►
From YouTube: November 2, 2021 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).
B
Can
everyone
hear
all
me?
I
hereby
call
to
order
the
city
of
ithaca
board
of
zoning
appeals
meeting
for
november
2nd
2021
the
board
operates
under
the
provisions
of
the
ithaca
city
charter.
I
think
a
zoning
ordinance,
I
think,
a
sign
ordinance
and
the
board's
own
rules
of
procedures.
The
board
compromi
comprises
five
members
nominated
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
common
council
board.
Members
present
tonight
are
stephen
henderson
stephanie
egan
angles
as
well
as
alternate
member
marshall,
mccormick
zoning
administrator
megan
wilson,
ray
haan
dottie
staff
to
the
board.
B
I'm
david
barkin,
acting
chairperson
of
the
board,
the
secretary
of
the
board
megan
wilson,
will
call
each
case
in
the
order
listed
on
the
agenda.
Appellants
will
then
have
a
maximum
of
five
minutes
to
present
material
or
highlight
aspects
of
their
appeal
board.
Members
may
question
appellants
on
any
areas
requiring
clarification.
B
Full
consideration
of
appeals
requires
a
public
hearing
deliberation
and
then
voting
by
the
board.
These
actions
occur
only
after
the
appel
has
filed
appropriate
documents
with
the
zoning
division
and
planning
and
development
board.
Public
hearings
include
testimony
from
interested
parties.
The
board
considers
interested
parties,
persons
who
live,
work
or
own
property
within
750
feet
of
the
property
or
authorized
representatives
of
recognized
adjacent
neighborhood,
civic
groups
or
who
are
elected
city
officials
board
members
may
question
testifying
interested
parties
on
any
areas
requiring
clarification.
B
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
to
rebut
opposing
testimony,
but
appellant's
comments
must
be
limited
to
strict
rebuttal
of
the
issues
raised
by
those
opposed
and
will
be
limited
to
five
minutes.
A
timer
will
sound
at
the
end
of
each
speaker's
allotted
time.
B
While
we
do
not
adhere
to
strict
rules
of
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,
corresponding
relating
correspondence
relating
to
cases
received
by
the
zoning
division
division,
the
planning
and
development
board's
own
findings
and
recommendations.
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.
B
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
matters
beyond
the
board's
jurisdiction.
Following
the
appellant
rebuttal,
the
appeal
hearing
will
be
closed
and
the
board
will
begin
deliberation.
B
B
Tonight's
online
meeting
format
requires
us
to
manage
public
comment
differently,
but
the
board
still
welcomes
input
from
interested
parties.
Tonight's
appeals
are
available
for
public
review
on
the
city
website
and
the
meeting
is
being
streamed
live
online
via
youtube.
Interested
parties
are
welcome
to
address
the
board
as
part
of
this
online
meeting
or
may
submit
written
comments
to
be
read
into
the
record
during
the
public
hearing
megan.
C
C
C
The
sign
ordinance
permits
one
sign
that
is
a
maximum
of
12
square
feet
per
business
use
in
residential
districts.
The
property
is
located
in
an
r2b
use
district
in
which
the
proposed
use
is
permitted
via
special
permit.
However,
the
sign
ordinance
section
272
18,
required
that
variances
be
granted
before
the
sign
permit
is
issued.
C
And
in
david's
absence
I
believe
I
saw
jana
just
come
in.
Are
you
here.
C
D
To
me
yes,
okay,
so
I
I
probably
look
like
a
familiar
face.
We
saw
each
other
not
too
long
ago,
so
at
this
point
we're
trying
to
get
some
signage
on
the
front
of
the
building
for
the
fitness
studio.
D
The
current
limitations
are
12
square
feet
for
the
front
of
the
building
and
we're
looking
to
have
basically
two
signs
that
would
equal
like
each
sign
would
be
12
square
feet.
So
it's
double
the
amount
and
the
type
of
do
you
want
to
keep
going
about
the
type
of
signage.
There's
that
good.
D
So
the
type
of
signage
that
we'd
like
to
put
in
is
their
window
decals,
so
they
would
sit
on
the
inside
of
the
two
windows
facing
the
road
and
they
would
have
our
logo
and
then
our
name
and
they're.
Just
simple
black
and
white,
like
that's
the
color
scheme
and
the
windows
well
at
least
until
halloween
night.
The
two
windows
that
were
there
are
sort
of
like
a
tinted
window.
D
C
All
right
do
board
members.
Do
you
have
questions.
E
I
I
just
thought
I'd
briefly
ask
you
know,
since
this
is
an
additional
request,
did
you
make
considerations
to
try
to
meet
the
requirements
that
are
part
of
this
nine
ordinance.
D
So
the
I
guess,
the
reason
that
we're
applying
for
the
the
variance
is
because
so,
if
you
look
at
the
front
of
the
building,
there's
the
entryway
door,
that's
in
the
middle
and
then
there's
the
two
windows
that
are
on
the
side
and
we
just
think
aesthetically.
D
It
looks,
makes
the
building
look
off-center
if
it
just
has
signage
in
one
side
of
the
building
and
not
both
so
then
sanorama
who's,
doing
the
who
would
be
doing
the
science
for
us
in
terms
of
like
pricing,
for
the
two
signs,
it's
somehow
less
expensive,
to
have
two
signs
that
are
of
equal
size,
the
12
square
feet
on
either
side
than
it
was
for
them
to
have
to
do
one
larger
sign
in
one
window.
D
G
I'm
connected
both
by
video
and
by
phone
because
of
some
connection
issues.
I
don't
have
any
questions
that
I'm
looking
forward
to
discussing
it.
Okay,.
C
Well,
if
there
are
no
further
questions,
we
can
go
on
to
the
public
hearing.
I
do
not
have
anyone
signed
up
to
speak,
but
we
did
receive
one
comment
on
this
late
today,
which
I
will
read
into
the
record.
C
The
comment
is,
I
oppose
the
presence
of
extra
commercial
signage
at
201
east
tompkins
street.
When
I
bought
my
house,
this
was
a
residential
area.
I
do
not
want
to
see
any
more
commercial
presidents
from
anne
hamilton
of
318
utica
street
and
109
east
tompkins
street.
D
I
I
don't
know
anne
personally,
I
know
just
where
she
is
in
proximity
to
the
building,
because
tony
serviente
who's,
the
owner
of
the
building,
has
had
conversations
with
me
about
her,
and
I
I
guess
the
sense
this,
and
this
is
like
again
me
not
knowing
her
personally,
but
I
guess
the
sense
of
like
where
she
stands
on
things.
That
tony
has
conveyed
to
me
is
that,
regardless
of
what
happens
with
the
business
that
she
would
be
unhappy
with
it,
so
I
don't
you
know,
take
that
for
what
it
is.
D
I
I
she
lives
right
across
the
street,
so
she
would
have
to
look
at
the
signs,
but
I
guess
when
I
think
about
the
signs,
it's
not
we're
not
opting
to
put
in
a
light
up,
sign,
we're
not
opting
to
put
in
a
neon
light
sign
or
anything,
that's
going
to
be
out
of
character
with
the
building
or
obtrusive.
So
you
know,
I
guess
that's
what
I
would
wish
to
convey
to
her
if
she
came
to
have
a
conversation
with
me.
C
Again,
there's
no
further
comments,
so
I
will
turn
it
back
to
the
oh.
I
will
read
the
planning
board's
recommendation
and
that
is
that
the
planning
board
does
not
identify
any
negative
long-term
planning
impacts
and
supports
this
appeal.
The
sign
does
not
include
illumination
and
it's
in
keeping
with
the
neighborhood
character,
and
so
with
that
I'll
turn
it
back
to
the
board
to
deliberate.
E
Hi
board
it's
stephanie
here
I
was
just
trying
to
look
at
again
what
the
without
having
to
come
to
our
group.
What
was
considered
the
maximum,
so
it
looks
like
just
one
of
the
signs
is
that
correct,
megan.
G
I
have
a
question
megan
a
clarification
question.
This
is
marshall.
Also
a
video
down
there
could
the
could
the
crossfit
gym
theoretically
put
a
two-sided
sign
in
the
yard.
It
was
12
feet
on
one
side.
G
Like
a
freestanding
sign,
yeah,
one
of
the
reasons
I
ask
is
that
it,
the
sign
ordinances,
are
oftentimes
ones
that
don't
necessarily
seem
to
address
the
the
reality.
H
G
Situation
and
we
put
in
a
sign
not
too
far
from
this
property
that
is
12
square
feet
when
we
applied
for
it,
because
the
sign
was
12
square
feet,
the
size
of
the
sign,
even
though
it
was
double-sided
and
out
closer
to
the
to
the
public,
right-of-way
and
sort
of
more
present
more
like
in
the
way
of
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
public
view.
It
was
approved
despite
being
essentially
the
same
size
and,
in
fact,
quite
a
bit
more
loud.
G
If
you
will,
even
though
I
think
it's
very
tasteful
sign
so
so
one
thought
here
in
this
deliberation
process
is
that
the
other
option
could
be
a
freestanding
sign,
that's
double-sided!
That
would
allow
them
this
exact
same
amount
of
space,
but
would
be
quite
a
bit
more
of
a
visual,
maybe
nuisance
to
some
people,
and
this
sign,
in
fact,
in
my
opinion,
is
while
the
the
measured
square
feet
are
quite
a
bit
bigger
than
allowed.
G
The
actual
coverage
of
text
and
logo
is
incredibly
minimal
relative
to
what
they
could
do
like
a
bright
orange
sign,
that's
backlit
or
whatever.
So
I
it's
my
opinion
that
this
is
attractive
and
and
consistent
with
the
current
commercial
zoning
of
the
property
or
use
of
that
property
and
make
sense.
C
So
to
answer
your
original
question
about
the
the
location
of
a
freestanding
sign,
it
might
be
possible,
there's
also
setback
requirements
for
a
freestanding
sign
and
that
building
has
some
existing
deficiencies
that
were
built
along.
You
know
was
built
quite
a
while
ago,
so
it's
possible
that
that
that
would
require
a
different
variance.
I
think
it
could
be
a
challenging
site
to
do
a
freestanding
sign,
but
it
might
be
possible.
G
F
Yeah,
yes,
my
comment
is
that
the
actual
logo
and
the
negative
space
it
creates
seems
like
it
would
be
less
than
12
square
feet
on
each
window
and
yeah
it
I
mean
it
seems
pretty
minimalist
and
you
know
it's
a
mountain
range
and
then
crossfit
vertical.
I
don't
see
any
negative
impacts
to
that
visually
in
the
neighborhood.
A
I
C
I
Okay-
and
I
also
believe
temporary
signs
are
not
regulated.
I
live
near
the
shortstop
and
they
used
to
notoriously
paint
the
entire
window
and
deem
it
as
a
temporary
sign.
I
I
C
E
E
You
know
taking
a
look
at
the
the
whole
kind
of
package.
It
looks.
You
know
nice
minimalistic
on
letters,
you
know
the
logo
again
minimalizing
on
on
that.
E
So
I
think
that
there's
other
factors
as
well
that
we
like
to
consider
you
know
thinking
about
okay,.
E
You
know,
let's
see
I'm
trying
to
think
of
another
example.
You
know
there
are
well.
There
are
a
few
other
signs
in
the
area.
You
know,
I
think
that
it's
neighbor
neighborhoodly
friendly,
if
you
will
thinking,
I
think,
there's
a
church-
that's
close
by
so
there's
other
kinds
of
residential
signage.
Although
yes
few,
but
you
know
again,
non-intrusive
it's
not
backlit
or
planned
to
be
lit.
It's
like
a
window,
decal
again
very
minimalist.
C
So
in
in
david's
absence
at
the
moment,
unless
does
there
anyone
on
the
board?
That
would
has
other
comments
or,
if
not,
would
like
to
make
a
motion
on
moving
forward
in
one
direction
or
another.
E
In
regards
to
appeal,
3200
for
201
east
tompkins
street
for
section
272
dash
6
b1
for
permitted
signs
in
a
residential
zone,
while
the
maximum
of
12
square
feet
is
allowed
the
request
for
an
additional
12
square
feet
and
looking
at
the
package,
I
move
to
issue
the
variance
based
on
the
following
findings.
E
Okay,
yep
as
a
part
of
the
review,
there
was
an
environmental
impact
review
and
it
determined
that
the
variance
would
have
no
negative
impacts
on
the
neighborhood
or
the
environment
again
considering
the
following
factors:
if
we
look
at
the
size
of
the
sign,
it's
minimal
well,
yes,
again,
it's
an
additional
request:
it's
not
backlit,
it's
not
in
the
yard
or
the
lawn.
E
You
know,
so
it's
not
invasive
to
the
sidewalk
or
the
neighborhood.
It
just
is
providing
a
wayfinding
effect
to
represent
where
the
new
business
entrance
location
is
in
the
neighborhood.
Could
fewer
signs
be
achieved?
Yes,
but
again,
I
don't
feel
that
it's
intrusive,
so
thinking
about
again
those
factors.
E
E
An
excess,
I
don't
think
that
it's
really
misplaced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
while
there
was
one
neighbor
which
has
been
noted,
is
not
very
enthusiastic
about
the
signage.
There
could
be
other
types
that
could
be
proposed
that
could
be
considered
and
also
possibly
could
be
issued
through
the
variants.
F
E
G
C
So
the
motion
carries
which
means
and
then,
within
the
next
few
days,
you'll
be
receiving
written
notice
of
the
variance
to
have
on
file
and
since
I'm
also
the
one
that's
going
to
be
issuing
your
sign
permit,
I
will
be
doing
that
for
you
tomorrow
as
well,
so
you
can.
A
C
Eye
out
for
those
documents,
and
if
you
have
other
questions
please
let
me
know.
C
All
right,
so
our
next
appeal
marshall,
you
are
welcome
to
stay
as
well,
of
course,
but
are
not
required
to
since
david
can
come
back
in
on
these
next
appeals.
G
Yes,
waiting
for
david
to
come
in,
I'm
gonna
go
catch
bedtime
with
the
kids
you'll
enjoy
the
rest
of
the
meeting.
C
B
A
C
Our
next
appeal
is
appeal:
number
3197,
116
irving,
place
appeal
of
property
owners,
john
albert
lauricella
and
risa
mish
for
an
area
variants
from
section,
325,
8
column,
1415,
rear
yard
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordnance,
as
well
as
section
325,
25
location
of
accessory
structures.
C
Accessory
structures
in
the
r1b
district
are
required
to
be
six
feet
from
the
side,
property
line
and
three
feet
from
the
rear
property
line.
The
proposed
location
of
the
new
structure
is
one
foot
from
both
the
rear
and
side
property
lines.
If
the
new
garage
was
located
to
meet
the
required
setbacks,
it
would
not
be
aligned
with
the
driveway
and
will
be
located
too
close
to
the
existing
house.
The
property
also
has
an
existing
rear
yard
deficiency
that
will
not
be
exacerbated
by
this
proposal.
C
A
B
Hello,
sir,
do
you
mind
just
telling
us
your
case
and
what
what
your
project
entails.
J
Project
is
a
garage
so
there's
an
old
garage
on
the
property
and
it's
been
there
a
long
time
and
it's
in
pretty
bad
shape
and
needs
to
be
replaced,
and
so
I'd
like
to
build
a
new
garage
that
is
slightly
larger,
because
this
old
one
is
really
inadequate
for
modern
purposes.
J
So
the
problem
is
that
the
old
garage
is
essentially
right
on
the
property
lines
on
the
back
line
and
on
the
one
of
the
you
know
the
side
the
sidelines,
so
the
variance
would
be
to
build
a
new
garage
pretty
much
in
the
same
place.
I
mean
not
put
it
right
back
on
the
property
lines
but
not
have
to
you
know,
put
it
six
feet
off
of
the
one:
that's
the
line
on
the
side
and
not
off
the
the
rear
line,
whatever
it
is
three
feet
or
six
feet.
J
J
The
either
line
is
going
to
bring
it
like
really
really
kind
of
close
to
my
house
and
kind
of
like
too
much
into
my
backyard
kind
of
thing,
and
it's
all
still
going
to
misalign
it
with
the
driveway,
which
is
also
an
issue
I
mean
I,
I
could
move
it
just
a
little
bit.
I
can
keep
it
keep
the
new
one
in
line
with
the
driveway
so
yeah.
So
that's
what
the
variance
is
about.
J
That's
the
essential
stuff.
I
mean
if
there's
anything
that
you
need.
I
can.
I
can
answer
those
questions.
Okay,.
E
I
had
a
brief
question.
Sorry
to
jump
in.
Can
you
just
confirm
the
location
on
the
property
when
you're
looking
at
the
house?
Where
is
the
driveway
located
and
on
what
just
just
give
me
some
directions.
J
Okay,
so
all
right,
I
thought
you
had
the
surveyor's
map
because
that's
really
helpful
so,
but
if
you
don't
so
looking
at
the
house,
if
you're
standing
on
the
sidewalk
looking
at
my
house,
the
driveway's
on
the
left-
okay-
and
it
goes
it's
pretty
long-
it's
a
pretty
long
driveway-
the
house
is
kind
of
set
back
a
bit.
So
the
garage
is
at
the
extreme
left-hand
corner
of
my
lot.
Looking
at
it
from
the
from
the
sidewalk
yeah
there.
J
It
is,
there's
the
there's
a
surveyors
map,
so
I'm
116
house
number
116,
that's
me
and
the
driveway
to
the
left
of
the
house
is
my
driveway
and
then
the
little
garage
at
the
top
of
that
driveway.
That's
the
garage!
That's
there
that
I
want
to
replace.
So
you
can
see
it's
like
it's
literally
right
on
the
property
lines,
basically
in
the
back
and
virtually
on
the
property
line
on
the
side
there.
J
So
so
the
variance
is
to
you
know,
move
it
a
little
bit
off
the
property
lines
like
a
foot
say
like
a
foot
off
the
back
line
and
maybe
a
foot
off
the
the
sideline
so
that
it
would
be
slightly
off
the
lines
but
not
to
put
it
like
in
my
backyard
or
bring
it
too
far
forward
and
bring
it
kind
of
too
close
to
the
house.
I
mean
the.
The
other
reason
is
that
the
new
garage
would
be
larger
a
little
bit
larger.
J
F
No,
it
seems
like
he's,
answered
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
they
would
have
had.
I'm
just
curious
if
any
of
the
adjacent
landowners
have
made
a
comment,
one
way
or
the
other.
J
I
mean
I
haven't,
received
any
comments.
I
I
got
a
copy
of
a
letter
from
from
jim
miller
who
lives
on
on.
I
guess
bryant
avenue
that
he
didn't
address
to
me.
Send
me
a
copy.
I
think
he
sent
it
to
you
or
he
sent
it
to
the
city
at
any
rate,
just
kind
of
endorsing
the
whole
thing,
and
you
know
saying
that
it
was
a.
J
It
was
a
good
idea
and
it
was
good
to
get
to
rebuild
the
reveal
the
garage
because
the
you
know
the
the
property,
the
house,
the
house
is
old
and
the
garage
is
old
and
you
know
we've
renovated
the
house
20
years
ago,
and
you
know
we
didn't
do
the
garage
basically
because
we
kind
of
ran
out
of
money.
Basically
so
so
now
it's
the
garage's
turn
to
be
rebuilt.
J
Yeah,
let
me
I
have
to
look.
I
have
to.
J
J
J
This
one
is
so
narrow
that
I
mean
I
really
have
almost
taken.
The
side
mirrors
off
my
car
a
couple
times
so.
B
C
We
do
not
have
anyone
signed
up
to
speak.
We
did
get
the
letter
that
mr
larissa
referenced
from
the
millers
at
213
bryant
avenue
that
was
in
your
packet.
I'd
be
happy
to
read
it,
but
I
think
board
members
have
seen
it
at
this
point.
We
didn't
receive
any
comments
in
opposition
and
I
will
note
that
the
property
owner
did
have
to
do
the
mailing
twice
at
this
point.
So
I
think,
if
someone
did,
we
have
a
concern.
Hopefully
they
would
have
reached
out
to
us.
C
B
Okay,
thank
you.
I
guess
we
will
move
into
deliberation
and
then,
if
we
do
have
any
other
questions,
we'll
just
reach
out
to
the
appellant.
J
F
I
don't
see
too
many
negatives
to
this
and
since
there's
no
neighboring
property
owners
in
opposition,
I
don't
see
any
reason
not
to
approve
it.
E
A
E
Of
variance
and
it's
very
similar,
usually
they're,
you
know
knocking
down
pretty
much
a
condemned
or
very
you
know,
non-usable
structure
and
to
make
it
functional.
E
You
know
they're
trying
to
keep
it
still
in
the
backyard
and
it's
not
gonna
meet
the
setbacks,
because
the
property
size
is
too
small
and,
seeing
you
know
and
again
in
many
of
these
cases,
most
neighbors
don't
have
any
issues,
and
since
there
isn't
any,
I
don't
have
any
additional
concerns
or
questions.
I
think
it's
a
reasonable
request.
E
You
know
why
not
have
a
functional
space.
So
that's
where
it's
where
I
feel
where
I'm
at.
B
Okay,
yeah,
I
think
if
you
were
to
go
just
based
off
of
the
setbacks
required,
you
might
get
to
the
conclusion
that
it's
substantial,
but
the
utility
of
the
structure
that
he's
in
you
know
he's
investing
in.
I
think
it
has
merits
so
before
a
year
to
make
a
motion.
You
just
include
that
language
that
he's
investing
in
the
property,
the
utility
of
the
structure,
no
opposition,
no
perceived
environmental
impacts,
hardship,
self-created,
you
know
it's,
but
I
I
would
support
emotion
and
support
if
somebody
were
to
do
so.
F
I
can
make
the
motion
so
in
the
case
of
appeal
number
3197
of
116
irving
place
for
the
zoning
variance.
F
F
F
In
terms
of
characters
to
nearby
properties
or
detriment
to
nearby
properties,
it's
similar
in
the
current
setbacks
that
it
has
and
there's
been,
no
there's
been
no
public.
F
F
He
probably
could
it
would
mean
extra
work,
but
I
think,
given
that
the
current
structure
is
already
deficient,
that
that's
reasonable,
whether
requested
variance
is
substantial
again,
I'm
going
to
say
that
it's
not
I'm,
given
the
current
structure
that
it
would
be
replacing.
F
No
there's
been
no
long-term
environmental
impacts
found
that
we
could
think
of
and
whether
the
alleged
difficulty
was
self-created.
Yes,
the
applicant
could
choose
to
not
replace
his
garage,
but
again,
given
all
the
other
reasons,
I
don't
think
it's
an
unreasonable
request.
C
All
right,
mr
henderson.
F
E
K
C
All
right,
so
the
emotion
carries-
and
you
will,
within
the
next
few
days,
receive
your
the
written
copy
of
your
variants
to
have
for
your
files,
and
it
will
also
be
sent
to
the
code
inspector
for
the
property.
So
they
can
go
ahead
and
issue
your
building
permit
pending
any
other
documentation
or
information.
They
might
need
from
you.
C
So
our
next
appeal
is
number
3198,
228
dryden
road
appeal
of
whole
architects
on
behalf
of
property
owner,
boris
simkin,
for
an
area
variance
from
section
325,
45.2,
f,
the
college
town
residential
for
district
standards
for
lot
coverage
by
buildings,
minimum
grain
space,
both
side
yards,
rear
yard
and
maximum
building
length.
The
applicant
proposes
to
demolish
the
existing
structure
and
construct
a
new
apartment
building
on
the
property
at
228
dryden
road.
The
building
will
be
four
stories
tall
with
an
occupiable
basement
below
grade
and
will
provide
39
residential
units.
C
C
The
building
will
be
sited
2.5
feet
from
the
west
property
line
and
6
inches
from
the
east
property
line.
Side
yards
of
5
feet
are
required.
The
building
will
be
87
feet
long,
while
row
houses
are
permitted
to
be
100
feet
in
length.
Other
structures
cannot
exceed
45
feet
in
length.
The
proposed
building
will
also
be
deficient
in
the
rear
yard.
C
The
property
is
perm,
is
permitted,
50
lot
coverage
by
building
and
requires
at
least
25
green
space.
The
project
proposed
project
will
cover
66.7
of
the
lot
with
buildings
and
will
provide
11.3
percent
green
space.
228
dryden
road
is
located
in
our
cr4
district,
in
which
the
proposed
use
is
permitted.
However,
section
325
38
requires
that
an
area
variance
be
granted
before
a
building
permit
is
issued.
J
L
I'm
good
to
share
my
screen
here.
Yes,
please,
okay,.
L
Okay,
my
name
is
nathan
brown,
I'm
with
holds
architects.
I'm
here
to
talk
to
you
guys
tonight
about
the
the
project
located
at
228
dryden
road
affectionately,
known
as
the
ruby
it's
an
apartment
building
currently
situated.
I
think
everybody
knows
where
the
purple
piano
is
so.
This
is
at
the
intersection
of
bryant
and
dryden
road
in
college
town.
It's
located
in
the
cr4
district,
we're
here
to
talk
about
a
couple
of
variances
that
we're
seeking
this
evening.
L
This
project
was
designed
originally
under
the
row
house,
aesthetic.
So
under
the
cr4
district
row,
houses
are
set
up
to
include
you
know
various
modules,
building
facade
lengths,
interaction
with
the
street,
and
so
this
building
was
set
up
to
really
kind
of
re-engage
dryden.
If
everybody
knows
the
the
current
building,
that's
there
situated
way
up
on
the
hill
set
back
from
all
the
rest
of
the
buildings.
L
This
one
now
is
brought
down
to
engage
dryden
road.
It
is
a
very
steep
difficult
site
to
build
on.
We've
worked
very
diligently
with
the
planning
board
to
kind
of
get
to
the
point
we
are
right
now
and,
if
any
so,
from
the
south
west
corner
of
the
property
to
the
northeast
corner
of
the
property,
that's
the
way
the
slope
goes,
there's
about
a
27
foot
difference
in
grade
to
give
you
a
sense
of
kind
of
you
know
how
far
up
that
is
a
two
and
a
half
story.
L
Building
what
we've
done
is
kind
of
created.
A
building.
That's
got
row
house
aesthetic,
so
it's
set
up
into
modules
that
you
can
see
here
and
the
way
that
it
was
originally
designed
with
these
modules
was
that
there
was
kind
of
accessible
ramps
that
connected
from
dryden
up
to
the
front
entry
or
up
to
street
facing
entrances.
So
the
way
that
the
row
house
verbiage
reads
is
that
each
one
of
these
modules
must
have
a
street
facing
entry
which
we
had
originally
designed
everything
to
attain.
L
Ultimately,
we
went
back
and
doing
a
constructability
review
with
a
contractor.
They
said
that
the
how
we
had
situated
the
building
would
create
kind
of
a
very
difficult
construction
of
the
east
property
line.
The
soils
that
are
there
would
require
us
to
bench.
The
soils
back
quite
a
ways
and
putting
in
a
pile
and
lagging
system
was
going
to
be
very,
very,
very
expensive
to
do
so.
We
opted
to
instead
of
incur
that
kind
of
construction
difficulty
is
to
eliminate
one
unit.
L
Ultimately,
when
we
did
that
it
eliminated
the
row
house
aesthetic,
because
this
one
module
right
here
did
not
have
a
street
facing
entry,
as
you
can
see
between
the
two
images,
nothing
has
changed
in
the
building
other
than
the
elimination
of
that
one
unit,
and
so
in
doing
that,
the
first
two
variances
that
we
wanted
to
talk
about
were
the
side
yard
deficiency
and
the
maximum
building
length.
Under
the
row
house
verbiage
for
maximum
building
length,
row
houses
are
allowed
up
to
100
feet
our
building.
Actually,
is
it's
not
87?
L
It's
like
82
foot
8.
I
think
I
don't
the
87
feet.
I
think
was
a
an
error
on
our
part
to
put
in
there,
but
it's
actually
shorter
than
that,
but
so
we
still
do
comply
with
the
row
house,
aesthetic
we're
under
80
feet
or
apart
under
100
feet
in
that
one.
L
The
other
is
the
side
yard
deficiency
row
houses
are
allowed
to
have
zero
side,
zero
inch
or
zero
foot
side
yards
on
either
side,
we're
proposing
a
six
inch
on
the
east
property
line
and
a
two
foot
six
on
the
west
property
line.
This
is
still
consistent
with
the
row
house,
aesthetic
that
that
didn't
change.
So,
ultimately,
when
we
lost
that
unit,
those
two
variances
became
in
something
that
we'd
have
to
kind
of
come
in
front
of
you
guys
to
to
request
today.
One
of
the
other
ones
is
the
rear
yard.
L
Looking
at
the
rear
yard
of
the
of
the
building,
you
can
see
kind
of
how
we've
stepped
the
building
down
and
pulled
it
down
closer
to
the
street
so
that
we
could
engage
the
street
with
a
series
of
accessible
ramps
and
stairs
in
order
to
get
to
the
entry
in
here
and
in
doing
that,
we
kind
of
also
needed
to
get
our
north
entrance
into
the
back
part
of
the
property
here.
L
Currently,
we
are
proposing
our
building
to
have
a
five
foot
setback
which
would
align
to
the
adjacent
lux,
which
is
you
know
right
here,
so
they're
about
five
feet
off
that
property
line
on
that
end,
so
that
building
would
actually
or
that
setback
would
align
to
the
face
of
the
balconies
that
are
there.
Our
actual
building
envelope
is
eight
foot
six
from
the
property
line,
so
the
the
the
visual
appearance,
even
though
the
property
line
or
the
setback,
is
at
five
foot.
L
L
So
that's
an
additional
variance
there
that
would
like
to
discuss,
and
the
last
is
kind
of
maximum
lock
coverage
and
and
green
space.
So
the
maximum
lot
coverage
in
here
is
allowed
at
50.
L
We
are
kind
of
over
that
we're
at
66.7
in
here,
and
that
really
is
just
the
result
of
kind
of
bringing
the
building
down
the
hill
and
then
having
to
kind
of
extend
the
building
up
onto
the
top
part
of
the
hill
up
there
and
increasing
the
footprint
in
the
back.
The
perception,
though,
if
you
look
at
the
front
of
the
building,
when
we
were
designing
under
row
house,
you
know
and
extending
the
building
from
almost
property
line
to
property
line
the
perception
of
the
building.
L
L
Sorry,
I
lost
my
train
of
thought
here
for
a
second
so
with
that
yeah,
so
the
the
rear
property
line
and
then
green
space
we've
worked
with
the
planning
board
and
we
recognize
that
you
know
our
footprint's
a
little
bit
larger.
L
A
lot
of
these
properties
extend,
you
know,
very
close
to
kind
of
the
edges
and
consume
a
lot
of
their
their
property,
so
it
fits
in
contact
with
the
neighborhood,
the
the
vacant
space
in
the
back,
if
it
was
to
have
a
full
20
foot,
rear
yard
along
here,
wouldn't
be
perceived
from
the
street
up
there,
and
then
we
worked
with
the
with
the
planning
board
when
we
wrapped
the
grating
around
is
to
actually
increase
the
amount
of
vegetation
and
plantings
you
can
see
here.
L
You
know
we
added
you,
know
street
gardens
and
a
shade
tree
and
kind
of
more
robust,
evergreen
landscaping
along
the
east
side
of
the
building
in
here.
So
we've
kind
of
beefed
that
up
and
made
that
quite
robust
now,
so
those
are
the
those
are
the
variances
that
were
in
front
of
you.
We've
worked
diligently,
like
I
said,
with
the
planning
board.
L
I
feel
that
they're,
you
know
and
they've
expressed
in
previous
meetings,
even
as
recently
as
last
tuesday
that
they're
wholly
supportive
of
this
project-
and
you
know
I
think,
we've
had
a
good
process
working
with
them
and
I
look
forward
to
working
with
you
guys.
So
I
think
that's
the
the
long
and
short
of
it.
I
know
I
only
have
a
couple
of
minutes
and
I'd
be
welcome
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Thank
you,
let's
see
stephen
or
stephanie
either
if
you
want
to
start
out
with
a
question.
F
Yeah,
I
have
a
question
so
the
row
house
before
you
removed
the
40th
unit,
would
that
have
that
would
have
complied
with
zoning.
F
L
Correct
yeah
we
would
have,
and
that
would
have
that
would
have
addressed
the
side,
yard
and
minimum
or
maximum
building
length.
Those
were
the
easy
ones
that
you
know
those
were
a
result
of
eliminating
that
one
door
realistically,
but
yes,
we
would
have
complied
with
the
row
house
verbiage
in
cr4.
L
F
E
Yeah
would
you
just
because
again
there
was
kind
of
a
couple
of
areas
to
look
at.
Can
you
confirm
the
what
was
the
minimum
setback
for
the
side
and
the
rear
and
what
is
being
proposed?
Maybe
I
also
need
to
confer
with
megan.
L
Yep
so
for
the
side
yards,
because
we
eliminated
that
unit
and
don't
meet
that
row,
house,
aesthetic
or
row
house
verbiage
the
side,
yard
setback
is
five
foot
on
both
sides:
we're
asking
for
six
inches
on
the
east
and
two
foot:
six
on
the
west
that
in
conjunction
with,
if
it
was
truly
still
under
the
row
house,
we
would
comply
because
it
has
a
zero
foot
side
yard
requirement.
L
So
those
are
the
side
yards.
The
rear
yard
is
20
foot
in
there
and
we're
looking
to
go
to
eight
foot.
Pardon
me
to
five
foot
in
the
rear
and
that
would
align
with
the
adjacent
building
in
the
rear.
L
I
do
they
were
in
the
site
plan
review.
It's
a
little.
It's
tough
to
get
a
good
kind
of
angle
in
the
back.
It
would
look
similar
to
that
I
mean
this
is
a
rough
rendering,
but
you
know
there
is
an
ingress
and
egress
alley
in
the
back
here
you
can
see
the
two
buildings
basically,
but
right
up
against
that
alley.
L
E
E
You
know
access
in
the
front
and
make
more
green
space
out
of
that
or
is
most
of
the
hardscape
meant,
for
you
know,
egress
and,
and
things
of
that
sort.
L
It's
a
very,
very
good
question.
This
is
a
very
difficult
site.
We
have
considered
that
the
conversations
that
we've
had
with
the
planning
board
really
geared
around
kind
of
activating
the
street
frontage
in
the
streetscape.
That's
there.
L
Oops
going
the
wrong
way.
Sorry,
so
you
can
see
in
this
particular
section
right
here,
there's
a
significant
grade
difference
between
the
back
part
of
the
site
and
the
street
down
here
in
order
to
kind
of
get
our
ramps
in
there,
which
you
can
see
here
so
the
amount
of
ramp
that
we
need
just
to
get
up
to
our
building
entry
level.
In
here,
which
is
even
still
lower
than
where
we
have
the
units
themselves.
L
L
You
know
planting
spaces
and
tried
to
minimize
as
much
as
we
possibly
could
creating
you
know,
street
gardens
and
climbing
walls
for
vines
and
planting
areas,
and
you
know
shade
trees,
and
I
mean
we've
tried
to
pack
as
much
in
there
as
we
could,
while
still
providing
enough
accessible
route
to
get
up
to
the
actual
building.
I
mean
it
does
jump
up
quite
a
bit
very
quickly
in
here.
E
I
think
that
helps
inform
you
know
the
conversation
you
know,
hearing
the
process
that
you
went
through
with
the.
M
L
In
here
yeah
so
and
unfortunately
I
don't
have
the
other
other
plan
we
originally
had
when
we
had
the
other.
You
probably
see
it
here
so
when
we
had
that
unit
here,
we
actually
did
have
a
retaining
wall
along
the
side
that
that
wrapped
the
corner
and
allowed
us
to
to
butt
up
against
the
adjacent
grade,
and
we
were
actually
contemplating
working
with
the
adjacent
neighbor
to
get
an
easement
for
construction
to
put
a
little
retaining
retaining
wall
in
there
so
that
we
could
step
it
down.
L
L
But
when
we
eliminated
this
unit
in
here,
it
allowed
us
to
kind
of
ease
the
grade
and
not
have
to
modify
too
much
of
that.
We
could
build
it
in
a
much
more
conventional
way
and
then
plant
it
with
with
greenery
in
there.
So
we've
tried
to
leave
as
much
of
the
existing
kind
of
I
mean
it'll
be
excavated
out
and
put
back,
but
as
much
of
the
existing
grade
as
we
could
in
here.
L
We're
talking
to
nyseg
the
transformer:
that's
right
here
is
actually
on
the
adjacent
property,
but
it
feeds
a
couple
of
these
pieces
of
property
in
here
and
we're
actually
talking
to
nice,
because
nice
would
probably
prefer
to
resize
the
transformer.
That's
here
to
then
feed
this
building
so
that
we
have.
We
maintain
just
the
single
entry
into
the
property
here
and
feed
our
building
from
the
transformer.
That's
here
and
we'd
have
a
you,
know:
construction
easement
to
get
to
that
transformer.
L
L
Correct
and
then
what
we
would
do-
and
we
talked
about
this
with
the
planning
board-
is
we
would
go
back
with
back
to
them
and
work
with
them
on
location
and
aesthetics
and
screening,
and
then
my
guess
is
probably
have
to
come
back
to
you
to
amend
that
variance.
But
the
intent
right
now
and
everything
we're
being
told,
is
we're.
Gonna,
we're
gonna,
be
utilizing
the
transformer
here
to
power.
Our
building.
L
I
don't
know
in
terms
of
close
to
compliance.
We
do
have
again.
This
is
all
kind
of
a
grading
exercise.
There
is
a
small
retaining
wall
in
the
back
here
because
we
are
still.
You
know
our
first
floor
right
here
is
still
below
grade
at
that
point,
so
even
going
from
dryden
road
all
the
way
up
to
the
back
by
the
time
you
can
get
to
the
first
floor
here,
you're
still
below
grade
in
the
back,
so
putting
putting
walkways
in
here
might
be
a
little
difficult
because
I'd
have
to
get
steps
down
into
these.
L
In
the
back
I
mean
we,
we
might
be
able
to
look
at
finding
a
way
to
maybe
plant
the
top
of
the
wall
in
the
back,
but
as
is
kind
of
with
the
retaining
wall
and
the
space
in
the
back,
we're
pretty
close
up
to
that
property
line
in
the
back.
L
It
is
oh
yeah,
it's
not
currently
in
use.
Actually,
it's
undergone
abatement,
so
it's
vacant
at
the
time
we're
waiting
to
kind
of
get
through
the
rest
of
this
process
to
pull
our
demolition
permit
and.
B
Volition,
the
owner
started,
the
abatement
process
emptied
out
the
building.
Yes,
and
then
can
you
just
take
us
through
the
genesis
of
the
you
know
how
you
approach
the
initial
hardships
in
terms
of
lot
coverage?
Did
you
always
design
a
building?
That
was,
why
did
you
design
a
building
that
didn't
comply
and
try
to
walk
us
through
that
process?.
L
Yeah
so
go
way
back
in
history
here
the
whole
idea
originally
was
when
we
were
talking
about
this
site.
You
know
right
now.
The
logical
place
would
be
to
build
a
building
way
back
up
on
the
top
part
of
the
hill
like
the
existing
building.
Is
it
doesn't
allow
us
to
create
accessible
entrances
into
the
building?
L
We
can't
rely
on
the
ingress
egress
and
having
kind
of
the
back
of
our
building,
be
the
front
access.
So
the
conversations
we
initially
had
with
the
planning,
board
and
kind
of
our
design
intent,
was
to
bring
the
building
almost
down
the
hill
and
engage
the
street.
We
had
various
iterations
previously
that
you
know
created
patio
spaces
out
front,
let's
see,
and
then
you
know
when
we
were
doing
that.
L
So
I
showed
kind
of
the
the
previous
section
that
was
in
here
and
in
doing
that
by
bringing
the
building
down
to
engage
the
street
here
and
to
get
from
kind
of
our
basement
level.
Up
to
the
first
floor,
it
required
us
to
kind
of
build
far
enough
back
that
we
could
connect
enough
of
a
grade
in
the
back
corner
here
and
that's
when
we
got
over
the
50.
At
that
point.
L
So
I
think
the
short
answer
is
we
never
really
intended
always
to
build
over
that
50?
It
just
evolved
because
of
the
the
grading
and
the
difficulties
on
site
of
kind
of
creating
the
footprint
that
we
have
now.
B
B
L
I
I
don't
I
mean
I
think,
when
you
look
at
the
context
of
this
building
and
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
rest
of
the
buildings
in
the
surrounding
area.
It
very
much
fits
within
the
design,
aesthetic,
the
visual
impact.
B
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
open
it
up
to
public
hearing
we'll
start
with
those
four,
those
against
planning
board
recommendation
and
any
environmental
review
and
then
we'll
we'll
deliberate
and
then
bring
you
back
for
any
questions.
Okay,
great,
thank
you
megan.
Could
you
please
open
public
hearing
and
we'll
either
invite
anybody
in
to
speak
or
we'll
read
letters
in
favor.
C
We
do
not
have
anyone
here
to
speak,
who
was
either,
who
was
in
favor,
and
no
one's
submitting
comments
and
writing
in
favor.
B
Okay
and
then
for
those
opposed.
C
Okay,
so
I
believe
we
have
mr
smith
in
the
waiting
room
and
then
we
have
written
comments
as
well.
So
I
will
admit
him
and
allow
him
to
connect.
C
Okay,
I
think
you
might
be
muted,
but
you
have
three
minutes
to
address
the
board.
M
M
A
M
Okay,
let
me
try
it
one
more
time
I
apologize,
so
I
represent
222
dryden
road,
it's
the
property
immediately
to
the
left
of
the
subject:
property
to
the
west.
That
is
also
an
apartment.
Building
the
222
drydrone
llc
objects
to
the
issuance,
primarily
based
on
the
massing.
That's
requested,
the
bulk,
the
bulk
area
variance,
is
requested.
M
It's
worth
noting
that
my
client
does
not
object
to
the
project
in
general.
In
fact,
early
in
the
planning
process
issued
submitted
a
letter
dated
may
24th
in
support
of
the
project
so
long
as
certain
steps
were
taken
to
stabilize
the
the
property
aligning
existing
retaining
wall,
but
as
the
design
evolved,
and
it
became
much
bigger
and
covered
the
pretty
much
the
entire
parcel.
M
That's
where
the
objection
stems
from
so
specifically,
the
lot
coverage
requirement
is
50.
They
want
to
cover
two-thirds
of
the
lot
67
percent
that
represents
a
30,
a
34
variance
from
what
is
required,
so
the
additional
17
on
top
of
the
50,
because
we're
starting
from
50
it's
a
34
difference
from
your
requirement.
M
What
I
did
is,
I
went
back
and
I
looked
at
some
of
the
past
applications
for
area
variances.
To
help
give
you
context
about
the
magnitude
of
the
difference.
That's
being
requested,
it's
substantial!
It's
substantial!
On
the
face
of
it.
When
you
look
at
the
size
of
the
variance,
that's
being
requested
for
lot
coverage.
M
Only
five
percent
above
the
fifty
percent
requirement,
a
ten
percent
variance
agonized
as
over.
Whether
it
was
substantial
and
then
ultimately
decided
that
it
was
a
borderline
case
that
it
wasn't,
this
one
again
is
asking
for
37
for
a
34
variance
in
terms
of
lot
coverage.
M
The
other
three
that
I
I
won't
belabor,
the
other
three
because
they're
different,
but
I
want
it
for
completeness
sake.
I
want
to
give
you
the
sampling
of
all
the
different
area
variances
that
have
been
requested.
In
the
last
three
years:
66
woodcrest,
204
lake
avenue
and
108
cascadilla
were
all
single
family
homes.
The
first
was
needed,
a
variance
to
put
in
a
porch
the
next,
the
deck
and
the
next
to
shed
and
in
each
instance
they
only
needed
one
or
two
percent
lot.
M
C
That's
three
minutes,
I'm
sorry,
but
that
was.
M
So,
in
closing,
the
last
sentences
I'm
going
to
read
is
is
a
direct
quote
from
your
code,
325-45
to
f,
that's
the
intent
for
cr4.
It
says
that
it
is
essential
that
new
construction
meet
district
requirements
to
ensure
a
consistent
transition
between
the
higher
and
lower
density
districts.
That's
the
mixed
use
to
the
left
to
the
west,
which
is
which
is
one
sort
of
block
of
buildings
and
the
cr
one
two
through
three
to
the
right.
M
M
B
C
So,
dear
bca,
the
prose
project
is
requesting
a
lot
coverage
variants
from
50
to
67.
This
amounts
to
an
actual
37
area,
variance,
which
is
just
too
much.
It
is
also
effectively
a
five-story
building
in
a
zone
where
a
four-story
is
the
max.
C
We
constructed
a
building
just
to
the
east
on
dryden
road,
with
similar
topography
and
access
to
the
lot
and
accomplished
this
without
needing
variants,
it
meant
the
zoning
requirements.
The
new
owner
is
a
sophisticated
developer
and
clearly
understood
the
limitations
of
the
lot
topographically
and
otherwise,
when
he
purchased
the
property.
This
is
a
self-created
hardship.
Moreover,
given
the
magnitude
of
the
variance,
this
is
not
a
relatively
insignificant
departure
from
standards
to
accommodate
an
as
of
right
use,
but
rather
a
dramatic
expansion
of
use
and
density
in
the
immediate
area
that
is
tantamount
to
rezoning.
C
E
Megan,
might
you
also
be
able
to
clarify
where
nick
is
his
property
is
or.
I
E
C
It
the
the
project
that
he
is
referenced
or
the
location
that
he
is
referencing
is
at
320
dryden
road,
which
is
on
the
other
side
of
the
the
locks
in
238
that
the
board
reviewed
that
mr
smith
mentioned.
So
it's
same
side
of
the
road
just
up
this
up,
the
street.
C
Cleaning
board
said
the
planning
board
does
not
identify
any
negative
long-term
planning
impacts
and
support.
This
appeal
for
the
following
reasons:
maximum
lot
coverage
and
green
space
deficiency,
the
project
site
is
steeply,
I'm
guessing
steep
and
additional
lock
cover.
An
additional
coverage
was
needed
to
provide
access
ramps.
The
applicant
proposes
to
mitigate
the
increased
lot
coverage,
necessitating
the
removal
of
mature
trees
by
planting
several
new
trees
along
dryden
road,
including
a
large
shade
tree,
and
a
robust
planting
plan
from
the
front
of
the
building
rear
yard
deficiency.
C
The
lead
agency
finds
that,
due
to
the
dense
multi-family
development
surrounding
the
site,
the
rear
yard
setback
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
development
and
has
no
significant
impact
side,
yard
deficiency
and
maximum
building
length.
These
variances
were
triggered
by
a
design
revision
that
changed
the
project
from
a
row
house
to
a
multiple
dwelling.
The
lead
agency
feels
that
the
project
is
compatible
with
the
aesthetic
of
a
row
house
and
that
the
elimination
of
the
ground
floor
unit
allows
for
enhanced
vegetation
in
the
front
yard,
including
a
shade
tree
due
to
the
surrounding
density.
G
C
To
rebut
any
comments,
we'll
keep
that
to
about
three
minutes
as
well.
Thank.
L
I'll
just
go
through
it,
so
in
sharing
kind
of
the
the
street
elevations
for
contacts,
so
people
can
see
this
is
the
property
at
320
that
was
being
referred
to
the
adjacent
locks,
our
building
and
then
the
adjacent
neighbors
property.
Here
you
know
so
in
talking
about
the
the
area
of
variance,
I
think
the
perception
of
lot
coverage.
L
Yes,
we
are
over
the
lot
coverage,
but
when
you
look
at
it
in
contextual
in
context
for
the
rest
of
the
cr4
district
in
the
neighborhood,
the
contribution
of
the
overage
on
square
footage
is
actually
very
minimal
compared
to
the
rest
of
the
overall
neighborhood.
L
It
doesn't
change
the
overall
context
of
the
property.
So
even
though
yes
we're
over,
we
were
originally
designing
to
row
house
which
took
wall
to
wall
or
property
line
to
property
owner.
When
you
look
wall-to-wall
and
so
the
depth
of
the
building,
you
know,
doesn't
impact
kind
of
your
perception
from
the
street.
L
L
With
the
green
space,
you
know
we're
not
only
looking
at
green
space
horizontally,
but
vertically,
we've
added,
you
know
a
lot
of
vertical.
You
know
trees.
These
will
actually
grow
more
mature
and
a
little
bit
bigger
the
renderings.
Just
don't
look
that
that
bait
compared
to
some
of
the
other
trees,
but
we've
done
what
we've,
what
we're
able
to
do,
working
with
the
planning
board
to
provide
as
much
possible
green
space
in
there
and
mitigate
all
the
ramps
and
stairs
that
we
need
in
that
space.
L
So
I
think
I
think.
Hopefully
I
responded
to
brody's
comments
into
nick's
comments.
You
know
the
building
height
relationship
to
the
320
really
is
not
going
to
be
any
higher
than
the
existing
buildings
it's
lower
than
the
lux
next
door.
You
know
so
it
does
fit
in
the
street
context.
That's
there.
It's
not
a
massive.
L
B
Thank
you,
stephen
stephanie,
any
again
right,
any
other
questions
for
the
appellant
or
before
we
start
deliberating.
B
L
B
All
right,
thank
you,
stephen
and
stephanie.
What
are
what
are
your
initial
thoughts.
B
C
Sure
so,
as
was
noted
previously
the
college
town
residential
for
so
there's,
the
college
town
districts
are
our
first
in
the
city
that
are
a
combination
of
form
requirements
as
well
as
use
and
density
zoning.
So
this
is
kind
of
right
now,
the
primary
area
in
the
city
where
you'll
see
requirements
on
things
such
as
building
length,
recessed
entries,
front,
porches,
pitch
roofs
and
some
districts,
not
here
and
it
is
there-
are
within
that
there's
six
zones.
C
So
there's
the
town
residential
one
two
and
three
that
are
definitely
residential,
traditional
character
zones.
There
is
the
mixed
use,
one
and
two,
which
are
what
you
see
in
the
center
part
of
college
town
and
then
there's
the
college
town
residential
floor
where
this
project
is
located,
which
again
is
intended
to
be
a
transition
between
the
higher
density,
central
core
college
town
and
the
surrounding
residential
areas.
C
As
part
of
that,
the
group
that
came
up
with
the
plan
for
college
on
the
zoning
wanted
to
encourage
row
houses
similar
to
what
you
see
in
other
cities,.
C
That
would
be,
you
know,
attached
dwellings,
so
they
row
into
the
zoning.
I
guess
basically,
incentives
is
how
I
would
think
about
it
for
having
a
row
house.
So
what
that
means
is
again
as
you
can
have
a
longer
building.
If
you
meet
the
row
house
definition,
you
can
have
the
side
yard.
Because
again,
another
thought
was
that
if
multiple
properties
created
row
houses
there
would
be
kind
of
a
series
of
them
and
it
wouldn't
just
necessarily
stop
at
the
property
line.
C
I
will
say
that
I
think
from
planning
staff's
perspective.
The
row
house
definition
has
some
problematic
pieces
with
it,
and
that
is
something
we
see
being
revised
in
the
future.
I
think
one
of
them
is
a
four-story
building
requires
an
elevator
and
that
needs
to
be
shared.
C
So
there
has
to
be
some
way
to
make
that
physically
possible
to
construct,
and
I
think,
a
lot
of
times
when
people
thought
of
row
houses,
they're
thinking
of
brown
stones
and
similar,
two
and
three-story
structures
that
aren't
really
reflective
of
of
the
type
of
development
that
we
are
seeing
so,
but
that
was
the
intent
of
it
and
why
that
exists.
C
I'm
not
gonna
say
that
I
feel
that
this
I
mean
the
so
the
original,
certainly
not
the
definition.
I
think-
and
we
see
this
a
lot
when
we
create
zoning-
is
that
maybe
it
isn't
the
same?
It's
not
specific
to
this
project.
C
I
guess
is
what
I
want
to
say:
it's
not
that
I
think
in
general,
the
projects
that
we
have
seen
come
forward
as
a
row
house,
maybe
aren't
what
those
that
develop
the
zoning
we're
intending,
but
again
four-story
structures
are
a
little
bit
different
than
a
two-story
town
home
too.
So
I
would
say
it's
not.
I
just
want
to
be
clear:
it's
not
solely
this
project.
It's,
I
would
say,
there's
been
kind
of
the
same
feeling
with
several
new
projects
that
came
forward
as
that
were
categorized
as
bro
house.
F
I
have
a
question
for
megan,
so
this
zoning
is
four
stories.
Is
that
the
limitation
of
the
zoning
is
that.
C
Yes-
and
this
is
a
four-story
building-
what
you
see-
and
it
does
look
like
five
on
the
front
side-
and
it
reads
as
five,
but
the
bottom
story
is
technically
a
habitable
basement.
It
is
below
our
average
grade
plane,
so
it
does
not
count
as
a
story.
E
Taking
into
consideration
the
neighborhood
neighboring
properties,
the
intent
of
the
zoning,
you
know
against
the
transition
transitional
space.
You
know
from
kind
of
the
densification
to
more
suburban
residential
type,
neighborhood
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
it's
more
west
in
comparison
to
other
properties
that
have
been
developed.
So
it's
closer
to
college
town
is
that
correct.
E
Okay,
yeah
just
you
know,
I
can't
remember
if
it's
you
know
decreasing
or
increasing
from
that
area.
You
know,
I
think
that
it
it
fits
in,
and
you
know
it
comes
up
like
the
terminology
is
in
phil.
But
again
I
think
a
better
way
to
describe.
It
is
transitional.
E
You
know
from
different
zones.
You
know,
I
think
that
it
from
from
my
opinion,
you
know
whether
it's
the
renderings
or
just
from
the
discussion,
I
think
it
all
kind
of
works
together,
and
I
think
that
it's
you
know
aesthetically
it
meets
the
neighborhood
feel
it
fits
into.
E
You
know
the
character,
the
neighborhood
you
know
and
from
hearing
you
know
many
of
the
iterations
and
trying
to
develop
the
property.
You
know.
Yes,
they
could
have
tried
to
seek
an
alternative,
but
you
know
to
make
it
feasible.
E
You
know
it's.
Those
things
were
exhausted,
so
this
is
the
new.
You
know
design
it's
gone
through
the
planning
board.
You
know,
hearing
that
you
know
well,
yes,
they
acknowledge
that
some
of
the
deficiencies
are
still
there.
You
know
the
example
that
they
represented
was
that
it
was
meeting
the
neighboring.
E
E
And
you
know
again
it's
kind
of
self-created,
but
I
think
that
you
know
working
through
all
the
steps
again
you
know
and
thinking
about
how
they
increased
the
green
space
as
much
as
possible
normal
taking
in
consideration
some
of
the
you
know
active
street
frontage
and
making
it
more
inviting.
E
I
think
that
it's
a
good
compromise,
so
that's
that's
kind
of
where,
where
I'm
at
and
how
I
feel
about
what's
been
shown
today
and
what's
been
discussed.
F
E
Another
thing
that
I
guess
I
would
just
add
real
briefly,
is
that
and
also
in
comparison
thinking
about
the
other
properties
that
have
been
visited.
Yes,
the
lot
coverage
also
maybe
could
be
considered
significant,
so
I'm
not
not
quite
sure
where
that
fits
in,
but
it
is
greater
than
some
of
the
other
variances
that
have
been
issued.
B
C
Yeah
so
again,
the
idea
this
is,
you
know
one
of
the
first
areas
of
the
city
where
we
do
see
a
minimum
green
space
requirement.
I
think
the
newest
was
just
recently
enacted,
maybe
in
parts
of
the
waterfront,
but
the
intent
again
is
college.
Town
over
years
has
become
less
and
less
green,
more
paved
asphalt.
That
kind
of
thing
and
the
intent
of
the
minimum
green
space
requirement
is
to
get
kind
of
to
ensure
that
new
development
reintroduces
or
maintains
greenery
on
the
properties.
C
So
here
in
the
cr4
district
again,
fifty
percent
of
lot
coverage
by
buildings
is
what
I
was
allowed
technically
leaving
50
of
your
lot.
The
idea,
then,
was
that
half
of
that
remainder
should
be
dedicated
to
greenery
other.
The
remaining
quarter
then
could
go
if
parking.
If
you
wanted
it
or
you
know
walkways
patios,
that
kind
of
thing.
B
In
my
initial
approach
to
this,
I
I
agree
a
lot
with
the
sentiments
in
the
the
letters
of
opposition.
I
think
they
rose.
You
know
they
raised
a
lot
of
good
points.
I
think
the
project
team
has
been
very
skillful
on
how
to
structure
this
to
get
more
living
space
more
units,
but
I
also
just
think
that
some
of
this
is
self-inflicted.
B
I
understand
that
you
went
down
a
certain
path
and
gotten
the
good
graces
from
a
planning
perspective,
but
then,
as
you
pulled
back
and
in
aggregate
you're,
now
all
of
a
sudden
late
in
the
game
asking
for
a
lot
of
relief
for
pretty
self-inflicted
hardships
brought
about
by
your
own
volition.
And
if
you
could
somehow
get
this
back
to
the
row
house
definition
and
again
work
with
the
code
as
it
is
and
as
your
rights
allow
for,
then
you
could
start
to
peel
back
some
of
your
requests.
B
B
B
I'm
just
delineating
between
what
the
purview
of
this
board
is
and
what
the
planning
board
wants
to
see
and
and
the
overall
vision
of
that
board.
And
it's
frustrating
when
you
you
get
to.
You
know
a
junction
when
you
get
to
attention
point
there,
but
as
it
stands,
you've
designed
a
project
that
just
doesn't
comply
with
the
zoning.
That's
that's
my
initial
thinking,
as
everybody
knows,
we're
down
to
three
members
currently
help
is
on
the
way.
B
In
that
sense,
if
all
goes
as
planned,
we'll
be
up
to
a
full
board
in
short
order,
but
that's
what
I'm
thinking
I
don't
know
if,
if
steven
or
stephanie
have
any
rebuttal
to
that
to
my
personal
leaning,
but
that's
where
I'm
at
with
this.
E
I
mean
we
could
ask
for
another,
you
know
explanation
did.
Was
there
another
option
explored
to
increase
the
I
mean.
There's
one
way
to
look
at
is
increase
the
green
space
or
to
reduce
the
lot
coverage
and
and
hear
if
there's
any
other
additional
comments
if
we
want
to,
but
I
don't
know
if
we'll
really
get
to
that
end.
B
B
You
know
the
construction
costs
are
adding
up
or
here
we're
doing
all
this
earth
work,
but
then
that
maybe
you
can
show
some
of
those
those
bids
some
of
those
overruns,
something
that
demonstrates
why
it
is
that
you're
ending
up
in
the
position
you're
in,
but
this
was
from
the
start.
B
This
was
designed
to
maximize
footprint
and
then
doing
sorry.
My
dog's
drinking
water
and
in
doing
so
sort
of
early
on
went,
went
beyond
the
scope
of
what
was
allowed
by
right
and
then
some
of
these
other
variances,
I
think
compounded,
but
but
that'd
be
something
that
that
might
help
the
appellant's
case
if
they
were
to
revisit
this
show
us
show
us
where
your
over
runs
are
as
a
result
of
your
site.
L
L
C
Was
just
gonna
say
so
I'm
hearing
a
few
things
that
the
board
might
ask
that
the
applicant,
if
they
want
to
take
a
month
or
so,
to
recon,
to
consider
some
feedback
on
the
lot
coverage
and
reducing
that
expanding
green
straight
green
space
and
david's
last
point:
if
you're
claiming
that
the
it's
for
financial
reasons,
which
is
not
a
requirement
of
a
variance.
C
But
if
that's
going
to
be
the
primary
claim
that
there
would
need
to
be
evidence
that
the
board's
looking
for,
is
it
something
it
sounds
like
there's
a
few
things
here
to
consider
nathan?
Would
you
like
to
request
a
postponement
to
consider
this.
L
At
this
point
I
mean
it
sounds
like
you
know,
there's
some
additional
information
that
the
board
wants
to
hear.
What
I
probably
suggest
we
do
is
take
some
of
those
comments,
circle
back
with
you
megan,
and
provide
any
additional
feedback
and
come
back
to
you
guys
next
month,
with
kind
of
responses.
On
those
I
mean,
I
will
say
that
you
know
we
have
tried
to
look
at
the
project
in
a
number
of
ways
to
make
it
financially
feasible.
L
Initially,
we
were
designing
to
the
row
house.
It
was
going
to
cost
us
on
in
the
excess
of
200
plus
thousand
dollars
in
order
to
put
a
shoring
wall
in
on
that
east
property
line
to
retain
the
kind
of
sandy
soil
that's
there,
which
is
what
predicated
us
to
make
the
design
decision
to
make
the
project
more
financially
feasible
by
re,
removing
that
unit
which
ultimately
reduced
the
density
by
one
and
created
more
green
space.
L
You
know
being
able
to
try
and
build
up
27
feet
essentially
from
grade
on
dryden
to
the
back
of
the
back
of
the
building
we
kind
of
had
to
sight
the
building
where
it
was
and
allow
the
building
to
reach
up
and
on
to
that
flat
area,
so
that
we
could
get
a
viable
project
in
the
back
back
part
of
the
building
up
there.
So
we
had
you
know
a
number
of
iterations
that
we
were
kind
of
trying
to
work
with
that.
L
Just
none
of
them,
you
know
fit
the
model
that
we
were
trying
to
to
make
work.
You
know,
and
I
think
we
came
up
with
a
great
solution.
The
planning
board
you
know
and
working
with
them
was,
you
know,
hugely
supportive
of
it
and
supportive
of
the
variances
that
we're
requesting
yeah
so
we'll.
L
Unless
you
tell
us,
there's
a
reason
not
to,
we
will
take
the
month
to
try
and
put
some
additional
information
together,
but
that's
where
I
think
we
stand
right
now.
B
F
Yeah,
I
think
the
combination
of
the
area
coverage
at
67
roughly
and
then
the
green
space
is
less
than
50
of,
what's
required
by
the
code.
I'd
like
to
see
some
sort
of
middle
ground
between
those
two
things
that
would
be
closer
to
the
zoning
as
it
stands.
E
F
B
Thank
you
to
the
appeal
any
other
questions
to
us,
or
are
you
ready
to
to
table
this
for
now.
C
M
C
C
All
right
board
members:
we
are
approaching
eight
o'clock.
Would
you
like
to
take
a
a
few
minutes
break
before
we
begin
the
next
appeal.
C
All
right,
so
you
want
to
take
five
minutes
or
ten
minutes.
What
would
you
guys.
C
C
All
right
so
appeal
number
3203
for
325
dryden,
road
and
320
elmwood
avenue,
appeal
of
jason
k,
demoris
architecture
on
behalf
of
property
owners,
red
door,
rental
and
ambro
development
for
an
area
variants
from
section
325,
45.2
e
college
town,
residential
2
in
college
town,
residential
3
district
standards
for
off
street
parking
lot
coverage
by
buildings,
front
yard,
rear
yard,
minimum
spacing
of
primary
structures
and
maximum
building
length,
as
well
as
section
325
45
2b11
required
vegetative
buffer
and
section
325
20
f3a1
maximum
parking
area
coverage
requirements
of
zoning
ordnance.
C
The
consolidated
parcel
will
be
located
in
two
zoning
districts
cr3
in
the
northern
portion
of
the
lot.
The
original
325
dryden
road
parcel
in
cr2
in
the
southern
portion
of
the
lot,
the
320
elmwood
avenue
parcel
the
applicant
proposes
to
construct
a
new
multiple
dwelling
in
the
cr3
district
and
a
new
two-family
dwelling
in
the
cr2
district.
C
C
Excuse
me,
off-street
parking.
The
proposed
project
includes
one
one-bedroom
apartment:
nine,
two
bedroom
apartments,
two
three
bedroom
apartments
in
one
four
bedroom
apartment.
This
combination
of
units
requires
14
off
street
parking
spaces
and
the
applicant
proposes
to
construct
four
spaces
lot
coverage
by
buildings.
Lot
coverage
by
buildings
is
calculated
for
the
portion
of
the
lot
of
the
building
and
law
in
each
zone,
not
as
a
consolidated
lot.
The
lot
coverage
by
buildings
in
the
cr3
zone
is
53,
which
exceeds
the
maximum
40
percent
allowed
by
the
zoning
ordinance.
C
Excuse
me
sorry,
front
yard.
The
project
site
has
one
front
yard
in
the
cr3
district
along
dryden
road
in
a
second
front
yard,
in
both
the
cr3
and
cr2
districts
along
elmwood
avenue.
Both
districts
require
a
minimum
front
yard
of
10
feet
in
an
effort
to
provide
more
space
between
the
buildings,
the
applicant
has
shifted
the
larger
building
to
the
north,
resulting
in
a
six
foot
front
yard.
This
has
created
a
front
yard
deficiency
of
four
feet
along
dryden
road
rear
yard.
C
The
rear
yard
for
the
consolidated
lot
is
located
in
the
cr2
district
adjacent
to
318
elmwood
avenue.
The
proposed
site
plan
shows
a
rear
yard
of
8.9
feet
of
the
required
20
feet:
minimum
space
minimum
spacing
of
primary
structures.
The
cr2
district
regulations
require
a
minimum
of
20
feet
between
primary
structures.
On
the
same
lot,
a
distance
of
10
feet
is
required
in
the
cr3
district.
C
The
proposed
structures
are
located,
10
and
a
half
feet
apart,
creating
a
deficiency
of
nine
and
a
half
feet
in
the
cr2
district
maximum
building
length,
the
cr3
district
limits,
building
width
to
45
feet
in
length.
This
regulation
applies
the
entire
building,
not
individual
facades,
the
full
building
length
along
dryden
road
measures,
74.5
feet
which
exceeds
the
maximum
allowed
by
the
zorn
by
the
zoning
ordnance
by
29.5
feet
or
65.6
percent
required
vegetated
buffer.
A
minimum
10
foot
vegetative
buffer
from
the
rear
property
line
is
required
for
all
properties
within
the
cr2
districts.
C
The
proposed
project
does
not
price
provide
sufficient
vegetative
buffer
in
the
rear
yard.
Maximum
parking
area
coverage,
while
driveways
may
be
located
within
the
required
rear
and
side
yards
parking
and
maneuvering
areas
must
meet
the
setback
requirements.
The
proposed
site
plan
locates
vehicle
maneuvering
areas
within
both
the
side
and
rear
yards
325
dryden
road,
is
located
in
a
cr4
district
in
which
proposed
use
is
permitted.
However,
section
325-38
requires
that
an
area
variants
be
granted
before
the
building
permit
can
be
issued.
B
And
then
megan
can
you
just
confirm
we're
doing
presentations
public
hearing
and
what
else
tonight.
C
So
I
think
the
both
the
applicants
and
the
planning
board
are
really
looking
for
feedback
from
the
bza.
At
this
point,
the
planning
board
has
not
completed
environmental
review
because
they
are
looking
for
the
board's
feedback
on
the
on
the
zoning
variants
requests.
C
So
what
we
are
looking
to
do
tonight
is
basically
kind
of
go
up
through.
Have
the
presentation
ask
questions,
we're
going
to
review
public
comments,
have
the
public
hearing
and
then
go
through
the
deliberates,
at
least
some
of
the
deliberation
to
gather
enough
information
to
pass
back
to
the
planning
board
on
feedback.
C
K
Yep
that'd
be
great.
My
name
is
jason
demarest,
I'm
the
architect
on
the
project,
so
go
ahead
and
share.
K
All
right
I'll
just
start
with
a
overview.
This
was
in
the
submission
just
to
orient
everyone.
The
the
project
site
is
these
two
parcels,
325
dryden,
320,
elmwood,
dryden
road,
runs
through
the
center
here
college
ave
is
actually
won
over.
This
was
mislabeled,
but
it's
it's
within
a
quarter
mile
of
of
college
town,
there's
a
dentist
office
across
the
street.
K
You
know
in
higher
density
to
the
west,
and
then
this
whole
block
right
here
except
for
106,
harvard
is,
is
rental
properties
and
actually
majority
of
the
neighborhood
is
rental.
But
let
me
just
show
you
a
few
photos.
You
might
recognize
320.
That
was
in
the
last
presentation.
K
There's
the
view
from
the
corner
a
few
from
elmwood,
but
hopefully
you've
looked
at
the
packets
I'll
just
run
over
this
little
a
little
faster.
This
is
the
project
site.
There
are
two
structures
there
currently
and
a
large
parking
area.
K
I'll
show
that
again
in
a
little
bit,
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
just
give
you
a
little
tour
of
the
project.
K
So
I'm
on
dryden
road
here,
looking
back
at
the
325
parcel
and
the
proposed
project
was
a
322.
321
is
right
here
on
the
right.
This
is
their
driveway,
so
I'll
just
swing
around
it
lets
me.
So
one
thing
that
we
liked
about
the
zoning
is
and
the
the
new
form
district
is
the
the
regulation
of
form.
So
we
we
worked
hard
to
comply
with
the
habitable
space
under
a
pitched
roof
and
the
traditional
character
of
the
neighborhood.
K
You
know
using
an
architecture
that
is
more
historic
in
nature
nature,
so
this
would
be
the
view
from
the
dentist's
office.
We've
got
a
large
step
back
of
this
facade
from
the
primary
facade
here.
K
The
required
front,
porch
is
on
the
front
here.
We
went
back
and
forth
with
the
planning
board
about
this
dormer
shape
and
they
prefer
the
gable
shape
and
they
really
like
these
stacked
decks.
K
So
now
I'm
just
swinging
around
down
onto
elmwood,
and
this
is
where
you
know
the
blue
building
here:
that's
the
325
district
zone
or
parcel,
and
that's
the
cr3
district,
which
allows
multiple
dwellings
and
then
the
zoning
district
change
line
is
pretty
much
right
at
the
sidewalk,
and
this
is
the
cr2
which
allows
one
and
two
families
so
the
uses
here
are
permitted.
K
Megan
mentioned
how
we
made
one
change
since
the
original
submission
we
actually
had
the
buildings
combined,
but
that
maximum
building
length,
which
is
described
as
facade
length
caught
us
because
the
the
pdf
is
different
than
the
online
code.
So
you
know
we,
we
separated
the
buildings
and
we've
had
some
good
feedback
in
the
process,
with
the
planning
board
who's
been
fully
supportive
since
day,
one
even
with
the
attached
building,
which
again
it's
permitted
uses.
You
know
right
we're
here
for
array
variances.
K
So
anyway,
you
know
you
can
see
here
on
elmwood
as
we
transition
into
the
cr2
with
a
cr1
property,
although
it's
a
larger
multiple
dwelling
across
the
street.
Behind
me.
In
this
view,
we've
we've
brought
in
that
space
between
the
buildings.
K
I
think
the
the
zoning
district
line
change
makes
that
a
little
complicated,
but
in
the
end
we
we
felt
this
was
a
great
amenity.
Let
me
just
zoom
in
a
little
here,
for
you
a
little
lag
there
we
go,
you
know
so
we're
creating
an
amenity
space
for
the
occupants.
K
You
know
this
is
you
know
student
housing
primarily
because
of
proximity,
but
it's
also
its
proximity
is
to
cornell,
so
anyone
can
can
rent
here,
oops,
sorry
underground
there
and
then
we're
playing
around
varying
the
deciding
a
little
bit
as
we
transition
to
this.
You
know
two
family
dwelling
and
and
here's
the
property
at
318
elmwood,
also
a
rental,
and
I
believe
it's
also
a
multiple
dwelling,
I'm
not
not
actually
sure
on
that
one.
K
Other
thing
I
want
to
note,
which
is
a
lot
easier
to
understand
in
a
perspective
view
here.
Let
me
get
down
on
the
ground
here,
so
actually
maybe
a
little
a
little
better
up
in
the
air.
So
you
got
the
intersection
up
here.
The
current
driveway
cuts
into
the
property
somewhere
up
here.
So
with
this
proposal,
we
consolidated
the
lot
and
that
created
some
complexity
with
the
zoning,
but
we're
trying
to
move
the
driveway
to
the
end
of
the
parcel
and
further
from
the
intersection,
which
you
know
obviously
helps
with
safety
concerns.
K
And
then
one
other
thing
that
I
think
this
view
and
this
software
here
can
really
show
you
is
we've
worked
hard
to
add
a
lot
of
greenery
and
green
space
in
front
of
the
properties,
we're
compliant
on
the
front
yard,
all
along
elmwood,
and
we
have
larger
front
yard
areas.
Sorry,
if
you're
getting
a
little
dizzy
there.
Let
me
just
want
to
zoom
in
you
know.
K
We
also
have
this
sunken
courtyard
element
to
create
more
amenity
space
whoops
for
the
for
the
residents
and
then
really
as
you're
walking
down
the
sidewalk
there's
just
a
corner
of
the
the
stoop.
Sorry
a
little
clunky
here.
This
one
corner
of
the
building
is
actually
six
feet
from
the
property
line
and
then
the
stoop
is
is
over.
K
So,
but
the
vast
majority
and
I'll
show
you
that
in
a
little
bit
is
in
compliance
with
the
with
the
10
foot
so
and
we
actually
move
the
building
forward
a
little
bit,
because
the
property
is
all
along
dryden
road,
there's
two
others
that
are
actually
similar,
so
that
is
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
So
anyway,
let
me
jump
out
of
this.
I
thought
I'd
just
show
you
a
little
bit
more
about
how
we
got
here,
so
I
think
it
always
helps
to
start
with
the
conditions.
K
So
I
think
this
is
a
good,
a
better
graphic
to
help.
You
understand
the
current
condition.
You
have
two
structures
lit
up
there:
the
dark
gray,
the
light
gray
is
the
existing
parking
area.
So
it's
a
big
sea
of
of
asphalt
and
parking
and
it's
two
structures.
One
thing
that's
interesting
about
this
is
if
we
were
to
propose
these
buildings
today,
the
way
they
are
currently
and
obviously
certain
things
could
be
adjusted
a
little
bit.
K
We've
got
two
different
zoning
districts
with
that
that
line
change
and
one
thing
that
we
don't
like
is
all
this
parking.
You
know,
I
think
the
forum
district
creates
beautiful
buildings
and
hopefully
that's
what
we're
doing
and
parking
is
identified
in
plan
ithaca.
The
comprehensive
plan
and
in
the
college
town
design
guidelines
is,
is
actually
a
problem.
So
if
you
don't
construct
parking,
you
you
don't
have
traffic,
you
don't
have
these
cars
causing
these
issues
so
so
that
was
the
genesis
of.
K
Can
we
trade
off
a
less
parking
and
build
a
little
bit
more
and
then
to
be
fair,
even
though,
as
as
megan
pointed
out
the
way
the
zoning
code
is
written,
even
though
we
consolidated
the
law,
we
have
to
treat
each
zoning
district
separately.
So
what
we
ended
up
doing
and
let
me
jump
over
to
the
proposal.
K
Wrong
one,
so
this
is
the
updated
site
plan
when
it
pops
up,
which
you
should
have,
and
this
the
the
submission
that
you
initially
received.
We
were
working
to
try
to
consolidate
this
driveway
with
the
neighbor
at
318,
but
that
was
a
no-go
they
they
were.
They
did
not
want
to
do
it,
so
they
shot
that
down.
So
we
ended
up
pulling
the
320
building
a
little
bit
further
away
to
make
the
driveway
work,
and
then
we
didn't
want
to
pinch
the
courtyard.
K
So
we
just
said
you
know
what
let's
just
push
this
one
corner
and
the
stoop
into
the
front
yard,
because
we've
got
a
lot
of
additional
front
yard
area.
So
anyway,
with
the
the
district
change
here
it
it
gets
a
little
complicated.
So
what
we
said
was:
let's,
let's
build
less
building
on
the
320
parcel
shift,
a
little
up
to
deal
with
the
high
cost
of
construction
and
development
and
the
high
property
value
that
you
know.
K
These
are
more
recently
purchased
properties
and
land
values
are
very
high,
so
adding
some
density
would
be
a
great
way
to
offset
that
and
then
the
other
thing
to
point
out
was
this
parking
area
is
right
on
top
of
the
existing
and
it's
actually
reduced.
I
can
zoom
in
here
on
your
copies.
You
might
be
able
to
pick
up
this
orange
hatch
and
it
runs
up
through
the
buildings.
You
know
that's
the
existing
parking
area,
so
we
thought
why
why
mess
with
the
existing
condition?
That's
how
it
functions.
K
Let's
just
put
the
parking
rate
where
it
is
currently,
unfortunately,
that
does
trigger
some
of
the
variances.
So,
even
though
there
are
a
handful
of
variances,
we
feel
they're
all
pretty
minor
in
nature.
But
let
me
let
me
go
step
back
a
little
bit
and
just
look
at
the
purpose
and
intent
of
the
cr
1
2
and
3
zoning
districts.
K
You
know,
there's
there's
some
verbage
here
about
you
know.
Development
is
neither
anticipated
or
encouraged,
but
there's
also
discussion
about
creating
forms
that
are
similar
in
scale
and
character
to
the
neighborhood
and
then
the
the
last
part.
The
concluding
part
is
that
it's
a
transition
zone,
but
the
last
statement
is
denser
residential
uses
are
permitted
in
those
areas
closer
to
central
college
town.
So
if
we
look
at
the
zoning
map-
and
I
did
provide
this-
this
narrative-
I
have
a
revised
version,
as
you
can
see
here
and
I'll
get
that
in
megan.
K
I
don't
know
if
that
was
distributed
yet,
but
we'll
I'll
get
that
submitted.
But
what
I
did
was
I
looked
at
what
is
plan
ithaca
asking
for?
What's
the
what's
the
big
picture
now
this
is
a
future
land
use
map.
This
brighter,
yellow
is
all
medium
density
and
the
project
site
is
right
there,
but
but
that
is
future
land
use,
but
that
sort
of
sets
the
the
overarching
goal,
but
the
zoning
came
about
and
it
got
more
specific,
so
the
project
site
is
split
again
between
the
cr3
cr2.
K
So
it's
right
here,
but
I
think
this
zoning
map
excerpt
really
shows
you,
the
proximity
to
the
the
crossroad
or
the
center
of
of
college
down
and
the
higher
mu
zoning
districts
and
and
just
how
close
we
actually
are
to
that
that
core
commercial
area
I
mean
even
look
at
the
cr4
down
here.
These
areas
are
further
from
that
that
core
area.
K
So
again
it
is
a
transition
zone,
but
what's
most
notable
about
the
325
dryden
parcel
is
if
we
look
at
the
prior
zoning
map,
this
whole
end
of
that
little
little
block
was
r2a,
which
is
effectively
cr2
one
and
two
family
dwellings.
It's
the
325
parcel
that
was
up
zoned
to
multiple
dwellings,
so
that
signaled
to
us
that
there
was
a
request
for
adding
housing
and
housing
is
decided
numerous
times
in
plan
ithaca
and
the
college
town
design
guidelines
as
as
needed.
K
And
you
know
if
you
increase
density
of
housing
and
saturate
the
market,
it
can
have
positive
effects
on
other
types
of
housing.
You
know
it's
it's
a
tough
area
to
develop
because
of
cost,
but
that
was
a
big
big
factor
for
us
is
the
the
signal
of
what
happened
and
I
think
the
entire
purpose
and
intent
section
needs
to
be
looked
at,
so
I
I
discussed
that
a
little
bit
in
this
narrative,
I'm
gonna
kind
of
push
through
these
are
some
excerpts
yeah.
K
I
did
a
deep
dive
with
the
planning
board
about.
You
know
the
creation
of
the
appeals
process
in
in
new
york
state
and
how
you
know
it's
a
balancing
act.
I
think
you
know
that,
but
a
lot
of
these
some
of
this
dialogue
is
just
a
lot
of
thoughts.
I've
had
over
the
years
of
doing
this.
So
again
you
guys
can
read
this
at
your
leisure.
K
K
Tell
you
what
I'll
just
keep
going
on
this.
So
I'm
adding
a
blurb
here
about
each
variance
in
a
little
bit
more
detail.
I
don't
think
I
really
fully
covered
them
again.
This
is
a
revised
submission,
so
you'll
see
that
shortly
so
again,
I
I'll
just
try
to
hit
these
quickly.
K
For
the
sake
of
time.
You
know
we
have
the
spacing
between
the
primary
structures.
I
I
think
the
zoning
is
a
little
weird
if
you
think
about
the
space
between
two
cr2
separate
properties,
the
side
yard.
Setbacks
are
five
feet,
so
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
can
place
two
cr2
buildings
10
feet
away,
even
though
the
spacing
on
the
same
lot
is
supposed
to
be
20.
But
what
we
have
here
is
a
cr3
and
a
cr2.
K
So
if
we're
20
there
and
10
and
cr3,
it
seems
like
somewhere
in
the
middle
would
make
sense
and
again,
we've
managed
to
bring
some
of
that
together,
the
off
street
parking.
That
sounds
maybe
substantial
at
first.
You
know
the
requirement
for
14
parking
spaces,
but
just
like
the
cr4
district
and
the
rest
of
college
town,
transportation,
demand
management,
concepts,
walking,
biking,
proximity
to
college
town
to
campus
other
forms
of
communication.
The
you
know
the
predominant
market
of
the
renters
being
often
being
students,
or
you
know,
employees
or
professors.
K
You
know
at
cornell
not
having
cars
can
be
a
good
thing,
so
we
chose
not
to
do
it
and
then
one
other
thing
about
the
two
parcels
is
that
by
constructing
the
two
family
dwelling
again
to
replace
the
house,
that's
at
320
elmwood
is
that
it
is
eligible
for
the
residential
parking
permit
system
and
four
spaces
are
potentially
available.
So
it's
conceivable
that
there
would
be
eight
spaces
out
of
14.
again.
K
We
don't
think
that
the
people
renting
here
really
need
cars
and
we're
trying
to
promote
an
alternative
to
the
status
quo.
In
this
sense,
the
other
thing
that
the
rpps
system
does
is
it.
It
makes
it
very
difficult
to
own
a
car
in
these
residential
neighborhoods.
K
Unless
you
have
that
permit,
you
can't
just
go
up
there
and
park
without
getting
ticketed
or
towed,
so
it
can
be
very
problematic.
So
that's
probably
one
of
the
bigger
ones.
You
know
the
maximum
parking
error
coverage.
This
is
another
question.
Actually
I
need
to
take
back
to
megan.
I
I
think,
the
landscape
compliance
method.
K
We
might
be
able
to
comply
with
that,
but
recent
designs,
we
were
able
to
get
all
the
parking
in
compliance
with
the
setback
requirements,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
it's
possible.
This
variance
could
go
away
with
the
planning
board.
So
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that
and
we
are
screening
the
parking
lot
and
it
also
butts
the
parking
lot
to
318
elmwood
front
yard.
I
talked
a
little
bit
about
I'm
going
to
show
you
that
I've
got
a
little
graphic
for
that,
so
in
the
front
yard.
K
Here
the
red
is
what
we're
required
to
have
by
zoning.
The
orange
shows
the
net
of
what
we've
provided
are
now
occupied
building
and
the
yellow
shows
the
additional
front
yard
area
all
green
space.
That's
one
big
thing
I
also
want
to
point
out
here
is
we've
got
what
was
it
a
thousand
square
feet?
Sorry,
I
forgot
my
number
yeah.
I
think
it
was
about
a
thousand
square
feet
of
surplus
green
space.
K
I
don't
know
why
I
can't
find
it
right
now
I'll
come
back
to
that
so
anyway,
that's
the
the
front
yard
really
feels
like
a
minor
variance.
The
other
thing
that
happens
with
the
consolidated
parcels
here
is
that
it
turns
the
320
parcel
into
part
of
the
the
hole
and
then
the
the
325
side
of
the
road
becomes
the
primary
front
yard,
which
triggers
a
former
side
yard
into
becoming
a
rear
yard.
K
So
previously
our
our
proposed
building
is
actually
further
from
the
property
line
than
the
current
building,
but
that's
just
how
the
zoning
reads
to
us
what's
more
important.
Is
this
southwest
corner
and
that's
the
neighbor
at
106
harvard
who,
interestingly,
interestingly
enough,
we
met
with,
they
were
lukewarm,
initially
and
now,
they're
supportive
and
they
wrote
a
letter
of
support
to
the
planning
board
for
the
project
and
we're
working
with
them
to
amend
their
the
fence
there
and
really
really
improve
that
that
green
space.
So
that's
a
little
bit
on
the
yard.
K
K
What
we
want
to
do
is
screen
the
the
neighbor,
the
one
single
family
owner,
that's
at
106,
harvard
down
here
on
the
left.
You
can
see
the
parking
area
of
318
having
a
vegetative
buffer
along
this
line
is
just
screening
a
driveway
and
we
do
have
a
little
area
and
we
could
build
a
fence
along
there
if
that
makes
more
sense,
but
again
we're
trying
to
work
with
the
existing
condition.
K
K
I
promise
I'm
almost
done
so
this
is
the
graphic
on
that
we're
trading,
this
yellow
area
that
we're
not
constructing,
which
is
allowable,
so
we're
reducing
what's
allowed
and
by
by
by
grant
of
a
variance.
We
can't
build
that
out
in
the
future
without
coming
back,
so
we're
trading
some
to
throw
it
over
here
and
if
we
were
allowed
to
combine
the
two
lots
and
we
looked
at
the
total
coverage-
we're
only
159
square
feet
over
the
allowable,
and
by
that
I
mean
I'm
taking
the
allowable
for
the
325.
K
K
K
You
know
it
at
first,
it
might
seem
insurmountable,
but
a
lot
of
these
variances
we
do
feel
are
are
are
pretty
minor
and
and
we're
trying
to
balance
the
the
process.
So
if
you
think
about
the
overall
effect,
this
little
crosshatch
purple
area
is
what
is
not
allowed
and
by
providing
a
the
required
amount
of
green
space,
which
is
a
strong
indicator
of
density
and
then
just
making
this
this
trade
right
here
to
free
up
the
parking
area
and
remember
we
cannot
bring
this
multiple
dwelling
across
the
line.
K
So
a
lot
of
constraints,
it's
very,
very
complicated.
You
know
you
move
one
little
thing
and
and
something
changes
so,
but
we've
worked
hard
to
try
to
make
that
work.
So
that's
the
where
we
stand
on
the
max
lock
coverage.
Really
I
like
the
form
district
in
the
green
space
requirement,
because
that
introduces
a
different
way
to
look
at
density
rather
than
just
purely
coverage
by
building
and
then
the
last
one
here
is
maximum
building
length.
K
So
one
thing
that
that's
occurring:
this
is
just
a
generic
concept:
graphic
where,
when
you
have
a
corner
lot,
you've
got
45
from
one
side
and
you're
good.
The
second,
you
make
a
larger
building
length,
the
other
way
you
don't
have
compliance
so,
but
if
this
parcel
was
mid
block,
you
could
have
that
same
exact
footprint.
So
the
idea
that
this
a
building
the
size
of
what
we're
proposing
in
this
roughly
45
or
45
by
70
foot
footprint
can
exist
throughout
the
neighborhood
one.
K
Other
interesting
thing
is
that
this
requirement
doesn't
exist
in
the
in
the
other
zones.
Yeah,
it's
it's
confusing.
So
so
that's
our
our
proposal,
but
what's
most
important
and
what
we've
done
working
with
megan
and
the
planning
board
with
the
proposed
design.
Is
that
big
step
back
on
the
front
of
the
building?
K
You
know
this
using
this
concept
of
take
the
overall
building
length
and
step
back
at
least
50,
and
then
we've
landscaped
that
whole
front
to
really
soften
any
any
impact.
We
don't
think
even
this
whole
74
and
a
half
foot
length
with
the
steps
and
everything
is
really
an
impact
you
know,
and
the
the
angled
lot
makes
a
traditional
building
form
difficult
to
construct
as
well.
K
K
Yeah,
I
think
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
that's
really
it
yep.
You
know
big
thing.
We're
here
for
area
variances.
The
most
important
thing
right
now
is
this
is
it's
it's
not
a
use,
variance
we're
these
are
permitted
uses
any
way
you
look
at
it
and
there
was
a
call
by
the
up
zoning
of
325.
K
You
know
for
this
higher
density,
multiple
dwelling
and
actually
I'll
just
say.
One
thing
to
that
point.
The
way
this
zoning
district
map
works
now
is
that
multiple
dwelling
definition
doesn't
extend
any
further
and
and
that's
really
where
you
can
increase
density
when
you
have
a
one
or
two
family
dwelling
and
the
number
of
unrelated
strictly
regulated
in
those
in
that
type
of
property,
it's
really
hard
to
add
density
in
cr2
or
cr1.
K
A
B
C
C
Okay,
dear
members
of
the
bza,
my
husband
and
I
are
writing
to
express
our
concerns
about
appeal,
number
3203,
325,
dryden
road
320,
album
ave.
We
are
homeowners
within
750
feet
of
the
property
in
question.
After
years
of
deliberation
and
input
from
stakeholders,
common
council
unanimously
voted
to
adopt
the
college
town
area
form
districts
in
2014
disclosure.
I
was
a
member
of
common
council
when
we
did
so
since
then,
there's
been
an
explosion
of
quality
student
rental
housing.
With
the
exception
of
a
few
minor
variants.
C
The
college
town
area
forum,
district
purpose
and
intent
section
clearly
states
the
college
town
residential
one
through
three
districts
contain
predominantly
residential
structures
occupied
as
a
single
family
home
as
duplexes
or
as
multiple
residents,
often
rented
by
university
students.
The
intent
is
to
maintain
the
existing
housing
stock,
significant
redevelopment
when
these
districts
is
neither
anticipated
nor
encouraged.
C
The
project,
in
its
current
form,
was
a
significant
improvement
over
the
initial
submissions,
which
proposed
a
large
apartment.
Building
that
would
front
would
front
on
dryden
road
and
wrap
the
corner
into
elmwood.
In
addition
to
the
eight
area
variances,
that
project
would
have
required
a
use
variance.
We
recommend
the
developer
and
this
architect.
We
commend
the
developer
and
his
architect
for
having
revised
proposal,
which
now
calls
for
two
houses
on
elmwood
side,
although
sadly
demolishing
an
attractive
craftsman
house,
but
the
fact
that
they
are
still
seeking
eight
area.
C
Variances
suggests
that
the
performance
scale,
at
least
on
the
elmwood
side,
is
still
inconsistent
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
college
town
area
farm
districts.
We
are
particularly
concerned
about
the
lack
of
a
substantial
green
buffer.
Presumably
the
developers
were
familiar
with
the
college
town
area
forum
district
zoning
when
they
bought
the
properties
which
suggests
that
if
there
is
any
economic
hardship
it
just
self-created,
it
might
be
a
different
conversation.
C
C
The
next
comment.
Dear
bca,
I'm
writing
to
comment
on
the
requests
received
for
multiple
variants
for
the
project
at
325,
dryden
and
320
elmwood.
I
do
not
support
granting
these
variances
as
a
resident
of
308
elmwood
avenue.
Since
1986
I
took
part
in
the
college
town
urban
planning
process
that
was
adopted
in
2009.
C
This
process
was
thorough
and
thoughtful.
I
think
the
density
at
the
core
concept
of
the
plan
has
been
useful
in
college
town.
However,
the
325
and
320
project
is
counter
to
that
plan,
as
indicated
by
the
number
of
variances
needed
to
undertake
the
project.
The
variances
requested
indicate
that
density
is
the
goal.
4
parking
spaces
instead
of
14
53
lot
coverage
versus
40
front
yard
deficit,
rear
yard
deficit
by
over
10
feet,
length
exacerbated
by
65
no
vegetation
parking
entrances
on
two
sides.
C
If
this
request
is
granted,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
college
town
plan
is
being
significantly
revised
and,
before
anything
would
be
done,
this
process
should
be
revisited
again
with
the
community.
Otherwise,
the
message
you
are
sending
me
is
that
the
plan
notions
listed
below
are
no
longer
values
of
this
plan.
The
precedent
will
be
set
to
move
the
density
further
and
further
away
from
the
core.
C
This
side
of
dryden
and
into
elmwood
is
where
multiple
dwellings
transition
to
single
family,
which
is
different
from
the
denser
residential
dwellings
closer
to
central
college
town
and
the
one
other
point
is
that
access
to
green
space
for
apartment
dwellers
is
very
limited.
This
project
does
not
provide
enough
green
space
access.
My
experience
is
that
apartment
dwellers
then
use
the
street
or
limit
limited
front
yard
spaces.
This
situation
is
primed
for
accidents,
as
elmwood
is
now
a
bus
route.
C
Then
there's
a
citation
that
I've
read
previously
from
the
college
town
residential
one
through
three
intent
about
the
goals
and
and
significant
redevelopment
is
neither
anticipated
nor
encouraged.
So
those
I
read
that
part
and
again
I
did
email
this
to
board
members
later
in
the
day.
My
personal
dream
is
that
interested
developers
would
improve
the
residential
buildings
and
return
more
housing
stock
to
single
family
dwellings
to
enable
people
to
live
close
to
work.
I
have
seen
a
successful
example
of
that
right
next
door
to
me.
C
Thank
you
for
your
time,
mark
the
frontal
308
elmwood
avenue
dear
sirs,
and
I'm
going
to
add
madam
the
application
for
the
requested
variances
at
325,
dryden
road
and
elmwood
avenue
appeal
number
3203
requested
by
red
door.
Rental
should
be
denied.
The
reason
can
be
summed
up
in
two
words
too
big,
even
with
the
consolidation
of
the
two
properties.
The
proposed
two
buildings
are
too
big
and
require
significant
zoning
variances.
C
In
fact,
the
architect
refers
to
them
to
the
massing
impact
of
the
building,
if
more
words
or
reasons
are
needed.
The
following
are
apropos
further
development
of
the
area
is
not
needed.
Defiance
of
the
logic
and
reasoning
for
residential
family
zoning
size
of
buildings
are
out
of
neighborhood
character,
total
disregard
to
parking
problems
on
well
with
ab,
as
well
as
of
college
town
and
bryant
park
areas.
C
C
This
is
just
the
description
of
the
required
request
as
a
long-time
resident.
I
urge
you
to
please
reject
these
zoning
variances
requested
by
the
developer
in
the
interest
of
the
neighborhood.
The
loss
of
green
space
buffer
around
these
buildings
would
degrade
the
neighborhood,
reducing
the
quality
of
life
and
increasing
noise.
Green
spaces
and
lot
coverage
are
important
part
to
the
zoning
laws
and
should
not
be
discarded
for
developers.
C
The
parking
variants
would
push
parking
for
these
large
residential
units
to
side
streets,
clogging
the
streets
with
additional
congestion
and
noise.
The
developer
should
work
within
the
guidelines
given
with
zoning
laws.
Thank
you
for
your
attention.
Joanne
co,
310
elmwood
avenue,
and
I
believe
that
is
what
I
have.
B
Thank
you:
will
the
appellant
wish
to
respond
to
any
or
or
all
of
them
than
a
consensus.
K
C
K
Four
minutes:
yeah,
that's
fine!
You
know
again,
you
know
there
there's
some
debate
over
whether
there
was
a
there
was
never
a
use
variance
but,
like
I
said,
permitted
uses.
I
know
that
was
one
of
the
comments.
We
worked
hard
on
the
form
and
the
scale
it's
it's
consistent.
The
structure
at
320
elmwood
is
actually
smaller
in
footprint
than
than
the
current
building
and
by
the
way
the
two
current
buildings
are
in
very
rough
shape.
The
front
porch
on
320
elmwood
is
about
to
collapse.
K
It's
it's
time
to
renew
these
buildings
and
make
them
energy
efficient,
safer.
You
know
the
the
multiple
dwelling
has
to
be
sprinklered,
so
it'll
be
much
safer
and
also
handicap
accessible.
K
So
that's
important
a
little
confused
by
the
lack
of
green
space.
We've
got
lots
of
green
space
and
we
worked
hard
that
we
did
have
a
variance
at
one
point
for
a
small
deficiency
on
the
320
and
we
managed
to
get
fully
into
compliance
and,
like
I
say,
a
surplus
compared
to
the
overall.
The
single
parking
entrance,
not
sure
why
it's
perceived
as
there's
two
parking
entrances.
The
zoning
would
not
have
to
be
revised
if
a
variance
if
these
variances
were
granted
again.
The
cr3
is
the
last
chance
to
increase
density.
K
K
You
know
so
that's
the
transition.
I
already
talked
about
the
the
parking
you
know
and
I've
got
this
map
up
here
to
just
point
out
401,
which
is
actually
cr1.
This
building's
about
60
feet.
Long
facing
you
know
primarily
cr2.
We've
got
a
a
step
building
in
cr3
facing
a
longer
cr3
and-
and
this
is
actually
one
facade-
there
isn't
a
gap
between
the
two
there.
I
I
don't
know
if
I
need
to
show
it,
but.
K
Anyway,
that's
the
that's
the
dentist
office,
that's
dr
orcott's
office,
his
concern
and
we
spoke
with
him
one
day
up
at
the
site.
We
couldn't
get
him
to
see
our
our
point
of
view,
but
his
concern
is
people
will
pull
into
his
parking
lot,
but
it's
a
very
welcoming,
quick,
stop
and
they
say
they're
running
to
a
friend's
house.
K
You
know
so
I
mean
that
condition
exists
and
all
these
properties
down
the
way
without
the
parking
requirement.
There's
many
things
that
that
can
cause
these
concerns
again,
the
rpps
regulates
parking.
So
you
know
this
is
yeah
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
You
know
and
I
think,
as
we
turn
the
corner
here,
transitioning
onto
elmwood,
you
know,
we've
got
a
character
and
a
screened
building
and
you
know
in
keeping
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
So
I
think
I'll
leave
that
at
that.
H
Megan,
can
I
can
I
say
something:
is
there
still
a
minute
left
yeah?
So
sorry,
I
I
just
think
it's
really
important
to
just
address
the
idea
that
this
somehow
chips
away
at
housing
or
creates
some
sort
of
hardship.
I
mean
the
housing
issue
in
in
ithaca
and
tompkins
county
is
a
supply
issue
right.
H
We
don't
have
supply
and
I
think
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
at
this
project
looking
at
the
unit
size
and
unit
mix,
so
that
there
is
opportunity
for
this
not
to
just
be
student
housing
right,
it's
for
it
to
fill
a
need,
and
I
think
we
we
really
tried
to
look
at
the
character
and
how
it
fits
and
respect
the
320
elmwood.
H
You
know
as
a
duplex
and
the
idea
of
putting
density
where
density
has
been
called
for
that
helps
the
housing
issue
in
in
our
area,
and
I
think
it's
just
really
important
to
understand
that
we
we
did
really
look
critically
at
that
and
look
at
unit
size.
You
know
these
aren't
all
six
bedroom
units
right,
which
you're
not
going
to
rent
a
six
bedroom
unit
in
this
area.
To
you
know
someone
in
the
workforce
right
or
someone
who's
affiliated
with
cornell
or
any
of
the
surrounding
businesses.
H
So
that's
why
we
really
tried
to
look
at
smaller
unit
size
so
that
it
could
serve
as
more
transitional
housing
students,
grad
students
with
family.
You
know
working
professional
that
type
of
thing,
so
I
I
think
that
that
it's
just
a
it's
a
it's
a
misrepresentation
by
those
that
provided
public
comment
that
somehow
this
detracts
from.
You
know
solving
the
the
housing
issue
we
we
do
need
to
build
more
ford
for
ownership
housing,
but
I
don't
see
that
this
is
the
area
that
that's
going
to
be
created
right.
B
Thank
you.
So
I
guess
what
we'll
do
now
is
we'll
just
sort
of
initiate
a
discussion
amongst
ourselves.
Again.
This
isn't
a
voting
topic
for
tonight
and
then
I
think,
we'll
also
split
ball
and
ask
you
some
questions
and
then
sort
of
pontificate
as
to
what
can
get
sent
back
to
the
planning
board
and
your
project
team
does
that
work.
E
I
think
that
I
just
wanted
to
get
some
clarification
without
having
to
dive
in,
and
it
was
briefly
just
mentioned.
Can
you
clarify
the
number
of?
E
Maybe
bedrooms
is
maybe
a
good
way
to
describe
it
and
or
units,
or
in
conjunction
together
there,
for
all
the
the
spaces
that
have
been
provided
so
both
320
and
325.
That
could
be
just
summarized
one
more
time.
K
Yeah
320s
two
units,
two
three
bedrooms,
so
six
six
beds
there
and
then
there's
11
dwellings
in
the
325
building
and
then
it's
23,
so
20
29
total
beds
compared
to
16
currently
for
the
for
the
two
properties.
E
I
was
wondering
recently
it
was
adopted
that
ithaca,
the
city
of
ithaca
was
gonna.
Do
the
energy
green
building
approach?
Well,
yes,
you
know
progression
towards
net
zero
by
2026.
You
briefly
mentioned.
You
know
energy
efficiency,
just
curious.
E
If
you
know
under
that
kind
of
adoption,
if
there
was
anything
that
was
considered
to
expedite
some
of
the
goals-
and
you
know-
concerns
that
are
brought
up
from
from
that
avenue.
K
Yeah,
actually,
we
are,
we
will
exceed
the
topkins
county
energy
recommendations
across
the
board.
You
know
we're
looking
at
at
spray
foam.
You
know
super
air
sealing
at
minimum
air
source
heat
pumps,
so
be
all
electric
we're
also
looking
at
geothermal
and
one
one.
Difficulty
with
this
project
is
there's
no
project
if
we
don't
clear
this
hurdle,
but
as
soon
as
we
do
we're
going
to
start
looking
at
nice
sort
of
programs
to
ensure
that
that
energy
efficiency,
so
these
will
be
very
efficient
buildings.
F
F
I
don't
know,
I
guess
the
nearly
doubling
of
units
in
this
area
and
these
two
specific
parcels
could
be
viewed
as
significant,
but
like.
F
So
I
don't
know
where
I
stand
exactly.
H
The
320
elmwood
parcel
is,
is
essentially
the
the
new
building
that
we're
proposing
is
essentially
the
same
as
there's.
No,
it's
the
same
number
of
units
they're
the
same
allowable
occupants
right
essentially
in
a
smaller
footprint.
The
the
density
comes
on
the
325
side
and
I
just
think
that's
an
important
distinction
to
remember.
We
we,
you
know
sort
of
painstakingly,
went
through
to
try
to
respect
those
and
then
also
the
design
elements.
These
you
know
these
are
far
improvements
that
fit
the
current
architectural
style
of
the
of
the
community.
K
Yeah,
let
me
just
echo
a
comment
I
made
before
the
blue
building
here.
325
was
up
zoned
calling
for
a
multiple
dwelling.
So
if
you
compare
what's
there,
the
zoning
actually
asks
for
an
increase
in
density.
But
after
that,
there's
no
there's.
No,
you
know
the
other
mechanisms
are
our
law
coverage
and
green
space,
and
you
know
we
tried
to
balance
what
we
were
proposing
here
and
you
know
the
big
one
is
providing
that
green
space
and
you.
K
Planning
board-
and
you
know,
staff
really
helped
us
with
the
space
between
the
buildings,
which
is
you
know,
amenity
green
space.
You
know
more
than
what
we
had
before
so
and
it's
a
courtyard.
A
B
Can
you
tell
us
a
bit
about
your
your
tenure
as
owners
of
the
properties
you,
you
bought
them
for
development
purposes
or
you
bought
them
and
that
are
currently
occupied
and
cash
flowing,
and
this
is
a
good
adventure,
or
this
is
the
specific
purpose
of
your
acquisition.
H
So
yeah
so
2012
october
2012
we
bought.
A
H
Driving
the
first
rental
property
we
purchased
in
ithaca
along
with
another
one
that
we
had
on
university
ave
at
the
time.
A
couple
years
later
we
bought
320
elmwood
made
sense.
It
was
right
next
door
right
anytime,
you
can
consolidate
your
operation
into
you
know
closed
parcels.
It
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
H
You
know
they
they're
occupied
they're,
rented
they've,
always
been
occupied
and
rented,
and
so
you
know
we.
We
saw
this
as
a
as
an
opportunity
to
to
help
try
to
solve
the
housing
issue
that
we
we
face
in
the
county
right
by
creating
density,
where
densities
called
for
creating
greener,
safer
buildings,
and
so
the
you
know,
the
buildings
that
are
there
are
aging
right.
H
This
is
a
is
a
better
alternative,
because
we're
able
to
get
again
a
better
constructed,
more
energy
efficient,
provide
density
where
density
is
called
for
through
this
process.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
how
we
started
down
this
this
path-
and
you
know
we
set
out
from
the
beginning-
and
you
know
jason-
can
connect
with
us,
but
we
made
it
very
clear
to
jason
that
we
wanted
to
design
a
project
that
fit
and
respected
the
character
of
the
community
in
which
we
were
constructing
it.
H
H
This
is
something
that
we're
trying
to
respect
the
architectural
style,
the
design
elements
just
doing
it
in
a
newer
fashion
and
again
putting
density
where,
where
density
is
called
for,
respecting
the
zoning
line,
but
then
also
too
asking
for
a
little
bit
of
trade-off
right,
reducing
the
size
of
one
building,
putting
a
little
bit
more
density
there
and
by
combining
the
parcel
and
especially
on
a
corner
lot,
it
created
some
challenges.
So
that's
what
that's?
H
What
brings
us
here
and
actually
the
the
time
with
the
the
staff
at
the
at
the
city
level-
and
you
know
the
community
feedback-
has
helped
us
evolve.
This
concept
to
what
I
feel
is
is
the
best
possible
result,
which
is
what
we're
presenting
here,
because
we
we
really
tried
to
to
listen
and
learn
and
and
make
some
development
decisions
based
on
on
that
feedback.
H
So
you
know,
I
think,
in
any
project,
you're
never
going
to
please
everybody
in
the
community,
but
I
think
it's
also
important
to
look
at
the
in
that
750
foot
radius,
the
property
owners
that
are
also
silent
on
the
issue
right
and
there's,
there's
many
more
of
those
than
those
that
have
come
out
to
speak
against
it.
B
K
Yeah,
our
hope
is
that
environmental
review
can
complete
we're
on
track
this
month
with
planning
board
and
based
on
every
meeting
with
them.
I
mean
the
very
first
meeting
was
we
will
support
every
variance,
but
we
don't
have
that
in
writing.
Yet
so
we
need
to
get
that
recommendation,
so
you
guys
can
factor
that
in
so
yeah
it
does
look
promising
that
this
month,
we'll
complete
what
we
need
at
planning
and
then
our
plan
is
to
be
back
in
december
in
front
of
you.
Guys
will
be
folks.
J
B
Stephen
or
stephanie
do
you
have
a
sense
of
how
you
feel
about
this
in
terms
of
the
number
of
asks,
the
size
of
the
asks?
How
you'd
want
to
delineate
this?
Do
you
want
to
attack
each
of
these
right
since
we've
been
working
together,
we
haven't
seen
a
a
project
with
this
many
ass.
So
how
would
you
want
to
approach
this
if
they
were
to
come
back
next
month?
E
I'm
not
quite
sure
that
I
have
a
complete
answer,
but
just
thinking
about
some
of
the
things
that
I
think
are
pros
just
you
know
first
observations.
If
you
will
I
like
that,
the
parking
is
hidden.
E
I
think
that
that
creates
a
more
welcoming
and
friendly
like
neighborhood,
like
aspect
we've
talked
about
this
and
some
of
the
other
variances
or
just
as
things
come
up
like
it
kind
of
creates
a
walkability
for
the
neighborhood,
the
the
porches
are
nice.
You
know
again
there's
kind
of
interaction
with
neighbors,
maybe
more
so
on
the
elmwood
one,
but
you
know
thinking
that
you
know
it's
in
a
different
zone
that
that's
something,
but
I'm
not
sure
in
the
other
aspect.
E
On
the
other
side,
I'm
not
sure
how
I
feel
about
the
courtyard
aspect,
just
thinking
about
neighbors
and
noise
and
creating
a
space
to
congregate.
E
C
So
not
to
step
on
your
toes
david,
but
I
think
what
the
planning
board
needs
is
feedback
on
in
the
develop
and
the
development
team
too,
is
feedback
on
where
the
board,
what
the
board
thinks
and
concerns
support
of
of
the
variance
requests.
I
think
they're
gonna.
You
know.
The
planning
board,
of
course,
has
talked
a
lot
about
some
of
the
things
that
we're
discussing
as
well.
C
But
you
know
they
aren't
the
ones
that
look
at
the
variances
and
that's
on
you
guys
so
they're
all
looking
to
you
to
hear
what
your
reaction
is
to
the
actual
variance
request
and
how
and
that's
why
they
want
this
feedback
to
go
into
the
environmental
review.
B
Makes
sense
thanks
for
that
steven
your
input
and
then
I
can
sort
of
yeah
I
can.
I
can
sort
of
sum
up
where
my
head's
at.
F
B
Thanks,
so
all
right,
so
to
sort
of
keep
to
megan's
point.
If
I
were
to
discuss
this
with
planning
board
members
or
the
design
staff
one
right,
it's
it's
a
really
nice
design
these
homes.
These
are
going
to
be
expensive
structures
to
build,
and
they
look
nice
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
talk
about.
You
know
the
one
section
was
up
zoned
and
and
if
these
buildings
were
to
burn,
you
know
you
couldn't
rebuild
what
you
have
there
currently
right
and
that's
a
that's.
B
A
theme
as
a
city
is,
is
just
sort
of
codified
into
our
zoning.
So
I
think
we
need
to
ask
ourselves
well
why.
Why
is
the
zoning
the
way
it
is,
and
why
is
it
that
you
need
this
amount
of
variances
to
put
forth
this
type
of
project,
even
though
it's
a
good
design
and
the
undertone
there
is
that
the
zoning
in
in
many
aspect
is
designed
to
prohibit
construction
right
is
designed
to
prohibit
density,
and
that
might
be
the
case,
and
I
I
also
have
strong
feelings
about
that.
B
B
You
know
someone's
going
beyond
that,
allowed
right
and
they're
sort
of
delineating
what
is
an
acceptable
encroachment
or
or
advancement
beyond
what
what
somebody's
entitled
to
so.
I
think
the
zoning
here,
even
though
one
section
was
up
zoning
that
up
zoning
might
not
have
been
enough
to
get
the
type
of
density
or
or
massing
that
a
project
team
envisions
or
needs
to
to
get
to
in
order
to
make
a
project
work.
B
But
it's
still
that
that's
the
zoning
and
then,
if
you
look
at
the
other
zone
it
it's
intended
to
to
sort
of
prohibit
people
from
from
doing
something
new
or
creative.
B
That's
not
a
that's,
not
a
matter
that
gets
resolved
at
the
planning
board
or
the
the
bza.
That's
a
legislative
process
through
common
council
in
conjunction
with
planning
staff
and
the
input
of
neighbors,
and
in
this
case
neighbors
don't
want
this,
whether
or
not
we
agree
or
or
can
sift
through.
B
All
the
the
merits
of
each
argument,
you
know
it
factors
in,
but
that's
my
sense
of
this
is
that
you've
you've
designed
a
project
that
you're
not
entitled
to
build
and-
and
you
should
try
to
really
build
something
that
you're
entitled
to
by
right
and
that
might
not
get
you
the
best
outcome
right.
Imperfect
zoning
often
leads
to
imperfect
outcomes
or
imperfect
structures,
and
that's
again
that's
a
that's
a
greater
conversation
that
as
a
community
we
should
be
having.
B
But
but
that's
where
we're
at
right,
so
you're
tearing
down
buildings
that
are
in
use
that
are
functioning.
You
know,
there's
no
hardship
at
that
point.
Currently
there
is
no
hardship.
B
Yes,
the
utility
could
be
increased,
but
you'd
be
stepping
outside
your
bounds
or
you
could
you
could
downsize
the
project
as
a
whole,
or
maybe
you
just
do
do
one
building
lot
or
I
think
you
still
have
outlets
to
to
put
forth
a
project
that
conforms
to
a
greater
effect
and-
and
you
might
be
hogtied
in
some
senses,
but
that
those
are
the
result
of
things
that
are
outside
of
our
our
purview
and
our
control.
And
that's
what
I
think
I
don't
know
if,
if
board
members
agree
or
or
what.
E
I
think
there's
merit
to
say
again
that
well
yes,
there
are
many
people
that
could
speak
in
favor
like
neighbors
could
speak
in
favor
of
the
project,
but
there
are
many
that
step
forward,
and
typically
there
aren't
as
many
comments
that
are
brought
forward.
E
You
know
with
these
concerns,
so
I
think
that
there
is
yes,
some
things
to
consider
for
sure
again
reiterating
sure
it's
a
nice
design,
it
could
be
built,
you
know
more
efficiently,
it's
helping
with
housing
possibly,
but
there
is
a
huge
concern
in
the
neighborhood,
and
I
think
that
that
should
you
know
be
addressed
in
some
way
and
you
know
maybe
take
a
a
second
third
or
fourth
look
at
the
project.
Considering
the
number
of
concerns
that
have
been
brought
forward.
B
I
I
guess
I'll
add
to
that
I
mean
I
I'm
a
big
proponent
of
you,
know
private
property
rights
and
doing
exactly
what
you
you
can
within
that
that
envelope-
and
I
respect
you
know,
even
even
though
it's
sometimes
sort
of
like
a
a
contest
to
see
who
can
get
the
most
letters
for
which
side
you
know.
Ultimately,
when
people
do
organize
and
say
their
piece
that
you
know,
I
respect
the
coordination
that
goes
into
that
effort.
B
But
it
is,
I
guess,
ask
yourselves,
is
it?
Is
it
worth
tearing
down
your
building,
that's
in
use
currently
to
to
build
a
smaller
project
that
complies
with
your
property
rights
and
to
do
so
in
the
same
aesthetic
that
that
you've
already
committed
yourselves
to
here,
which
I
do
think
isn't,
is
in
character
with
the
neighborhood.
These
are.
B
These
are
very
nice
designs
and,
like
I
said
I
they
will
be
expensive
to
build,
and
so
maybe
that
could
be
compiled
and
if
you
come
in
front
of
the
full
board
for
for
a
variance
or
how
many
variances
you
come
in
front
of
the
full
board
for
something
to
really
articulate.
Well,
what
are
your
hardships
for
tearing
down
a
non-conforming
structure
to
then
build
a
brand
new,
larger
non-conforming
structure.
B
And
then
I,
I
guess
I'll
just
compil
you
as
far
as
conjunct,
you
know
the
planning
board
and
the
bza.
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
opportunities
for
our
two
boards
to
to
work
together,
different
mandates
and-
and
you
know,
I
look
forward
to
those
types
of
opportunities
or
conversations
down
the
road.
H
J
H
Quality
or
full
understanding
of
the
project
of
the
public
comment,
I
think,
does
really
need
to
be
considered,
even
though
there
are
folks
that
did
come
out
to
speak
against
it.
You
know
one
of
the
folks
that
said
the
project
was
too
big.
Has
a
building
facade?
That's
you
know
almost
10
feet
longer
than
what's
being
proposed
and
a
commercial
use.
So
I
think
there's
some
of
that
that
has
to
has
to
go
in
and
out.
I
would.
H
I
would
ask
the
board
just
to
really
consider
yes
just
be
just
because
there
are
four
comments
that
came
forward.
Do
those
four
comments
have
a
full
understanding
and
of
the
nuance
and
of
the
nature
of
a
corner
lot
that
creates
a
challenge
right,
because
if
325
was
somewhere
else,
the
75
feet
would
make
sense
right
or
some
of
the
mitigation
efforts
or
when
combining
the
lot,
the
additional
green
space.
So
I
just
think
that
that's
you
know
one
piece
that
that
I
would
really
hope
would
have.
H
Some
consideration
is
full
understanding
of
of
public
comment.
So
that's,
let's
just
kind
of
where
I
would
say
you
know,
on
the
public
common
front,
it's
important
to
to
fully
have
a
full
understanding
and
in
a
way,
those
public
comments
and.
G
K
And
they're
supportive
that
one
single-family
homeowner
they're
the
ones
impacted,
and
you
know
I
would
just
say-
maybe
I
don't
understand
the
zoning
appeal
process,
but
that's
why
I
did
that
deep
dive
in
the
in
the
narrative.
I
do
just
want
to
say
you
know
the
the
balancing
test
is
important.
You
know,
so
I'm
always
searching
for
answers
to
the
question
of
you
know:
what's
the
detriment
to
the
neighborhood
and
how
is
that
outweighing
the
benefit
to
the
applicant?
You
know
what
is
what
is
really
happening
here.
K
We
don't
have
floor
area
ratios,
we
don't
have
other
things
that
are
are
very
rigid
about
how
you
can
do
things,
and
you
know
when
we
trigger
things
like
a
surplus
of
green
space.
That's
a
balancing
act
right
to
say:
okay,
we've
we've
got
that
green
space.
We've
added
the
character
to
the
neighborhood.
You
know
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
don't
know
that
we
can
say
you
know
10
more
people
or
13
more
people
living
here
is
going
to
have
any
any
impact
you
know.
K
But
what
I'd
like
to
know
is
is
what
is
that
impact?
And
you
know,
I
think
there
are
other
control
mechanisms
you
know,
and
chris
and
greg
are,
are
going
to
have
strong
lease
terms,
and
you
know
they
want
studious
people
and
they
don't
want
to.
They
don't
want
to
party
house
right
we're
going
to
spend
some
money
here
to
build
an
expensive
building
and
they
don't
want
it
destroyed.
So
that's
not
what
we're
doing
and
the
unit
unit
mix
and
the
unit
size
was
important,
be
different.
K
H
If
I
can
ask
one
more
question
too,
there
and
megan's
probably
heard
me
ask
this
before
there's
this
notion
about
you
know.
H
Right
and
this
you
know
it's
a
lot
of
variances.
Is
there
an
ideal
number
for
the
bza
right
when
it's
when
it's
not
so
many
or
you
know
the
total
impact
of
those
right
because
to
try
to
create
a
the
rear
yard,
which
is
a
complicated
issue,
that's
created
by
the
corner
lot.
You
know
we
bumped
the
building
out.
So
there's
one
that's
six
feet.
We
could
lop
off
that
corner
and
it
would
be
an
awkwardly
designed
building
right,
but
it
would
be
compliant.
H
H
Because
there's
a
lot
of
conversation
about
there's
so
many,
but
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
those
that
are
really
nuanced
and
minor
that
are
specific
to
the
to
the
lot
and
to
the
challenges
of
a
corner
lot.
A
lot.
That's
combined
with
different.
You
know,
you
know
see
our
the
different
the
different
zones,
so
I
just
would
be
curious
on
the
board's
feedback
on
on
what
is
ideal
other
than
you
know.
It's
a
it's
the
board
to
go
to
for
an
appeal
right,
so
you
come
to
hear
the
appeals.
H
So
there's
gonna
be
some
request
or
some
ask,
but
like
at
what
point?
Does
it
not
become
a
lot
and
at
what
point
is
it?
You
know,
okay,
to
ask
for
something
or
how
do
we
look
at
the
significance
of
some
of
the
variances
that
we're
asking
so
that
it's
not
perceived?
As
you
know,
it's
not
like.
We
have
eight
requests
and
it's
a
use
variance.
You
know
those
type
of
things
just
just
trying
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
that.
E
E
You
know
it's
the
overall
delivery
and
there's
other.
You
know
projects
that
we've
looked
at
where
you
know
it's
a
smaller
overage.
The
significant
ones
typically
get
tabled
to
make
sure
that
you
have
another
opportunity
to
review
those
when
coming
to
the
board
for
review.
So
it's
not.
I
wouldn't
look
at
it
as
a
number.
It's
the
overall
package
in
the
delivery,
and
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
address
is
that
you
should
make
some
other
considerations.
K
It
if,
if
I
may,
I
would
just
throw
out
one
of
the
control
mechanisms
that
were
building
in-
and
I
mentioned
it
before-
was
consolidating
the
lot
and
that
that
does
introduce
a
question
about
how
zoning
is
applied.
But
let
me
throw
out
a
scenario:
what
if
we
took
down
320
completely
and
just
built
a
bigger
parking
lot,
you
know:
does
that
does
that
solve
the
the
density
piece,
even
though
there's
more
you
know
on
the
325
and
that
that's
triggering
a
lot
coverage.
K
You
know
again,
it's
it's
one
lot,
you
know,
so
you
know
that's
why
I
like
these
views
here.
It's
like
what
is
the
impact
and
what's
the
detriment
you
know
I
mean
I
appreciate
what
greg's
getting
at
with
you
know.
How
do
we
quantify
too
many
and
all
that?
But
you
know
the
zoning
appeal
process
is
just
to
look
at
what
what
are
the
controls
in
zoning
and
then
what
what
detriments
are
created
by
these?
K
What
are
area
variances,
dimensional
variances-
and
you
know
yes,
it
gives
a
the
applicant
a
benefit,
but
again,
how
is
it
impacting
the
neighborhood?
That's
that's
a
question.
I
always
want
to
know
the
answer
to
and
I
I
struggle
with
that.
C
So
I
think
I
don't
know
if
other
board
members
have
additional
comments.
I
think
you've
heard
feedback
from
the
board.
I
will
say
from
a
staff
perspective
jason.
If
you
decide
to
build
a
giant
parking
lot,
I
think
you're
going
to
then
have
trouble
with
both
the
bza
and
the
planning
board,
but
I
I
think
you
have
some
feedback
to
go
with
to
look
into
we'll
type
up
these
comments
and
get
them
to
the
planning
board
and
we
will
I'll
be
in
touch
with
you.
C
I
guess
before
the
december
meeting
to
see
if
if
there
are
any
changes
or
how
you
would
like
to
proceed
and,
of
course,
that
a
lot
of
that's
the
outcome
of
the
planning
board
as
well
so
again,
unless
any
board
members
have
anything
further
to
add,
but
I
feel
like
we're
starting
to
kind
of
talk
in
circles
a
bit
so.
B
Yeah
I'll
just
real
quick,
I
guess
the
ideal
circumstances
is
when
you
don't
need
a
variance
at
all
right
and
that's
really.
The
underlying
issue
is
well
here.
B
Why
is
it
that
so
many
projects
have
to
ask
for
so
many
variances?
So
there's
a
lot
of
opportunity
for
for
planning
and
planning
staff
to
to
work
with
council
or
work
with
the
parties
at
b
to
start
to
look
at
some
of
these
things.
This
is
a
recent
zoning
designation
though
so
there
are
other
areas
of
our
city
that
have,
you
know,
really
outdated
areas
or
places
where
we
could
improve
on.
So
that
would
be
a
conversation
I
think
is,
you
know,
is
this
intention
of
this
transitional
zone
being
upheld?
B
Does
it
need
to
be
revised,
but
in
the
meantime
I
think
your
hands
are
a
bit
tied
and
whether
that's
by
design
or
or
through
the
the
metrics
that
led
you
down
this
path,
to
trying
to
push
for
something
that
you're
not
entitled
to
by
right?
B
That's
that's
up
for
debate,
but
I
think
it'll
be
a
hard
sell
for
me
at
least
going
forward
not
because
of
of
the
failures
of
the
design
in
terms
of
its
amenities
or
its
aesthetics,
but
just
because
it
it's
just
a
site
in
which
you're
not
allowed
to
build
what
you're
trying
to
build.
So
that's
that's
my
standpoint
at
least.
C
Okay,
stephanie
or
steven
did
you
have
anything
further.
F
F
I
think
that
it's
the
responsibility
of
the
party
requesting
the
variances
to
make
sure
that
the
surrounding
neighbors
understand
those
points.
So
I
don't
think
that
I
think
that's
something
to
consider
moving
forward
as
well.
H
I
K
Yeah
we've
we've
heard
a
lot
of
these
same
public
comments
from
the
first
planet
board
meeting
when
there
wasn't
a
public
hearing.
It's
the
same.
It's
the
same
dialogue
and
there's
statements
about
not
enough
green
space,
even
though
the
proposal's
changing
it's
like
they
haven't,
looked
at
the
the
latest
submissions
and
or
attended
the
hearings.
B
It's
frustrating
for
for
you
guys,
I
I
understand,
so
I
think
I
think
certain
board
members
will
come
at
this
from
different
angles
if
it
comes
to
the
board
in
a
month.
B
If,
if
the
planning
board
goes,
you
know
decides
to
continue
this,
that
that's,
I
guess,
we'll
consult
with
megan
and
see
what
those
channels
decide
and
see
how
everybody
wants
to
proceed.
But
I
you
know
it's
it's
a
learned.
B
It's
a
learned
opinion
right
and
it's
a
frustrating
one,
but
that's
the
conclusion
I
come
to
is
all
right.
Well,
we
should
try
everything
we
can
to
just
try
to
build
something
within
our
rights
and
at
a
certain
point
we
have
to
ask
ourselves.
B
Like
mr
mizzy
said,
you
know,
why
is
it
that
we're
not
able
to
get
the
density
that
we
want
that
we're
not
able
to
add
the
housing
units
that
as
a
community,
we
we
profess
that
we
want
at
some
point
it's
it's
the
zoning
itself
or
or
the
intent
of
this
neighborhood
is
working
right
and
and
if
that's
the
intent
or
of
this
locale,
then
then
they're
saying
that
what
you're
trying
to
build
you're,
just
you're
not
able
to
build
in
its
current
form.
F
B
C
That
was
our
last
appeal
for
this
evening.
I
did
have
minutes
on
the
agenda,
but
did
not
get
them
out
to
all,
so
we
will
come
back
to
them
next
month.
C
Let
me
just
I,
but
I
think
that
is
less
no
last
item
of
business
that
we
had
sorry
I'm
just
kind
of
moving
our
applicants,
so
we
can
do
the
administrative
stuff.
Okay,
so
I
think,
as
we
said
at
the
beginning,
mike
and
joe
were
joining
us
to
kind
of
observe.
Hopefully
I
mean
I
see
them
both
still
logged
on.
C
So
hopefully
they
didn't
decide
to
withdraw
their
application
in
the
mobile
meeting
or
anything
like
that,
but
I
did
want
to
leave
them
the
opportunity
to
ask
any
questions
of
the
board
not
put
them
on
the
spot.
But
if
you
do
have
any
questions,
you're
certainly
welcome
to
ask
board
members,
while
they're
here.
I
No
thanks,
it
was
interesting
and
it's
pretty
much
what
I
expected.
I
I
do
think
I'm
gonna
have
to
wait
till
january
to
join,
though
there
were
a
number
of
situations
here
that
would
have
been
uncomfortable
for
me.
C
Okay,
you
and
I
can
talk
further
about
that.
C
And
go
from
there,
I
don't.
A
C
All
right,
well,
david,
if
you
want
to
close
our
meeting
I'll
end
us
on
youtube
and.