TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Approved: July 19, 2017

Present: Chair George Tselekis, and board members Andy Hillman, Bob Howarth, David Means, Steve Morreale, and board alternate Cheryl Thompson; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley.

Public in Attendance: Mel Russo, Nancy Cool, Fred Cuafell, Joep Bor, Durga Bor, Judith Abrams, Sherman Kelly, Lucy Keeler, Robert Cooper, Nancy Cusumano, Steve Sturdevant, Dan Clement, Tracy Seaman, Pat Seaman, Karen Springer, Chris Hyde, Ken Kearl, Bob Sprole, Vera Vico, Rob Lynch, Lorren Hammond, Dolores Higareda, Nancy Almann, Sally Yates, Adriana Diaz, Gail Mott, Greg Subtelny, Erica Ingleich, James Dunn, M. Lasshorn, Caryn Sheckler, Frost Travis, Rebecca VonBergen, Amanda Kirchgessner, John Vico, June Dunn, Dale Strok, Mike Strok, Chris Burdick, Diane Lynn, Jason Demarest, Carl Mazzocone, Jason Chace, Noy Davis, Brian Davis.

Call to Order: 7 p.m.

Mr. Tselekis began by saying the evening’s public hearing notices were published in the Ithaca Journal on June 15, and many written comments were submitted to and received by the Town, all of which will be part of the record. The hearing will remain open until members of the public have made their comments.

Public Hearing: Appeal by Kenneth and Patricia Kearl for area variance(s) under Section 212-54 Lot Area and Yard Requirements of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. This is for the purpose of constructing a 10 ft by 18 ft accessory building, where the distance from the lakeshore would be 13 +/- feet, and 40 feet is the required setback for accessory buildings. The property is located in the LS-Lakeshore District at 1513 Taughannock Blvd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number is 18.-1-19.8.

Mr. Kearl said he has a 25 to 30-foot wide area by the waterfront where he recently installed a concrete pad to accommodate the proposed storage shed. The pad is located at 385.5 feet elevation, which is two feet above Cayuga Lake’s mean high water mark. He is requesting the variance because a cliff prevents him from meeting the setback requirement. The building will serve as a storage shed for lake equipment, like canoes and life vests, and he intends to build a dock as well.

Mr. Tselekis reported the Town received correspondences regarding the project (please see written comments included as supplemental documents to these minutes).

Mr. Sprole – an immediate neighbor to the north – addressed the Board in support of Mr. Kearl’s proposal. He has no objections. Board of Zoning Appeals 2 June 21, 2017

Ms. Higareda, of Bradley Street, said the purpose of the lakefront setback is to buffer against fluctuations in the lake level. It is really questionable that someone would propose a building 13 feet from the lake, she said.

The BZA began its review. Mr. Means asked about the precise location of the building on the concrete slab. Mr. Kearl said he intends to place the building on the slab’s southwest corner. Further, during the spring’s excessive rains, the patio area did not flood, he said, but he would be willing to anchor the proposed building to the patio as a safety precaution.

Mr. Howarth asked how close the lake level had come to flooding his property during heavy April rains, and Mr. Kearl said there was some erosion but the lake levels remained roughly 8 to 12 inches from breaching his property. Mr. Howarth reintroduced accepted minutes from the BZA’s August 19, 2015 meeting, where Board members reviewed a similar proposal from Mr. Kearl. In that meeting, Mr. Howarth stressed the high likelihood of severe flooding over the next several years, and noted the occurrence of two 100-year floods over the last 20 years. The proposal poses a high flood risk, and Mr. Howarth cannot support it. Asked if he had a response to the BZA’s previous concerns posed at the August 2015 meeting, Mr. Kearl said there is a 5- percent slope on the patio itself, and he could use pressure-treated wood to build the structure up higher. Part of the concern in 2015 was he did not have a concrete patio in place, but he does now. The storage shed could then be anchored to the patio. If there’s potential for a 100-year flood, that is my risk, Mr. Kearl said, adding that he plans to pursue a DEC permit to install rip wrap along the shoreline to limit erosion. Mr. Morreale said there were also previous concerns with potential pollutants being stored in the shed, posing a contamination risk in the event of flooding. Mr. Kearl said he would ensure no such contaminants would be stored in the shed.

Mr. Means noted the BZA had suggested Mr. Kearl have the concrete pad engineered, and it appears that job was well done. He did not feel the concrete pad was going anywhere, and said constructing the shed slightly higher and adding anchors would be favorable. Mr. Kearl said he had previously proposed two buildings on the parcel and was told to consolidate both into a single building and install it on a pad. I followed that advice, he said. Mr. Hillman asked if Mr. Kearl planned to build the storage shed large enough to accommodate a future sauna, as proposed in 2015. Mr. Kearl said yes and that he intends to add a breaker board to control lighting for the future patio and dock area. Responding to a question from Ms. Thompson, Mr. Kearl said he looked at the height of his neighbor’s dock to determine the elevation of the concrete pad.

Mr. Hillman also cited hardening of the shoreline as a previous concern with Mr. Kearl’s proposal. It is a larger concern considering Mr. Kearl plans to add rip-rap to the shoreline, he said. Additionally, electricity was not discussed under the previous proposal for the storage shed. Mr. Kearl said the concrete pad is already installed; there is no further hardening. Further, the installation of a water barrier along the property’s lakeside edge does not constitute hardening and should not be under consideration, he said. As for electricity for the storage shed, he reiterated that power will be needed for the future dock. Mr. Morreale felt hardening is an appropriate consideration for the BZA because it has environmental impacts. Mr. Hillman again offered that it sounded like the future plan was for a combination storage shed and sauna, to Board of Zoning Appeals 3 June 21, 2017 which Mr. Kearl said a sauna by the lake is not a bad thing and would enhance the lakefront experience.

Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION, and Mr. Hillman SECONDED the MOTION as follows:

The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicants against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance is granted by considering the five statutory factors. Benefit sought by applicants is to build an accessory located 13 feet instead of 40 feet from the mean high water line:

1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variances.

There are no structures along the lakeshore in the vicinity of the property, so the accessory building would create an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Also the structure may contribute to further shoreline hardening.

2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances.

A cliff limits how far from the lake the building could be located, however the applicant could store items closer to the house.

3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial.

The area variance for the setback - 13 ft as opposed to 40 ft - is substantial.

4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.

The applicant noted that the patio did not flood during high lake levels during this past year, however as noted in our 8/19/15 decision, the additional structures along the lakeshore have an adverse impact on the physical conditions. Specifically several floods have occurred in recent decades to levels well above the proposed floor level on the proposed structure and the site is within the FEMA designated flood zone as documented in the minutes of 8/19/15 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.

The difficulty is self-created because the applicant is choosing to build the building along the shoreline.

6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, the accessory building may have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, the cliff limits other location options along the shoreline but there are options closer to the house, setback variance is substantial, the construction of a building along the Board of Zoning Appeals 4 June 21, 2017 shoreline will adversely affect the environmental and physical conditions, and difficulty is self- created. Therefore the benefits to the applicants do not outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood.

For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, it is the opinion of the BZA that the appeal for an area variance be denied.

The vote was as follows:

Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means NAY Mr. Morreale AYE

Result: Variance denied

Mr. Kearl said he disagreed with the decision and that the intent of the shed is to keep recreation equipment out of sight. He will move ahead with building a dock and protecting his property. He left the meeting at 7:27 p.m.

SEQR Determination and Public Hearing: Appeal by TFI Landco, LLC for area variances under Section 212-122 Standards for Signs for the B1-Business District of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. The property is located at 2030 Gorge Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Numbers are 14.-1-11, 14.-3-18.1, and 14.-3-18.2.

Signs – For the purpose of installing new and replacing existing signs on the three parcels of the Inn at Taughannock, the applicant is pursuing the following area variances:

On Tax Parcel Number 14.-1-11 on the north side of Gorge Rd, the proposal includes three (3) business directional signs and two (2) freestanding signs. The zoning law allows for no more than two (2) business directional signs per parcel, and business directional signs are limited to six (6) feet in height and six (6) square feet. Sign #1, a business directional sign on the northern boundary with Taughannock Falls State Park, is proposed to be 14.3 feet tall with a surface area of 35.7 square feet. Sign #4, the second business directional sign to be located on the western Inn entrance on Gorge Rd, would have a height of 7.4 feet and surface area of 20.5 square feet. Sign #5, the third business directional sign to be located at the eastern Inn entrance on Gorge Rd, would have a height of 12.8 feet and surface area of 35.8 square feet.

The zoning law allows for one freestanding sign with a height limit of 15 feet and area of 24 square feet. The applicant is proposing two (2) freestanding signs. Sign #2 would be parallel to Trumansburg Rd with a height of six (6) feet and a surface area of 133.5 square feet. Sign #3 would replace the existing sign at the corner of Taughannock Blvd and Gorge Rd. The sign is proposed to be 14.9 feet tall with a surface area of 104.4 square feet.

Board of Zoning Appeals 5 June 21, 2017

On Tax Parcel Number 14.-3-18.2 on the south side of Gorge Rd, eastern parcel, the proposal includes one business directional sign and one freestanding sign. Sign #6, a business directional sign at the driveway entrance for the Lakeview building, would have a height of 9.0 feet and surface area of 24.8 square feet, exceeding both the height and surface area requirements. Sign #10, a freestanding sign to be located along Taughannock Blvd south of Gorge Rd, would have a height of 8.1 feet and surface area of 23.8 square feet and meets the zoning requirements.

Public Hearing: Appeal by TFI Landco, LLC for area variances under Section 212-92 D, 212- 92 E, 212-92 G, and 212-120 B(3). The property is located at 2030 Gorge Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Numbers are 14.-1-11 in the B1-Business District of the Town of Ulysses.

Setbacks – For the purpose of constructing a new building between Gorge Rd and the existing main inn building, the proposed building, referred to as the gatehouse and stables, would not meet the required 30 foot front yard setback at the Gorge Rd right of way. The proposed building would be located as close as 1.4 feet to the right of way and 1.7 feet to a side yard that borders New York State Parks parcel at the corner of Taughannock Blvd and Gorge Rd. The required side yard setback is 15 feet.

Height – The maximum building height in the B1-Business District is 32 feet, and building height is defined as the distance from the average grade level to the highest point of a building. The proposed building would have a height of 46.1 feet so a variance for the additional 14.1 feet is needed. A cupola is proposed for the top of the existing Inn. This will increase the existing building height by 6.75 feet from 57.8 feet inches to 64.6 feet.

Noise – The applicant is requesting a variance to the noise standard of zoning code section 212- 120 B(3), which states that the sound at a boundary of the property changes at 11:00 p.m. from a permitted limit prior to 11:00 p.m. of 90 dBa to a limit after 11:00 p.m. of 55 dBa. The applicant would like to extend the 90 dBa limit to 1:30 a.m.

Mr. Mazzocone began with an extensive review of the project, its history and explained his relationship to the Ithaca and Trumansburg area. He spent a year weighing the financials of the Inn business and researching the area before purchasing the Inn in February 2013. Since then, he has spent each day restoring it since the Inn was in terrible condition, and he felt the Inn was an underutilized asset to the community, a true landmark. The Inn is a place where thousands took their first job, had their first date, and celebrated anniversaries; it is a public house for all people. We want to host events like weddings and cocktail parties, he said, because that is the business we need to succeed. He said he hopes people here can drop any hostilities they might have and look at this business as a friend to the community. Thus far, Mr. Mazzocone said he has spent $1 million fixing priority items at the Inn. The Sheridans owned the Inn for 20 years and did the best they could, but did not make the kind of money necessary to reinvest into the business. A great hotel needs to upgrade every five to 10 years to remain successful. He urged community members to visit the Inn. A path to the park has already been installed, and the Inn hosts an annual Fourth of July fireworks show; people seem to love the recent updates, but he said he needs this new construction. This latest project is a reiteration of an original proposal from a Los Angeles architect who designed a large event center. However, after meeting with local architect Board of Zoning Appeals 6 June 21, 2017

Jason Demarest, the original design was scaled back. Mr. Mazzocone said he proposed the project the correct way – by inquiring first with Ms. Kiley.

Lastly, he said people have written things about him that are not true. He has been referred to as the “Hollywood guy” but has a history with the area. He attended Ithaca College from 1977 to 1981 and while working in Los Angeles hired more than 50 interns from his alma matter and placed them in jobs. He has lectured at the college’s film school and has family members who have attended school here. He has read several of the neighbors’ letters, and there is a certain level of hysteria. He understands the concern. He said he does not want to destroy anyone’s life or property and asks that the audience hear his proposal.

At this time, Mr. Demarest led a thorough overview of the project proposal, covering each variance request. In regard to the Stables building, he said the applicant wishes to have ample space between the Stables and the Inn and avoid having to cut down an old gingko tree, thus the variance for the setback. Mr. Mazzocone added that the 1.5 feet distance is from the Stables to the Department of Transportation’s right of way, not the roadway. That still leaves nearly 20 feet of space between the building and the roadway. It is an insignificant request, he said.

As for the signage variances, Mr. Mazzocone said the previous Inn owner was limited by the current sign law. The Inn is a hotel and needs appropriate signage.

Mr. Demarest said frequency of truck deliveries at the Inn will be unchanged over the current schedule; trucks will simply be delivering more food supplies per trip. He noted current zoning allows for a 70 percent maximum lot coverage area, and the proposed Inn in total is about 30 percent. The applicant wishes to retain the lawn areas, trees and open space. Returning to the setback variance, Mr. Demarest reiterated Mr. Mazzocone’s earlier statement that there will still be roughly 20 feet of space between the Stables building and the Gorge Road roadway. He noted the Stables will not impact or obstruct anyone’s view and made the point that increased density close to the roadway typically causes motorists to slow down.

In regard to the height variance, he found it unusual that the Town of Ulysses does not exempt spires and cupolas since many municipalities do. These architectural features add beauty.

Displaying aerial shots and 3D mock-ups, Mr. Demarest again noted the Inn’s total 50,000 square foot footprint and compared it to several nearby Taughannock Park parking areas that are anywhere from 35,000 to as much as 53,000 square feet of footprint. A nearby home construction has 26,000 square feet of footprint. It is hard to take when we are told the Inn proposal is too big, he said.

Returning to the sign variances, Mr. Demarest said Fred Bonn of the State Parks seemed to be supportive of the sign proposal. Mr. Mazzocone feels the Town zoning is written with a Main- Street aesthetic in mind. With three driveways and commuters on Route 89, the Inn needs appropriate signage and the variance requests should be granted considering the size of the property. This is not a normal business.

Board of Zoning Appeals 7 June 21, 2017

Referencing concerns from neighbors over potential noise, Mr. Mazzocone said he does not want to disturb your lives; this will not be Grassroots, but a wedding band and a DJ. If wedding guests want to come to the Inn and dance until 1:30 a.m., he wants to make that happen. He said he is confident neighbors will not hear music. At the recent Trumansburg Porchfest, he hired a band to play outside and sent a coworker up the road to gauge volume. The coworker, in attendance, said he heard no music, only cars driving by. Mr. Mazzocone said he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens at the Inn and believes he can self-police any noise concerns because he already does it. The Inn has a small bar, and last call is at 10:30 p.m. Saturday. There are guests upstairs. This is the insurance policy you have that noise will never become a nuisance. He concluded by saying he will give his cellphone number to every neighbor within one mile, and they can call him personally if they hear music coming from the Inn. He will take care of it.

The presentation concluded at 8:45 p.m. At this time, Mr. Tselekis welcomed members of the public to offer their comments. Several written comments were submitted and are included as supplemental documents to these minutes.

Ms. Springer, of Swamp College Road, said her daughter was recently married and had to leave the area to find a wedding venue. It is important to consider how important the Inn is to younger people. Also, the current signage is horrible and makes the Inn’s driveway off Route 89 difficult to find. Citing neighbors’ concerns with traffic and safety, she proposed reducing the speed limit in the area near the Inn.

Mr. Kelly, of Taughannock Boulevard, said he is concerned about the potential for excessive noise at the Inn. During the summer, the Park hosts eight outdoor concerts from 7 to 9 p.m. and campers are required to comply with quiet hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The Inn’s request for a 1:30 a.m. extension is a glaring violation of Park policy and a significant disruption to the peaceful neighborhood. Sound carries on the lakeshore; it is disingenuous to characterize any noise as negligible or no louder than a bird call. The applicants should fund a sound study.

Ms. Abrams, of Taughannock Boulevard, cited the potential for increased traffic as her major concern. There will be many more visitors and more vehicles. The Inn is counting on park visitors for business at the grill and ice cream parlor. These customers – including children – will be crossing a state highway. There have been several accidents on Route 89 in the 45-mph area.

A member of the audience asked Mr. Mazzocone what the tent roof will be made of. He said a typical fabric for a large tent, like a plastic.

Ms. Kirchgessner, of Jacksonville Road, said she worked at a Lansing business that had late- night music. The business was easily able to comply with a 10 p.m. music cut-off. The Town needs to consider safety of the neighborhood and people along Route 89. She has no objection to expanding the Inn.

Ms. Bor, of Willow Creek Road, spoke out against noise. Willow Creek already hears outdoor music from the Inn. The tent will not shield noise; she said she can hear bands from Northpoint. She invited any Board member to her house to hear it for themselves. She called the setback Board of Zoning Appeals 8 June 21, 2017 variance for the Stables preposterous, considering Gorge Road is steep and curvy. A structure so close to the road is a safety hazard.

Ms. Higareda, of Bradley Street, said the essence of these requests is more than feet and inches; it is the commercialization of the park. The Inn would parasitically operate at the expense of a long line of tradition at the Park, where many memories have been made. The area has no shortage of restaurants and bars, while there is only one Taughannock Park, a haven away from commercial life. She is against the large sign proposed at the front of the Inn, and proposed moving the Stables to the other side of Gorge Road.

A resident read a letter on behalf of Stan Stewart, of Kraft Road, who wrote that there is no reason to approve the variances. He can hear people talking and the sounds of jet skis at Myers Park, across the lake. Building height, traffic, noise are all concerns; signs can be reduced. The Park serves as a rare public access point to the lake. Having an arcade, salon and other businesses does not fit with the character of the Park.

Mr. Clement, of Taughannock Boulevard, said the Inn has the same zoning as a liquor store. The applicants are trying to force as much development as possible. Setbacks were created for a reason; a larger return on investment is not a justification for granting the variance. He suggested the Inn will take income away from the Park by granting free admission on account of its close proximity.

Mr. Strok said he likes the design somewhat and believes it to be attractive. However, he is concerned about noise and wonders if the tent structure can contain live music. He would like to see a noise study before a decision is made.

Dr. Almann, of Willow Creek Road, said she supports the Inn development as long as the project does not exceed current zoning. Having purchased properties before, she said her offers were contingent on variance requests. It would have been incumbent on the applicant to do the same. The scale of the project is indicative of the number of pages of variance requests. It is too large. She spoke with three wedding venues who self-regulate live music at 10 p.m., with one owner quoted as saying there is no reason to play music after 10 p.m. Music is best kept inside but not in a tent. The noise variance extension to 1:30 a.m. is a substantial change. The Inn will be in direct conflict with existing Park businesses. She cautioned the Board to consider that any granted variance from this proposal opens the door for future businesses to request similar variances.

Mr. Lynch read a statement on the behalf of Morris Klein, who argued the applicant has failed to show just cause for the setback variance. Elsewhere, there is no justification to extend live music until 1:30 a.m. Noise carries across the lake and could be a potential problem for east-side lakeshore property owners.

Ms. Cool read a statement on behalf of Sarah Adams, who requested the BZA deny the variances for setback, height, sign and noise. Historically, Ms. Adams argued, variance requests are intended to remedy a defect that is not self-created. This is not the case with the Inn proposal. The setback variance alone is substantial and could negatively affect the neighborhood. Safety Board of Zoning Appeals 9 June 21, 2017

and noise are other concerns which New York State law requests justification. The proximity of the Inn to Taughannock Park makes the variance requests of even greater concern because we all have a stake in preserving this natural resource. These hardships prompting the variance requests are self-created.

Ms. Cusumano, of Dubois Road, spoke against the noise variance request. She noted topography, temperature and elevation can affect how far noise carries. There needs to be a sound study from an engineer. Allowing bands to play late at the Inn would mean there would be no grounds to deny similar requests from Town bars and live music venues.

Mr. Bor, of Willow Creek Road, said he is concerned about noise and traffic, calling the noise variance unacceptable even despite the applicant’s guarantees. He is not convinced the Inn expansion will benefit the community and believes it would substantially change the neighborhood. The Inn is a business enterprise to generate money for the applicant, not the community.

Mr. Burdick lives within a mile of the Inn, is a frequent customer at the restaurant, and spoke in support of the proposal. He said he experiences the traffic issues on a daily basis. People will be crossing Route 89 regardless of what is happening at the Inn. The Inn benefits the community.

Mr. Seaman, of Willow Creek Road, spoke in support of Mr. Mazzocone’s proposal. The question is whether the expansion is done exceptionally well or not as good as it could be. Mr. Mazzocone has made it clear – the expansion is necessary from a business standpoint. The variances will make the project that much nicer.

Mr. Hammond, of Frontenac Road, has a design and woodworking business locally and supports the proposal. The Inn is a place we all care about, and for it to be maintained, it needs to be profit-generating. Mr. Mazzocone hired Mr. Hammond’s company, and Mr. Hammond was impressed by his level of involvement and eye for detail. At every turn, he chose the best, most historically accurate improvements, Mr. Hammond said. The Inn is in good hands.

Ms. Diaz, of Taughannock Boulevard, said many of the people speaking tonight are retired. She felt thought should be given to younger generations who work at the Inn. There is not much in the area to support jobs for younger people.

Mr. Strok said he finds the plans spectacular but has concerns with the noise. Seated on his deck, he said he can hear bands playing in the Park. To request a time extension to 1:30 a.m. is not realistic. A noise study should be commissioned by Mr. Mazzocone if he would like to proceed.

Ms. VonBergen, of Willow Creek Road, has a business in Ithaca and appreciates what Mr. Mazzocone has proposed. It is a large project but taken as a whole, she likes it. Her concern is with the noise. She had her wedding on Canandaigua Lake, and people who wanted to party afterward went to the bar. What Mr. Mazzocone has proposed is not a hardship.

Mr. Lasshorn, of Van Doren Beach Road, spoke in support, calling Mr. Mazzocone a class act.

Board of Zoning Appeals 10 June 21, 2017

Mr. Travis, of Ithaca, sees the proposal as a synergy of the Inn and the Park, providing more amenities to hikers. It would not take away business concessions at the Park. Mr. Mazzocone is a class act, he said, meticulous and with a keen eye toward historic preservation, which happens to be expensive. The only way to restore the building is to grow the business. Preserving the gingko tree is worth granting the variance; signs will help. He noted that the Inn at Aurora, another area wedding venue, has a year-long wait list. There is a huge demand for this kind of business.

Mr. Cooper said the Inn is not an asset to all of us, but rather an opportunity for Mr. Mazzocone. The asset is the nature that surrounds the building. One person’s vision should not be taken into account when granting variances. That many signs are unnecessary, considering people use their phones now for directions. Noise is also a concern. To grant the variance because he has a vision means the Board will have to review the vision behind every variance request.

Ms. Lynn applauded Mr. Mazzocone’s work, but noted the project will impact the neighborhood. She said she is grateful that the Board will review the project.

A resident stressed traffic concerns and said it has gotten so bad she is considering selling her house. She thinks the expansion does not match the existing structure that well. She is concerned about traffic on Route 89, additional trucks and how that will impact tourism and wineries. The Park should stay the way it is.

Ms. Moss, of Taughannock Boulevard, said she has been to the Inn many times and called the Inn a beautiful thing. Mr. Mazzocone could be expanding the Inn within the parameters of current zoning, but there would still be more traffic. The variances will make the property more beautiful.

Public comments finished at 9:39 p.m.

Mr. Howarth, who said he would miss the next meeting, questioned Mr. Demarest about the sound analysis used to estimate potential noise. A website was used, and Mr. Howarth was certain the data plugged into the website was incorrect. Mr. Howarth used two similar online decibel calculators and discovered that to arrive at Mr. Demarest’s figures, he had to put in inaccurate numbers that greatly underestimated decibel readings. Mr. Morreale felt similarly that the numbers were way off.

The Board briefly discussed process.

Mr. Hillman MADE the MOTION to adjourn the public hearing until next meeting, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION. The vote was unanimously carried.

Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to accept the May 17, 2017 meeting minutes, and Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION. The vote was unanimously carried.

Mr. Morreale MADE the MOTION to adjourn, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION. The vote was unanimously carried.

Board of Zoning Appeals 11 June 21, 2017

Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro on June 29, 2017. Darby Kiley

TFI zoning variance application

Mike Strok Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:38 PM To: Darby Kiley Cc: Dale Strok

Dear Darby,

We would like to express our strong opposition to the granting of a variance to Taughannock Farms Inn to extend their operating hours to 1:30 AM. We live at 1683 Taughannock Blvd, approximately 1/4 mile south of TFI and would not welcome the noise and traffic that would result from granting a 1:30 AM closing time. Thank you for bringing our objection to their variance request on this issue to the hearing as we are unable to attend in person.

Sincerely, Mike and Dale Strok

Sent from my iPhone [Quoted text hidden] Darby Kiley

Zoning regarding : TFI Landco, LLC Inn at Tauhgannock

Caryn Sheckler Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:29 PM To: [email protected]

Dear Zoning Board of Appeals,

I would very much like to be present at the zoning hearing this Wednesday evening, but I have to work at that time. My particular interest in being there has to do with the zoning variances requested by TFL Landco, LLC. I have nothing against the corporation, its owner or the establishment. I think it's lovely and an asset (as it is) to the area. However, I do oppose the requests for variance as they are significantly outside the scope of the the codes as they are written. I vehemently oppose the noise variance. I absolutely do not want to hear any sounds other than nature after 11:00 pm. TFI Landco, LLC needs to respect that there are property boundaries. The requested setback variances seem to me to be out­of ­control small. TFI needs to stay within the confines of the codes. Small variances should be considered, but these seem excessive to me.

I live in a rural setting, and have lived here for more than 16 years, on purpose. The Willow Creek neighborhood is gorgeous, and I love living here. I don't want to see it marred by a corporation's desire for more income.

Thanks. Sincerely, Caryn Sheckler 6095 Willow Creek Rd., Ithaca ­­

" “Remember the five simple rules to be happy: 1. Free your heart from hatred. 2. Free your mind from worries. 3. Live simply. 4. Give more. 5. Expect less.

14 May 2017 To the Town of Ulysses – Zoning Board of Appeals I am writing this letter as a resident of the Town of Ulysses, in response to the request for a series of variances by owners of the Taughannock Inn. The owners of the Inn correctly recognize the incredible benefits of their location surrounded by park property and in close proximity to the Falls and shoreline. It provides the Inn guests with excellent views, the visual beauty of the water and forests, the serenity and the sound of the birds each morning. It also will profit immensely from the tens of thousands of visitors, both local residents and tourists, who come to visit throughout the year to enjoy these same features. However if permitted, the variances requested by the Inn owners will result in a huge degradation of these same environmental features, impacting both the experience of the visitors to the park and also, in the case of the sound variance, impacting the wildlife in the park. Overall, these changes will have a major impact on the entire character of this part of our community. Currently the historic appearance, position in the landscape (i.e. set-back from the roads and shoreline), and size of the Inn combine to make it an attractive but non-invasive complement to the Park’s setting. Unfortunately, the overall proposed expansion will dominate this entire location, turning Taughannock Park essentially into the grounds for the Inn. The proposed variances, if permitted, will contribute to these serious impacts: a) the increase in both the number and size of the signs will replace visually appealing green- scape with what is effectively advertisement for the Inn; b) the new proposed buildings will dominate the sight-line of both drivers and pedestrians strolling along the road, exacerbated if the permit variances are allowed since there will be no setbacks from the road edge. The need to push up against the variance seems particularly unnecessary and egregious given the additional property that the Inn owns on the other side of the road. Alternative lay- outs and building designs could be created to help the Inn blend into the landscape instead of dominating it. c) the variance for night-time use will increase the noise level by several orders of magnitude (decibels are measured on a logarhithmic scale) long into the night, impacting campers who often come for the solitude and quiet. The night-time calling of various owl species is a unique attraction in the Park that can’t be found in the city or suburbs. The added noise level will also impact these same wildlife who live directly in the Park woods nearby. d) the variance for additional height allowance for cupolas will also contribute to replacing the beautiful and changing colors of foliage and vegetation, with a human-hardscape in the vertical dimension, again causing the Inn to dominate the vision and experience of Park visitors. I strongly urge you to deny these variance requests. The owners of the Inn will proceed with the expansion, resulting in a significant increase in buildings, and associated vertical hard surfaces, as well as horizontal impervious surfaces which will affect the natural-experience that have attracted tourists and visitors to this area for more than a century. However, through our zoning rules, we can do what we can to reduce the negative impacts this will have. Sincerely, Rebecca Schneider 5630 Pine Ridge Road Trumansburg, NY 14886

!To: Town of Ulysses Zoning and Planning Boards !From: Durga Bor, 7580 Willow Creek Rd., Trumansburg, NY 14886 !Re: Zoning variances requested for the Inn at Taughannock !Date: June 13, 2017 This letter is in protest of particular zoning variances requested by the Inn at Taughannock’s new owner, Carl Mazzocone, and in reference to remarks made at the Town of Ulysses Planning Board meeting June 6, 2017. I do believe that property owners have the right to develop or renovate their properties as they see fit providing the plans stay within zoning laws, and do not cause a danger or disturbance to other residents or visitors. This does not seem to be the case !with Mr. Mazzocone’s requests, which seem quite insensitive to the residents of this area. I live near the corner of Gorge Rd., up the hill from the Inn. I am the closest resident to the Inn aside from one or two of the houses on Cayuga Lake. I am, therefore, vulnerable to the goings on that happen at the Inn. The most disturbing of the requested variances and the one I am advocating against the strongest is the noise factor. Regardless of the information referred to by the Inn’s representing lawyer, Holly K. Austin’s letter to the Planning Board, in defense of the sound statistics, I can only say that the Willow Creek neighborhood already hears the music from the Inn when there are wedding bands or DJs outdoors, and the proposed tent structure will not provide a shield from the noise coming from DJ’s and bands. The so-called noise buffer from the trees referred to at the June 6 meeting will not protect the Willow Creek neighborhood from sound, as it does not protect us from the music (or sometimes noise) from the bands, motor boats and jet skis at the park and in the lake. In fact, I can hear bands from the North Point when there is an event on that side of the park. I invite any board member to come to my house when concert season starts if there is any doubt, and hear for themselves. The difference between park noise and Inn noise is that the park ends its concerts at dusk, Mr. Mazzocone is requesting a variance from the noise standards in order to extend the 90 dBa sound limit from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. This will not only disturb residents of the area, but campers at the park, and Mr. Mazzocone’s guests at the Inn who are not attending the event or chose to retire early. (The Argo Inn in Ithaca actually closes it’s bar at 10 p.m. in consideration of its guests.) An enclosed, soundproofed and permanent structure would seem to be a much better solution to having music late into the night and early morning. The argument that most campers stay up late and party was a very weak and presumptuous one. There are many families with children camping at the park who do not party late into the night and some residence who work on weekends and have to !wake up early and don’t wish to stay awake until 1:30 a.m. There were a few disturbing factors brought forth at the last planning meeting. The first one was when Real Estate developer and investor, Mack Travis, stated that what they were creating was for the greater good of the people at the park and the community and that the disturbances and inconveniences to the few residents shouldn’t stand in the way. May I remind Mr. Travis that we live here, year round, and many of us worked very hard to be here, pay our mortgages and our taxes, and chose to live in a rural setting primarily for the nature and peace of mind, which seems to be of little consequence to the Inn’s proponents. The expansion of the Inn is an elitist undertaking, and will not serve for the greater good of the community such as a health clinic, shelter or as other public services would. This is a private enterprise designed for profit, and another story of the rich getting richer at the cost of others. Most park goers probably can’t afford to eat at the Inn, and often come with their own picnic baskets and barbecues and will not !patronize the Inn. When I protested to Mr. Travis’s remark, my emotions having gotten the better of me (I only uttered four words, “but we live there”), I was told in a very stern and condescending way that there would be no arguments and was also told that I would be removed if I spoke out again. However, after the presentations and comments by the Inn’s architect and representatives, there was no chance for public rebuttal on what was just presented, which was new information for !many of us. Aside from noise from the bands and DJ’s, there is also the issue of traffic noise, risk of accidents as traffic stacks up at the park’s entrance on busy days and extends onto Rt 89. That particular corner has a high incidents of traffic accidents as it already stands. In reference to Holly K. Austin’s letter, that there were 700 diners at the Inn over graduation weekends, may I remind the boards that 700 people coming and going staggered over a full weekend with no incidents is quite different than 250 people coming and going for one particular event, all at the same time. I would also like to remind the boards that there was a seven-car pileup crash at the !intersection three weeks ago. I was unable to find the most recent statistics on the internet, but according to http:// www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files2/itctc/projects/Hi-Crash_FinalReport_12302015.pdf, the corner of Gorge Road and Rt. 89 is among the top twenty highest crash-rate intersections in Tompkins Country for 2008-2013. This should be of great concern to Mr. Mazzocone, which is !related to the next issue in the variance request. Extending the proposed building to 1.4 feet from the road, when 30 feet meets the zoning laws, is preposterous given the nature of Gorge Road, being an extended steep hill, with curves. In the winter Gorge Road can be extremely slick and icy. A structure so close to the road is an accident waiting to happen. I know of more than one incident, including a family member, whose vehicle did lose control on ice at the entrance to the Inn. Smashing into a building would be disastrous. The proposed structure will also ruin the beautiful natural view of the lake, for hikers forced off the south rim trail at that end, when it is closed for the winter, as it always is. Mr. Mazzocone’s architect even hinted at the fact that Gorge Rd. could be rerouted, which is another preposterous suggestion and thankfully, not on the table at this time! He also showed slides of 19th and early 20th century barns built up against the road with no seeming consequences as an argument for building the Inn against the road. I would like to point out that the barns were on flat country roads, and were built before trucks and cars transported bales of hay and other farm fodder and supplies. These things were transported via horse and wagon and have absolutely nothing to do with what is being proposed for the Inn. This slide presentation only reminded me of the incident in the late 1990s, when a young T-burg man driving too fast penetrated a barn close to !the road on Perry City Rd. and was killed. Another one of the variances that I question is the septic system that will be installed near Rt. 89. While I’m not an expert on septic tanks, I know that e-coli and other dangerous bacteria grow in septic tanks, and wonder where the leach field will extend, into the lake or creek? Will it put anyone at risk? I’m sure the planning and zoning boards will pay special attention to this and do !the necessary research. While the height of the cupola and the signage are of little consequence to me personally, the signs can be an eyesore and I wonder why the need to go beyond what is allowed? Another point in the lawyer’s letter to the board, was that the Inn cannot exist financially without expansion. Everyone knows how vulnerable the restaurant business is. What if this project is a failure? The !town will be stuck with a white elephant that goes against zoning regulations. The fact that zoning laws are just that, they are laws created and enforced for a reason, to protect the public and the land, and no one, regardless of how much money they have, should propose to go beyond the law without serious and just cause. I see no serious and just cause which validates the danger, inconvenience and aggravation to local residents and the public the expansion of the Inn will cause, and why Carl Mazzocone cannot pursue his plan to expand the Inn and keep within these laws. The construction will take a very long time, and produce much dust and exhaust pollution from large trucks and other vehicles needed to pursue such a project. It was bad enough when the visitor’s center on the north side of the gorge was built, the noise was palpable, as it was when the water project took place at North Point. This will be a great hindrance for park goers and residents as it is. To extend the noise indefinitely with loud bands and DJs until 1:30 a.m. seems like no more than an act of inconsideration and the whole project seems !excessively grandiose beyond the norms of this community. I know I am not just speaking for myself and my family, but other residents as well, and would greatly appreciate that these points be taken into consideration when the final decisions on the zoning variances for the Inn at Taughannock are considered. Thank you. Planning Board Resolution – passed June 13, 2017

Be it resolved the Planning Board wishes to communicate the following to the Town Board of Zoning Appeals.

Upon consideration of the Town of Ulysses Comprehensive Plan and the application from the Inn at Taughannock for numerous variance requests, the Town of the Ulysses Planning Board wishes to communicate that it recognizes the gravity of their job and its appreciation for their work as volunteers in applying the New York Town Law on the Town’s behalf.

It should be noted the Planning Board heard from concerned citizens at its regularly scheduled meeting on June 6, 2017 as part of the privilege of the floor and has subsequently received written communication, all of which have been shared with the Board of Zoning Appeals.

We will follow with interest your progress on this matter.

Mr. Wertis MADE the MOTION to accept the language, and Mr. Blake SECONDED the MOTION. The vote was as follows:

Mr. Blake AYE Mr. Tyler AYE Mr. Wertis AYE Ms. Worden AYE

Respectfully submitted by Board Chair David Blake, and board members David Tyler, John Wertis, and Sara Worden.

Darby Kiley

Fwd: Taughannock Farms Inn requests

David Blake Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:12 PM To: Darby Kiley

Pleas make copies for all the OB members. Thanks. ­­­­­­­­­­ Forwarded message ­­­­­­­­­­ From: Barbara Hotchkiss Date: Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:28 PM Subject: Taughannock Farms Inn requests To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: "Roxanne M. Marino" , Elizabeth Thomas

Dear Planning Board members,

Upon review of your working group agenda for tonight, I am struck by the abundance and diversity of requests for variances by the Taughannock Farms Inn. As a member of the Town of Ulysses’s Sustainability & Conservation Advisory Council, which is actively working to preserve the rural character and environmental beauty of our town, I am very concerned about the changes being requested, as they will undoubtedly create more of an urban, rather than rural, feel to this prominent lakeside property, contingent to a peaceful public state park and surrounding private lands. While granting these variance requests may yield limited positive consequences for a few ~ e.g. the property owners, some local businesses, and for temporary visitors to our area ~ I am of the opinion that there will be more potential negative effects on 'the many': our local residents, the flora and fauna within and surrounding this property, and the ambiance of the beautiful Taughannock Falls State Park.

I sincerely hope that your committee will uphold the original, or similar, standards that have been set ~ to maintain the integrity of our community. Please demonstrate that our town is committed to its vision to protect our gorgeous home; please stand strongly by the very reasonable limits that have been put in place. Specifically, please do not allow: • reduced setbacks; many of which seem very unreasonable. Building setbacks were created precisely to proactively protect our community so that every square foot of property is NOT built upon. The onus is on potential real estate investors to inform themselves about whether local zoning requirements for a property allow for the implementation of a desired business plan. • increased height to the already higher than allowed of the building • more or bigger signs than are already allowed; nor at different heights than currently allowed. • extension of the 90dBa sound limit to 1:30am; there are long­term neighbors to the property, along with short­term campers that would be negatively impacted by this request that seems to benefit only this business and its clients...

Although it may not be on your agenda for discussion at this time, I also must express grave concern regarding SAFE traffic flow to and from this site. I surely hope that safe foot and vehicular (including bicycle) traffic movement will be given utmost top priority, now, within a total context of the overall project vision for this site, rather than looking at each building request piecemeal, and realizing later that its unworkable. (I’ve reviewed many SEQR forms for projects as a former member of the Ithaca Conservation Advisory Committee, and it seems very clear that traffic is going to be a huge issue to manage with this project, due to (a) the large volume of cars currently using state highway RT 89/Taughannock Blvd; (b) increased seasonal park traffic on these roads; (c) the obtuse angle and steep incline by which Gorge Rd adjoins Rt 89/Taughannock Blvd, obstructing views for drivers. Accidents are not uncommon at this intersection now…I cringe to think about what the increased volume of traffic, some of which will be under the influence of alcohol, that will be inherent to this project.

I appreciate the opportunity to express the ideas I have shared herein, and hope you will promote what will be best for the greater good for our overall community, both now and into the future.

Respectfully yours, Barbara Hotchkiss

Darby Kiley

Updates from the Town of Ulysses

Carissa Parlato Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:09 PM To: Warren Brown , Darby Kiley Cc: [email protected], Michael Kamarck , Don Wilson

Thank you for your input. I have included Darby Kiley, who is collecting comments, in this message.

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Warren Brown wrote: Hi Carissa, We are away from home visiting grandkids in California. I am concerned that the Inn's request is not consistent with the nature of the area and the setting in a State park. It would also set a bad precedent for other hospitality and event properties in the town. Best, Warren

Warren Brown 102 Willow Creek Point Rd.

Sent from my iPhone [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Darby Kiley

Updates from the Town of Ulysses

Michael Kamarck Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:55 PM To: Carissa Parlato , Warren Brown , Darby Kiley Cc: [email protected], Don Wilson , Debbie Kamarck

Darby and Carissa ‐

We are friends and neighbors of the Browns and Warren has included us in his message concerning the Inn. But we respecvely disagree with him on this one issue.

We introduced the architect of the proposed new building (Jason Demarest) to the owner because we admire his work. He was architect of record of the new Simeon’s and has created many other beauful and tasteful public and private buildings in the area. The internal modificaons that have been made to the Inn at Jason’s direcon have already dramacally upgraded the site and the dining experience in the Inn.

I trust that ‘mock‐ups’ of the proposed new construcon will be provided for public review. I’m confident that a visual representaon of the new facility will go a long way to providing adequate jusficaon in support of the Inn variance.

Mike

From: on behalf of Carissa Parlato Date: Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 3:09 PM To: Warren Brown , Darby Kiley Cc: , Michael Kamarck , Don Wilson Subject: Re: Updates from the Town of Ulysses

[Quoted text hidden] Darby Kiley

Fwd: TFI zoning variances request

Elizabeth Thomas Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:35 AM To: Darby Kiley

one more...

­­­­­­­­­­ Forwarded message ­­­­­­­­­­ From: Stan Stewart Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:06 AM Subject: TFI zoning variances request To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Stan Stewart 2073 Kraft Rd. Ulysses/Ithaca, NY

Dear members of the Ulysses civic boards:

I have just discovered that you are reviewing a significant number (17?) of variances from Ulysses ordinances for Inn at Taughannock (aka TFI). As a concerned citizen, I had some feedback after reviewing the “narratives” and drawings provided to you in support of those variances.

In short, I can find no compelling reason for approving these variances in the documents provided. TFI and their lawyers have failed to demonstrate lack of impact and a business case that the variances would be required. I have no issue with TFI building a business within the current codes and ordinances of our town.

1. Would these variances produce unwanted changes to the neighborhood or impact on nearby property? The argument is that the Inn presents unique challenges. Sure it does. TFI purchased the property with those challenges in full sight. However, the requested variances would produce a significantly larger infrastructure with ramifications for the entire neighborhood, town, and next­door state park.

2. Are the variances required for TFI to continue to operate the Inn? No. The narrative provided still references a ballroom as opposed to a tent for weddings. However, the drawings show that they have returned to the tent approach. In other words, they can do with the existing property what they claim they want to do. Will the property require in­house remodeling and re­forming the hill for flat surfaces? Perhaps, but those do not require changes to our town ordinances, just approvals.

3. Are the requested area variances substantial? a. Front and side yard setbacks The argument provided here focuses on green space still being available. That is not the only concern along Gorge Road. This is a steep road with a sharp turn angle when coming from Highway 89 north. Add to this having less than 2 feet to the TFI infrastructure and the dangers will increase even more. Winter icy conditions will prove even more dangerous with structures so close to the road. Regarding Summertime: having played music for hundreds of weddings, I know how tempting it is for vendors and guests to “just stop off quickly” in front of a venue to unload or load. In this and many other ways, the dangers of the blind turn will also increase. b. Height Among the many impacts of the height increase is that Winter Rim Trail hikers will be unable to see the lake when they must detour onto Gorge Road. c. Noise The 1AM noise variance will have a detrimental impact not only to the entire neighborhood, but raises concerns about other local establishments (notably New Park and Spruce Row) who have been such good neighbors to request similar exceptions. The existing ordinance is a good compromise between businesses and residents. Furthermore, it was known to TFI (or available for their consideration) when they purchased the farm. d. Signs More signs? Sure, but there’s no need for so many of them to require exceptions to existing ordinances. Again, TFI has not demonstrated the need to be different from the requirements of existing code especially with so many signs. 4. Will the variances have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? “…the Inn is not a financially viable operations without the proposed expansion.” I find that this case has never been made in the documents provided. a. Traffic See 3a.

5. Was the hardship self­created? As far as I can tell from the documents provided, I would say the answer is a resounding “yes”. That includes the verbiage provided by TFI in answer to this question. And unlike the argument stated here, I would say that this finding does preclude the granting of these variances.

I have every confidence that as representatives of our town of Ulysses, you will encourage TFI to continue their remodeling and upgrades within current town ordinances and codes. To do otherwise, threatens significant dangers and changes to the town landscape that are unnecessary at best and detrimental to the entire community at worst.

Thank you. ======Stan Stewart 607­269­7560 http://muz4now.com/ http://stanstewartmusic.com/

­­ Elizabeth Thomas Town Supervisor, Town of Ulysses 10 Elm St. Trumansburg, NY (607) 387­5767 ext 232 (607) 279­0675 cell [email protected] Alternate: [email protected] Darby Kiley

Fwd: We love Trumansburg! (Variances not so much)

Elizabeth Thomas Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:03 AM To: Darby Kiley

another

­­­­­­­­­­ Forwarded message ­­­­­­­­­­ From: adriane_marie Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:48 AM Subject: We love Trumansburg! (Variances not so much) To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Dear members of the Ulysses Zoning Board, Our family visits Trumansburg as frequently as possible. What fun to browse in the Green Horse bookstore, then grab a coffee at either Gimme or Eat! If we arrive later in the day, we'll order a pie at New York Pizza, hit RonDon's, or get burgers at the Falls Tavern (their burgers are much better than Pine's Burgers!).

And of course we visit Taughannock. The falls are majestic, and the lake is tranquil and serene.

The plans that the new owners of Taughannock Farms Inn propose will ruin that. It will effect the entire area, including the park that I support with my NYS taxes.

According to the article in the Ithaca Voice, they are requesting variances that will allow a castle to be built. If that happens, a DisneyLand Cinderella Castle­like structure will dominate the view. Appalling!

I know you cannot control what the company builds on their property. But you do control the ability to approve or deny variances. The company has asked for variances for changes in height, setbacks, signs and noise, among other things. By digging around I see they want to build their septic system to abut Taughannock Blvd. What could possibly go wrong?

The company says that local residents won't be effected by the changes. They will be ­ by traffic, by the additional noise, (which will run till 1:30 a.m.! !), visual pollution, and the inconvenience of dealing with the carnival like atmosphere of events to be held at the Inn.

We like to visit Taughannock and Trumansburg. If the castle (or any other giant structure, come to think of it) is built, though. we'll be spending our money closer to home in Watkins Glen.

Sincerely, Adriane Divens

­­ Elizabeth Thomas Town Supervisor, Town of Ulysses 10 Elm St. Trumansburg, NY (607) 387­5767 ext 232 (607) 279­0675 cell [email protected] Alternate: [email protected]

To: Town of Ulysses Zoning Board June 16, 2017

From: Sally Yates 7520 Willow Creek Rd. Trumansburg NY 14886 607-387-5476

Re: Inn at Taughannock noise variance

I’m writing to express my hope that you will deny the noise variance requested by the Taughannock Inn project. I’ve lived here for 25 years and love the peace and beauty here, and I am extremely alarmed to hear about this request.

I’m concerned that the noise—especially the music from bands playing for events at the Inn—will be a nuisance for myself and the people living around the park area, as well as for people who come to the park to enjoy the beauty and the natural setting of the lake and forest.

The current 11:00 p.m. limit is already too late for noise, in my view. Allowing the noise from events at the Inn to go on until 1:30 a.m. would be unbearable. People live and work in this area, and that kind of noise would have a negative impact on many lives here. (This would be true not only at night, but also during the daytime, if there are numerous events held at the Inn on a daily basis.)

Who benefits from extending the noise allowance? The developer says he can charge more money for late events. So he will benefit. How about the neighbors? This area doesn’t owe him an income, especially if it is on the backs—or ears—of the people who are already living here. Would he really suffer if he had to stop the noise at 10 or 11? And if he did, is it our responsibility to help him make a profit?

According to the Town zoning website, zoning regulations are in place “to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of all Town residents and property owners.” How will allowing this variance protect the quality of life of the neighborhood? It seems to me that instead of molding the neighborhood to suit the developer, the developer should make an effort to fit into the neighborhood. He has chosen to come here, presumably knowing what the limitations are that might impact his business. Nobody is forcing him to build here.

At the recent planning committee meeting, the architect for the project mentioned some things that he said would lower the impact of the noise, such as increased summer foliage (really?? leaves??), putting doors on the “tent” area (doors are often propped open at events in the summer, and even if they are closed, how effective would that be for a tent?), and landscape features that act as sound baffles (sound carries clearly up the hill from the lake—think loud summer concerts, weddings, and jet skis that are common sources of noise now). None of these things will stop the highly amplified electronic bass beat of so much of the music that people listen to and dance to these days.

The regulations cite decibel levels: I understand that they are a way to objectively quantify the noise. However, nuisance noise is not just about decibels. The duration, frequency, and timing are all factors that affect how sounds have an impact: Even a low-decibel noise can be extremely annoying if it goes on for long periods, happens too frequently, or happens at times when others want to enjoy the peace and quiet of this area (e.g., 1 a.m.).

As a resident of 25 years here, I have enjoyed living in this amazing place. This evening, I took a walk along Willow Creek Rd and Gorge Rd. The sun was just going down, and I could hear the water far below me in the gorge, a little soft breeze in the trees, and the birds settling in for the night. The only other sound was my own footsteps. I want to be able to continue doing this, and to enjoy eating outside in the evenings, having my windows open at night in the summer, peacefully watching the fireflies and the stars, all without the encroachment of unwanted noise that I have no control over, in my own neighborhood.

We need to protect the natural character of this unique area, for ourselves and for future generations. It is too easy for things to slide into development that destroys the original qualities of a place, and once that destruction happens, the good is lost forever and can never be retrieved.

I trust that you will seriously consider the consequences that your decision will have for the neighborhood.

Thank you for your attention and your consideration.

Sally Yates

Stephen Penningroth 2080 Cayuga View Road Trumansburg, NY 14886 June 17, 2017

Town of Ulysses, Board of Zoning Appeals

Attn: Ms. Darby Kiley 10 Elm Street, Trumansburg, NY 14886 Email:

Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I am writing in regard to the request from TFI Landco, LLC, for several variances that the Board will hear on June 21. I will not be able to attend the meeting. I wish to submit the following comments based on the five criteria the Board must weigh when deciding whether to grant a variance: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to nearby properties be created by the granting of the area variance? Change in the character of the neighborhood: TFI asserts there will be no change, first, because the inn has served as a wedding venue in the past, and second, because there are no other comparable properties in the area. Both assertions miss the mark. In the first instance, the character of the inn will change from a place where weddings are incidental to its core business of lodging and dining services to a place where lodging and dining services are incidental to its new core business of wedding services. Weddings are big business, as we all know, and it seems clear TFI hopes the inn will become known as a wedding destination. This change in the character of the inn will necessarily entail a shift in the character of the surrounding neighborhood from exclusively residential to serving, at least in part, as a scenic – or, as TFI puts it, a “whimsical” -- backdrop for TFI’s wedding business. Detriment to nearby properties: In the second instance, TFI argues that there are no other comparable properties in the area and that therefore the impact of the requested variances will be minimal. That is, there are no other businesses that might build on the precedent set by TFI’s variances, assuming they are granted, and hence the value of nearby properties will not change. But this misses the forest for the trees. While TFI is indeed one-of-a-kind, it is a dominant feature of the area. As such, its repurposing as a wedding destination business has a very real potential to create a detriment to the value of nearby properties. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Benefit by other means: The benefit sought by the applicant is a profitable business. Applicant claims that his business can prosper only if he repurposes the inn as a destination for events, particularly for weddings. I have some limited business experience myself, and I am sympathetic to the pressures involved in creating a successful business. That said, I am puzzled why TFI doesn’t grow its event business gradually using its existing facilities and modifying them organically to meet increasing demand over time rather than pursuing its present course of gambling on throwing down a costly structure and betting that if it is built, the weddings and other events will come. The proposed structure is what I would call gaudy and out of character with the area, and it will remain a local eyesore if the gamble does not pay off, the business fails and TFI Landco disappears. 3. Are the requested area variances substantial? Yes, they are substantial: TFI argues the requested variances are not substantial. I disagree. Several of them are substantial.

a) Setbacks: The proximity of a part of the proposed new building to the Gorge Rd right of way creates a hazard both for vehicular traffic and for pedestrians, plain and simple. b) Noise: Running wedding receptions until 1:30 AM in an open area will almost certainly create a noise problem. Applicant’s decibel estimates are essentially guesses based on the physical law that sound decreases as the inverse square of the distance over which it travels. While the science is on target, the assumption that everybody at wedding receptions will engage in polite conversation is not. There will inevitably be one or two or more people who drink too much and raise their voices way above 90 decibels. Arguing that the concerts in Taughannock Park set a precedent for loud noise is disingenuous. The noise generated by outdoor concerts that are intended to benefit the larger community and that take place on a limited number of Saturday evenings in a public venue is readily tolerated by me and, I suspect, by my public-spirited neighbors. I do not extend that tolerance to a private business that has the potential to generate noise virtually every night of the year, in effect making money off my discomfort. c) Signs: Large signage strikes me as garish and out of character for the area. Smaller signs should suffice for people who are interested in where they are going.

4. Will the proposed variances have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Physical impacts: a) Noise: This was discussed above. b) Viewshed: The proposed building is out of character with the historic Taughannock Farms Inn. It will dominate the view from Rte 89 and Gorge Road and detract from the beauty of the inn. Environmental impacts: a) I assume that stormwater runoff has been addressed, but if not, it should be.

5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it is self-created: It seems to me that TFI could accomplish most if not all of its business goals without any of the requested variances being granted. The requested variances reflect personal choices of the business owner. They do not strike me as make-or-break factors in growing a successful business. June 17, 2017

To Members of the Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

George Tseleks [email protected] Robert Howarth [email protected] Stephen Morreale [email protected] David Means [email protected] Andrew Hillman [email protected] Cheryl Thompson [email protected]

-and-

To Members of the Town of Ulysses Planning Board

David Blake [email protected] David Tyler [email protected] John Wertis [email protected] Sara Worden [email protected] Rebecca Schneider [email protected] Ben LeWalter [email protected]

Dear Members of the BZA and Planning Boards,

We are writing to you in advance of the June 21st BZA meeting to express our concerns about the recent proposal to develop the properties surrounding The Inn at Taughannock adjacent to Taughannock Park. We have been residents of the Town of Ulysses for over 20 years, living within a mile of the park and Inn. We are extremely concerned about the proposed development not only because of the scale and scope of the proposed project but also because of the negative impacts to the natural beauty and quietude of the park and the many residents like us in proximity to the park and Inn.

Perhaps our greatest concern is the increased traffic and noise that is anticipated with such a development. Living so close to Taughannock Park, we have been keenly aware of the increased traffic and park visitors over the past several years. With the increased traffic has come increased driving speeds through the park area and an increase in the number of people crossing Rt 89 between the two sides of the park. We feel that the scale of the proposed development will greatly exacerbate this problem. We are also concerned about the increased level of noise (traffic, crowds, music, etc.) that will accompany this development. Current noise levels during such events as the summer music series and the Cayuga Lake Triathlon are especially high around our area. Whereas the short duration and time of day of such events is tolerable and has never been a problem, the request by the Inn owner and his investors for a variance to ignore the 55 dBa sound level from 11:00 pm to 1:30 am is frankly inconsiderate and disrespectful to those residents living near the park and Inn.

An additional concern is the scale of the increased signage at the sight. Among the reasons we and many others have settled in this area is, in part, because of the natural beauty of Taughannock Park. The proposed development project would significantly degrade the park atmosphere and, in our opinion, detract from the beauty and overall attractiveness of the area, not add to it. We feel that the proposed project is an attempt to commercialize the park for the sole benefit of the owner and investors, while exploiting our community, the park visitors, and natural beauty of the park. We believe that the exploitive nature of such proposed development will become quite clear when the applicants for the proposed development will be required to demonstrate to the BZA that the current zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship for a variety of reasons (according to Town Law §267-b). The variance requests appear to us to be so blatantly out of line with our current zoning regulations that it makes a mockery of the zoning standards we have developed. While this project will certainly increase the incomes for the owner and investors, we fail to see how this proposed development will have any direct or indirect benefit to the park and community. While we are very supportive of local businesses succeeding in our community, we expect them to thrive because of the potential benefits they bring to the entire area, not just to their own personal businesses.

While we clearly fail to see how such a project will preserve and protect the character of the park and surrounding area and the health, safety and welfare of our community but only increase the wealth of the owner and investors, we recognize that, according to Town Law §267-b, the BZA will use five criteria in making their decision to grant the numerous variances required to get this project off the ground. They include the following:

(1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance;

(2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;

(3) whether the requested area variance is substantial;

(4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and

(5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.

While we can’t comment on criterion 2, the responses to all of the remaining questions are affirmative in our opinion. We encourage the board to carefully consider the impact this project will have on the surrounding residents and community and not let the wishes of one individual outweigh the concerns of many others.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend the hearing on Wednesday June 21, 2017 to express our concerns publicly, but we hope this letter will serve as an equally valid public record or our concerns related to this proposed project.

Thank you all for your consideration.

With respect,

Eric and Sharon Nelson 2150 Cayuga View Road Trumansburg, NY 14886 2080 Cayuga View Rd. Trumansburg, NY June 16, 2017

Dear Zoning Board Members,

I am writing because I am concerned about the proposed development at Taughannock Farms Inn (The Inn at Taughannock). I live approximately a mile away, just off of Route 89.

Here are some of my concerns. First of all, there is the issue of increased traffic on Route 89, which is already a very busy road. Park goers often cross the road in the summer on their way between the falls section and the lake section. It’s not hard to imagine what the added traffic of an event would do to that section of the road. Then there is the problem of noise. I understand that the developers want to allow music until 1:30 AM. I am sure the neighbors will not appreciate this. For that matter, visitors to the Inn who are hoping for a quiet stay may not appreciate it either! Also, I’m wondering what the impact of all of the increased human activity would have on the environment. I’d like to know if environmental impact studies have been done.

Finally, it is my opinion that this sort of development would change the lovely, quiet and quaint atmosphere that I, for one, cherish here. I very much hope that you will protect the beauty that we are so fortunate to enjoy at Taughannock Park.

Respectfully yours,

Judith Roberts June 19, 2017 LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE VARIANCES CURRENTLY REQUESTED BY CARL MAZZOCONE FOR THE INN AT TAUGHANNOCK Dear members of the BZA: My name is Mack Travis and my wife Carol and I are investors in the Inn at Taughannock, for much the same reasons that we have invested in downtown Ithaca. Our projects include Gateway Plaza, Center Ithaca, purchase and renovation of the State Theatre and the Clinton House and many other projects in Ithaca. Each of these projects was done with the idea of preserving historic architecture and improving the experience of living and working in Ithaca. I was a founding member of the Business Improvement District and served as president and board member for nearly 20 years and gained an understanding of how an active, vibrant, community with arts, entertainment, and dining produces an environment in which jobs and workers prosper, residents want to move in and call it home, and retail thrives. Alan Cohen our Ithaca mayor in the 90’s considered the Finger Lakes an “Undiscovered Gem” in upstate New York. With the Wine Trail, the new Black Diamond Trail, and now the renovated Inn at Taughannock, we are bound to attract more visitors to Taughannock Park. A few weeks ago, David Jones, the great, great grandson of the original owner of the Taughannock property stayed at the hotel. David was beyond delighted with the extensive restoration that had just been completed. And when shown the design of the stables and carriage house he was thrilled with the new additions to the property. David commented that his great, great, grandfather gave up 800 acres of his property for the greater good as a gift to the people of New York State so this park could be created for their pleasure. David believes the new stables and outside space will provide a spectacular stage, a place of celebration in people’s lives, it's a gift in the same spirit that his Grandfather made in 1925. Please permit me to present points in favor of granting the variances requested for the proposed signage, setback, and height variances for the Inn at Taughannock. 1) Signage at the Inn is deficient for way-finding about this 10.4 acre property with nearly a half mile of street frontage. The single sign allowed by zoning makes sense for a small business in the heart of the Village. For a property with 5 structures located about the 10.4 acres parcel with frontage on Route 89 to the east, Gorge Road to the South and Taughannock Park itself to the North, plus two long internal driveways to the north and south of Gorge Road the zoning is particularly restrictive. Any new visitor would welcome direction to their appropriate location on the property. 2) The setback requested will impinge only on Gorge Road, both sides of which are owned by the Inn at Taughannock. Given the creative design by architect, Jason Demarest, lighting, noise, practicality of ingress, egress, and deliveries are all handled in a suitable manner. Construction of the 5-unit “stables”, the flat event area, and the very appealing arches and structure along Gorge Road will enhance the aesthetic appeal of the Inn in a manner in keeping with the period and design of the existing main building. In addition, relocating the proposed structure with the setback requested will save a hundred plus year-old Gingko tree located only 30’ SW of the Inn itself. Without the requested variance for a setback, construction of the proposed project could proceed by right but the tree would be lost. 3) The height variances will permit the attractive addition of a roof to the existing cupola as well as several flamboyant touches to the proposed new structures. The project sits well back from Route 89, the main road which passes by some 60’ below the grade of the existing and proposed buildings. The visual impact looking up the steep hill will be little affected by the increase in height which will contribute both functionality and aesthetics to the proposed new structures. Change can be difficult. However, positive, well-thought out change can be beneficial and an opportunity for general growth and well-being for, in this case, thousands of visitors to the park. It is heartening to hear the sense of pride and “ownership” expressed by the neighbors for this property in their community. Once executed in the manner in which Carl Mazzocone has already improved the Inn, the stone pillars and pathway connection to the Park, and the overall high standards to which he adheres, I feel certain this will be a project in which the very neighbors who have voiced objection, will be also feel a sense of pride for having this expansion to the Inn in their community. Please consider the context in which the variances for signage, setback, and height are being requested. With your support, The Inn at Taughannock will be a shining attraction to this area for decades to come.

Sincerely yours,

Mack Travis

Darby Kiley

Input on variences

Donna Fein Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:03 PM To: "[email protected]"

Hello town officers,

I am sending my concern over major development at The Inn at Taughannock. The location of the Inn adjacent to our glorious, vulnerable State Park dictates great caution in my mind. Larger signs do not concern me greatly as I know that even this big real estate developer has a sense of taste. The increased building height is also not a big impact to me. On the other hand, a building being 28' closer to Gorge Rd than zoning allows is outrageous in my mind. The road is so steep, curvy and crowded in season that it seems unsafe to me to limit visibility in any way. The variance for more noise until 1:30am seems totally unfair to the campers in the park. Our State Parks are so special and precious that I believe that their flora, fauna and undeveloped nature need to be protected for continued enjoyment by all, rather than being compromised for someone's profit. Please protect our park! Thank you, Donna Fein 3064 Jacksonville Rd Sent from my iPad. Trumansburg, NY 14886 Darby Kiley

Fwd: Revised letter ­ Taughannock Inn

Elizabeth Thomas Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM To: Darby Kiley

­­­­­­­­­­ Forwarded message ­­­­­­­­­­ From: Amy Mcardle Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:51 PM Subject: Revised letter ­ Taughannock Inn To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Andrew Hillman , Cheryl Thompson , [email protected]

Dear Members of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Board,

This letter is to be read and recorded in the minutes in full.

My family and I love to travel to Tompkins County. We spend time there each summer, and invariably stay at one of the B&B's or holiday houses either near Taughannock Park or in Trumansburg. We especially like staying at a summer rental quite close to the park. We love being near beautiful Taughannock and having access to Cayuga Lake.

We're quite concerned about the proposed changes for Taughannock Inn. There was an article in the Ithaca Voice about the 'castle' to be built on the property. Whether it's a castle or a giant victorian structure with cupolas, the new building will dominate the area, and loom over the park. It will look like a carnival has been planted above the park.

It's going to negatively change the character and feel of the entire area. And it will significantly worsen the traffic problem, which can be quite bad during the summer.

Because of my concerns, I checked the town website. The company that owns the Inn is asking for a large number of variances ­ for height, for set­backs, for noise, for signage. Has it occurred to you that the property isn't large enough for the plan? The signs alone will cheapen the look and feel of the park.

It occurred to me as I read the letter from the company's lawyers that the whole plan to change the property is about them earning more money. It makes me wonder about the cost to park visitors and local residents. Comparing a bird's song to the noise of an automobile! That made me laugh aloud.

We as a family will not be staying anywhere near the park if the noise variance is granted. We've already committed to our vacation this summer. In the future, if these changes occur, we'll be looking for rental properties far away from the noise and large signs of the gigantic Inn.

Respectfully,

Amy McArdle

Erie, PA

­­ Elizabeth Thomas Town Supervisor, Town of Ulysses 10 Elm St. Trumansburg, NY (607) 387­5767 ext 232 (607) 279­0675 cell

[email protected] Alternate: [email protected] Darby Kiley

Fwd: Your proposed gatehouse/stable

Carl Mazzocone Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:32 PM To: Kiley Darby Cc: Travis Mack

Dear Darby,

I'd like to submit the following email from DAVID JONES, the great grandson of the original owner of Taughannock. Please share it with the BZA.

Many thanks,

Carl Mazzocone President | Main Line Pictures | Office: 323­650­0642 | [email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Squier Jones Date: June 20, 2017 at 1:22:09 PM EDT To: [email protected] Subject: Your proposed gatehouse/stable

Hi Carl,

Thank you again for your hospitality when I stayed the night at the house a couple weeks ago. As a descendant of the first owners (you recall that my grandfather (1904­1980) summered there as a child, and my great­great grandfather had the property first developed), I am so pleased with the new updates and renovations that you have been doing to the house and property. To me, your investment signals a real desire to maintain the historic charm and beauty of the old house, whilst making improvements that are necessary for ensuring its future. I also enjoyed your tour which included your collection of artifacts dating all the way back to my family's ownership, and I look forward to sharing many of our family's historic documents once I can access them at my parents' house in California.

When showing me the items from the Inn's past, I also was privileged to see your plans for the proposed gatehouse and stables that will be utilized for additional space and potentially events. I was pleased at the level of thought and detail that you have put into the designs and believe it will be a wonderful addition to the property and the area. Since then, I also saw this news article in the Ithaca Voice, and hope that your project is approved and you can move forward with construction. As the Inn nears its sesquicentennial, I believe that this project will draw more people to visit, which would not only benefit your business, but would also benefit Taughannock State Park, Trumansburg, Tompkins County and the Finger Lakes region.

For generations, our family have passed down stories, photos and other memorabilia from the time when we were the custodians of the land that now encompasses the Inn and much of the State Park, including the Falls, and it was a thrill to visit and experience the grandeur of this special place. Seeing children on school trips, families and others admiring the falls, and experiencing the hospitality at the Inn made me proud and thrilled that so many can now share in these experiences. Your plans for the future will only enhance that experience for many more in the years ahead. Please pass on my enthusiastic support for your proposed project.

Best regards,

David Squier Jones DonTaNNE ALMANN MORRIS KLEIN 6140 Willow Creek Road Ithaca. NY 14850

June20,2017 Town of Ulysses Zonrng Office 10 Elm Street Trumansburg, NY 14886

Dear Town of Ulysses ZonitgBoard Members:

This letter, to be read into the minutes in full, addresses points noted in Holly Austin's letters dated May 3 | , 2017 and June 8, 2017 , for Inn at Taughannock, specifically: s Setbacks * Height * Noise

The proposed building would be located 1.4' to the right of way and 1.7' to a side yard bordering a NYS parcel (corner of Taughannock Blvd and Gorge Road). The town's zoning regulations stipulate a 30' front yard setback at the Gorge Road right of way. The owner has not shown just cause for a hardship necessitating reducing the stipulated setbacks.

The maximum building height in the business district in which the applicant's business is located is 32'; the proposed building's height is 46.1'. A cupola proposed for the top of the existing inn increases this building's height to 64.6'. What hardship is averted in increasing the buildings' heights so dramatically? Aesthetics are not a hardship.

Current town zoning re: noise states that sound at a property's boundary drops to 55dB from 90dB at 1lpm. The applicant seeks to extend the 90 dB limit to 1:30am. Since concerts at the park end at 9pm, there is no justification for extending the noise limit to 1:30am to 90 dB-- noise comparable to "Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft[s] at one nautical mile...landing (97d8); power mower[s] (96d8); motorcycle[s] at 25' (90d8); newspaper press[es] (97d8)"-noises so loud that they are "likely" to damage hearing in 8 hours of exposure (l*ule her:rpsCus€d1*,$,r:rr-a&UI*jiurigru1{ari}id}Xqveb.irtsi). The applicant proposes subjecting neighbors to hours and hours of various types of music that could include electronic DJ rnusic, punk, rap, hard rock, grunge, and dance music, among them. Of great concern is the heavy bass beat that much of the music will likely feature.

We are not opposed to development at Inn at Taughannock as long as development occurs within the parameters of ordinances in effect as of the date of this letter.

Morris Klein /'l \,/'/ b*r,t c"u u-- //AroLLa.--- Dorianne Almann

Town of Ulysses Board of Appeals

Re: Public Meeting of June 21, 2017

Appeal by Taughannock Farms Inn/Application for area variances

Ted and Leslie Webster- 1509 Taughannock Blvd Ithaca NY – Comments on Application

I have read the application of Carl Mazzocone for the “transformation “ of Taughannock Farms Inn which is posted on the Ulysses County website and as a property owner on Taughannock Blvd. I share concerns expressed by members of the Planning Board at the meeting of May 2, 2017.

I agree the the size and number of signs is too great and unnecessary and also share concerns expressed about setbacks for the new construction he proposes.

My biggest concern, however, which was not discussed at the meeting is with his requested noise variance. Although I live a mile and a half south of Taughannock Park, I have grave concerns that the noise variance Mr. Mazzocone seeks will be a precedent and other restaurants or resorts that are located or might spring up near me will request the same noise variance.

The decibel study submitted by Mr Maozzcone is spurious. Birds do not chirp continuously til 1:30 am and cars do not pass by that often. There has been no upper dB limit set in his request to “ allow noise above 90 dB “ and giving him carte balance to make that much noise or more until the late hour he requests anytime he wishes is excessive. If the loudspeaker amplification, fireworks or band plays outside at modulated higher dB levels over 90 dB the studies he provided on how far the sound would carry are not applicable . Who is going to regulate how loud the sound will be and when it will cease?

In addition, comparing the noise he will make to concerts in Taughannock Park which are limited to a few during summer and end well before 1:30 am is not valid. Special permits for events such as the Grass Roots Festival which occurs annually for a limited time and a few concerts in the park cannot be compared to Mr Mazzocone’s request to make loud noise on any evening he wishes. This is not fair to the people who reside nearby or to campers who come to the park to enjoy the peace and quiet. My son’s wedding in a park in Boston had a 10 PM noise limit that was strictly enforced by the local police.

Mr. Mazzcone’s “vision” is far reaching but he has chosen the wrong site. This huge premier event center will definitely adversely change the character of the neighborhood, is substantial in the size and scope of the site transformation and the unlimited loud noise at night will be irritating and keep people who are not attending his events up late. A more toned down version with fewer and smaller signs and a reasonable noise level that ceases at an earlier hour needs to be considered. If not, Mr. Mazzocone should consider a different site for his dream venue.

I agree with Planning Board concerns that what he envisions for Taughannock Farms Inn will detract from the iconic nature of the Park. Taughannock Park should remain the destination and not be overshadowed by the Inn.

Darby Kiley

Fwd: Taughannock Opinion

Elizabeth Thomas Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:44 AM To: Darby Kiley

­­­­­­­­­­ Forwarded message ­­­­­­­­­­ From: Henry Fernaine Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:03 AM Subject: Taughannock Opinion To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Greetings to the Zoning Board Members,

Greetings,

My family and I are considering various properties as we move from Oregon to Tompkins county. We're specifically looking in the town of Ulysses because of proximity to friends and family, the spectacular park and the ability to live on the lake. We'll also be moving our web­based business with us.

After hearing about the proposed changes to the Taughannock Farms Inn, we've opted to wait before making an offer on nearby properties. The changes would detrimentally change the character of the area, including the state park.

I looked at the letter from the Inn's attorney that is posted on the town website. Each of their points are specious at best.

The proposed changes are in fact a self­imposed "hardship." As a businessman, I make offers on business properties contingent on getting the appropriate variances first. I don't purchase properties and then expect the town or city to agree to variances in order that I can generate revenue. Where was the company's business plan? Why do they just now realize that the market for inns and restaurants have changed over the last 70 years? These people are not the savvy investors they present themselves to be, or they just assumed they could steamroll the town into allowing these changes. Neither is a good option.

The concept that noise from bands or DJ's will be reduced by surrounding trees and physical landmarks is false. When we've stayed at what was Shirley Wong's bed and breakfast (Reunion House) on Willow Creek Road, we could easily hear the Saturday night concerts at the park during the summer. They, however, ended at nightfall. Further, there is no consideration for the fact that noise travels over water. This noise will certainly be heard across the lake.

There is the issue of the number of variances requested. I believe that the property owners have requested eight variances, which include placing a septic system up against Route 89, adding numerous large signs to the property, and building within 2 feet of the side road. The number of variances leads me to conclude that the property is not large enough to support the project.

Please remember this: each time you grant a variance, you set precedent. The next group of investors for the next property to be developed will expect the same changes. Or they'll sue the town to get them. I don't want to move my family or my business to an area where my taxes go to fight law suits, or where the next business who applies for a variance gets it simply so the town can avoid getting sued.

Last, and probably most important: the construction will loom large over the park, overshadowing its beauty and serenity.

We'll hold off on purchasing property in Ulysses, and have already started looking elsewhere.

This letter is to be read or recorded in the minutes in full.

Sincerely Henry Fernaine Portland, Oregon

­­ Elizabeth Thomas Town Supervisor, Town of Ulysses 10 Elm St. Trumansburg, NY (607) 387­5767 ext 232 (607) 279­0675 cell [email protected] Alternate: [email protected] Comments on Inn at Taughannock variance appeal as of 12:00 pm on 6/21/17 5/15/2017 Strok Email 5/15/2017 Schneider Word attached to email 5/15/2017 Sheckler Email 5/16/2017 State Parks Letter delivered to Town Hall 6/6/2017 Kelly, et al Letter at PB meeting 6/13/2017 Bor Letter 6/13/2017 Planning Board 6/13/2017 Hotchkiss Email 6/13/2017 Finnigan Letter mailed to Town 6/15/2017 Brown Email via Carissa 6/15/2017 Kamarck Email 6/16/2017 Judith Roberts Word attached to email 6/18/2017 Steve Penningroth Word attached to email 6/18/2017 Sally Yates Word attached to email 6/18/2017 Eric and Sharon Nelson Pdf attached to email 6/19/2017 Amy McArdle Email via Liz-revised 6/20 6/20/2017 Adriane Divens Email via Liz 6/20/2017 Mack Travis Word attached to email 6/20/2017 Stan Stewart Email via Liz 6/20/2017 Donna Fein Email 6/20/2017 David Jones Email via Carl M

6/20/2017 Klein-Almann Pdf attached to email 6/20/2017 Feist-Marsh Pdf attached to email 6/21/2017 Webster Word attached to email 6/21/2017 Fernaine Email via Liz

06/21/2017

Dear Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals,

I am writing to ask the board to deny the request for variances from zoning setbacks, height restrictions, the sign ordinance and noise ordinance requested by TFI Landco, LLC under Section 212-92 D, 212-92 E, 212-92 G, and 212-120 B(3). The property is located at 2030 Gorge Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Page 2 of 2 Numbers are 14.-1-11 in the B1-Business District of the Town of Ulysses.

Historically, area variances are meant to address situations where there there are minimal area deficiencies . They are intended to remedy a defect that is not self-created and will not “have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.” This is not the case with the request from TFI Lannco. A request for a reduction from a 30' required set-back to less than 2' is a substantial deficiency, that if granted, would seriously “alter the essential character of the neighborhood”. This area landmark is surrounded by parkland and adjoining residential neighbors. If granted the variance will create create serious adverse affect on its physical appearance as well substantial environmental impacts, including additional traffic and safety concerns for both motorists and pedestrians and significant noise pollution, in a neighborhood where quiet is the norm, particularly after 9PM.

NY “State law requires the applicant to show that the benefit the applicant stands to receive from the variance will outweigh any burden to health, safety and welfare that may be suffered by the community”. * The proximity to Taughannock State Park, which belongs to all of the residents of New York State makes this request of even greater concern and impact since we all have a stake in protecting this very valuable natural resource. I don't belive the applicant has met this standard.

The hardship here is self-created in that the property was purchased as a on-going business that did not require any of these alterations.

*Guidelines for Applicants to the Zoning Board of Appeals JAMES A. COON LOCAL GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL SERIES

Please seriously consider these factors when evaluating both the SEQR review as well as the as the multple requests for variances from local zoning, noise and sign ordinances.

Sincerely, Sarah Adams 4 Falls St. Trummansburg, NY