That's not an issue. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, that's not an issue. It's one large lot, and they would have to subdivide it, and that would be an issue for the planning board. And then we would have to issue, there's no way you could build a house on this lot and meet all the setbacks, so that would come to us as well, any future homes. So I also don't feel like it is necessary to impose a restriction on future subdivisions. Mr. Niefer- This environmental review committee report talks something about a guardrail, well the guardrail is on the other side of the road, so I don't know if they are looking at the right parcel of land or not. They say "we imagine that permission will have to be obtained from the state highway department because guardrails are located at projected driveway entry." Well, the guardrails are across the road, they're not on the appellant's property. Chairperson Sigel — There is a little bit of guardrail on that side. Mr. Bettucci - Up further there is a guardrail along the... Mr. Niefer - Not where your sign is. You have the orange sign, which is going to be the entranceway, correct? Mr. Bettucci - There's nothing there, that's why I picked it actually. Chairperson Sigel — So your planning to have the driveway come out away from the guardrail I assume. Mr. Bettucci - There aren't any guardrails there. Chairperson Sigel — Right, I mean the driveway is going to be near where you put the sign. Mr. Bettucci - Yes. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Krantz - What is your intent for cutting trees. Mr. Bettucci - Pardon me? Mr. Krantz - Some of these other issues look like they were off-base. How many trees are coming out to put the house in there? Or whatever you're going to do? 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Bettucci - I don't know. I'd like to have some kind of view of the lake actually, and that whole area there is very very wooded as you know. Mr. Krantz - Well that's one of the issue that still stands with this environmental review committee. Loss of maturing oaks and so on. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I'm not sure how we could... without requiring the applicants to come back and show us a tree cutting plan, basically specify every tree above a certain diameter that they're going to cut. Mr. Krantz - No, I don't want to get into that. But if they're going in there and clear-cut the whole thing or just take out what you need for the building. He's got to submit further plans to Andy... Chairperson Sigel — Did you have any intention of clearing any kind of substantial yard that would be free of trees? Mr. Bettucci - Well I would like to have a yard in the front, put some grass in there. That would certainly add to the value of the property. Right now I'm not sure exactly what we're going to do in there. Mr. Matthews - Is it up to the environmental review committee to say yay or nay to the trees that he cuts down. Mr. Niefer - No. Mr. Frost - They are just a recommending group, not a board with authority. Mr. Matthews - So theoretically, Mr. Bertucci can go there and clear cut that and get away with it. Mr. Barney - Mr. Bertucci could walk in there today and clear-cut it if he chose to. Without building a house. There's no regulation on the limits on the town's part. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I mean he could have cut a lot of the trees down before coming here. Mr. Matthews - Is it within our realm to say no? Chairperson Sigel — If we found that... Mr. Matthews - Who's going to be the tree counter. 16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — If we found that it balanced some of his requests to deviate from the variance, that it offset that imposition on the community then it would be justified. Mr. Frost -What seems like the real issue is the setback from the rear, he's not planning on clear cutting the back side of the house, there seems to be more interest in the front yard. Mr. Bettucci - I don't plan on touching that at all because I think I'll leave that there for the trail. Chairperson Sigel —As a buffer for the trail. Mr. Bettucci - Right. Mr. Frost - So I think Mr. Bettucci's interests should alleviate your concerns perhaps. Mr. Barney - Just a little synopsis of the law— you can impose reasonable conditions when granting a variance, but the conditions have to be related in some way to the clause or the variance you are granting. And I'm having a little bit of trouble in my mind stretching granting an area variance with imposing limitations on tree removal. There's not a lot of connection there that I see. Maybe you see some connection. It might be a little bit off the legal track if I may put it that way by trying to impose some kind of... Chairperson Sigel — You could make the argument for the rear, by allowing the house to be close to the rear, to then maintain more screening in the rear. Mr. Frost -which doesn't sound like Mr. Bettucci minds that, so... Chairperson Sigel — No, I mean my inclination is to not impose any restriction in regards to the trees. Mr. Ellsworth - I agree with you and I also think that conclusion is also applicable to the driveway. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I agree. Let's open the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone wish to speak? If not we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel closes the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. 17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — OK, I will move to grant the appeal of Mr. Bettucci, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a residence on a pre-existing parcel of land located at 970 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-1-9, Low Density Residential Zone. Said motion grants the applicant the right to build a house with a rear yard setback of not less than 17.5 feet. With the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied and with the condition that the home and driveway and parking area be constructed substantially as indicated on the applicant's plans. Mr. Barney - And I would suggest a further condition that any further subdivision of the entire tax parcel occur only with the completion of the appropriate process before the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Barney - Because you're basing your decision I think on it being 30,000 square feet... Chairperson Sigel — On it being the whole lot. Mr. Barney - The whole lot, and not just a part of it. Chairperson Sigel — OK, agreed. Second? Mr. Matthews - I have a question. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Matthews - 17.5 feet is the minimum you're going to allow on this motion? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, because on their plans it says approximately 18. Mr. Matthews - OK, 17 is a no no? Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Barney - 17 would be a no no if you used 17.5. Mr. Krantz - Would it be appropriate to put a comment to the effect that it is understood that every effort will be made to minimize damage to existing vegetation? Chairperson Sigel — I don't know how we could enforce that. 18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Krantz - Well, I know we can't. Chairperson Sigel — No, I'm not inclined to add that. Second? Mr. Ellsworth - I'll second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 040: of Frank Bettucci, Appellant, Lawrence Fabbroni, Agent, 970 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-1-9, Low Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Frank Bettucci, Appellant, Lawrence Fabbroni, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a residence on a pre-existing parcel of land located at 970 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-1-9, Low Density Residential Zone. Said motion grants the applicant the right to build a house with a rear yard setback of not less than 17.5 feet. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: 1. The home and driveway and parking area be constructed substantially as indicated on the applicant's plans. 2. Any further subdivision of the entire tax parcel shall only occur with the completion of the appropriate processes before the Town Planning Board. The vote on the a 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. Mr. Bettucci - Thank you. 19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES APPEAL of John Young, Owner/Appellant, Patrick Leahy, Agent requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280-A of NYS Town Law, to be able to subdivide land into 4 building lots with two of said lots not having frontage on a Town, County, or State highway. The land is located on 922-928 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-1-4, Low Density Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Hello. Mr. Leahy - Hi, how are you? Should I put the map up, or do we not need it? Chairperson Sigel — Can you start with your name and address? Mr. Leahy - Sure, Patrick Leahy is my name, 527 Highland Rd in Ithaca, and I am the agent for John Young, 410 Tripphammer Rd in Ithaca. Chairperson Sigel —We have the map in front of us, so you can just keep it in front of you if you want. Mr. Leahy - OK. Chairperson Sigel — Now, our notice stated that two of the lots wouldn't have any frontage, but that's not correct? Mr. Leahy - No, the two lots that require variances do have 30 feet of road frontage on Coddington Rd, but not the minimum requirement. Chairperson Sigel — OK, and it is the case that parcels D and E are completely conforming? Mr. Leahy - Yes. Chairperson Sigel —And B and C are conforming except for road frontage and minimum width at setback? Mr. Leahy - Yes. Chairperson Sigel — OK. And A is being conveyed to the community center. Mr. Leahy - Right, and will be consolidated with their parcel. Chairperson Sigel — OK, is there anything else you'd like to add? Mr. Leahy - I may add that the reason we proposed this such is that working closely with the town, we decided that the best way to modestly develop this little 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES parcel would be to minimize the curb cuts off of Coddington Road, thus the idea to build a private driveway that would serve the four lots. So that's kind of what led us to this arrangement. Chairperson Sigel — OK, and it looks like... so the community center lot actually does not go back as far as the front four lots, you have this little jog here, and that's just to get them access? Mr. Leahy - Right. It's actually a 25-foot wide access strip, if you will. Chairperson Sigel - Do they have any plans to use that back lot? Mr. Leahy - They're intention is to use it for recreational purposes, mostly for their summer programming. They do request widening the lot from 15 to 25 feet just in the event that they wanted to get a mower back there or some other kind of equipment to help with digging out trails, but the intention is for them not to use this with the machinery on a regular basis. Chairperson Sigel — OK, I assume, Mike we don't have to do an environmental assessment on this? Mr. Smith - Right, it's an area variance, but I would mention that there's a bunch of letters in the back of the packet, back and forth between the county and one from Dan Walker, Engineer, and the vote will require a supermajority vote, there was some question over the storm water analysis that was done. There was some disagreement over what regulations needed to be followed, and with the county we need the supermajority vote on this. Chairperson Sigel — OK, so it ended with the county still believing that they would need to follow some storm water regulations. Mr. Smith - Yeah, and we agree that they have to follow the storm water regulations, just not to the same degree, and Town and County have talked to different people at DEC so it's been a little confusing. You also see in the planning board resolution, some of the findings used in why they made the supermajority vote. Mr. Barney - If you choose to grant this, you probably need to incorporate into your motion those as well. Part of the requirement under 239-M is that you have to give, if you override the county's recommendation, you have to state the reasons you are doing it. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Barney - On the planning board resolutions, under be it further resolved's, paragraphs 2 A and B are the reasons they were giving for their override. 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — OK, so we'd want to just include that verbatim as findings. Mr. Barney - Yeah, as findings or a statement. Mr. Krantz - OK, I've got a question. Things like this have always bothered me. You're hoping to subdivide 14.8 acres into four building lots. How are you going to combine that with donating over nine acres to the Coddington Road Community Center, is that a requirement for you? Mr. Leahy - What do you mean a requirement for us? You mean from the Planning board or just from us? Mr. Krantz - Yeah, how did that come about? Mr. Leahy - Well, if you look at that back property, to develop that land would warrant a substantial amount of infrastructure development on our part, and we weren't sure it made sense, and 2. we felt that it was land that was better used by the community center for recreational purposes than by potential homeowners, because there is the NYSEG easement back there. It's a longer, narrower lot, and we just think it didn't make sense to develop the whole piece. Mr. Krantz - So it was your idea then? Mr. Leahy - Yeah, it was our idea, and we talked to the, we went to visit with the folks at the community center and they loved the idea. I mean, who wouldn't like a free donation, right? But especially because they see value in the land, that's why it made sense. Mr. Matthews - I have a question in the same regard. The Community Center is located next to a small park, it's a baseball diamond. Mr. Leahy - I think that's part of the... Mr. Matthews - It's maintained by the town? They cut the grass and so forth. Why wasn't this piece of land that was given to the community center given to the town to increase the size of that little park? Mr. Leahy - My understanding is that the community center owns that diamond and with some contract with the town, the town maintains it, so it was our intention to donate the land and also consolidate, so it would make it easy to consolidate with the existing parcel. Mr. Barney - Mr. Leahy is correct. The town does not own that property. We have a license agreement with the Coddington Road Community Center, for which they provide certain services for the youth of the community in their 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES summer recreation programs, and we in turn maintain the baseball diamond area, and I think maybe the parking area too, I'm not positive. But there's a contract between the town and the Coddington community center. Mr. Matthews - OK, so if the community center goes defunct shall we say, that would all revert to the town as a town park? Mr. Barney - It's not town property; if it goes defunct it would go to whoever bought it at the tax sale, I guess. Mr. Matthews - That was before World War 11, whoever owned it before. Mr. Barney - No it doesn't revert back, as far as I know. They own it outright, they just have a license agreement with us. I think it's called an easement, it may be more than just a license, but it's a document that allows us to go on it and maintain it in exchange for them allowing youth programs that we sponsor or have a hand in to occur there. Chairperson Sigel — So if they shut down, they can sell it to anyone, what will become the entire piece, even the portion behind the... Mr. Barney - But they would sell it subject to our license agreement. So we would still have the use of it for as long as that agreement runs, and I don't remember if it's a year to year or a multiple year agreement. Chairperson Sigel —Any further questions? Comments? Mr. Barney - I just had a really quick question. I noticed that the proposed drive had its easterly terminus there seems to cut across Parcel E. Am I reading that map correctly? Chairperson Sigel — Looks like it, yeah. Mr. Leahy - Yeah, I think it does. Mr. Barney - Is that intentional, is it going to stay that way? Mr. Leahy - It is intentional, even though I know that creates some complexity with our already complex easement language there for the road. It seemed to be the best way to create a 90-degree intersection with Coddington road, which would make it safer for egress and ingress onto the private driveway. Mr. Barney - Is the road or driveway going to be ditched at all. Mr. Leahy - Yes. 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney - So it would be ditched on the south side so it would encroach a little more even on parcel E. Mr. Leahy - Perhaps, yes. Mr. Barney - Is there someway that can be shown. I'm thinking ahead a little bit here. What we're going to need to do, I'm sure something that warms the cockles of your heart, but getting an agreement to me and getting it done within some reasonable period of time. I'm concerned a little bit about what it is we need to agree to with respect to the maintenance and the space there. Mr. Leahy - Well, we, you probably haven't seen it, but the easement language from our attorney, Jim Henry, has been forwarded to your office. His stab at trying to cover all of these issues. So it would really require I think your review to see if he's covered all the necessary bases. Mr. Barney - My question is is there a reason why the whole thing couldn't be shifted thirty or forty feet. Mr. Leahy- One thing you'll notice is that there is fire hydrant there on the northern side, so it would require moving that. Also, where it's located now Mr. Barney, basically there is a curb cut right there that seems to bisect the property, but we did have it going directly along parcels C and B to the road. And when the surveyors went out and TG Miller did his work, we just decided that even though it would add that degree of complexity it would make for a better driveway entrance if we could kind of round it and bring it in perpendicular to the county road. Mr. Barney - OK, and you think Jim sent that stuff to me. Mr. Leahy - Yes, I'll check with him, but he did. It was some weeks ago, immediately after the planning board meeting, so my sense is that maybe it's somewhere in your office knowing that it was weeks before. Mr. Barney - I'm not suggesting he didn't. Mr. Leahy - Yeah, I think the town also got copied on that, didn't you Mike? Mr. Smith - Yeah, I got a copy of it too. Mr. Barney - I'll check tomorrow. Chairperson Sigel — OK, any further questions? OK, I'll open the public hearing on this appeal. Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. 24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone wish to speak? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel closes the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Concerns, questions, seems reasonable to me. OK. With no further concerns, I will move to grant the appeal of John Young, owner, Patrick Leahy agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, and section 280 A of New York State Law, to be able to subdivide land into 4 building lots with two lots having deficient road frontage. It's actually, 280 A doesn't apply, does it John, because they have some frontage. Mr. Barney - No they don't. The two in the back have none. Chairperson Sigel — No, no, they have thirty feet each. Mr. Barney - Oh, I beg your pardon. 280 A would still apply because it's less than the... it's granting an easement for the purpose of, or granting the right to cross with less than the required road frontage. Chairperson Sigel — Really? Mr. Barney - I believe so. Chairperson Sigel — I thought when we had these deficiencies, we didn't deal with 280 A, just deficient one. Mr. Frost - I've never quite understood the way we apply 280 A, but I tend to throw it in anyway, just to be on the safe side. Chairperson Sigel — I've noticed a trend there. Mr. Leahy - May I ask what 280 A is? Mr. Frost— It's a New York State Town Law that requires access. Mr. Barney - It prohibits building permits on properties that don't have access on road frontage, that don't have road frontage. Chairperson Sigel — That don't have any frontage. Mr. Leahy - OK, that wouldn't apply here, right?, because there is some... Mr. Barney - Well, let's go take a look at 280 A and see. 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Leahy - OK. Mr. Frost - What you're saying is that there's 15 foot of road frontage for Parcel B, and 15 for Parcel C? Chairperson Sigel — 30 each. I mean sometimes people do request laws. Mr. Frost - In a way, under 280 A if you have 15 foot width, that's presumed to be adequate, so, they've got that. Mr. Barney - ... that eliminates the need for the... Mr. Matthews - Question. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. Mr. Matthews - Who or what is injured if the two properties in the back don't have road frontage. Mr. Frost - The state law, which dictates laws to the municipalities to follow, basically says that you've got to have property that borders a town county or state highway presumed to be adequate to provide emergency access to the property. So if you had a landlocked piece of land that had no access, you know a driveway or a dirt road or a path, may not be adequate for a fire engine or an ambulance. Mr. Matthews - But this passage... Mr. Frost - That's being proposed would appear to, yes. Mr. Matthews - There's plenty of room for a truck, so there's no injury... Mr. Frost - In a lot of cases, like tonight, I advertise for these hearings for fear of leaving something out and having the case have to be adjourned to the following meeting, I will throw extra things in just to be sure the everything is more than adequately advertised and all the bases are covered that way. Mr. Barney - I would concur, actually, with the chair. Once you have 15 feet, access shall mean that it directly fronts on road, which this does, Coddington Road and it has at least 15 feet of frontage, which this does, so you're OK. Chairperson Sigel — So then from there, anything down to fifteen feet is up to the town to require. Mr. Barney - Yeah, it's really then just a variance I guess of the requirement. 26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost - But the driveway is shared, so the actual access of getting to those back parcels doesn't make any difference, I think that was part of my wondrous desire for advertisements. Mr. Barney - Good rationale, but I think we're all right with that. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Matthews - Theoretically, that's a private roadway, correct? Mr. Barney - Not only theoretically, but in actuality that's a private roadway, but the issue is whether they have direct frontage on a public road. Mr. Matthews - So if there was an emergency on the back two pieces of property, one of the pieces of property, and people were parked on that road, is it wide enough to allow emergency vehicles? Mr. Frost - It would probably be like anyone's private driveway with a single family residence, I mean they've got to plow the drive and they've got to keep vehicles from parking, whether a fire truck or an ambulance can get it, I don't think is regulated, really. Mr. Barney - Well we have on occasions in the past I think, when you've dealt with situations like this, is put a condition into the... Mr. Frost - On private roads. Mr. Barney - Well, even with the frontage like this where there's a question of that, and it's a fairly long driveway, you'd put a condition in saying it would be constructed in a manner satisfactory to the chief of the fire department to make sure. Mr. Matthews - It seems to me, excuse me for interrupting, if the purpose of having road frontage was access to emergency services... Mr. Smith - I believe the applicant has met with the fire department and they've reviewed these plans. Mr. Leahy - Yeah, the specifications of our private driveway meet all the requirements of the fire department, even though there's some misunderstanding as to whether this private driveway would have to or not. But we decided it has to be 20 feet wide and a certain durability, and we decided on our specifications that we would meet those. The other thing I may add, too, is I think you'll find Mr. Barney, in that easement language a provision in there that does try to limit the amount of parking that is done on that road by the homeowners, because they 27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES will each have their own driveway into their parcel, which they are free to park on, but we will try to keep that private driveway free for just those instances. Mr. Frost - You may want to, if you should approve this is make some reference to the plan approved by the fire department being complied with. Chairperson Sigel —We could just specify the driveway being constructed as proposed, because as proposed it seems more than adequate. Mr. Barney - Do you have information as to what is proposed? Chairperson Sigel —Well, apparently that's sitting in your office. Mr. Barney - No, no, no, I think that specs for this are sitting in my office. Mr. Leahy - Well, I don't know if I distributed it here, but the Planning Board has seen it, they've reviewed it. Chairperson Sigel — Specifications for the driveway? Mr. Leahy - Specifically specifications for the driveway. Mr. Frost - Do you recollect the thickness of stone and all that? Mr. Leahy - It seems to me 12 inches of stone with some kind of 3 inch top dressing, and it had to be 20 feet wide, I'm sorry I don't remember Mr. Frost. It's whatever the chief Wilbur who I met with gave me specifications that he has and said this would be your idea, this would be what we... Mr. Niefer - Require. Mr. Leahy - Require's a bit of a strong word, because in talking to the town, they seem to think that as a private driveway... I mean you're free to build a driveway, If I owned one of these back parcels, they said you can build a driveway back there that doesn't have to be 20 feet wide and 15 inches deep and all that. We just figured we wanted to comply as well as we could. Our sense is too that it will be more attractive to a potential homeowner if it's a nice durable wide road anyway. That's why we put the specifications in there as we did. Mr. Smith - From the planning board packet, the write-up specified that the driveway will be approximately 350 feet long and 20 feet wide with a Y at the end of the road to ensure turn around capabilities for the fire department's equipment with the private drive featuring 12 to 15 good gravel base, 3 inch hot mix bindering and one top dressing. Mr. Matthews - Is that specified or the recommendation? 28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — That's what they specified that they were going to do to the planning board. Mr. Ellsworth - It's required, it's part of their approval, Planning Board approval. Mr. Matthews - So that's the way it's going to be? Mr. Barney - I don't see any harm in adding if you choose to here a condition that it be constructed as represented to the planning department. Mr. Leahy - I like to be as clean as we can, but if you feel it's necessary. Mr. Barney - We like to be as conditional as we possible can. Chairperson Sigel —All right, I'll start again. I move to grant the appeal of John Young, owner, Patrick Leahy, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to subdivide land into 4 building lots with two of said lots having not less than 30 feet of road frontage and a 30 foot width at the required setback line located at 922-928 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-1-4, Low Density Residential Zone. With the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, and the condition that the driveway be constructed as indicated in the applicant's submission to the planning board, where the driveway's width and depth was specified. Also making the finding identically as indicated in Planning Board resolution #2004-073 paragraphs 2, 2a and 2b in the Be It Further Resolved section. John, do you think there is anything else we need? Mr. Barney - Sounds like we got it. Chairperson Sigel — Second? Mr. Ellsworth - Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Leahy, Agent, on 922-928 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-1-4, Low Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of John Young, Owner/Appellant, Patrick Leahy, Agent requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to subdivide land into 4 building lots with two of said lots having not less than 30 29 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES feet of road frontage and a 30 foot width at the required setback line located at 922-928 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-1-4, Low Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS: 1. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. 2. The reasons this board elected to approve the proposal notwithstanding the recommendation of Tompkins County Department of Planning are- a. this board does not believe a post-construction storm water management plan is required, based upon the interpretation of the Town Engineer set forth in his letter dated July 15, 2004, and in particular to the citations to the exemptions applicable to single- family residences set forth in the letter, and also the conclusion that typical residential properties do not have large areas of impervious lands; and b. the issue of curb cuts has been dealt with by inclusion of a prohibition of the curb cuts on Coddington Road. CONDITIONS: The driveway will be constructed as indicated in the applicant's submission to the Planning Board where the driveway's width and depth are specified. The vote on the a 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. Mr. Leahy - Thank you. APPEAL of Constance and Thomas Bruce, Appellants, requesting variances from Article XIII, Sections 270-56, 270-57 and 270-59, to be permitted to convert an accessory building (old barn) into either a dwelling unit (with a kitchen) or a guest house (without a kitchen) with a structural height of 40 + feet (36 foot height limit) at 915 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-2-3, Low Density Residential Zone. A special approval from the Zoning Board is also requested to permit the second dwelling unit to be located unattached from the primary dwelling unit on 30 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES the parcel of land. Said Ordinance limits the size of the second unit to 50% of the floor area of the primary unit, with an aggregate floor area of all accessory buildings on the parcel to be no more than 2,000 square feet. Said proposal may exceed both limitations. Chairperson Sigel — Hello. Mr. Demarest - Hello. Chairperson Sigel — Please state your name and address to begin. Mr. Demarest - Jason Demarest, 409 Thomas Rd, Ithaca NY. Mrs. Bruce - Constance Bruce, 915 Coddington Rd, Ithaca NY. Chairperson Sigel — Can you give us a brief overview of what it is you're planning to do and what permissions you need from the town to do it? Mr. Demarest - Well, the owners, Connie and Tom, recently bought this property which has an existing barn structure on it. What they would like to do is renovate it into a guest quarters. I believe you guys have plans of that. The first variance that we're here for to make this happen would just be a height variance and the barn would be renovated to include really just an entertainment space and also a guest quarters on a loft area that would be constructed (there's a current one there and we might rebuild it, but it's already there). The square footage of the spaced to be renovated would be under the 2,000 allowed for accessory buildings, so we're viewing the first level of variance as an accessory building as additional living space as part of the main structure. From there there's another level, due to the height of the structure which is approximately 40 feet at the peak, they could add another bedroom/guest quarters space on the other half of the barn, and if possible they'd like to do that, but that would exceed the 2,000 square footage allowed for accessory buildings. So that's the second level. The third level has an entertainment space, it would be nice to have some kind of kitchen facilities, because as you can see on the plot plan the barn is some distance away form the house so if they were entertaining a kitchen facility, just a regular domestic kitchen facility would be nice, but obviously that turns it into a second dwelling and there's the 50% rule and depending on future plans for the house, at this point I believe they are in violation of the 50% square footage, so we're curious what level you guys are comfortable with, really. Mr. Frost - So basically the first plan that Jason refers to is to have living space but no kitchen. By definition, a dwelling unit, or a house or apartment, has provisions for eating, sleeping and sanitary provisions. With the space as initially proposed in the first scenario that Jason brings up, absent of the kitchen, it's living space, but not a dwelling unit, not an apartment because there is no kitchen. If he adds the kitchen, then this becomes a dwelling unit and one of the 31 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES requirements of the zoning ordinance is that if they have a second dwelling unit, the full area of that space cannot exceed half or 50% of the primary dwelling, which in this case is the house. Mr. Barney - What's the square footage of the house? Mrs. Bruce - 25. Mr. Barney - What's the square footage that this would be? Mr. Demarest - The first level has 1810 square footage, that's with the one gust quarters and that's the plan that you have. I also brought a second plan and I think that's different than the one you have, which shows the extra bedroom and the potential location of the kitchen. But in either cases, the base level of what we want to do is greater than 50% of the house. Mr. Matthews - This is different than what we have? Mr. Demarest - Yes. Chairperson Sigel — So, your minimum proposed modification is 1800 some square feet. Mr. Demarest - Yes, 1810, but that in my opinion would be considered just an extension of the house, just add it to the house. Mr. Frost - This is an accessory building, and being within the limits set forth for just an accessory building, not to be confused with a dwelling unit. Mr. Matthews - So this barn you say is going to be 1800 sqaure feet? Mr. Demarest - Yes, 1810 square feet. Mr. Frost - Our zoning ordinance says that you can have multiple accessory buildings but the combined area cannot exceed 2000 square foot putting all of them together. Mr. Matthews - Between the? Mr. Frost - You do have another barn on the property, yes? Mr. Demarest - Yes, a very small barn that may come down. Mrs. Bruce - No. Mr. Matthews - There's a barn in back of the house now? 32 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mrs. Bruce - It's actually a shed, it's about 25 feet from the back of the house. Mr. Demarest - It's located on that plot plan that I passed out as well. Mr. Matthews - I'm familiar with the property, I just don't know where that additional barn is behind the house. Mrs. Bruce - You can't see it because there is a row of spruce trees that are in front of it. So from the road, you can't see it. Mr. Matthews - You're not going to do anything to that barn? Mrs. Bruce - It would be nice to do something with that other barn... but I think we have a shed in the way of both. Mr. Matthews - So the barn you want to renovate, this big barn, that's 1800 square feet? Mr. Krantz - OK, to review, if it's just an accessory unit, the only problem is an additional 4 feet. Mr. Frost - in height. Mr. Krantz - yeah, so that's kind of a gimme I would think. Mr. Frost - The state is clear that the accessory building is limited to 15 feet in height. Mr. Krantz - if we're getting into a different building unit with a kitchen, then it's really a horse of a different color. And you're not really sure you want to do that? Mrs. Bruce -What we want to do is, we have a lot of family members and the house is in a land trust, so it would be nice to be able to have my daughters and their friends and to have other relatives come and visit and to be there with us. So, it's really to have a guest facility as well as entertainment would be nice. Because the barn is so beautiful and it has this big open space, you know it's great for dinners or to have our friends over. Mr. Niefer - This is a fairly large parcel of land. Something like 14.6 acres your total. Basically we're talking about 14.6 acres for two dwelling units. Certainly this is not a congested back yard situation that they're asking for. When the distance between the barn and the house is really quite substantial so one is not encroaching on the other. I don't really see a problem myself with granting them a variance to have a kitchen, a separate living unit in this barn. 33 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost - They certainly can have a second dwelling unit on this property, as long as it wasn't larger than 50% of the square footage of the primary unit. Mr. Ellsworth - Or they could come to us and say they want to subdivide this parcel, and they could apply to have the barn converted into a house. Mr. Frost - There's nothing unusual about them wanting a second dwelling unit on the property. It's the tremendous dimensions here that are the issue. And you are correct, they do have a lot of land here. I think what their thought and discussion with me that they were not clearly decided whether they want to have a kitchen, and I suggested that they just present a plan of what they would ideally like to the board, and that's what they're doing here. Mr. Niefer - I would feel differently if they building they wanted to convert into a second dwelling unit was right behind the existing house or close to the existing house. It's well away from the existing house, it doesn't have any detrimental effects on the neighborhood. The community center is kind of diagonally across the road from it, it's out of the way a little bit, and there's lots of land around it, so it's certainly not a congested place where two dwelling units are to be located. Mr. Frost - As you go further east of the parcel you end up in the conservation zone which is also part of the land, so it has restrictions about the development of the land back there as well. Mr. Krantz - Do I have this right that there are four proposals of space in front of us: one is no kitchen, lower level space, the second one was with a kitchen, the third one is with the entertainment center and the fourth one is developing the back... Mr. Demarest - There is three really, however looking at the plot plan I provided, the shed at the back I believe scales it at about 300 square feet. So even at the first level we are over 2000, the second level that I was proposing is adding another guest quarters without a kitchen, and that was going to take that 1810 over the 2000. So I think really that change, we do have the square footage. I was under the impression that the shed was going to come down. I should also add that the land trust condition on the property does not allow it to be subdivided at all. So that might play into whether you would allow a second dwelling. Mr. Matthews - Do I understand it that this is to be used for not permanent residence? Mr. Demarest - Right, just guest facilities. Mrs. Bruce - Guests and the children. Mr. Matthews - If you get the kitchen? 34 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mrs. Bruce - I think for the reasons that it is so far from the house, it would be nice to have a kitchen, but our intention is to do this set up first so the children can be there and our guests can be there, and if it does become something where it is much more convenient for us to have some sort of kitchen facility there, then we would like to do that. Mr. Ellsworth - You can always come back to the board. I mean this whole thing is kind of complex. My own version is that you're not going to get all these proposals tonight. That's just my take. There's too many different plans going on here. Chairperson Sigel — I think we can work to sort them out. Is it your desire, if you get permission to, to do the kitchen now? Or is it that even if you get permission to do the kitchen that you would not do it for some time? Mrs. Bruce - I would not do the kitchen immediately. Chairperson Sigel —And what kind of time frame would you look at for doing the kitchen, if you were approved for that tonight? Mrs. Bruce - I would say a year at the soonest. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Now is it the case that the barn —why is the barn the way it is, with that square footage, why is that legal? Is that just because it's legally non-conforming. Mr. Barney - It's an accessory building. I would guess it pre-exists our zoning for quite a bit, it doesn't look like a new barn. Mr. Frost - The barn's been around for quite a while, it's our new zoning ordinance as of April of this year that sets forth the restrictions of the square footage. Prior to April of this year, correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Barney, but you could have multiple accessory buildings as long as you didn't have lot coverage of more than 10% of the land area... Chairperson Sigel — I think I remember the 600 and the 2000. Mr. Barney - ...I believe so. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Frost - You've got 14 acres just on the front piece, overall it's like 30 acres. Mr. Demarest - 57 acres. 35 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — 57 acres? OK, so until the new ordinance, then the only problem with the barn would have been the height. Mr. Barney - And that's probably non-conforming. Can I go back just one question that intrigues me a little bit? The land trust prohibits subdivision of all of the entire 14+ acres, or is it... Mrs. Bruce - Yes, the land trust— there is no subdivision of any of the property that is on Coddington Road, there's actually an acre and a half directly across the street that we could subdivide and do whatever, but we don't want to do that. We just want to keep it as a wooded area, it's beautiful. Chairperson Sigel — But the trust does not permit subdivision of this 14 acres? Mrs. Bruce - The trust does not permit that. Mr. Barney - Who is the trust, who owns this? Mrs. Bruce - Finger Lakes Land Trust. Mr. Frost - So the land must have been donated to them and you bought it from the land trust. Mrs. Bruce -We bought it from the owners, but they have what is called a lien. Mr. Barney - an easement. Mrs. Bruce - Yeah, they have an easement. So we can farm certain acres, the four fields we can farm if we want, and that's it. Mr. Barney - But the development of what amounts to a living accommodation is permitted under the land trust. Mrs. Bruce - Yup. They know what we're doing. What we'd like to do, sorry. Mr. Barney - Because that's a little inconsistent with normally what they require. The word development is what they're really excited about and they normally don't allow creation of new dwelling units and that sort of thing. Chairperson Sigel —Would they allow the building of a new structure on the land? Mrs. Bruce - Yes they would, but there's a footage limitation to actually build a new... Chairperson Sigel —A square footage limitation? 36 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mrs. Bruce - Yes, and also when the land went into land trust, the barn was actually three times the size it is now and with the land trust they determined that they would destroy that. So in other words the barn now is I guess what the original barn was a hundred years ago. Chairperson Sigel — OK. There had been additions that were then removed. Mrs. Bruce - There had been additions on to it. That's why some of the aerial shots have it shaped like an L. Chairperson Sigel — It seems that we could approve. Now what's the total? Are the floors that are going to form this proposal, are they in place in the barn? Does the barn have this much square footage already of floor space? Mr. Demarest - Actually yes. Everything you see is an existing floor. That was the intent is just to convert that so that guest quarters on the upper floor plan is existing. We may reconstruct the floor system. Chairperson Sigel — So right now the upper floor, what's marked guest quarters — that floor exists and the rest is open. Mr. Demarest - Right, that's just a hayloft. Chairperson Sigel — So you're just looking to convert existing square footage in the barn? Mr. Demarest - Correct. Chairperson Sigel — Personally, I don't have a problem with the conversation of the existing square footage to living space. I believe Jim expressed that opinion as well. I'm a little more cautious about adding a kitchen to make it a dwelling unit of such size, close to the size of the main house. Just because I think that the 50% floor area rule for second dwelling units is an important rule. Mr. Matthews - Because of...? Chairperson Sigel —Well, I believe the motivation of that rule is to maintain the character of the neighborhood where you have a larger primary residence and do not allow a character where you would have twin homes or properties that are approximately more equal in size that would then lend itself more easily to renting of the properties and not have owner-occupied pieces of property. Now in this case, we may be able to impose some restrictions to... Mr. Matthews - I'm not sure I'm clear on that. 37 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Niefer -Well, what happens is many people, maybe not these, come in with one idea. Once they get kitchen, all of a sudden it's college apartments. The use has shifted from what is presented, and there's always that possibility. Chairperson Sigel — I think what the Town Board doesn't want is someone who would build a twin house, say a side by side or an up and down where each unit is approximately the same size and then rent those out. For whatever reason, I'm not necessarily justifying that, I'm just saying that I think that's what the town board's motivation is. And so by making one be substantially smaller than the other... Mr. Barney - The positive response is that the town has no zone that is "single family" residential zone. In all of our zones, we permit a subsidiary apartment, or subsidiary dwelling unit, and the way you make it subsidiary is you define it by saying its square footage can be no greater than 50% of the principal residence. So that's where the history of that comes from. The idea in low density and medium density residential zones was, you're not looking to have multiple housing or rental housing or duplexes or something of that nature that aimed towards owner-occupancy, but they didn't want to preclude a grandma or grandpa moving in, or rental to a student or something of that nature, as long as it was clearly ancillary to the principal use as a residence. Mr. Matthews - So how can we word a proposal so that they don't have to take two trips down here and see our lovely faces? Chairperson Sigel — I mean, if the board members were inclined, we could for instance grant everything they proposed, including the kitchen and possibly, because they have indicated they have no intention of renting this to anyone, we could impose a condition that it not be rented. Mr. Matthews -Well, I'm concerned about that. You know, building this big building and then it converts to student housing with all the traffic and noise and so forth, because that area is relatively quiet except for the trucks going by. Mr. Frost - So they could sell the property someday and maybe someone comes along and sets up a rental. Mr. Matthews - So how could we put that in there as a condition of the approval without that haunting us in twenty years when these folks leave town? Chairperson Sigel —Well, we could have a condition that only family members of the owner are allowed to live in it, or try to word something so it couldn't be rented. Mr. Frost - Would that have to be a deed restriction? 38 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney - You could try. Our success rate in these areas has been minimal. Chairperson Sigel — You mean actually enforcing this kind of thing? Mr. Barney - Right. Mr. Frost - But if it is constructed as part of the deed, then how can someone violate the deed? Mr. Barney - Explain to me how they did it up at Sapsucker Woods for fifteen years. Mr. Frost - That was a lawsuit that the town lost. Mr. Barney - No, the single — Chairperson Sigel — It is the case, for instance, if we don't allow the kitchen then it's simpler. You can't really rent this as a unit to someone without a kitchen, so if you don't have a kitchen it's easy to go in and say "OK they don't have a kitchen, that's good". Mr. Matthews - They can still rent rooms. Chairperson Sigel —Well, but it's not very appealing as a rental without a kitchen. Yeah, they could still try and violate the law, but at least it's less appealing. Or we could allow them to have the kitchen, and try to impose some restrictions that could guarantee that they do what they seem to intend to do now, but to make sure that that was always the case. Mr. Matthews - Never mind who counts trees, who checks on who's a family member? Mr. Frost - Unfortunately, the zoning officer has done that in the past. It's been many years since we actually requested copies of birth certificates. I was working with the guy who was our attorney at the time. Chairperson Sigel — They would do that when they do the drug testing. Laughter Mr. Matthews - It's a beautiful job, so you're stuck with a situation. Mr. Frost -We actually have gone so far as to try to track the number of people in the house and the relationship. Mr. Barney - It's not easy. 39 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — It's an issue with other rentals, you know the definition of how may people can live somewhere, you can have a family or you can have so many unrelated people, and they claim well, we're all one big family, and then you have to try and figure out if that's really the case. Mr. Matthews - Today's day and age, everybody's your family. Mr. Ellsworth - Yeah, we need to bear in mind it's just a few miles to Ithaca College. It's just up the road from Ithaca College. Mr. Matthews - I'm well aware, I walk by this house everyday. I'm very well aware of it. Mr. Krantz - You know, there may be something more significant here. This is obviously a large piece of property, and if there were two or three houses on it, it would probably be OK, but I think when people come before this board, there should be a specific proposal, and here we've got possibly a two car garage, possibly an entertainment center, possibly a kitchen, possibly we may exceed 50% of the primary unit... Chairperson Sigel —Well, they would definitely exceed 50%. Mr. Krantz - Well, it goes on and on. Mr. Frost - I think the issue is just the height issue and whether or not you would allow them to put a kitchen in. Chairperson Sigel — So, is it your opinion then that if they don't get the kitchen, then they only need the height? Mr. Frost -Well, actually Jason had thought that the smaller shed that is shown on the survey that is part of the hand out was going to come down, apparently that's staying, so he will need a height plus exceeding the 2000 square foot total aggregate for accessories. Mr. Demarest -And the plan that I submitted today, revised 8/5, shows that future bedroom. Ideally that would be the floor plan we would like, minus the kitchen, if the kitchen creates a problem, that would be the ideal floor plan at this point. Mr. Frost - So then the two issues then are the height and exceeding this 2000 square foot total area for accessory space. Mr. Demarest - By 626 square feet, including the shed. 40 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — OK. What does the area labeled potential kitchen area, what does that? I mean that's still floor space, right? Mr. Demarest - Right, that would be... Chairperson Sigel — Just a common room or something? Mr. Demarest - Well, if they had a common room, they would set up a buffet table or something. Mr. Niefer - Entertainment space. Mr. Demarest - Yeah, the issue is carrying food across the property. Chairperson Sigel So future bedroom two, that's new floor space? Mr. Demarest - That's new floor space. The other structure up there, we could just put joists on. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Demarest -It may have been an old hayloft at one time. Chairperson Sigel — OK, so the plan you submitted with the packet we got, the total is 1810, and then unheated is 688, which for the accessory use, you have to add that in, right? Accessory use is all square footage. And then what's the square footage of the shed? Mr. Demarest - I believe it's 300, based on the footprint of the shed. Chairperson Sigel —Well, I would be inclined at this point to grant their request for everything but the kitchen and to me, it doesn't really make this much difference to me, or I should say, it doesn't bother met to grant the approval for the future bedroom, even though it is additional square footage. Really, I think the compelling interest for the town is the dwelling unit, and if they really want the kitchen at a later date, then we could deal with the potential conditions that we could impose at that point to try and make sure that the 50% rule was, you know that there was some compensation for exceeding that, essentially. Any comments, questions about that plan? Mr. Barney - Is it clear that you do not intend to rent this space out at all? Mrs. Bruce -We absolutely do not intend to ever rent this space. Mr. Barney - So, you wouldn't object if we imposed a condition saying that there would be no rental. 41 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Bruce - On the face of it sir, I wouldn't object at all. I just don't... the answer is no, I would not object, as far as we're concerned, but I just don't know. I mean we're going to a place here where, I don't know what the implication of that kind of thing is. I know that as far as we're concerned, the purpose here is for space that we use within our family living, and we have no intention whatsoever to rent this to a third party whatsoever. It just doesn't calculate. Mr. Barney - The problem is... Mr. Bruce - I understand the issue you're trying to get at. Mr. Barney - I mean you have two quite attractive spaces here even without a kitchen, quite frankly. You could get probably a pretty decent rental, by renting out your bedroom one and future bedroom two to Ithaca College students, probably two or three per room. Mr. Niefer - Things change. Mr. Barney - That changes the character of the area very much and so that's why I think this board is kind of wrestling with how to get a little bit of a handle on that and not have it become a fait accompli at some later time. SO that's why if you're not planning to rent it, and you'd like the variance, and they're willing to give you the variance, I think if you're willing to accept as one of the conditions of that variance that there would be no rental, that would alleviate substantially the concern that the board would have that this would be turned into another student housing situation. Chairperson Sigel — It's your concern, John, that even without the kitchen. Mr. Barney - Even without the kitchen. I mean a lot of kids they either eat on campus or they eat downtown, or they could put a hotplate in or something. Mr. Frost - So let me just play devil's advocate for a second. If they have a 30,000 square foot lot and not 50 some odd acres, they could have an accessory building as long as it was no greater than 50% of the square footage of the primary unit and rent it to college students. Legally. Chairperson Sigel — If they got the special approval. Mr. Frost - Right, I forgot about that. Mr. Barney - Now, they could subdivide, taking away the problem they have with the trust, they could subdivide, create a separate unit too. 42 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost - They could also get a building permit, and add onto that house an apartment, without the special approval. Mr. Barney - An apartment, yes, a clearly subsidiary apartment. Mr. Frost -Which they could rent. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Frost - I guess what I'm trying to suggest is that the concerns about the rental could still occur legally if they put an apartment on the primary house and still have accessory buildings. Mr. Barney - But as a practical matter, as you sit here today, and I don't want to argue too much for you, because this is really your folks' purview as policy makers, we just hit you with the legal sides of it. But, right now, with the land trust there, you could say no to anything here and this would never be developed. I think you'd be within your... you could probably sustain that determination on the grounds that you don't want to change the character of the area very much. So it seems to me, if you're going to grant the variance, it's probably not unwise to limit the use to something that's basically what's being represented to you as what the use is going to be, and not going to be something that is going to change in the future. Chairperson Sigel — I think that would be reasonable. I mean that's what we're trying to accomplish by not allowing the kitchen, so we can — Mr. Matthews -What would be reasonable? Chairperson Sigel — To add a restriction on the approval that it not be, that the unit not be rented to anyone. Mr. Ellsworth - No kitchen, no rental. Mr. Niefer - Is that enforceable? Mr. Barney - The rental, yes. Mr. Niefer - Is it enforceable? Mr. Barney - Oh, absolutely, it's a condition for granting a variance for them to have a larger than would otherwise be permitted structure. You can impose some limitations on how that structure is going to be used. There is a correlation or a connection between what you are giving, in terms of a variance, and how you want to control the effects of that variance. 43 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel —We're granting a larger square footage than allowed in exchange for the impact being less than it otherwise might have been. Mr. Matthews -And as Harry might say, if it's not enforceable, then we'll deny the appeal. Mr. Ellsworth -Well, I can think of ways around it. I mean you can have family in there and they can make a donation at the end of the — but we don't want to get into all that. This is the best probably that we can do at this point. Chairperson Sigel — OK, so... Mr. Barney - How are you standing? You folks have had a chance to caucus, where are we? Mr. Bruce - Frankly, I don't see any inconvenience to having a condition such as you stated being part of this package. Chairperson Sigel — OK, I mean you can always come back and ask to have the restriction on no kitchen be removed, and as part of that it would be helpful if you could possibly even think of some ways to further ensure that the goals are still met. Mr. Bruce -Actually I fully understand the problem you're facing and I understand what Mr. Ellsworth has said, and I do have no problems, and I understand that we can always come back and revisit issues. Our intention really is to enjoy the property. We came here because we've had this problem and because we like it the way it is and we're trying to use the existing structures in a way that adds to our use of the house, not that enters into secondary businesses or something like that. Chairperson Sigel — So, then, we will grant you approval for the plan that you handed out. Mr. Barney - You will consider granting approval... Chairperson Sigel —We will consider granting approval for what you have handed out as FP01, and... Mr. Demarest - Dated revised 8/5, because they're both the same — Chairperson Sigel — OK. Revised 8/5/04. And the other structure that is on the property is 300 square feet so we'll be doing a total of ... Mr. Matthews - Just this little shed in the back, 300 square feet? 44 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Demarest - Right. Chairperson Sigel —About 3300 square feet in total accessory buildings. OK, we'll open the public hearing at this time. Chairperson Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 8:40 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone wish to speak? If not, we will close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel closes the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — OK, so we're down to the height variance and the square footage. And the various conditions. Mr. Barney - Correct. Chairperson Sigel — OK, I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Constance and Thomas Bruce, requesting permission to convert an accessory building into a guest house without a kitchen with a height of 40 ±feet at 915 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-2-3, Low Density Residential Zone, for the reasons stated on the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Mike Smith dated August 5th, 2004. Second? Mr. Ellsworth - I'll second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 042 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Constance and Thomas Bruce, Appellants, 915 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-2-3, Low Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Constance and Thomas Bruce, requesting permission to convert an accessory building into a guest house without a kitchen with a height of 40 ±feet at 915 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-2-3, Low Density Residential Zone, for the reasons stated on the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Mike Smith dated August 5th 2004. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: 45 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — OK, and I will move to grant the appeal of Constance and Thomas Bruce, requesting variances from Article XIII, Sections 270-56, 270-57 and 270-59, to be permitted to convert an accessory building into a guest house (without a kitchen) with a structural height not to exceed... is it under 40 feet, are you sure it's under 40 feet? Mr. Ellsworth - Is 40 going to be OK? Mr. Frost - I think it's right at 40... Mr. Matthews - That's the height of the barn, you're not changing that. You're not raising the roof? Mrs. Bruce - We're not raising the roof. Mr. Barney - Only after they put the entertainment center in. Laughter. Mrs. Bruce - Entertainment center, can we say living room? Chairperson Sigel —with a structural height not to exceed 40.5 feet (where there is a 36 foot height limit) at 915 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-2-3, Low Density Residential Zone. Furthermore, this motion grants permission to have a total accessory building square footage of... by my calculations, 3350 should give you a few extra? Mr. Demarest - OK. Mr. Barney - It should state that calculating that square footage as the square footage on each floor of the building, that's not footprint of 3350 including the shed. Chairperson Sigel — allowing a total accessory building square footage, including each floor of all accessory buildings, to be no greater than 3,350 square feet. Also with the condition that no kitchen facilities be built, with the further condition that the unit not be rented, in whole or in part, to any person. Did we have any others John? 46 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney - I think that's it. Chairperson Sigel — Second? Mr. Krantz - Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 043: Constance and Thomas Bruce, Appellants, 915 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-2-3, Low Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Constance and Thomas Bruce, Appellants, requesting variances from Article XIII, Sections 270-56, 270-57 and 270-59, to be permitted to convert an accessory building into a guest house (without a kitchen) with a structural height not to exceed 40.5 feet (where there is a 36 foot height limit) at 915 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-2-3, Low Density Residential Zone. Furthermore, this motion grants permission to have a total accessory building square footage, including each floor of all accessory buildings, no greater than 3,350 square feet. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been met. CONDITIONS: 1. No kitchen facilities be built. 2. The unit not be rented in whole or in part to any person. The vote on the a 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. Mrs. Bruce - Thank you. APPEAL of Brenda Prince, Appellant, requesting a variance from Article XXV, Section 270-205 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be 47 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES permitted to reconstruct a non-conforming residence, adding a second story, at 1106 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-7, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposed reconstruction will not enlarge the building's existing footprint. Chairperson Sigel — Hello. Could you please give us your name and address for the record? Ms. Prince - Sure. Good evening, my name is Brenda Prince, LI live at 1106 East Shore Drive, Ithaca NY. Mr. Lorenzini - And I am David Lorenzini, I live at 4 Coventry Walk, Ithaca NY. Chairperson Sigel —Are you acting as agent? Mr. Lorenzini - I am acting as agent. Chairperson Sigel — OK, could you begin with a brief overview of what you're proposing and what you need approval from us for. Ms. Prince - OK, what we would like to do is tear down our current home. It's a combination of boat house, cottage, winterized addition, addition, addition, and it's not very energy efficient, nor is it structurally sound to do an addition to the second story of it. So we want to tear it down and build a two-story structure with a mezzanine level on the existing footprint of the home. Mr. Frost - Not unlike the last zoning meeting we had, even though they're not changing the footprint, we concluded that extending the mass of the building with height was ... [comments inaudible], and again I want to emphasize that they're not changing the footprint. Chairperson Sigel — So in what way is it non-conforming? Mr. Frost - The lot size, the setback, I think, of the building, at least on the north side of the parcel is too close to the property. Chairperson Sigel — Is the lot size deficient? Ms. Prince - I don't, I'm not certain about that, we... it's very chopped up because we live on the east side and we have the railroad tracks, so we have a lot of right of ways through our property. Chairperson Sigel — Id the railroad? It looks like — it's one large parcel, right? Ms. Prince - It's one large parcel. It's very large for that area of the lake, actually. 48 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — The railroad is just a right of way, they don't own that land. Ms. Prince - They do own that. They own all of their right-of-ways, they actually have... Mr. Frost - The house on the south side, David, you may want to clarify this, is at least 13 foot if not less to the side property line, rather than 15. Ms. Prince - It's 13 feet 10 inches. Mr. Frost - So the building itself is non-conforming because it's too close to the property line. And it's never really clear to me on the lakeside, I don't believe they're set back the distance they need from the lake. But that's also determined whether you judge that distance from the high water mark or the low water mark. I'm not sure how we define that... [inaudible] Chairperson Sigel — Do you know the square footage of the lot? Mr. Lorenzini - The net square footage is .44 acres. Chairperson Sigel - .44. Is that with the railroad taken out? Ms. Prince - Taken out. Mr. Lorenzini - Taken out, that's correct. The gross square footage of the property is .88 acres. Chairperson Sigel — OK, so .44 would give you about 20,000 square feet. What's the requirement for lakefront, 15? Mr. Barney - For rear yard? Chairperson Sigel — For square footage? Mr. Barney - Of the lot? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. Mr. Barney - The lot's got to be 15,000 square feet. Chairperson Sigel — OK, so the lot size is conforming, but the setback... Mr. Frost - So the setback is one of the non-conforming issues. 49 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney - 25 feet is the setback form the shoreline. Mr. Matthews - The setback is not conforming you say? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, the setbacks are deficient. Mr. Matthews - From the lake? Mr. Frost - From the side lot line. Mr. Matthews - From the side lot line? Chairperson Sigel —And from the lake? Mr. Frost - That I'm not sure of. Chairperson Sigel - Definitely from the side lot line. Mr. Matthews - It was non-conforming for the old structure, too? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, the present structure is non-conforming. Mr. Frost - Because the new structure is still going to be in that footprint. Prior to April of this year, the old zoning ordinance, we didn't have a lakefront zone, so a lot of us are dealing with stuff that is kind of brand new. A lot of the definitions are new. Mr. Matthews - So the variance here is the second story. Mr. Frost - Well, yeah I guess. Mr. Niefer - No, we have to add the side yard setback to this appeal? Mr. Frost - What we did at the last meeting, not to confuse things, which I'm good at doing, but under the old zoning ordinance, if you made a change to a non- conforming building, you needed a special approval. Now, under out new zoning ordinance, if you make a change, you actually need a variance from the zoning ordinance. Mr. Barney - Correct, Whatever kind of variance you would need if you were building. A lot line variance or an area variance, if you're doing something that is not permitted as a use, if you are enlarging a non-conforming use, you would have to get a use variance, which is a much tougher standard. Mr. Frost - So in this case, we're just changing something that is non-conforming from an area standpoint. 50 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — So if for instance, they were just adding height to the house within the required setbacks, we could just grant them, if they don't already have it, we could just grant them the variance for the setbacks, and they could just do it. But because it's going up within the setbacks, they need a specific variance, which is what we determined at the last meeting. They need a specific variance for that. Mr. Barney - Right, even though they are already violating the variance, and there have been some cases that say that going up without increasing the variance you can do without requiring a variance from the BZA. The case that said that said that you can read it either way, and a BZA can interpret it either way. Mr. Frost - Which is what we discussed last time. Mr. Barney - In the last meeting, we decided that because we are increasing the mass of the building, you're basically increasing in effect the non-conformity so we thought that it would be appropriate to request people to come in and get variances, and that's what's going on here. Mr. Frost -And we do define shoreline by the high water mark. Mr. Matthews - Could you somehow put both of those conversations into some sort of understandable whole for this dummy? What are we looking at here? Mr. Barney - You have a building, you're not changing the footprint of the building. The footprint however, is non-conforming because it is too close to the side yard and I think it's actually too close to the shoreline. Mr. Frost - I'll just read that... Mr. Barney - Don't interrupt me for a moment. So we have a footprint that is non- conforming, what these folks want to do is not going to change the footprint of the building, but it will go up. So the question is when you're not changing the footprint of the building, but simply going up in an area that is already non- conforming, do you need a variance to do that. And the cases have gone both ways on that issue. And at the last meeting, I don't know if you were here or not at the last meeting, but at the last meeting we had a similar situation I think also along a lake front property, and concluded that because when you go up, even though you're not expanding the footprint at all, you are increasing the mass of the property. The mass of the building that has an effect on light and the way it's appearance to the next door view and everything. So you should be required to get a variance to allow it to go up even though you're not enlarging in the sense of expanding the footprint. 51 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews - I understand, thanks. But at the last meeting, they didn't change the silhouette of the building so much. They added a room in the back to the same height of the room that was facing the railroad or the lake, I don't remember which. In this case, they are going up another floor entirely and changing the silhouette. Mr. Barney - I thought they changed some external dimensions on the vertical. Mr. Matthews - They put a new room on the back. Mr. Barney - They put a new room on the back, right. But I think they were going up a little bit with the roof. Chairperson Sigel — They didn't go up higher than the existing roof. Mr. Barney - Didn't go higher than the existing roof of the building, but the structure, the addition was going to raise the roof. Mr. Matthews - In this particular case, if I see what's here, it's a large, much larger house than is there now. And perhaps it is a much larger house than is in the neighborhood? And will that change the character of the neighborhood? Ms. Prince - Can I comment on that? It isn't much larger than the houses... Mr. Matthews - It is not? Ms. Prince - No, it is not, it would not be, the new house. Actually our current home is a one story home which is not... all the other homes are two story homes, we are one of the only one story homes. I think there may be one or two other ones that are one story much further down that may even be Lansing. Most of the others are two stories or three stories, there are a lot of three story homes. Our home is one of the smallest homes, now. And we also, the way that the property sits, which is hard to see from all of this paperwork, the road is up here and you actually drive down to get to where our house is. We've actually already spoken to our neighbor who is directly across the road from us and would be most effected by the view issue and we have a lot of vegetation around our property, which we do not intend on getting rid of. We have been working with our architect to make sure we keep our trees, we love our treed too. We have some beautiful willows and stuff, and basically the house would sit within the tall vegetation that's already there, we have ponderosa pines and a great big maple and stuff, so it actually sits down in there's. In the way that it sits, it's not really going up much higher than people's views. Chairperson Sigel — The floor of your garage is about half a story above the floor of your house it appeared to me. It's definitely higher. 52 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Prince - No, the garage will be as tall as the house, because the garage actually is up at the road level. Chairperson Sigel — It starts higher. Ms. Prince - It starts. It actually has a basement and a second floor. Chairperson Sigel —What is that garage used for? Ms. Prince - It has two bays upstairs which are garage bays, and the downstairs which we basically store stuff in because we have such a terrible lack of space currently. Chairperson Sigel — so there's no dwelling units in there or anything? Ms. Prince - No. Mr. Frost— This is one of the larger lots you'll see on the east side of the lake. And before I did interrupt John Barney, I was pointing out to Kirk the lake shore zone requires the rear yard to be 50 feet from the building to the rear lot line, except when you have a shore line, in which event the rear yard shall not be less than 25 feet. But Davis, it's not clear to me, it even looks like the back of the house may be less than 25 foot to the shore line. Mr. Lorenzini - It's not on the survey but we taped it off, it's actually a little over 25 feet to the shore. Mr. Barney - To the high water mark? Mr. Lorenzini - To the high water mark. Mr. Barney - And you are able to determine precisely where that high water mark is. Ms. Prince - No. Mr. Lorenzini -We took our best guess. Mr. Ellsworth - This is a good year to determine a high water mark. Mr. Frost - So really it seems like the non-conformity here specifically with the house is the side yard setback. The garage which is non-conforming really doesn't play into the appeal for the house [ inaudible]. I mean the garage is over the road right of way line, that's existing, but the appeal here is just to deal with the house. It seems like we have one non-conformity that's the side yard 53 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES setback which is really no greater than two foot deficient, so it's not a significant deficiency either, as well as the fact that this is a really large lot. Mr. Barney - I was kind of curious David, the shadows on this are very interesting. Is the sun in the North on these? Mr. Lorenzini - Yes it is, I've taken a lot of heat. Mr. Barney - This is earth we are dealing with here, isn't it? It's not Saturn or ... Chairperson Sigel — It says on the opening John that they are rotating the entire property. So, which specific section John are we going to be granting a variance from in Article 25? Non conforming structures, alterations? Mr. Frost - I think it is just as I had advertised it. Chairperson Sigel —What is it advertised as? Oh, 205, non-conforming structures. OK. [comments inaudible] Mr. Frost - Interestingly, I think we can go one of two ways because we are granting a variance to that section of 205 that says you can't change a non- conforming structure, which is what they are doing, or you can just give them a side-yard setback variance based on what the lake front zone requires. I've advertised this... Chairperson Sigel — It's probably better to just grant the variance from 205. Mr. Frost - Because anytime they want to change things, they still have to come back to you. Chairperson Sigel — It's not a blank check, though. Mr. Barney -And you've advertised it as 205, saying you're granting a variance from 270-205 to allow an enlargement under these conditions. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mr. Ellsworth - I think we have a height problem here. Chairperson Sigel —Why, it's too short? Mr. Ellsworth - It shows 347' to the peak, not to the top of the chimney to the first floor, not the footer. So I think we're going to be over, likely over, 36 feet. 54 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost - Can you say that again, Harry? Mr. Ellsworth - David Lorenzini's elevation, West elevation, he has a dimension on it— 34, 7 — it does not go to the chimney. Mr. Frost - Chimney [inaudible] is exempt. Mr. Ellsworth - OK, what about, it goes down to —we need the dimension to the footer don't we, not to the first floor? Mr. Barney - The lowest level. Mr. Frost - Of the building. Mr. Ellsworth - The lowest floor level? Chairperson Sigel — The lowest grade for exterior dimensions. Mr. Barney - It's exterior grade, correct. Chairperson Sigel — So if that's where grade is going to meet the house for exterior dimension, then it looks like it's correct. Mr. Ellsworth - It's not one of these sloping lots. Chairperson Sigel — No the lot is quite low. And there's no basement in this house? Ms. Prince - No, that's exactly why we need this. Mr. Ellsworth - You wouldn't need the storage below the garage. Ms. Prince - It's across the railroad tracks, so it's not as easy as you might think. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Mike, any comments? All right, we'll open the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 9:02 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —With no one in the audience, we will close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel closes the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. Mr. Niefer - One question. You're retiring a 1700 square foot home; I didn't hear how many square feet they're going to be in the new home. 55 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Prince - Approximately, 30... Mr. Lorenzini - Probably end up being 3800 square feet. Mr. Niefer - 3800? Chairperson Sigel — and it's currently 1700? Mr. Matthews - And you say this house is no bigger than any of the others in the neighborhood? Ms. Prince - It's bigger than some, but it's not any... we're next to a brick home with two stories, we have a two story structure to the other side of us.... One of the other homes that was built recently is about 28 or 2900 square feet. The Girschen's. Mr. Frost - I think the point was initially Dick that there are other two story homes in the neighborhood. She's adding a second story. Mr. Matthews - Yes I understand. I guess what I am concerned about... but to see huge homes being built along the Iakeshore edge, new homes like this, I have a concern about that. Mr. Frost - Well, I think two things. On that side of the lake, most of the lots are much less size than this particular lot, which is a large lot. Mr. Matthews- And some of those have been added onto over time. Mr. Frost - Secondly, if they have a legal size lot and they have more than a legal size lot, they can build a house as big as they want, as long as they don't go over the limit, I think in the lake front, we have a 20% lot coverage area. In most of our zones, if they have a legal size lot or bigger, they can get a pretty good size house in there. Mr. Matthews - But aren't they asking us to go up another floor? Mr. Barney - They can do that. Mr. Frost - They can do that, the problem is that they've got a deficiency on the side yard setback... and it's up to us to say yeah or nay, to go up the second floor, correct? Chairperson Sigel —Well, the second floor, per se, is not disallowed, the total height of the house is within regulation, it's simply because it's too close to the 56 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES side lot line. It looks to me like you could probably actually move the site of the new house to be within setbacks even. Mr. Barney - It would be a little tricky because... Ms. Prince - It would be very tricky. Mr. Barney - ... of the right of way running right through the middle of the property. Chairperson Sigel — I mean you could shift the house to the rear, I mean to the road a bit, and to the north a bit. Ms. Prince - We start to get very close to the railroad tracks, and we have a young son, w have an 18 month old son, and the reason we are here is because we are a growing family. Chairperson Sigel — I'm not saying it is necessarily desirable, but I think you could possibly achieve it. Ms. Prince - Yes. [comments inaudible] Mr. Barney - I think they are building it in the only area that makes sense. Ms. Prince - It also, I'm sorry, for what it's worth, it's less intimidating for the home next to us to leave our home where it is, because our home is actually set back and facing one direction, and they're set this way and, they're further forward and facing out. It would kind of force us to push our house a little forward and over. The way they set now, they really don't intrude on each other at all which is a nice set up because the one house faces kind of like this and we face like this. So we're at an angle to the bay. Chairperson Sigel — OK, do you want to further...? Mr. Matthews - It may not be my right to even ask these kinds of questions. Chairperson Sigel — No, no. Mr. Matthews - I don't want the lake to become Brooklyn. Mr. Barney - What was the last adjective? Mr. Matthews - I don't want it to become these huge houses, overbuilt, but that's not fair to a lot of people. 57 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Lorenzini - I think an important point might be that where this is situated might be with the landscaping the way it is now, the new home will probably not even be visible from the road. Ms. Prince - There are so many trees. We have a lot of trees. Mr. Matthews - I'm satisfied. Chairperson Sigel — I mean I'm inclined to share your concern, I mean it is a much bigger home, but for this area it's quite a large lot. Mr. Matthews - It's close to people. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, it is close to other people, but it's actually quite a bit further from the neighbors than a lot of homes along here. Mr. Niefer - 50 foot wide lots along... Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, as you get to the south it gets much worse. OK, I will move to grant the appeal of Brenda Prince, requesting a variance from Article XXV, Section 270-205 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to reconstruct a non-conforming residence, adding a second story, at 1106 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-7, Lakefront Residential Zone. With the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, and with the following conditions, that the new house not exceed the footprint of the existing house, that in no case shall the new structure be closer to the side lot line than, you have 10 and 3... Mr. Barney - 13, 10, and three quarter inches. Chairperson Sigel — OK, in no case is it permitted to be closer than 13.5 feet from the south side lot line and must be within setbacks on all other sides of the house, and that the new house be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans. Second? Mr. Krantz - Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 044: Brenda Prince, Appellant, 1106 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-7, Lakefront Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. 58 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Brenda Prince, Appellant, requesting a variance from Article XXV, Section 270-205 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to reconstruct a non-conforming residence, adding a second story, at 1106 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-7, Lakefront Residential Zone. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: 1. The new house will not exceed the footprint of the existing house. 2. In no case is it permitted for the new structure to be closer than 13.5 feet from the south side lot line, and the new structure must be within allowed setbacks on all other sides of the house. 3. The new house will be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — OK. Ms. Prince - Thank you. Chairperson Sigel adjourns the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson 59