HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2008-10-27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008
7 : 00 P.M.
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, October 27, 2008 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street
Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters:
APPEAL of Ithaca College, Owner/ Appellant, Richard Couture Associate Vice President of Facilities, Agent,
requesting variances from Chapter 221 (signs) of the Town of Ithaca Code for the proposed Ithaca College
Athletics and Event Center freestanding athletic scoreboard along with two other athletic scoreboards on the
Ithaca College Campus , 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 41 . 4 -30 .2 , 41 . - 1 -24 and 42 . - 1 -9 . 2
Medium Density Residential (MDR) zone. The proposal includes variances from the required height and overall
sign area for a proposed 224+/- square foot scoreboard for the Athletic and Event Center, the existing 400+/-
square foot Butterfield Football Stadium scoreboard and the existing 350+/- square foot Freeman Baseball
Stadium Scoreboard .
APPEAL of Susan and Rolf Verberg, Owners/Appellants requesting an interpretation and/or variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270, Article VI, Section 270-32 , Subsection A(3 ) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be
permitted to construct a new garage on a property located at 680 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel It
24 . - 1 -42 . 2 , an Agricultural (AG) Zone. The proposed garage will encroach into the required side yard setback
of the property.
APPEAL of Kelly Egan and Diana Arnold, Owners/Appellants requesting variances from the requirements of
Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-62 , Subsections B and C, to allow insufficient lot width at the street and
at the front yard setback on a property located at 211 Eldridge Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel It 46 . - 1 - 15 . 7 , a
Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. The lot is located within the Southwoods Subdivision, which received
Planning Board Subdivision Approval in 1989 .
APPEAL of Thomas and Minh Tro Schulenberg, Owners/Appellants requesting variances from the
requirements of minimum lot size and minimum lot width. Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-73 , Subsection
A and C of the Town of Ithaca Code, to allow a property to remain with insufficient minimum lot size and
minimum lot width at the front yard setback line. The property is located at 1462 Hanshaw Road , Tax parcel #
70. - 10-3 . 10, a Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone.
APPEAL of Robert Platt Owner/Appellant requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article
VIII, Section 270-60 Subsection C of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to allow an illegal existing shed
addition attached to a garage that encroaches on the required side yard setback requirement . The property is
located at 319 King Road W. , Tax parcel # 37 . - 1 - 1 , a Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone.
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 hearings.
Bruce W. Bates
Director of Code Enforcement
607-273 - 1783
Dated: October, 17, 2008
Published: October, 20 , 2008
FILE
DATE
Zoning Board of Appeals
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Monday, October 27 , 2008
7 : 00 PM
Present
Board Members : Kirk Sigel ( Chairperson ) , Harry Ellsworth , James Niefer, David
Mountin , Susan Mann ( alternate ) .
Staff Members : Carrie Coates Whitmore , First Deputy Town Clerk ; Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town ; Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement;
Christine Balestra , Planner.
Excused Ron Krantz, Board member; Andrew Dixon , alternate .
Others Robert and Denise Pratt , Ed Mazza , David Herrick , Rick Couture ,
Kristin Gutenberger, Susan and Rolf Verberg , Betty Borte , Donald
Bilderback , Shirley Egan .
Call to Order
Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p . m . He welcomed everyone to
the October meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals and announced
there were five appeals before the board .
With the absence of Board Member Ron Krantz, Susan Mann would be acting as a
voting member of the board for the evening .
APPEAL of Robert Pratt Owner/Appellant requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270 , Article VIII , Section 270=60 Subsection C of the
Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to allow an illegal existing shed addition
attached to a garage that encroaches on the required side yard setback
requirement. The property is located at 319 King Road W. , Tax parcel # 37 . - 11 - 1 , a
Low Density Residential ( LDR) Zone .
Mr. Pratt introduced himself to the board and Chairperson Sigel asked if the
encroachment had existed for 20 years . Mr. Pratt responded that it had existed for at
least 20 years . Mr. Niefer noted that the neighboring property that wraps around Mr.
Pratt' s property is owned by the State .
Mr. Mountin asked if there were plans to replace the existing garage and shed . Mr.
Pratt said no . The nonconformity was discovered when they applied for a building
permit to build an addition on the other side of the property .
Mr. Bates explained that the Town is unable to issue a building permit in regards to a
property that is noncompliant under current regulations . However, due to personal
circumstances of Mr. Pratt' s the Code Enforcement Office issued him a building permit
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
based on the fact that Mr. Pratt was seeking a variance for the shed from the Zoning
Board of Appeals .
With no further questions or comments , Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at
7 : 08 p . m . and invited the public to address the board . There being no one , Chairperson
Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 09 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel noted that there was not an environmental assessment form for the
appeal . He moved that the board grant the appeal finding that all criteria for an area
variance had been met and specifically listing how each criterion was met , and with the
conditions that the side yard setback be no less than 2Y2 feet and no further building
occur within the setback without board approval . Mr. Ellsworth seconded . Vote-carried
unanimously.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-065: Area Variance, Robert Pratt, 319 King Road INest,
Tax Parcel No. 37. 44
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth
RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Robert Pratt, requesting a variance
from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article V/ll, Section 270-60, Subsection C of the
Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to allow an existing shed addition attached to a
garage that encroaches on the required side yard setback requirement. The property is
located at 319 King Road West, tax parcel number 37. - 1 - 1 , Low Density Residential
Zone. With the following:
Conditions:
1 . That the side yard setback be no less than 2% feet; and
2. That no further structure be built within the required side yard setback without
further variance approval from this board.
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. Specifically:
1 . The benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other
means feasible given that the applicant would like to retain the use of this shed,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given that the shed has existed for approximately 20 years or
more,
Page 2 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 247 , 2008
Final
3. That while the request is substantial, that nonetheless the benefit to the applicant
does outweigh any detriment to the community,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given its
long time existence here, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the applicant purchased
this house recently and the shed was an existing part of the property.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin, Mann .
NAYS: None .
Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPEAL of Ithaca College , Owner/Appellant, Richard Couture Associate Vice
President of Facilities , Agent, requesting variances from Chapter 221 (signs ) of
the Town of Ithaca Code for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Event
Center freestanding athletic scoreboard along with two other athletic
scoreboards on the Ithaca College Campus , 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel # 41 . - 1 -30 . 29 41 . = 1 -24 and 42 . = 1 -9 .2 Medium Density Residential ( MDR) zone .
The proposal includes variances from the required height and overall sign area
for a proposed 224+/= square foot scoreboard for the Athletic and Event Center,
the existing 400 +/= square foot Butterfield Football Stadium scoreboard and the
existing 350 +/= square foot Freeman Baseball Stadium Scoreboard .
Chairperson Sigel announced that he would have to recuse himself from voting on -the
new scoreboard because of a conflict of interest . He discussed the conflict with Ms .
Brock and it was determined that he could vote and participate in the discussion for the
existing signs , but not the new sign .
Dave Herrick and Rick Couture appeared before the board and gave a brief overview of
the existing scoreboards .
Mr. Ellsworth confirmed that the existing signs were before the board because they
were replaced in 2004 without board approval . Chairperson Sigel asked if Ithaca
College knew how the size of the previous signs related to the existing signs . Mr.
Couture explained that they do not—Ithaca College was not able to find information
regarding the previous signs .
Ms . Mann asked how often the scoreboards need to be replaced . Mr. Couture expected
to get 20 to 30 years out of the existing signs .
Chairperson Sigel asked if staff had any comments . Mr. Bates explained that he wrote
on the public notice that a variance from Chapter 221 of Signs was needed . In Ms .
Page 3 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
Balestra ' s memo to the board , she included the requirements of height and overall sign
area . He added that the reason he referenced Chapter 221 was because Ithaca
College was requesting a variance for height , size , lights , and things of that nature from
the Code .
Chairperson Sigel noted a short environmental assessment form was needed . Ms .
Brock informed the board that all three signs would need to be voted on under SEO� R to
prevent segmenting .
Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing for all signs at 7 : 21 p . m . and invited the
public to address the board . There being none , he closed the public hearing at 7 : 21
p . m .
Ms . Brock suggested Chairperson Sigel excuse himself from voting on the
environmental assessment . Mr. Ellsworth took over as chair and made a motion to
make a negative determination of environmental assessment based upon Part 11 of the
environmental assessment form completed by Town staff.
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-066: Environmental Assessment, Ithaca College
Scoreboards, Ithaca College, 953 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel Nos. 41. - 1 -30. 2, 41 . - 1 - 24,
42. - 1 -9. 2
Motion made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer.
RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental
significance based upon the assessment by Town staff for the appeal of Ithaca College
requesting variances from Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the proposed
Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center freestanding athletic scoreboard and two
other athletic scoreboards on the Ithaca College campus at 953 Danby Road, tax parcel
no. 41 . - 1 -30. 2, 41 . 4 -24, and 42. - 1 -9. 2.
A vote on the motion was called.
AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin, Mann .
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Sigel
The motion was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Sigel resumed as chairperson and moved to grant Ithaca College ' s appeal
regarding the existing scoreboards with limitations on sign height , square footage and
illumination , and finding that all requirements of a sign variance had been met ,
specifically listing how each criterion was met .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-067: Sign Variance, Ithaca College Scoreboards,
Ithaca College, 953 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel Nos. 41 . 4 -24, 42. - 1 -9. 2
Page 4 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Dave Mountin .
RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Ithaca College requesting variances
from Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code for two existing athletic scoreboards on
the Ithaca College Campus, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca tax parcel numbers 141 . - 1 -
24 and 42. - 1 -9. 2, Medium Density Residential zone . The proposal includes variances
from the required height and overall sign area for existing approximately 400 square
foot sign at Butterfield Football Stadium and an existing approximately 350 square foot
sign at the Freeman Baseball Stadium with the following:
Conditions:
1 . That the sign at the Freeman Stadium be no taller than 22 feet and no greater
than 370 square feet,
2. That the sign at Butterfield Stadium be no higher than 30 feet and no larger than
420 square feet,
3. That neither sign be enlarged in any way without approval from the Zoning Board
of Appeals,
4. That the way in which the signs operate now is permitted and a variance where
necessary is granted, but that the signs cannot be altered (with regard to
illumination) to operate in any other way that is not conforming with the sign
variance without further approval from this board.
Findings:
The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. Specifically.-
1 .
pecifically.1 . The benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other
means feasible given that a scoreboard must be of a relatively large size to
convey the intended information to fans in a large stadium,
2. That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby
properties will not take place given that similar signs have existed in these
locations for many decades,
3. That finding that the request is substantial given that it is much larger than what
is allowed both in square footage and in height, nevertheless the benefit to the
applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community,
Page `.i of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects given
that they have existing in this location for a long time without any adverse affects,
and
5. While finding that the difficulty is self-created, nevertheless the benefit to the
applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin, Mann.
NAYS: None.
Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Ellsworth took over as chair and moved to grant the appeal finding that the
requirements of a sign variance had been met , specifically listing how each criterion
was met , and with conditions on the size , height , and lighting of the scoreboard .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008=068: Sign Variance, Ithaca College, Athletic and
Events Center Scoreboard, 953 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 41 . - 1 -30. 2
Motion made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer.
RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Ithaca College requesting a variance
from Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code for a proposed Ithaca College Athletic and
Events Center freestanding athletic scoreboard of approximately 224 square feet in size
per drawing 1091RIOA172188 submitted to the Town with the following:
Findings:
1 . That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to the
applicant,
2. There is no undesirable change to neighborhood character as similar signs have
been present for over 30 years,
3. The request is substantial being as the size is much larger than is allowed in a
residential zone,
4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects,
5. That the difficulty is self-created, and
Page 6 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
6. When all the criteria is considered, the Zoning Board finds that the benefit to the
applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
Conditions:
1 . Any changes to the intensity of illumination will require Ithaca College to appear
before the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals,
2. The sign is permitted to have flashing lights and colors in addition to white and
amber,
3. An animated display is permitted on the sign,
4. That the sign not exceed 230 square feet in area and the sign be no higher than
27 feet.
A vote on the motion was called.
AYES: Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin, Mann .
NAYS: None .
ABSTAIN: Sigel.
The motion was declared to be carried.
APPEAL of Susan and Rolf Verberg , Owners/Appellants requesting an
interpretation and/or variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article VI ,
Section 270 -32 , Subsection A(3 ) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to
construct a new garage on a property located at 680 Sheffield Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel # 24.- 1 -42 . 2 , an Agricultural (AG ) Zone . The proposed garage
will encroach into the required side yard setback of the property.
Susan and Rolf Verberg introduced themselves to the board .
Chairperson Sigel stated that the applicant was first requesting an interpretation as to
whether or not the building is considered a two-story or one-story garage . If it is
determined the garage is a two-story garage , a variance is needed .
Mr. Bates explained , "once you are covering more than a quarter of the additional floor
below it , you now count it as a story" . Ms . Rice denied the building permit application
because it was ruled as a two-story structure .
Chairperson Sigel was inclined to use the NYS Building Code definition because "story"
was not defined in Town Code . Ms . Mann wondered if NYS Building Code takes
permanent accessibility into account in defining a story. Mr. Bates explained it is strictly
area ; it does not take stairwells into account .
Page 7 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
Mr. Mountin asked if a garage with an attic is considered a two-story . Mr. Bates
responded that the area needs to be classified . He explained that an attic technically
does not have floor space ; it is an area above an existing floor.
The board and staff discussed the implications of putting down a floor as opposed to
leaving the floor joists exposed ; the area is considered a story if it is floored .
Chairperson Sigel noted there was not an EAF . He opened the public hearing at 7 : 48
p . m . and invited the public to address the board . There being none , Chairperson Sigel
closed the public hearing at 7 : 48 p . m .
Mr. Niefer brought the board ' s attention to the letter provided in their packet. He asked
if it was clear that the adjacent neighbor was endorsing the proposal . Chairperson Sigel
agreed that the letter was vague . He thought the neighbor was supporting the current
variance request, but that his or her letter intended to state that he/she was not
necessarily supporting any other violations of Code .
Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal finding that all requirements of an area
had been met, specifically listing how each criterion was met , and with condition on the
height and location of proposed garage . Mr. Mountin seconded . Carried unanimously .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-069: Area Variance, Susan and Rolf Verberg, 680
Sheffield Rd; Tax Parcel No. 24. 442. 2
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dave Mountin .
RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Susan and Rolf Verberg requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article Vl, Section 270-32 Subsection
A (3) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a new garage on a
property located at 680 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 24. - 1 -42. 2,
Agricultural Zone. The proposed garage will encroach into the required side yard
setback of the property with the following:
Conditions:
1 . That the garage be no higher than 21 feet,
2. That the garage be built as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant,
and
3. That the garage be no closer to the side property line than 15 feet.
Findings:
Page 8 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community, specifically:
1 . The benefit as the applicant has stated in their application, the benefit they
wish to achieve as far as placement and convenience to their home cannot be
achieved with any other location possible,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or
to nearby properties given that the garage does meet the required setback for
a single -story garage,
3. That the request is not substantial given that the garage does meet the
setback requirements for a single -story garage,
4. That there will not be adverse physical or environmental effects, and
5. While the alleged difficulty is self-created, never-the-less, the benefit to the
applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of
the community.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin, Mann.
NAYS: None .
Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPEAL of Kelly Egan and Diana Arnold , Owners/Appellants requesting
variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article VIII , Section 270-62 ,
Subsections B and C , to allow insufficient lot width at the street and at the front
yard setback on a property located at 211 Eldridge Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel # 46 . - 1 - 15 . 7 , a Low Density Residential ( LDR) Zone . The lot is located
within the Southwoods Subdivision , which received Planning Board Subdivision
Approval in 1989 .
Kristin Gutenberger introduced herself to the board and gave a brief overview of the
appeal . She explained that her clients purchased the property in 2005 and has riot built
on the property. The owners have entered into a contract to sell the property and the
contract purchaser inquired to the Town about building on the lot. At that point , they
became aware that the Town ' s Building Department no longer believes the lot conforms
to zoning requirements . The applicant is requesting an area variance for lot . frontage .
Ms . Gutenberger pointed out that the lot is the largest in the subdivision and there are
other lots within the development that have built upon that do not have the same lot
width requirements . She provided the board with copies of the subdivision plat .
Page 9 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Bates if lot width is measured on the arc of the street line
or if it was measured pin to pin . Mr. Bates responded that is where the interpretation
comes in . He compared the 1986 Code and the current Code and there has been no
change in language with regard to the setback line . The language does not state how
the line needs to be measured ; it only states that the line needs to be parallel to the
street line . Mr. Bates thought the applicant was looking for a determination from the
board defining how the frontage is measured so that there is not a problem for the
buyer.
Chairperson Sigel noted it was important for the board to decide how the frontage is
measured in a way that is best for the Town regardless of the impact it may have . He
did not have a problem approving whatever variances are necessary to make the lot
legal .
Ms . Mann asked if the board was going to be granting a variance and determining how
the frontage is measured . Chairperson Sigel explained that in order for the board to
grant a variance , they need to determine what the variance is—how many feet versus
how many feet are required . In order to say how many feet the variance is , the board
needs to determine how it is measured . He added that how the board decides to
measure this lot will affect how other lots are measured .
Ms . Mann recalled that properties involved with the West Shore Lake study were
measured along the arc . Ms . Balestra explained that that specifically refers to shoreline
properties that have convex or concave situation and it is to determine where the water
rights line is .
Ms . Mann asked if the lot meets the required width at 61 or 62 feet from the road .
Chairperson Sigel agreed that the lot opens up quite bit. He stated that it did not make
sense to him to measure either measurement in any way other than a straight line . The
lot could be an odd shape and it would create a perverse incentive to have the front line
of the lot be all wiggly. He didn 't think the shape of the street line should have any
effect on how the 60 foot setback frontage line was measured . Mr. Mountin concurred ;
he thought a curved line was more arbitrary. Ms . Brock added that the Code states
" usually parallel " and that language leaves room for situations where it may not be and
thought this may be one of those situations .
The board continued discussion with regard on how to measure at the setback—straight
line between the pins or parallel to the street line . The board decided to measure a
straight line regardless of the shape of the front lot line or street line .
Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 15 p . m . and invited the public to
address the board . There being none , he closed the public hearing at 8 : 15 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel estimated the lot width at the street line to be approximately 91 feet
and the width at the 60 foot setback approximately 145 feet .
Page 10 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
Chairperson Sigel made a motion to grant the appeal finding that all requirements of an
area variance had been met , specifically listing how each criterion was met , and with
the conditions lot width conditions . Mr. Ellsworth seconded .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-070: Area Variance, Kelly Egan and Diana Arnold, 211
Eldridge Circle, Tax Parcel No. 46. 445. 7
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Kelly Egan and Diana Arnold
requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article Vlll, Section 270-62,
Subsections B and C to allow insufficient lot width at the street and at the front yard
setback on a property located at 211 Eldridge Circle, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number
46. - 1 - 15. 7, Low Density Residential Zone . The lot is located within the Southwoods
Subdivision, which received Planning Board Subdivision approval in 1989. With the
following:
Conditions:
1 . That the width at the street be no less than 85 feet,
2. That the width at the required 60 foot setback be no less than 135 feet.
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community, specifically:
1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other
means feasible given that without the granting of these variances the lot would
not be buildable at all,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given that this lot was created by subdivision with many other
lots in the area at the same time,
3. That the request is not substantial,
4. That there will be no adverse physical or environmental effect, and
5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the current owners purchased
the lot with the assumption that the lots created by the subdivision approval were
conforming lots.
Page 11 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin, Mann .
NAYS: None .
Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPEAL of Thomas and Minh Tro Schulenberg , Owners/Appellants requesting
variances from the requirements of minimum lot size and minimum lot width .
Chapter 270 , Article IX, Section 270-73 , Subsection A and C of the Town of Ithaca
Code , to allow a property to remain with insufficient minimum lot size and
minimum lot width at the front yard setback line . The property is located at 1462
Hanshaw Road , Tax parcel # 70 . - 10-3 . 10 , a Medium Density Residential ( MDR)
Zone .
Ed Mazza introduced himself to the board and gave a brief overview of the appeal . The
applicants were not able to purchase land from neighboring lots without the neighboring
lots then becoming nonconforming .
Chairperson Sigel commented that it was a compelling case for a variance . Mr. Bates
added that the error was discovered during the recent sale of the property .
Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 23 p . m . and invited the public to
address the board . There being none , he closed the public hearing at 8 : 23 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel made a motion to grant the appeal finding that all requirements of an
area variance had been met , specifically listing how each criterion had been met , and
with conditions on lot area and lot width .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-071 : Area Variance, Thomas and Minh Tro
Schulenberg, 1462 Hanshaw Rd, Tax Parcel No. 70. - 10-3. 10
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth.
RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Thomas and Minh Tro Schulenberg
requesting variances from the requirements of minimum lot size and minimum lot width,
Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270- 73, Subsections A and C of the Town of Ithaca
Code to allow a property to remain with insufficient minimum lot size and minimum lot
width at the front yard setback line. The property is located at 1462 Hanshaw Road, tax
parcel no. 70. - 10-3. 10, Medium Density Residential zone with the following:
Conditions:
1 . That the lot area be no less than 14, 400 square feet,
2. That the lot width at the required setback be no less than 97 feet.
Page 12 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community, specifically:
1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other
means feasible given that the neighbors do not have any land to sell and still
remain compliant,
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given that the property has existed in its current state for many
years,
3. That the request is not substantial,
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the applicant recently
purchased the property in its present state .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mountin, Mann ,
NAYS: None.
Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Discussion of Wilson Lab Sprinkler Variance
Ms . Brock recapped her memo to the board regarding the history of the temporary
modular buildings and its sprinkler variance . She explained that under NY Town Law,
the Zoning Board has authority , upon the unanimous vote of members present at the
meeting , to reopen a decision it has made . The board was being asked whether or not
they thought it was appropriate to reopen the sprinkler variance granted in 1993 based
upon the fact that the Zoning Board at that time granted a variance on the assumption
that the buildings were temporary and the buildings have been in place for 15 years .
When Cornell came before the Planning Board asked for a 10 year extension for the
buildings .
The board discussed which modular buildings were sprinklered .
Mr. Mountin asked if the existing modular office building had any building code
violations . He assumed that there was not because there was nothing in their packet
about violations . Without evidence showing otherwise , Chairperson Sigel thought it was
safe to assume there were no code violations .
Page 13 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
Chairperson Sigel and Mr. Mountin discussed the term "temporary" . Mr. Mountin was
concerned about the buildings meeting code and Chairperson Sigel did not think they
met Town Code because they were without sprinklers .
Mr. Mountin noted that the building was a single-story building with doors and windows ;
people could exit through doors or windows .
Chairperson Sigel stated that the board should not be debating whether or not the
buildings should have a sprinkler variance ; the debate should be whether the
justification for the original sprinkler variance has changed substantially enough that the
appeal should be reopened .
Mr. Mountin responded that he was looking at whether or not the buildings were safe
and he felt the buildings were safe . The board continued Mr. Mountin ' s discussion of
the safety of the building and the code requirements . Ms . Brock clarified that Town
regulations cannot be ignored and only State regulations applied to a given situation .
She added that the sprinkler law protects the building occupants , the emergency
responders , and neighboring buildings .
Mr. Niefer stated that temporary office buildings are often used for management of
projects and when the overall project is complete the temporary structures are removed .
Mr. Ellsworth thought that the appeal should be reopened .
Chairperson Sigel solicited comments from Cornell . Shirley Egan , Cornell Counsel ,
explained that Cornell has been dangled on a string thinking that they were going to be
getting a big new project funded by the National Science Foundation . Cornell thinks
that they will hear within a year whether or not the project will be funded . She stated if
the project comes through , then Cornell will really need the modular buildings . Ms . Egan
thought it may have been a strategic mistake to ask for 10 years , but the person Filling
out the application thought the Town might be getting sick of hearing Cornell come back
for extensions and instead should ask for a longer extension . She added that a two
year extension should suffice because by then Cornell will know if they are receiving
funding or not . Currently the program has laid people off because of cuts in funding ; it
simply does not have the money it would take to sprinkler the buildings . The buildings
are currently at low occupancy, but will fill up quickly once the grant is received . Ms .
Egan added that the building has 8 exits .
Mr. Ellsworth asked what the current occupancy was of the building . Ms . Egan
estimated approximately a dozen people occupied the building currently and 40 would
occupy the building after the project was funded . She reiterated that Cornell had not
intended to keep the modular buildings this long , but this is a major project and it would
have an enormous economic benefit for the community .
Mr. Ellsworth asked Chairperson Sigel what he recommended since Cornell was in a
Limbo situation . Chairperson Sigel responded that some of what Ms . Egan was stating
Page 14 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27 , 2008
Final
were factors that might go more into whether or not the board would modify the
variance . He was not sure if the information was relevant to the decision of whether or
not the board wanted to rehear the appeal . Ms . Brock added that the Planning Board
was waiting to hear the ZBA' s determination before they acted on Cornell Is request for
special permit and site plan approval .
Chairperson Sigel encouraged the board to vote on whether or not the board wants to
rehear the appeal . If the board votes not to rehear the appeal , then it is up to the
Planning Board to do what they want to do .
Ms . Mann stated she has heard enough concerns and questions about the
circumstances under which the original appeal was granted to warrant taking another
look at the appeal . Chairperson Sigel agreed and stated that a substantial factor in the
original variance was that the buildings were temporary in nature .
Chairperson Sigel made a motion to re-hear the variance appeal . Mr. Ellsworth
seconded . Vote failed ( Mountin opposed ) . Chairperson Sigel stated the board would
not be re- hearing the appeal .
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-072: Re-open Sprinkler Variance, Cornell University,
Wilson Lab Temporary Modular Building, Route 366, Tax Parcel No. 36. 44. 2
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED, that this board rehear the appeal of Cornell University requesting a
sprinkler variance for 4, 200 square feet of temporary office space at Wilson Laboratory,
located at Route 366, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 36. - 1 -8. 2, which was originally
heard and granted at the February 10, 1993 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Mann .
NAYS: Mountin .
Motion was declared to not be carried because a unanimous vote is required to re-hear
an appeal.
Other Business
Ms . Balestra provided the board with information regarding an upcoming training
opportunity for board members .
Page 15 of 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 27, 2008
Final
Adjournment
With no further business , Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9 : 10 p . m .
Kirk 8igel , Chairperson
1h
Carrie Coates Whifniore ,
First Deputy Town Clerk
Page 16 of 16