Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2000-07-12 CILE Town of Ithaca Zoninci Board of Appeals OATE Wednesday, July 12, 2000 7 : 00 P. M . APPEAL of Ron and Helen Shewchuk , Appellants , Scott Braig , Crown Construction , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a carport or garage with a north side yard building setback of 6 ± feet ( 10 foot setback required) at 112 Winston Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 11 -28 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of the Montessori School , Appellant , Peter Demjanec, R . A. , Agent , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge an existing elementary school located at 120 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 43- 1 -3 . 5 , Residence District R-30 . Variances from Article V , Section 21 and 22 of said Ordinance are also being requested to permit lot coverage by a building of 11 . 25% ( 10% maximum coverage allowed) and a 22 foot side yard building setback (40 foot minimum setback required ) . Said appeal was granted an approval on May 21 , 1997 but has since expired . APPEAL GRANTED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2000 7 : 00 PM PRESENT; David Stotz, Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andrew Frost, Director of Building/Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7 : 13 p . m . ) ; Mike Smith , Planner, EXCUSED : Ronald Krantz, Board Member; Kirk Sigel , Board Member, ALSO PRESENT: Andrea Riddle, Montessori School ; Pam Quinlan , Montessori School ; Tom Owens , 114 Winston Drive ; Ron and Helen Shewchuk, 112 Winston Drive ; Jim Wavle , Crown Construction . Chairperson Stotz led the meeting to order at 7 : 08 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 Ron and Helen Shewchuk, Appellants , Scott Braig , Crown Construction , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a carport or a garage with a north side yard building setback of 6 ± feet ( 10 foot setback required) at 112 Winston Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 70= 11 -28 , Residence District R- 15 . Jim Wavle , Crown Construction , stated that the applicant is resubmitting a garage plan in place of the carport plan submitted last month . It requires a variance to allow it to be built . Chairperson Stotz stated that the request is to enclose the carport and making it a garage . Mr. Ellsworth asked if it was the same footprint . Mr. Wavle responded yes . The 12 feet is the minimum width for a garage . Mr. Frost stated that he pulled the building permit for 114 Winston Drive . Rocco Lucente built it in 1961 with a building permit . They showed a sidewalk setback of 17 feet . The house does not have a 17 foot setback. The house seems to be within 10 feet of the property line . Mr . Niefer stated that he thought that the board would have received plans that considered a single door for a two car garage . It might reduce the width of the garage . Mr. Wavle stated that the load of the second floor would bear on the middle of the garage . They needed the extra support . It would have been very expensive to install a header . There would also be the additional expense of tearing down the existing wall . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 JULY 1212000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Niefer stated that he thought that there would single double door with a heavy-duty header over top . It would reduce the need to encroach on the property line . Mr. Frost stated that he understood that there was not intent to do the new garage right away. The applicant might wait for one year to build the garage . It would be impossible to build the garage addition at a later date if there was one garage door. Mr. Niefer stated that the applicant is asking for a variance for a project that might not be built at this time . It may be built within the period of time when and if the variance is granted . Mr. Frost stated that if the board required the applicant to build the garage with one garage door, then they would have to build the garage at this time . Mr. Niefer stated that there are some evergreens on the property line . Who owns the shrubbery along the property line? Helen Shewchuk, 112 Winston Drive , stated that the shrubbery and evergreens are on their property. Tom Owens , 114 Winston Drive , stated that he has some small shrubbery on his property . Chairperson Stotz asked if the vegetation would be disturbed . Mr. Wavle stated that the vegetation would remain on -site . Mrs . Shewchuk stated that they might add more plantings for a thicker wall of vegetation . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 17 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . Tom Owens , 114 Winston Drive , stated that he was under the impression that an alternative garage plan would be explored . He is concerned with how close the garage is to his property. Mr. Owens stated that his house is closer to his neighbor's house than other houses in the neighborhood . Mr. Owens presented pictures of his house and Mr. and Mrs. Shewchuk's house. Mr. Owens stated that there is 31 feet between his house and the house at 116 Winston Drive . Board Member Ellsworth asked how far is the distance between Mr. Owen 's house and the Shewchuks ' house . Mr. Owens stated that it is more than 35 feet between his bedroom and Mr. and Mrs . Shewchuk's garage . The garage addition would bring the garage 12 feet closer to his bedroom . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 JULY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Ellsworth asked if the vegetation was evergreens so that they do not shed in the wintertime . Mr. Owens responded that there is one evergreen . The remaining vegetation is lilac trees and small shrubbery. He stated that the addition is a significant change to him . Board Member Ellsworth stated that at the last meeting Mr. Owens indicated that if the carport were enclosed to a garage he would be happier. Is that correct? Mr. Owens responded yes . He would be happier the further it is away from his property. Mr. Frost stated that at the last meeting the board indicated that there was a desire to the new plan looked at by Mr. Owens and have some agreement between the applicant and Mr. Owens , Mr. Owens stated that this is the first that he has seen the plan . Mr. Frost asked if he had seen the plan before the meeting . Mr. Owens stated that he had seen the former plan . He did not realize that it would be the same plan . Mr. Frost stated that he was told that Mr. Owens had seen the revised plan . Chairperson Stotz stated that at the last meeting he had the sense the Mr. Owens had less of an objection if the addition were to be a garage rather than a carport . Is that correct? Mr. Owens responded yes . He stated that he had also expressed his concern regarding the distance from his house . He was under the impression that it would be addressed . He thought that the solution would be a single door garage . The single door would have allowed the garage not to be over as far. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Wavle if the plan had been presented to Mr. Owens , Ron Shewchuk, 112 Winston Drive , stated that he showed the plan to he and his son the plan . Mr. Owens stated that he did not remember seeing the plan . Mr. Shewchuk stated that he showed Mr. Owens the plan for the carport and for a garage . Mr. Owens stated that he was shown those plans before the last meeting . Mr. Frost stated that since the last meeting there was a revised plan , which was the suggestion of the board . He understood that the revised plan that would be drawn to enclose the garage would be shown to the neighbor. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 JULY 122 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mrs . Shewchuk stated that she was under the impression that Mr. Owens had seen the plan . Mr. Owens stated that he has not seen plans since the last meeting . He stated that he does feel better with a garage . The further the garage is from his house , the better. Chairperson Stotz asked if he was concerned about his privacy. Mr. Owens stated that privacy is less of a concern with an enclosed garage . He is concerned about how close the garage is to his house . It does have an impact on the value and how it looks . It is in a neighborhood where most of the houses are further apart . He is concerned about pulling the houses closer together. Chairperson Stotz asked how does the closeness impact Mr. Owens . Mr. Owens responded that he feels like he has a little less space . He feels that he has less privacy. Chairperson Stotz asked if Mr. Owens would be living in the house for a long time . Mr. Owens stated that he might move in a couple years . Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 7 : 29 p . m . Mrs . Shewchuk stated that Mr. and Mrs . Bail of 111 Winston Drive wrote a note indicating that they did not have a problem with the garage addition . See Attachment # 1 . The owners of 113 Winston Drive made a similar comment . They were very impressed with plans . The neighbors behind Mr. and Mrs . Shewchuk were also very approving of the plans . Mrs. Shewchuk stated that when they went to the bank to apply for a home equity loan , they were shocked to find out that their house was not appraised as high as it had been . They are unable to get as much of a loan as they had originally thought . This is the reason that they need to put off doing the garage addition . Once the second story addition is built and the kitchen is remodeled , they are going to have the house reappraised . They will then borrow on that to do the garage addition . They might also sell off holdings in the stock market so that they will not have a mortgage . Mr. Owens stated that he thought that there would have been a compromise on the garage addition . He did not expect that the applicant would build a garage onto the existing garage . RESOLUTION NO. 200045 — Variance. Ron and Helen Shewchuk, Permitted to Construct Garage, July 12, 2000. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 JULY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLVED, that this boardgrant the appeal of Ron and Helen Shewchuk, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a garage with a north side yard building setback of 6 feet whereas a 10 foot setback is required at 112 Winston Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70- 11 -28, Residence District R- 15. It is noted that the neighbors located behind and in front of Mr. and Mrs. Shewchuk do not have an objection to the garage addition. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Montessori School , Appellant , Peter Demjanec, R . A. , Agent , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge an existing elementary school located at 120 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43- 1 -3 . 5 , Residence District R-30 , Variances from Article V , Section 21 and 22 are also being requested to permit lot coverage by a building of 11 . 25% 110% maximum coverage allowed) and a 22 foot side yard building setback (40 foot minimum setback required) . Said appeal was granted an approval on May 21 , 1997 but has since expired . Board Member Ellsworth asked if anything has changed since the previous approval by the board . Peter Demjanec , Demjanec and Associates , stated that some items have changed , He stated that the applicant is bringing two specific questions before the board . Assuming nothing has changed from the previous application , would this board extend the sunset date of the previously granted ordinance to permit construction this season ? Mr. Frost stated that the hearing has been advertised to reaffirm the previously granted special approval , It is the only item that the board is technically acting upon . Chairperson Stotz asked if what is being presented to the board is the same as what was presented in 1997 , Mr. Demjanec stated that he is also asking a second question , Would they be permitted to make some changes to some of the interior configuration of the space? Mr. Frost stated that the changes are proposed to go before the Planning Board at their July 18 ' meeting. There is a definite proposal to change the floor plan . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 JULY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Ellsworth asked if it had anything to do with the Zoning Board , Chairperson Stotz stated that the Planning Board might or may not send it back to the Zoning Board . Mr. Demjanec stated that they have received a limited permit to proceed with construction with what this board saw in 1997 and approved in 1997 . In order to continue in that line , they are asking the board to extend the sunset date of the variances . Mr. Frost stated that the board is reaffirming the special approval that was granted in 1997 . Board Member Ellsworth asked why did not the school go ahead with the project . Mr. Demjanec responded that there was a change in process . When this addition was originally conceived , it was prior to the time when the house across the street came to the school , When the opportunity arose , the school wanted to utilize that opportunity before doing the addition . It is now time for the addition . Mr. Frost stated that the school also went back to the Planning Board for a modification of the sign for the house . In the process , they realized that there was a sunset period on the site plan approval . The site plan approval was extended . There was an oversight that they also had to extend the special approval . Mr. Demjanec stated that they have two open approvals from the Planning Board . One is for this specific addition and the other is for the addition to the annex. Mr. Frost stated that the Zoning Ordinance would not allow a site plan to proceed onto the Zoning Board unless the Planning Board has acted on a final site plan . It is up to the board if the floor plan modification as proposed to the Planning Board represents a non-significant change that this board can act upon . Attorney Barney stated that this board does not have the revised floor plan . Mr. Frost stated that the board couldn 't act on it until it has been before Planning Board . Board Member Niefer asked if the footprint of the building is changing . Mr. Demjanec stated that the footprint , massing , windows are exactly the same . The main difference is that in the original plan before the Zoning Board there were two lesson rooms . The owner no longer desires to have the lesson rooms . They do desire to have a bathroom . There are no other changes to the inside . Mr. Frost stated that the recent plan he approved showed an extra exit door from the multi- purpose room . He noticed that it is not shown on the plan being sent before the Planning Board . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 JULY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated that there are other considerations for special approval besides setbacks . They are concerned about safety and egress . Mr. Demjanec stated that they have an active , open , and on -going building permit . Assuming that they build exactly what was approved in 1997 , would the board extend the sunset date ? Mr. Frost stated that they have a foundation permit . The foundation permit was issued with the applicant signing a notice that they are proceeding at their own risk . There is no commitment by the board because they have an open building permit . Attorney Barney stated that the only issue the board can consider is to extend the special approval . The Planning Board will answer the other question . The Planning Board will determine if the change warrants a modification to the special approval . If it does , it will come back before the Zoning Board . It cannot come before the Zoning Board until the Planning Board has acted on it . The discussion regarding the changed floor plan is premature . Mr. Demjanec asked if the Planning Board could deem the change insignificant and not require further action by the Zoning Board . Attorney Barney stated that it depends upon what the special approval granted . I Mr. Demjanec stated that the Zoning Board granted the special approval . The Zoning Board can speak to what they granted special approval for. Attorney Barney stated that they can , but it is premature. There is nothing before this board . They do not have the floor plans before them to see whether there is a change of significance . The Zoning Board cannot adopt a modification or say that a modification is acceptable until the Planning Board has looked at it and determined that . The process has to go before the Planning Board . At that juncture , it will be determined if this board becomes involved again in terms of the special approval . It is premature to talk about . The board needs to deal with the issue of extending the special approval . Mr. Demjanec stated that they have a scheduling problem . The Planning Board could approve taking out the two lesson rooms and adding the toilet room , but go back to the Zoning Board and have the special approval modified . Mr. Frost stated that it couldn 't be discussed until that plan goes before the Planning Board , Attorney Barney stated that the board only has the plan that was approved in 1997 . The Zoning Board does not have anything to act on . It was not advertised to approve the site plan modification . The public may or may not have a concern . It is premature . It might not have to come back to the Zoning Board . It is a determination that cannot be made . The decision needs to be made by the appropriate authorities . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 JULY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a special approval . The Zoning Ordinance states that the application for the approval for any of the foregoing use, school use , shall be referred to the Planning Board and no final action shall be taken by the Board of Appeals shall the Planning Board has reviewed a preliminary site plan and approved the same . They would be looking at a modification of a final site plan . Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Ordinance states in another section that if there is granted final approval based on a preliminary site plan it goes back to the Planning Board for final site plan . They have authority to modify the site in minor ways and not have to come back to the Zoning Board . It may be that this will not have to come back before the Zoning Board . The board cannot make the determination at this time . Mr. Demjanec stated that he could show both plans to the board . They can look at it and decide for themselves if a toilet room replacing two lesson rooms is a deminimous change or not . Attorney Barney stated that it is asking the Zoning Board to take action that they do not have authority to take . Chairperson Stotz stated that it was not advertised . Mr. Demjanec stated that he did not write the advertisement . Mr. Frost stated that the advertisement is based upon the application . Mr. Demjanec stated that he and Mr. Frost have discussed this . He feels that the scope of the special approval granted by this board is something to be determined by this board . This board can say for themselves if they take two lesson rooms and replace them with a toilet room . It does not change the coverage . It does not change footprint . It does not change the special approval . It does not change the use of the building . It does not affect any criteria upon which this board makes decisions . Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Demjanec is giving his interpretation of the Town Zoning Ordinance , Mr. Demjanec stated that he is asking the board to say what the scope of that special approval was . Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Demjanec is asking for and interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and he is asking for an interpretation of the prior action of this board . Both of which are items that this board could do on proper notice to the public and on a proper application for it . They do not have that application . The application before the board is to extend the time period . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 JULY 122 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Demjanec stated that is his first question and they do need an answer to that question . He does think that the second question should be brought before the board . He is hearing that the question should not be put in front of the board . Attorney Barney stated that he could put it before the board , but he is going to recommend that the board defer any action upon it until they have had a chance to look at it and until the Planning Board has acted on it . He can put anything before the board , but he does not have proper notice , requisite public hearing to deal with the issue . If they wanted to deal with that issue , it should have been in the application and advertised as such . Mr. Demjanec stated then the time to say that was when the application was submitted . They were told at that time that they would not be permitted to do that . They would have been happy to write any application . Mr. Frost stated that a change of site plan was discussed with planning staff. The interpretation is that the Zoning Board cannot act on that change until the Planning Board had an opportunity to review it . Chairperson Stotz stated that he would like to proceed . Mr. Demjanec stated that he would like to address the sunset issue first . Then he does want to speak to the second issue again . The applicant does want a decision from the board , even if the decision of the board is that they defer to the judgment of the Attorney for the Town . They want that decision . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 48 p . m . , and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 7 : 49 p . m . Board Member Ellsworth asked how long was the previous special approval . Mr. Frost stated that it was for 18 months. Attorney Barney stated that the special approval expires if the construction has not been started in the 18 month period . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Chairperson Stotz asked if anything has changed on the environmental assessment . Mr. Smith stated no. It is the same footprint and the same location . Chairperson Stotz asked if there needed to be a motion on the environmental assessment or if it was part of the previous application . It is a new environmental assessment . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 JULY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated that the board should act on the new environmental assessment . Is it on the extension of the time period ? Chairperson Stotz responded yes . RESOLUTION NO 200046 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Montessori School, Special Aproval for Previously Granted Special Approval, July 12, 2000. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Montessori School, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing elementary school located at 120 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 434 -3. 5, Residence District R-30. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Board Member Niefer asked if the approval would be from the meeting date or an extension of the original date . Attorney Barney responded that the board might want to extend the original time period . Board Member Niefer stated that the original special approval was granted May 21 , 1997 . It has expired . Attorney Barney stated that it could be extended 18 months from this meeting . Mr. Frost stated that in 1997 there was a floor plan as part of the application reviewed by the Zoning Board . The floor plan is the key issue as to what is being modified before the Planning Board . Is the fact that there was a floor plan that was part of the review in 1997 and not part of this review and being modified July 18th before the Planning Board a significant part of the special approval process? Mr. Demjanec stated that they would stipulate that the special approval is for the previously submitted floor plan . Attorney Barney stated that the board is extending what was previously approved . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 JULY 1212000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that the packet does not have the 1997 floor plan . Chairperson Stotz stated that this is an extension of the original approval . Mr. Frost stated that the original approval floor plan showed the lesson rooms that the school would now like to eliminate . Chairperson Stotz stated that the board is extending the approval as if it was the original special approval . RESOLUTION NO. 2000=47 — SPECIAL APPROVAL - Montessori School, Extend Soecial Approval to Enlarge Existing Elementary School, July 12, 2000. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Montessori School, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for an extension of a period of 18 months from July 12, 2000, to enlarge an existing elementary school located at 120 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 434 -3. 52 Residence District R-30. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Attorney Barney asked if the Planning Board approved the 1997 plan . Mr. Frost responded yes . Attorney Barney stated that the modifications are going before the Planning Board for approval . Mr. Frost stated that the special approval expired . This is granting special approval to the same site plan that was reaffirmed from the Planning Board . The advertisement was for the special approval to agree with the site plan that the Planning Board , Attorney Barney stated the he thinks that the motion should be reconsidered and rephrased as granting a special approval in accordance with the plans and materials that was submitted in 1997 . It is what was resubmitted to the Planning Board . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 JULY 129 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost asked when did the school go back to the Planning Board when they gave the applicant a reaffirmation of that site plan . Mr. Demjanec stated that it was when they went before the board for the middle school , It was one year ago . Mr. Frost stated that the board is granting a special approval based on a site plan that was granted by the Planning Board twice . The board is not reaffirming anything . The board is granting a special approval based on a site plan that was approved by the Planning Board once in 1997 and once in 1999 . Chairperson Stotz stated that the board has a motion that was approved . Does the board need to vote to withdraw it? Attorney Barney responded that the board should amend the resolution or rescind it . RESOLUTION NO. 200048 — Montessori School, Rescind Previous Resolution, July 12. 2000. MOTION made by David Stotz seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board rescinds the previously approved resolution, Resolution NO. 47-2000 SPECIAL APPROVAL - Montessori School, Enlarge Existing Elementary School, July 12, 2000. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer, NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Attorney Barney stated that the motion should be that this board grant a special approval for the proposed addition to the Montessori School in accordance with the plans and materials previously submitted to this board for the decision granting the special approval May 21 , 1997 , Mr. Demjanec stated that the board would be granting a new special approval . If they are starting from ground zero , then they need to start from ground zero in a different place . Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Board couldn 't grant a special approval unless the matter has been before the Planning Board and an affirmative decision has been made . They are affirming what the Planning Board granted a year ago . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 JULY 1212000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Demjanec stated that they have a special approval from the Zoning Board to build an addition to the Montessori School . The owners have decided that the special approval granted does not suit their purposes . They would prefer to have a classroom without a lesson room and with a toilet room . Mr . Frost stated that Mr. Demjanec gave the board two sheet of paper. One is what was proposed , the other is what is being proposed . The sheet without the lesson rooms is dated July 12 , 2000 . Mr. Demjanec stated that they are going before the Planning Board on July 181h to get approval of a modified site plan to make the change . The reason it is being brought before the board is because they are on a tight schedule . If this board deems this change so significant as to invalidate the special approval , they would not have to go back to ground zero . They would need to stark over and get a special approval for the small change . It is going to make it impossible for the owners to meet their needs of being in the building by September when school begins . When is the next meeting? Chairperson Stotz responded August 9th Board Member Niefer stated that more changes have been made than have been outlined . A hallway has been eliminated . A room has been added . It is a significant item . Mr. Demjanec stated that there are more changes . He did not seem them as being significant . Board Member Niefer stated there is a new closet room . Mr. Demjanec stated that there is a closet that contains the mechanical room . The kitchenette has been moved from the west side to the south side . The space that is the hallway is a couple feet wider than it was previously. Chairperson Stotz stated that there is a substantial change in exits and entrances . He is sure that the Planning Board is going to have questions and want more detail . This board is not going to approve this plan . Mr. Frost stated that the plan before the board is dated July 121' . The plan in the Planning Board packet is dated June 6th . Why not does this board see the same plan ? Mr. Demjanec stated that it is the same plan . It is a Xerox reduction to different scales . He does understand the point of Chairperson Stotz. He does realize that he is wasting his time and the board' s time . Do the changes in the plan affect the special approval granted by the Zoning Board ? Does it matter to the board in terms of the special approval if there is one exit or two exit doors ? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 JULY 127 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that this board does look at safety. They look at building code issues . They are looking at safety items in the special approval process . He is concerned about the elimination of an exit door from the multi-purpose room in the new plan , Mr. Demjanec stated that Mr. Frost asked for exiting capacity on the multi- purpose room , He sent Mr. Frost a memo with the exiting capacity. Do not bring it up in front of this board and pretend that it is a problem when it has been discussed and resolved . Mr. Frost stated that he is not aware of a memo. The plan has been changed so many times that he is not sure what is being proposed half the time , Mr. Demjanec stated that the plan has been changed at his request. Mr. Frost stated that he voiced the desire to see the exit door coming out of the multi- purpose room because he was eliminating the double exit door out of the room . Chairperson Stotz stated that the board is sitting here as a courtesy to listen to the further explanation of the plans . If Mr. Demjanec is going to argue about this or fight with the staff , then they are going to adjourn . Mr. Demajanec stated that they did discuss the issue . He did an exiting calculation on the doors and submitted it to Mr. Frost , Chairperson Stotz stated that Mr. Demjanec could work it out with Mr. Frost on his own time , not on the board 's time . Mr. Frost stated that he is not disagreeing about the exiting capacity. The original site plan for which he issued the permit showed the door. He voiced the opinion that he was pleased to the door there . Andrea Riddle , Principal of Montessori School , stated that they have had an increase in enrollment . They thought that when they were proceeding that they were proceeding by doing the right thing. They did not realize that the sunset clause had elapsed , it did not occur to her that if they were to change the internal space that it would be an issue . They have a class of 21 children in the fall . They could build what they said they would . It is foolish to put lesson rooms in a space where they do not need lesson rooms . They are looking to the board for guidance so that they do not spend a lot of money. Chairperson Stotz stated that he is very sympathetic to the school 's situation . Students will be arriving and the school will need to be finished . It is a fine institution . This board would love to do what it could to accommodate it . Clearly, this appeal was for the extension of the special approval that was granted in 1997 . The board cannot consider another motion where the board grants special approval before the Planning Board approves the site modifications . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 JULY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms. Riddle stated that everyone knew that this was the issue when they applied to be before the Zoning Board . She does not understand why there is a problem . Mr. Frost asked if she is referring to the Zoning Board members knowing what the school would be presenting . Ms. Riddle stated that she assumed that they would be dealing with both issues because there was a time issue. Mr. Frost stated Ms . Quinlan was to inform her that there was the potential that with a change of a site plan , that without the Planning Board granting a new site plan review, that they might have to come back before the Zoning Board . Pam Quinlan , 235 Berkshire Road , stated that when she thinks of changing a site plan , she thinks of changing the footprints not the inside . She remembered asking what the difference is in changing lesson rooms to a bathroom . Mr. Frost stated that he has had many conversations regarding this application . Ms . Quinlan stated that she did not understand why someone could control something being changed inside the building . Mr. Frost stated that he advised Ms . Quinlan to talk with Mr. Demjanec and that Mr. Demjanec needed to talk with Mr. Kanter, the Town Planner. He was given an application to build the build the building according to the 1997 site plan . Then Mr. Kanter came to him and said an application was made to the Planning Board for a modified site plan . Ms . Quinlan stated that she spoke with Mr. Frost about the change recently. She had thought that they had a building permit at that time . Chairperson Stotz asked if it would be possible for the board to write a memo for the record to the Planning Board saying that they did look at the revised site plan . Would it help the Planning Board in not referring it back to this board ? By doing it , the Zoning Board is saying that they think it is o . k. Attorney Barney stated that he is not sure that it will need to come back before the Zoning Board . There is a provision for modification in a sense of the site plan from preliminary to final site plan to get to the final site plan approval . It is what the Planning Board is going to be doing . If that is all that they are doing , then he will might be of the opinion that it does not need to come back before the Zoning Board . The board is granting a special approval on the process . If the Zoning Board has to be involved again , he does not know how it could be done in advance of the Planning Board recommendation . They recommend a number of items . The Planning Board may determine that there is not a need for it to come before the Zoning Board . It is a Planning Board issue . He does understand the time problem . He does find it hard to believe that the school is just now finding out ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 JULY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED that they are going to have too many children . Most people that have plans to build before the following school year are in plenty of time in case of problems . The Planning Board meets July 1 $t If it does come back to the Zoning Board . the Zoning Board might be willing to meet on July 26th , Mr. Frost stated that it is not likely. The Town offices are in the process of moving . Staff is very occupied . Mr. Kanter did not have a problem if this did not come back to the Zoning Board , Mr. Frost advised Montessori School . He did not say that it had to come back to the Zoning Board . He has made it clear that it was a question as to whether it had to come back . Mr. Frost stated that it is a decision to be made by the Planning Board . He feels that it is unlikely that the Planning Board will make a finding that will require it to come back to the Zoning Board . His conversation with Mr. Kanter indicated that Mr. Kanter did not see this needing to come back before the Zoning Board . The final decision is the Planning Board's . They cannot decide what the Planning Board is going to do . Mr. Demjanec stated that no one is suggesting that they take away from the Planning Board their right to make that determination and choose to send it back to the Zoning Board . Chairperson Stotz suggested that the board indicated it does not have a problem with the special approval . If the Planning Board feels differently they can send it back to the Zoning Board . They are trying to avoid being before the Zoning Board August 9th , which means having 30 children in the parking lot September 2"d Board Member Ellsworth stated that if the footprints are the same , they could take the risk and start to the project . It does not impact the interior. Mr. Frost stated that they issued the foundation permit . Mr. Demjanec stated that they could go a certain distance without crossing the line. The line will come before August 9th . They have to be committed to one building or the other before August 9th Attorney Barney stated that a school use is permitted in R-30 . R-30 says that application for approval of a school use shall be referred to the Planning Board and no final action by the Board of Appeals shall be taken until the Planning Board has reviewed a preliminary site plan and approved the same . If the Zoning Board approves the same and only if the Planning Board approved a preliminary site plan , the matter shall be returned to the Planning Board for final site plan approval . No building permit shall be issued until the proposed structure is in accordance with the final site pian approved by the Planning Board . He does not have a problem with the Planning Board finding what was the previous final site plan by allowing different room configurations. They have the authority to do it after the Zoning Board has granted special approval for the use . He does not think that it needs to come back before the Zoning Board . It is premature for this board to do anything until the Planning Board has determined if it needs to come back to the Zoning Board . The nature of the change is such that this board should not need to be involved again . If it is , the Zoning Board cannot do anything until the Planning Board acts . Chairperson Stotz stated that he would like to end the discussion . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 JULY 1212000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 200049 — SPECIAL APPROVAL — Montessori School, Enlarge Existing Elementary School, July 12, 2000. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer, RESOLVED, that this board extend for a period of eighteen (18) months beginning July 12, 2000 the special approval granted to the Montessori School on May 21, 1997, for the proposed addition to the Montessori School located at 120 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43= 1 -3. 9, Residence District R-30. Such extension is made based upon plans and materials submitted to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals as part of the May 21, 1997 original approval. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer, NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS . Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has been sued . Alfred Eddy did not like the board's decision on the gravel appeal . They have delivered a notice of petition to him . It alleges that the board made the wrong decision . The Town Board at its July meeting authorized his law firm to defend the board . They will pay them to do so . The board can select its own attorney if it chooses . Attorney Barney stated that he would like authorization to accept service of the papers on behalf of the board . Mr. Perkins has sent him the papers and requested that he accept service . He cannot do it without the board 's authorization . The board should go into executive session if they would like to discuss the issue in more detail . Upon a motion made by Chairperson Stotz, seconded by Board Member Niefer to enter into executive session to discuss the Eddy lawsuit . The board entered into executive session at 8 : 23 p . m . As there was no further business to be discussed in executive session , Chairperson Stotz, seconded by Board Member Ellsworth made a motion , to resume regular session . The board resumed regular session at 8: 30 p . m . RESOLUTION NO. 200040 — Authorize Barney, Grossman DuBow & Marcus to Represent Zoning Board of Appeals in the Alfred Eddy Lawsuit, July 12, 2000. MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 JULY 12 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLVED, that this board authorizes Barney, Grossman, DuBow & Marcus to appear on behalf of and defend the Zoning Board of Appeals in the action brought by Alfred, Mildred, Nelson, Jacquiline Eddy. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2000=51 - Authorize John C. Barney, Esq. to Accept Service of Papers in Alfred Eddy Lawsuit. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by David Stotz RESOLVED, that this board authorizes John C. Barney to accept service of papers on behalf of the Zoning Board of Appeals in the proceedings of the Alfred Eddy lawsuit. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried. s ther"as no further business , Chairperson Stotz adjourned the meeting at 8 : 32 p . m . G David Stotz, Gairpers n Carrie L. Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, JULY 124, 2000 7 :00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, July 12, 2000, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N. Y. , COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M . on the following matters : APPEAL of Ron and Helen Shewchuk, Appellants, Scott Braig, Crown Construction, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a carport or a garage with a north side yard building setback of 6 ± feet ( 10 foot setback required) at 112 Winston Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70- 11 -28, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of the Montessori School, Appellant, Peter Demjanec, R.A. , Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing elementary school located at 120 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3 .5, Residence District R-30. Variances from Article V, Section 21 and 22 of said Ordinance are also being requested to permit lot coverage by a building of 11 .25% ( 10% maximum coverage allowed) and a 22 foot side yard building setback (40 foot minimum setback required). Said appeal was granted an approval on May 21 , 1997 but has since expired. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 :00 p.m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273- 1783 Dated: June 30, 2000 Published: July 7, 2000 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York on Wednesday, July 12 , 2000, commencing at 7 :00 P.M. , as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Bulletin board, front entrance of Town Hall. Date of posting: June 30, 2000 Date of publication: July 7, 2000 Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Deparftt t Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of June, 2000, Notary Public DEBORAH KELLEY` Notary Public; State of New York No. 01 KE6025073 Oualified in Schuyler. bunty Commission Expires May 17. 20