Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2008-06-16 FILE ....�,,. DATE Zoning Board of Appeals 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Monday, June 16 , 2008 7 : 00 PM Present Board Members : Harry Ellsworth , Vice Chairman ; Ron Krantz, David Mountin Andrew Dixon , alternate ; Susan Mann , alternate . Staff Members : Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk ; Susan Brock , Attorney for the Town ; Christine Balestra , Planner; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering . Excused Kirk Sigel , Chairman ; James Niefer. Others Rick Couture , Howard Blaisdell , Herman Sieverding , Melinda Staniszewska . Call to Order Vice Chairman Ellsworth called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p . m . He welcomed everyone to the June meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals and announced there was one appeal before the board . Appeal of Ithaca College , Owner/Appellant, Richard Couture , Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article IX, Section 270=70 of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to construct buildings and light poles that exceed the maximum allowable height for structures in a Medium Density Residential Zone . The proposed structures are part of the Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center project located on the Ithaca College Campus , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 's 41 = 1 -30 . 2 and 42 = 1 -9 .2 , Medium Density Residential ( MDR) Zone . The overall proposal includes the construction of a field house , a rowing facility, weight training facilities , and aquatics center building , a landscaped plaza , six outdoor tennis courts , an all -weather turf field with seating and lighting, new and expanded parking facilities , new roads and walkways , new and expanded storm water facilities , and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. The Town Code restricts the maximum allowable height for buildings in the MDR Zone to 36 feet in height from the lowest exterior grade and 38 feet in height from the lowest interior grade , whichever is lower. Further, no structure other than a building in the MDR zone shall be erected , altered , or extended to exceed 30 feet in height. Height variances are therefore needed for the proposed field house/tower/aquatics center building ( 62ft , 175ft, and 45ft tall respectively) , the four proposed light poles for the turf field (two at 90ft tall , two at 100ft tall ) , and the six proposed light poles for the tennis courts ( each 50ft tall ). 1 Zoning Board of Appeals June 16 , 2008 Final Vice Chairman Ellsworth opened up discussion of the appeal by asking where the functions for the building are currently held and what the problem with current facilities is . Rick Couture , Ithaca College Mr. Couture responded that the College has outgrown the Hill Center, which currently houses an indoor pool , basketball court , gymnastics/wrestling area , and is the overall indoor events center. The building is over 45 years old and the College currently does not have indoor track facilities on campus . They are currently utilizing Cornell ' :; indoor track facilities . In keeping with their Master Plan , an Athletics and Events Center was scheduled to be built after the School of Business and Gateway buildings were complete . The building will provide college athletes with on-campus facilities for practice and games . Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked for a comparison in size between the existing and proposed facilities . Mr. Couture answered that the current facility is approximately 80 , 000 square feet and the proposed facility ( including the indoor track , swimming pool , basketball arena , etc ) will be approximately 300 , 000 square feet . He further explained that the indoor track is approximately 130 , 000 square feet . Vice Chairman Ellsworth announced that the alternates , Susan Mann and Andrew Dixon , would be voting on the appeal that evening . He solicited comments from the applicant . Mr. Couture explained that Ithaca College is requesting a height variance for the Athletics and Events Center. He introduced Howard Blaisdell and Herman Sieverding to the board , who were with him that evening to answer any questions , and then asked Mr. Blaisdell to give the board a brief overview of the project . Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked Mr. Blaisdell to explain the tower and its features . Mr. Blaisdell explained that at the time they were designing the building , they wanted it to be very sustainable and functional for the college . The main fieldhouse needs to have a clear space of about 30 to 40 feet . The fieldhouse is 240 feet across due to the width of the indoor track and is also the size of an indoor lacrosse field , field hockey , soccer; there is also space for seating . When looking at the size of the fieldhouse , they recognized that to heat or cool the space of that volume takes a lot of energy and air. Early in the design phase they started to think about conditioning the space to be energy efficient for the building . One solution was to take advantage of the natural stack affect of warm air rising and cool air coming in and ventilating . They then studied what has been done in Europe and other areas as to how to bring cool air into the building , allow the warm air to rise within the space and exhaust out the top . Mr. Blaisdell explained that the lower portion of the tower is an air intake to bring cool air into the building and by having it 20 feet above the roof structure they are able to get cleaner air. Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked how the air would be introduced . Mr. Blaisdell explained that it is done through the natural buoyancy of the air; there is no Page 2 of 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 16 , 2008 Final mechanical means for bringing in or exhausting the air out of the tower. The air is brought in at about 20 feet about the roof and drops and is spread through the fieldhouse at the field level . There is supplemental heating and cooling for the bottom 15 feet of the fieldhouse . He explained that they are taking advantage of warm air rising through the space and is picked up at the eave and exhausted through the top of the tower. The engineers have done a modeling study to determine that if there is 35 feet of height between the air intake and the air exhaust , a difference in air pressure can be created to allow the warm air to be pulled out of the building and pulls the cool air into the building . The tower was designed to work with heights required to get the difference in air pressure . The entire fieldhouse can be cooled and ventilated without the air conditioning when the temperature is between 45 and 85 degrees . Vice Chairman Ellsworth noted that tower is going to be visible because it is setting on a hill . Mr. Blaisdell agreed , but explained that the height of the eave of the tower is the same height ( in terms of grade ) as the top of the Garden Apartments . The top of the tower is halfway up the height of the tower residence halls . Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked if the College has a metrological tower studying the wind currents in the area . Mr. Blaisdell explained that a tower was not used and they used wind speed measurements done at the airport , other measurements done in the area , and prevailing wind studies of the area were used in the tower modeling . Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked what the height of the tower is . Mr. Blaisdell explained that the top of the tower is 175 feet above the base of the field house . Mr. Couture added that the board ' s packet included a letter from the engineering firm that conducted the study and it provides more detailed information . Ms . Mann asked what percentage of time the wind tower would be providing the primary source of heating and cooling versus the HVAC system . Mr. Blaisdell did not have that information available , but knew that there is a significant amount of time when the tower will function , support or supplement heating and cooling . Mr. Krantz asked how the tower would impact the surrounding areas . Mr. Blaisdell explained that the tower included in the environmental impact study. The Planning Board agreed that the tower was not a negative impact on the surrounding area . Mr. Krantz, referring to the GML-239 review letter from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , stated that Mr. Marx said it was an impact . Mr. Blaisdell , also referring to the letter, said that the letter was referring to the lighting of the tower. He explained that the tower has three different types of materials on it . It has gloss , which is mostly on the cool air portion of the building ; it has various louvers for the air intake and exhaust ; it has metal panels for the bulk of the height of the tower. The tower will not be lit from the outside of the building ; floodlights are not being used on the outside of the building . They are lighting the tower from the inside to create a soft glow in the glass and on the ends of the tower. He reiterated that there are no external lights on the tower and that the lighting complies with the Dark Skies Initiative and Town Page! 3 of 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 16 , 2008 Final lighting laws . It is also anticipated that the building will meet LEED silver certification requirements and as part of it , the applicant has been pursuing the lighting credit . Ms . Mann wondered why the tower needed to be lit . Mr. Blaisdell responded that it is important for the nature of the building that it creates some identity for the campus . The building needs to be seen within the surrounding areas of Ithaca College as far as people approaching the building and seeing it from various parking areas on campus . It is part of the nature of the building to have some glow or some light to make sure it is an attractive building day and night . Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked if aircraft warning lights were needed . Mr. Blaisdell responded that they are below the 200 foot threshold requirement for lights . Mr. Dixon confirmed the building would be available for outside functions and noted that it is difficult to find a place to hold large functions . Vice Chairman Ellsworth commented that the location of the tower is an exposed location . Mr. Couture responded that the tower residence halls are much taller than the tower. Mr. Mountin asked what precautions have been taken to minimize light trespass from the stadium lighting . Mr. Blaisdell explained they are using Musco Light Structure Green and the particular light fixtures being used have a 50 percent greater cutoff than the previous generation of lights . The height of the poles has a direct relationship to how much glare is visible from off-site . The national standard recommends the lights be pointed at least 10 degrees below horizon so that the glare is minimized . Poles at 90 and 100 feet allow for greater light cutoff because the lights can be aimed more down and more horizontal . Mr. Mountin asked what the modeling results are for people who live at the bottom of the hill . Mr. Blaisdell replied that it has been located as far back as possible from the neighbors . Light modeling studies were done to determine how much light would trespass—less than a half foot candle at the property line and below that at neighboring properties . The lights will not be at full capacity most of the time . Mr. Mountin followed up with a question regarding the position of the speakers . Mr. Blaisdell said that they are in the final stages of speaker placement, but as part of the EIS they did anticipate one speaker being pointing towards the seats . Their studies so far indicate that they will be below the ambient noise level at the property line . Mr. Mountin wondered if stadium seating will be placed on the other side at a later date . Mr. Blaisdell explained that there are thoughts of moving the outdoor track to this location and if that occurs there will not space for east side bleachers . Mr. Couture added that the most people they have at an event ( other than football ) is approximately 1 , 000 and they don 't anticipate that number growing . Mr. Blaisdell reviewed that the indoor facility was available for tennis , track and field , and practice location for baseball , softball , football , and soccer. The outdoor field would be available for lacrosse , field hockey , and soccer. Page 4 of 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 16 , 2008 Final There being no further questions , Vice Chairman Ellsworth opened the public hearing at 7 : 33 p . m . Melinda Staniszewska , 220 Coddington Road Ms . Staniszewska appeared before the board and commented that she thought the College had not considered the community and the MDR zoning . The College is asking for a lot of variances that will affect a lot of people in the area . Ms . Staniszewska explained she was a noise control specialist with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the hillside is going to seem like a megaphone with sound across the valley. She was not sure if architects and construction has ever taken sound and location into consideration . Ms . Staniszewska thought the Planning Board did the Town a disservice by not having the College consider other sites . It was at one point discussed that the project was encompassing too many things in one location and that the events center could have been sited in the middle of campus or off 96B where there is commercial zoning adjoining the campus . She reiterated that the College had not considered its impact on the MDR zoning and its use is going to have a commercial aspect to it . There are many issues and she does not know what can be done at this point in time . With no one else interested in speaking , Vice Chairman Ellsworth closed the: public hearing at 7 : 35 p . m . Ms . Brock reminded the board that they are looking at height variances and issues of sound are not within the purview of that . She clarified that the board would be making findings as they relate to the requested height variances . Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked the board what questions they had related to the height variance . Mr. Dixon asked if anyone knew the height of the lights on the soccer field located on Pine Tree Road ; there is minimal light spillage off the field . Ms . Balestra could not recall . Mr. Dixon asked how many night events were anticipated . Mr. Couture responded that the outdoor field would probably be used on a nightly basis during the fall and spring . He stressed that the lights would be turned off at 11 p . m . Mr. Blaisdell added the lights can be controlled remotely and they are on a timer. Ms . Brock reminded the applicant that the law states that the activity needs to be completed by 10 : 30 p . m . and the lights shutoff no later than 11 : 00 p . m . Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked for clarification regarding the Environmental Assessment . Ms . Brock explained the board needed to make findings through a Findings Statement. Planning staff prepared a draft Finding Statement for the board to consider ( provided in board packets ) ; they also prepared a draft resolution adopting the Findings Statement for the board ' s consideration . Page 5 of 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 16 , 2008 Final Ms . Brock noted she had two corrections to the Findings Statement ; page 4 , under Discussion and Findings paragraph 2 , 3rd line from the bottom "filed lighting" should be "field lighting " and page 5 , Certification No . 2 , 2nd line strike "the" before the word "one" . With no further discussion , Mr. Mountin moved that the board adopted the proposed resolution and Mr. Dixon seconded . Vote - unanimous . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-038 : SEQR — Adoption of Findings Statement, Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center, Ithaca College Campus Near Coddin_gton Road, Tax Parcel No. 's 41 - 1 -30. 2 and 42- 1 -9. 2, Height Variances Moved by David Mountin, Seconded by Andrew Dixon . WHEREAS: 1 . This project includes a request for variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270- 70 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct buildings and light poles that exceed the maximum allowable height for structures in a Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed structures are part of the Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center project located on the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 's 41 - 1 -30. 2 and 42- 1 -9. 2, Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone . The overall proposal includes the construction of a field house, a rowing facility, weight training facilities, and aquatics center building, a landscaped plaza, six outdoor tennis courts, an all- weather turf field with seating and lighting, new and expanded parking facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded storm water facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. The Town Code restricts the maximum allowable height for buildings in the MDR Zone to 36 feet in height from the lowest exterior grade and 38 feet in height from the lowest interior grade, whichever is lower. Further, no structure other than a building in the MDR zone shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 30 feet in height. Height variances are therefore needed for the proposed field house/tower/aquatics center building (62ft, 175ft, and 45ft tall respectively), the four proposed light poles for the turf field (two at 90ft tall, two at 100ft tall), and the six proposed light poles for the tennis courts (each 50ft tall). Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent, and 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval and special permit by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and height variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on February 6, 2007, declared its intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, and Page 6 of 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 16 , 2008 Final 4, The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having reviewed the Full Environmental assessment Form (EAF), Part 1 , prepared by Ithaca College, and Parts 2 and 3 of the Full EAF, prepared by the Planning staff, established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Ithaca College athletics and Events Center, as described above, and issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on March 6, 2007, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, for the above referenced action as proposed, and, confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be prepared; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on May 1 , 2007 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the DEIS for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially involved and interested agencies and the public; and 6. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 15, 2007, accepted the revised Final Scoping Document (dated May 9, 2007) and amended by the Planning Board at its meeting on May 15, 2007, as being adequate to define the scope and content of the DEIS for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center; and 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board accepted the DEIS (dated November 27, 2007 and amended January 8, 2008, January 15, 2008 and January 22, 2008, with further changes as discussed at the January 22, 2008 Town Planning Board meeting) as complete on January 22, 2008; and 8. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the DEIS on March 4, 2008, and accepted written comments on the DEIS until March 14, 2008,- and 9. The applicants prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated April 3, 2008, regarding the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, and submitted said FEIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and 10. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on April 22, 2008, accepted the FEIS, dated April 3, 2008 and revised on April 22, 2008, for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, as complete; and 11 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has filed a Notice of Completion of FEIS, issued the FEIS, and distributed the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and the public, as required by 6 NYCRR Parts 617. 9 and 617. 12; and Page 7 of 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 16 , 2008 Final 12, The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 20, 2008, adopted its Findings Statement for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center; and 13. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, on June 16, 2008, has reviewed and discussed a draft Findings Statement regarding the height variances requested by the applicant, dated June 9, 2008, for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1 . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, as an Involved Agency, on June 16, 2008, does hereby adopt the Findings Statement for with respect to the requested height variances for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center; and 2. That having considered the Draft and Final EIS and the relevant documents incorporated therein, and having considered the written facts and conclusions in the Findings Statement relied upon to meet the requirements of Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Parts 617. 9 through 617. 12, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals does hereby certify that: a . The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met; b. Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable . Vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Mountin, Mann, Dixon . NAYS: None . ABSTAIN: None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Ms . Brock noted that the board does not have a proposed resolution for the granting of height variances . Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked if a member of the board would like to move a resolution . Ms . Mann asked if there would need to a supermajority vote because of the letter from the County. Ms . Brock confirmed she was correct and explained that if the board decided not to follow the County' s recommendation they Page 8 of 13 Zoning Board of' Appeals June 16, 2008 Final would need a supermajority vote . The board discussed the County' s letter at length noting that the letter referred to flood lighting , but the tower was only lit internally. Ms . Brock offered to draft a resolution for the board , but Mr. Mountin volunteered to do so . Mr. Mountin moved to grant the appeal of Ithaca College requesting height variances for the proposed fieldhouse , aquatics center, and field light poles as part of Phase I of the Athletics and Events Center with the conditions that the project be built as shown on submitted plans , the fieldhouse not exceed 65 feet in height , the tower not exceed 180 feet in height , the aquatics center not exceed 74 feet in height , two field light poles not exceed 92 feet in height , two field light poles not exceed 102 feet in height , and the 6 and with the findings that the requirements for an area variance had been met, specifically listing how each criteria was met . Mr. Dixon seconded the motion . Vote — carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008=039: Height Variances, Ithaca College, Ithaca Coll2ge Campus, Tax Parcel No. 's 41 . = 1 -30. 2 and 42. 44. 2 Moved by David Mountin, Seconded by Andrew Dixon . RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal for the proposed height variances for the Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center based on the following: Findings : 1 . That there would be no undesirable change because the character of the neighborhood is largely defined by the presence of the Ithaca College campus, 2. That the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another feasible alternative to this variance, mainly for the reason that the activities that will take place within the building dictate a certain structural system in height and similarly the ventilation tower component of the building is designed based on engineering principles relative to passively moving large quantities of air without the aid of mechanical equipment, a key element in the College 's sustainability commitment and is also an energy saving device, 3. Although the request may be substantial, it does not impact the goals, the operations of the energy efficiency of this particular building, there are surrounding facilities that are much higher, namely the Towers, and it does not adversely impact the surrounding community and this factor is outweighed by the other factors, 4. Although the project will have potential environmental impacts they are mitigated by choice of lighting system, structure, design, and location, Page 9 of 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 16 , 2008 Final 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because the nature of the facilities and the programming that needs to go on in them necessitates structures at the heights that they're requesting, and 6. Therefore the board determines in balancing all these factors that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Conditions : 1 . That these project components will be built as shown in the submission to the ZBA, 2. That the height of the fieldhouse will be no more than 65 feet, 3. That the height of the tower will be no more than 180 feet, 4. That the height of the aquatics center will be no more than 47 feet, 5. That the four proposed lights for the turf field will be no more than 92 feet and 102 feet (two poles not to exceed 92 feet and two poles not to exceed 102), and 6. That the six proposed poles for lighting the tennis courts will be no more than 52 feet tall. Vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Mountin, Mann, Dixon . NAYS: None . ABSTAIN: None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Agenda Item : Recommendation to Town Board regarding proposed revisions to the Lakefront Residential Local Law Vice Chairman Ellsworth solicited comments from the board regarding the proposed local law . Mr. Dixon stated that he has a problem with the proposed permitted dock length . He did not understand the issue over a 10 foot increase ( 50 to 60 feet) . Ms . Brock explained that the current law allows 40 feet and allows the Planning Board to vary the length if adequate justification is shown ; however, it does not give criteria for the Planning Board to apply . Staff inventoried the existing docks and the average was 50 feet ( although there was great variability in dock lengths ) . She went on to say that Page 10 of 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 16 , 2008 Final dock length has been a subject of great debate among Town Board members and are debating between 40 feet and 50 feet . Mr. Dixon pointed out that boats are becoming bigger and that there was not much of a difference between 50 feet and 60 feet . Ms . Balestra answered that the Zoning Board could recommend permitting a 60 foot dock length to the Town Board . She expanded upon the debate among Codes and Ordinances Committee members and Town Board members regarding permitable dock lengths . Ms . Mann asked if docks over the legal length would be grandfathered in . Ms . Balestra confirmed that they would and explained that any docks that are proposed to be longer or extension of existing docks would need to come before the Zoning Board for a variance . Mr. Dixon noticed that cabanas were not allowed . Ms . Brock corrected that cabanas were not allowed on the shoreline ; they have to meet the 25 foot setback . Mr. Ellsworth was bothered by the argument of people stating that they pay a lot of taxes to have a view of the lake and complain when something impedes their view when it turns out that their view is only affected minimally. Ms . Brock explained that the idea of not allowing boathouses and cabanas on the shoreline was due to protecting views from neighboring properties. She added that all comments from the West Shore Homeowners Association were incorporated into the draft revisions of the law except for the dock length . The board reviewed the dock survey conducted by Town staff and discussed the various dock lengths permitted . Ms . Mann stated that the question for the Town should be what is regarded as being reasonable for residential accepting that boats are always going to get bigger versus what really belongs in a commercial marina . Ms . Brock said it is a little bit more than that because the draft that the boat needs depends on the type of boat—sailboats need more than a motorboat . She added that COC and the Town Board were thinking along those same lines and instead of letting the docks grow to meet bigger boat requirements that people could have moorings . The resident is also able to come before the Zoning Board for a variance . Mr. Dixon wondered if buying a bigger boat would be considered a self-created hardship . Mr. Mountin asked if the average surface area of the docks in the survey was 300 square feet . Ms . Balestra replied that it was not . The average surface area for docks on East Shore was 316 . 5 square feet and the West Shore docks surface area was 440 square feet . Mr. Dixon understood that there was not a conforming lot on the west side of the lake . Ms . Balestra corrected that there are a couple of large lots on the west side of the lake . Mr. Mountin asked if a dock is rebuilt , would the owner have to conform to 300 square feet . Ms . Balestra explained if the dock that they have is in disrepair and it is repaired Page 11 of 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June '16 , 2008 Final within one year then it can be replaced in kind . Mr . Mountin commended the work staff did regarding the dock material provided to the board . Mr. Dixon asked if the board was supposed to pass a resolution regarding the proposed local law. Ms . Brock responded that the Zoning Board could make a recommendation to the Town Board regarding any changes they wanted to see in the law. Mr. Dixon stated that he would like to recommend changing the length of the dock to 60 feet . Vice Chairman Ellsworth suggested that he move a resolution to that affect . Ms . Brock suggested that the board recommend to the Town Board the law be adopted as proposed with the modification that dock lengths should be increased to 60 feet . Mr. Krantz seconded . Vote — Ellsworth , Krantz, Dixon aye , Mountin nay, Mann abstain . Motion carried . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-040: Recommendation to the Ithaca Town Board, Proposed Lakefront Residential Local Law Moved by Andrew Dixon, Seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board recommends that the Town Board adopted the law as proposed with the modification that the dock lengths should be increased to 60 feet. Vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Dixon . NAYS: Mountin . ABSTAIN: Mann . The motion was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS Vice Chairman Ellsworth noted that the board has two new alternates and asked that they give their background to the board . He started by giving his background--he ' s serving his 3rd term on the board , is a licensed mechanical engineer in a couple states , and is currently designing sprinkler systems . Mr. Dixon stated that he was self- employed and he mostly works in the development of commercial real estate . Vice Chairman Ellsworth explained that some members of the board go on 'winter vacation for several weeks or months at a time and he had suggested several year's ago that there be alternates for when there are absences . Ms . Mann introduced herself and stated that she completed her MBA and Master' s of Management of Hospitality at Cornell University. Her firm is located in Boston and she telecommutes from homes . The work they do is focused on public lands , hospitality , Page 12 of 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 16 , 2008 Final recreation , and providing business and financial advisory services to Federal agencies . She is a Chartered Financial Analyst and is passionate about Ithaca her new home . Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked Mr. Mountin and Mr. Krantz to introduce themselves as well . Mr. Mountin stated that he is self-employed and is currently consulting to Renovous Energy and construction management for Ithaca Housing Authority on a project involving new furnaces , toilets , and new elevators for 400 complexes . Mr. Krantz explained he practiced oral surgery in Ithaca for 43 years and has been retired for 3 years . Vice Chairman Ellsworth briefly stated that board member Jim Niefer is an electrical engineer retired from NYSEG . Kirk Sigel , the chairman , is self- employed and his company provides software for timing events for sporting events . Ms . Balestra brought the board ' s attention to the training information provided to them in their packet . Adjournment Vice Chairman Ellsworth adjourned the meeting at 8 : 34 p . m . I r *07h arty Ells orth , Vice C airman Aa �bUlt Carrie Coates Mitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk Page 13 of 13 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JUNE 164 2008 7 : 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, June 16, 2008, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M. , on the following matter: APPEAL of Ithaca College, Owner/Appellant, Richard Couture, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-70 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct buildings and light poles that exceed the maximum allowable height for structures in a Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed structures are part of the Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center project located on the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 's 41 - 1 -30 . 2 and 42 - 1 -9 . 2 , Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone . The overall proposal includes the construction of a field house, a rowing facility, weight training facilities, and aquatics center building, a landscaped plaza, six outdoor tennis courts, an all-weather turf field with seating and lighting, new and expanded parking facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded storm water facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. The Town Code restricts the maximum allowable height for buildings in the MDR Zone to 36 feet in height from the lowest exterior grade and 38 feet in height from the lowest interior grade, whichever is lower. Further, no structure other than a building in the MDR zone shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 30 feet in height. Height variances are therefore needed for the proposed field house/tower/aquatics center building (62ft, 175ft, and 45ft tall respectively) , the four proposed light poles for the turf field (two at 90ft tall , two at 100ft tall) , and the six proposed light poles for the tennis courts (each 50ft tall) . �1 ravf-e 1 The applicants submitted a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithaca College Athletic & Events Center proposal on April 3 , 2008 , per the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency, accepted the FEIS on April 22 , 2008 and adopted its findings statement on May 20, 2008 . The Planning Board also granted Preliminary Site Plan and Special Permit approval , with conditions, at the May 20, 2008 Planning Board meeting. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 : 00 p.m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 607-273 - 1747 Dated : June 6, 2008 Published : June 9, 2008