►
From YouTube: September 26, 2022 Board Of Zoning Appeals
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).
B
Horizontal
rules
procedure,
the
work
comprises
five
members
not
made
by
the
mayor
or
the
group
by
Common
Council
board
members
presence
and
Mayor
Michael
Cannon
honor,
guardian
and
Joseph
Kirby,
and
as
well
as
assistant
planner,
Sanford
and
Jacobs
assistant,
City
attorney,
director
Kessler
and
Zoning
administrator
Megan
Wilson
Staff
to
the
board.
I
did
the
American
chairperson
of
the
board,
the
secretary
to
the
board
of
Eden
Wilson
of
college
case
in
the
order
listed
on
the
agenda,
felons
will
not
have
a
maximum
of
five
minutes
to
present
new
material
or
highlight
aspects
of
their
appeal
board.
B
Members
make
question
of
balance
on
any
areas
requiring
clarification.
Just
full
consideration
of
appeals
requires
the
public
hearing
deliberation
of
employed
by
the
board.
These
actions
occur
only
after
the
adult
has
filed
appropriate
documents
at
the
zoning
Division
and
planning
and
development
board
public
hearing,
simply
testimony
from
quote
interests
of
parties.
The
board
considers
interests,
parties,
persons
who
live
work
or
own
property
within
seven
Computing.
B
Persons
who
do
not
need
the
board's
interest
in
party
definition
will
not
be
heard.
Comments
are
limited
in
three
minutes.
Balance
will
then
be
allowed
to
revoke
her,
but
opposing
testimony.
But
Helen's
comments
must
be
limited
to
strike
rebuttal
of
the
issues
raised
by
those
opposed
and
will
be
limited
to
five
minutes.
The
timer
will
sound
at
the
end
of
each
speaker's
a
lot
of
time.
While
we
do
not
adhere
to
strict
rules
of
evidence,
we
do
consider
the
supplies
like
judicial
proceeding
and
we
base
our
decisions.
On
the
official
record.
B
The
official
record
consists
of
application
materials.
Five
of
the
zoning
divisions,
correspondence
related
to
cases
received
at
his
own
division,
finding
the
development
reports,
own
findings
and
recommendations.
If
any
other
records
needed
an
audio
recording
is
being
made
in
this
meeting.
Therefore,
it
is
essential
anyone
wanting
to
be
heard,
become
stored
and
speaks
correctly
into
a
microphone,
so
the
comments
are
recorded
in
nerd
by
all
present
extraneous
comments
from
the
audience
will
rather
be
recording
or
considered
by
the
board.
B
We
ask
everyone
to
live
at
their
comments
in
the
zoning
issues
of
each
appeal
and
not
comment
on
that
or
do
not
abort
jurisdiction.
Following
the
imbalance
rebuttal,
the
appeal
hearing
will
be
closed.
Community
of
Liberation.
The
board
is
required
to
render
a
decision
from
62
days
of
the
public
hearing
disclosures
once
the
hearing
is
closed.
No
further
testimony
will
be
taken.
It
takes
three
votes
to
approve
the
motion
of
random
varians
in
favor
of
their
interpretation
and
the
event
of
the
title
and
appeal
is
denied.
B
Tonight's
appeals
are
available
for
public
or
BMX
and
Podium
and
column
at
the
back
of
the
room,
as
well
as
on
the
city's
website.
Please
be
advisor
of
two
Advocates
from
common
council
chambers.
The
women
probably
used
to
enter
at
the
rear
of
the
room
and
one
of
the
front
of
the
chambers.
Maybe
we
kindly
call
our
first
case.
B
C
Number
3229
for
115
North,
Cross,
Road
appeal
of
Verizon
Wireless
and
Linkedin
Peabody
LLP
on
behalf
property
owner
Cornell
University,
for
an
area
of
areas
from
section
325,
29.8,
C1,
design,
standards
for
personal
wireless
service
facilities
of
the
city
of
Ithaca
zone
of
ordinance.
The
applicant
proposes
to
remove
15
antennas
and
replace
them
with
12
mini
antennas.
C
The
Proposal
also
includes
the
addition
of
six
remote
Radiohead
units,
six
over
voltage,
protection
boxes,
six
CBC,
combiners
and
Associated
cables
with
companies
existing
personal
wireless
service
facility
or
bws
app
located
on
the
rooftop
of
Mary
dollar
Hall
on
the
Cornell
University
campus
The
Proposal
is
considered
a
medication
of
the
existing
pwsf.
The
city
recently
amended
article
5A
telecommunications
facilities
and
services
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
and
the
amendment
requires
all
pwsf
to
located
at
least
250
feet
from
the
case
of
residences.
C
C
115
North,
Cross
Road,
is
located
in
the
U1
District
in
which
proposed
legislation
is
permitted.
However,
sections
325,
29.6
and
325
29.16
require
compliance
with
article
5A,
including
the
location
requirements
set
forth
in
section
325
29.8,
before
a
building
permit
may
be
issued
section
325
29.28
authorizes
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
to
Grant
variants
from
any
position
of
article
5A
right,
and
we
have
Tim
and
Bob
here
for
this
appeal.
C
So
the
account
when
ready.
Please
take
five
minutes.
D
Good
evening,
Robert
Bergdorf
the
law
firm,
Nixon
Peabody
here
tonight
on
behalf
of
Verizon
Wireless.
The
review
of
the
project
that
was
just
made
I
think
captures
it
well,
it
is
an
existing
facility.
Providing
Services
is
a
mere
antenna
change.
D
B
B
C
We
do
not
have
anyone
signed
up
to
speak
this
evening,
either
in
support
or
opposition,
and
we
have
not
received
any
written
comments.
We
do
have
the
planning
Works
recommendation
and
which
states,
as
this
is
an
insisting
non-conformity
in
an
update,
not
causing
visual
impact.
The
planning
board
has
no
long-term
negative
impacts
to
planning.
E
There
a
motion
to
I'll
make
a
motion.
Okay
report
acknowledge
this
is
an
existing
installation
and
a
modification
will
not
exacerbate
the
existing
deficiency.
E
Factors
considered
whether
there's
an
undesirable
change
would
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
the
detriment
of
the
nearby
properties.
No,
the
installation
is
a
modification
of
existing
personal
Wireless
facility
that
has
been
located
on
the
rooftop
of
the
property.
For
many
years,
the
new
installation
will
replace
existing
equipment.
There's
no
evidence,
as
change
will
produce
an
undesirable
change
to
Neighborhood
character.
Whether
the
benefits
sought
by
the
applicant
can
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative
to
the
variance.
E
No,
the
locations
of
personal
wireless
service
facilities
are
determined
by
service
coverage
requirements,
while
there's
a
limited
radius
where
the
pwsf
can
be
located.
It
is
preferred,
as
stated
in
the
zoning
ordinance,
to
locate
co-locate
equipment
on
existing
sites
whenever
possible,
to
limit
any
visual
impacts
for
more
in
the
alternate
location
within
the
ability.
Radius
of
this
property
will
also
be
deficient
in
the
Resident
setback
requirements
of
its
owning
ordinance.
Whether
the
requested
variance
is
substantial.
E
No,
the
proposed
installation
will
be
located
on
a
roof
of
the
residential
structure,
and
a
residential
setback
of
250
feet
is
required
by
the
zoning
ordinance.
While
this
is
100
deficiency
of
the
required
setback,
this
is
deficiency
caused
by
the
location
of
the
existing
facility,
on
which
the
new
antenna
array
will
be
co-located
and
will
not
be
exacerbated
by
The
Proposal.
The
variants
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
in
the
neighborhood.
No,
the
equipment
will
be
part
of
an
existing
installation
of
the
property
and
whether
the
alleged
difficulty
was
self-created.
B
Is
there
a
second
okay,
these
12
board
members,
this.
E
C
Great,
so
the
variance
has
been
approved.
You'll
get
a
written
decision
from
the
board
within
the
next
couple
of
days
and
we'll
communicate
this
with
The
Building
Division
as
well,
so
we'll
be
able
to
go
ahead
and
issue
your
permit.
If
you
have
any
questions
for
me
afterwards,
please
let
me
know
thank.
A
C
C
C
Of
appeal
number
three:
two:
three:
zero
for
222
South
canvas,
Street
appeal
of
T-Mobile,
Northeast
LLC
and
Centerline
Communications
LLC,
the
property
owner
David
Hart
for
an
area
variance
from
section
325,
29.8,
C1
design,
standards
for
personal
wireless
service
facilities
of
the
city
of
zoning
organs.
The
Advocate
proposes
to
replace
pre-existing
antennas,
install
additional
equipment
to
the
company's
existing
personal
wireless
service
facility,
pwsf,
located
on
the
rooftop
of
the
property
at
222,
South
Pika,
Street,
The
Proposal
is
considered
a
modification
of
the
existing
pwsf.
C
The
city
recently
amended
article
5A
telecommunications
and
facilities,
and
the
amendment
requires
all
pwsf
to
located
at
least
250
feet
from
adjacent
residences.
The
existing
installation
of
this
property
is
approximately
170
feet
from
the
nearest
residential
building.
This
is
existing
deficiency
that
will
not
be
exacerbated
by
this
proposal
and
I've
read
the
remaining
information
in
the
summary
about
the
relevant
code
sections
so
I
believe
we
have
are
some
color
here
for
this
appeal.
H
H
Anything
else
you'd
like
to
have
nope.
That's
all
I
have.
B
Okay,
I,
like
the
one
before
we're
going
to
open
this
up
to
questions
from
the
board
members.
No
questions,
no
questions,
no,
and
that
brings
us
to
public
hearing
right.
C
And
we
do
not
have
any
written
comments
or
anyone
who
signed
up
to
speak
either
in
favor
or
in
opposition
to
the
appeal.
I
do
have
a
comment
from
the
planning
board,
which
states,
as
this
is
an
existing
non-conformity
and
an
update
not
causing
visual
impact.
The
planning
Lord
finds
no
long-term
negative
impacts
of
waiting.
B
Same
and
say
hello,
all
right
existing
is
there.
I
Somebody
that
would
like
to
make
a
motion
on
this
Andre
after
you
I'm.
F
In
commotion,
I
motion
to
Grant
a
variance
requested
that
a
motion
to
Grant
to
variants
for
appeal
number
three,
two:
three
zero.
So
the
board
acknowledges
this
is
an
existing
facility.
I
In
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
detriment
to
nearby
properties,
no,
the
proposed
installation
is
a
modification
of
the
existing
facility
that
had
been
on
that
property.
For
20
years.
The
new
installation
will
in
place
existing
and
there's
no
evidence
that
the
change
will
for
adult
in
an
undesirable
change
to
the
neighborhood,
to
whether
the
benefit
by
the
installed
by
the
output
can
be
can
be
achieved
by
a
diesel
alternative.
No,
the
locations
of
these
facilities
are
determined
by
service
coverage
requirements.
Well,
there
is
a
limited
radius
where
the
facility
can
be
located.
I
G
F
I
I
F
C
I
I
C
A
C
You
perfect,
it's
thought
for
my
team,
also
in
that
call
he
should
be
joining
just
now.
Okay,.
B
So,
whenever
you're
ready,
if
you
could
just
present
a
summary
to
the
Gordon,
this
is
a
continuation.
So
we
tell
you
last
time,
but
again
just
a
recap.
In
summer.
A
J
C
A
A
C
You
hear
me
now:
yes,
the
problem
we're
having
was
with
Scott's
iPad,
so
we
had
to
the
process
of
elimination.
Have
him
step
out
in
the
room
for
a
minute?
I,
don't
know
if
he
has
another
way
to
join,
but
it
was
causing
a
lot
of
repeat
sound
play
in
your
muted,
because.
A
C
C
C
K
Oh
there
we
go
sorry
about
that
when
I,
when
you
kicked
me
out,
I
accidentally
joined
the
planning
board
meeting
tomorrow
night
or
tried
to.
K
Okay,
you
know
I'm
Scott
Seal
from
CGS
Architects
I'm
here
for
132
Cherry
Street
for
wisdom
development.
You
know
we
do
have
this
presentation,
it
is.
You
know
this
really
the
same
material
that
we
looked
at
last
month.
K
You
know,
so
maybe
it's
it's
more.
For
you
know.
If
you
have
questions
or
whatnot,
you
know
we
are
here
seeking
a
front
yard
variants.
You
know
this
is
the
Cherry
Street
District.
The
regulation
is
15
feet
from
the
inside
edge
of
sidewalk,
and
you
know
what
we're
requesting
is
that
it
20
feet
from
the
property
line
at
the
first
floor
and
then
15
feet
from
the
property
line.
K
If
the
floor
is
above
and
and
you
know,
this
is
really
to
comply
with
the
you
know,
the
fire
code
of
the
state
of
New
York
requirements
for
a
aerial,
Access,
Fire
Road
for
any
buildings.
K
Over
30
feet,
so
that's
basically
it
you
know
if
you
have
any
more
questions.
K
B
A
K
No,
we
haven't
submitted
any
changes,
but
only
change
to
the
project
is
that
we
have
reduce
the
size
of
the
south
building
by
approximately
nine
feet
off
that
North
End.
So
we
we're
losing
two
parking
spots
on
the
ground
floor
and
then
some
square
footage
on
the
apartments.
Above
and
again,
that's
actually
also
to
comply
with
the
fire
code
of
New
York,
State
aerial,
Access,
Fire
Road
requirements
just
to
make
that
courtyard
a
little
wider
and
we'll
be
discussing
that
at
the
time
board
meeting
tomorrow.
K
B
No
all
right
and
then
tonight's,
a
continuation
of
public
hearing.
We
opened
it
last
month.
So
with
that,
are
there
any
new
public
comments
or
any
more
comments.
C
We
do
not
have
any
new
public
comments,
we
do
have
a
recommendation
for
the
planning
board.
The
planning
board
fully
supports
this
variance,
as
this
development
is
in
a
location
where
the
city
is
encouraging
development
and
the
applicant
is
fulfillingly
working
for
the
city
to
create
a
favorable
streetscape
along
Cherry
debate.
C
As
such,
the
proposed
sidewalk
is
located
on
the
project
site
for
the
narrowing
the
property,
without
this
variance,
given
the
property
Dimensions
so
prove
difficult
to
develop
and
I
will
also
note
that
the
planning
board
did
complete
environmental
review
for
this
project
and
their
August
meeting
and
has
declared
that
there
is
no
significant
impact
on
the
environment.
B
F
F
Andre,
how
about
you
I
think
they're
making
the
minimum
ass
they
need
to
make
to
comply
with
New
York
state
code,
so
I'm
happy
with
it,
because
Mike
I
agree.
Congressman.
F
For
132
characters.
F
I'll,
do
the
factors
considered
whether
an
undesirable
change
would
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
veterans
nearby
properties
until
the
front
yards
and
Cherry
Street
District
was
measured,
From
the
Inside
Edge
of
the
sidewalk
to
the
building
facade.
This
is
intended
to
provide
Green,
Space
Between
the
building
front
and
the
sidewalk,
which
is
often
in
the
public
right
away.
The
sidewalk
at
132,
Cherry
Street,
will
be
located
on
private
property
and
the
applicant
is
working
with
the
city
to
create
a
pedestrian
friendly,
Street
Scene.
F
To
the
variance,
no,
if
the
applicant
sites,
the
ability
to
meet
the
front
yard
requirement
is
reality.
Allow
range
for
aerial
access
for
emergency
response
is
not
feasible
between
both
the
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
New
York
State
Fire
total.
Whether
the
requested
variant
is
substantial.
Yes,
the
applicant
is
proposing
a
front
yard
of
eight
feet:
From
the
Inside
Edge
of
the
sidewalk.
This
results
in
a
front
yard
deficiency
of
47.
The
board
finds
that
there
is
no
feasible
alternative.
F
F
Is
doing
to
ensure
a
friendly
tradescape
will
the
variants
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
in
the
neighborhood?
All
right
now,
the
plan
development
board
activist
lead
agency
has
determined
that
the
project
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
environment
based
on
the
submitted
materials
and
testimony
of
the
applicant
there's,
no
evidence
of
adverse
physical
or
environmental
impacts
resulting
from
the
law
coverage
deficiency,
whether
the
alleged
difficulty
was
self-created
alleged
difficulty
is
associated
with
choosing
to
redevelop
the
property
of
132
Cherry
Street.
F
F
C
Kirby,
yes,
Mr
Martin,
yes,
I'm
all
right,
so
the
experience
has
been
granted
by
the
board.
You'll
be
receiving
the
written
decision
within
the
next
two
days
and
I'll
be
sending
their
happiest
quotes
to
play
anymore
and
the
building
division
as
well.
B
Our
next
appeal
is
appeal:
three
two,
two
one
I'll
be
stepping
out
the
appearance
of
a
conflict.
Andre
Garner
will
be
taking
over,
because
this
appeals
co-chair
and
Marshall
McCormick
will
be
standing
here.
C
C
C
And
so
appeal,
three
two
two
one
for
109
to
111
Valentine
plates
I
feel
like
Trump
control,
Michael's
Landscape,
Architects
on
behalf
of
property
owner
of
Valentine
Place
Associates,
LLC,
good
ERA
variants
from
section
325
a
account
for
off-street
parking
in
column,
six
flat
area
requirements
of
his
own
requirements.
C
The
applicant
proposes
to
demolish
the
two
existing
multiple
drawings
at
109
111,
downtown
place.
We
construct
a
new
four-story,
multiple
dwelling
with
30
Apartments,
depending
online
area
requirement
of
the
r3a
district
is
based
on
the
number
of
dwelling
units
provided
on
site.
A
minimum
lot
area
of
26
250
square
feet
is
required
for
30
unit.
Multiple
dwelling
and
the
property
is
17
119
square
feet,
resulting
in
a
deficiency
of
9131
square
feet
of
that
area.
In
addition,
the
proposed
unit
configuration
requires
34
off
Street
spaces.
The
applicant
is
proposing
no
on-site
parking.
C
The
property
owner
will
allow
tenants
of
the
new
building
to
utilize
existing
on
street
parking
in
one
of
the
nearby
College
Town
Terrace
Labs.
The
project
team
presented
their
appeal
at
the
June
2022
bza
meetings.
Meeting.
Some
member
expressed
concern
about
the
substantiality
and
necessity
of
the
requested.
Variances,
the
applicants
are
processed
a
table
they've
built,
allow
time
to
provide
additional
information
to
address
the
board's
questions
and
concerns.
L
L
I
Megan
asked
me
to
give
just
a
very
brief
recap,
since
it's
been
a
while,
since
we've
been
here
and
then
I
also
have
a
a
brief
overview
of
the
supplemental
information
that
we
provided,
we
went
back
and
listened
to
the
you
know
reviewed
the
the
questions
and
the
comments
that
were
brought
up
last
time,
and
so
the
applicant
has
submitted
a
letter
that
we
feel
addressed
on
many
of
the
questions
and
the
line
questioning
that
at
the
last
meeting.
L
So
next
slide
please.
So
in
summary,
the
project
is
30
Apartments,
three
Department
units
with
the
ground
floor
leasing
office.
We
are
requesting
two
variances
relief
from
the
minimum
lot
size
and
relief
from
the
Upstream
parking
requirement.
Next
slide.
L
The
project
is
located
in
the
r3a
zone
and
the
project
as
designed
complies
with
use
height
setback
and
coverage
regulations.
The
planning
board
has
made
a
secret
determination
that
project
is
consistent
with
a
community
character
and
there
are
no
identified
environmental
impacts.
The
project
also
complies
with
the
city's
Confederate
15
companies
plan,
which
looks
for
radio
density
in
this
area.
Next
slide
the
Project's
located
at
the
end
of
Valentine
Place
adjacent
to
the
college
town
Terrace
Apartment
project
developed
by
a
single
developer
next
slide.
L
L
All
of
this
asphalt
from
the
site
and
next
slide
please
and
in
his
place
we
would
actually
reforest
the
the
south
and
east
sides
of
the
property,
which
is
really
a
continuation
of
the
extensive
Landscaping
at
College
time
Terrace,
and
so
the
parking
variants
would
allow
to
have
a
slight
increase
in
Green.
Space
next
slide
an
elevation
along
Valentine
place.
L
Here
you
can
see
all
of
the
buildings
existing
buildings
to
the
left
and
then
the
gold
colored
building
is
the
new
proposal
with
collection
Terrace
on
the
right,
and
it's
like
and
a
view
looking
Southeast
as
it
would
appear
from
the
street
next
slide.
L
L
So
if
we
keep
the
same
building
footprint
and
same
tight
as
proposed
by
the
applicant,
we
are
able
we
are
proposing
48
beds
in
30
units.
This
would
be
23
Studios
and
the
balance
being
in
three
employee
veterans.
So
the
difference
in
the
two
projects,
the
one
that
complies
with
zoning
and
the
one
with
the
variance-
is
that
we
will
have
four
fewer
beds.
L
We
have
15
additional
units,
but
it's
all
within
the
same
building
envelope.
So
there's
no
change
to
the
building
footprint
from
the
exterior
there's,
actually
no
visible
difference
between
the
two
projects.
L
Of
the
variance
of
the
lottery
with
parking
off
street
parking,
three
four
spaces
are
required
by
the
zoning
we've
outlined.
The
transportation
demand
management
strategies
that
exist
and
are
being
proposed
for
the
project.
I
think
you
know,
first
and
foremost,
is
the
path
that
increasingly
students
are
bringing
fewer
cars
to
campus.
L
So
we
don't
believe
there
is
anywhere
near
the
demand
for
three
to
four
spaces
that
is
required
by
Zone,
and
this
is
consistent
throughout
all
of
the
properties
that
the
applicant
owns
this
trend
and
we
hear
it
from
other
developers
as
well.
So,
first
of
all,
we
believe
that
demand
is
much
less.
In
addition,
it's
the
site
is
very
walkable
to
campus
to
college
town
under
our
tcat.
Bus
stops
nearby,
as
well
as
a
car
share,
and
the
applicant
operates
a
shuttle
from
College
on
Terrace,
which
will
also
service
this
project.
L
Therefore
the
and
then,
in
addition,
the
applicant
would
propose
to
allow
parking
for
anybody
who
needs
it
at
the
adjacent
College
on
Terrace.
That
has
many
unused
spaces
and
the
result
would
be
that
we
have
increased
Green
Space
on
site
and
we
didn't
have
to
pay
for
the
parking
so
next
slide,
please
so
that
just
sort
of
summarizes
the
the
difference
between
that
proposal
and
the
variance
right
excuse
me
and
as
a
grade
so
now,
just
to
summarize
the
supplemental
information
that
we've
provided
so
really
what's
what's
driving
this
request?
L
L
The
applicant's
target
market
market
is
grad
students
and
they
overwhelmingly
prefer
Studios
development
in
college
town
historically
has
focused
on
multi-bism
units,
and
we
outlined
this
is
outlined
in
the
letter
that
John
submitted,
but
it
was
actually
even
surprising
to
us
how
few
Studios
there
are
I
mean
we
did
an
informal
survey
and
there
are
very
few
studio
apartments
in.
G
L
Of
these
major
apartment
complexes
in
college
town-
and
that's
that's
outlined
in
the
letter,
so
there
is
a
there's,
a
resulting
Gap
in
the
market
for
studio
apartments.
It
may
be
over
years
and
years
these
multi-bedroom
apartment
buildings
have
been
built,
and
now
the
you
know
just
really
high
demand
from
Studios
I
know
to
Gathering
Market.
The
applicant's
own
inventory
is
heavily
weighted
to
two
and
three
bedroom
units.
Only
10
of
the
college
town
Terrace
beds
are
in
studios
and
so
they're
currently
unable
to
offer
what
potential
tenants
are.
Looking
for.
L
There
are
one
of
the
properties
there
is
301
College
Avenue,
approximately
30
percent
of
the
units
are
unrented
they're,
all
three
bedroom
or
larger
312
College
Avenue,
more
than
a
third
of
the
three-bedroom
or
larger
units,
are
not
rented
and
so
they're
trying
other
strategies.
You
know,
rent
them
by
the
bedroom,
trying
to
rent
it
as
a
two
bedroom
with
very
little
success.
L
M
Oh
John,
the
buildings
that
she
just
buildings
that
she
just
mentioned
in
college
now,
interestingly,
or
had
no
issues
with
Studios
ones
and
twos,
it's
all
in
the
larger
units,
so
common
sense
would
tell
you
without
real
interested
and
he
was
sad
exaggerated.
His
answer
baiting
what
we
always
already
have
as
a
problem
and
see
down.
A
L
L
L
The
intention
is
to
make
the
market
demand
so
I
hope
that
gives
you
a
better
understanding
of
what
the
market
is
and
what
the
the
rationale
behind
the
variants
related
to
the
parking
I
think
we've
already
covered
most
of
this
I
guess
that
we
just
point
out
that
the
adjacent
College
Town
Terrace
parking
garage
that
you
know
they're
also
they
have
this
overall
trending
of
lower
Auto
use,
and
so
we
actually
just
you
know
up
until
very
recently.
L
Of
course,
people
are
still
renting
spaces
for
the
semester,
because
we're,
but
now
that
we're
almost
October,
you
know
we
think
things
are
pretty
settled
in
for
the
year.
So
we
checked
in
to
see
what
the
what
the
rental
rates
are
as
of
last
week
and
as
of
last
week,
so
so
the
garage
has
656
spaces,
350
or
maybe
354
or
excuse
me,
you
know
600
is
the
garage,
has
600
yeah
and
from
49
spaces,
and
there
are
356
spaces
unrented.
So.
L
And
so
it
just,
it
seems
It's
immediately
next
door,
I
mean
to
build.
The
parking
just
doesn't
feel
like
an
environmentally
reasonable
thing
to
do,
and
so
that
concludes
our
presentation
and
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
E
L
L
F
Questions
they
do
as
it
relates
to
parking
I
understand.
Obviously,
the
initial
Focus
that
everybody
looked
at
is
cars
and
the
amount
of
cars,
but
as
it
relates
to
population
density,
can
you
talk
to
me
about
that?
A
little
bit
at
the
use
of
parking
to
stymie
increased
population
densities
and
how
saying
no
parking
here
is
necessary?
F
No
parking
spaces
are
necessary,
so
we
can.
We
can
fill
it
up
without
any
need
for
the
on-site
parking.
L
Well,
I
think
that
we
have
48.
F
Like
what
I'm
getting
at
is
a
lot
of
times
parking
spaces
and
the
requirement
of
these
on-site
parking
spaces
is
to
kind
of
kind
of
control.
Population
density
within
the
area
I
understand
you
guys
are
coming
in
I
think
for
occupants
shy
of
that,
but
has
been
totally
absolving
yourself
of
the
need
for
any
on-site
parking
and
then
other
people
being
able
to
likewise
come
in
and
argue
well,
we
gave
you
34
spaces
that
you
did
not
need.
We
gave
the
variance
for
that.
F
F
M
M
M
L
34
spaces
are
required
by
zoning
if
we
look
at
the
likely
demand.
If
we
look
at
proportionately
what
other
properties
like
are
the
number
of
tenants
who
are
bringing
cars,
we
think
the
demand
could
be
eight
approximately.
L
So
that
would
be,
and-
and
so
you
know
with
with
all
of
the
transportation
demand
management
opportunities
that
is
affording
this
site
the
walkability-
we
think
that
the
the
trend
of
people
bringing
fewer
and
fewer
cars-
we
just
think
all
of
these
things
combine
to
create
a
very
low
demand,
and
so
I
don't
know
exactly
how
that
answers.
Your
question
about
population
density
but
I
think
that
I
mean
I,
think
you're
hearing
from
other
developers
too,
that
the
the
demand
for
parking
is
much
less
I.
Think
that's
we're
not
the
only
developer.
L
That
is
having
that
experience.
I
mean
I,
think
you
know,
I
mean
frankly,
I
think
the
so
the
zoning
is
outdated.
The
parking
requirement
is
outdated
to
require
them
to
build
a
parking
garage
for
650
spaces
and
it's
being
half
occupied.
That's
not
a
you
know,
I
mean
I
mean
it's
neither
here
nor
there.
For
this.
M
It
could
be
said
that
once
upon
a
time
the
zoning
made
pretty
good
sense
and
I
mean
this
is
not
your
problem,
but
we're
left
dealing
with
it
and
and
and
so
I
mean
what
I
can
tell
you
is
there's
no
need
for
more
blacktop
and
more
parking,
and
so
the
question
for
us
in
front
of
you
guys
and
the
planning
board
and
all
because
how
do
you
present
this
thing
in
such
a
way
that
we're
not
creating
a
problem
in
the
neighborhood
and
the
best
thing
that
could
happen
is
that
we
rent
all
the
parking
we
absorb.
M
F
There's
always
good
information,
I
think
I
was
asking
an
an
article
question,
but
I
think
the
gist
of
what
I
was
looking
for.
I
mean
to
a
certain
extent
again.
The
parking
requirements
do
in
some
way
shape
and
form
act
to
stymie
the
amount
of
people
that
can
be
put
on
a
given
property.
If
you
need
fewer
parking
spaces,
you
do
that
by
reducing
the
amount
so.
E
K
E
I,
don't
have
a
problem
here
and
I've.
I
heard
these
claims
a
year
ago
and
I
was
shocked
and
I've
driven
through
your
parking
garages
and
it's
you
know
they're
empty
yeah,
so
I
don't
want
you
to
build
Parkinson
and.
F
F
Mr
McCormick:
do
you
have
any
questions?
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
the
number
of
23
Studios.
G
L
Shows
that
placement.
Thank
you
right.
So
the
proposal
is,
you
can
see
there
48
beds
23
Studios,
and
then
there
are
seven
units
that
are.
E
M
Good
to
have
a
selection
in
any
building,
and
so
and
at
some
point
perhaps
they
asked
because
even
in
our
own
minds
a
little
more
than
we
think
some
people
get
digest.
I
don't
know,
I
mean
this
is
all
a
hit
and
miss
we.
M
We
don't
know
right
to
the
to
the
unit
or
the
bedroom
what's
rentable
and
what
is,
and
what
we
do
know
is
that
we
run
out
of
studio
apartments
at
College
boundaries
ahead
of
every
other
unit
every
year
and
there's
a
message
and
the
threes
get
granted
as
I
pointed
out
at
Terrace,
but
with
difficulty
and
in
college
town
we've
gotta
we've
got
empties
in
in
buildings
that
in
15
and
20
years
we
never
had
a
vacancy
there.
I
M
Well,
we
went
in
a
different
direction.
We
rebuilt
all
the
bathrooms
and
kitchens
I
mean
your
Insight
is
right.
We
just
went
ahead
of
a
little
bit,
then
a
couple
of
million
bucks
in
the
last
year
and
a
half
and
they're
still
tempting
when,
when
in
their
former
crummy
stage
20
year
old
bathrooms
and
kitchens,
they
rented.
G
F
Questions
for
you,
my
understanding
is:
there's
Jim
green
space
requirement
for
r3a.
If
you
build
parking
on
the
site,
how
many
parking
spaces
could
you
build?
Let's
say
you
said
blacktop
everything.
What
could
you
provide.
M
L
F
It's
fine
so,
when
I
think
about
the
area,
variance
page,
if
you
sort
of
had
to
convert
this
into
a
formula
to
some
extent
like
you're,
basically
suggesting
this
is
how
much
code
you
can
do
by
write
and
then
you're
converting
that
into
bedrooms
and
then
converting
it
over
into
units
while
staying
within
the
confines
of
all
the
other
code
requirements.
Is
that
essentially,
your
formula?
F
F
A
F
F
Are
not
as
worried
about
mostly
because
they're
keeping
less
people
based
on
what
their
plan
is
for
the
actual
building.
I'm
still
I
was
not
super
pleased
with
the
parking
plan.
The
amount
of
efficiency
just
34-0
I
understand
the
mitigation
and
everything
else
going
on
I'm
still
having
you
calling
about
that
professional
I
didn't
have
any
issue
with
it
before
I
have
even
less
of
an
issue
with
it.
F
Now,
when
I
think
about
the
Austrian
parking
they're
required
to
have
34
spaces
based
on
a
calculation
that
requires
one
spot
per
person
in
every
Studio.
But
if
you
were
to
reconfigure
those
Studios,
it
would
be
four
bedrooms.
You'd
have
you'd
be
required,
half
as
many
spaces
at
most,
because
a
four
bedroom
unit
only
requires
two
spaces.
So
only
half
the
people
that
live
in
four
bedroom
units
bring
cars,
but
all
of
the
people
who
live
in
studios
bring
cars
I,
don't
think
it
makes
any
sense.
F
I
think
the
argument
could
be
made
that
that,
while
the
variance
appears
to
be
34,
if
they
were
to
build
it
by
right,
the
amount
of
parking
that
we
need
to
be
required
would
be
less,
and
so
in
some
ways
you
could
think
of
it
as
a
lower
reach
than
the
full-time
per
unit.
F
I
think
that
in
this
case,
we
have
a
code
that
is,
for
this,
for
this
location
to
this
era,
for
this
proposal
very
poorly
written
and
not
very
well
thought
out,
and
that
this
is
the
board.
F
So
I
didn't
mention
the
game
on
this
project
a
lot
you
know,
I've
been
thinking
a
lot
about
one
of
the
earliest
projects
that
I
saw
on
the
board,
which
was
228
ride
and
have,
and
that
was
the
townhouse
one.
That's
all
Studios.
It
was
on
a
hillside
and
you
know
they
came
in
asking
for
area
variances
and
the
Crux
of
the
argument
is
I
understood
it
is
I
bought
into.
Was
that
that
building
said
it
was
just
a
total
pain
to
build
on.
F
We
had
a
heavy
slope
and
you
had
a
lot
of
costs
associated
with
bringing
everything
to
grade
and
making
it
work
and
I
thought
that
if
we
did
not
provide
the
area
variances-
and
we
said
hey,
we
got
to
build
by
the
requirements
of
code
that
they
wouldn't
have
built
that
building
because
it
would
have
been
financially
unfeasible
and
I
thought
they
made
a
good
due
diligence
effort
to
bring
the
project
as
much
into
alignment
as
code
as
possible
and
when
I
look
at
this
project
and
I.
Look
at
that
formula
there.
F
It's
essentially
saying
hey
the
code
of
750
square
feet
per
apartment
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
and
they're,
essentially
proposing
an
alternative
code
essentially
and
when
I
think
about
that
in
terms
of
significance,
they're
not
making
any
arguments,
it's
really
based
on
the
site
at
all
they're,
making
an
argument
that
hey
across
the
board
across
College
shop.
This
just
doesn't
make
sense-
and
this
is
an
alternative
framework
for
thinking
about
what
you
can
build
in
r3a
and
I.
F
Think
that
is
the
definition
of
creating
a
precedence
on
this
board
that
anyone
in
the
r3a
can
make
that
exact
same
argument
across
the
board
and
I
think
it's
very
significant,
I
think
it's
very
self-imposed
and
I
think
they've
demonstrated
very
clearly
that
they
could
build
a
building
that
aligns
with
code
and
I
sympathize
with
the
economics
of
building
a
building
that
falls
within
code.
But
if
we
establish
that
precedence
every
single
person
on
the
board,
saying
hey,
give
me
that
President.
F
It's
also
hard
to
go
three
and
four
in
apartments
and
there's
nothing
unique
about
this
project
that
justifies
it.
So
it's
Unique,
self-created
I,
don't
buy
any
of
the
neighborhood
arguments.
That
studios
are
better
versus,
not
I
mean
you
know,
there's
plenty.
Anyone
will
come
out
of
the
woodworker
and
say:
oh
you've
got
a
bunch
of
Studios
they're,
just
going
to
be
a
veteran
rambunctious.
Undergrounds
I
mean
I,
don't
buy
any
of
those
arguments
and
you
know
if
they
came
in
here
and
said:
oh
the
sites
are
real
pain.
F
You
know
there's
nothing
stopping
developers
from
coming
back
later
and
saying:
hey:
we've
got
a
lot
of
Need
for
parking
again.
Cards
got
really
cheap,
everything's
electric,
with
bolos
all
these
trees
and
put
in
parking
spaces.
I
think
that's
realistic,
but
I
think
they're
establishing
code
and
establishing
precedent,
and
that's
what
we'd
be
doing
and
I
think
that
opens
us
up
to
a.
E
Lot
of
problems
down
the
road,
so
I
guess
the
litigation
to
me
is
there's
a
whole
lot
of
vacant
spaces
very,
very,
very
short
distance
to
their
future
and
other
RPA
properties.
They're
not
going
to
have
that
they're
not
going
to
have
400
parking
spaces
available,
and
even
if
it's
not
the
exact
same
order.
That's
the
market
demand
they're
going
to
rent.
Whoever
owns
that
robbers
in
elected
spaces
and
someone
there's
a.
F
Lot
of
available
parking
I
mean
unless
I
care
a
little
less
about
the
parking
spaces
argument
like
I
struggle
a
bit
with
this,
because
we
don't
really
keep
track
of
how
many
parking
spaces
we
allocate
to
what
I
mean
I
wasn't
a
member
of
the
board
when
we
voted
on
Catherine
Commons,
but
I
have
no
idea
how
many
parking
spaces
we
essentially
allocated
to
that.
We
don't
keep
track
of
it.
We
don't
know
you
know.
I
they've
got
a
mitigation
strategy.
F
I
have
questions,
you
know,
usually
when
I
think
of
someone
coming
to
our
board
and
saying
Hey
I
want
to
put
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
in
my
apartment.
You
know
place
right.
I
can
do
that
by
right,
but
I'm
on
a
Hillside
and
I
can
only
put
in
one
apartment
one
parking
space.
So
therefore,
I
looked
around
I
tried
to
find
other
parking
in
the
area.
I
couldn't
do
it?
F
J
F
L
The
Precedence
isn't
something
that
the
VCA
considers
that's
right:
I'm
taking.
C
M
F
Yeah
I
I
think
the
parking
is
a
secondary
issue.
To
me
it
is
the
building
question.
I
think
we
are
not
a
precedent.
I
certainly
started
talking
about
22e
driving
because
I
my
understanding,
the
sport
and
how
I
approach
the
support
is
I,
think
of
the
code
and
then
I
think
about
each
parcel
of
those
property
is
a
unique
Snowflake
and
their
approach
to
this
is
hey.
We
have
a
parcel
of
land
which
we've
brought
up.
No
issues
with
we've
essentially
said
code
is
creating
all
of
these
problems.
F
For
us,
I
would
say
this
is
definitely
not
the
only
area
in
which
code
creates
problems
for
developers,
and
these
are
huge.
You
know
from
a
percentage
standpoint.
These
are
obviously
significant
and
I
am
also
thinking
about
significance
in
terms
of
you
know,
we're
not
a
precedence-based
board,
but
this
is
an
argument
based
on
a
unique
characteristic
partial.
F
So
I
I
can't
I
can't
understand
the
argument
for
setting
president
I
I,
guess
I
I
sort
of
understand
this
idea
of
changing
the
calculation
but
I
I,
guess
I
I
decided
with
the
developer
in
a
few
ways
that
I
believe
when
we're
looking
at
the
criteria
that
we
need
to
discuss.
I
think
that
it
also
is
helpful
to
to
understand
how
those
criteria
being
affected
not
only
in
a
negative
in
a
negative
way,
but
in
a
positive
way.
It's
appear
to
to
make
the
the
argument
that.
F
If
there's
an
undesirable
change,
producing
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
detriment,
two
airplanes
we'd
say
no
exactly,
but
it'd
be
better.
Theoretically,
if
they
were
to
put
in
17
units
with
with
more
people,
increase
the
density,
because
that's
what
code
allows
well,
then
they'd
have
a
code,
a
project
that
was
that
fit
to
code,
wouldn't
even
have
to
be
here
anymore,
but
might
actually
make
a
bigger
impact
on
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
F
Similarly,
if
we
were
to
talk
about
parking
in
the
physical
environment
conditions
in
the
neighborhood
until
you
you
could
put
in
34
spots,
so
why
don't
you
do
that?
And
then
we
don't
have
to
talk
about
this
at
all.
Now
we
end
up
with
the
worst
project
that
I
was,
has
not
only
where's
environmental
conditions
for
that
neighborhood,
but
for
this
city
and
the
county
and
the
flood
plain
and
for
everybody
else
that
lives
down
the
stream
of
it.
F
So
if
we
were
to
just
think
of
these
things
in
terms
of
of
like,
does
it
do
this,
does
it
do
that?
Yes
or
no
I
I
think
we
we
lose
a
lot
of
the
the
space
making
and
the
and
the
community
building
aspect
of
development
projects
in
the
city
and
that
we
end
up
checking
boxes
and
and
feeling
okay
about
things
and
ended
up
living
in
a
place
that
isn't
as
enjoyable
I
do
want
to
just
jump
in
real,
quick
and
clarify
that
that.
J
Question
about
precedent
we
are
not
as
strictly
you
know,
presidential
based
board
in
the
state
in
the
same
way,
but
like
the
court
system
is,
but
we
do
have
an
obligation
to
treat
similarly
situated
projects.
Similarly,
so
to
the
extent
that
is
helpful,
that
is
a
good
thing
to
think
about,
to
the
extent
that
things
are
less
similar.
F
And
you
know
it's
less
of
a
pressure.
I
just
wanted
to
throw
that
clarification
in
there.
F
Or
superb
and
then
scan
yeah
I
mean
I.
Think
we've
gotten
a
bit
about
I
think
this
is
a
good
project
or
is
it
I
think
this
is
a
bad
project?
Does
it
fit
code?
Does
it
not
get
code?
It's
not
our
job
to
say
well
code.
We
disagree
with
the
code,
so
it's
a
good
project,
so
you're
in
versus
I.
Don't
like
the
paint
that
you're
going
to
put
on
that
building.
So
it's
a
bad
project
so
you're
out,
like
we
still
have
to
say
this
is
what
code
is.
F
This
is
how
you
fit
within
it.
I
think
Andre's
points
about
how
we're
kind
of
just
saying
this
is
a
different
quote:
I
mean
again
I,
don't
think
you
need
the
parking,
but
it
is
what's
required.
Undercoat
is
we
think
that
somebody's
not
going
to
like
come
in
here
if
they
don't
do
their
diligence
to
come
in
and
say
well,
you
just
gave
them
34
spots
and
we
only
need
five
I
think
that's
a
very.
L
F
The
alleged
difficulty
was
so
created,
yes,
they
could
do
something
else
and
lower
the
amount,
but
the
answer
is
just:
let's
do
zero
right
like
this
is.
This
is
entirely
self-created.
There
are
feasible
Alternatives
when
we're
looking
at
these
and
then
even
going
at
whether
an
undesirable
change
would.
G
F
It
is
another
building
better
or
is
you
know
those
those
residents
that
are
there?
That's
why
again
we're
supposed
to
look
at
what's
called?
What's
not
code,
why
do
they
deserve
to
get
these
variances?
If
you
look
at
parking,
you
guys
have
a
really
good
opportunity
with
the
extra
parking
spaces
like
no
one's
questioning.
That
last.
F
What
you
just
highlighted
is
that
you
could
take
any
of
these
and
and
there's
there
is
an
argument
for
either
side
of
them
on
YouTube
them,
whether
or
not
until
created
or
whether
or
not
there's
a
physical
or
environmental
condition
here
for
the
gene,
who's,
actually
exacerbated
or
or
affected,
and
we
have
sort
of
laid
out
and
talked
about
ways
of
how
their
better
works
for
each
of
them.
So
I
I,
don't
think
we're
losing
sight
and
I.
F
Don't
think
that
by
bringing
in
other
aspects
of
the
project
or
potentials
for
other
projects
is,
is
going
too
far,
because
because
the
idea
of
this
is
that.
A
F
E
I
just
think
our
role
is
to
see
if
the
mitigations
make
sense
and
override
their
code
and
I
I.
Don't
know
the
science
of
all
this,
but
I
want
to
live
next
to
23
Studios
rather
than
15,
30
and
45
minutes.
I
know
that
I
live
downtown.
F
I
F
A
better
project
is
a
highly
subjective
question
right
and
that's
where
I
event,
the
planning
board's
responsibility
comes
in
I.
Think
once
we
start
having
conversations
about
pay,
we
don't
agree
with
the
code.
We
have
this
new
framework
for
thinking
about
how
people
should
build,
because
you
know
that's
essentially
what
they're
doing
they're
saying
that
we
should
be
thinking
about
density
in
a
different
way,
and
we
should
be
thinking
about
the
interpretation
of
code
in
a
different
way
and
then
they're,
saying
hey
here's
XYZ
mitigation
strategy.
This
is
why
it's
good.
F
This
is
why
it's
better
not
to
comply
with
code,
and
you
know
that
in
itself
is
an
argument
that
again
opens
the
door
to
a
lot
of
different
Frameworks
for
thinking
about
things
where
you
can
essentially
get
into
a
horse
trading
conversation
which
is
like
hey.
Let
me
violate
code
here,
I'm,
going
to
put
some
stuff
on
my
building
to
make.
D
J
F
I'm
going
to
put
in
solar
panels
that
are
above
and
beyond,
like
carbon
credits,
it
it's
an
argument,
that's
not
based
on
the
building
at
all.
It's
based
on
a
subjective
argument
about
how
Society
should
look
and
of
course
it
applies
to
everything
that
we
look
at
going
forward.
You
know
when
we
look
at
other
projects
and
let's
say
the
code
is
55
block
coverage
right.
You
know,
we
don't
sit
there
and
say
hey.
They
got
to
60,
that's
good
enough
right.
F
If
you
know
the
code
is
60,
you
know,
Common
Council
would
make
it
60
at
the
end
of
the
day
and
I
get
on
some
of
this
stuff
that
it's
imperfect.
We
just
saw
a
presentation,
it
was
imperfect,
but
those
are
narrow,
bounds.
Things
where
you've
got
fire
code
involved
or
like
the
conversation
about
signage
right.
We
all
can
sit
here
and
be
like
Oh
sign
cook,
doesn't
make
any
sense
for
a
12
storage
building,
but
having
12-story
buildings
we're
going
to
see
I
I
think
this
is
a
precedence
that
applies
to
everything,
significant
self-imposed.
F
F
Could
you
read
into
the
record
what
the
planning
board.
I
C
The
lead
agency
finds
the
applicants
medications
for
the
Oxford
parking
drains,
which
include
a
large
amount
of
parking
available
on
the
adjacent
property
car
share
and
Transit
accessibility,
private
shuttle
and
rockability
to
be
substantial
and
do
mitigate
the
mean
front
on
site
parking.
The
lead
agency
also
believes
this
is
an
appropriate
location
to
achieve
density
and
that
the
potential
tenant
populations
of
students
are
less
likely
to
need
and
have
cars
they
find.
This
is
when
this
is
in
line
with
what
the
city
wants
to
accomplish
in
college
County
nearby
locations.
C
F
F
The
planning
board
that
writes
these
codes
that
oversees
the
the
creation
of
our
of
our
built
environment,
support
this
for
the
reasons
that
they've
laid
out
agreeing
with
the
density,
something
that
just
brought
up
and
being
okay
with
that
department
because
of
the
mitigating
factors
that
they
have
that
they
have
built
into
this
project.
F
So
sure
I
would
tend
to
agree
that
we
are
not
here
to
make
value
decisions
on
projects.
But
when
we
get
such
a
strongly
worded
letter
of
approval
from
the
planning
board.
I
think
that
it's
a.
A
N
Hi,
can
everyone
hear
me
yes,
so
my
name
is
John
Lange
I'm
I'm,
a
land
use
a
zoning
attorney
here
in
Syracuse
I'm,
not
down
there
tonight
and
I
apologize.
My
main
job
that
I
do
is
working
for
zoning
and
planning
boards
up
here
in
central
New
York.
Our
office
represents
probably
30
different
planning
and
zoning
boards.
So
I
have
a
nice
opportunity
on
many
occasions
to
see
the
variety
of
variances
that
you
folks
see
all
the
time
down
there.
N
So
I
and
I
do
teach
on
the
subject,
and
the
only
thing
I
wanted
to
comment
on
here
and
I.
Think
the
comments
from
the
board
are
very
thoughtful
and
I.
Think
in
in
this
instance.
The
one
thing
I
would
just
ask
the
board
to
do
as
it
deliberates
is
to
remember
that
that
the
outcome
of
this
vote
rests
well,
but
really
it
begins,
and
it
ends
with
that
balancing
test.
N
The
balancing
test
that
you
as
a
zoning
board,
are
required
to
apply
to
any
variants
and
remember
that
that
balancing
test
asked
the
question
of
whether
the
benefit
to
the
applicant,
which
is
which
is
Us
in
this
case,
outweighs
any
detriment
to
the
neighborhood
or
area.
So
what
I
would
suggest
is
that
the
applicant
here
has
certainly
identified
its
benefit
to
get
these
variances,
but
what
I
haven't
heard
and
and
from
the
public
or
anyone
else
is
what
exactly
is
a
detriment
to
the
neighborhood.
N
If
these
variances
are
granted
and
I
and
I
do
understand,
because
I
mostly
represent
Town
villages
cities
on
occasion
that
that
there
needs
to
be
respect
for
the
zoning
laws.
However,
the
zoning
board
actually
sits
there
to
Grant
relief
on
these
on
these
requests.
If
the
applicant
has
proven
their
case
and
I
would
suggest
strongly
that
the
applicant
here
has
certainly
proven
its
case
to
for
these
variances
and
they've
offered
a
myriad
of
reasons,
they've
documented
it
I
would
also
argue
that
this
case
would
absolutely
not
establish
any
kind
of
a
precedence.
N
The
next
applicant
that
would
come
in
if
we
were
granted.
This
would
have
to
show
they
have
all
of
these
exact
same
characteristics,
all
of
the
mitigations
that
have
been
identified
and
they
would
have
to
show
that
they've
actually
proven
their
case,
which,
in
this
instance
we
have
so
I.
Just
would
like
the
board
to
take
a
look
at
this
from
that
30
000,
foot
level
and
say:
okay,
we've
heard
all
these
things.
Let's
apply
that
balancing
test
did.
N
Did
this
applicant
say
that
they
they
are
going
to
receive
a
benefit
from
these
variances?
Clearly,
the
answer
is
yes,
then
the
second
question
is
well:
what
exactly
would
the
would
the
detriment
be
to
this
neighborhood
or
area
and
I?
Just
don't
think,
there's
been
any,
but
I
also
respect
the
board,
has
to
make
its
own
decisions
and
and
I
simply
would
ask
that
you
employ
that
part
of
your
deliberation
to
the
outcome.
In
this
case,
thanks.
J
Yeah
I'd
be
happy
to
assistant
City
attorney,
don't
give
me
a
promotion
but
yeah,
it's
not
one
that
I
want
yeah
and
just
to
kind
of
piggy.
That
said,
you
use
correct.
Of
course,
the
overall
test
is
a
balancing
tests
to
you
know
benefit
to
the
property
owner
versus
the
government
to
the
community
they're.
Also,
the
five
factors
that
you're
required
to
consider,
which
you
know
you
all.
H
J
Very
well
by
now
I'm
sorry
I
might
have
been
throw
that
in
there
into
the
things
that
you're
explicitly
required
to
consider
sort
them
to
the
larger
distinctions
between
the
planning
board
and
the
zoning
award.
The
planning
board
has
a
much
more
kind
of
freewheeling
ability
to
consider
projects,
facilities
inspected,
Community.
The
function
of
the
zoning
Board,
of
course,
is
to
consider
whether
an
acceptance
is
warranted
to
be
a
script
application
of
the
Zone
in
code.
J
In
a
particular
case,
I,
don't
know
the
extent
that
which
that's
helpful
for
tonight's
debate
and
I
I
detect
direct
my
comments.
Further,
no
I.
F
Thought
they'd
just
be
useful
to
have
that
on
the
table.
I
think
we've
for
the
most
part
skin
by
a
lot
of
the
planning,
word
comments
and
gone
directly
into.
How
does
this
specific
unique
project
relate
to
code
and
I.
F
Don't
want
to
say
that
my
mind
cannot
be
changed,
but
this
project,
as
is
just
not
I,
don't
believe
that
it
qualifies
under
the
criteria.
You
know,
as
I
said
at
the
last
meeting,
I
wish
there
was
five
people
on
this
board
and
they
could
have
five
people
vote
on
it,
but
that
is
my
established
opinion.
A
E
Well,
if
what,
if
somebody
up
on
the
call
Jeff
wants
to
build
the
same
building,
we're
gonna
have
to
do
the
same
thing:
yeah,
what's
the
natural?
What
is
if
this
were
approved,
what.
F
Are
the
negative
implications
on
that
side?
I
think
we
have
two
Frameworks
to
look
at.
We
have
what
John
talked
about,
which
is.
Are
they
doing
a
mitigation
framework?
Are
they
creating
detrimental
Community
by
asking
for
these
variances,
and
then
we
have
the
five
Factor
criteria
of
you
know.
I
think
one
is
the
variance
substantial.
The
variance
is
substantial
from
a
percentage
basis
based
on
the
square
footage
for
the
lot
area,
variance.
F
It
is
the
definition
it
is
substantial,
but
it's
been
a
raw
dollar
number,
a
raw
square
footage
number
and
a
percentage
number
the
same
with
parking
right.
That's
pretty.
F
F
Because
it's
not
you
know
a
city
staff,
member
or
anything
like
that.
You
know
I
I
think
this
is
any
other
project.
If
they
came
to
the
board
and
said
this
is
the
best
we
could
do,
we
can
turn
it
down
in
a
heartbeat
because
we'd
say
oh
you're
way
over
your
square
footage
number
you're,
not
even
arguing
that
the
lot
is
weird
if
you're
way
over
your
parking
number,
not
even
arguing
it.
I
I
am
still
thinking
a
little
about
the
34
off
street
parking
number
I.
I
C
So,
just
coming
back
to
the
agenda
quickly,
we
have
minutes
that
will
be
going
out
with
your
October
meeting
packet,
but
we
don't
have
anything
this
evening
for
minutes
wise,
the
October
packet,
because
there's
no
rest
we'll
be
going
out
tomorrow
morning,
because
we
meet
again
next
Tuesday.
We
have
three
appeals
on
that
agenda:
two
new
area
variances
and
the
continuation
of
the
sign
appeal
for
the
ifficient
at
215,
East,
State
and
210.
C
G
C
Court
building
on
the
corner
of
edian
stadium,
so
it'll
be
right
there,
it's
a
parking
experience,
706,
Lynn
Street
is
a
lot
area
deficiency
and
then
signs
so,
okay,
so
those
are
coming
up
for
next
week.
Everyone's.
C
F
C
G
C
A
while
ago,
when
we
thought
we
were
returning
to
in-person
meetings,
we
talked
about
Shifting
the
time
a
little
bit,
because
I
know
several
people
got
out
of
work
and
such
and
we
had
to
kill
an
hour
and
we
talked
about
maybe
starting
at
5,
30
or
an
earlier
time,
so
that
we
also
got
home
earlier
or
what
are
people's
thoughts
on
that
it
won't
be
for
October.
It
would
be
starting
in
November,
because
I
already
had
to
advertise
the
October
bubble
games
so
so.
C
Were
yeah
yes,
so
I'm
trying
to
keep
it
to
four
appeals,
but
sometimes.