The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2000-01-12 r ata d/ 6 G0 - TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS f WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2000 �`° 7 : 00 PM APPEAL of Jan Suwinski , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XI , Section 51 Article V , Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to create a building lot by subdivision , containing an existing residential dwelling with an east side yard building setback of 7± feet (40 foot setback required ) located at 1454 Mecklenburg Road , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27= 1 -22 . 1 , Agricultural Zone ( R-30 regulations apply) . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Hoyt Benjamin , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to alter a non = conforming building located at 1013= 1015 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 =2-20 and —22 , Residence District r- 15 . Said alteration involves the enlargement of the building footprint , a second story addition , and a new outside deck . A height variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 . 6 is also being requested to permit a new building height of 45± feet (36 foot maximum height allowed ) . A variance from Section 14 may also be required to permit an outside deck to be 10± feet from a north side property line ( 15 foot setback required) . Said existing building is non -conforming since it is located too close to property lines . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Stephen Cummins , Appellant , requesting authorization form the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non -conforming use at the Indian Creek Fruit Farm Stand located at 1408 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 -25 . 21 , Residence District R- 15 . Said extension proposes the addition of a bakery and the sales of baked goods at an existing farm produce stand (barn ) . Neither use is permitted in an R- 15 zone . A use variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 may also be required . APPEAL GRANTED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2000 7 : 00 PM PRESENT: David Stotz, Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Kirk Sigel , Board Member; Andy Frost , Director Building/Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7 : 11 p . m . ) ; Mike Smith , Planner . ALSO PRESENT: Connie Miller, 601 North Decator Street ; AM Chambliss 14 Middaugh Road ; Karen Scott , 1416 Trumansburg Road ; Mark Masler, 119 East Seneca Street ; G & L Vignaux, 1470 Trumansburg Road ; John & Celia Bowers , 1406 Trumansburg Road ; Hoyt Benjamin , 1013 Taughannock Blvd ; Bill Carini , 231 Vantuskirk Road ; Bill & Athena Grove , 1486 Trumansburg Road ; Margaret Gibson , 1488 Trumansburg Road ; Gerald Hall , 1307 Trumansburg Road . Chairperson Stotz led the meeting to order at 7 : 07 p . m . , stating that all posting , publication , and notifications of the public hearings had been completed . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Jan Suwinski , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XI , Section 51 Article V , Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to create a building lot by subdivision , containing an existing residential dwelling with an east side yard building setback of 7± feet (40 foot setback required) located at 1454 Mecklenburg Road , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 27- 1 -22 . 1 , Agricultural Zone ( R- 30 regulations apply) . Mark Masler, 119 East Seneca Street , stated that they are creating a building lot of approximately 1 . 4 acres to an 18-acre parcel . Subdivision approval has been granted conditional on obtaining a variance . The house was built in the 1800s . The current boundary on the east side is not being changed . It was established in 1954 . This situation has existed for 45 years . Andy Frost , Director Building/Zoning , stated that the board has had these kinds of appeals before where there has been subdivision . The subdivision creates a lot that has a deficiency of some sort . Nothing has changed . The house is still going to be as close to the property line as it has always been . Mr. Sigel asked if the lot was otherwise completely conforming . Mr. Frost responded yes . Mr. Niefer stated that it appears that the addition that encroaches is not part of the original house . Mr. Masler responded that he does not know if it is part of the original house . Mr. Niefer asked if it is a screened in porch or a covered patio area . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Krantz stated that it is not screened in . Mr. Krantz asked what is the lot to be conveyed to Eldin Drake by the Banisters . Mr. Masler stated that it was provided for background informations . It is a survey of the adjoining lot . Chairperson Stotz stated that the Planning Board indicated that a condition that the surveyor correct the map to show the correct of 1454 . Mr. Masler stated that the survey map has been corrected . Chairperson Stotz asked who owns the property to the east . Mr. Masler stated that the Suwinskis own the adjoining property to the east . Chairperson Stotz asked if there are any other houses on the property along the road . Mr. Masler stated that they do not own any more houses on that area of the road . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 14 p . m . , and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard . With no persons to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 7 : 15 p . m . Chairperson Stotz stated that there is no environmental assessment . Mr. Niefer stated that the house does have a covered patio that is wide open , some one might want to screen or glass it in or make it into a room . Would it be appropriate for the board to consider that the variance be granted based on the conditions as they exist now and that there be no further enlargement or enhancement of that particular area that is encroaching? Attorney Barney stated that it is an appropriate condition . Chairperson Stotz stated that any building permit to enclose it would require another variance . Mr. Frost stated that if the board grants them a variance it would not require them to come back to the board . If it were a special approval then they would need to come back to the board . If the variance with that condition perhaps the board would want some language allowing someone to come back to the board to make the argument for modification . Resolution No. 2000= 1 — Suwninski Subdivision to Create a Building Lot. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Jan Suwinski, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article Xl, Section 51 and Article V, Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create a building lot by subdivision, containing an existing residential dwelling with an east side yard building setback of not less than 6 feet (40 foot setback required) at 1454 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1 -22. 1 , Agricultural Zone (R-30 regulation apply) on the condition that the covered porch remain a covered porch and not be further enclosed to be an addition to the house or in any other way alter the view relative to that portion of the house. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Hoyt Benjamin , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to alter a non - conforming building located at 1013- 1015 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 -2-20 and —22 , Residence District R- 15 . Said alteration involves the enlargement of the building footprint , a second story addition , and a new outside deck . A height variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 . 6 is also being requested to permit a new building height of 45± (36-foot maximum height allowed ) . A variance from Section 14 may also be required to permit an outside deck to be 10± feet from a north side property line ( 15-foot setback required ) . Said existing building is non -conforming since it is located too close to property lines . Hoyt Benjamin , 1013 Taughannock Blvd , stated that two older lake cottages occupy this property. One of the older lake cottages was hand built . It has settled tremendously. It does not have a poured concrete basement , but is located on dirt . It does not have a lot of usable life left in it . They have been renting it for the last 20 years . Mr. Benjamin stated that they are tired of having tenants next door . They would like to have more room . They have growing children . They have hired an architect to help them figure out a plan to expand the one existing cottage that has some merit left to it . This cottage does have a poured concrete basement . Work was done on it in 1986 to make it a little larger. The house is still fairly small . On the survey map , the cottage that will be removed is at the top of the survey. The cottage that is to be removed is within 2 . 5 feet of the lot line . Mr. Frost stated that the cottage directly to the north is being removed . Is the cottage that is uphill towards Taughannock Boulevard a rental property? Mr. Benjamin responded that it is a barn . It has never been occupied since Mr. Benjamin has owned the property. The previous owner tried to have an apartment in the barn . They were asked to remove the apartment by the previous Zoning Officer . He does not intend to do anything with the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED building . It is used for storage . Mr. Benjamin stated that he feels that this is a big enhancement to the land and the value of land . They do plan on spending a considerable amount of money to accomplish the plan . The value of trying to maintain the older cottage is not worth pursuing . This is a single-family area of Taughannock Boulevard . They do not want to have tenants . Mr. Frost asked if Mr. Benjamin would describe in more detail why he is adding onto the house . Mr. Benjamin stated that the second floor of the existing cottage that they occupy has very low rooflines . They are unable to stand up straight except for in the very peak. There is only one existing bathroom . Mr. Frost stated that the stairs to the second floor are not legal size stairs . Mr . Benjamin stated that you walk up into the roofline . They need to crouch to get over into the bedroom . Mr. Frost stated that the stairs are not safe to go up and down . Mr. Krantz asked if the increased rooflines would obscure the view for any neighbors . Mr. Benjamin stated that the view would not be obscured . The view is out to Cayuga Lake . No one would be obscured of any view. This house is remaining . The construction is in the center of the property. The construction would take place away from the lot lines except the corner of the deck. Mr. Sigel asked if the house that is being demolished gray. Mr. Benjamin responded yes . Mr. Frost stated that the west side of the lake has very steep grade . The steep grade created the higher building from the lowest point of the building to the ridge of the roof . Chairperson Stotz stated that the deck would be approximately 10 feet from the north side property line . It would be a new deck on the expanded house . Mr . Benjamin stated that it is shown on the shadowed drawing . The footprint of the existing house is shown . The major construction is on the new house . Mr . Frost stated that his encroachment to the property line with a structure is less than it would be . He is actually diminishing it . Attorney Barney asked what is so magical about the shape of the deck . It is the shape of the deck that kicks it into setback line . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AM Chambliss , Architect , stated that the shape of the deck had to do with getting more area of the deck out closer to the view. Mr. Benjamin stated that it does not disrupt the view from inside the house . If the deck were located on the front of the house it would disrupt the view from the inside the house . Mr. Chambliss stated that they are also stepping the deck down . The first floor elevation of the addition is the first floor of the existing building . The deck in the area of the addition steps down about 3 risers . It is less visible from inside and adjoining properties . Chairperson Stotz stated that it is being done for the purpose of saving the view. Mr. Frost asked if the entire deck is 3 foot or less to the ground surface . Mr. Chambliss responded that it is only the area at the narrow edge where is connects with the uphill . Mr. Sigel asked how high is the deck at the far point . Mr. Benjamin responded that the elevation in the drawing would give you some indication . Mr. Chambliss stated that the question is how far they can push existing grade up at the basement level . They have an existing building that is coming out that is deeper in the ground than they need it to be for the addition . The goal would be to push the dirt as much uphill as they can . Mr. Frost stated that should the board approve this , they would be looking for a plan to be approved by the Director of Building and Zoning and the Town Engineer about slope stabilization , erosion control , and grading after the project is complete . Mr. Niefer asked if the existing structure going to stay unchanged , or is it going to be modified also. Mr. Chambliss stated that it is also modified . The plan is to make one decent size bedroom in the existing upstairs . They are taking the uphill slope and extending it up for everything . They are extending the slope up for a dormer. Mr. Benjamin stated that they intend to push out the roof . It would be about 15 to 20 feet from the lot line . They are not intending to do any building within the setback of the lot line . The two bedrooms have a small dormer. The one dormer on the south side will be removed . The will re- roof over it. The architectural plan does not have dormers in it . Attorney Barney asked if the third floor is level two on the plans . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Benjamin responded yes . Attorney Barney stated that on the site section , there are some crosshatched areas that are to the east on the existing house . Are they presently there? Mr. Chambliss responded that they are existing decks . Mr. Niefer stated that it seems as if every time comes before the board with a plan to remodel or improve a piece of property along the west shore that they want to extend the height of their house . Was the height limitation taken into consideration when did the proposed designs? Many times architects come in with the approach that this is the way that it is best done . The board does not get any other alternative within the zoning . Mr. Chambliss replied that if there had been good solutions that met the programmatic requirements that also met zoning , he would have been happy to pursue it . Part of the problem is that in this instance they have an existing floor level for living space that is remaining living space . The living space is on two levels . They are taking the lower one and extending it . There is a big grade drop across the site . Mr. Benjamin stated that the living room deck is level one and it exists . Everything on the south side would exist . They were trying to expand the floors that are existing . They did not have a choice of how they set the levels . The other problem that they had that was very difficult to over come was the problem of the second floor bedrooms being stuck under eaves . If you look at the elevation of the cross section elevation , the darkened roofline is the existing roofline . The existing roofline does not allow an adult to standup straight in the second floor. Chairperson Stotz stated that he understands why they need to expand the building up . However, there have been concerns and complaints about the view that people have from the lake . People are building up instead of out . Suddenly where there was a cottage , there is a modernistic 3- story fagade facing the lake . People feel that it is out of character with the lakeshore . The character might be changing . People might be doing it more and more . It is still for the most part a lakeshore that is made up of one or two-story cottages . Mr. Benjamin stated that this is a two- story cottage , but because it is on that slope the basement on the lakeside is exposed . Since it is exposed , the Town chooses to measure it from the lowest exposed point . From the driveway, it is well within the height limitation for a two-story house . Chairperson Stotz stated that the view from the lake is a three-story house . Mr. Benjamin stated that on either shore of the lake three-story houses seen . Most the houses have the same problem . Some of the houses are larger. They do not think that they are pushing the envelope . The only reason that they are doing it is because they are trying to utilize one existing cottage and make the new addition work with the existing . They are pressed into a situation . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED If they were to design the house with a clean slate and no cottages , it would be different . The new half has to fit with the existing half . Mr. Frost stated that the second floor of the house as it is does not conform to code . The new addition would conform to code . He does not know if he needs the full height . He does not know how much he would have to go to make a legal second floor. It will be legal with reconstruction . The mass of building seen from the lake is reduced . It might be higher, but it is less mass because the second building would be gone . Mr. Benjamin stated that they have discussed this at length before coming to the board . They feel that they have very compelling reasons . The options were very limited . Mr. Chambliss stated they made a point of keeping the gable end pointing away from the lake so that you had an eave to the lake to reduce the height to the lake . Mr. Benjamin wanted to keep the character of the cottage with the new addition . The detail and the materials need to be in keeping with the cottage . Mr. Frost stated that technically it is a two-story house . It could not be built if it was three-story under code . Mr. Benjamin stated that he has lived on the site for 20 years . He loves living on the site . He has improved the beach , the driveway and everything with the house . He would like to stay there another 20 years . The house is getting smaller every day. Mr. Frost stated that they have not received any letters from the neighbors to the south . Chairperson Stotz asked if the neighbors to the north had any concerns . Mr. Benjamin stated that he has not had a conversation with them . Mr. Frost stated that Mr. Zarriello called the office and did request and did receive a copy of the application . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 44 p . m . , asked if any members of the pubic wished to be heard . Connie Kern Miller, 1031 Taughannock Boulevard , stated that her parents own the property to the north that is 1031 Taughannock Boulevard . Her parents reside in Florida . They only received the notice two days ago and faxed it to her on Monday, January 10th . It was impossible to tell from the description in the notice exactly what the proposal was . She had a very different impression of what the application was for. She would like to have a few minutes to examine the application and to look at the plans . She would like to have a better picture of what the proposal is . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Miller stated that she would like to give the board a little history of the property at 1013 to 1015 Taughannock Boulevard . Her parents acquired the property to the north in 1952 . They have owned it since . The property at 1013- 1015 Taughannock Boulevard had to residences on it . The central residence is at the top of the stairway that goes to the lake . It is referred to as the older cottage and is proposed to be torn down . It was for many years the home of Jim Milks's father. Jim and Muriel Milks built the house next door. Ms . Miller stated that it is an adequate home for raising a family. The Milks' did raise two children in the house . She spent many hours staying over night with the friends next door. It is an adequate home and would still be an adequate home for the raising of a family. About 13 years ago there was an application made to this board by Mr. Benjamin and his wife to expand that residence . The argument then was the same as she is hearing it now. Their family is growing and they need a bigger residence . The Zoning Board of Appeals approved that application . She was here and she made a presentation . Her parents objected to it at the time . It was approved . The expansion that was done changed the character of the neighborhood from what was a modest , but perfectly adequately home to raise a family, to a large edifice perched on top of a cliff . Chairperson Stotz's concerns are very appropriate about the appearance of the structure from the lake . It has now has expanded further towards the lake . The appearance from below is that there is a rather large structure on top of a cliff. In addition , there has been a lot of building , additions of decks , and a staircase up and down . There have been a lot of docks . In addition to the two residences on the property, behind the house that is occupied by the Benjamin family there is an industrial style building . Mr. Benjamin refers to it as a barn . It is not really a barn . It is more like a shop building . It was built by Jim Milks as a workshop where he did woodworking . It was never a business property. It was a hobby of his . After the property was sold to the family named Buris . Mr. Buris was a plumber in Ithaca . He began to install a residence in the structure . He put in plumbing and added additional electric meters . There was an appearance of dormers on the building . It was obvious it was being changed into a structure for a residence . Her parents made a complaint to the Town Zoning Officer. It was not Mr. Frost at the time . It was never remedied to her parents' satisfaction . They believe that this building has been occupied as a residence . The Zoning Officer issued an order that it not be used as a residence . He never required anyone to remove the improvements to the structure . The lot is a narrow lot . It was substandard for the two residences . It is rather crowed . Chairperson Stotz asked if Ms . Miller would like an opportunity to speak again once she has seen the application . Chairperson Stotz asked if there were any other persons present to be heard . Ms . Miller stated that all her parents received were the notices . The description in the notice makes it impossible to tell what the proposal is . Mr. Frost asked if the mail was forwarded from Ithaca to Florida . Ms . Miller stated that her parents receive all their mail in Florida . They received the notice two days ago . They called her immediately and faxed it to her. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Frost asked if she had attempted to call him . Ms . Miller responded no . She wanted to come to the meeting to find out what it was about . There were no other persons present to be heard . Chairperson Stotz adjourned the public hearing at 7 : 52 p . m . He will re-open the public hearing later and give Ms . Miller an opportunity to give her comments on the application . Chairperson Stotz stated that they could go on to the next appeal . Attorney Barney stated that they could start the next appeal and then go back to the Benjamin appeal . Ms . Miller stated that she could not tell from the description what the appeal was . It will enable her to understand the application . Her parents' home is a modest structure . She feels it fits well with the character of the neighborhood or what she thinks the west shore of the lake should be like . The structure that was approved a number of years back was already out of character. She urges the board to look at what has been built already. Chairperson Stotz stated that they would adjourn the appeal for 15 minutes . The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Stephen Cummins , Appellant , requesting authorization form the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non -conforming use at the Indian Creek Fruit Farm Stand located at 1408 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 -25 . 21 , Residence District R- 15 . Said extension proposes the addition of a bakery and the sales of baked goods at an existing farm produce stand ( barn ) . Neither use is permitted in an R- 15 zone . A use variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 may also be required . Stephen Cummins , Indian Creek Fruit Farm , stated that he bought the farm 2 years ago . It is an orchard that has been around for many years . There is a farm stand down near the road on Route 96 . He understands that it is a residential zoning with a grandfathered clause for the farm stand . Up to this point it has only produce has been sold . He is applying for a scratch bakery. The purpose is threefold . The first is that it is hard to make a living just growing produce . It is an expensive piece of property. He does make his living from farming . He met a lady about three months ago . They were talking and they decided that a bakery would be a good thing for the farm . The reasons for it would be that he would be getting a rent income . Scratch bakery is a value added . It would be taking produce and converting it into another product . It is also going to help out in bringing in business . Business has not been good . The stand ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED has been out of commission for about 10 years . From what he understands , up until the 1980s it was a very productive stand . For various reasons it is not the case anymore . He is trying to make ends meet and keep the farm a farm . The structure would not be increasing the footprint of any existing buildings . There is half of a green house in front of 100-foot long barn that faces the highway. The green house does not function as a green house . It does not get sun most of the day. It makes it very difficult to sell produce out of in the summer because it is very hot . He is proposing that the north end of the green house be converted into a kitchen and winterized display area . The display area would be a shared area for produce and baked goods . The south end of the green house would eventually become a front porch . The green house would then be re-oriented north of the barn where it would get day light and be used . Mr. Cummins stated that he spoke with Monika Roth at Cornell Cooperative Extension . She sent a letter in support of the bakery. See Attachment #1. Chairperson Stotz asked what would happen financially if he did not open the bakery. Mr . Cummins responded that he has thought about it a lot . The farm is in very poor condition . At this point , the only income it has is from vegetable crops . He does operate a fruit tree nursery. He is going to plant younger trees . At best , it is a 5-year project . When they do come into production , it is not a large farm . They are looking at 25 tillable acres . The rest is woods and unusable land . The first 5 or 6 years it is difficult . Any extra income that he can get is helpful . Once the orchard comes into production , farmers do have bad year. His brother operates an orchard . Last year he had a beautiful crop . He was hit by 3 inches of hail . It destroyed the crop . He is now starting a winery. Chairperson Stotz asked what would not having this additional income mean for the viability of the farm . Supporting financial information would be helpful . Mr. Cummins responded that it would not be good . Last year they brought in about $ 11 , 000 from the stand . The bills were substantially over that . It was the first year and the stand had been out of commission for a for a while . Finances are his main reason for the addition of the bakery. Mr. Krantz stated that about 2 years ago the Eddy Farm came before the board . It was agreed that a farm stand by definition is allowed to sell anything that they produce on the land . Would not baked goods qualify if they baked on the farm and produce is used ? Mr. Frost stated that it is an interesting point . If he grew wheat , turned it into flour, and made pies . If everything he produced came solely from the land it might be a good argument . It goes beyond that . Chairperson Stotz stated that not all of the products sold in a permitted fruit stand has to be raised on that land . It is permitted to have products purchased from elsewhere to be sold . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that he did provide the board with a copy of the previous Zoning Board of Appeals decisions . It was allowing Randy Brown that was not indigenous to the area . It was a variance provided . The bakery takes the idea a step further. Mr. Krantz stated that they would be taking apples and peaches that are grown on the property to be baked and sold . Mr . Frost stated that they would be selling items that are coming off the land . There are people who feel that it is a commercial use . Mr. Sigel stated that it would be easier to argue the point if it were not baked there . Baking is a commercial use . Baking is a venture beyond selling fruit . Mr. Frost stated that then does the baked products then is sold at Wegmans . How far does it go? Mr. Cummins stated that one of the reasons for this was financial . One of the financial things was rent . Who is going to rent a space just to sell goods? It does not make sense . The kitchen would be rented out . He is not going to be doing the baking . It is very traditional to have an orchard with a bakery. It is nothing unusual . Mr. Frost stated that Mr. Cummins is well liked by the neighbors . It will take money to run and maintain the farm . What circumstances have changed so that the thinking from a year ago is less valid today? Mr. Cummins stated that he has more experience . It is easy when you first buy a business to be rosy-eyed about it . He does not know if the past reputation is hurting business . It is going to take quite a lot to keep this place going . Mr. Frost asked if he had owned before he bought this business . Mr. Cummins responded that this is his first place . Chairperson Stotz stated that the bakery would just sell baked goods . Mr . Cummins stated that they would sell baked goods and jams . Chairperson Stotz asked if they would be selling salad dressing . Mr. Cummins stated that it would be valued added products from the farm . He is not willing to limit himself. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated that he would not limit himself with the products where there could be value added . He would produce the products from the orchard . Would the bakery buy anything for resale? Mr. Cummins responded that he has bought agricultural products before . He did buy plums and resell them . He would not be buying olive oil or spaghetti . It is not being turned into a convenient mart . It would be baked and sold on premises . Chairperson Stotz asked if there would be deliveries of farm products for sale in the bakery. Mr. Cummins stated that he would not buy a name brand product and put it next to their product . Chairperson Stotz asked if they would sell their products off premises . Mr. Cummins stated that there would be some sold off premises . Part of the bakery business is wedding and birthday cakes . It would be for individual buyers . Chairperson Stotz asked if they would bake goods for resale at a different bakery. Mr. Cummins responded no . Chairperson Stotz stated that they are going to adjourn the appeal at 8 : 10 p . m . and continue with the previous appeal . APPEAL of Hoyt Benjamin , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to alter a non - conforming building located at 1013= 1015 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 =2-20 and —22 , Residence District r- 15 . Said alteration involves the enlargement of the building footprint , a second story addition , and a new outside deck . A height variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 . 6 is also being requested to permit a new building height of 45± feet (36-foot maximum height allowed) . A variance from Section 14 may also be required to permit an outside deck to be 10± feet from a north side property line ( 15-foot setback required) . Said existing building is non -conforming since it is located too close to property lines . Chairperson Stotz re-opened the public hearing at 8 : 11 p . m . Ms . Miller stated that when she was listening the explanation which included tearing down the existing central cottage . This might be an improvement because there would not be the 3 structures crowded at the property. The plan is to create on enormous house which will stretch across the entire top of the bank and occupy more square footage on the ground than the existing 2 structures . Nine feet is being added to the height of the structure . She would like to mention that it looks like from the plans that there is going to be 3 stories of occupied living space . What was originally the basement of the house next door is now going to be living space . This proposal is to build a structure ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED that is going to be 4 , 000 square feet . If this family needs this much space , they might not need it on the lakefront . A house this large should be a new structure built in a subdivision , not perched on the top of the cliff along the lakeside . The proposal is to cover 3% more of the lot coverage bringing it to a total of 17 . 63% of lot coverage on a very narrow lot . The lot is 2/ 10 of an acre . She does not know how many other residences that the Town of Ithaca would allow on a 2/ 10 of an acre lot that is 4 , 000 square feet . It is not even living space . It is space occupied on the ground . It is a 3-story structure . The proposal asks for more decking . There is a lot of decking . There used to be a nice yard between the house and the top of the bank. Decking has covered it up . There is no yard or woods . Ms . Miller stated that she read over the Environmental Assessment Form . There is concern mentioned as to the impacts on the neighborhood . The appearance of the structure from the lake itself , under Section C2 mentions that all 3 floors would be visible from Cayuga Lake . There is little vegetation between the building and the lake . The height of the proposed second story would create a structure that is out of proportion with the existing homes along the western shore of Cayuga Lake . It is very true . If the board could take the time to look at this from the lake , it would be an enormous structure . People have built enormous structure along the shore of the lake . It is starting to become a contest to see whose house can be built bigger. They are not small cottages . She does not believe that there is any valid reason for this particular family to be requesting to build a house of this size or to add on and create a structure of this size in order to raise a family. She urges the board not to keep repeating this process every few years with respect to this property. Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 17 p . m . Mr. Frost stated that there are building analysis and lot coverage analysis in the packet . Required in an R- 15 zone is a building lot that is 15 , 000 square feet . The existing and proposed is unchanged . The size of the building lot is 23 , 683 square feet . This is larger than the minimum 15 , 000 square foot . The building coverage is changing from 13 . 32% and the new is 14 . 29% . This excludes the decks . The zoning allows 20% lot coverage . The net change between the rental property being torn down and the new addition is about 130 square feet . The significant difference comes in with the decks . The existing coverage for the decks is 304 square feet and it would be enlarged to 792 square feet . By building code it is a 2 -story building . It would not be able to be constructed as a 3-story building . Everything is in compliance other than the decks . The existing house is not getting any closer to the lot line ; the addition is compliant with the 15-foot setback of which the second house is not . The deck creates a problem , but the building addition and most of the deck is within the 15-foot setback. Mr. Niefer asked how this is considered a 2 -story building . Mr. Frost responded that any portion of the floor that is partly in the ground is considered a basement . Mr. Benjamin responded that the barn has not been lived in for as long as he owned it . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that when he first became Zoning Officer in 1986 , he was at the property verifying that it was not a residence . Mr. Benjamin stated that they are proposing to remove the gray house . It is perched more closely on the side of the bank . The addition would be on the same plane . It does come back further. The addition is pulled back from the lot line significantly. It is pulled back from the bank . Mr. Krantz stated that if the house were only 36 feet in height and if the deck did not extend into the 15 -foot setback, the case would not be before the board . Mr. Frost stated that he is over the south side property line . He has been along every house along the lake in the Town . There are a lot of buildings sitting on the ground without being tied into the foundations . He does not mind seeing these types of buildings disappear. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mike Smith , Planner, stated that the house is out of proportion with the other houses along the shoreline . It is made more obvious by not having any screening from the lake . Chairperson Stotz asked if there are any houses nearby that have height variances . Mr. Frost stated that there are quite a few houses that are located closer to the City. Attorney Barney stated that this board granted a variance to Doctor Lamb at a time when the height limitation was less than 36 feet . Due to the topography the variance was for 54-foot measurement under the Zoning Ordinance . The Zoning Ordinance has a unique way of measuring . The lowest point of the interior or exterior measures houses up . It is a measurement that works well on gently sloping lands or flat lands . It has its problems with the steep slopes . Mr. Sigel stated that it would be useful for the board to have better renderings of the view of the house from the lake . He does not think that they have a rendering from that direction . It does not show the vegetation either. Mr. Niefer stated that it is difficult to know exactly where the ground line is and where measurements are being taken from . Mr. Frost stated that he took a ruler and drew a line across the top of the ridge of the roof , and then went to the lowest floor level and drew a line out and then scaled it . Chairperson Stotz stated that the fact that the bottom levels is already partially engraved . Part of the 45 feet is engraved from the roadside . Mr. Frost stated that it is an elevation change of approximately 15 feet from the roadside to the lakeside . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sigel stated that he would not be as concerned if this was a house located on a residential road and the backyard sloped away and there was 3 stories facing woods . Chairperson Stotz stated that there has been a tremendous change along Taughannock Boulevard over the past 20 years in terms of ownership . A lot of the houses were summer residence . They were truly cottages . It set the character. A lot of the properties in the past 20 years have been sold . They have been sold to people who have more money and naturally want to winterize them or expand them . He thinks that the trend is going to continue . Mr. Frost stated that there has been a lot of building improvement from a fire safety standpoint . The old houses were not well built . They were not intended to be year- round living . Chairperson Stotz stated that when the assessment was changed to per foot of lakefront , it changed the tax situation for many people . The people who can afford the properties can also afford to make the changes to the properties . There are going to be a lot of these improvements in the future . Mr. Sigel stated that he would rather see the Town Board make a decision that would allow for these changes rather than this board set policy. Mr. Frost stated that the Codes and Ordinances Committee is working on lakefront regulation . The Town does recognize the building height and the changes . Mr. Krantz stated that the Ithaca Journal published a series of articles on the Finger Lakes . They are a treasure . Cayuga Lake did not come out with 4 stars . A lot of the purity of the water in several of the lakes is superior. The lake is getting widdled way. Someday, somewhere , somebody has to take a stand to say that the Town has rules and regulations . The question is if the Zoning Board of Appeals is the ones to do it. Mr. Sigel stated that he does not feel entirely comfortable allowing the character to change substantially if it is predominately smaller cottage homes and it is in a transition to larger homes . He does not feel comfortable allowing it to happen by giving everyone a variance . Mr. Frost stated that the second building is a rental and could continue to be a rental . The number of dwelling units would be diminished on the property. Mr. Sigel stated that often times there are good arguments . The board does give variances in exchange for elimination of uses . In many situations mitigating factors can be found . This is the first few of the many. Mr. Frost stated that there are very strict laws for the buildings around Lake Placid . Most of the buildings cannot be reached by road . They need to take a boat out to the house . The houses are extraordinarily huge houses , but they are beautiful buildings . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sigel stated that there are many other places where the restrictions have been strict in size and it is very quaint . Chairperson Stotz stated that he is persuaded by the fact that a house that is previously was not in conformance is being brought in to conformance . One house is being removed from the property. There is an overall improvement to the property. Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Ordinance has a prohibition of more than one principle building on a lot . This lot in present is in violation . It is permitted as a valid non -conforming use . Does the board want to continue that non -conformity which is a density type of non -conformity or alleviate that one and tolerate another non -conformity? Mr. Frost stated that the board might want to consider seeing some of the decking cut back . Chairperson Stotz stated that he is not particularly in favor for the purpose of the view to extend 5 feet into the setback . It is not a valid reason . If it were a bedroom or a living room it would be different . Resolution No. 2000=2 — Environmental Assessment in the Appeal of Hoyt Benjamin Recluestincl Alter a Non-conformin Building. MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Hoyt Benjamin, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to alter a non -conforming building located at 1013- 1015 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2-20 and — 22, Residence District R- 15. The board makes its findings in support of the negative determination based upon the conclusions that were made by the review in the Environmental Assessment Form. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer Sigel. NAYS: None. The vote on the MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Stotz asked if the enlargement should be a separate motion . Attorney Barney stated that everything could be included in one motion . Resolution No. 2000=3 - Hoyt Beniamin Permission to Alter Non -conforming Building MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Hoyt Benjamin requesting under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to alter a non-conforming building, located at 1013- 1015 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2-20 and 22, Residence District R- 15. Said alternation involves the enlargement of the building footprint, a second story addition, but not into the 15 foot side yard on the north side and that the deck be reconfigured to be kept within the required side yard setbacks. Permit a new building height of up to 45 feet whereby a 36-foot maximum height is allowed based upon the following findings: 1 . The proposed expansion as shown does not exceed the lot coverage requirement of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to R- 15, 2. The overall increase in the footprint of the building is approximately 130 square feet, 3. The visual impact from the road of the removal of the one house and the replacement with the expansion of the other cottage does not give a view that is significantly different from that it is presently there with the two buildings in place, 4. The visual impact from the lake by the removal and expansion will leave a visual impact that is not significantly different from that is presently there with both buildings, 5. The granting of the requested application reduces the non-conformity of the house in that it removes one extra principle building that maybe there by reason of being a valid non - conforming use, 6. The topography on the lot is quite steep from the street side to the lakeside making it difficult to construct a reasonably useful house within the ordinance height limitations, 7. There are several homes on the west shore of the lake in the Town of Ithaca which have somewhat larger than permitted heights, including one home for which a variance was granted for a 50 + foot height dimension, 8. The character of the housing along the west shore has changed over the last 20 years because of assessment and other pressures so that the number of summer cottages are gradually being reduced and being replaced by year-round homes which tend to be larger because of the need for more space when living year-round. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: Sigel. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPEAL of Stephen Cummins , Appellant , requesting authorization form the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non -conforming use at the Indian Creek Fruit Farm Stand located at 1408 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24- 1 -25 . 21 , Residence District R- 15 . Said extension proposes the addition of a bakery and the sales of baked goods at an existing farm produce stand (barn ) . Neither use is permitted in an R- 15 zone . A use variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 may also be required . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 47 p . m . Mr. Cummins stated that he gave a letter to the board from Monika Roth . He stated that he received a booklet called "Planning for Agriculture in the Town of Ithaca" . It mentions in the booklet value added products in ways of helping local farms succeed . It is a report of the Conservation Advisory Council , Agricultural Committee . It was adopted July 15 , 1992 to the Town of Ithaca . Chairperson Stotz stated that his fruit stand is located in an R- 15 District . That is the issue . Mr. Cummins stated that at the same time the issue is that it would be helping a farm in the Town of Ithaca . Mr. Frost stated that the Planning Department was able to overlay the tax parcel map showing the buildings with the zoning map . This was to make sure that the proposed barn was in the R- 15 zone and not the Agricultural Zone . Mr. Cummins stated that many people have advised him to ask to have the property rezoned to Agricultural . Celia Bowers , 1406 Trumansburg Road , stated that she and her husband share a driveway by the way of easement with the Indian Creek Fruit Farm . People in the neighborhood who could not be present sent her two letters . They asked that she read their letters . Heather Weiss owns the land directly opposite the fruit stand . She owns 20 acres of land that she has kept open since she bought it . Ms . Weiss bought the land because there was some development pressure . A couple of motions had come to put commercial property there . One was a small factory for making hats . The other was another local fruit farmer who wanted to put a business on the land selling farm machinery. Ms . Weiss lives at 105 Dubois Road . See Attachment #2. Her house has a Dubois Road address , but no access to Dubois Road . The second letter is from Jane and Lee Schafrik who live at 1491 Trumansburg Road . See Attachment #3. Ms . Bowers stated that they have an easement over one of the driveways that belong to Indian Creek. If there is going to be a bakery there serving muffins and hot malt cider to people by 8 : 00 a . m . , it is not an appropriate thing to be going on within sight and sound of the oldest house on the Trumansburg Road in the Town of Ithaca . It is the historic end of the house that faces the fruit farm . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 19 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED John Bowers , 1406 Trumansburg Road , stated that in the 18 months since Mr. Cummins has been their neighbor they have had nothing but respect and admiration for what he has done with the farm . He is a wonderful neighbor and an asset to the neighborhood . This proposal put them in a difficult situation . They have thought about this a lot . They discussed it with Mr. Cummins to find out details of the project . They also talked with other neighbors . Some of what is proposed they do not have any objection to . Mr. Bowers stated that they do object to removing the green house from in front of the barn and replacing it with a display area . It will make the place look more attractive . Unfortunately they have come to the conclusion that they have to oppose the other portion of the proposal . They oppose the request to put in a bakery. Mr . Bowers read from a prepared statement . See Attachment #4. Chairperson Stotz stated that the products that Mr. Cummins would be selling in the fall and winter relate to the farm . They are products that relate to the farm . There could be an interpretation that a roadside stand is designed to provide an outlet for farm produce . Mr. Bowers stated that year- round sales are unclear. He explained that he is not concerned about what Mr. Cummins intends to do with the bakery. He is concerned about the long- range problem . Mr. Cummins might have no intention of selling anything except for things that are made with produce from the farm . Once a commercial operation is permitted , it will open the way in the future to abuse of the R- 15 zoning . There is a big difference between a seasonal roadside stand and year- round commercial operational and sales facility. He believes this could be the first step in transferring Trumansburg Road into a commercial node . He urges the board to turn down this request . Mr. Bowers stated that he does not want his neighborhood to become commercial . Most of the residents do not want it to be a commercial area . Chairperson Stotz asked if the Bowers sold antiques out of their home . Mr. Bowers stated that his wife has an antique business by appointment only. She might have six customers a month . Mr. Frost stated that they are running an antique business . It is commercial use of their property. Ms . Bowers stated that she has a home business that she has that was specifically excluded by the Zoning Board of Appeals from advertising . The sign went up by permission of the Zoning Board of Appeals . When the bought the property there was no sign ordinance . The prior Town Zoning Officer told them that there was going to a sign ordinance . He suggested that they wait and go before the Zoning Board of Appeals . The sign is much larger than she wanted and it is not in the place that she wanted . Mr. Frost stated that by definition there is commerce going on at the property. Ms . Bowers stated that the property could only be sold by a residential property with no improvements for commercial . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 20 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that his comment in conversations with Mr. Bowers was misinterpreted . His comment with regard to giving variances that were time limited to a person . He attempted to say that the wisdom in granting a variance is specific to a person and not the property alone had been debated in the past . It is not a license to operate a convenience food store or market at the site despite the fact of the importation and sale of some non - indigenous farm produce will be permitted . The use of the buildings are limited , restricted , and governed by the same rules that apply to agricultural uses and R-30 uses . Mr. Bowers stated that their property would be devalued by being immediately adjacent to a property where commercial activity is going on . He thinks that the long- range impact of this is going to be very serious . George Vignaux, 1470 Trumansburg Road , stated that he does own an existing commercial property at 1470 Trumansburg Road in that he did have a garage sale a couple years ago . He would like to speak against what he believes to be the salami method of zoning in granting exemptions that tend to snowball . There is a farm stand there now. He will not debate whether it should be year- round or seasonal . It is a legal use of the property that he has . He knew what the legal use was when he bought the property. Mr. Vignaux stated that he knew what the legal use of his property when he bought is 20 years ago . All of the other neighbors knew that this was zoning that was in existence and should remain in existence without good reason to change it . He believes that they have a contract with the Town . He would not like to see the Town break the contract and change the nature of the property and the neighborhood . He fears that if the farm picks up a bakery and the farm stand closes , the bakery would remain . You are not going to throw the baker out because the farm stand is not there anymore . If there is a bakery there without a farm stand , he might be able to move down the street and put a restaurant in where the farm stand used to be . As long as there is a bakery and a restaurant , the parking lot could be extended to put a shopping center out back . He is not pleased with this thought . They knew what the zoning was when they bought the property in the Town . They expect the Town offices to respect their contracts with the Town . Mr. Vignaux stated that he thinks that Mr . Cummins is doing a good job . He would like to see him succeed but not at the cost of making it commercial . Bill Carini , 231 Vantuskirk Road , stated that he served on the Government Policy Task Group of the Agricultural Farmland and Protection Board at Tompkins County. This board was put together because of the realization that the local agricultural is facing numerous pressures that did not exist for previous generations of farmers . Competitive pressure from gigantic regional , national and international agricultural businesses create an economic environment in which the relatively small farms of Ithaca and Tompkins County struggle to survive and often do not survive . The Town has adopted a Park Recreation and Open Space Plan in which the importance of preserving the Town ' s remaining farmland is given a great deal of weight . The Town recognizes that proactive measures are required to hold onto this vital open space . The Town ' s farms are crucial to maintaining its special character. They are important links to the Town 's history and contribute to the quality of life . The Agriculture Economic Development Group of the Farmland Protection Board identified value ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 21 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED added operations as one very important strategy. This is an opportunity for this board to help the Town carry out the goal expressed in its plan . The Indian Creek Fruit Farm has incredible agricultural potential , but it has suffered greatly from neglect . Granting this variance would give the farm a chance to hold on through a very difficult period of transition and ensure that it will still be around for future generations to enjoy. He does not subscribe to the domino theory. This farm occupies a unique zoning juncture in this neighborhood . The farmland preservation rational could not apply to other cases . Karen Scott , 1416 Trumansburg Road , stated that she is completing her Masters in Horticultural at Cornell . She grew produce and sold it through the stand . Cornell gives the sense that you are unable to make a living by selling unimproved produce by the side of the road . The price for produce has not increased since 1970 and the expenses has . Mr. Cummins is paying taxes on what is residential zoned property. He is trying to get the business started . It is a touch and go proposition whether he is going to make the farm stand work . Ms . Scott stated that she previously lived in Meneknight country. Everyone there has baked goods . It is an important stable of the farm economy. The Planning for Agricultural Plan is relevant to the issue because a lot of it does talk about the importance of making value out of product . The land on the other side of her property is zoned mixed residential . It will be developed . The only buffer to development is the Indian Creek Fruit Farm . It is economically dependent on the farm stand . The land as it is cannot support itself. It depends upon what happens at the farm stand . If the bakery is not allowed , the fruit stand will not survive . Ms . Scott stated that the first three years she lived at her house there was no one at the farm . It was on the market . It is an attractive nuisance . If this is not approved , it will go back on the market and be subdivided . This is a greater possibility than the neighborhood turning to all commercial . It is unlikely for the neighborhood to allow it to happen . Ms . Bowers stated that the reason that they are opposing the project is that the residential value of their house would reduce in value . They share a driveway with the fruit farm . It would decrease by about 30=40%. She does want Mr. Cummins's farm to succeed . She cannot afford to have her property values decrease . Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 9 : 23 p . m . Mr. Krantz stated that the selling of baked goods made on the premises is an allowable use of a farmstead . This board has established that with the Eddy Farms . He believes that this appeal does not belong before the Zoning Board of Appeals . The presence of this farm stand is already established as being legal . Chairperson Stotz stated that the applicant is before the board because it is an expansion . Mr. Krantz stated that they are using the same space . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 22 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sigel stated that he could be more easily persuaded that selling an apple pie there is a permitted use of a farm stand , but baking an apple pie in a commercial kitchen is not a permitted use . It would require a use variance . Chairperson Stotz stated that there is some issue of whether or not this should go before the Planning Board . Mike Smith , Planner, stated that planning staff had concerns of traffic , parking , and access to the parking area . There was not a lot of information provided . The other issue is the accumulative affect of having a business there . A recommendation is that the parking , traffic and access could be address through site plan before the Planning Board . Chairperson Stotz stated that it would require that the Planning Board act on the appeal before the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr. Frost stated that planning staff felt that there was not enough information to complete an Environmental Assessment Form . Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals could refer a project to the Planning Board for additional information or a recommendation . The determination of whether the Environmental Assessment Form on the rezoning is complete or not is the Planning Board 's determination . It is the Zoning Board of Appeals' determination . Mr. Frost stated that it is legal for the Zoning Board of Appeals to refer it to the Planning Board to get additional information before they make their final decision . The Zoning Board of Appeals could withhold making any finding on the Environmental Assessment Form and make a finding based on a Planning Board recommendation . Attorney Barney stated that the board would have to determine the Environmental Assessment Form as inadequate and that more information is needed . Then the applicant would have to supply the information . If the Zoning Board of Appeals feels that it is complete , but would like a Planning Board recommendation , it can be done . If the will of the majority of the board is to turn it down , it is of no benefit to send the applicant to the Planning Board . If the will of the board is to grant the application , then they have the option of sending it to the Planning Board . Chairperson Stotz stated that the accumulative affect on the neighborhood needs to be addressed . Traffic also needs to be addressed . Pulling out of the parking lot turning north , there is adequate site distance . From the other direction there is a rise before Dubois Road . It limits the visibility of people who are making a left turn crossing the highway. This would be a small addition of a bakery. There is not going to be a jammed parking lot . People have been coming and going for a long time . It has never been indicated as an unusually high accident rate . Mr. Frost stated that there was a fair amount of debate with the previous owner. There were some accidents , and then some improvements were made . The State realigned Dubois Road in an ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 23 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED attempt to make it a safe intersection . In past years when the stand was open for business along the road people would often pull up on the shoulder parallel to the building . It did create some problems . Mr. Ellsworth asked what is the zoning for the Eddy Farms . Mr. Frost stated that it is R-30 . They do have variances . Chairperson Stotz stated that the board does not want another Eddy Dale , Mr. Ellsworth stated that this was a thriving business at one point . It handled the traffic that everyone is concerned about . Mr. Frost stated that business was really good in the mid 1980s , Mr . Ellsworth stated that to him it dismisses some of the traffic and safety concerns . If there were a safety concern for people pulling off Dubois Road going west to come down to Ithaca there would be the same problem . The neighbors seem very pleased with the owner of the property. It does seem like they do not want him to succeed in business . Mr. Frost stated that they do want to see him succeed . Mr. Ellsworth stated that he is trying to keep some consistency in their judgements . Attorney Barney stated that in an Agricultural Zone there can be a roadside stand and it does have a fair degree of latitude of what can be done . In an R-30 zone there can be a roadside stand for seasonal purposes to enhance the ability of the farmer . There can be a roadside stand or other structure for the display and sale of farm or nursery products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the owner or owners of the land . In an R- 15 zone there cannot be a roadside stand . This is an R- 15 zone . The roadside stand is present by a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals that was given a number of years ago . The most recent variance made the distinction between a roadside stand in an agricultural zone and one in an R-30 zone . The one that was intended here , the variance was permitted just for the extent of an R- 30 zone . It is a more limited use than in an agricultural zone . The board can expand the use . Attorney Barney stated that his interpretation is that a bakery does not qualify as a roadside stand in the context of which an R-30 roadside stand is being discussed . Mr. Niefer stated that in the previous resolution of 1989 they referred to as "especially as enumerated by the board in the matter of the application of Eddy". What was in that application ? Mr. Frost responded that he wanted to sell soda and other products that were not products of Tompkins County and produced on the farm . He was ultimately permitted . There was continued growth on the farm to the point where it was discovered that he was distributing to local restaurants . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 24 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The farm had grown beyond roadside stand . It took a number of years to convince them to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals . He went beyond the 1981 conditions . Chairperson Stotz stated that there is a farm in the Agricultural District . The barn and the stand that support it are in the R- 15 District . Mr. Frost stated that the question before the board is if a bakery is permitted . Chairperson Stotz stated that if the barn and stand were zoned agriculture , the applicant would not be before the board . Mr. Frost replied that a bakery would not be permitted in an agricultural zone . Attorney Barney stated that in an agricultural district buildings and land might be used only for any lawful farm purpose . It does not address roadside stands . Mr . Sigel asked if there is another document that they are to refer to in order to understand it or is it assumed . It does not seem necessary that the reader should assume that a roadside stand is a lawful purpose . Attorney Barney stated that it is generally interpreted that way. Mr. Sigel stated that at a minimum there could be an R-30 standing . Attorney Barney stated that the understanding is that more than an R- 30 stand because R-30 limited to seasonal . A local farm purpose could be importing dairy products . Mr . Sigel stated that a furniture store make the products out of wood . Wood is farmed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Sigel stated that he feels that it is related . He would like to get the board 's feeling and the opinion of Attorney Barney and Mr. Frost if a use variance is required . Mr . Frost stated that it is a non -conforming use . It is legally non -conforming . They are extending the use that would require the special approval , however, what they are extending is not permitted in the first place . If they were extending it to something that was consistent with what they were doing then it would be a special approval . This is clearly not permitted . They are selling something that is the most consistent with an agricultural . It is a use that is not permitted by the ordinance . Attorney Barney stated that if it were a situation of adding 20 feet onto the building to enlarge the sale of products being sold , it would be an enlargement of a non -conforming use . The use is being changed dramatically. A new use is being created . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 25 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated that if it is a use variance then the criteria is different . There is hardship involved and whether it is self- imposed . Mr. Sigel stated that if he were against this , he would have a good case for arguing that it was self- imposed . Mr. Frost stated that an R- 15 zone permits as a customary home occupation , dress making , hair dressing , laundrying , cooking , carpentry, electrical , plumbing , bakers , caterers . Another perspective is that as a home occupation he could be cooking . Mr. Krantz stated that Mr. Sigel made the point that the hardship was probably self- imposed . Mr. Sigel stated that he said if he were opposed to it then it would be a good argument due to how recently it was purchased and the laws have not changed . Mr. Krantz stated that when he bought the property he figured that he would not make with the farm stand and that he would have to expand to a bakery. Mr. Sigel stated that he does not think it was premeditated . The owner bought property with a certain set of regulations that govern it . Mr. Frost stated that the owner did not anticipate the reputation of the previous owner hurting business . The previous owner did have several run - ins with the law. Mr. Smith stated that he has a revised form for the Environmental Assessment Form . It was revised to follow along with the written description . Resolution No. 2000=4 — Environmental Assessment in the Appeal of Stephen Cummins to Extend a Non -conforming Use. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Stephen Cummins requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to extend a non-conforming use at the Indian Creek Fruit Farm Stand located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 1 -25. 21 , Residence District R- 15. Said extension proposed the addition of a bakery an the sales of baked goods at an existing farm produce stand (barn) for all of the reasons set forth in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form and with the finding that because this was previously operated as a farm stand with a fair amount of traffic that the anticipated operation in the future as proposed is not going to alter the traffic flows from those that were in effect previously. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 26 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: Sigel, The MOTION was declared to be carried. Mr. Niefer stated that he feels he could support a resolution to change the zoning from what was originally granted . The Eddy Dale Farms did change the general character of the neighborhood . Trumansburg Road is a nice residential area going north and he would hate to see the residential area changed . This is a foot in the door to make that change . He is sympathetic to the party making the appeal . He is making a good effort to make the fruit stand a success . The Zoning Board of Appeals in July of 1989 set forth their feeling on the matter. Mr. Sigel stated that he is in favor of the modifications that are proposed . He is in favor of modifying the display area . He must be opposed to the bakery. Chairperson Stotz stated that he sees a situation where the board talks a lot about maintaining open space and agricultural property. The applicant is trying to do that . The only way he can do that is by adding additional products to the farm stand using products that are grown on the farm . If it is approved and structured correctly then it will not lead to a proliferation of commercialization or additional products being sold . The board could put stringent conditions on it . It might make the difference between the orchard continuing on as a viable operation or not succeeding . It is something that the board should consider. It is in close proximity to an agricultural district . It is very important for farmers and landowners can maintain their land is very important . The Town does not want them opening up used car lots to keep their farming operation going , but this is very closely related to the purpose of the orchard . He does not see it becoming the gateway for commercialization of Trumansburg Road . Resolution No. 2000-5 — Appeal of Stephen Cummins Permission to Expand Non-conforming Use. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Stephen Cummins requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to extend a non -conforming use at the Indian Creek Fruit Farm Stand located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 1 -25. 21 , Residence District R- 15. Said extension proposes that addition of a bakery and the sales of baked goods at an existing farm produce stand (barn) based upon the following findings and conditions: 1 . It is in -keeping with maintaining the viability of an on-going agricultural operation. 2. There is a special situation in terms of the configuration of the various zoning areas, agricultural, R- 15, and R-30 coming together at one point. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 27 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 3. The need for the variance is created by circumstances that have evolved since he purchased the property. 4. There has been testimony to the effect that the viability of maintaining any kind of a farm operation might be in question without the additional revenues provided by the bakery. The bakery has some relationship to the use of farm products. 5. The size of the kitchen area be limited to the size requested and not be enlarged without any further discussion of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 6. The products that are for sale are baked goods only using produce for the most part is produced on the farm. 7. There will be no distribution of baked goods to re-sellers. 8. That there be a 5-year time limit on the operation of the bakery and maybe extended upon approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals at the end of the 5-year period. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz. NAYS: Niefer, Sigel, The MOTION was declared to be carried. Resolution No. 2000=6 — Appointment of Vice-Chairperson for the year 2000. MOTION made by James Niefer, seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals does hereby nominate and elect Harry Ellsworth as Vice Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2000. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Ellsworth. The MOTION was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS . Mr. Niefer stated that at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting the North Campus Residential Initiative will be before the board . Part of the project is in the City of Ithaca and part of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 28 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED the project is in the Town of Ithaca . The portion of the project in the Town of Ithaca relates to playing fields , courts and a house . Is the board limited only to the portion of the project that is in the Town of Ithaca? Attorney Barney stated that the board 's consideration is of the project that is in the Town of Ithaca . However, the location and design in the City influence the part in the Town . The big issue has been if the three soccer fields and Cradit- Moore House can fit on the site . It might not with the design of the portion of the project in the City. If a building in the City were moved , it might fit . The board is being asked to grant special approval for the facilities being proposed for the Town . Mr. Niefer asked if a dormitory is an educational building . Attorney Barney responded yes . Educational is treated very broadly. Chairperson Stotz asked to what extent would consideration of historical significance play in the Zoning Board of Appeals deliberations . Attorney Barney stated that the board is being asked to grant special approval . The historic significance of a building is an element of the approval of the SEQR portion of the project . It could affect neighborhood character and could be used in the overall criteria in granting special approval . Mr. Frost stated that Kathy Wolf is giving the board a condensed version of the project . It is not clear if there is still an issue over whether the house could be moved . He explained to Historic Ithaca that he could not grant any demolition permit for moving the building until the Zoning Board of Appeals has acted . Attorney Barney stated that the site plan has been approved by the Planning Board preliminary conditional on the Zoning Board of Appeals granting special approval . Mr. Niefer asked if the new location has been confirmed . Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board has determined the location north on Pleasant Grove Road to be more appropriate . Mr. Frost stated that he is trying to keep this as the only case on the agenda for February. Mr. Krantz asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals voted against it , would it stop the project . Mr. Frost stated yes . Attorney Barney stated that they would try to structure the board ' s decision with findings that would make it a sustainable decision either way. Attorney Barney explained that when he suggests findings when someone makes a motion , he is suggesting them in the context for which the motion is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 29 JANUARY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 8, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED given . It does not mean that he would vote the way that the board is voting , or that the board could not findings that go the other way. With no -or business , Chairperson Stotz adjourned the meeting at 10 : 10 p . m . David RoU, Chit erson . MW JUL Carrie L. Coates , Deputy Town Clerk. Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompldns County Education Center Tel: 607 272-2292 615 Willow Avenue Fax: 607 2727088 January 11 , 2000 Ithaca, NY 14850-3555 To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Monika Roth, Extension Educator RE: Bakery at Indian Creek Farm - application by Steve Cummins I am writing to assist the town planning board in it's decision related to the application to add a bakery to the farm retailing activities at Indian Creek Farm on Rt . 96 . As you are aware, the Indian Creek Farm has operated a roadside stand for many years. . . probably since the 1930's (your records are probably more accurate than mine) . Unfortunately with all old orchards, the trees are no longer very productive and the size of the farm makes it difficult to transition into new higher density plantings. To replant the entire orchard would be very costly and, if such an effort were undertaken, it would probably not pay for itself. Hence the farm market in recent years has turned to the sale of bedding plants, perennials, flowers, vegetables and other fruit which are not entirely grown at this farm, but are also purchased from area farmers . When Steve took over the farm, his intention was to run his wholesale fruit tree nursery shipping from this location . Cummins Nursery offers high quality fruit trees to fruit growers throughout the country. Dr. James Cummins, co-owner of the tree fruit business is a leading fruit breeder retired from the Geneva Ag Experiment Station, and when the station decided to stop selling trees, the Cummins' took over this established business. Having the farm retailing enterprise offers a year round business since shipping trees is primarily a spring activity. In my work I work with farm retailers through the NYS Farmers' Direct Marketing Association and I have visited many farm markets throughout the state. These days most farm markets have a bakery along with offering a full range of produce, plants and condiments like salad dressings and other added value items. In fact many are now opening farm market cafes. This trend is in response to the need to earn a year-round living and the fact that food prices have not increased since the 1970's and farmers are no longer able to make it on ag products alone. Within an hours drive of Ithaca, I can't think of many orchards that do not have a bakery or sell baked products as part of their enterprise. Some include: Beak & Skiff in Layfayette, Green Bros in Binghamton, Strawberry Valley Farm in Whitney Point, Apple-A-Day farm in Elmira, Grisamore Farm in Locke. In fact, orchards were among the first farms to add bakeries as a means of adding value to their products. Having fresh baked apple pies, or apple dumplings or even apple cider donuts (sold by the dozens in the fall at orchards throughout the State) is one way to extend a limited harvest season and gain a higher return for the product. In past meetings I have had with the Town Planning Board I believe there was discussion about permitting added value agricultural enterprises that allow the farmer to keep farming through the establishment of complimentary retailing activities. Additionally I believe this operation would further the town's goal of preserving farming and farmland. I would suggest that the planning board might consider changing the zoning for the entire farm to agricultural and thus perhaps avoid having this issue arise in the future. I hope that you will permit the establishment of a bakery in conjunction with Indian Creek Farm. If I can be of further assistance to informing your decision, please do not hesitate to call me 607- 272-2292 . ATTACHMENT 111 1 r, C c ` I JAN 1 ! 2000 ti I TOWN OF ITHACA BUILDING/ZONING d OLAA y i r T.� '- � fi E / t S 9 f ` 1 l �4 d x t 9 4 ' 1 i ATTACHMENT # 2 . i I . l JAN d t Lorin TOWN OF ITHACA euiLD( NG/ZONING January 9 , 2000 To the Building Inspector, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Zoning Board of Appeals : I have owned a home and twenty acres of land across from Indian Creek Fruit Farm for the last sixteen years . I have to be out of town on the evening of the public hearing for Stephen Cummins ' s appeal so I am writing to you to request that you deny his appeal and to explain my reasons why . I am most strongly opposed to his appeal to allow extension of his current non - conforming use or to any other variances for the Indian Creek Fruit Farm Stand . I urge that you deny his appeal because : 1 . I am proud of our neighborhood as part of an attractive residential and agricultural entryway to Ithaca , one that is well - kept and free of sprawl . Town of Ulysses homeowners along Rte . 96 recently voted to ban commercial development along the road and I believe this policy should be extended through the Town of Ithaca ' s portion of this road . I support Stephen ' s revival of Indian Creek within the current permitted uses and zoning restrictions because the fruit farm is an asset to our agricultural and growing residential neighborhood . I am committed to keeping my twenty acres within the permitted uses in an effort to retain the current character and appeal of the area . 2 . . Development of a scratch bakery is a commercial enterprise . Once such a use is permitted , it changes the character of the neighborhood . forever . Once commercial activity is permitted , it will be very difficult if not impossible to stop its extension at Indian Creek and then in other parts of the area . Commercial use is highly likely to cause residential property values to decrease , others in the area to seek commercial zoning status to retain their property values , and a once stable and attractive residential / agricultural area to decline or disappear . I do not want this downward cycle to begin so I urge you to reject the appeal . 3 . A bakery would create major traffic and congestion problems and thereby increase the likelihood of more serious accidents on a dangerous and increasingly heavily used stretch of road . The hills . dips and curves in the road create serious visibility problems . It is especially dangerous to enter or exit from Indian Creek in either direction and this is further complicated by the increasing amount of traffic into and out of Dubois Rd . almost directly across from the fruit stand . Increased traffic to and from the fruit stand operating within permitted uses is necessary in order to build a viable fruit stand business selling u - pick fruit , cut flowers , bedding and nursery stock and farm produce . A bakery , however , would generate an unsafe amount of new year- round traffic at an already dangerous intersection . 4 . Stephen has my respect and admiration because his hard work to bring back the Indian Creek Fruit Farm after years of neglect and mismanagement is a major asset for our neighborhood . I and other neighbors would like him to succeed However, he bought the property with its existing zoning and use restrictions . I believe it is possible to build a viable and flourishing business there within currently allowable seasonal and agricultural uses , especially when it is clear to a broader clientele that the farm and stand are under his new management . I support his proposed physical plant changes on the existing greenhouse footprint , without the addition of a bakery , because they will add to the attractiveness of the building , create customer appeal , and increase the viability of his business . Thank you for considering my views . Sincerely yours , Heather B . Weiss 105 Dubois Rd . Ithaca , N . Y . 01 / 07 / 00 15 : 26 FAX 607 277 2454 C / 21 Wagner Rlty Q02 JAN - 7 7M;00 Town of Ithaca Zoning and Planning Boards: TOWN OF ITHACA Town Hall BUILDING /ZONING 126 E . Seneca St. Ithaca, I NY 14850 Dear Sirs and Madams: It has been brought to our attention that Stephen Cummins has applied for a variance to put a bakery in his property at the old Indian Creek Fruit Farm. The residence of this neighborhood have worked very hard to maintain the residential nature of this area. We are happy to have the fruit farm and stand under new management, but feel that Mr. Cummins would be better served by putting up new signage and letting everyone know that the place is under new ownership. We certainly would have shopped there this past season had jwe know it was under new ownership. We want to go on record in the strongest possible way as being opposed to ANY commercialization of the area The thought that a bakery/coffee shop might go into that area. As a Realtor, I would like to add that such a zoning change could have a very negative effect on local property values. It could send a signal that more commercial development might be allowed. This is very dangerous_ Sincerely, U 04C . ,kne and Lee Schafrik F 1491 Trumansburg Road 1 Ithaca, NY 14850 ATTACHMENT # 3 i January 10, 2000 TO: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: John and Celia Bowers 1406 Trumansburg Road RE : Indian Creek Fruit Farm We would like to preface our remarks by stating that the new owner of Indian Creek Fruit Farm, Stephen Cummins, is an excellent neighbor with whom we have a most cordial relationship. We have the greatest respect for his abilities as a farmer and regard him as an asset to the neighborhood. We have no objection to his plan to remove the greenhouse from the front of his barn, replacing it with a display area and porch in its footprint. The site plan he has presented looks much more attractive than the existing structure and will no doubt draw in more customers. We would, however, like to be reassured that the total sales area under this new plan will not exceed the 98 ' by 42 ' which is currently allowed. Unfortunately, we strongly oppose the other part of Stephen ' s plan, namely, his request for an extension of a non-conforming use for the purpose of adding a bakery and the sale of baked goods , jams, hot cider, etc . to the barn. There are four reasons why we oppose this request : 1 . The proposed extension is a commercial use of residentially zoned land. To grant this request would immediately devalue our property and other neighboring properties zoned R- 15 and R-30. We have consulted two real estate agents familiar with the area and our home, one of whom specializes in commercial property; both have stated unequivocally that commercial use of the property adjoining ours would significantly lower the residential value of our property. This is particularly true in our case because of the fact that the only safe access to our property is via the Indian Creek Fruit Farm driveway over which we have a permanent easement, making it impossible to create a buffer zone between the two properties sufficient to protect the residential character of our property. 2. The proposed extension introduces a permanent commercial use of Indian Creek Fruit Farm into what has heretofore been a residential and agricultural neighborhood. Because of our reluctance to oppose Stephen ' s plans , we asked Andy Frost, the Director of Building and Zoning, about the feasability of limiting the proposed extension to some particular period of time, to the present owner, or both. However, Mr. Frost indicated that there are legal problems involved in placing limitations of this sort on extensions or variances in property use . It is also our understanding that because the capital improvements involved in the construction of a commercial bakery (city water, a septic system, a bathroom, the new construction in the greenhouse, ATTACHMENT # 4 2 possible blacktopping of the parking area to handle increased traffic, etc.) would be costly and of a permanent nature, any future owners of the property would be able to claim hardship if they were prevented from continuing commercial use. 3 . Permitting the proposed extension will encourage other property owners in the area to seek similar extensions to permit the commercial use of their own property. This in turn could lead to a rapid change in the character of the neighborhood. There have been a number of requests in the past to change the zoning along the Trumansburg Road from residential to commercial— requests that have thus far been turned down. Granting the proposed extension to commercial use at Indian Creek Fruit Farm will make it much more difficult for the Board to turn down similar requests from other property owners in the immediate area. 4. We are seriously concerned that a bakery will generate unsafe levels of traffic at what is already known to be a dangerous intersection on a heavily travelled road. If people really do stop in at the bakery "to get their morning muffins" and a cup of hot mulled cider, the traffic level during rush hour could become dangerously high. The volume of traffic created by the sale of farm produce is already as high as road conditions at this location permit. Finally, we would like to conclude these remarks by raising an issue that is closely related to the proposed bakery. We were quite surprised to find out in discussing the proposal with Stephen that he believes that he is authorized to sell for twelve months of the year at the fruit stand, greenhouse and barn. Since we bought our property in 1980, sales at Indian Creek have always been seasonal, in accordance with the restrictions on farm stands in R-30 zones as stated in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. When we asked Andy Frost for clarification, he referred us to the decision of the ZBA of July 12, 1989, concerning the construction and use of the greenhouse and barn now located behind the original farmstand. We are unable to find anything in that decision or in the adoption of findings preceding it that would indicate the Board ' s intention to authorize an extension to year-round sales at the fruit stand and greenhouse/barn. On the contrary, while part (I) a. of the Board ' s resolution (p. 13) clearly authorizes the use of the greenhouse and barn for "exhibition and sale therefrom of farm produce", part (II) (b) states equally clearly that "the items which may be offered for sale at this site shall be limited to those which have been customarily sold from farm Roadside Stands in this County, . . i.e. , this is not a license to operate a convenience food store or market at this site, despite the fact that the importation and sale of some non-indigenous farm produce will be permitted;" The resolution goes on to specify that "the uses of this R- 15 land and these authorized buildings are to [be] limited, restricted, and governed by the same uses as would apply to agricultural uses in an R- 30 Zone, not those which apply to a regular Agricultural Zone under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. " One of the restrictions on farm roadside stands in an R- 30 Zone is that they are permitted "as a seasonal convenience to the owner or owners of the land. " The statement of the appellant ' s proposals on p. 3 refers even more explicitly to "their continuing the 3 PERIODIC, SEASONAL USE of THE EXISTING ROADSIDE STAND [as well as using the new Barn] for the DISPLAY & SALE of FRUIT, VEGETABLES PLANTS , and other FARM PRODUCE . . . " Finally, part (D) of the Board ' s "General Conclusions and Opinion" (pp. 11 - 12) states once again: "A grant of permission to extend the agricultural uses of this land and these altered buildings in the R- 15 Zone is not to be considered an unbridled authorization to treat the land thus Zoned the same as land lying in an Agricultural Zone or to engage in all manner of commercial ventures upon the site. Rather, the extensions of such uses here granted must be construed and treated as constrained by the more restrictive provisions for agricultural uses in an R-30 Residential District . . . " This is an important issue for the following reason. If the primary use of the barn is to help the farmer sell fresh produce to retail as well as wholesale customers , then "periodic, seasonal" use of the barn is obviously sufficient, given the length of the growing season in this area. If, however, sales at the barn are to be permitted year round, there will inevitably be developmental pressure to use the barn for purposes other than selling seasonal produce. We believe that this confusion about the length of the selling season is one reason that the bakery proposal is before you. Given the close connection between these two matters, we would like to respectfully request that Board and the town lawyer clarify the issue of year-round sales in making their decision. In summary, there is a huge difference between a seasonal roadside stand/barn, primarily restricted to selling local farm produce and a year-round sales facility incorporating a commercial bakery. The former is consistent with the agricultural and residential nature of our neighborhood. The latter is very likely to be the first step in transforming the Trumansburg Road into a commercial node. We believe that Stephen will be able to make Indian Creek Fruit Farm a profitable venture without requesting changes in the zoning that was in place when he bought the property less than two years ago. As mentioned earlier, when we heard this fall about the possibility of year-round sales and a bakery at Indian Creek, we consulted two real estate agents , hoping that they would tell us that these proposed changes would not affect the residential value of our property. Unfortunately, both of them assured us that these changes would severely impact the resale value of our property as a residence. For us, our home is a major investment for the future. If the Board decides to approve this request, we shall have no alternative but to request commmercial zoning for our property as well. We would do this with the greatest regret.