►
From YouTube: January 4, 2022 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
The
board
comprises
five
members
nominated
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
common
council
board.
Members
present
tonight
are
stephanie
egan,
ingles
michael
cannon,
joe
kirby,
as
well
as
assistant
attorney
victor
kessler,
brian
mccracken
and
zoning
administrator,
megan
williams,
megan
wilson
staff
to
the
board.
I
am
david
barkin,
acting
chairperson
of
the
board.
The
secretary
to
the
board,
megan
wilson
will
call
each
case
in
the
order
listed
on
the
agenda.
A
A
Full
consideration
of
appeals
requires
a
public
hearing
deliberation
and
then
voting
by
the
board.
These
actions
occur
only
after
the
appellant
has
filed
appropriate
documents
with
the
zoning
division
and
the
planning
and
development
board.
Public
hearings
include
testimony
from
quote
interesting
interested
parties.
The
board
considers
interested
parties,
persons
who
live,
work
or
own
property
within
700
feet
of
the
property
or
authorized
representatives
of
recognized
adjacent
neighborhood,
civic
groups
or
who
are
elected
by
city
officials,
board
members
may
question
testifying
interested
parties
or
any
areas
requiring
clarification.
A
Persons
who
do
not
meet
the
board's
interested
party
definition
will
not
be
heard.
Comments
are
limited
to
three
minutes.
Appellants
will
then
be
allowed
or
opposing
testimony,
but
appellants
comments
must
be
limited
to
strict
rebuttal
of
the
issues
raised
by
those
opposed
and
will
be
limited
to
five
minutes.
A
A
timer
will
sound
at
the
end
of
each
speaker's
allotted
time.
While
we
do
not
adhere
to
strict
rules
of
advent
evidence,
we
do
consider
this
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
and
we
base
our
decisions.
On
the
official
record.
The
official
record
consists
of
application
materials
filed
with
the
zoning
division
correspondents
relating
to
cases
received
by
the
zoning
division.
The
planning
and
development
board's
own
findings
and
recommendations.
A
If
any
and
the
record
of
tonight's
meeting
an
audio
recording
is
being
made
of
this
meeting,
therefore
it
is
essential
anyone
wanting
to
be
heard
speaks
clearly,
so
their
comments
are
recorded
and
heard
by
everyone.
Extraneous
comments
will
neither
be
recorded
nor
considered
by
the
board.
We
ask
everyone
to
limit
their
comments
to
the
zoning
issues
of
each
appeal
and
not
comment
on
the
matters
at
hand
on
the
matters
beyond
the
board's
jurisdiction
following
the
appellant
rebuttal,
the
appeal
hearing
will
be
closed
and
the
board
will
begin
deliberation.
A
A
Tonight's
online
meeting
format
requires
us
to
manage
public
comments
differently,
but
the
board
will
welcome
us.
The
board
still
welcomes
input
from
interested
party
interested
parties.
Tonight's
appeals
are
available
for
public
review
on
the
city
website
and
the
meeting
is
being
streamed
live
via
online
youtubes.
A
C
All
right
appeal:
number
3203,
325,
dryden
road,
320,
elmwood,
avenue,
appeal
of
jason
k,
demaris
architecture
on
behalf
of
property
owners,
red
door,
rental
and
adro
development
for
an
area
variants
from
section
325,
45,
2e,
college
town,
residential
2
in
college
town,
residential
3
district
standards
for
off
street
parking
lot,
coverage
by
buildings,
front
yard,
rear
yard
and
maximum
building
length
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
applicant
proposes
to
demolish
the
existing
structures
at
325,
dryden,
road
and
320
elmwood
avenue
and
construct
two
new
residential
structures.
C
A
new
two-family
dwelling
will
be
constructed
at
320,
elmwood
avenue,
and
a
new
multiple
dwelling
with
11
residential
units
will
be
conducted
constructed
at
325
dryden
road.
The
appellants
presented
the
appeal
at
the
november,
2nd
2021
and
december
7
2021
bca
meetings
and
board
members
expressed
concern
about
the
magnitude
of
several
the
requested
variances.
C
The
board
encouraged
the
applicants
to
consider
its
comments
and
put
forward
a
project
that
better
meets
the
zoning.
The
applicants
have
revised
the
original
project
at
325
dryden
road.
In
response
to
the
board's
concerns.
The
applicants
have
also
decided
to
maintain
two
separate
lots.
Rather
than
consolidate
the
parcels.
As
originally
proposed,
while
this
decision
does
not
impact
the
appearance
of
the
project,
it
impacts
the
requested
variances,
as
the
project
now
includes
two
separate
parcels.
C
The
proposed
uses
are
permit
permitted
primary
uses
of
the
cr2
for
320
elmwood
avenue
in
cr3
325
dryden
road
districts,
but
the
proposal
will
create
several
area
deficiencies
for
320
elmwood
avenue
required
vegetative
buffer.
A
minimum
10
foot
vegetative
buffer
from
the
rear
property
line
is
required
for
all
properties
within
the
cr
districts.
C
C
325
dryden
road
off
street
parking,
the
proposed
multiple
dwelling
at
325
dryden
road
will
require
12
off
street
parking
spaces
and
no
off
street
parking
will
be
provided
on
site.
Two
of
the
required
spaces
will
be
provided,
provided
at
the
adjacent
property
is
allowed
by
the
zoning
ordinance.
This
results
in
a
deficiency
of
10
off
street
parking
spaces
for
the
new
residential
building
lot
coverage
by
buildings.
The
new
residential
structure
will
occupy
46.1
percent
of
the
lot
in
the
cr3
district
regulations
limit
lot
coverage
by
buildings
to
40
percent.
C
The
project
meets
the
minimum
grain
space
requirement
front
yard.
The
project
site
has
one
front
yard
along
dryden
road
and
a
second
front
yard
along
elmwood
avenue.
Both
districts
require
a
minimum
front
or
both
roads
require
a
minimum
front
yard
of
10
feet:
a
corner
of
the
building
projects
into
the
front
yard
along
dragon
road,
creating
a
minimum
front
yard
of
6.1
in
this
location.
C
The
project
meets
the
front
yard
requirements
along
elmo
avenue,
rear
yard.
The
rear
yard
of
325
dryden
road
is
located
between
the
two
proposed
building.
The
cr3
district
requires
a
minimum
rear
yard
of
20
feet
or
20
lot
depth.
Whichever
is
less.
The
project
includes
a
rear
yard,
approximately
one
foot
1.6
according
to
latest
measurements
or
1.7
of
the
lot
depth
maximum
building
one.
The
cr3
district
limits
building
what
length
to
45
feet
in
length.
This
regulation
applies
to
the
entire
building,
not
individual
facades.
C
The
full
building
length
along
dryden
road
measures,
61
feet
which
exceeds
the
maximum
allowed
by
the
zoning
ordinance
by
16
feet
or
35.6
percent
required
vegetative
buffer.
A
minimum
10
foot
vegetative
buffer
from
the
rear
property
line
is
required
for
all
properties
within
the
cr3
district.
The
proposed
project
does
not
provide
sufficient
vegetative
buffer
320
elmwood
avenue
is
located
in
the
cr2
district
and
325
dryden
road
is
located
in
the
cr3
district
in
which
most
uses
are
permitted.
However,
section
325
38
requires
the
area
variances
be
granted
before
a
building
permit
is
issued.
C
A
Thanks
megan
will
the
appellant
like
to
come
forward
for
a
presentation.
E
Okay,
I
think,
as
megan
went
through
the
variances,
you
know,
maybe
just
taking
a
quick
look
at
the
current
current
condition
is,
is
helpful.
Sorry,
a
second
here
I
think,
that's
a
that's
a
good
shot
right
there.
You
know
just
the
the
property
line
is
down
the
center
of
the
driveway.
E
You
know
I'll
give
give
the
internet
connection
a
minute
to
catch
up
here,
but
you
know
the
existing
condition.
Is
you
know,
non-conforming
as
it
is,
and
and
that
that
issue
continues
as
we
look
to
redevelop
the
property?
So
what
we're
here
to
do
this
month
is
take
a
look
at
a
reduction
proposal.
E
E
You
know
permitted
as
of
right,
but
when
you
do
something
new,
some
of
the
zoning
provisions
like
the
vegetative
buffer,
which
you
can
see
here
in
the
rear
yard.
On
the
west
side,
we
don't
have
the
full
10
feet,
but
that
is
partially
because
I've
kind
of
a
light,
whitish
gray
fill
here.
You
can
see
the
footprint
it
runs
up
through
the
325
parcel
down
and
around
all
the
way
to
the
corner
in
the
southwest
corner.
Here,
that's
the
current
paved
area.
Again.
E
Here's
that
existing
driveway
and,
like
I
said
the
center
of
the
driveway,
is
the
is
the
current
property
line.
So
if
we
look
just
at
320
right
now,
the
building's
allowed
as
of
right
we've
got
green
space
block
coverage
is
compliant,
setbacks
are
compliant
permitted
use
and
then
the
parking
we're
just
reconfiguring.
E
So,
as
megan
said,
the
the
parking
area
coverage,
which
is
in
violation
of
the
setback
of
the
20-foot
rear
yard,
we're
just
re-using
that
that
surface
so
that
that
doesn't
get
triggered,
but
the
vegetative
buffer
does
not
exist,
so
we're
actually
shrinking
the
parking
area
and
then
we
feel
as
a
benefit
to
the
city,
we're
moving
the
curb
cut
from
close
to
the
intersection
further
down
and
so
we're
putting
the
driveway
over
here.
E
But
the
driveway
is
not
par
part
of
the
parking
area
per
zoning,
so
I
think
you
know
you
guys
have
this.
This
reduction
proposal
and
megan
went
down
the
list,
so
I
think
really
it's
the
vegetative
buffer
for
3
320
elmwood.
E
That's
that's
causing
any
concern
about
that
project,
but
it's
really
a
one-for-one
replacement
of
the
building.
So
if
we
focus
our
attention
on
325
I'll
zoom
in
a
little
bit
here
for
you,
you
know,
building
length
is
a
little
bit
longer,
but
we've
reduced
the
building
by
almost
13
and
a
half
feet
to
get
closer
to
that
45
maximum,
and
then
that
also
reduces
lot
coverage
right
now.
I
think
megan
might
have
said
45.2
or
1..
E
What
the
what
that
actually
means,
when
you
look
at
total
square
footage,
is
we're
now
about
303
square
feet.
I
believe
is
the
number
over
you
know:
that's
that's
equivalent
to
a
a
one
car
garage
just
to
put
it
in
perspective
and
then
things
like
the
required
front,
porch
and
then
other
things.
We've
got
an
ada
lift
on
the
back
a
stoop
and
stairs
those
elements
count
for
lot
coverage.
E
So
those
two
elements
start
to
approach,
cutting
that
300
plus
square
feet
in
half
so
we've
and
that
that
was
the
big
change
here.
We
wanted
to
really
move
that
number
into
the
realm
of
I
don't
know
I'll
call
it
digestibility
or
you
know
historic
precedence.
So
a
lot
of
coverage
was
the
big
one,
the
front
yard
setback.
E
You
know
the
big
trade-off
is
where
we're
out
3.9
on
the
corner
and
that's
this
red
area,
that
red
area
is
22
square
feet,
but
we're
back
seven
feet
on
the
opposite.
So
it's
a
balance
and
I
found
a
way
to
to
pull
the
stairs
in
the
stairs
were
actually
triggering
it.
So
zoning
is
is
a
little
fussy.
A
lot
of
things
kick
in.
E
If
you
think
now
back
to
the
street
view,
I
just
showed
you
you
can
see
the
existing
building
footprint
dashed
in
orange
here
and
you
can
see
how
it
pushes
into
the
rear
yard.
It's
also
in
the
side
yard
here,
but
we've
pulled
in
into
compliance
there.
But
the
problem
with
zoning
is
that
the
corner
lot
creates
a
lot
of
difficulty
with
a
heavy-handed
rear
yard
setback
on
what
is
really
a
side
yard.
E
You
know
this
yard
abuts
the
side
yard
of
320
and
that
existing
condition
does
not
have
that
full
yard
or
or
buffer
or
anything
it
actually
has
a
driveway.
So
we've
now
created
a
courtyard
space
between
the
two.
So
we
see
this
as
an
improvement,
but
the
corner
lot
makes
that
difficult
and
then
one
other
thing
to
look
at
here
is:
if
you
look
at
the
dash
blue
setback
lines,
we
have
a
funny
trapezoidal
shape
to
build
within,
and
it
doesn't
give
us
an
easy
way
to
square
up
to
one
of
the
lot
lines.
E
E
So
I
just
want
to
highlight
some
of
the
zoning
complexity
that
might
not
be
clearly
understood
as
a
as
a
layperson,
and
you
know
this
is
something
as
a
architect
and
designer
you
know
it's
it's
a
wrestling
match
to
to
work
with
zoning,
so
so
that's
what's
triggering
it,
but
hopefully
with
this
reduction
of
the
footprint.
E
You
know
this.
Some
of
these
variances,
like
lock
coverage,
front
yard.
Really
I
don't
see
how
that's
big
I
mean
by
by
law.
It's
a
it's
a
variance,
but
it's
actually
in
character
with
the
neighborhood.
These
corners
of
these
adjacent
buildings
are
the
same
or
closer
as
our
corner
of
the
building,
so
it's
actually
consistent
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
E
Hopefully,
that
image
came
up
fast
enough.
Sometimes
I
move
a
little
too
fast
here.
So
let
me
just
run
down
the
quick
list
on
325
again,
you
guys
have
this.
I
did
want
to
just
show
you
the
the
yards
graphic
I
had
shown
previously,
and
this
has
now
gotten
better,
but
previously
the
amount
of
front
yard
has
increased,
because
the
building
has
been
cut
back
here,
but
previously
we
had
a
surplus
of
about
400
square
feet.
I
think
it's
up
to
about
600
square
feet
now,
so
the
yellow
is
all
front
yard.
E
The
orange
is
the
the
10
foot
minimum
so
to
have
a
little
corner
of
22
square
feet
over
when
we
have
much
more,
it's
a
balancing
act
and
that's
you
know
what
I
consider
a
big
part
of
the
balancing
test
of
the
appeals
process
so
that
that's
the
front
yard
rear
yard
is
is
existing
condition.
I
already
spoke
about
that
same
thing
with
a
vegetative
buffer.
E
It's
it's
not
a
condition
that
the
owner
of
320
elmwood
desires
because
it
happens
to
be
the
same
owner
and
it's
it's
an
existing
condition
and,
and
it
works
fine,
it
doesn't.
Strict
adherence
of
zoning
doesn't
really
accomplish
the
goals
that
zoning
seeks
to
create
a
buffer
between
properties
and
in
particular,
these
properties
are
current.
Currently,
student
rentals
have
always
been
student,
rentals
and
the
project
proposes
to
you
know,
continue
that
use
of
the
property.
It's
not
you
know
it's
not
expanding
that
use
into
the
neighbor
neighborhood
it
exists
today.
E
So
you
know
we're
left
with
the
three
large
variances
as
I
categorize
them
building
length.
You
know
we
we're
down
from
74.5
to
61.
E
it's
36
percent
over
the
allowable,
whereas
previously
we
had
a
66
increase
again,
if
you
think
about
that
trapezoidal
shape.
If
I
were
to
try
to
establish
full
lock
coverage
rights,
I'd
have
to
spread
the
building
eastward
in
that
trapezoid.
So
anything
you
do
on
this
property
is
going
to
trigger
one
variance
of
the
other
lock
coverage.
I
already
spoke
about
quite
a
bit.
You
know
we're
we're
down.
It's
it's
not
even
here
on
the
right
up.
It
was
2483.
E
I
reprinted
this,
but
again
with
the
I
had
a
miscalculation,
so
it's
actually
24.59.
Basically
it's
a
little
over
45..
That
number
doesn't
really
change
much.
Sorry!
Let
me
just
get
back
to
this.
You
know
so
40
is
allowed.
E
You
know
a
little
over
45
is
is
what
we're
we're
proposing
and
again
it's
about
300
square
feet
in
total
footprint.
I
think
I
think
I'll
leave
that
one
at
that.
So
I
think,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
the
variances
for
325
really
come
down
to
the
off-street
parking.
So
you
know
the
rpps
system
allocates
four
of
the
existing
spaces
on
the
street
as
potential
spaces
for
the
project
we're
providing
two
from
elmwood
parcel.
E
You
know
four
four
total
between
the
two
properties,
but
it's
in
close
proximity
so
that
that
the
two
count
what
I
did
in
this
write-up
and
hopefully
had
a
chance
to
to
digest
it.
We
looked
at
what
the
existing
parking
demand
is
on
the
property,
and
you
know
with
the
16
occupants
allowed
in
the
on
the
project.
There's
a
demand
rate.
Sorry
and
six
spaces
are
currently
rented
on
on
the
parcel.
E
The
demand
is
about
0.375
spaces
per
occupant,
so
for
the
proposed
26
occupants
in
total,
that's
six
on
320,
elmwood
and
20
on
325.
Using
that
demand
rate,
we
get
almost
10
spaces,
so
10
spaces.
E
We
have
the
four
total
on
site.
Again,
I
know
it's
we're
now
proposing
separate
projects,
but
parking
is
is
shared,
so
I'm
just
doing
it
as
a
whole.
So
if
you
look
at
that
demand
rate,
we've
got
40
percent
or
four
spaces,
and
then
the
rpps
generates
another
four
potential
spaces.
So
that's
eighty
percent,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
the
parking
regulations
and
zoning
stem
from
an
earlier
form
of
zoning
to
make
sure
there's
parking
to
promote
the
viability
of
projects
for
this
property.
E
E
Ride
share
services
and
such
there
are
many
other
ways
to
to
deal
with
transportation.
Parking
on
this
property
is
rented.
It
does
not
come
with
the
leases,
so
someone
renting
this
building
will
know
the
situation
in
relation
to
whether
they
have
a
parking
space
or
not
because
they
have
to
pay
for
it,
and
we
believe-
and
as
we've
stressed
before
the
comprehensive
plan
talks
about
the
issues
that
parking
creates.
You
know
impervious
surface
and
traffic
and
we
have
to
screen
parking
lots.
E
All
these
things
are
stem
from
the
creation
of
parking,
so
we
we
feel
as
allowed
in
other
areas
of
the
city
with
the
transportation,
demand,
management
concepts
and
lifting
parking
regulations.
There's.
F
E
Reason
for
us
to
have
to
create
this
parking,
so
I
look
back
to
lock
coverage
and
now
we
have
a
very
small
increase
over
the
allowable
lock
coverage
to
make
this
project
financially
viable
and
as
of
right,
you
know
a
developer
should
be
allowed
to
approach.
You
know
and
sometimes
step
over
that
lock
coverage.
E
You
know,
building
design
requires
space,
you
know,
there's
ada
compliance
and,
and
things
like
that,
so
it's
it's
easy
to
bump
over
those
numbers,
but
hopefully
45
or
so
is,
and
five
percent
over
is
more
palatable
with
this
reduced
proposal.
I
think
I
will
leave
it
at
that.
E
Oh
actually,
I'm
sorry
megan!
You
had
asked
the
new
member.
You
know
we're
fully
open
to
having
the
new
member
participate
in.
A
G
H
I
had
I
had
one,
and
it
relates
to
the
parking
you
mentioned,
that
you
guys
are
going
to
be
renting
spaces
and
can
kind
of
try
and
dictate
the
use
of
those
spaces
through
that
policy.
E
So
the
the
spaces
you
know
are
leased,
so
each
space
is
is
designated,
so
the
landlord
enforces
that
that
parking
requirement,
because
obviously
the
landlord
does
not
want
to
have
a
complaint
from
a
paying
tenant.
E
You
know
or
a
tenant
paying
for
a
parking
space,
and
you
know
come
home
to
find
that
that
space
isn't
available.
You
know,
that's
a
big
big
factor
is
if
they're
going
to
bring
a
car
to
to
campus
or
to
the
area
they
want
a
place
for
it.
You
know,
so
they
should
have
have
that,
so
the
owner
would
be
telling
them.
H
I
guess
yeah,
I
guess
that's
my.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
clear
on
I'm
understanding
what
you're
saying,
because
the
way
you
made
it
sound
was
that,
like,
if
one
of
the
people
in
your
building
has
a
problem,
they
call
the
landlord.
I
guess
I'm
more
concerned
about
the
buildings
surrounding
your
building.
E
So
the
rpps
system,
I
think,
makes
it
virtually
impossible
for
someone
to
own
a
car
and
and
park
in
the
area.
There's
it's
very
restricted
as
to
when
you
can
park
on
the
street.
You
can't
park
overnight
and
it's
it's
a
ticketed
system.
So
the
city
enforces
that,
and
you
know
the
the
regulation
that
the
control
mechanism
of
parking
enforcement
enforcement
makes
it
impossible
to
maintain
a
car
on
the
street.
You
can't
just
leave
a
car
out
there
it'll
be
towed
in
a
day.
E
You
know,
so
it's
just
not
a
real
viable
option
for
a
tenant
to
bring
a
car
and
think
they
can
put
it
on
the
street.
They'd
they'd
have
to
go
much
further
away,
and
then
that
starts
to
generate
the
question.
Why
do
they
want
to?
You
know,
walk
you
know
eight
ten
blocks
to
to
get
to
their
their
parking
spot.
You
know.
G
A
The
appellant
will
then
have
rebuttals
to
those
public
hearing
comments,
and
then
we
can
continue
to
deliberate
and
ask
questions
as
needed.
So
megan
is
there
anybody
in
the
waiting
room,
for
I
guess
speaking
in
favor,
goes
first
correct.
C
That's
correct:
no,
we
do
not
have
anybody
or
to
speak
in
favor
and
we
do
not
have
any
comment,
written
comments
and
support.
C
Yeah,
so
we
don't
have
anyone
here
to
speak.
We
did
receive
four
written
comments
in
opposition
from
robert
coleman
at
109
harvard
place
james
orca,
324,
dryden
road,
martha
thromo
from
308
elmwood
avenue
and
christopher
carey
at
310,
elmwood
avenue.
These
were
all
forwarded
to
the
board
and
the
applicants
prior
to
the
meeting.
I
can
read
them
if
the
board
would
like,
but
if
you
had
time
to
review
them,
it's
not
required.
A
Okay,
good,
so
with
that
megan
we
can
close
the
public
hearing
correct.
C
Actually
we're
going
to
leave
this
public
hearing
open
through
the
february
meeting,
and
so
members
of
the
public
can
submit
comments
in
favor
or
opposition
up
through
the
february
meeting
if
they
would
like
to
do
so,
but
I
would
recommend
giving
the
appellants
the
opportunity
to
respond
to
any
other
comments.
If
they'd
like.
A
E
Yeah,
I
didn't
get
a
a
lot
of
time
to
to
fully
digest
at
all,
but
I
did
make
a
couple
quick,
takeaways
and
you
know
I
can.
I
can
write
this
up
as
a
more.
I
E
A
formal
response
you
know
so
you
know
we're
going
from
16
occupants
allowed
on-site
currently
to
to
26
and
that's
62.5
increase.
Overall,
you
know
some
one
of
the
things
I
I
keep
seeing
in
the
letters
is,
you
know,
miss
statements
of
of
fact,
and
you
know,
maybe
people
are
looking
at
different
proposals.
E
E
You
know
the
the
high
land
value
and
property
value.
You
know
it.
It
dictates
future
use.
So
I
already
spoke
to
this.
You
know
it's
currently
a
rental
and
you
know
that's
what
we
continue
to
do.
One
of
the
comments
said
if
this
project
is
approved
was
to
stop
it
from
creeping
into
other
areas
of
the
the
city
this
eastward
march.
Well
again,
it's
just
a
continuation
of
the
existing
use
and
I've
spoken
ad
nauseam
previously
about
how
this
parcel
was
increased
in
density
allowances.
E
To
allow
multiple
families,
so
you
can't
do
that
in
the
across
the
street,
because
the
the
zoning
actually
steps
down
two
zones
over
there,
but
the
next
next
two
zones-
cr1
cr2
one
and
two
family-
only
and
no
more
than
two
unrelated.
So
that's
what
320
elmwood
is.
You
know
the
next
parcels
you,
you
might
be
seeing
proposals
for
two-bedroom,
two
three-bedroom
buildings
yeah.
You
know
I've
already
mentioned
you
know
without
creating
parking
fewer
cars
show
up.
E
There
are
regulations,
you
know
in
the
area,
and
this
and
a
lot
of
the
comments
are
talking
about
that
and
some
of
the
counter
arguments
about
you
know
parking
is
going
to
create
issues.
You
know
they're,
not
they're,
not
based.
In
fact
you
know
we
need.
We
need
facts
around
that
and
I
think
the
rpps
on
our
side
is
is
a
statement
of
fact.
There
was
a
statement
that
the
project
is
30,
36
percent
larger
than
what's
allowed.
E
As
I
said
earlier,
we're
we're
5.6
percent
over
on
on
325
dryden
already
spoke
about
how
zoning
makes
it
very
difficult
to
comply
with
with
all
the
regulations.
E
You
know
the
forum
district
really
added
an
extra
layer
of
complexity,
so
I
spoke
about
how
the
building
it's
it's
always
going
to
trigger
something
to
to
achieve
that
allowable,
lock
coverage
you
know
or
or
get
close
to
that
range.
There's
a
comment
about.
E
You
know
what,
if
there
aren't
parking
spaces
available
in
the
residential
parking
permit
system,
meaning
one
of
the
neighbors
suggested
that
someone
be
given
a
permit,
but
then
they'd
show
up
and
they
wouldn't
have
a
space.
I'm
not
100
on
this!
So
I'll
look
into
this,
but
I'm
almost
positive
that
the
rpps
counts
the
spaces
available
on
the
street
and
then
allocates
them.
You
know
to
the
properties.
I
could
be
wrong,
so
I'll.
Look
into
that.
C
That's
actually,
basically,
the
the
permit
gives
you
a
right
to
park
on
the
street
on
that
block,
but
you're
not
you're,
not
guaranteed
a
spa.
E
And
you
know,
I
think
one
thing
to
keep
in
perspective.
You
know
because
parking
was
brought
up
in
in
the
comments.
Is
that
the
core
of
college
town,
which
is
literally
starts
one
block
away?
You
know
and
a
few
parcels
over
you
know
the
the
parking
regulation
does
not
exist.
The
transportation
demand
management
concept
exists.
You
know
a
a
classic
standard
for
a
walkable
community
is
a
quarter
mile,
walk
or
less,
and
that's
exactly
what
this
this
parcel
is,
so
it
didn't
make
it
into
the
transportation
demand
management
component.
E
You
know
that
that
regulation
didn't
extend
into
cr3,
but
the
reality
is
we
are
are
close,
so
I
think
people
have
to
ask
the
question
there
there's
a
lot
more
housing,
much
apartment.
You
know.
One
of
the
terms
in
one
of
the
letters
was
this
is
an
apartment
complex.
E
You
can
see
on
screen
here.
I
I
I
struggled
to
call
this
an
apartment
complex,
that's
a
big
commercial
building.
This
is,
this
is
an
apartment
house
and
you
know
those
bigger
projects
in
the
core
college
town
you
know,
are
building
a
lot
more
units
and
sometimes
no
parking,
and
if
there
is
a
parking
issue
and
one
of
the
neighbors
one
of
the
letters
talked
about
how
the
rpps
system
really
made
a
difference
in
the
neighborhood.
E
You
know,
I
would
say,
extend
it
further.
You
know
if
there
is
a
parking
issue,
but
it's
hard
to
allocate
a
current
issue-
that's
probably
stemming
from
parking
in
the
core
of
college
town
with
these
larger
projects
and
to
suggest
that
this
project
here
is
going
to
create
that
issue.
I
think
I
think
that
issue
exists,
but
some
of
that's
enforcement.
You
know
such
as
noise
and
things
like
that.
There
are
it's
not
really
part
of
zoning.
You
know,
that's
a
police
enforcement,
you
know
and
we
have
to
be
careful
here.
E
You
know
there
are
many
student
housing
projects
that
coexist
harmoniously
in
neighborhoods
and
there
are
some
some
problem
projects
and
one
of
the
big
things
we
tried
to
do
here,
which
penalized
us
was
more
two
bedroom
units.
You
know,
rather
than
a
big
apartment
house,
like
325
dryden,
currently.
A
A
J
I'd
like
to
make
a
comment:
they're
320,
dryden
road.
I
almost
want
to
remove
this
from
the
discussion.
It
looks
to
me,
like
he's,
complied
every
possible
way
that
he
can.
The
the
only
difficulty
is
the
vegetative
barrier,
which
is
not
being
exacerbated
by
this
application.
J
So
maybe
we
could
have
a
discussion
on
this
and
then
deal
with
the
more
complex,
not
an
apartment,
complex
building,
325.
But
I
don't
know
if
anyone's
in
agreement
with
me
on
320.
That's
how
I
look
at
it.
J
C
I
was
just
gonna
say
I
think,
mike's
approach,
I
think
again,
is
just
a
reminder
for
everyone.
What
we're
doing
tonight
is
trying
to
kind
of
gather
the
board's
feedback
on
each
of
the
requested
variances
and
the
criteria
whether
they
meet,
what
your
thoughts
are,
and
I
think
my
suggestion
of
me-
if
you
want
to
see
if
people
I
would
recommend,
because
these
are
now
two
separate
parcels-
they
are
two
separate
sets
of
variances.
C
A
J
Yeah,
I
didn't
think
it
was
being
exacerbated
sure
that
was
my
point.
The
rest.
I
checked
easily
check
no
on
the
criteria.
We
were
usually
looking
at.
A
F
F
A
minute
and
make
just
a
general
comment
based
on
the
review
previously
that
we
had
I'm.
I
I
think
that
what's
been
proposed,
you
know
is
again
trying
to
meet
zoning
better.
F
So
I
think
that
it's
a
matter
of
absorbing
what's
been
reproposed
and
just
you
know,
double
checking
and
see
if
we
have
any
other
concerns.
But
at
this
point
I
think
it's
thoroughly
gone
through
all
the
differences
or
the
changes
that
have
been
made
to
try
to
address
our
concerns.
The
neighbors
concerns
possibly
and
then
trying
to
fit
more
into
what
they
can
have
with
possibly
less
of
a
variance.
But
that's
that's
just
again
an
overview
of
what
I
see
as
being
newly
proposed
or
changed.
A
Okay,
so
then,
if
I'm
basing
off
of
that,
maybe
just
let's
get
320
out
of
the
way
the
vegetative
buffer
members,
don't
think
that
it
would,
you
know,
result
in
an
undesirable
change
to
the
neighborhood
benefits
sought
by
the
applicant
could
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative.
No
right,
it's
it's
there,
not
exacerbated
it's,
not
substantial,
no
adverse
impact
and-
and
yes
self-created.
J
B
F
Yeah,
the
way
that
I
describe
these
is
that
it's
pre-existing
and
non-conforming
with
the
code
so
again
looking
at
it,
as
you
know
how
I,
how
I
interpret
it,
is
that
it's
not
exacerbating
the
situation,
it's
it's
there
and
it
might
again
not
conform
with
the
zoning,
but
it
it
would
exist
in
other
people's
yards.
You
know
for
perpetuity
if
they
never
made
any
changes,
so
pre-existing
non-conforming.
A
Okay,
so
325
number
one
off
street
parking
so
right,
we've
got
12
off
street
parking
spaces
and
then
two
of
the
required
spaces
will
be
provided
at
the
adjacent
property,
so
they
have
a
deficiency
of
10
off
street
parking
spaces
mike
last
month.
You
you
raised
some
concerns
about
this.
What
are
your
thoughts.
J
You're
asking
me
yep,
you
know
when
I
reviewed
that
again,
I'm
really
getting
a
feel
for
what
parking
means
up
here
in
college
town.
You
know
the
the
parking
requirements
versus
what's
possible,
and
so
I
would
say
that
the
comments
I
made
were
somewhat
uninformed,
but
I
guess
I'm
more
open
to
not
meeting
the
parking
requirement
than
I
was
last
month.
F
G
H
Yeah,
like
obviously,
I
see
the
problem,
but
also
you
know
we're
talking
about
an
expansion
of
like
people
in
the
property
stuff.
I
get
it.
I
think
some
of
it
was
pawning
off
on
well,
it's
going
on
in
college
town,
we're
right
here,
it's
closer.
I
still
have
those
concerns.
It's
something
that
I'm
gonna
have
to.
You
know
obviously
continue
to
think
about
if
there's
any
and
and
dive
into
more,
I
think,
but
it's
it's
there,
it's
a
lot.
H
It's
it's,
not
a
great
neighborhood
for
a
lot
of
parking
like
I
get
the
the
issues
there,
but
you
know
it's
a
at
least,
in
my
view,
a
sizable
variance,
a
sizable
problem.
I
guess
to
overcome.
A
Okay,
that's
fair.
I
mean.
J
I
know
it's
the
zoning,
but
that's
one
thought
I
have.
A
Okay,
so
there's
debate
as
to
whether
or
not
it's
an
undesirable
change
for
the
neighborhood,
whether
the
benefit
sop
of
the
appellant
could
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative
to
this
variance,
that's
where
they
run
into
the
issue
of
they
have
their
their
current
platform
and
the
feasible
alternative,
I
would
argue,
is
to
just
not
do
the
project
and
then
yeah
yeah
joe.
It's.
H
Already
interrupted
yeah,
I
guess
if
I
don't
know,
if
jason
can
still
speak
to
this,
because
I'm
still
kind
of
getting
used
to
the
process.
But
if
there
is
some
sort
of
feasible
alternative
that
you
guys
have
discussed
or
that
you're
aware
of
or
that
you
can
discuss
you
know
even
before
next
to
next
meeting,
I
I
I
would
at
least
be
interested
to
see
what
you
guys
have
tossed
around.
E
I
I
don't
believe
there,
there
are
spaces
and
it
might
be.
You
know
there
are
requirements
for
how
far
you
know
there.
Maybe
there's
a
space
here
there.
E
That
system
is,
you
know,
has
its
own
own
issues,
but
chris
is
here.
Greg
greg
is
now
a
county
legislator.
He
had
a
meeting
tonight
so
he
could
not
make
it.
But
chris
can
you
speak
more
to
you
know
any
active
pursuit
of
parking
in
the
in
the
neighborhood.
K
Yeah
I
mean
we've
reached
out,
but
there
you
know
there
really
hasn't
been
too
much.
You
know
response
also
in
terms
of
having
a
a
long-term
contract
that
would
go
in
perpetuity
is
very
challenging.
You.
E
K
To
have
like
an
you
know,
on
someone
else's
parking
spaces,
so
that's
one
of
the
challenges
of
getting
you
know,
hypothetically
a
long-term
release
on
a
space.
It's
not
something
that
someone
else
really
really
wants
to
give
up.
A
E
And
if
I,
if
I
may,
I
would
just
say
the
feasible
alternative-
is
stems
from
the
the
location
of
the
the
property,
but
the
alternative
is
our
car
share.
We
could
look
at
car
share
passes
for
the
tenants,
but
we
are
on
a
bus
route,
it's
a
walkable
location
and
then
modern
society
with
with
rideshare
apps.
You
know
it's
just
so
much
easier
for
people
to
get
around.
You
know,
so
that's
how
we
that's
what
we
see
as
the
feasible
alternative.
E
It's
and
it's
codified
in
zoning
with
the
districts
that
talk
about
transportation,
demand
management
and
that's
why
the
the
planning
board
asked
us
to
bolster
our
argument
in
that
regard,
so
that
that's?
What
I
see
is
the
feasible
alternative.
J
A
K
A
E
L
E
G
A
All
right
so
far
to
delve
back
into
the
criteria
for
this
specific
variance,
I
think
there's
agreement
that
it'd
be
a
substantial
ask.
A
I
would
make
the
argument
that
it's
a
self-created
difficulty,
though
I'll
revert
to
other
board
members,
opinions
there
and
then
there's
to
be
ongoing
about
whether
or
not
that's
an
invert
adverse
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
of
the
neighborhood.
A
I
think,
if
I'm
gauging
this
correctly
stephanie
and
mike
are
on
board,
I
don't,
I
don't
think
it'd
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
environment,
but
I
still
think
it's
a
substantial
ask.
So.
A
C
C
F
I,
yes,
it
might
seem
like
a
substantial
ass
just
because
it's
required
that
they
have
so
many,
but
currently
they're,
not
least
as
in
my
in
my
view,
there
was
a
similar
property
that
we
reviewed
and,
yes,
it
was
a
slightly
different
area
of
the
city,
but
it
was
another
issue
of
parking
that
was
brought
up
because
of
the
expansion
of
adding
bedrooms
and
occupants
and
just
the
environment
of
the
neighborhood.
It
didn't
seem
like
it
was
really
exacerbating
any
problems.
F
So
I
don't.
I
don't
see
it
as
a
an
issue.
C
And
joe,
I
have
noted
that
you
said
it's:
there
is
an
expansion
of
the
people
in
the
property
over.
What's
there
now,
it's
a
sizable
problem
to
overcome
with
the
the
park
issues
a
sizable
one
to
overcome.
Is
there
anything
else
you
wanted
to.
C
H
C
Right
now
it
seem
I
just
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
long,
but
right
now,
it
seems
like
on
this
particular
variance.
The
board
is
split.
So
if
I'm,
if
I
mischaracterize
that,
please
let
me
know.
A
Okay,
personally,
I
I
think
I'm
leaning
in
favor,
though
I
acknowledge
that
it's
a
substantial
ask,
but
I
yeah
I'm
still
working
on
it.
A
J
Wait
a
minute
I'm
on
the
wrong
one
block
coverage
by
buildings.
I
don't
see
an
undesirable
change
by
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
detriment
to
nearby
properties.
I
do
appreciate
that
they've
pulled
it
in
looking
around
that
corner
looks
much
easier
to
me.
Now
they
pulled
that
corner
in.
Can
it
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative?
J
Whether
the
alleged
difficult
number,
the
variance
adverse
impact-
I
said
no,
the
self-creation
yeah-
and
this
one-
I
guess
this
is
self-created.
I
think
we
have
a
much
better
project,
though
than
what
exists
there
and
and
what
would
exist
if
we
forced
them
into
pulling
it
in
even
more
so
we're
not
going
to
get
much
more
on
a
buy
rights
measurement
here,
I'm
okay
with
it.
A
Okay,
I
had
a
question
for
chris
and
or
jason
if
you're
having
trouble
filling
these,
you
know
the
large
10
bedroom
unit.
Have
you
considered
just
expanding
essentially
doing
an
addition
onto
the
structure
itself
and
then
reconfiguring
the
the
inside
of
the
building
to
split
it
into
apartments?
That
way.
E
E
Is
that
you're
you're
limited
by
the
footprint
that
that
you
have
and
yeah
you
can?
You
can
add
on,
but
the
cost
ends
up
being
more
and
then,
when
you're
you're,
making
these
expansions
you
you
trigger,
you
know,
be
a
major
renovation,
so
you
bring
in
all
the
other
requirements
of
new
construction.
E
You
know
sprinklers
and
ada
compliance,
and
so
it
it's
more
financially
viable
to
to
start
over
and
try
to
to
create
a
new
version
of
history
is
the
way
I
like
to
think
of
it
and
then
in
the
process
of
doing
it
we
can.
We
can
improve
that
side
yard
on
the
west.
You
know
other
than
that.
I
guess
we
we
haven't
done
much,
but
you
know
again
it's
to
great
viable
apartments,
these.
These
two
bedroom
units
that
are
that
are
easier
to
rent
and
they
don't
generate
that.
G
E
With
a
kitchen
and
everyone
you
know
so
that
that's
what
causes
it
to
expand
but
to
try
to
squeeze
that
all
into
an
existing
footprint
it
just
you
know
it's
a
challenge
to
design
it,
so
it
just.
It
would
be
more
costly.
A
F
I
think
that
just
going
over
the
five
percent,
while,
yes,
you
know
still
self-created,
isn't
substantial,
you
know
taking
into
other
factors,
but
I
think
that
they
did
a
good
job,
making
some
improvements
and
it
kind
of
affected
some
of
the
other
variances
that
were
part
of
the
request.
So
I
I
like
what's
proposed,
I
don't
have
any
concerns
and
I
agree
with
mike's
comment.
It's
a
good
project
overall
and
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial.
H
A
A
A
The
project
has
one
front
yard,
along.
A
And
a
second
front
yard
along
elmwood
avenue.
Both
districts
require
a
minimum
front
yard
of
ten
feet:
corner
of
the
building's
projects
into
projects
into
the
front
yard
along
dryden
road,
creating
a
minimum
front
yard
of
6.1
in
this
location.
That
project
meets
the
front
yard
requirements
along
elmwood
avenue.
J
You
know
I
I'm
gonna,
try
to
be
super
efficient
here
and
take
the
front
yard
and
the
rear
yard
proposals
at
the
same
time,
the
front
yard
proposal.
The
exacerbation
is
six
feet.
We
want
ten,
I
don't
have
a
problem,
the
rear
yard
we're
not
exacerbating
the
existing
non-conforming
situation.
I
guess
I
guess
we
would
be
if
you
included
the
handicap,
lift
perhaps,
but
I
don't
see
it
as
anything
substantial
so
on
both
of
those
I
I
don't
see
a
big
problem.
A
Let's
note
it:
let's
just
tackle
front
yard,
real,
quick
I'll,
just
go
stephanie
and
then
to
joe.
F
Yep,
looking
at
that
small
little
projection,
I
it's
really
minuscule
to
me.
You
know
it
meets
the
requirement
otherwise,
so
I
think
it
looks
good.
Okay.
H
A
Okay,
I
yeah
I'm
in
favor
of
granting
this
specific
variance.
I
I
do
think
it's
self-created,
though
I
don't
think
it's
substantial,
no
negative
impacts.
Is
there
a
feasible
alternative
sure,
but
I
don't
I
don't
see
the
utility
in
subjecting
them
to.
F
If
that
also
consider
the
other
neighboring
properties
they're,
possibly
closer
to
the
you
know
sidewalk
or
street,
you
know
this
is
doing
a
great
job
and
trying
to
maintain
the
current
zoning.
You
know
law
without
changing,
really
the,
in
my
opinion,
the
environment
or
neighborhood
impact.
I
think
that
it's
I
I
think
it
just
as
close
as
possible,
meets
the
criteria.
A
Sure
so
that
one
deficiency
that
one
section
of
deficiencies
in
character
with
the
neighborhood
so
moving
on
to
rear
yard
right,
so
we
have
mike's
assessment,
but
the
rear
yard
of
325
dryden
is
located
between
the
two
proposed
buildings.
The
cr3
district
requires
a
minimum
rear
yard
of
20
feet.
20
percent
of
lot
depth,
whichever
is
less
the
proposed
project,
includes
a
rear
yard
of
approximately
one
foot
or
one
point:
seven
percent
of
the
lot
depth
jason.
A
If
you
don't
mind,
could
you
just
walk
us
through
a
visual
here
and
just
with
your
arrow
and
really
tell
us
what
we're
deliberating.
E
Yeah,
so
the
the
rear
yard
setback
is,
is
right
here
and
then
the
orange
dash
footprint
right
here.
That's
that's
the
current
condition,
so
it
almost
touches
the
the
projection
of
the
proposed
footprint.
So
we
are,
you
know
clearly
in
that
rear
yard,
but
we're
we're
not
occupying
some
of
the
other
yard
areas
so
that
so
some
of
that
I
always
felt
was
a
trade-off.
E
You
know,
and
I
think
a
lot
coverage
speaks
to
that
again
about
300
square
feet,
surplus
right,
so
you
could
you
could
fit
that
up
in
here
so
and
that
that's
the
real
problem
is
that
when
you
apply
zoning
to
this
lot
and
then
the
the
the
dual
the
double
penalty
of
two
front
yards
and
you
have
to
have
a
rear
yard.
You
know
that
just
it
takes
away.
E
You
know
it's
a
you
know
as
they
say
legal
term,
it's
a
taking
of
property
rights
in
a
significant
way
and
it's
it's
lot
shape
and
then
the
the
corner
lock
configuration
so
and
again
existing
condition.
It
really
behaves
if
you
will
as
a
side
yard
and
so
we've
got
5.6
and,
as
mike
pointed
out,
the
you
know
the
lift
and
the
stoop
and
all
that
yeah.
E
That's
that's
in
the
yard,
but
I
didn't
really
go
through
the
the
new
renderings
but
I'll
submit
these
just
so
you
can
really
see
it.
But
if
I
zoom
in
here
you
know
it's,
it's
the
building
face
that
we're
really
talking
about
not
the
the
stoop
and
the
lift
and
all.
But
when
you
look
at
things
in
plan
and
it
can
look
worse
than
it
really
is
so
the
renderings
are
helpful
in
that
regard.
F
In
some
ways
I
look
at
it
as
a
substantial
ask:
20
feet.
First,
what's
proposed
at
5.6,
you
know,
but
if
you
consider
the
pre-existing
non-conforming
you
know
it's
and
then
there
was
a
change
in
the
proposal.
F
You
know
moving
the
curb
cut,
as
was
talked
about
earlier
this
evening.
I
think
that
kind
of
changes,
some
of
the
way
that
I
could
analyze
this.
F
F
I
don't
think
there
would
be
any
environmental
or
neighborhood
impacts
that
would
be
drastically
changed.
Well,
yes,
it's
created
self-created,
hypothetically,
of
course,
with
anything,
could
there
be
a
feasible
alternative,
of
course,
but
again
considering
other
factors
you
know
it'd
be
difficult
to
do
and
then
we
wouldn't
have
a
modern,
newer
house,
that's
more
energy,
efficient
and
all
sorts
of
things
for
people
to
live
in.
F
So
I
I
see
it
that
I
would
be
in
favor
of
granting
the
variance.
F
Oh,
there
are
feasible,
there's
feasible
ways
that
they
could
probably
meet
as
an
alternative,
possibly,
but
you
know
making
all
those
considerations
it's
like
with
with
all
all
of
this,
knowing
the
zoning,
it's
self-created,
because
they're
still
going
to
try
to
propose
a
building
on
this
lot
and
you
know
they'd
have
to
ask
for
variances,
but
I
don't
think
that
there's
a
detriment
to
the
change
of
the
neighborhood.
H
Yeah
again
more
or
less
an
agreement
like
the
first
couple
points
stephanie
made,
I
think
we're
pretty
spot
on.
You
look
at
the
requirement
versus
what's
being
asked
for
it's
a
lot,
but
it's
more
or
less
pre-existing.
It's
not
a
huge.
It's
not
going
to
make
a
big
alteration
to
the
neighborhood.
H
A
I
I
still
view
yes,
these
are
two
separate
parcels
and
so
we're
delineating
between
the
two,
but
I
still
view
it
as
these
projects
sort
of
piggyback
off
each
other
right,
they're,
they're
one
and
the
same
in
many
respects.
I
don't
know
this
would
be
a
question
for
megan
or
for
the
architect
if
there's
any
way
to
sort
of
formalize
that
relationship.
A
You
know
you're
already
leasing
two
spots
potentially
that
type
of
thing,
if,
if
there's
any
way
of
codifying
that
more
so
so
that
that
substantial
ask
on
paper,
looks
a
lot
less
because
we're
really
viewing
the
the
rear
yard
in
tandem
with
the
the
proposed
duplex
in
that
back
area.
So
in
that
sense
I
think
it's
a
substantial
ask.
A
I
still
look
at
viable
alternatives
through
the
lens
of
not
needing
to
tear
down
the
buildings,
so
that's
a
difficult
one
to
get
around
and,
of
course,
a
self-created
hardship,
but
the
the
spirit
of
what's
trying
to
be
done.
I
support
and
understand
so
I'm
it's
more
a
question
than
a
hard
answer
on
my
end
of,
if
there's
any
way
to
just
keep
the
parcel
separate
but
find
a
way
to
formalize
that
they're
too,
you
know
their
symbiotic
relationship
in
perpetuity
for
the
purposes
of
of
this
type
of
variance.
A
C
A
C
The
idea
with
the
consolidation
and
the
applicant
has
decided
not
to
do
that.
So
at
this
point,
yeah
it
is
a.
There
is
no
way
I
mean
in
terms
of
the
parking
spaces,
as
you
noted,
when
they
come
for
each
time
for
their
csc.
It's
it's
noted
and
there's
some
form
formal
documentation,
since
they
own
property.
It's
not
like
a
lease
agreement
per
se
but
for
the
rear
yard.
C
E
Obviously
we
were
proposing
the
consolidation
to
to
tie
the
the
projects
together,
but
it
seemed
to
add
complexity
and
then,
obviously
the
so
if
we
went
back
we'll
have
the
rear
yard
for
320,
which
actually
probably
has
a
better
argument,
because
that
is
clearly
a
already
a
side
yard
so
to
to
reduce
what
would
be
that
that
rear
yard
on
the
south
down
to
what
we
had
at
the
time,
improving
the
current
condition
that
it
was
an
easier
ask,
but
then
we
have,
as
megan
said,
the
spacing
between
the
buildings.
E
I
think
you
know
chris.
Maybe
you
could
speak
to
this,
but
you
know
we
are
open
to
tying
the
two
together.
But
one
thing
I
would
point
out
is
that
if
the
variances
are
granted
this
condition
in
particular
for
325,
that's
it
right.
It's
not!
It's
not
changing
in
any
way
and
if,
for
some
reason,
320
elmwood
would
ever
change
hands.
E
E
G
C
Sorry
I
was
just
going
to
ask
a
question
of
chris
and
jason.
I
guess
is
if
that
is
a
concern
of
the
boards.
Is
there
still
any
consideration
of
consolidating,
why
I
mean
you're
you're,
swapping
variances,
basically
a
pretty
substantial,
percentage-wise
rear
yard
on
325
versus
you
know
the
spacing
of
the
primary
structure.
K
C
You
would
I
mean
you
would
have
a
rear
yard,
but
the
I
mean
the
other
one's
12.7
feet
as
opposed
to
20.
You
know
the
you
know
the
1.6
and
I'm
sure
you've
talked
about
it.
I
just
further.
E
Yeah
chris,
I
mean
I
mean
you
know
it's
too
bad
greg
isn't
here,
but
obviously
we
can
talk
and
you
know
pitch
something
in
that
regard.
If,
if
it's
helpful,
you
know
it
seems
like
it
would
be,
but
again
in
the
effort
to
both
reduce
the
number
and
the
severity.
E
This
was
the
easiest
way
and
I
I
would
almost
say
in
a
sense,
it
helps
make
a
point
right.
320
was
much
easier
to
process
now,
and
so
maybe
maybe
that
does
alter
the
perception
if
we
went
back
to
putting
the
parcels
together,
so
I
personally
would
be
open,
but
I'm
not
the
owner
so
I'll.
Leave
that
to
chris
and
and
really
greg's
the
owner.
K
Yeah,
I
I
think
we'd
be
open.
Obviously
we'd
like
to
understand
the
the
impact
to
the
schedule
of
potential
approvals.
Like
you
know
what
what
that
would
look
like
look
like,
I
guess
so
yeah
I
mean
I
think,
we're
definitely
open
to
it.
C
I
mean
that's
up
to
the
board.
I'd
say:
the
only
thing
I
would
know
to
david's
question
is
the
only
way
for
zoning
to
tie
these
two
together
is
the
consolidation
to
answer
your
question.
A
A
I
could
see
myself
getting
behind
it,
knowing
knowing
the
intention,
I
still
think
you'll
you'll
hit
some
roadblocks
and
some
of
the
other
elements
brought
up
but
and
for
the
purpose
of
drafting
mega
knight.
I
think
it's
substantial
though
the
other
merits
of
the
case
could
could
warrant
at
passing.
K
No,
I
I
think,
obviously
you
know
we
presented
everything
as
a
consolidated,
a
lot
in
the
beginning.
You
know
our
intent
is
to
keep
these
together.
It's
not
the
intent
is
to
not
ever
you
know,
parcel
one
off.
They
really.
You
know
they
kind
of
work
together.
So.
I
A
No,
it's
good
to
hear
thank
you
moving
on
to
number
five
maximum
building
length,
so
cr3
district
limits,
building
width
to
45
feet
in
length.
This
regulation
applies
to
the
entire
building,
not
individual
facades,
the
full
building
length
along
dryden
road
measures,
61
feet
which
exceeds
that
maximum
allowed
by
the
zoning
ordinance
by
16
feet
for
35.6
percent.
J
H
All
right
so,
just
at
the
outset
again
we're
looking
at
another
number
we're
looking
at
35
over
that's
a
huge
amount
over.
I
can't
see
this
is
anything
other
than
self-created
and
I
do
wonder
what
the
alternatives
would
be,
and
certainly,
if
jason
or
chris
want
to
speak
to
that
I'd
be
more
than
happy
to
to
see
it.
I
do
think
they've
made
some
or
made
some
designs
to
try
and
reduce
the
impact
on
it.
The
way
they
set
them
in.
H
So
it's
not
just
one
flat
surface
running
the
length,
but
you
know
it's
it's
a
huge
number
over
and
I
I
do
wonder
what
the
alternatives
are
here
and
how
this
isn't
self-inflicted.
F
So,
from
the
first
review
I
had
my
my
analysis
process
was
that,
yes,
the
overall
length
was
a
significant
ask,
but
at
the
same
time
I
didn't
necessarily
think
that
that
would
be.
F
F
I
think
that
it
definitely
helps,
and
you
know,
working
with
all
the
other
changes
to
help
with
the
variance
of
variances
that
were
being
requested.
I
think
that
it's
well
yes,
it
could
be
considered
still
substantial.
F
It
is
a
lot
closer
to
you
know
what
what
they
could
have
without
coming
to
this
board.
If
you
look
at
it
by
yes,
the
percentage-wise,
it's
a
definitely
a
substantial
ask,
but
looking
at
the
number
of
feet
in
length,
especially
if
you
look
at
the
way
that
things
are
staggered
kind
of
those
trade-offs.
It's
it's
16
feet.
F
F
I
I
don't
know
I
I
don't
again
thinking
about
all
those
kind
of
ways
to
look
at
it.
I
don't
really
see
it
as
the
worst
case
and
I
would
be
in
favor
of
going
through
with
the
issuing
the
variance.
J
Yeah,
I
could
take
a
stab
at
it.
This
is
the
one
where
I
sort
of
felt
gamed.
You
know,
jason.
You
asked
to
push
it
the
envelope
in
every
direction
and
then
we're
going
well.
This
is
okay,
you
know,
they've
pulled
it
back
from
the
big
ask.
I
like
the
project.
I
think
it
looks
good.
I
think
that
the
step
back
on
it
definitely
does
a
lot
to
improve
the
length
of
the
building.
J
J
The
original
proposal
here
was
pushing
the
envelope
on
on
every
every
front,
so
I
like
the
project
we
have.
I
think
it's
much
better.
H
So,
like,
obviously,
if
you
reduce
the
length
you're
reducing
the
amount
of
the
inside
square
footage,
which
my
brain
would
say,
reduces
the
amount
of
you
know,
units
you
can
have
inside
and
then
effects
like
that's
why
other
things
gets
even
into
potentially
the
parking
space.
Like
I
see
this
one
is
affecting
a
lot
of
things.
Can
you
guys
tell
me
how
it
would
affect
that
residential
part
of
it,
like
the
actual
inside
part
of
it?
If
you
did
reduce
it
further
or
even
just
how
much
it
affected
from
the
original
to
now.
E
So
the
you
know
I
couldn't
reduce
it
more
than
that.
You
know
roughly
13
and
a
half
feet.
Otherwise,
I
I
can't
get
units
in
this
in
this
little
east
wing,
so
the
circulation
is
right
in
the
middle,
and
so
I
literally
now
have
three
one
bedrooms
and
then
because
the
top
floors
habitable
space
under
the
roof
to
comply
with
the
form
district,
it
worked
out
to
be
a
studio
apartment.
E
So
basically
that
was
it
was
a
one
bedroom
and
then
three
two
bedrooms.
It's
now
a
studio
and
three
one
bedroom.
So
we've
lost
three
three
beds
in
that
scenario,
and
you
know
I
I
keep
coming
back
to
we're
a
little
over
unlock
coverage
300
square
feet,
but
but
this
footprint
is
a
lot
larger
than
that
that
300
square
foot
and
it's
just
kind
of
how
it
lays
out
on
on
the
site.
E
But
you
know
I
I
do
feel
a
little
compelled
to
to
comment
or
respond
to
mike's
concern
that
he
felt
a
little
gamed.
I
we
we
got
a
little
confused
because
if
you
go
to
the
online
or
I'm
sorry,
if
you
go
to
the
the
printed
college
town
forum
districts,
it
has
their
original
regulation,
which
was
building
length
from
one
side
and
then
it
was
later
revised
and
we
kind
of
got
stuck
in
the
in
the
middle
of
that.
E
E
N
A
A
So
I
do
think
if
there's
a
way
for
you
to
to
address
building
length,
which
I
view
and
tandem
with
density
as
a
whole
for
this
district
or
for
this
zone,
you
might
also
bring
your
building
toward
more
compliance
unlocked
coverage,
even
though
that
that
coverage
we
already
spoke
to
that.
You
know
that
that's
a
reasonable
overage,
the
the
pro
forma
of
the
proposed
structure
right.
A
The
need
to
tear
down
the
building
to
then
build
new.
I
understand
that
the
want
behind
it.
I
understand
fully
the
intention,
but
I
don't
think
that
that's
necessarily
where
this
board
comes
in,
where
we
have
to
justify
the
the
desires
of
a
private
landowner
right
we're
just
this.
Is
our
mandate
and
we're
looking
at
calculations
and
and
feel
as
to
what
somebody's
going
beyond
when
it
comes
to
what
they're
allowed
by
right
on
their
property.
A
If
not,
I
can
keep
going
we're
down
to
number
six.
This
one,
I
think,
is
also
going
to
be
an
easy
one,
based
on
the
other
one,
but
required
vegetative
buffer.
A
minimum
10
foot
vegetative
buffer
from
the
rear
property
line
is
required
for
all
properties
within
the
cr3
district.
The
proposed
project
does
not
provide
sufficient
vegetative
buffer
in
the
rear
yard.
A
C
I
just
want
to
note
that,
with
this
case
I
mean
there
is
the
portion
of
the
building,
but
the
open
space,
the
yard
that
they
do
have.
It
is
mostly
meet
the
criteria
for
green
space,
with
the
exception
of
where
the
lift
is,
which
is
you
know,
of
course,
a
requirement.
I
mean
that's
separate
from
the
rear
yard,
but
there
is
what
yard
they
do
have
is
mostly
green,
except
for
what
is
required
by
the
ada
accesses.
C
So
I
did
just
want
to.
I
didn't
note
that
in
the
description,
so
I
wanted
to
highlight
that.
A
E
There's
there's
more
over
here
and
megan.
You
got
me
thinking
that
and
also
to
your
thought,
david
about
tying
the
two
together.
I
don't
know
how
to
do
it,
but
the
the
courtyard.
You
know
it's
a
it's
an
alternative
buffer
space
right.
You
know
it's,
you
know
it's
patio
space
and
some
green
space,
but
obviously
some
of
that
buffer
is
on
the
neighboring
property.
So
it's
hard
to
accomplish
it.
That
way.
A
J
I'm
I'm
fine
with
it.
I
think
when
you
take
them
together,
you
get
that.
I
know
that's
not
exactly
what
we're
doing
here,
but
I
I'm
okay
with
that.
A
Okay,
so
just
for
the
spirit
of
time
here
I
can
I'll
go.
I
don't
think
an
undesirable
change
would
be
produced
by
you
know
by
this
variance
for
vegetative
buffer.
A
It
could
be
achieved
through
viable
alternative
in
theory
or
actually
I
don't
know,
I
I
leave
that
up
as
a
question,
but
I
don't
think
it's
substantial.
I
don't
think
it'd
have
an
adverse
impact,
but
it
is
self-created
as
it
pertains
to
the
project
as
a
whole.
H
F
Hypothetically,
yes,
if
it's
self-created
sure
you
know
there
might
be
a
way
to
meet
it.
Otherwise,
is
it
undesirable
a
detrimental
change
to
the
neighborhood?
F
F
I
don't
see
it
necessarily
as
being
changed
it
and
especially
in
an
adverse
way.
I
I'm
glad
to
see
that
the
proposal
does
meet
the
other
green
space
requirement.
I
think
that
that's
you
know.
A
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
that's
it,
and
what
will
happen
now
is,
as
megan
did
mention
we're
going
to
leave
this
public
hearing
open.
I
think
you
guys
got
some
feedback
from
us
gaining
ground
in
some
aspects
and
then
you,
you
still
have
some
concerns,
I
think,
to
to
work
through.
I
think
you
hit
a
snag,
potentially
50
50,
with
the
parking
and
and
building
length
and
board
members
jump
in.
If,
if
you
had
other
concerns
that
I'm
missing
here,
but
can.
G
C
C
F
Perhaps
I
could
try
again
it's
pre-ex,
it's
similar
to
the
pre-existing
conditions,
but
what's
been
added
that
is
required
and
of
benefit
for
long-term
use
of
the
structure.
Is
the
ada
lift?
F
A
C
And
this
is
one
of
those
situations
where
that
we
talk
about.
C
Where
I
mean
it
can
be
a
good
project,
but
if
it
doesn't
meet
the
criteria
it
the
board
cannot
support
it,
which
I
I
think
you
get
the
board
in
between
now
and
then,
as
I
draft
up
your
comments,
you
can
certainly
revisit
and
we
can
rework,
as
you
think
more
about
this
between
now
and
then,
but
I
I
and
I
would
encourage
you
to
do
so,
but
just
a
reminder
that,
well
you
don't
have
to
meet
all
of
the
criteria.
C
C
You
do
need
to
meet
us
most
of
the
criteria,
and
so
I
get
started.
We
don't
have
to
dwell
more
on
it
now,
but
I
would
encourage
the
board
to
think
more
about
that.
As
I
draft
up
your
comments
and
so,
but
I
think
that
gives
the
applicant
some
direction
that
on
which
variances
their
board
is
supportive
of
in
which
the
board
is
split.
It
will
take
a
vote
of
three
board
members
to
approve
the
variance
any
of
the
variances.
So.
C
Well,
I
mean
once
the
I
mean
technically
they're
issuing
the
variance
and
victor
can
chime
in
on
this
as
well,
but
once
they're
I
mean
they
can
be
issued
the
variances,
but
without
all
the
variances
they're
going
to
have
to
redesign
the
project
which
the
board
will
need
to
take.
Another
look
at
because
impacts,
change,
and
that
kind
of
thing
I
don't.
M
I
Sorry,
I
I
did
just
want
to
want
to
chime
in
for
a
second
yeah,
I
mean
I
mean,
to
the
extent
that
the
variances
are
granted.
They
would
certainly
be
welcome,
to
you
know,
do
do
a
project
that
meets
zoning
with
those
variances
granted.
I
So
you
know,
wouldn't
it
be
necessarily
back
to
the
drawing
board
situation?
I
guess
it
would
be
back
to
the
drawing
board
to
some
extent,
but
they
wouldn't
have
to
start
from
from
from
scratch,
so
to
speak,
and
if
they
could
build
a
unit
designing
project
within
the
variances
as
granted.
I
C
That
does
conclude
tonight's
portion
and
we
will
be
moved
back
in
february
for
the
board
to
make
their
decision
if
the
bull,
if
the
applicants
do
make
further
changes,
they're
welcome
to
present
those
at
that
time,
but
otherwise
the
portal
vote
in
february.
M
A
All
right,
thank
you,
jason
and
chris
thank
you
and
any
more
info.
You
could
send
to
megan
and
that'll
get
relayed
to
us
as
well.
B
C
C
So
our
next
appeal
is
number
3202
815,
south
aurora
street
appeal
of
susan
suzanne,
dennis
and
south
hill
living
solutions.
Llc
of
the
zoning
administrator's
determination
that
the
construction
of
three
multiple
dwellings
at
815,
south
aurora
street,
meets
the
requirements
of
section
325,
8
column,
14,
15,
rear
yard,
section
325,
20,
f3b,
the
landscape,
compliance
method
for
new
and
enlarged
parking
areas,
with
the
capacity
for
three
or
more
parking
spaces
on
lots
within
residential
districts
and
section
325,
29.9
fall
zone
and
setback
requirements
for
tier
3,
personal
wireless
service
facilities.
C
In
april
2019,
the
zoning
administrator
reviewed
plans
for
the
construction
of
a
new
66
unit
student
housing
complex
on
the
property
located
at
815
south
aurora
street.
The
property
is
in
a
regularly
shaped,
2.85
acre
lot.
That
is
also
the
site
of
an
existing
cell
tower
facility.
After
a
complete
review
of
project
plans,
the
zoning
administrator
determined
that
the
new
project
met
all
of
the
crimes
of
the
city's
zoning
ordinance
and
no
variances
were
required.
C
On
september
16,
2019
suzanne,
dennis
owner
of
117-119
to
cut
coddington
road
and
brian
growl.
Mr
grout
has
since
sold
his
property
and
been
replaced
by
south
hill
living
solutions.
Llc
was
the
owner
of
809
south
of
rora
street,
submitted
an
application
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
to
appeal
the
zoning
administrator's
decision.
The
appellants
claim
that
the
proposed
project
did
not
require
variances,
for
one
did
require
variances.
C
Excuse
me
for
one:
the
rear
yard,
two
sighting
of
a
parking
area
in
the
fall
zone
of
a
cell
tower
and
three,
the
landscape
compliance
method
for
locating
a
new
parking
lot
in
the
rear
and
or
side
yards.
The
zoning
administrator
determined
that
the
appeal
could
not
be
heard
by
the
bza
because
it
was
submitted
more
than
60
days
after
the
decision
on
the
project's
zoning
compliance.
The
appellants
filed
an
article
78
proceeding
to
challenge
the
rejection
of
their
appeal
on
september
16
2021,
the
appellate
division
third
department
ruled
the
zoning
administrator's.
C
C
Llc
timely
submitted
an
application
to
appeal
the
zoning
administrator's
decision
that
the
project
at
815,
south
aurora
street,
is
compliant
with
the
following
zoning
regulations:
one
325
8
column,
14,
15,
rare
yard.
The
appellants
assert
that
the
average
lot
depth
was
calculated
incorrectly
and
the
project
is
deficient
in
the
required.
Your
yard
section,
325
20,
d2e
access
requirements.
The
appellants
argue
that
the
driveway
grade
exceeds
the
eight
percent
allowed
by
the
zoning
ordinance
three
section:
three:
twenty
five:
twenty
e
three
front
yard
parking.
C
This
project
cites
a
parking
area
within
the
fall
zone
for
the
existing
cell
tower
and
the
appellants
assert.
The
parking
area
is
an
area
of
congregation
and
as
such,
should
not
be
permitted
within
the
fall
zone.
At
the
december
7th
2021
border
zoning
appeals
meeting
the
zoning
administrator
and
the
appellants
presented
their
analyses
of
the
project
and
the
board
held
a
public
hearing
on
the
appeal.
The
board
will
continue
its
deliberation
at
the
january
4th
2022
meeting.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
tonight
we're
further
deliberating.
We
do
have
representatives
gina
leonardi,
as
well
as
the
appellants
design
team,
john
snyder
here
and
so
board
members
can
ask
questions.
Megan
the
the
appellants
aren't
presenting
again
correct
we're
just.
C
No
again
with
the
board
had
a
lot
to
take
in
last
time
and
wanted
some
additional
time
to
discuss,
and
but
they
are
all
here
available
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
board
might
have.
I
A
Great
and
then
I
guess
just
before
going
into
this-
I
just
want
to
say
that
this
is
a
highly
technical
appeal.
It's
it's
a
difficult
one
and
we'll
just
we'll
we'll
go
through
it
bit
by
bit
any
questions
just
just
say
so,
but
but
it
is
a
tough
one
and
please
know
that
we'll
we'll
all
do
our
best
here
and
work
our
way
through
it.
A
With
that
I
was
thinking
we'd
well
and
and
before
I
dive
into
it
right
our
our
job.
Here,
it's
not
to
determine
whether
or
not
somebody
was
acting
in
bad
faith,
good
faith
right,
we're
just
looking
at
the
zoning
analysis
and
making
sure
that
the
zoning
was
applied
correctly,
yes
or
no,
and
if
it
wasn't
what
mitigation
that
needs
to
be
taken.
Is
that
correct
megan
did
I
speak
to.
A
C
J
And
how
does
this?
How
does
this
work
if
there's
five
people
voting
or
four
people
voting?
If
someone
abstained
on
a
vote,
what
what
number
of
yeses
or
no's
creates?
I
don't
know.
C
Yeah
so
it'll
require
three
votes
to
per
each
one
of
these
they'll
be
voted
on
separately.
It
takes
three
votes
from
the
board
to
essentially
overturn
the
zoning
administrator's
decision
for
you.
Well,
there's
always
a
board
member
can
recuse
themselves
from
appeal
in
terms
of
abstaining.
C
You
have
to
have
a
reason
for
abstaining.
That
must
be
stated.
If
it's
you
know
needing
clarification
or
that
kind
of
thing
before
you
vote,
we
can
certainly
work
through
that
and
that's
why
the
teams
are
here
to
help,
but
otherwise
the
board
there
needs
to
be
a
specific
reason.
A
And
just
to
clarify
megan,
it's
okay
for
joe
to
participate
in
this
one.
O
Yeah,
we
are
we're
fine
with
with
mr
curry,
joining.
A
You
you're
right,
yeah.
Okay,
I
think,
unless
somebody
wants
to
start
elsewhere,
I'd
like
to
start
with
driveway
grade.
O
C
Likely
doing
the
same
tonight
for
this
appeal
as
we
did
with
the
previous
and
that
I'd
like
to
gather
the
board's
feedback
and
and
information.
I
recommend
you
use
that
deliberation
guide
that
has
been
sent
previously,
just
to
kind
of
help
collect
and
I
will
fill
it
out
and
then
I
will
draft
the
decision
for
the
board's
review
and
vote
next
month.
So
today,
again
we're
really
focusing
on
the
deliberation
that
they're,
as
opposed
to
the
vote.
A
So,
actually,
just
going
off
of
that,
I
let's
start
with
rear
yard,
as
it's
laid
out
in
the
guide.
So
at
the
appellate.
A
It's
just
right
here
in
front
of
me
staring
at
a
screen,
so
the
appellants
assert
that
the
average
lot
lot
depth
was
calculated
incorrectly
and
the
project
is
deficient
in
the
required
rear
yard
right.
So
we're
tasked
with
figuring
out
if
the
zoning
administrator
correctly
applied
the
zoning
ordinance
to
the
calculation
of
the
rear
yard.
A
If
not,
why
and
if?
Yes,
why
right
and
then
we're
gonna?
We
have
to
clearly
state
our
reasoning
for
our
answer:
we're
going
to
reference
specific
code,
sections,
materials,
etc,
and
that
you
know
if
we
need
somebody
to
bring
something
up
on
the
on
the
screen.
We
can
ask
for
that,
but
we
do
have
the
info
in
our
packets.
J
I
saw
two
different
ways
to
calculate
the
rear
yard
and
I
feel
like
less
than
an
authority
on
this
one,
but
I
do
feel
like
staff
made
a
sincere
honest
effort
to
make
the
correct
calculation.
J
C
Would
it
be
helpful
mike
if
to
what
would
it
be
helpful
to
have
both.
F
F
It's
a
little
more
regular
shaped
and
that's
you
know
I
say
rectangle
or
square
right.
You
can
get
a
solid
dimension.
It's
when
it's
the
other
version.
It's
a
little
more
difficult
to
calculate.
H
I
guess
I
would
like
to
hear
the
appellants
speak
to
that,
because
if
I'm
recalling
correctly
we're,
you
know
airing
on
the
side
of
the
the
property
owner,
so
if
you
guys
can
kind
of,
I
know
mike
said
I
didn't
want,
he
didn't
want
us
to
walk
through.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
walk
through
it,
but
I
guess
I
I
would
like
some
clarification
on
that
point.
H
O
O
Bear
can
address
specifically
on
that
in
a
second,
but
I
do
just
want
to
respond
real
quickly
to
aaron
on
the
side
of
the
property
owner.
I
think
that
that
argument,
media
or
that
presupposition
may
apply
in
situations
where
you
know
say:
there's
a
an
ambiguous
term
in
a
code
like
I
think
they
raise
that
in
the
the
fall
zone.
Question-
and
maybe
that's
more
applicable
with
that
to
that
one
here
I
don't
think
there's
any
difference
to
the
property
owner.
It's
a
you
know,
objective
math
kind
of
question,
so
it's.
H
P
So
I
guess
where
I
would
like
to
just
start
is:
we
do
agree
in
the
fact
of
we
think
gino
was
attempting
to
act,
honorably
and
justly
and
try
to
calculate
things
correctly.
P
The
presentation
that
we
gave
you
was
based
off
of
gino's
words
and
his
affidavit
in
conjunction
with
how
the
code
or
the
zoning
ordinance
is
written
and
those
two
things
aren't
in
conflict
with
each
other,
and
it
makes
perfect
sense,
and
so
that's
how
we
applied
it
in
our
that's
diagram,
going
into
a
lot
of
detail,
because
I
know
we
deliberated
this
a
lot
last
month.
That's
the
short
of
it.
P
I
do
believe
based
off
of
conversations
with
the
team
if
the
board
is
having
concerns
with
not
feeling
like,
because
this
is
technical
and
not
feeling
that
they're
the
authority
or
comfortable
with
making
certain
calculations.
I
believe
the
board
has
an
opportunity,
and
I
could
be
wrong
on
this.
Please
correct
me
if
I
am,
but
I
believe
the
board
has
an
opportunity
to
reserve
a
third
party,
indifferent
professional,
to
be
able
to
review
this.
A
A
Well,
I
can
we
did
look
into
that.
We
did
receive
an
email
to
that
effect
and
megan
step
in
if
I'm
wrong
here,
but
it
it
pertained
to
the
code
for
an
outside
party
paying
for
that
study
and
then,
as
far
as
city
funding
allows
for
a
third
party
to
be
engaged.
I
don't
think
it's
an
opportunity
that
we
can
exercise.
A
C
Just
for
claire,
I'm
sorry
just
to
say
a
present
well,
it
certainly
is
something
that
is
allowed.
Common
council
has
not
allocated
funding
for
that.
I
suppose
it's
something
that
could
be
requested,
but
again
in
terms
of
timing.
That
would
take
some
some
time
and
I
can't
say
whether
or
not
that
would
be
something
that
they
would
approve,
but
I
mean,
as
mr
tantillo
noted,
it's
certainly
something
that
is
allowed
by
code
and
statute
to
do
that.
A
Megan,
so
is
it
possible
for
if
bza
members
to
decide
that
that
would
have
merit,
I
mean?
Is
it
possible
to
have
a
a
board
or
for
members
to
request
that
and
then
I
don't
know
how
that
pertains
to
the
public
hearing
and
extension
and
tabling
in
the
meantime
I
don't
know,
but
that
might
speak
to
mike's
concerns.
C
Okay,
so
I
mean
it
is-
we
can
come
back
to
that
in
a
minute,
but
I
I
mean
the
board
can
certainly
request
funding
from
the
common
council.
I'm
not
in
terms
of
timing.
C
I
don't
know
I
would
have
to
work
with
council
members
and
others
to
to
put
that
request
forward
which,
like
I'm
happy
to
do,
but
I
will
note
that
the
appeal
I
mean
there
is
a
timeline
on
this
appeal,
so
it
would
really
have
to
be
something
that
the
that
the
appellants
are
are
willing
to
table
and
postpone
their
appeal
until
we
get
some
resolution
on
that.
A
C
I
don't
off
the
top
of
my
head.
It
would
be
something
we
could
gather
about
what
it
would
look
into
if
the
board
is
interested,
that
route.
A
Okay,
well,
I
think
that
it
raises
a
question,
but
I
do
think
in
the
meantime,
we
should
continue
deliberating.
B
I
just
got
through
jason's
demorester's
last
presentation.
Very
similar
type
of
geometry:
you've
got
a
trapezoidal
shape,
I'm
seeing
the
rear
yard
calculated
incorrectly,
possibly
in
the
same
fashion
that
we're
dealing
with
at
the
860
property.
I
you
know,
I'm
urging
you
all
just
to
kind
of
really
take
a
hard
look
at
this.
I'm
pretty
certain
our
calculations
are
correct.
B
Zoning
is
correct
and
you
know
it
is
complicated,
but
we
work
in
municipalities,
municipalities,
all
across
new
york
state
from
albany
to
syracuse
to
ithaca
zoning
is
a
zoning
code
is
fairly
straightforward
when
it
comes
to
calculating
rear
yards,
it's
really
meant
for
the
lay
people
to
understand.
B
J
A
Sure,
let's
just
dive
into
it,
then
right.
We've
established
that
we're
at
least
interested
in
the
prospect
of
a
third
party
and
what
that
would
look
like
with
common
council,
though
we
can
at
least
megan,
if
you
don't
mind,
start
raising
some
of
those
questions,
but
as
it
pertains
to
tonight,
let's
just
again,
let's
go
connection
to
the
rear
yard.
A
I'll
raise
the
first
question
right
to
me,
the
in
reviewing
geno's
document,
the
average
of
the
two
calculated
calculated
side
lot
line.
Depths
were
used
to
determine
the
location
of
the
rear,
lot
line
right,
so
342.81
feet,
plus
183.52
feet
equals
526.33,
and
then
we
did
526.33
divided
by
2
equals
263.16.
A
Moving
on
this
is
the
precise
method
used
to
calculate
the
rear
yard
for
the
project
located
at
a
815
south
aurora
street.
So
if
I'm
just
pontificating
here
and
having
to
reference
a
specific
element
that
that
could
be
an
argument
that
that
that
says
that
the
city
there
went
through
that
correctly
right,
basically
referencing
the
method
that
was
used
and
then
you
would
reference
the
the
numbers
put
forth
in
that
examination,
I
would
have
been
something
I
wanted.
P
If
I,
if
I
may,
that's,
not
a
question,
the
question
is.
A
Yeah
and
again
I'm
just
I'm
I'm
trying
to
raise
questions
so
that
we
can
start
to
weave
toward
an
answer
here.
But
I
I
guess
our
board
members
comfortable
with
the
method
used
to
get
to
the
city's
assessment,
that
a
variance
was
not
needed
and
and
if
so
then
we
need
to
start
to
pick
out
information
as
to
why
or
vice
versa.
J
I'm
fine
with
the
calculation
genome
made,
but
I
know
there's
eight
or
ten
people
here
who
want
to
tell
me
that
the
math
is
really
simple
and
the
answer.
J
Simple
and
that
that's
the
wrong
answer,
so
I
just
spoke
for
the
appellants.
I
feel
good
about
that,
but
I
thought
gino's
explanation
made
sense
and
this
is
where.
A
J
D
H
Coming
from
like
the
math,
is
there
the
calculation
the
way
gino
put
forth
it's?
It
seems
straightforward
again
the
efforts
there,
but
again
for
the
appellant.
I
see
I
see
the
complaint
like.
I
don't
have
an
answer
right
this.
Second,
I
don't
anticipate
giving
one
right
this
second,
but
it
does
seem
more
straightforward
than
we're
making
it
I
will.
I
will
give
that
credit
out
there.
H
Oh
it
like,
I
do
think
for
some
of
this,
like
we,
we
have
the
the
math
where
we
were
com
over
complicating
it
a
little
bit
like
it
might
be
math
that
I
haven't
done
since
high
school
and
might
not
have
even
touched
at
that
point.
But
you
know
it's
it's
stuff
that
you
know.
Obviously
these
people
are
capable
of.
A
Sure,
okay,
so
essentially,
two
reasonable
sides:
two
reasonable
parties
coming
to
two
different
conclusions:
right
and
all
right.
F
I
thought
I
would
just
briefly
mention
that
I
think
that
the
method
of
using
the
average
was
the
appropriate
method
to
use,
but,
as
we've
discussed
with
other,
you
know
comments
it's
determining
what
that
measurement
is
to
get
the
the
math.
So
you
know,
I
think
the
correct
method
was
used,
though,
for
to
get
somehow
to
some
calculation.
The
correct
method
was
used.
A
Okay,
all
right
still,
we
could
build
off
of
that.
Yes,
the
the
correct
analysis
was
applied
and
then
you're
gonna
back
up.
That
not
only
was
the
correct
analysis
applied
that
the
correct
number
was
reached.
Is
that
what
I'm
gathering
and
then
and
then,
if
that's,
then
we
can
just
reference
the
exact
rear
yard
dimensions.
If,
if
megan,
that's
something
you
want
us
to
comb
through
here
and
do
but.
A
H
I
know
we're
trying
to
avoid
talking
to
the
appellate.
I
do
have
a
question
for
the
appellates.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
was
just
understanding
the
argument
correctly
because
it
was
my
read
of
it
was
the
driveway
goes
around
a
curve
and
a
portion
of
the
curve
is
where
we're
over
the
grade
is
that
was
I
seeing
that
correctly
as
your
argument,
or
am
I
just
missing
that.
P
So
the
way
the
code
reads
is
you
can't
have
a
maximum
grade
over
eight
percent,
and
so
that
means
any
point
within
that.
First
25
feet
from
the
curve
can
be
greater
than
eight
percent
and
based
off
of
that,
and
the
ten
percent
grade
required
by
fire
code
is
the
same.
P
The
same
thing,
so
those
two
are
calculated
the
same
way
and
when
we
reviewed
this,
it
clearly
is
indicated
by
the
the
developers
design
team
that
they
are
over
the
10
before
the
25
foot
line
on
their
documents,
and
we
were
further
able
to
confirm
that
by
double
checking,
math
and
checking
the
the
measurements
on
the
curve
of
rise
over
run
and
they
hit
even
over
10
or
10.4,
which
is
actually
not
which
violates
the
state
code.
Even
but
that's
a
not
for
this
group
to
deal
with.
H
H
B
H
I
mean
again
I'm
not
trying
to
give
like
full
answers
tonight,
but
I
certainly
see
the
argument
that
I
mean
bears
been
the
one
doing
most
of
the
talking
and
did
most
of
the
talking.
At
that
point
I
see
exactly
what
he's
saying.
I
very
much
understood
that
I
very
much
see
what
the
code
says.
Yeah
I
get
that
one
okay.
F
I'm
not
necessarily
seeing
any
changes
from
the
discussion
that
we
had
last
time.
I
think
what
was
brought
to
my
attention
to
make
the
calculations
more
clear,
is
using
a
topography
map
and
try
and
just
make
sure
that
I
I
I
at
least
me
understood,
which
measurement
heights
based
on
the
survey
were
associated
with
that
the
grade
right
there
in
the
first
25
feet.
A
A
P
A
And
board
mem
we
are
able
to
receive,
you
know
mailers.
So
if
there's
you
know
larger
print
copies,
sometimes
that's
more
tangible.
You
could
deliver
that
to
megan
and
she
could
get
that
out
to
us
as
needed.
C
Yes,
I'll
make
sure
you
have
all
that
and
if
you
think
of
something
else.
A
Let's
see
rear
yard
access
requirements,
front
yard
parking.
The
appellants
claim
that
the
proposed
front
yard
parking
and
driveways
exceed
the
25
permitted
by
the
zoning
ordinance.
Did
the
zoning
administrator
correctly
apply
the
zoning
ordinance
to
the
calculation
of
front
air
parking?
Yes,
no
evidence
right.
Please
state
your
reasoning
for
your
answer
and
then
we
reference
specific
code
sections
or
application
materials,
if
applicable,.
A
C
I
would
say:
if
you
want
a
refresher
we
should
we
can
go
in
the
order
we
did
originally,
which
would
be
giving
gino
couple
minutes.
Let's
try
to
keep
if
everyone
could
keep
it
brief
refresher
on
his
analysis
and
then
we
can
let
bear
john
present
their
analysis.
G
G
Q
Sure
I
believe
it
was
depicted
in
the
exhibits
that
I
submitted
for
the
front
yard
parking
area
which,
according
to
the
information,
the
architect
provided
to
me,
it
was
under
the
25.
A
Okay,
thank
you
bear
real,
quick
if
yep.
P
So,
measuring
from
the
same
spot,
the
the
design
team
did
as
well
on
the
existing
building
on
the
site.
What
the
design
team
failed
to
depict
was.
They
showed
where
it
was
not
in
compliance,
but
they
didn't
show
where
it
was
in
compliance.
So
we
don't
understand
the
full
scope
of
how
they
got
to
their
total
square
footage
area.
So
when
we
went
and
reviewed
it,
we
showed
what
was
not
in
compliance
and
what
was
in
compliance
and
when
we
looked
at
the
square
footages
of
each
of
those,
it's
not
in
compliance.
P
It's
over
the
allotted,
25
percent.
So,
as
I
understand
it,
it's
our
burden
to
prove
that
there
was
a
variance
required.
I
think
we've
done
that.
I
think
if
the
there
was
to
be
a
different
determination,
the
the
other
design
team
would
have
to
present
adequate
information
to
so
show
that
they
are
in
compliance,
and
I
don't
believe
they've
done,
such
as
we
have.
A
A
C
I
mean
at
this
point:
gino
has
provided
the
the
his
analysis,
not
the
project
team,
although
a
representative
of
the
property
owner
is
here
tonight
and
I'm
sure
would
answer
a
question,
but
the
you
know
the
the
what
it
the
board
needs
to
look
at
is
the
information
that
that
gino
has
presented
and
his
analysis
to
calculate
it.
Not
what
the
development
the
developers
team
presented.
I
Yeah,
I
think
that's
right,
I
don't
sorry
it's
victor
kessler's,
since
the
attorney,
I
don't
there's
any
sort
of
like
shifting
shifting
burden
process
here.
I
think
what
you're
looking
at
is
whether
gino's,
whether
you
believe
that
geno's
determination
was
correct
in
the
first
instance
and
whether
whether
these
pelons
have
met
their
burden
to
show
that
it
wasn't.
A
Okay,
thank
you
victor
joe,
do
you
have
any
response
to
that.
H
J
H
That's
what
we're
running
into
a
lot.
I
think
that's
what
we're
going
to
keep
running
into,
but
it's
it's
there
you
know,
did
gino
with
the
information
provided,
get
the
math
right
or
has
you
know
the
appellants
come
in
and
said?
Do
we
do
it?
H
I
don't
want
to
dive
too
much
into
like
what
my
analysis
is
ultimately
going
to
be,
but
this
one
again
it's
just
whose
math
was
better,
maybe
whose
inputs
were
better
on
this
one
I
think
maybe
might
be
more
accurate.
A
Okay,
so
then
it'll
it'll
be
the
same
thing.
I
think
I
can
sort
of
gauge
where
certain
board
members
heads
at,
but
in
terms
of
defending
your
yes
or
no.
A
We
need
to
be
able
to
reference
reference,
the
analysis
as
it
stands
as
it
led
to
this
situation
and
and
defend
it
or
or
say.
Yes,
there
was
an
error
here
and
I'm
I'm
looking
for
that
specific
language
that
we
could
pull
up
again.
A
We're
not
delivering
a
decision
tonight,
but
that's
something.
We
need
to
start
to
work
toward
and
give
megan
an
inclination
of
where
we,
where
we
stand.
F
There's
a
lot
of
pages
with
the
documentation
there
was
an
exhibit
that
was
mentioned.
Megan
do
you
have
which
one
that
references
I
can't
find
it.
I'm
sorry
that
mentions
the
front
yard.
C
C
So
there's
two
you
stephanie
are
you
looking
for
the
diagrams
like
the
for
the
or
the
most
recent
one
that
bear
had
sent
out
on
behalf
of
the
pr
the
appellants
team.
F
C
C
F
Not
necessarily,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
was
looking
at
the
right
page
and
I
see
the
text
there
that
has
the
yeah
the
calculations.
Yes,.
F
H
O
Okay,
I
can
actually
clarify
that
just
a
little
bit,
if
I'm,
if,
if
allowed
it's
it's,
I
don't
think
any
of
our
points
on
appeal
raise
an
error
in
like
in
the
actual
simple
arithmetic
of
the
calculations.
It's
all
about
like
yours,
the
inputs
is
the
is
the
term
that
I
would
echo
yeah
we're
not
saying
he
multiplied
something
wrong.
G
A
C
Yeah,
can
I
ask
just
a
question
of
the
board
members
as
we
you
know,
we've
said
several
times:
it's
pretty
detailed.
Is
everyone
clear
on,
or
does
everyone
understand
where
the
differences
in
the
calculations
apply
like
does
everyone
understand
how
the
different
numbers
were
arrived
at
or
is
that
are
there
any
of
those
that
are
unclear.
A
I
guess
I'll
be
honest.
It
gets
murky
as
time
goes
on
right.
You
know
you
get
together.
You
hear
the
information
you
read
up,
read
up
on
it
and
then
a
few
weeks
goes
by
and
you
know
so,
if
there's
a
way
to
get
a
refresher
each
time
without
you
know
clogging
up
a
bunch
of
of
time
on
the
agenda.
I
don't
know.
F
I
feel
surely,
as
we
discussed
with
the
other
calculations,
that
trying
to
read
the
plans
can
be
difficult.
F
So
if
there's
another
version-
or
maybe
I'm
just
not
seeing
it
quite
well
at
the
moment,
trying
to
make
sure
that
I
feel
comfortable
with
trying
to
figure
out
the
measurements.
C
C
Zoning
administrator
and
the
appellants
and
try
to
summarize
it
more
succinctly
and
I'd
like
if
that
would
be
helpful
of
the
board.
I
could
do
that
and
run
it
by
both
the
zoning
administrator
and
the
appellants
team.
To
make
sure
I
have
it
correct
before
I
distribute
to
the
board,
but
it
could
be
a
more
concise
write-up
of
it.
That
would
then
the
board
members
could
go
back
and
refer
to
the
larger
documentation.
I
don't
know
if
that
would
be
helpful
or
not.
A
I
Yeah,
I
I
don't
think
there
would
be
any
problem
necessarily
with
providing
a
summary
and
we're
past
the
point
where
we
can
take
new
evidence
now,
but
to
the
extent
that
it's
okay
with
with
the
affected
parties,
just
do
little
summaries.
I
think
that
would
be
fine.
I
would
also
like
to
remind
the
board
that
you
know
we
are
slated
to
or
the
decision
is
due
next
meeting,
but
you
are,
of
course,
all
welcome
to
continue
considering
the
submitted
materials
and
debating
amongst
yourselves.
I
You
know
following
this
particular
hearing.
You
know
we're
doing
this
publicly,
because
the
extent
that
you
guys
have
any
additional
questions
from
the
parties.
I
It's
helpful
to
have
them
available
right
now,
but
you
certainly
don't
have
to
reach
your
decision
tonight
or
you
know,
commit
anything
right
now
before
before
you
ultimately
vote
on
whatever
it
is
that
you
decide.
A
So,
essentially,
victor
the
information
that's
been
introduced
stands,
but
between
now
and
our
vote
in
february,
if
the
parties
wanted
to
get
us
side
by
side,
documentation
or
compiled
through
megan
that
that'd
be
okay,
you
know.
I
I
don't,
I
think,
if
that
would
be
acceptable
to
all
the
parties,
I
don't
think
there
would
be
anything
wrong
with
that.
You
know,
I
think
one
of
the
parties
were
to
adapt
or
the
property
owners
were
to
object.
We
would
need
to
consider
that
more
carefully,
but
you
know
in
in
principle
if
it's
not
new
information,
at
least
open
to
the
possibility.
C
What
I
proposed,
I
could
do,
is
kind
of
take
each
one
and
do
a
summary
in
a
diagram
of
how
they
differ
and,
as
I
said,
I
would
like
to
run
it
by
both
sides
before
sharing
it
with
the
board
to
make
sure
my
summary
doesn't
leave
out
any
key
component,
but
just
I
I
do
appreciate
how
difficult
this
is
and
how
much
documentation
there
is.
So
if
that's
something
that
would
be
helpful
and
would
be
agreeable
to
both
the
zoning
administrator
and
the
appellants,
I
don't
know
what
their
thoughts
are.
We.
C
D
Q
D
A
So
what
next
should
we
shall
we
move
on
to
the
next
topic?
You
know,
I
think
we
need.
A
We
would
like
to
continue
discussing
front
yard
parking.
We
could
move
on
to
landscape
compliance
method.
We
might
meet
similar
similar
sentiments.
What
are
people's
thoughts.
J
Don't
think
I
have
anything
to
add
on
either
of
those
the
congregant
area
I
felt
very
comfortable
saying
it
didn't
seem
to
be
a
congregant
area,
but
otherwise
the
rest
of
this
is,
I
don't
know.
I
want
a
little
help.
I
want
a
little
time.
I
want
a.
A
A
So
I
think
our
sentiments,
you
know
we're
still
deliberating
megan
as
of
just
yet
I
don't
think
we'll
have
a
solid
leaning,
one
way
or
another
for
number
four
and,
and
then
mike
alluded
to
it.
That
leads
us
to
number
five:
the
fall
zone
and
setback
requirements
for
tier
three
personnel,
wireless
services,
facilities,
the
project
sites
or
parking
area.
A
The
project
cites
a
parking
area
within
the
fall
zone
for
the
existing
cell
tower
and
the
appellants
assert
that
a
parking
area
is
an
area
of
congregation
and
as
such,
should
not
be
permitted
within
the
fall
zone.
Did
the
zoning
administrator
correctly
apply
the
zoning
ordinance
to
the
determination
that
a
parking
area
is
not
a
congregation
and
then,
of
course,
we'll
back
up
our
point
with
evidence
so
mike,
I
think,
you're
right,
I
think
of
all
the
ones
I
think
you
do
have
substantial.
A
A
F
I
I
there
was
just
one
thought
that
came
up
last
time
about
what
signage
was
actually
provided.
There
was
some
talk
about,
and
that
was
in
some
of
the
discussion,
some
sort
of
notification
about
this
nada
congregate
space.
J
This
this
reminds
me
of
this
sign
that
used
to
be
at
the
shortstop,
no
loitering.
That
means
hanging
around
so
only
and
I
think
we'll
have
a
con,
no
congregant
area
sign
up
that
says
you
know,
move
along
quickly
or
something
I
don't
know,
but
I've
never
seen
a
no
congregant
area
sign
somewhere.
So.
A
So
I
think,
with
this
one,
we
can
reference
this.
This
got
brought
to
common
council,
you,
you
have
the
email
chain
that
that
pretty
well
spells
out
the
conditions
and-
and
I
think
when
it
comes
time
to
it,
we
we
do
have
the
means
to
to
point
specifically
to
a
definition,
that's
buried
within
those
documents
to
support
our
support
of
the
zoning
administrator.
For
this
particular
contention
point
within
the
the
overall
appeal.
A
Just
to
recap:
right:
we
we
have
more,
we've
got
landscape
compliance.
Next
is
that.
C
C
Yeah,
I
can
do
something
like
a
side-by-side
summary.
It
sounds
like
where
the
board
is
referencing,
the
council
materials
and
the
policy
decision
there
for
number
five,
but
it
sounds
like
it
would
be
helpful
to
the
board
to
have
kind
of
a
side-by-side
summary
and
for
one
two,
three
and
four,
it's
also
I
know
bear
mentioned
he
had
some
enlarged
diagrams
that
he
can
provide,
which
would
be
very
helpful
and,
like
I
said,
we'll
run
that
by
everybody
and
get
it
out
to
the
board
from
there.
G
A
C
Very
so
and
again,
the
board,
due
to
you,
know
the
timeline.
The
board
will
have
to
vote
at
that
meeting
unless
the
applicant
agrees
to
an
extension
which,
again
if
there
was
even
any
attempt
to
get
funding
for
a
third
party
analysis,
would
absolutely
be
required.
G
O
O
Could
just
mention
one
other
thing
so
as
as
a
funding
option,
if,
if
it
doesn't
seem
realistic
to
get
common
council
funding
in
time
for
a
hearing,
I
I've
seen
zba's
and
playing
boards
assess
the
fee
for
retaining
their
own
expert
to
the
applicant,
which
is
something
that
we
would
be.
You
know
amenable
to
here.
If
it
helps
the
application,
you
know
be
assessed
fully.
C
I'll
defer
to
victor
on
that
one.
I
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think,
as
a
matter
of
city
policy,
and
you
know
just
put
some
of
the
case
law
in
mind.
I
don't
think
I
think
we
want
to
be
in
a
position
where
we're
permitting
applicants
to
pay
for
a
second
opinion,
so
to
speak.
But
but
I
appreciate
the
offer.
O
Well,
we
wouldn't
be
in
any
way
participating
in
the
retaining
it's
just
you
levy
the
fine
or
the
light
of
the
fee,
for
you
know,
what's
necessary
to
assess
the
application
on
the
applicant.
It's
you
know
it's
standard
in
like
cellphone
applications
where,
if
outside
experts
necessary
to
review
the
application,
then
you
know
those
costs
are
worn
by
the
applicant.
I
Yeah,
I
I
I
understand
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from.
I
guess
I
would
need
to
think
more
on
that
you
know
would
be
my
answer
for
the
moment.
O
A
No,
it's
understood,
I
think
also
what's
clear
here-
is
we're
we're
taking
this
very
seriously
right.
So
it's
it's
a
technical
problem
in
front
of
us
that
we're
we're
doing
we're.
A
We
will
do
it
to
the
best
of
our
ability,
we'll
continue
to
work
on
it
and
we'll
continue
to
review
the
material
and,
in
the
meantime,
any
bridging
of
the
gap.
Material
wise
between
the
gino
bear
property
owner
right.
Anything
in
coordination
with
megan
would
be
would
be
a
big
help
to
us.
C
No,
I
I
think,
that's
it.
I'm
glad
that
the
board
did
have
the
opportunity
to
ask
some
additional
questions
of
of
all
the
parties
involved
and
we'll
get
the
summary
documents
out
as
soon
as
possible,
and
then
we
can
continue
the
board's
discussions.
C
Sorry,
if
you're
with
me
a
lot
of
files
open
okay,
so
our
next
appeal
is
number
three:
two:
zero
five
222
south
cayugas
street
appeal
of
tilson
technology
management
and
dish,
wireless
llc
on
behalf
of
property
owner
david
hart
for
an
area
variants
from
section
325,
29.8,
c1
design,
standards
for
personal
wireless
service
facilities
at
the
city
of
ithaca,
zoning
ordinance,
the
applicant
proposes
to
add
a
dish:
wireless
antenna
array
to
an
existing
personal
wireless
service
facility
or
pwsf
located
on
the
rooftop
of
the
property
at
222,
south
cudi
hughes
street.
C
The
new
array
will
replace
existing
communication
equipment
that
is
scheduled
to
be
removed
and
is
considered
a
modification
of
the
existing
pwsf.
The
city
recently
amended
article
5a
telecommunication
facilities
and
services
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
and
the
amendment
requires
all
pwsf
to
be
located
at
least
250
feet
from
adjacent
residents
residences.
The
existing
pwsf
at
this
property
is
approximately
170
feet
from
the
nearest
residential
building.
This
is
an
existing
deficiency
that
will
not
be
exacerbated
by
this
proposal.
222
south
cubistry
is
located
in
the
cbd
100
district
in
which
the
proposed
pwsf
is
permitted.
A
Okay,
thank
you
with
the
appellant
like
to
present.
D
Hello,
my
name
is
melanie
dorn.
I
am
calling
from
tilson
technology
management.
We
are
working
with
dish
wireless
to
permit
smurf
top
facilities
in
the
area,
and
this
one
is
at
222
south
buga
street.
So
basically,
why
we're
I
mean,
as
megan
just
said,
why
we're
pursuing
the
era?
Variants
is
because
of
the
zoning
change
that
happened
recently.
D
D
So
the
scope
of
this
project,
I
believe
you
all
got
the
construction
drawings
and
photo
sims,
so
the
scope
is
adding
well
removing
sprint
equipment,
that'll
be
done
prior
to
the
project
and
adding
three
antennas
per
sector.
So
nine
antennas
total
to
the
rooftop
of
this
building,
there's
also
some
related
equipment
just
for
functionality,
but
yeah.
So
I
did
a
zoning
analysis
on
under
the
personal
wireless
ordinance
and
it
all
looks
good
there.
It's
really
just
the
residential
buildings
that
are
adjacent.
C
Yes,
I
do
not
have
anyone
to
speak
in
favor
or
in
opposition,
and
I
also
have
not
received
any
written
comments
on
it.
It
was
not
subject
to
review
by
tompkins
county
under
general
municipal
law,
and
I
do
not
have
any
comments
from
the
planning
board
on
it
and
the
also
is
a
type
2
action
under
seeker.
So
no
further
environmental
review
is
required.
A
Sure,
first
megan
do
we
need
to
close
the
public
hearing
or.
F
Oh
and
just
real
quick,
I
had
a
brief
question
since
there
is
that
type
2
seeker
determination.
Does
that
mean
that
the
planning
board
didn't
have
to
give
any
more
comments.
C
I
did
not
receive
any
additional
comments
to
the
planning
board.
The
board
did
review
it
at
their
last
meeting
in
december,
but
I
didn't
receive
comments
from
them
based
on
this
on
this
appeal.
So
at
this
point,
I'm
assuming
that
that
means
there
were
no
comments
on
the
request.
So,
okay.
J
Yeah,
I
don't
think,
do
we.
A
A
Okay,
let's
see
here,
I
will
make
a
motion:
let's
see
for
appeal
number
3205.
A
Let's
see
here
for
the
owner,
david
hart,
property
location,
222,
south
cayuga
street
zoning
district
cbd
100.,
as
it
pertains
to
this
variance
factors
considered
whether
an
undesirable
change
would
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
detriment
to
nearby
properties.
I
say
no,
the
proposed
installation
is
a
modification
of
an
existing
personal
wireless
service
facility
that
has
been
located
on
the
rooftop
of
the
property
for
more
than
20
years.
A
The
locations
of
personal
wireless
service
facilities
are
determined
determined
by
service
coverage
requirements,
while
there's
limited
radius
where
the
pwsf
can
be
located,
and
that's
the
personal
wireless
service
facility,
it
is
preferred,
as
stated
in
the
zoning
ordinance
to
co-locate
equipment
on
existing
sites
whenever
possible,
to
limit
any
visual
impacts.
Furthermore,
any
alternate
location
within
the
limited
radius
of
this
property
will
be
will
also
be
deficient
in
the
resident
setback.
Requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance
number
three,
whether
the
requested
variance
is
substantial.
A
No,
the
proposed
installation
will
be
located
170
feet
from
the
nearest
residential
structure
and
a
residential
setback
of
250
feet
is
required
by
the
zoning
ordinance.
While
this
is
a
deficiency
of
32
percent
of
the
required
setback,
this
is
a
deficiency
caused
by
the
location
of
the
existing
pwsf
site,
on
which
the
new
antenna
array
will
be
co-located,
and
that
will
not
be
exacerbated
by
the
proposal.
A
Number
four:
will
the
variants
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
of
the
neighborhood?
The
answer
is:
no.
The
new
pwsf
equipment
will
be
part
of
an
existing
installation
on
the
property.
There
is
no
evidence
to
indicate
that
this
modification
will
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions.
A
Number
five
was
this
difficulty,
this
alleged
difficulty
self-created.
The
answer
is:
no.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
install
new
equipment
and
an
existing
pwsf
location
to
mitigate
visual
club
clutter,
as
requested
by
the
city.
The
residential
setback
deficiency
is
an
existing
deficiency
that
predates
the
city's
adoption
of
the
residential
setback
requirement.
A
C
Motion
carries
and
the
variance
is
approved
ms
door
and
I'll
get
the
notification
out
to
you
by
email
within
the
next
day
or
so,
and
it'll
also
be
transmitted
to
the
building
division
for
next
steps.
There.
C
With
the
board
like
to
take
a
couple
minutes,
we're
still
waiting
on
a
couple
people
to
join.
I
don't
know
if
everybody
wants
like
a
five
minute
break
since
we've
been
at
it
for
quite
a
bit
sure
yeah,
okay,.
A
Yeah,
so
is
marshall
here
megan.
A
All
right,
so
marshall
will
be
taking
over
for
this
one
I'll
be
recusing
myself
and
when
this
is
done,
megan
you'll
just
notify
me
and
let
me
back
in
or.
C
So
after
the
presentation,
we
have
not
a
lot
we're
gonna
talk
about
february
agenda,
the
joint
training
with
the
planning
board
and
membership,
so
we're
also
gonna
get
our
andre
still
here.
Give
him
an
opportunity
to
ask
you
guys
some
questions
so.
J
C
J
How
long
do
you
anticipate
the
katherine
commons
presentation
to
be.
J
C
So
this
will
be
the
first
and,
let
me
admit
them,
this
will
be
the
first
time
that
of
several
meetings,
probably
where
you're
going
to
be
seeing
this
project.
I
think
all
of
you
should
have
received
some
information
by
email
and
some
by
hard
copy,
but
I
will
is
there
joining
here
and
then
I'll
turn
it
over
to
marshall,
to.
G
R
Thanks
so
wait
looks
like
one
more
person
still
connecting
to
audio.
Who
is
it
that
I
should
be
that
we
should
be
addressing
today?
I
see
arvind
from
icon,
herman
phil
and.
S
R
Yes,
I
think
so
yeah
there's
not!
This
is
my
first
time
so
I'm
presiding
as
chair
as
an
interim
chair
of
sorts
stepping
in
for
a
board
member
who
had
to
recuse
himself
for
this.
What
will
become
an
appeal
being
that
it's
a
preliminary
presentation?
We
don't
have
much
of
an
introduction,
but
I
believe
you
all
have
about
we've.
R
We've
made
room
for
about
10
to
15
minutes,
including
questions
or
with
a
little
bit
more
time
for
questions
when
we've
all
received
a
pretty
hefty
packet
of
information
already
that
I
definitely
spent
quite
a
bit
of
time
looking
over.
That's
quite
interesting
but
great,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
walking
us
through,
what's
going
on
and
highlighting
the
important
pieces.
S
Sure
I
think
everybody
should
be
seeing
the
cover
to
the
presentation
is:
has
everybody
up
that
seen
that
on
their
screen.
H
F
S
See
a
couple
of
nodding
heads
I'll!
Take
that
as
a
yes,
okay,
great
catherine!
Why
don't
you
start
it
up
and
give
me
the
cue
to
move
along
okay.
N
So
I'm
going
to
probably
move
pretty
quickly
here,
so
I'm
catherine
wolf
of
true
bridge
with
michael's
landscape,
architects,
and
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
present
to
you,
the
katherine
commons
project
I'm
joined
this
evening
by
our
vin
tiku
project,
architect
of
icon,
5
architects.
N
We
also
have
john
novar
and
phil
porjansky
project
developers
with
us
and
hermann
sieberden,
also
of
integrated
acquisition
and
development.
Our
intent
this
evening
is
to
give
you
an
overview
of
the
project
and
we
will
also
touch
on
the
variances
being
requested.
We're
eager
to
hear
your
input,
of
course
feel
free
to
ask
questions
as
we
go
along
next
slide.
N
N
That
portion
of
the
project
on
the
north
side
of
catherine
street
is
referred
to
as
catherine
north
and
that
portion
of
the
project
on
the
south
side
is
known
as
catherine's
south
next
slide
us
just
a
quick
summary
of
the
project
proposal.
It's
approximately
360
apartment
units.
We
have
2
600
square
feet
of
commercial
space
on
college
avenue,
there's
a
fitness
center
for
residents
of
the
project
located
on
at
the
corner
of
college
avenue
and
cook
street.
N
We
have
an
extensive,
expanded
public
realm
with
expanded,
sidewalks,
pedestrian,
plazas
and
streetscape
amenities,
and
then
we
have
approximately
two
surface
parking
spaces
interior
to
the
site.
A
parking
for
residents
who
wish
to
bring
cars
is
being
offered
off-site
at
the
developers,
property
at
college
town
terrace
next
slide.
N
This
is
a
map
of
the
existing
zoning
along
college
avenue
north
of
catherine
street
is
the
m2
zone
and
south
of
catherine
is
the
m1
zone.
We
are
seeking
a
modest
height
variance
along
college
avenue
only
as
the
development
moves
down,
catherine
and
cook
streets.
The
project
is
in
compliance
with
the
height
requirements
of
existing
zoning
and
in
compliance
with
the
transitional
zones.
N
This
project
is
designed
to
predominantly
comply
with
the
existing
zone,
with
some
modest
zoning
variances.
We
are
requesting
height
and
floor
variances
on
college
avenue
and
then
also
due
to
the
consolidation
of
the
parcels.
The
western
property
lines
become
a
rear
yard
instead
of
a
side
yard
next
slide.
N
N
The
developer
proposes
to
reduce
the
building
footprint
at
the
street
level
and
expand
the
sidewalks
and
create
plazas
and
streetscape
improvements
onto
the
private
property
in
order
to
create
a
vibrant
public
realm
and
street
life.
That
will
be
transformational
for
college
town,
a
pedestrian
plaza
with
outdoor
seating
wraps
around
the
exterior
of
the
commercial
use
and
amphitheater
style
seating
wraps
the
corner
residential
apartments
are
located
above
and
behind
the
commercial
space,
as
well
as
in
buildings,
2a
and
2b,
extending
out
down
catherine
street
moving
to
catherine
south.
N
There
are
three
residential
buildings:
buildings,
3a,
3b
and
4..
A
fitness
center
for
residents
is
located
in
building
3b
at
the
corner
of
college
avenue
and
cook
street
individual
unit.
Entrances
with
stoops
are
located
along
college
avenue
and
they
will
activate
the
streetscape
and
are
consistent
with
the
college
town
design
guidelines,
the
glass
wall
and
transparency
at
the
fitness
center
along
both
college
avenue
and
cook
street
will
further
activate
the
street.
In
this
location.
N
A
service
drive
is
located
off
of
cook
street,
which
accesses
a
small
parking
loading
zone
in
the
interior
of
the
project.
The
developer
has
excess
parking
available,
a
couple
of
blocks
away
at
the
college,
town,
terrace
property
and
the
planning
board
previously
approved,
making
that
parking
available
to
tenants
of
other
properties
owned
by
the
same
developer.
N
This
parcel
off
of
cook
street
is
actually
the
only
parcel
that
has
a
parking
requirement,
and
so
we
are
seeking
relief
from
the
parking
requirement
for
this
parcel,
while
providing
parking
in
a
different
location
at
the
north
and
south
corners
of
catherine
south.
The
developer
again
proposes
to
reduce
the
building
footprint
at
the
street
level,
up
to
a
two-story
height
and
construct
all
of
the
streetscape
improvements.
Plazas
and
amenities
illustrated
for
the
benefit
of
the
public.
N
N
Existing
sidewalk
widths
in
college
town
are
narrow
and
inadequate
for
the
existing
and
future
pedestrian
population,
and
they
create
a
significant
constraint
on
achieving
the
city's
vision
of
a
vibrant
streetscape
on
the
left.
The
building
is
illustrated
as
per
existing
zoning.
By
comparison
on
the
right.
The
proposed
building
footprint
is
shown
at
the
street
level
and
the
resulting
expanse
of
public
space
that
is
achieved
by
the
reduction
of
the
building
footprint
and
extending
the
public
realm
onto
the
developer's
private
property
next
slide.
N
The
red
sculptural
bench
is
intended
to
suggest
that
developers
desire
to
incorporate
art
into
the
project.
You
can
also
see
the
transparency
of
the
ground
floor,
commercial
space
across
the
street
to
the
north
and
the
tiered
seating
of
the
plaza
space
on
the
north
side
of
catherine
street
next
slide.
N
This
is
a
view
looking
north
on
college
avenue
at
the
cook
street
intersection.
This
view
really
captures
the
vision
for
the
catherine
commons
project,
which
is
to
provide
high
quality
architecture
and
an
expanded
outdoor
public
realm
that
together,
combine
to
create
and
encourage
a
vibrant
pedestrian
street
life.
The
only
way
to
achieve
these
benefits
to
the
public
realm
is
by
displacing
buildable
area
and
constructing
the
pedestrian
plaza
spaces
and
amenities
on
private
property,
for
the
use
and
benefit
of
the
larger
public.
This
is
a
major
goal
of
the
project
at
this
location.
N
The
developer
is
reducing
the
building
footprint
to
a
two-story
height.
This
results
in
a
loss
of
rentable
building
area
in
a
location
where
the
square
foot
value
is
the
greatest.
In
addition,
the
developer
is
proposing
exterior
facades
that
use
higher
quality
materials
than
are
typically
being
used
in
college
town.
N
In
summary,
the
zoning
request
consists
of
the
katherine
north
site
in
the
mu2
zone.
We
are
requesting
10
feet
additional
height
and
two
additional
floors.
N
There
are
the
two
rear
yard
setbacks
that
I
mentioned
previously
that
result
from
the
aggregation
of
the
parcels,
consolidation
of
the
parcels,
there's
a
chamfer
at
a
corner
and
then
finally,
a
reduction
in
parking
off
of
cook
street,
because
we
are
providing
the
parking
on
the
at
the
college,
town
terrace
property.
N
So
that
summarizes
the
zoning
variances
that
are
being
requested
and
at
this
point,
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
arden
tiku
of
icon,
5
architects
to
describe
the
architectural
design.
Thank
you,
catherine.
S
A
continuous
vertical
vertical
element
breaks
up
the
horizontal
massing
and
it
almost
and
also
promotes
a
transition
of
terra
cotta,
colors
and
proportions
from
the
north
to
the
south.
The
street
level
is
activated
by
opening
the
ground
floor
of
the
buildings
along
college
avenue,
with
covered
plazas
and
enclosed
commercial
space
that
maximize
the
connectivity
of
the
urban
experience
and
extend
it
into
the
building
footprint.
S
These
multi-tiered
plazas,
designed
to
be
compatible
with
the
street
scale,
will
serve
as
vibrant
social
collectors,
with
a
variety
of
events
such
as
cafe
tables
and
chairs
and
area
to
sit,
as
well
as
a
covered
bus,
stopping
area
at
the
end
of
catherine
south.
All
of
these
buildings
are
oriented
with
the
primary
building,
facade
and
entrances
that
are
either
facing
college
avenue,
either
catherine
street
or
coast
street
building
1
and
building
3a
and
3b
are
accessed
via
covered
public
plazas
on
either
ends
and
along
building
3a.
S
We
have
front
entry
stoops
that
connect
the
row
house
apartments
to
the
adjacent
sidewalk
and
really
activate
the
street
on
an
everyday
basis.
The
katherine
south
elevation
has
been
designed
to
be
compatible
to
the
catherine
north,
but
it
also
responds
to
its
neighbors
to
the
further
south
of
its
sighting
building.
3A
continues
the
two-story
grid
pattern
established
in
building
one,
but
the
scale
is
further
minimized
by
increasing
the
glass
to
terracotta
ratio,
therefore,
making
the
buildings
more
transparent
and
less
monolithic
at
building
3b.
S
The
following
view
is
on
catherine
street
looking
north
building,
2a
and
2b
are
designed
to
be
compatible
with
the
residential
context
by
separating
them
and
eliminate
in
order
to
eliminate
a
wall-like
effect
along
catherine
street
and
also
to
be
proportionally
compliant
to
the
and
sensitive
to
the
residential
transition
designated
area.
The
buildings
are
clad
in
a
different
colored
terracotta
tile
for
massing
variation,
and
the
scale
is
further
reduced
by
glazed
vertical
elements.
S
In
order
to
break
up
the
horizontal
mass,
as
I
said
before,
the
buildings
are
separated
by
openings
to
promote
openness
and
the
open
connectors
are
de-emphasized
by
treating
them
as
transparent
and
open
garden
enclosures
similar
to
the
residential
neighbors.
Further
to
the
west.
The
two
buildings
are
set
back
10
feet
from
the
property
line
to
provide
a
landscape
front
court
and
the
main
entries
are
located
off
of
catherine
street.
S
The
following
view
is
on
cook
street.
Looking
north
building,
four
on
cook
street
is
stylistically
vernacular
in
its
form
to
be
compatible
to
its
residential
context,
but
the
details
and
materials
are
modern
to
strive
for
design
excellence.
Building
four
is
clad
in
the
residential
scale
metal
shingles.
On
the
long
sides,
which
are
the
east
and
west
facades
and
the
metal
clad
vertical
elements
on
the
north
and
south
side,
they
promote
vertical
and
horizontal
proportions
that
are
similar
in
scale
to
their
residential
neighbors.
S
S
I'm
just
zoning
in
on
this
is
the
katherine
north
site,
and
this
is
the
catherine
south
side
we're
requesting
a
floor
and
height
variance
for
the
buildings
on
college
avenue,
which
is
in
the
college
town
core
designated
areas
in
order
to
financially
support
the
project
and
give
us
an
opportunity
to
really
provide
quality
building
materials
and
a
variety
of
street
level
enhancements
on
the
catherine
north,
which
is
in
the
mu2
zone.
The
zoning
ordnance
allows
80
feet
and
six
floors.
S
Zoning
also
allows
a
parapet
of
five
feet.
Therefore,
the
building's
visual
height
is,
as
per
zoning,
85
feet,
we're
requesting
a
variance
for
building
one
which
is
proposed
to
be
91
feet
overall,
with
eight
floors.
Therefore,
we're
requesting
two
additional
floors:
a
10
foot,
height
variance,
but
a
minimal
six
foot,
visual
height
difference,
which
is
equal
to
seven
percent
of
the
height
increase
for
building
one.
Only
on
catherine
south,
which
is
in
the
mu1
zone.
The
zoning
allows
70
feet
and
5
floors.
It
also
allows
a
power
pit
of
5
feet.
S
Therefore,
the
building's
visual
height
as
per
right
is
75
feet,
we're
requesting
a
variance
for
building
3a
and
3b,
which
are
proposed
as
79
feet.
Overall,
with
seven
floors.
Therefore,
we're
requesting
two
additional
floors
and
eight
foot
height
variants,
but
a
minimal
four
foot,
height
visual
height
differential
or
a
five
percent
height
increase
for
building
three
and
three
b.
Only.
S
Building
2a
and
2b
are
within
the
residential
transitional
designation
area
and
they're
in
the
cr4
zone.
Our
buildings
are
designed
as
per
zoning,
45
feet
and
four
floors.
As
per
the
residential
college
town
design
guidelines,
our
design
conforms
to
the
residential
transitional
zone
by
creating
a
mass,
that's
really
proportional
to
its
neighbors
and
that
a
materiality
that
has
scale
and
diversity
to
fit
within
its
residential
neighbors.
We
are
asking
for
no
variance
for
the
height
of
the
floors
for
building
2
and
2b
in
the
cr4
zone.
S
The
following
is
an
aerial
view,
looking
northwest
along
college
avenue,
and
it
represents
an
overall
view
of
the
project
within
the
patchwork
context
of
the
existing
buildings
along
college
avenue,
as
influenced
by
the
college
town
design
guidelines,
the
north
and
south
buildings
combine
building,
articulation
methods
to
reduce
the
overall
perceived
mass
and
the
scale
of
the
buildings.
This
is
again
achieved
by
planar
surfaces
and
wall,
offsets
material
and
color
changes,
implied
upper
floor
setbacks
with
staggered,
roof
edges
and
open
cork
porticos
at
the
lower
level.
S
The
following
aerial
view
is
looking
southwest
along
college
avenue
and
it
shows
the
north
and
south
buildings
working
with
the
descending
topography
and
promoting
multiple
buildings
in
lieu
of
a
one,
long
monolithic
building,
building
one
has
two
entry
levels
along
college
avenue,
and
the
sloping
topography
allows
the
southern
commercial
space
to
have
higher
ceilings,
with
a
greater
presence
on
college
avenue.
Building,
3a
and
3b
are
entered
at
two
different
levels,
one
at
the
north,
one
at
the
south
and
also
via
multiple
stoop
entries
along
college
avenue.
S
As
I
said
before,
creating
a
vibrant
street
life,
the
the
following
views
are
partial
views
of
building
one
at
the
vertical
element
on
catherine,
north
and
the
terracotta
colors
that
diversify
and
enhance
the
two-story
grid
pattern.
The
other
partial
view
is
at
the
juncture
of
building
3a
and
3b
on
catherine
south.
S
The
following
slide
shows
the
dynamic
richness
and
the
scale
of
the
terracotta
terracotta
samples
and
profiles
of
the
standing
seam
metal
panels,
which
will
create
a
distinct
shadow
lines
on
the
buildings.
The
angle
of
the
sun
and
a
person
viewpoint
will
create
an
ever-changing
active
facade
at
various
times
of
the
day.
The
primary
exterior
building
materials
such
as
the
terracotta
shingles,
the
pre-standing
seam
wall
panels,
a
pre-metal
pre-finished
metal
shingles,
are
effectively
used
to
create
texture
as
well
as
pattern.
S
These
materials
are
composed
to
reduce
the
overall
building
scale,
ranging
from
a
staggered
double
height
panels
and
openings
down
to
individual
material
units.
As
per
the
college
town
guidelines,
the
project
materials
are
consistent
with
approximately
50-year
life
spans
and
all
proposed
materials
are
durable
and
will
sustain
the
ithaca
climate.
Catherine.
N
Yes,
finally,
I'd
like
to
just
quickly
show
you
a
number
of
views
that
illustrate
how
the
project
will
appear
within
the
context
of
the
surrounding
city
and
neighborhood.
So
we
undertook
a
pretty
rigorous
analysis
driving
around
the
city
to
really
try
to
identify
where
the
project
how
the
project
would
be
visible
and
we've
created
these
simulations
from
10
different
viewpoints,
where
we
believe
the
project
will
be
most
visible
from
the
public
right
away,
and
so
this
is
a
view.
N
Looking
up
east
seneca
street
here
you
can
see
the
existing
tompkins
trust
on
the
left,
and
so
what
you're
looking
at
here
is
so
arvind
is
going
to
outline
the
new
building
at
the
top
of
the
hill
and
the
red
dashed
line
is
the
height
of
the
parapet.
That
arvind
was
describing
that
would
be
allowed
by
the
existing
zoning,
and
so
this,
the
height
of
the
building
above
the
red
line,
is
the
actual
resulting
visual
impact.
N
That
would
result
from
the
variance
in
this
case
that
is
six
feet,
and
so
that
is
the
function
of
the
red
line
on
on
all
of
these
simulations.
N
So
if
we
continue
up
seneca
street
next
slide
and
we
go
to
the
top
of
the
street
at
eddie
from
this
location,
the
project
actually
isn't
visible
at
all
and
we're
simply
documenting.
We
actually
modeled
it
it's
behind
the
buildings,
but
given
the
topography
you're,
you
aren't
actually
able
to
see
the
project
in
this
location.
N
If
I
can,
if
I
turn
to
the
right
now
and
next
slide
and
move
down
eddie
street
and
look
up
catherine
here,
we
can
see
catherine
north
on
the
left
and
catherine
south
on
the
right
bracketing.
The
intersection
next
slide
now
moving
on
to
college
avenue.
This
is
at
from
the
intersection
of
dryden
road
in
college
avenue.
We
can
see
312
college
avenue
as
a
sort
of
reference
point,
and
then
the
new
project
continues
to
the
south
of
there
with
south
hill
beyond
next
slide.
N
Continuing
down
college
avenue.
Here
we
are
in
front
of
catherine
south
on
the
right
and
you
can
see
the
grand
view
house
on
the
left,
along
with
the
street
improvements
that,
of
course,
the
city
is
undertaking
that
we
have
been
coordinating
with
as
well,
and
we
would
be
undertaking
the
street
improvements
on
in
front
of
our
project
next
slide,
and
so
just
to
that
point
here,
this
is
so.
This
is
an
existing
condition
slide
from
the
south.
N
Looking
north
on
college
avenue
at
the
intersection
of
wool
street,
you
can
see
the
lofts,
the
existing
building
and
all
of
the
overhead
wires
and,
of
course,
with
the
street
improvements
project.
All
of
those
overhead
wires
are
going
to
go
underground
and
next
slide
is
the
same
view
with
overhead
wires
underground
and
the
new
proposed
catherine
commons
project
on
the
left,
and
I
believe
that's
the
last
view
that
I
have
and
with
that
we
would.
Oh
just
returning
to
an
image.
N
H
I
have
two
I'll
start
with
my
quick
one
when
you
guys
were
showing
the
red
line
on
the
top
of
the
buildings,
and
particularly
when
it
was
further
away
like
where
should
my
actual
perception
of
that
the
parapet
be
like?
Am
I
looking
at
the
top
of
the
red
line
right
in
the
middle
at
the
bottom
of
it?
I
just
want
to
make
sure.
N
S
G
H
G
H
Okay
and
then
arvind,
I
did
have
a
question
for
you,
I'm
not
sure
if
I
just
misheard
or
I
just
wanted
some
clarification,
I
think
you
said
that
the
you
know
potential
variances
were
needed
for
material
purposes.
Did
I
hear
that
right.
S
No,
what
I
stated
was
that
we
were
looking
for
these
variants
in
order
to
economically
justify
this
project,
based
on
the
fact
of
that
we
are
using
real
real
materials
that
are
following
the
that
are
quote
substantially
much
more
costlier
than
what
you
would
see
in
the
college
town
environment,
so
we're
providing
more
richer
materials
and
therefore
there
is
a
premium
cost
to
providing
those
materials.
Now,
that's
only
one
aspect
of
why
we
are
requesting
a
variance.
S
There
are
the
quote
street
enhancements,
for
example,
and
the
cost
of
those
street
enhancements,
as
well
as
giving
up
a
certain
amount
of
property
in
order
to
expand
the
sidewalks.
That
is
part
of
the
equation
there
is
this
there's
also
the
equation
of
when
you're
breaking
buildings
apart
you're
buying
more
wall
surfaces
but
you're,
making
a
better
project
you're,
making
a
project,
that's
much
more
contextual
to
the
environment,
but
you're,
adding
more
cost
to
that.
Also.
H
Is
what
you're
purchasing
to
put
on
these
buildings
because
of
the
size
of
how
you
purchase
it
fat?
Is
that
a
reason
for
going
higher?
I'm
not.
S
Sure,
no,
no,
no,
the
height
is,
is
the
the
height
is
not
dictating
the
cost.
The
materials
are
dictating
the
cost.
So
if
you
were
to
provide
a
building
of
high
quality,
even
at
as
per
zoning,
that
would
be
a
costlier
building
period,
the
extra
height
is
helping
us
to
insert
additional
floors
and
therefore
being
able
to
economically
justify
the
better
materials.
S
S
Yeah
materials
are,
as
I
said,
materials
are
only
one
aspect.
There
are
a
number
of
other
aspects
that
come
into
play
of
providing
high
quality,
high
performance
buildings.
F
I
haven't
worked
through
all
the
material
that's
been
provided,
but
I'm
looking
forward
to
looking
at
that
a
little
bit
more.
In
the
meantime,
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
any
alternatives
that
have
been
proposed
and
how
come
this
is
your
project
that
you're
leaning
towards.
S
F
No,
like
one
of
the
factors
that
we
consider
in
this
process
is
whether
or
not
an
alternative
could
be
met
without
seeking
a
variance.
So
I
was
just
wondering
if
any
of
that
data
or
any
information
wasn't
in
the
package
or
if
it's
something
that
we
will
kind
of
decipher
later.
N
Well,
I
mean
I,
you
know
I
would
just
you
know.
As
an
example
I
mean,
I
think
you
know,
lots
of
things
were
explored
if
arvind.
If
you
went
to
the
catherine
street
facades,
for
example,
you
know
something
that
was
discussed
is
the
this.
So
by
code
the
catherine
street
could
be
one
building,
for
example
right,
but
this
is
broken
up
into
multiple
bills.
So
you
know
that
was
discussed
as
an
alternative.
N
Again,
we
are
trying
to
bring
the
highest
possible
urban
design
project
to
college
town,
to
really
create
something
that
is
more
transformational
transformational
for
the
city
and
is
not
just
you
know,
one
more
small
building
that
really
doesn't
have
an
impact,
and
so
in
this
case
the
catherine
street
could
be
built
as
one
single
building,
but
the
decision
was
made
to
break
it
into
multiple
buildings
to
again,
as
as
part
of
this
transition
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
to
create
something
that
is
more
transitional
and
is
more
open
and
related
to
the
neighborhood
and
really
concentrate
the
additional
development
on
college
avenue,
which
is
really
completely
consistent
with
the
college
town
vision
plan
and
design
guidelines
that
really
talks
about.
N
You
know
densify
college
avenue,
put
all
that
you
know
put
the
densification
on
college
avenue,
and
so
that's
really
what
you
know
guided
us.
We
really
have
tried
to
focus
on
that
and
then
on
the
side.
Streets
really
provide
a
very
contextual
transition
to
the
surrounding
neighborhoods,
so
lots
of
things
were
explored.
N
We
are
bringing
to
you
what
we
believe
is
the
best
possible
project
for
college
town
to
provide
this
expanded
public
ground.
That's
a
major
goal
that
we're
trying
to
achieve,
and
so
you
know
so
that's
a
goal
of
the
project
and
for
to
accomplish
all
of
these
various
aspects
that
we've
been
describing.
N
S
We've
looked
at
different
ways
of
achieving
that
and
we
believe
the
proposal
that
we're
putting
in
front
of
you
achieves
a
lot
of
those
things
in
a
very,
very
distinct
and
an
excellent
manner.
And
so
that's
what
we're
proposing
and
as
we
were
driving
towards
that
there
were
certain
other
things
that
always
take
place
in
a
project
which
are
there's
an
economic
piece
of
it
always
also,
and
therefore
we're
balancing
all
of
that
to
provide
the
best
project
period.
F
Sure,
just
some
general
feedback,
so
part
of
some
I'm
for
lack
of
a
better
word
disconnect,
but
there
is
a
difference
between
the
planning
board
and
the
zoning
board.
Some
of
these
conversations
and
things
about
how
the
project
was
developed
are
not
necessarily
represented
here,
and
some
of
that
information,
like
a
short
narrative,
can
be
helpful
just
as
again
as
we
think
about
the
factors
that
we'll
ultimately
have
to
deliberate.
F
So
we.
N
Will
definitely,
we
will
definitely
be
providing
a
written
narrative
that
addresses
the
five
points,
if
that's
what
you're,
referring
to
we
we're
definitely
putting
that
together,
and
that
will
be
part
of
our
formal
application
is.
Is
that
what
you're
suggesting.
C
History
of
the
project
stephanie:
is
that
like
why
why
it's
being
designed
to
evolve
to
the
design
that's
being
performed.
F
C
I
think,
along
those
lines,
it
might
also
be
helpful
to
the
board
if
you
explain
why
this
is
being
pursued
as
a
variance
as
opposed
to
a
pud.
M
N
C
About
the
kind
of
the
history
of
how
you
arrived
at
the
design
that
you
stephanie's
saying
the
things
that
have
been
considered
in
relation
to
the
factors
that
she'd,
like
that
information
included
about
why
those
design
decisions
were
made.
That
went
that
led
to
the
request
for
the
variances.
C
E
G
C
I
think
how
you
went
from
an
as
of
right
project
to
the
request
for
the
variance.
J
I
think
what
I
see
is
an
as
of
right,
presentation
and
a
much
better
project
with
minimal
requests
for
variances.
This
isn't
a
12-story
tower
request.
You
know,
so
the
as
of
right
presentation
is
the
is
the
one
that
you
know
we're
in
effect,
trying
to
improve
on.
J
R
Project
there
are
two
things
that
I'd.
I
don't
necessarily
need
clarification
on
now,
but
I
think
would
be
helpful
in
the
future.
If
you
have
answers
to
me
that
would
work,
one
would
be
clarification
on
the
agreement
for
parking
agreement,
the
parking
arrangements
with
the
with
the
college
home
terrace.
I
think
it's
a
wonderful
idea.
R
I
don't
think
that
the
small
parking
variants
should
should
be
the
end-all
be
on
the
project,
but
I'm
interested
to
know
the
form
of
that
agreement
and
how
it
would
last
through
ownership
changes
in
either
or
both
of
the
properties.
R
The
second
piece
is
generally,
I
think
I
think
I
agree
that
they
seem
pretty
minor
and
I'm
generally
in
favor
of
the
massing
and
the
and
the
style
and
the
proposal.
One
of
the
pieces
that
I
keep
hearing
about
is
sort
of
giving
up
land
to
the
public
right-of-way
or
giving
up
land
to
the
public,
which
isn't
quite
happening.
What's
actually
happening
is
mixing
mixing
public
and
private
use
of
private
land
and
I'd
be
interested
to
know
or
see
a
little
more
clarity
around.
R
A
promise
but
like
the
idea
that
these
these
these
public
areas
could
be
roped
off
for
a
cafe's,
dining
area,
and
then
they
effectively
are
no
longer
public.
Now
they
now
not.
Anybody
can
sit
there,
but
only
people
that
buy
the
coffee
or
drink
the
beer
can,
and
so
I
guess,
I'd
like
to
have
a
little
a
little
more
clarity
and
understanding
on
how
those
public
spaces
are
are
presented.
C
N
Let's
see,
I
believe,
we're
we
are
requesting
a
variance
for
the
number
of
parking
spaces.
Okay,
we
are,
but
we
are
offering
unless-
and
you
know,
unless-
there's
a
different
way.
We
should
be
thinking
about
this
megan.
You
know
we
have
previously
gone
to
the
planning
board
and
we've
documented
we've
done
a
lot
of
counting
of
you
know
vehicles.
N
You
know
the
kids
are
every
year
they're
bringing
fewer
and
fewer
cars
right,
they
they
use
uber,
and
you
know
whatever
right,
kids,
young
kids
don't
want
to
drive
it's
it's
all
true,
it's
quite
interesting,
and
so
the
demand
for
parking
at
college
town
terrace
has
it
every
year
it
decreases
and
there's
a
lot
of
parking
there
that's
unused,
and
so
if
people
come
here
and
and
so
we
previously
went
to
the
planning
board,
this
is
several
years
ago
and
we
can
provide
that
documentation
to
you.
N
R
M
M
M
So
it
seemed
to
us
that
this
would
be
perfect
that
people
and
the
kids
by
and
large,
don't
drive
during
the
week
anyway,
so
they
can
warehouse
cars
at
terrace
and
and
they
can
use
them
on
the
weekends
when
they
were
more
likely
to
drive
and.
M
And
we
do
have
we,
we
have
our
own
shuttle
service,
where
we
transport
1245
people
at
terrace
on
and
off
all
week,
long
to
cornell
campus.
That
shuttle
runs
three
times
an
hour
and
on
busy
busy
times
there's
more
than
one
shuttle.
That
runs
at
the
same
time
and
we
will
be
expanding
that
shuttle
to
pick
up
people
in
various
projects
that
we
own
on
college
avenue.
M
R
I
think
that's
great,
and
I
agree
that
using
a
place
to
to
warehouse
cars
is
probably
perfect
for
most
of
the
the
residents
that
you'll
have
one
of
the
one
of
the
small
differences
in
the
way
that
the
the
variance
is
worded
is
that
if
one
of
the
properties
transition
to
a
different
owner,
if
the
variance
is
given
for
there
to
be
less
parking,
then
the
future
owner
wouldn't
have
to
provide
that
off-site,
whereas
if
the
variance
is
to
provide
it
in
in
more
than
500
feet,
the
parking
they're
still
providing
warehouse
parking
somewhere,
but
just
for
a
different
distance.
R
R
And
in
this
case,
there's
so
many
units
and
we're
talking
about
so
few
parking
spaces
that
it
isn't
at
all
reminiscent,
hopefully
of
college
on
terrace,
where
there'd
be
an
inordinate
amount
of
parking,
that's
unused,
but
a
piece
of
the
puzzle.
R
Well,
I
appreciate
everyone's
time
in
in
presenting
us
the
material
and
also
sending
the
hard
copies
they
are.
Mine
anyway,
did
not
go
to
use.
I
read
through
it.
It
was
really
helpful
to
have
something
in
front
of
me
to
look
at
that.
It
seems
as
though
we'll
be
revisiting
this
next
month.
I
believe
I
don't
know
if
we'll
have
the
formal
appeal
by
then
or
not,
the
intention
is
yes.
R
D
C
C
Okay,
so
the
one
one
addition
to
the
agenda
was
the
planning
board
lead
agency,
concurrence
resolution,
which.
C
I
did
send
by
chat
for
most
of
you.
I'm
gonna
send
it
again
for
marshall.
C
But
again,
this
is
kind
of
a
procedural
thing.
We
do
each
year
that
allows
the
the
planning
board
to
take
over
responsibility
for
lead
agency
without
causing
them
to
wait
a
30-day
period
marshall.
You
probably
do
the
same
for
bpw,
I
imagine
have
done
it
in
the
past.
It
basically
says
that
the
planning
board
when
multiple
agencies
are
involved
in
approving
a
project
the
planning
board,
will
take
on
responsibility
for
seeker.
C
The
bza
can
still
comment
and
can
make
a
claim
on
individual
projects
if
they
want
to
be
lead
agency.
I'd
implore
you
to
think
of
that
option
very
very
carefully,
because
the
planning
board
is
often
the
best
is
typically
the
best
at
doing
the
the
environmental
review
on
these
large
projects.
So.
F
Can
you
just
review
when
the
easier
be
the
lead
agency?
There
have
been
a
couple
of
examples,
but,
yes,
you're
a
generally
speaking,
the
planning
board
takes
care
of
that
as
the
lead
agency,
but
there
are
a
few
occasions
where
we
would
take
that
responsibility.
C
Yes,
that's
a
great
question,
so
there
are
times
where
we
get
appeals
that
do
not
go
to
the
planning
board,
but
they
might
trigger
environmental
review.
I'm
assigned
permits,
often
our
sign
variances,
typically
trigger
environmental
review,
in
which
the
bca
is
lead
agency,
there's
other
smart,
smaller
residential
projects
that
don't
go
to
the
planning
board
that
might
fall
in
the
category
of
what
they
call
unlisted
actions
where
it's
not
really
clear
whether
it
requires
an
event,
environmental
review
or
not
so
the
board.
C
Well,
when
I
say
it's
not
clear,
it's
not
in
a
clearly
defined
category,
so
it's
unlisted
and
the
board
takes
on
that.
So
sometimes
that's
parking,
variances,
there's
things
for
multiple
dwellings
that
might
not
go
to
the
planning
board.
They're
not
listed
as
a
type
2
since
there's
such
a
broad
range
of
multiple
dwellings.
So,
but,
generally
speaking,
if
the
bza
is
going
to
be
lead
agency,
it
is
going
to
be
a
much
smaller
project
and
it
does
not.
C
C
G
F
I'll
go
ahead.
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
that,
in
accordance
with
the
seeker
and
city
of
ithaca
environmental
quality,
review
ordinance
that
both
the
bza
and
the
planning
board
are
provided
with
the
project,
information
and
environmental
forms
for
their
review,
as
well
as
any
environmental
determinations
going
forward.
F
Through
december
31st
of
2022
and
and
then
another
point
that
to
that
for
any
future
projects,
the
bza
may
withhold
or
withdraw
its
consent.
Should
it
be
so
desire
or
inclined.
C
All
right
so,
mr
cannon.
J
C
Yes,
miss
egan,
engels.
F
Q
G
C
Okay,
so
two
things
we
did
that
we
talked
about
this
previously,
but
there
we
have
scheduled
a
joint
training
with
planning
and
development
board
for
february
8th.
I
think
you
probably
all
put
this
on
your
calendars.
Last
time
we
talked.
This
is
going
to
be
with
an
outside.
C
C
C
Which
is
another
interesting
question,
so
that
will
definitely
be
on
zoom.
The
new
york
state
legislation
to
allow
ongoing
remote
meetings
is
scheduled
to
expire
on
january
15th.
So
far
we
have
not
gotten
an
update
as
to
whether
that
is
going
to
be
extended
or
whether
the
board
will
need
to
return
to
in-person
meetings.
Should
the
board
return
to
in-person
meetings,
we
will
encourage
appellants
and
members
of
the
public
to
participate
remotely
they.
C
But,
however,
they
are
welcome
to
come
and
participate
in
person,
but
just
as
an
effort
to
try
to
reduce
contact
and
such
I'd
like
to
tell
you
one
I'll
know
for
sure,
but
I
imagine
by
the
15th
we'll
know
but
probably
not
before,
but
it
would
affect
the
february.
C
It
has
gotten
very
large
and
given
how
long
this
meeting
took
with
just
the
four
yeah
stephanie
I'll,
do
that
the
four
cases
or
four
items
took
tonight,
I'm
a
bit
concerned
and
wondering
if
the
board
would
be
willing.
I
know
we're
already
doing
the
joint
training
session.
If
there's
any
interest
in
holding
a
special
meeting
in
february
to
kind
of
break
it
up.
We're
at
seven
appeals
without
the
katherine's
comments
project,
and
I
cannot
push
them
off
any
further
due
to
legal
requirements.
C
So
I
can't
push
anybody
to
merge
because
I
already
pushed
them
from
this
meeting.
So
what
is
the
board's
thought
unless
they
voluntarily
move,
but
I'm
not
sure
they're
going
to
voluntarily
move
again.
J
C
F
C
C
C
Yeah,
if
you
didn't
run
from
this,
you
probably
won't
run
from
others.
I
would
say
I
don't
know
if
board
members
will
agree
with
that.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
have
any
questions
for
board
members
or.
L
No,
I
mean
honestly,
like
I,
I
reviewed
most
of
the
information
stuff
before
the
meeting.
I
have
to
do
a
little
more
research
on
your
sort
of
five
criteria
and
rubrics,
which
I'm
sure
you
guys
have
ample
resources
on.
L
You
know
it's
my
only
comment
on
the
meeting
itself
as
I
sort
of
shared
mike's
sentiment
about
the
south
aurora
street,
one
where
I
thought
like
we
were
all
getting
sued
so,
but
you
know
it's,
I
thought
it
was
an
interesting
meeting,
although
a
tad
bit
long,
but
you
know
yes,
so
does
anyone
have
any
questions
for
me?
A
C
G
C
L
Yeah
yeah,
I
am
29,
I
guess
soon
to
be
30.
I
did
my
undergrad
here
in
ithaca.
I
lived
in
seattle
for
a
couple
years.
My
mom
married
someone
from
ithaca
joe
daly,
so
I
came
back.
I
managed
his
properties
here
in
town
and
then
I
own
properties
over
on
washington
park
here.
So
I've
been
back
in
ithaca
for
about
six
years.
I
was
on
the
d.a
for
a
while.
L
You
know
I
was
looking
to
join
a
board
and
I
wanted
something
that
would
be.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
right
word,
but
somewhat
legalistic
and
give
me
a
better
window
into
zoning.
Like
you
know,
we
deal
with
a
lot
of
building
code
in
our
world,
but
this
is
kind
of
an
area
of
opportunity
that
I
want
to
grow
in.
So
that's
my
primary
role.
You
know,
I
also
think
it's
you
know.
L
L
Yeah
I
mean
I'll,
like
I'm,
I'm
happy
to
show
up
next
month
and
be
on
the
board.
You
know
I'll
show
up
and
be
prepared
and
I'm
sure
you've
heard
that
before.
But
you
know
I'll
I'll
do
my
best.
So.
C
C
Andre
I'll
be
in
touch
with
you,
everybody
else.
I
will
follow
up
on
some
of
the
materials
that
were
requested
tonight
and
get
them
out
to
you,
and
we
can
do
some
discussions
and,
as
victor's
noted
we
can,
you
know
we
held
the
public
hearing
and
a
lot
of
deliberation
in
the
public
forum.
We
can
kind
of
discuss
the
decision
a
bit
by
email,
as
I
draft
pieces
of
it
or
get
feedback
from
you
on
portions
of
it
and
you
we
can
comment
that
way
as
well.
J
C
So
if
you
go
over
there's
you
know
they'll
swear
you
in
or
you
can.
I
can
forward
you
joel
julie,
holcomb's
contact.
If
you
want
us,
I
can
see
if
you
need
to
schedule
a
time
or
that
kind
of
thing.
Yeah.
C
C
I
can
talk
to
you
in
a
minute
about
if
you
have
just
a
second
about
that,
but
otherwise
I
think
we're
good
for
tonight.
So.