HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2018-01-23Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
1
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
January 23, 2018
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Jack Elliott; Matthew Johnston;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: Robert Aaron Lewis
Board Vacancies: One
Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Applicants Attending: Two Duplexes at 209 Hudson Street
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect;
Dylan Scott, Jagat Sharma Architect;
Frank Santelli, T.G. Miller
111-115 The Knoll (Chesterton and Sophia House)
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Kate Krueger, STREAM Collaborative;
Karl Johnson, Executive Director of Chesterton House
Stewart Park Inclusive Playground
Rick Manning, Friends of Stewart Park;
Diana Riesman, Friends of Stewart Park;
Andrew Sciarabba, T.G. Miller
Waterfront Project (Sketch Plan)
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Lincoln Morse, Project Consultant;
Nick Lambrou, Project Sponsor;
Jody Edger, Project Sponsor
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
2
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
There were no changes to the agenda.
2. Special Order of Business:
Update and Feedback on Green Building Policy Project
Sustainability Coordinator Nick Goldsmith and Architect Noah Demarest of STREAM
Collaborative provided an overview of the Green Building Policy Project that has been
ongoing for the past two years, and they invited Board members to provide feedback on the
draft plan.
Goldsmith said that the City of Ithaca has a strong commitment to sustainability, including a
goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Goldsmith noted that this
current draft policy only focuses on new construction and major renovations, not existing
buildings. He said that the end goal is to develop a green building policy that Common
Council is comfortable adopting, and that this phase of the project involves doing a study of
green building standards and determining ways to implement those standards through either
mandates or incentives, or a combination of the two. He said that there has also been a focus
on the affordability of the proposed standards.
Demarest said that the consultant team, which consists of STREAM Collaborative, Taitem
Engineering and Randall-West Planners, was tasked with staffing the Green Building Policy
Advisory Committee, which consists of 13 individuals with diverse backgrounds, such as
developers, realtors, architects, planners, advocates for affordable housing, etc. He said that
additionally, the consultants were tasked with (1) creation of a development forecast; (2)
administering a building stock survey; and (3) conducting education and outreach for the
project. He said that the advisory committee’s hope is to have a final draft policy guide
completed and circulating in February.
Demarest continued by providing an overview of the policy guidelines as they currently
exist, saying that the advisory committee has employed “FAIR” as an acronym for “flexible,
affordable, impactful and reachable.” He said that at present, the committee is proposing two
compliance options, the “whole building” option (certified compliant with LEED, HERS or
Passive Building standards), or by following what the group is calling the “easy path,” a
system of credits that requires builders to achieve a minimum number (currently five) in
order to pass. Demarest said that they tried to identify ways that builders could do this
without adding cost to a project, and that it should be relatively easy for everyone to meet the
target of five points, and that moving forward, the group might develop a system of
incentives to encourage builders to achieve 10 points or more.
Demarest explained that there are 16 possible points proposed on the residential side and 13
on the commercial side, such as density, location, inclusion of a heat pump, etc., and he
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
3
explained that each point corresponds to an 8- to 10-percent reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions.
Demarest then reviewed several buildings constructed recently, detailing how each would
score under the proposed system. He then related the questions the advisory committee asked
when developing the proposed point system:
• Would it work for known high-performance buildings? Yes.
• Would it work for non-high-performance buildings? Yes.
• Would implementation of the point systems have influenced their designs? Yes.
• Do better buildings score higher? Yes.
• Would the point system be unusually cumbersome and costly? No.
• Is the point system too easy? Maybe, but if the points really correspond to an 8- to 10-
percent energy savings, it makes no difference. We want it to be easy.
He referenced the website www.ithacagreenbuilding.com, and invited the Board to ask
questions.
Elliott asked about Passive Houses under the proposal. Demarest said that because there are
two paths to compliance, a building meeting Passive House standards would pass.
Elliott asked about builders using a heat exchanger and said that there are other ways (in
addition to heat pumps) to achieve energy efficiency. Demarest mentioned biomass as
another possible option and said that he will relay this comment to Taitem Engineering,
which he said is doing the bulk of the analysis of these systems.
Elliott also said that in looking at the guidelines, he could see them resulting in a really
simple building, with almost no windows and very small rooms, e.g., a cheap building in
Collegetown. He said that we have to be careful not to incentivize architectural solutions that
we don’t want to see in our community.
Jones-Rounds said that a builder will also have to go through site plan review, which should
prevent that from happening, and she suggested that the policy could reference design
guidelines as well.
Elliott said that it seems surprising that a LEED Platinum building wouldn’t get five points,
and that he’d much rather see a LEED building than a five-point building because of all the
broader factors considered under LEED. He also noted that the Living Building challenge has
a classification for aesthetics, which is important, because even if your building is very
efficient, if it’s ugly, no one is going to want it.
Elliott noted that embodied energy in the materials chosen is a factor in overall energy
performance, but that the current draft policy focuses exclusively on operational energy, and
he suggested that the advisory committee might cast the net a little wider. Demarest said that
the group might look into providing a point for adaptive re-use, for example.
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
4
Johnston asked if any thought was given to commissioning reviews after the build, to ensure
that buildings maintain their performance once people put them to use. Demarest said that
there’s been a lot of conversation about that, and it is something the group is considering.
Goldsmith clarified that construction, not operation, has been the focus of the current draft
policy, but that implementation has been under discussion, i.e., how to make it enforceable
without being burdensome. Demarest said that the group has been looking for a policy with
some flexibility, and that “you have to start somewhere.”
Elliott inquired about building stock inventory, and said that New York City is also working
aggressively to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and that in order to set a baseline, it had
all building owners report on their energy use to document the watt per square meter each
building consumed.
Demarest said that while the consultants don’t have that level of detail in the data they have
collected, they do have a good sampling.
Elliott asked if the group could obtain data from NYSEG, and said that it’s hard to know if
energy savings goals are being met without establishing a baseline.
Goldsmith said that they have put in a request for such information, but that NYSEG has
“strong privacy concerns.” He said that Taitem is not currently recommending benchmarking
because (1) collecting that data annually is “a rather heavy lift for smaller cities,” and (2) it is
not believed that any carbon reductions so achieved would be worth the added costs.
Goldsmith also said that he thinks the energy policy will include a recommendation that
going forward, better data (such as benchmarking) will be needed before any revisions to it
are made.
Schroeder returned to the question of “embodied energy,” and suggested that points (i.e., not
just one point) be awarded for reusing an existing building. He observed that new
construction is very energy intensive, requiring that new materials be procured,
manufactured, transported, etc. and that the old building be demolished and its component
parts (which themselves took substantial energy to obtain and construct) be hauled to a
landfill.
He also said that while he understands the merit of having fewer [window] openings and
using a simpler shape from an energy-reduction standpoint, nevertheless at some point a loss
of architectural articulation compromises basic contextuality and design quality.
Jones-Rounds said that we have seen these conflicts in the past; for example, zoning and
design guidelines are not always easily compatible. She added that the Green Building Policy
proposal might be another example of that, but that she thinks there are mechanisms, and
various boards and staff, working with developers and homeowners, that can deal with this.
She said that while she understands Schroeder’s concerns, she doesn’t think it should be a
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
5
huge fear because there are mechanisms in place to ensure that projects resembling “a little
shed with no windows” will not be built, noting that it’s just not allowed.
Demarest said that having just developed a point system, the advisory committee is currently
seeking feedback because some points will need to be calibrated, and others might not even
make sense, because maybe as Schroeder points out, they cancel out other goals put forth by
the City. He noted that out of 16 possible points for residential buildings (13 for
commercial), they are only asking that the building achieve five. He said that perhaps some
of the proposed points don’t make sense, but he is hoping they do, because there is science
behind them showing how they relate to energy goals.
Jones-Rounds said that the importance of window placement (south-facing) as it relates to
passive solar gains might be a factor to consider.
Schroeder commented that party walls in areas of the City where neighboring buildings can
abut one another give such buildings an automatic advantage in the window-to-wall ratio
calculation, over buildings located on lots with required setbacks on all sides, and he
suggested that maybe there should be distinctions between the requirements in each situation.
Demarest said that yes, a row house, “Brooklyn brownstone” style building with windows on
only two sides does score the best under their system.
Schroeder suggested modifications to ensure that buildings that can’t eliminate windows
from two sides aren’t disadvantaged, and he reiterated his suggestion to consider embodied
energy and encourage remodeling of existing buildings.
Goldsmith said the consultants are still looking at how the standards will apply to major
renovations, and at how “major renovation” will be defined. He said that not all of the current
points would be directly applicable to renovations, and that language related to “re-use” is
yet to come.
Elliott said that Architecture 2030 incorporates language about renovations, and asked about
how a passive solar design might fare under this system.
Applicants referenced the photo of a building at EcoVillage at Ithaca, saying that the large
number of windows on the south side of the building is balanced out by having very few on
its other sides, and that such a building would earn points under the proposed policy.
Discussion concluded, and Blalock asked about next steps.
Demarest said that the applicants would be circulating a draft of the policy itself after it is
fine-tuned, probably in February.
Goldsmith noted that Jones-Rounds is on the advisory committee and that she could probably
keep the Board updated on any new developments.
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
6
3. Privilege of the Floor
Blalock asked if anyone had signed up to speak on any topic other than one with a Public
Hearing already on the agenda. He requested that anyone wishing to speak about any item
with a dedicated Public Hearing on the agenda (209 Hudson Street and Stewart Park
Inclusive Playground) please hold their comments until then, so that the applicants would be
given an opportunity to share any updates.
After some questions from the public, it was determined that no members of the public
wished to speak about any topics other than 209 Hudson Street or the Stewart Park Inclusive
Playground, so Chair Blalock closed Privilege of the Floor.
Blalock also explained that the hearings for both the proposed subdivision and the site plan
review of 209 Hudson Street would be combined and comments on both issues heard
simultaneously.
4. Subdivision Review
A. 209 Hudson Street, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 82.-4-17, Major Subdivision, by Jagat
Sharma, architect, for Bia Stavropoulos, owner. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public
Hearing and Review of FEAF Part 2 & 3. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the
City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 82.-4-17 measuring 26,484 SF (.608 acres) into three lots; Lot 1
measuring 5,808 SF (.133 acres) with 45’ of frontage on Hudson Street and containing
the existing house; Lot 2 measuring 5,838 SF (.134 acres) with 45’ of frontage on
Hudson Street; and Lot 3 measuring 14,834 SF (.341 acres) with 42’ of frontage on
Hudson Street. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District which has the following
minimum area requirements: 5,000 SF lot size and 45’ of street frontage for single or two
family dwellings, 30% lot coverage, 25’ front yard, 10’ side yard, and a rear yard of 25%
or 50’ but not less than 20’. The subdivision requires area variances for an existing side
yard deficiency on Lot 1 and a newly created street frontage deficiency for Lot 2. The
project is also in the South Hill Overlay District. Access to all three sites will be from the
existing driveway, which will require easements to ensure permanent access. This is an
Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject
to environmental review.
See discussion of this overall project immediately below.
5. Site Plan Review
A. Two Duplexes at 209 Hudson Street, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 82.-4-17, by Jagat
Sharma, architect, for Bia Stavropoulos, owner. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public
Hearing, and Review of FEAF Part 2 & 3. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the
property into three lots (see above), retain the existing house on one lot, and to build two
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
7
new duplexes, one on each of the remaining two lots. Access to all three sites will be
from the existing driveway, which will require easements to ensure permanent access.
The project includes 6 parking spaces, retaining / stone walls, new paving, walkways and
landscaping. Site development will require the removal of an existing pool, wooden fence
and shed, eleven mature trees and associated paving and landscape elements. The project
is in the R-2a Zoning District for which area variances are required (see above). The
project is also in the South Hill Overlay District for which subdivision is required as
district requirements allow no more than one primary use per tax parcel. This is an
Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject
to environmental review.
Architect Jagat Sharma and Frank Santelli of T.G. Miller presented an update regarding
the proposed subdivision and some minor changes to the plans and building design that
have been made in response to the Project Review Committee meeting (planting plan,
retaining wall, providing a dumpster location). Sharma also noted that there’s a garage
belonging to a neighbor who has been served by a connection to the existing driveway,
which has been eliminated in the current site plans. So Sharma said the drawings will be
changed again to allow the neighbor access to the garage, per the ROW agreement
between the two property owners.
He also detailed some changes made to the floor plan layouts, and some details added to
the exteriors of the buildings regarding porches, brackets and Arts and Crafts style entry
doors.
Santelli presented the results of his analysis of soil coverage and the watershed on the
site. He said that that the proposal he is making is to change the grading of the site
slightly to push more of the runoff toward Hudson Street storm sewers to the west, thus
reducing the amount of runoff that flows toward the neighbors’ property to the east. He
also said that there would be an increase of about 2,300 square feet of impervious cover
on the site overall.
Upon a request from Blalock, Nicholas provided a brief explanation of the procedures the
Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeals need to complete before the project can
move forward.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead
Agency be established for conducting Environmental Review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
8
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a subdivision and two duplexes to be located
at 209 Hudson St., and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 82.-4-17
measuring 26,484 SF (.608 acres) into three lots; Lot 1 measuring 5,808 SF (.133 acres)
with 45’ of frontage on Hudson St. and containing the existing house; Lot 2 measuring
5,838 SF (.134 acres) with 45’ of frontage on Hudson St.; and Lot 3 measuring 14,834 SF
(.341 acres) with 42’ of frontage on Hudson St. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District
which has the following minimum area requirements: 5,000 SF lot size and 45’ of street
frontage for single or two family dwellings, 30% lot coverage, 25’ front yard, 10’ side
yard, and a rear yard of 25% or 50’ but not less than 20’. The applicant proposes to retain
the existing house on one lot, and to build two new duplexes, one on each of the
remaining two lots. Access to all three sites will be from the existing driveway, which
will require easements to ensure permanent access. The project includes 6 parking spaces,
retaining / stone walls, new paving, walkways and landscaping. Site development will
require the removal of an existing pool, wooden fence and shed, eleven mature trees and
associated paving and landscape elements. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District for
which area variances are required for an existing side yard deficiency on Lot 1 and a
newly created street frontage deficiency for Lot 2. The project is also in the South Hill
Overlay District for which subdivision is required as district requirements allow no more
than one primary use per tax parcel, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”) and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a major subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Major Subdivision ― Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of two or more additional buildable lots, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, is by way of this
resolution declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed
project.
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Johnston, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Lewis
Vacancies: One
Public Hearing
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
9
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Johnston, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
Pam Mackesey, 323 Pleasant Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision and
development of 209 Hudson Street, saying that granting the required variance would
ignore the intent of the Overlay District recently put into place by Common Council at
the request of South Hill residents. She said that granting the variance would ignore the
interests of neighborhood residents and favor the interests of a commercial developer.
She also said that recommending the variance would contribute to the degradation of the
neighborhood, which she said is “at a tipping point.”
Gabriel Borden, 144 Giles Street (a property bordering 209 Hudson Street), presented a
map (previously e-mailed to Board members) showing how the neighborhood has shifted
toward more tenant-occupied (and away from owner-occupied) residences since his
family moved into its home in 1996. He also said that an agreement pre-dating his
ownership of the home allowed for use of the driveway at 209 Hudson Street to access
his garage. He continued by saying that the “actual legal access” to the rear of his
property is via the “Old Lane” noted on the deed and indicated on the map he shared. He
said that there was an in-kind arrangement with the former owners of 209 Hudson Street,
which has allowed his family use of the 209 driveway to access that garage, as the former
owners of 209 had wanted to build a fence to limit traffic coming up the Old Lane and
exiting via their driveway. He concluded by saying that he and other property owners
have rights to the Old Lane, so “you can’t plant trees or build a house” on that area. He
also said that the current plans call for removal of a line of “beautiful,” mature trees along
the driveway that reduce runoff and that it will take decades for any new plantings to
reach maturity and provide the same benefit.
Marion Rogers, 152 Coddington Road, Chair of the South Hill Civic Association Zoning
Committee, said that Common Council enacted the South Hill Overlay District in
November to pause “exactly the kind of infill development” that is being proposed at 209
Hudson Street, and did so in order to give the City and South Hill residents time to
develop a comprehensive plan for South Hill. She said that the attempt to subdivide and
obtain variances for the proposed development is an attempt to circumvent the
restrictions imposed by the Overlay District, and that a Planning Board recommendation
that the BZA grant variances would be an affront to the intent of the Overlay District. She
said that developers should have to comply with current R-2a zoning requirements and
not be granted variances or “special dispensation.” She said that she “sees no reason why
the Planning Board should facilitate this developer’s plans, which run counter to concerns
of residents, a vote by Council, and current zoning requirements.” She concluded by
saying that not everyone will have the opportunity to speak at the BZA, only those who
live within 200 feet, and she thanked the Board for providing neighborhood residents an
opportunity to speak.
Steve Rogers, 152 Coddington Road, also voiced opposition to the proposed
development, saying he is against the Board recommending, and the BZA approving, the
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
10
variances because they “fly in the face” of the South Hill Overlay District, enacted “with
the overwhelming support of South Hill residents.” He said that though the developer
claims to have been “blindsided” by the Overlay District, it was the culmination of years
of dissatisfaction by South Hill residents and that if the developer or his representatives
had spoken with neighbors, the issues would have immediately become clear. Rogers said
that this project is “precisely what the Overlay District was designed to pause,” and that it
will “inevitably displace homeowners.” He continued, saying, “it adds density not at the
City’s core … but pushes it out into medium-density residential neighborhoods.” He said
that the project is not, in fact, a “pocket neighborhood” as it had been characterized at a
recent past Board meeting, but is actually an apartment complex targeted at students. He
also took issue with the portion of the current draft Environmental Assessment Form Part
III stating that the project would have “no adverse impacts on the neighborhood.”
Sally Lockwood, 641 Hudson Street, said that she walks down the street every day to
catch the bus to go to work and that she has noticed the balance of residents in the
neighborhood has tipped to “transient renters,” which, she added, is why homeowners
were so focused on, and successful in, obtaining the Overlay District. She also said that
South Hill is perfect for families because there’s an elementary school within walking
distance, but that she knows families who have moved out because of the “imbalance” of
renters and associated problem behaviors. She said that she would like to see families
return to the neighborhood and strengthen the stability of South Hill. She also noted that
the owner of 209 Hudson Street has never attended a South Hill Civic Association
meeting, and said she doesn’t know if he knows about the organization. She said South
Hill residents welcome good landlords and would like to see if the property owner can
merge his plans with their vision of the neighborhood.
Karl Pillemer, 135 Hudson Street, said he is one of the neighbors who will be affected
by the project. He asked: “If you live in a residential neighborhood three doors down
from where someone took a stately old home and built a student dormitory on a side yard:
Is that something you would enjoy, or that anyone would think could possibly enhance
their neighborhood?” He continued by saying that he thinks the proposed development is
out of character with the neighborhood, will destroy open green space, and be
inconsistent with the Overlay District. He added that in discussions on development on
South Hill he has noticed some of what he thinks is “misguided thinking” from people
who are generally in favor of what urban planners call infill development. He said that he
thinks infill has its place — generally on vacant lots in urban areas — but that this kind of
development was never intended to destroy open green space in residential
neighborhoods in which absentee landlords build large dormitories and low-cost student
housing.
Karen Gellman, 207 Columbia Street, spoke against the proposed development at 209
Hudson Street, saying that it is exactly the kind of infill development Common Council
sought to limit with its implementation of the Overlay District. She said that allowing the
developer to achieve an end-run around the express wishes of residents and Common
Council sets a dangerous precedent: “We may as well say goodbye to any residential
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
11
property on Hudson Street with generous lawns.” She added, “If a resident has to sell
before a comprehensive neighborhood plan is enacted, rest assured that developers will
be able to out-bid any potential homeowner hoping to live with their family on South
Hill. She also noted that in the immediate vicinity of where she lives all the biggest
parties happen in the areas bordering two or more student rental properties, so the
courtyard in the proposed design would potentially lend itself to just the kind of behavior
that area homeowners would like to see curtailed.
Brad Zukovic, 310 Hudson Street, spoke against the proposed development of 209
Hudson Street, saying that he had thought the South Hill Overlay District was going to do
its job, providing a pause to development until a plan is developed for South Hill. He said
that aesthetics of the sketches aside, the proposed development at 209 Hudson Street is
“more of the same” — cramming as many rental units as possible onto a small lot. He
said of the existing house: “It’s an amazing house on an amazing lot: It really nails the
character of the hill, and there aren’t many of these places left.” He said he has lived on
South Hill with his family for about 20 years, and has seen “what was a slow-motion
crash go into hyper-drive.” He concluded that it looks like there will be no check on
development, at least not with this proposal.
Christian McKeithen, 329 Pleasant Street, added her voice against the proposed
development. She said she has lived on South Hill with her family for about 10 years. She
said she was “astounded” to hear that the variance is being pursued, and she thinks it
seems like every square inch of South Hill that can be filled is being filled. She said that
while she understands the need for housing, she has seen problems in the neighborhood
[related to rentals]. She also said that it doesn’t seem like the proposed development will
resemble her household, which is home to a family with a child. Rather, there will be 18
individuals living in the three buildings, and she observed, “Eighteen people with a
dumpster does not equal the house I live in with a nice porch. The most I know of is
seven across the street, a family with five kids. Everywhere else, it’s three or four
[people] — It’s families.” She expressed frustration, saying “to have fought the fight we
fought, and then have this come up, feels like a slap in the face.”
Marin Clarkberg, 150 Giles Street (directly behind 209 Hudson Street), spoke against
the proposed development. She said that 209 is her favorite house in the neighborhood.
She has lived at her present home for 20 years, and frequently daydreamed of
“upgrading” to it if it were to come up for sale. She described it as “a desirable home,”
“an anchor,” and “a landmark.” She said that she is, however, in favor of increasing
urban density and providing more housing in and around the downtown. She said she
supported City Center, and said she supports replacing ground level parking lots and
undersized buildings with little visual appeal with apartments. She contrasted those types
of projects with this proposed project that she said “will take one of the finest examples
of a stately Hudson Street home and diminish it.” She said that the proposed project is
“not the way to achieve desirable, sustainable urban density.” She remarked that the lot
and the house are well proportioned to one another, especially since the two houses
adjacent are “hugging their property lines.” She said the neighborhood is already “stuffed
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
12
to the gills with student apartments.” She suggested that “if there is a keen need to
increase density on lower South Hill, let it take the place of a run-down and poorly-
adapted structure, of which there are many.” She also expressed concern about storm
water runoff, as it drains down-hill from the site and flows down James Street
(unimproved) and affects both her and her neighbors.
Janet Fortess, 225 Columbia Street & Kenn Young, 228 Columbia Street, read verbatim
a letter previously submitted to the Board, expressing Young’s concerns about, and his
opposition to, the proposed development at 209 Hudson Street. In short, the letter argued
that the proposed project will have negative effects on the environment and on the
character of the neighborhood.
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, President of the South Hill Civic Association, said that
he wishes East Hill residents had been as articulate and organized about standing up for
the interests of their neighborhood, when he was growing up, as the South Hill residents
are today, because now the stately homes on East Hill are all gone, converted into rental
units. He said that the Association has been waiting for the completion of a
comprehensive neighborhood plan for South Hill. He said that neighborhood residents
have watched for many years as conditions have deteriorated. He added that they are
optimistic, however, that the plan developed for South Hill will “embrace the most
valued elements of our neighborhood,” and guide growth “appropriately.” He then urged
the Planning Board to withhold its support for the proposed project at 209 Hudson Street
until the Planning Department can develop a neighborhood plan for South Hill.
Cynthia Brock, First Ward Alderperson, said of the design, “It really is pretty,” but she
continued, “It’s not really all about appearances.” She said that the intent of the Overlay
Zone was to help preserve a family-oriented neighborhood. She noted that the parcel in
question is four blocks from an elementary school and is one of the few locations in the
City where parents can walk their children to school. She said, “More and more of this
neighborhood is being lost to families who no longer have the opportunity or desire to
live there.” She said that the subdivision is an end-run around the intention of the Overlay
Zone. She said that the concerns of the neighborhood relate to density, to having a
family-oriented neighborhood. She said that having the back building obscured by trees
does not address the concerns of having more people in the neighborhood, of having
more parties in the neighborhood. She said she’s also concerned that the developer has
situated Building C 50-50 in the existing ROW on the property. She said there seems to
be a disregard of the agreements the property owner has with others in the community.
Jen MacLaughlin, 409 Hudson Street, said she moved with her husband and five-year-
old son to Hudson Street about a year and a half ago. She said they were new to Ithaca
and moved to South Hill because they thought it was a family-friendly neighborhood. She
said it’s been hard to explain to their son, “why his snowman has been knocked down” or
why there are beer bottles all over their yard. She said that 209 Hudson Street is a
gateway to the neighborhood, with a stately lawn and beautiful trees. She said that the
new housing being proposed is not going to be “family friendly” and that she fears a
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
13
“domino effect” for other properties in the neighborhood. She also noted that it’s in
“direct opposition to what the neighborhood wants.” She said that she has had positive
interactions with her student neighbors through intentional and collaborative interactions.
She concluded by expressing her son’s desire to “save the trees.”
Diane Miller, 635 Hudson Street, said she is probably one of the longest-term residents
of Hudson Street, since her parents brought her home from the hospital to the house two
days after being born about 50 years ago. She said that about ten years ago she spent
about $400,000 to make her 150-year-old Greek revival farmhouse handicapped
accessible so her father could continue to live there after he suffered a stroke. She said
that the last time she appeared at a Public Hearing in City Hall was about 30 years ago,
and it was to oppose a City proposal to straighten the street and remove numerous trees
so that “people could go 45 mph past an elementary school.” She said that at that time,
Common Council had listened to the concerns of the neighbors and worked with them,
and instead put stop signs up at the corner of Coddington Road, Hudson Street Extension
and at the corner of Columbia Street. She said that it is still a family neighborhood and
asked the Board to please listen to the concerns of the neighbors. She said that she (like
Jen MacLaughlin) also works with college students, so it’s not that she doesn’t like
students; but she concluded: “We need our neighborhood.”
David Beer, on behalf of his parents who live at 211 Hudson Street, said his parents
moved to the neighborhood about 20 years ago and enjoyed being neighbors with the
Russoffs (former residents of 209) “mostly because they were so quiet,” adding, “that
seems like it may be changing.” He said that when this house went on the market, it
wasn’t thought likely that a landlord would buy the property to develop it, “so they didn’t
worry much about that prospect.” He said that when they learned that it would be going
to a developer, they made an offer in an attempt to be able to direct what might happen
with the property, but that didn’t work out. He continued by saying that his parents
probably would not be in their current home much longer, and that he has considered
moving his own family to the home, but “if there are 18 students next door, the quality of
life we can expect will be diminished, and that will impact my ideas about moving there.”
He also mentioned concerns about the “Old Lane,” and said that he’s not sure what
control the City has over easements or if it is strictly a civil matter, but that they would be
“exploring their options” regarding the ROW.
Blalock invited any member of the public who wanted to submit comments / additional
comments to submit them to the Board in writing.
Nicholas said that she would ensure that the Board receives any comments submitted to
her and offered cards to anyone who needs contact information.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by
Elliott, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Jones-Rounds suggested that if the current property owner attended a South Hill Civic
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
14
Association meeting, perhaps a compromise could be found with the concerned
neighbors.
Sharma answered the neighbors’ comments regarding the right-of-way, saying that he
had consulted an attorney who suggested that it was “extinguished” because it has been
blocked with a fence on both sides. He said that it is not a continuous use, and that it had
not been in use for a long time. He said that originally Building C had been located
outside of the ROW zone but after consulting with the attorney, it was moved to its
current proposed location.
Some discussion followed about how an architectural design does (or does not) govern
human (student) behavior.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 and Part 3
The Board next reviewed the draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Parts 2 and 3,
suggesting numerous revisions.
The Board requested Santelli to submit a formal drainage plan, including drawings.
Elliott and Jones-Rounds suggested including options for mitigations to offset the
increase in runoff from increased impervious surfaces on the lot (aside from just directing
it into the City storm sewers).
Among other items, the Board discussed adding one paragraph each in the Part 3 sections
titled “Impact on Aesthetic Resources” and “Impact on Historic Resources.”
The Board also suggested Sharma look at making some revisions that would make the
designs more appealing to families: building a single family home, for example, or
modifying the duplex designs so that a family (a couple and a child) could legally live
there. They expressed some concern that because of the size of the bedrooms, it would
not be legal for a couple to share a bedroom under the current design.
Sharma said that the bedroom sizes were determined by the parking requirements; that
once a bedroom is larger than 121 square feet, it is considered suitable for two people,
and additional parking requirements kick in. Board members noted that, instead of there
being three bedrooms per duplex, there could be two — one larger one for a couple to
share, and one smaller one.
Staff and the Board discussed the timeline of the proposal as relates to seeking approvals
from both the BZA and the Planning Board. Sharma said he will be out of town in
February.
At the close of the discussion, the Board recessed for five minutes.
B. Chesterton and Sophia House (Building Addition, Parking and Landscape
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
15
Improvements), 111-115 The Knoll, by Karl Johnston for Chesterton House, Inc.
Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant is proposing
to expand and convert a single family home into a congregate living facility for up to 16
individuals. The expansion will involve the demolition of an existing garage and the
construction of a two-story addition containing 4 bedrooms. Site modifications include
expansion of the existing parking area to connect it to the parking area on the adjacent
115 The Knoll and the installation of walkways, a terrace and patio, bike racks and
lighting. Site development will include the removal of twelve mature trees. The project
requires the consolidation of 115 & 111 the Knoll. The project is in the R-U Zoning
district and the Cornell Heights Historic District and has received a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the ILPC. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(h)[4] and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(9) for which the Lead
Agency made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance on December 19,
2017.
Kate Krueger of STREAM Collaborative reviewed a few minor modifications made to
the drawings (including a key to proposed materials) and alerted the Board to the need to
remove one tree in the rear of the garage to be demolished.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a building addition and landscape
improvements at 111-115 The Knoll by Karl Johnson for Chesterton House Inc., and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to expand and convert a single family home into a
congregate living facility for up to 16 individuals. The expansion will involve the
demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a two-story addition containing 4
bedrooms. Site modifications include expansion of the existing parking area to connect it
to the parking area on the adjacent 115 The Knoll and the installation of walkways, a
terrace and patio, bike racks and lighting. Site development will include the removal of
twelve mature trees. The project requires the consolidation of 115 & 111 The Knoll. The
project is in the R-U Zoning district and the Cornell Heights Historic District and has
received ILPC review and approval, and
WHEREAS: because the project is within the Cornell Heights Historic District, it is a
Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”), §176-1 B. (h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on December 19,
2017 declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
16
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters
276-6 B. (4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on
December 19, 2017, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on
December 19, 2017 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Part 2 prepared by Planning staff;
drawings titled “Boundary and Topographic Map No. 111-115 The Knoll, City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York” dated 11/1/17 and prepared by Darrin A. Brock L.S., “Site
Demo Plan (L100)”, “Layout Plan (L101)”, “Planting Plan (L102)” and “Elevations
(A201 & A202), dated 11/14/17 and prepared by Stream Collaborative; and other
application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on December 19,
2017 determine that the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the
environment and did issue a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: this Board did on January 23, 2018 review and accept as adequate new and
revised drawings titled “Site Demo Plan (L100)”, “Layout Plan (L101)”, “Planting Plan
(L102)”, “Elevations (A201 & A202), and “Site Details (L501)” dated 01/23/18 and
prepared by Stream Collaborative; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval to the project.
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Lewis
Vacancies: One
C. Stewart Park Inclusive Playground, Stewart Park, by Rick Manning for the City of
Ithaca. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, and Review of FEAF Part 2 &
3. The applicant is proposing to construct a new accessible playground with a splash pad,
separate play structures for pre-school and school-aged children, an accessible berm with
a pathway and overlook, two play gardens, several freestanding pieces of play equipment,
a new structure that will contain a covered picnic pavilion, two accessible bathrooms and
storage / office space, and accessible paths linking the playground to other areas of the
park. The project also includes installing a permanent structure to cover the carousel,
reorganization of the adjacent road-side parking areas to add 35 spaces, new plantings,
signage, furnishings and other site improvements. The project is in Stewart Park and the
P-1 Zoning District. This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of
Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2]and (5)
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
17
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(10) and is
subject to environmental review.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead
Agency be established for conducting Environmental Review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for installation of a new playground at Stewart
Park by Rick Manning for the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS: The applicant is proposing to construct a new accessible playground with a
splash pad, separate play structures for pre-school and school-aged children, an
accessible berm with a pathway and overlook, two play gardens, several freestanding
pieces of play equipment, a new structure that will contain a covered picnic pavilion, two
accessible bathrooms and storage / office space, and accessible paths linking the
playground to other areas of the park. The project also includes installing a permanent
structure to cover the carousel, reorganization of the adjacent road-side parking areas to
add 35 spaces, new plantings, signage, furnishings and other site improvements. The
project is in Stewart Park and the P-1 Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2]and (5) and the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(10) and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Dormitory Authority of New York State
(DASNY), the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, and Common Council, all
potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: DASNY, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, and the City of Ithaca
Common Council have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, is by way of this
resolution declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed
project.
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
18
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Johnston, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Lewis
Vacancies: One
Diana Riesman and Rick Manning from Friends of Stewart Park reviewed a few
modifications to the design of the proposed inclusive playground. Most notably, the east
side of the site has been rearranged, with the proposed covered picnic pavilion, two
accessible bathrooms and storage / office space now closer to the south park road, in
order to conform to fire access regulations. Andrew Sciarabba from T.G. Miller was also
on hand to discuss drainage plans and other details.
Schroeder mentioned a few suggestions from the Project Review Committee not
addressed by the applicants, such as making all metal that is not deliberately colorful a
uniform black, selecting a standard stone type for the boulders placed around the site,
same for curbing, etc., to unify various elements of the playground ensemble.
Johnston asked about the material to be used on the carousel roof. The applicants
answered that it will be a clear material. (The applicants agreed to provide samples of the
selected material at a future meeting.) The idea is to be able to leave the carousel intact
year-round, though the City will have to determine a way to wrap the sides to protect it
during the winter. The roof structure will be vented, and the posts below will be painted
black.
Schroeder reiterated his concern that care be taken that the angle and exact location of the
now-missing left-hand diagonal path of the park’s historic layout — with which the
picnic pavilion, restrooms and office of this project are to align — be laid out as
accurately as possible to re-create the historic condition. He asked for a larger scale,
larger-format drawing showing the proposed placement of this path in the broad context
of the main and Wharton pavilions, the flagpole and the existing right-hand diagonal
road, so that the accuracy of this placement can be assessed. (Actual construction of this
path is not proposed as part of this project, but as a part of a future construction phase).
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Johnston, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
Chelsea Hill, 1398 Elmira Road, Town of Newfield, member of the playground design
committee, said that the new inclusive playground will give her daughter independence
when she plays alongside her friends. She said that, currently, her family is separated at
the playground, as her husband has to carry their daughter to slides and swings while Hill
is involved with their other children. She said that her daughter’s wheelchair wheels sink
in the grass and woodchips so that even at age six, she has to be carried from structure to
structure. She said that currently she cannot bring her daughter to the playground without
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
19
her husband’s help because Hill cannot carry her six-year-old for as long as the latter
would like to play. She said that the new inclusive design would allow her daughter to
move around freely alongside her peers and sisters and would enable Hill to take all her
children to the playground even when her husband is not available to assist. She said that
the new playground would remove limits and allow her daughter to be herself, and be
free in her own body.
Greg Hartz, 49 Blackchin Boulevard, Village of Lansing, said that he has been working
with the Friends of Stewart Park to help raise funds for the project. He spoke about the
value of Stewart Park to the community and said that it’s sometimes possible to take it for
granted, but if you take a look at what the park has to offer, it’s unique in the Finger
Lakes. He said that improvements to the park will improve the quality of life for
everybody. He added that his wife, who works at the Franziska Racker Center as a
pediatric physical therapist, said that this new inclusive playground may be the only
totally inclusive playground in the area (many are partly inclusive, but this one is fully
so). He expressed his support for the project, and said that many individuals,
organizations and businesses have already pledged financial support for the project, as
well.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by
Johnston, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 and Part 3
The Board next reviewed these two environmental review documents.
With regard to both forms, Schroeder noted that Stewart Park as a whole is a historic
resource — its layout, the main and Wharton pavilions, the flagpole, etc. — and not just
the Cascadilla Boathouse, though only the latter is designated as such.
D. Waterfront Project – Sketch Plans
Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative updated the Board on the sketch plans for the
Johnson Boatyard site (Pier Road and Willow Avenue) and the former Cornell Press
buildings (750 and 770 Cascadilla Street). Regarding the Johnson Boatyard site,
Demarest said that it is effectively an “island,” cut off by Route 13 and the railway line,
that there is only one way in and out, and that it will be something of a destination (with
the golfing and boating facilities). Because of that, he asked the Board to consider that
the site will be accessed primarily by car and that it might be difficult to achieve a vision
of urban fabric extending right to the waterfront as a result.
Demarest then presented some new drawings of the Johnson Boatyard proposal, which
showed the proposed Guthrie Medical building now positioned forthrightly along Willow
Avenue and the parking areas tamed by an access road lined by sidewalks and street trees
resembling a regular Ithaca City street.
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
20
Those Board members who voiced reactions agreed that this new site plan was a
significant improvement over last month’s.
Demarest next discussed plans for the new GreenStar Co-Op proposed for the former
Cornell Press warehouse site located some distance north of Cascadilla Street, west of
Route 13. He displayed some drawings of the proposed development, including interior
plans.
Schroeder noted that the site is just across Route 13 from residential neighborhoods, and
that a sidewalk should be provided from Cascadilla Street to the store’s front door for
those who choose to (or must) walk to access the store. He reminded the applicants that
not everyone has a car. For buildings internal to a site, he added, the Planning Board
always requires a site sidewalk that links the building to the nearest street-side public
sidewalk.
6. Zoning Appeals
The Board discussed the following Zoning Appeals and agreed to forward the following
recommendations to the BZA:
Appeal # 3086 — 106 E. Court Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Arthur Lustgarten and Barbara Platek for an area variance from Section 325-8
Column 4, Off-Street Parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. The property at 106 E.
Court Street is classified as a legal non-conforming use in an R-3a zone district. The property
contains professional offices and one-two bedroom apartment. On July 1, 1974 two variance
were approved for the property. A use variance for the office space and an area variance for
parking. The area variance was approved for 12 parking to be located more than the required
750 foot maximum distance from the property. In 1989, the then owners David and Mary
Long, appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals for relief from the parking conditions
imposed by the 1974 variance. Variance 1883, was granted on January 5, 1989 which reduced
the parking requirement from 12 parking spaces to 7 and allowed the parking spaces to be
located in a less restrictive zone than where the property is located. In 1991, the property was
sold to the applicant who received a 10 year parking arrangement for seven parking spaces
that were located at 110 W. Seneca Street.
At a recent housing inspection, the Housing Inspector requested a lease for the parking as
required by the zoning variance granted in 1989. The applicant, in an attempt to obtain the
lease for the parking, found that the parking spaces were no longer available. Subsequently,
the applicant sent letters to property owners within 750 feet of the property asking if they had
any available spaces for rent. There was no response to the request from the nearby property
owners. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the 7 parking spaces, in order to
bring the property into compliance with the zoning ordinance.
The property is located in an R-3a residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted by variance. However, Section 325-39 requires that a variance be granted before a
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
21
Certificate of Compliance is issued.
The Planning Board supports approval of this appeal, as this is one of the oldest buildings in
Ithaca and was moved to its current site from another location. The Board questions why the
façade easement referenced in the 1974 variance was never done – and if it would be
possible and beneficial to enact it now as a protection for the building.
Note: After this recommendation was made, planning staff consulted with Bryan McCracken,
the City’s Historic Preservation Planner. McCracken stated that because the building is
within the local Dewitt Park Historic District, any changes to the exterior would be subject to
ILPC review and approval.
Appeal #3087 — 607 N. Aurora Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Charlie O’Connor on behalf of the owner 607 S. Aurora St., LLC for an Area
Variance from Section 325-29.3, Dumpster placement in an R-2 zone. The applicant proposes
to install a dumpster at the property located at 607 S. Aurora Street. The property was
recently developed and now contains four new 2 family dwellings. The owner has found that
having individual garbage containers and recycling bins for the eight rental units has become
unsightly and impractical to manage. Therefore, the applicant would like to place two
dumpster on the property, enclosed with solid fencing, to service the tenants’ needs. The
zoning ordinance, Section 325-29.3, requires properties that are located in the R-1 and R-2
zone district to pursue a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals prior to the placement of
a dumpster in the zone district.
The property is located in an R-2a residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a
building permit is issued.
The Planning Board supports approval of this variance. A central trash and recycling area
improves this site — which houses 20+ student residents.
Appeal #3088 — 920 N. Tioga Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Burke Carson on behalf of the owner Ian Greer and Virginia Doellgast for an Area
Variance from Section 325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage, Column 11, Front Yard, and
Column 12, Other Front Yard requirements of zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to
construct a 52 square addition to the southwest corner of the single family dwelling located at
920 N. Tioga Street. The addition will be as a three season room by the owners. The one story
addition will be located at the rear corner of the dwelling and will parallel the existing side
and rear of the building. The footprint of the addition will increase the lot coverage by
building from 41.5% to 42.8%. The zoning ordinance allows a maximum of 35% lot coverage
by building. There are existing deficiencies in both front yards of this corner lot that will not
be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a
building permit is issued.
Approved by the Planning Board February 27, 2018
22
The Planning Board supports approval of this variance because it is a small addition in an
area that is not visible from either street.
7. Old / New Business
A. Review of Agenda for Special Meeting on January 30, 2018
Schroeder noted that the agenda for the January 30, 2018 Special Meeting says
“Wednesday.” Nicholas confirmed that it is supposed to read, “Tuesday.”
8. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Chair Blalock reported that he had sent a memo to the Mayor regarding Planning Board
membership (the BPW liaison position is vacant) and term renewals (five members
whose terms have expired would like to continue serving).
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
Cornish reported that there has been some discussion with Zoning Administrator Gino
Leonardi about moving the responsibility for granting special use permits from the BZA
to the Planning Board, because these are more in line with the work the Planning Board
already does. She gave examples of reviewing community gardens or bed and breakfasts.
She said that the BZA only dealt with about six such cases last year, so it would not add
significantly to the Planning Board workload.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
No report (liaison position vacant).
9. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the revised draft December 19, 2017
meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Johnston, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Lewis
Vacancies: One
10. Adjournment
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.