Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2007-11-26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NY 14850 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007 7:00 PM PRESENT Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Ron Krantz, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; David Mountin, Alternate Board Member. EXCUSED Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Eric Levine, Alternate Board Member. STAFF Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Christine Balestra, Planner. OTHERS Bonnie Mathers, 909 Taughannock Blvd; Marilyn Patterson, 909 Taughannock Blvd; Bill Rady, 10 Chase Ln; Bruce Dunham, 12 Chase Ln; Jon Albanese, 30 Burdick Hill Rd; Wei Wang, 509 Lake St; Janet Galvan, 6 La Grand Ct; Jane Dunnick, La Grand Ct. Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Welcome to the November meeting of Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have three appeals. We will be taking them in the following order: • Bonnie Mathers and Marilyn Patterson • Boris Simkin • William Rady The first appeal: APPEAL of Bonnie Mathers & Marilyn Patterson, Owners/Appellants, requesting an interpretation and possible variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-45(A)(1)(b)[10] and Article XXV, Section 270-205(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct two wooden pilings on the south side of an existing dock located at 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-9, Lakefront Residential Zone (LR). The proposed pilings will support an existing metal boat lift located at the end of an existing dock. The LR regulations are not clear as to whether the two wooden pilings supporting the existing boatlift (attached to the dock) are considered part of the dock and, as such, the proposed pilings located on the sides of the boatlift will constitute an extension of the dock. If so, the proposed pilings are in violation of the 20-foot side yard setback from adjacent properties required for docks, piers, 1 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved and wharves in the LR zone. The pilings may also be in violation of the provisions regarding the enlargement of existing, nonconforming structures. Chairperson Sigel — Hi. Ms. Mathers — Hi. Would you like us to come up? Chairperson Sigel — Yes, please. Please if you could, begin with your name and address. Ms. Patterson - Marilyn Patterson, 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Ithaca, NY Ms. Mathers - Bonnie Mathers, 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Ithaca, NY Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. And before we get started is there anything you would like to add beyond what is in your submitted packet. Ms. Mathers — I wasn't clear on that reading when you were talking about...I just picked up on that...whether this is the boatlift that is attached to the two pilings on the dock...the proposal... The boatlift that is attached to the two pilings on the dock those pilings support the dock, too. They are part of the dock. Chairperson Sigel — Right. I think that the...I just read exactly as it was advertised to the public and I think that when this was written it may not have been entirely clear exactly what the function of the new pilings were and exactly how the boatlift was attached or supported. So the description may not exactly reflect the existing conditions. So for the other board members, the issue here, as I am sure you are aware, deals with these two pilings that the applicant wants to put in. One question we need to discuss is whether these pilings are in fact considered part of a dock and if so, then would be subject to the setback requirements of a dock or a pier or whether they are not, whether they're just another structure, in which case they may not be subject to any setback at all. So if we made that finding then I don't think the applicant would need a variance from this board if we made the determination that they were not part of the dock and were therefore not subject to any of the setbacks. Mr. Niefer — I think the question I had in my mind was will the existing boatlift be attached to the two pilings that are going to be driven into the lake. Ms. Mathers — Not at this time, no. Mr. Niefer— Not at this time. Is it foreseeable in the future that they may be? Ms. Mathers — If I can ever afford a $6,000 boatlift in the future, yes. 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Niefer — Well then that being the case will this existing lift be taken out? Is this existing lift capable of handling a boat of that weight and size? Ms. Mathers — That is the problem I'm having...is we've actually had to take a mallet to the boatlift to get the boat to drop down in the water because the boat is maxed out on this boatlift; the weight of it. Chairperson Sigel — So this boatlift, you would not attach it to the pilings? Ms. Mather — No...yeah...um...and...the pilings are a mooring. Do you know what mooring a boat is? If I can't afford the boatlift, then what I will do is just exactly...you can look at my neighbor's, the picture there, you can see his boat there on the end of the dock to the right and that piling setting out there? That is what I would do. I would just tie my boat off between the... Chairperson Sigel — Just so it doesn't hit the dock. Ms. Mather—Absolutely. You can't have a boat just tied up against a dock alone. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So that is the proposed use? Ms. Mather— Yeah...it is, yes, and the reason I say that is because if I put the boatlift in later, alright, if I use this...this boatlift is not that old. I'd like to get some use out of it with the expense that I paid for it, but I've had to replace the cables on it already and stuff and so it is a 50/50 question. Do I move ahead now? And the reason I tell you this is because I don't want somebody knocking on my door three years from now and saying well, you just attached that boatlift to those pilings because pilings like that can be used two different ways for the function. If I don't upgrade the boatlift and the boatlift works for me now and then the boatlift dies and I'm getting older and I don't want to spend that money down there any more because none of it is insured if a flood comes through then I will just tie my boat off in the water like 90% of the other people do with the pilings and hold it away from it. I say that because I want to be, like I said, I don't want somebody coming to me later and saying guess what this man's first question was, you just attached that and you never asked for that here. And so I want to cover all bases so I'm not back here again. Chairperson Sigel — So there are boatlifts that you might get in the future that you would need to attach? Ms. Mather — It looks just like what you see in the picture, but it's supported by four pilings. So it goes up and down and it can hold a bigger boat and stuff. Chairperson Sigel —And two of those would be the ones you are putting in? Ms. Mather— Yes. 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Chairperson Sigel —And the other... Ms. Mather— The other two are already there. Chairperson Sigel -...would be at the dock. Ms. Mather— I don't know if that helps me or not, but I'm being honest. Chairperson Sigel — I think, well the way I read the rule, I think it doesn't necessarily make a difference, at least right now because boatlifts are also not regulated as far as setback. Is that correct, Susan? Ms. Brock— Correct, unless you determine the boatlift itself is part of the dock. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I mean, I personally don't favor that interpretation. I mean, I think just because a boatlift abuts a dock doesn't mean it is part of the dock, but even if there was some shared structure I don't really think, according to the current regulation, was intended to be considered part of the dock. Mr. Matthews — Cannot? Chairperson Sigel — I don't think so and so the way I read the statue, I think whether these pilings are freestanding for mooring or whether they were later used to support a boat lift, at least under our current regulation, I think either one doesn't trigger a setback issue. Mr. Niefer — But on the other hand, let's put it this way. If at some time in the future these pilings were used for a boatlift, many times the boatlifts have a canopy over and slings and so on and become really an adjunct of the dock itself. So as the present situation is here now, I don't see a problem. But on the other hand if she takes this boatlift out and uses pilings and then puts a sling type lift that puts it in a different ballgame, both different rules and things. Chairperson Sigel — Well I think, um...I mean actually I think according to our current... [to Ms. Brock] does our regulation cover...covers or roof of boatlifts right now? Ms. Brock— No. It doesn't mention boatlifts, I don't believe. Ms. Balestra — Not at all. Chairperson Sigel — So currently, even a covered boatlift, I think, would still be exempt from any setback requirements and that's, I mean that is something that might actually be remedied by a forthcoming change to the Code. Mr. Matthews — So where is the setback measured, then? 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Mountin — I'm kind of with Jim. I kind of would interpret the possibility of what the future might be and if there is...these pilings turn into part of a new dock, then is to me...it's my interpretation it is part of a dock as opposed to...I mean it is a boatlift, but with pilings that become attached to the dock now because they become part of a boatlift I consider it as one dock, one new issue here. Mr. Matthews —Where are we measuring from? Chairperson Sigel — Even if it's clearly just a lift? There's no decking. Mr. Mountin — My interpretation, that's part of the dock. This boatlift here. To me, I would interpret that as part of the dock whether it's got its own moorings or its own whatever. It looks like part of the dock. You couldn't have that boatlift if you didn't have the dock. Chairperson Sigel — True, it's attached to the dock, but I don't think it was the intent of the ordinance to, for instance, to have that contribute to the square footage calculation that limits the size of a dock. Mr. Mountin — Until we come up to an issue where it's a really big attachment of a device to hold a boat then it will come back...I think I can see it coming back where it is really big and somebody may say that this is... Chairperson Sigel — Not to skip ahead too much, but that is a concern to the Codes and Ordinances Committee and to the Town Board and that is being worked on now...to better address the issues along the lakefront. I mean it is admittedly somewhat of a hole in the regulation that boatlifts are not regulated at all and that roofs over them are not regulated. The Town has been working with the West Shore Civic Association or homeowners association to try and revise the regulation. Mr. Mountin —What's to say if you put two pilings in that you don't attach decking or joist to make that part of the deck? Chairperson Sigel —Well I think that that falls...if you...are you looking at the Code? Mr. Mountin — I'm looking at the picture. Chairperson Sigel — Well, the Code under 270-45(A)(1) allows for fishing piers, docks, wharfs, boathouses, cabanas, seawalls, and similar waterfront structures and facilities, um, and I...my feeling is that the pilings don't count or not...you know...a freestanding piling would not be considered a pier, a dock, or a wharf, certainly not a boathouse or a cabana or a seawall, but I think it falls under the more general scope of similar waterfront structures and facilities and so therefore that makes it subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board, but then further down there's just mention of setback requirements for piers, docks or wharfs and since I don't feel like a freestanding piling is a pier, dock or wharf, then its...that's the only place that setbacks are mentioned. 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Mountin — So I'm thinking that...in lieu of what Ms. Mathers said here that not to maybe come back in a couple of years when it becomes part of the dock because now it's a new boatlift versus two piers. It becomes part of dock. Will she have to come back in two year to get a variance because now there is a boatlift attached to the pilings? Chairperson Sigel — Well, my feeling is the best thing we...we can only deal with the proposal in front of us, which is just to put in two freestanding pilings and my feeling is that that's allowed and that if they then want to attach a boatlift in the future that will be subject to whatever the regulation is at that time. We can't grant a variance for something that they don't propose now let alone...we certainly can't grant a variance from a rule that is not even in effect. Right now any type of boatlift would be allowed there, even attached to the pilings, I believe. So we can't grant a variance for something that is allowed, but might not be allowed in the future. Mr. Krantz — You know there is always a human side to this. If the pilings are considered part of the dock that would bring it within the 20 foot setback. Have you ever discussed it with any of your neighbors? Ms. Mathers — Yeah. Mr. Krantz—Was there any objections? Ms. Mathers — No. They don't have any objections to it. Absolutely none. If they did, they would have definitely spoke up. I have been down that road. Mr. Niefer— Is your boat a sailboat or a powerboat? Ms. Mathers —Which is the correct answer? Ms. Patterson - It's a powerboat. What is it...18 feet? Mr. Niefer — It is going to be kind of tricky to bring it in to that kind of a narrow space when the wind is out of the northwest. Ms. Mathers — I'm glad you brought that up because that is one of the reasons I want the pilings is if you were to look at the picture, and I explained to the Planning Board at one time, um, its very difficult to come in there straight on with a north wind because I just...I automatically go this way [making hand gesture] and now I have a bigger boat. I could go that way and take off my whole lower unit. So getting in there even with the boatlift down and I'm using a boatlift and with the boatlift under the water because you've lowered it down, when you pull in those pilings will...now I can get into them like a cradle and they will stop me from going anywhere but just up against them because they are a foot and a half, two foot. They will really help entering on that side. Can I say something? So what we are saying here now is that we are approving just the 6 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved pilings, but you are not going to approve that if I do want a boatlift that is exactly like this, but the end can connect to those pilings because that is what I put into my permit, too. Because I really don't want to come back here and spend $220 more, $225 more to put 4 bolts and a metal rod across two pilings. No roof. No nothing. No planks. No docks. Just upgrade the same boatlift that I have right here, but it connects to the two pilings. Chairperson Sigel — Well, what I said was that I believe that at the present time that is legal. Ms. Mathers — So I should run out and buy this boatlift now? [laughing] I should have done this when I got the permit from the Army Corp and I just ran out of money. I mean these things are not warranted under insurance. Insurance doesn't cover these docks. These docks are not a privilege for us. They are a necessity. If the water comes through and floods them out, we are out. We are out $10,000, $15,000. Whatever requirements were made here to do this dock the way people want to do it, we're out that money. So for me doing a boatlift with a canopy and everything else, yeah it would be nice so I wouldn't have to go down there and Windex the boat to get the slim out of it with rainy weather in Ithaca, but you know that's more money. Chairperson Sigel — Well, I mean as I said, as it stands I believe that that is allowed. And so if the regulations changed and that is something being considered...I don't know what the new regulation would allow. Ms. Mathers — Yeah, and I have to say that at the Planning Board there were several people, I guess, on the committee for the docks and stuff and they were just, oh, yeah we didn't think of this. Oh, yeah we didn't think of this. Oh, yeah we didn't think of this. This is the jest that I getting from this and its like...I didn't come here... Chairperson Sigel — Well, I think there is some interest in regulating the setback of boatlifts as well as docks so that people don't put them right up to the edge, which I think is allowed right now. Ms. Mathers — Right up to the what? Chairperson Sigel — Right up to the edge, you know, of your property line. Mr. Matthews — I have a question. Chairperson Sigel — Go ahead. Mr. Matthews — I'm looking at the picture of your dock and I'm looking at your neighbor's dock, you know my question coming. Why don't you put your pilings to the front of your dock like your neighbor has? 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Ms. Patterson — Then our neighbor would have a problem because he couldn't get his sailboat out. Ms. Mathers — He has a 35 foot sailboat. Ms. Patterson —We would block his pull-out. Mr. Matthews — Okay, then why not on the left hand side of your dock looking out towards the lake? Ms. Mathers — Several reasons. It's the north side. It's going to take a lot of wind to your watercraft. Second one is your water there, and it was Eva Hoffmann I think brought that up, your water here is only like 2 or 3 feet deep at one time and so if I didn't use a boatlift I really would have a hard time during different seasons with the boat maybe being too low into the water. And second of all, that is...you come in there and it's extremely...to shallow and you just can't get in that way either with a boat because there's just not enough navigational to come in there. You're going to lose it one way or another. Mr. Matthews — This is a sailboat, yeah? Ms. Mathers — No. It's a motorboat. Mr. Matthews — Motorboat? Ms. Mathers — Motorboat that I've had...this is my third one since 1990 and I still can't drive the darn things. Mr. Matthews — So you are telling me that the depth of the water on the left hand side of your dock is less than what it is on the right hand side of the dock? Ms. Mathers —Are you talking down in here or are you talking here? Mr. Matthews — Right there. Ms. Patterson — That would be on the property line to the other neighbor. Mr. Matthews — You mean your left to right side of your boat port or starboard is going to be over the neighbor's property line? Ms. Mathers — It would be in their navigational waters, which they don't use anything there, but I'm in the same predicament. Mr. Mountin — Kirk, when this dock was built, was there a variance given at the time? Ms. Balestra — This was built pre-2004. 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Mountin — Oh, so... Ms. Mathers — It was approved by the Army Corp and the setbacks at that time. Mr. Matthews — Well Kirk, it seems to me if you've said if the two pilings are between this party and the neighbor that that's legal. It's not a part of the dock. You said that. Chairperson Sigel — Yup. That's how I read the Code. I think it would be difficult to interpret it otherwise. Mr. Matthews — The question then becomes if we grant the variance and the Planning Board determines in the future that those two pilings are indeed a part of the dock... Chairperson Sigel — Actually it was a determination by the Code Enforcement Officer and we wouldn't...I mean if that's the case we wouldn't be granting a variance. We would be making a motion to interpret such that those pilings are not part of the dock. So that would affect all future applications of this nature. Mr. Matthews —We would be setting a rule then. Chairperson Sigel — We would be saying that this is what the Code means and if the Town Board decided that wasn't their intent, then they would hopefully change the Code. Mr. Matthews — Then my question becomes if we do that, are we opening any unknown boxes? Chairperson Sigel — It's possible, but I don't see that we have any other option. I mean we have to decide what we believe that the Code means, which is different than...somewhat different than granting a variance. I mean we don't really apply any criteria to interpreting the Code. We just... Mr. Matthews — Tell me if my point is foolish or not and that's okay. Things I've said in the past have been considered foolish. If someone came here and wanted to put pilings up, lining up one right next to another all the way to the shore, based on our ruling that it is okay to put pilings up... Chairperson Sigel — It would still be subject to Planning Board site plan approval. Ms. Brock—And Special Permit approval. Chairperson Sigel — And Special Permit approval and those criteria would easily allow the Planning Board to decide that that was not...that that was detrimental to the community. Detrimental to neighbors. Detrimental to the lake. Detrimental to the environment. 9 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Ms. Brock — One of the criteria when they look at Special Permits is whether the proposed use will be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in an amount sufficient to devalue neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants. So that criteria would let them look at the placement of any proposed pilings and possibly deny the Special Permit if they felt the neighbors were going to be seriously inconvenienced. For example, if it cut off their ability to access the lake. Mr. Matthews — Okay. So there is still oversight that prevents such a foolish thing. Ms. Brock — And you had asked a question a little bit earlier about what if in the future the Planning Board comes in with a different interpretation. Only the Zoning Board makes interpretations of the Code. The Code Enforcement Officer does it in the first instance. Then the applicant can appeal to the ZBA and the ZBA can then make its own interpretation of the Code and that's binding on the Town. The Planning Board does not have the jurisdiction to make interpretations. So when they previously last month considered this proposal, they actually ended up granting site plan approval and Special Permit approval but made it subject to any variances that might be needed from the ZBA, but its also within your purview to say no variances are needed because we are interpreting the Code in this way. So that in fact these pilings are not part of the dock, therefore, no setback requirements apply. Mr. Mountin — Do we have any history of pilings...in this situation where pilings have been or haven't been part of a dock? Ms. Balestra — Not a one. Ms. Mathers — I'm the first. Ms. Brock — These waterfront regulations only came in 2004 so there hasn't been that much time to accumulate a huge variety of different types of cases. The Planning Board has had and you've had a huge a number of dock issues, but not pilings. Mr. Mountin — What does the Code Officer concur right now? That they are or they aren't part of the dock? Ms. Brock— He said they were part of the dock. He said that they were attached. Ms. Balestra — Yeah. He interpreted them as being attached to the boatlift. Ms. Brock— He wrote, "because the pilings will create an extension of the existing dock, because they will be attached to the existing boatlift, which is already attached to the dock, and would therefore increase an existing non-conformity." 10 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Niefer — The applicants have said there is not going to be any connection at the present time between the pilings and the existing boatlift. Ms. Brock — But they are also saying that their application was for pilings that would be attached, although when I read the application to the ZBA it says, "we wish to install two wooden dock pilings next to our metal boatlift." So it's not clear... Ms. Patterson — Yeah, I don't think we ever... Ms. Mathers — Yeah...add two pilings to dock area boatlift, right side. I guess that's on that short environmental assessment. That's why I brought it up because I'm trying to be honest. I don't...I would like not to do a bigger boatlift. I'm tired of spending money, but if this boatlift doesn't work that well and the newer boat that I have, it's nicer to keep them out of the water so that they are not setting down there getting all that dirt. I would do it. I mean it's not like...I can afford to do it, but I would just prefer to stop spending so much at some point in time. So that's why I say, you know, they're a two function thing. I can use it either way depending on what I feel. Mr. Krantz — Not to sound smug or anything, but I obviously unattached pilings are not in violation of the Code. Ms. Mathers — Yeah. I'm learning that as we sit here. Mr. Krantz — Attached pilings are. It's like saying you are putting up a garage and you think it will be big enough and we approve it, but it may not be big enough because I may get another car that I want to put in so can I enlarge the garage in the future. Ms. Mathers — Yeah, but I think you are comparing a little bit of apples and oranges here. Mr. Krantz— That's a stretch. Ms. Mathers — Well...because a lot of people would prefer to say that on the lake in the water. You put money down there, it's not insured. And we...I'm always looking ahead at different things like that and had I looked ahead a little farther when I built this dock in '03 1 would have done this had I known...how do I say this. Had I known that so many people were going to have so many says down the road and I'm paying the bill. Did I say that politically correct? Chairperson Sigel — Well, I mean given the way the Code reads, I would be comfortable even making the interpretation that a boatlift is simply not subject to the setback requirements. I really don't believe that a boatlift is a pier, dock or wharf and those are the only things subject to the 20 foot setbacks. So I feel that a boatlift even if it, say is supported by a shared piling that also helps support a dock, I still think that the boatlift is not subject to the setback, which would mean that they could have a different boatlift 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved that was attached to the new pilings and attached to pilings that help support the dock and that would not be subject. Mr. Krantz— Isn't that in conflict with what the Code Officer says? Chairperson Sigel — It is. Mr. Matthews — Can I go back to one of my original questions when I first came on this board? What's the purpose of setback? Chairperson Sigel — To protect neighbors. Mr. Matthews — To protect neighbors from what? Chairperson Sigel — From undue use of or too great an intense use of land right up near the edge of a lot, to maintain open sight lines, to...you know, it has a number of purposes. Mr. Matthews — I think that is central to our determination. What's the purpose of the setback? Ms. Brock — I think the Code language is essential to your determination. You need to decide whether the way the Code is drafted, the boatlift is to be considered part of the dock. That is what you need to decide first. It's only secondary then, if you decide it is part of the dock that you look at the setback requirements. But you need to decide first, is this structure considered part of the dock. Mr. Matthews — I know, but in my own mind it seems to me that the purpose of setback is to keep the neighborhood from being crowded or something. I don't know what that is. Or to prevent somebody from building a structure 5 feet from the property line so that you don't feel that you are encroaching on the neighbor's property or something like that? Chairperson Sigel — Uh hmm. Mr. Matthews — It seems if that is the case then permitting these pilings right up to the property line is the same as putting a shed right up to the property line. It's the same kind of thing. Chairperson Sigel — I agree that that is an issue and I personally would like to see some setbacks in place for things like pilings and boatlifts, but the Code doesn't say that. And all we can do is follow the Code. Mr. Krantz— But the Code Officer does say that. Chairperson Sigel —Well, I think that the Code Officer made a mistake in this case. 12 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Ms. Brock — You have a right to make an independent determination. I mean, you may decide he had reasons and you may agree...you may come up with reasons why you think his interpretation is right, but I just don't want you to have the impression that you have to follow what he says because you don't. The whole...one of your main functions is in fact to interpret the Code when the applicant gets an interpretation from the Code Enforcement Officer, their permit is denied and they disagree with that interpretation. They then appeal to you and they ask for your interpretation. So you have the right to make an independent interpretation. Mr. Krantz— I know. Mr. Matthews — So as of now the Code is saying that pilings right up to the property line are permitted? Am I right? Ms. Brock— That is the question for you to determine. Mr. Matthews — Really? Ms. Brock — Does the Code regulate these pilings? That's your question for you to determine. Ms. Mathers — May I ask you something about the boatlift thing there? Chairperson Sigel — Sure. Ms. Mathers — I guess we were going to determine on that, too. I think that gentleman had something about with the boatlift and the dock and building smaller or whatever. People on the lake...not even people on the lake. People are always, well, I don't need a big boat or bigger boat and then all of a sudden they outgrow that one. The other thing with a boatlift attached to a dock whether its part of the dock...its part of the dock when its attached, but you are going to find that people are going to take a boatlift out a lot faster than they are ever going to touch their dock. I would prefer not to have this boatlift, but unfortunately if you are going to have a boat and you want to keep it nice a lift is one of the ways to go, but and again, like I said, if this lift dies on me, I just...you know...why bother. Just tie it between the moorings, which is probably what they started back years ago and that was their only process then. But to say a boatlift is part of a dock, I don't think that's fair because a boatlift [snapping] can be taken out like that. You are not going to take a dock out like that. And yes, people may bump up in the future and take that decking to that...to the pilings, but then you would say in this permit or whatever this is what is approved, nothing else. You know, a metal boatlift attached to the poles down the road if necessity makes it for the size of the boat. Other than that they are there for mooring if the boatlift is not functioning or something. Mr. Mountin — Did you say that the pilings are attached to the dock? The pilings will be attached? 13 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Ms. Mathers — There are two pilings already...that are attached to the dock. Ms. Patterson — They're holding the dock, not the two we are proposing. Mr. Mountin — I'd interpret that as being part of the dock construction then, if they are attached to that dock, I would interpret that as being construction. Chairperson Sigel — Those pilings are. Mr. Mountin — The two new ones? The two proposed ones? Ms. Mathers — No. Two that are on the dock where the boatlift is attached to those with bolts. Mr. Mountin — The two new ones aren't going to be? Chairperson Sigel — No. They are not going to be attached. Mr. Krantz— Not for now. Ms. Mathers — Not with any wood and down the road they would be attached with...you look at this frame down here at the bottom, I'm still trying to understand it. That's why I say I've got two pulleys on this side now I want to add two more pulleys on that side and have four as a headache that don't work. Chairperson Sigel — Some boatlifts are just a freestanding structure, right? You just basically drop it in the water and they have a sling and a frame. Ms. Mathers — You know, I wish I knew more about them. Chairperson Sigel — I don't know why, but we've learned a little bit as we've tried to revise the Code. Ms. Mathers — And there are some very nice ones. And again, when you're doing this and you're looking at this, understand the homeowner. They are doing this not out of big and bold. I think they are doing it out of necessity for the equipment that they have at that time. If you have a tractor trailer and you want to put it in a garage you are going to have to have a bigger garage. But if you don't...when I went looking to see what people had, you know, the only pieces of crap I ever saw out there on the lake were the old, old, old metal ones that people probably won't upgrade because of possible expense and permits and the headaches to it. I just don't think that the boatlift can be a permanent part of the dock. It can be taken out at any time. If somebody comes in with a sailboat they're not going to use this boatlift. It could go. 14 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Matthews — Putting this into a maritime situation is sort of confusing at least for me. If someone had built a garage and had that garage within 7 feet of the next property owner's line and we gave it a variance approval for that, how would it strike the next door neighbor if that property owner who built the garage then laid down a macadam driveway one foot from the property line of the neighbor that we are getting close to, to park his cars and his trucks and so forth. How would we take that? Would that be permitted and that's okay? Chairperson Sigel — I don't know. Is pavement allowed to go up to the property line? Mr. Walker— I think it is. Mr. Matthews — Pardon? Chairperson Sigel — You're allowed to pave up to your property line. Mr. Matthews — You are? Mr. Walker— Right. Chairperson Sigel — So, I mean this is analogous to the Code Enforcement Officer telling someone that they can't, when in fact it is not regulated. Someone appealing that and coming here and... Mr. Matthews — So the vehicle that these folks have don't have wheels. It has a keel and a hull. What's the difference between a car coming right up to the property line and a boat coming right up to the property line? Mr. Walker— You don't have to tie the car up so it doesn't float away. Mr. Matthews — And the car doesn't cost as much money as the hull in the water, right? I understand that. I think an analogy may fit. Chairperson Sigel — It is a similar case, yeah. Mr. Matthews — Its water instead of macadam. [laughing] Chairperson Sigel —Any other comments about...? Mr. Krantz — You're making this into a whole big issue that we're not really ready to resolve. I think the simple thing is that these unattached pilings are probably not in violation of the present Code. Period. Chairperson Sigel — That's what I believe. 15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Krantz —And what happens in the future if you attach them or if you do other things, we can't really decide on now. Again it is like you are putting up a garage and this is fine, but if you want to enlarge is because you are maybe going to get another car in five years, we can't approve that now. Chairperson Sigel — We could however...we could make the interpretation and this would not apply...we are going to be making this interpretation. Technically it doesn't have anything to do with this application. It's just that this application is the impetus for us to decide this. But I think if we wanted to we could also decide that a boatlift, even attached to these poles, would also be allowed by the current ordinance. Mr. Niefer — That's where I would take exception because I do not...I believe a boatlift, which is physically attached to a dock, is part of the dock. The boatlift could not independently exist but for the fact the dock is there. So they become one item. Chairperson Sigel — Even if they are just sharing a... Mr. Niefer — On the other hand if you had a freestanding boatlift, then it could be there without the dock. It would be there supporting itself. No physical attachment to the dock and so here we've got freestanding boatlifts. You've got boatlifts that are attached to and part of a dock. So I think we've got two different things in there...fore I really feel as far as the interpretation of docks and boatlifts, a boatlift is an integral part of the dock as long as its physically attached to the dock. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Niefer — And the piling on the dock, ah, are absolutely necessary for the boatlift to exist. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Do...anyone else feel similar to Jim? Mr. Mountin — I do. Chairperson Sigel — Dick? Not sure? Mr. Matthews — No. I'm going to rely on my analogy about the macadam and the water. Chairperson Sigel — So you think even if the boatlift were attached, it would not be subject to setback? Mr. Matthews — No. I think if the boatlift was attached to the dock it's a part of the dock. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Matthews — If it's attached, but if it's a boatlift that's freestanding, ah, like Jim says, then it's a freestanding item. 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Chairperson Sigel — I don't think that actually that is in question because the Code Enforcement Officer based his decision on it being attached. So I think that a freestanding boatlift...I think how that is treated is clear at the present. I think the problem is just these pilings because there was the belief that they were going to be attached. Mr. Matthews — But just the pilings alone, I don't see them as part of the dock and I see them as... Mr. Niefer — There again I don't have any problems with the pilings being driven. Freestanding pilings. No attachment to anything. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. [tape flipped] Let's open the public hearing [7:46 p.m.]. If anyone wishes to speak regarding this appeal please indicate. If not, I'll close the public hearing [7:46 p.m.]. Alright I will attempt a motion here, which I think meets our consensus. In regard to the appeal of Bonnie Mathers and Marilynn Patterson, requesting an interpretation from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-45(A)(1)(b)(10), I move that this board finds that freestanding pilings are not to be considered part of a dock...part of a pier, dock or wharf and are therefore not subject to the setback requirement of 20 feet from adjacent property lines and in fact are not subject to any setback requirement. Susan, would you make any suggestions? Ms. Brock — I think you should clarify what you mean by freestanding pilings. Freestanding pilings are pilings which are not attached to any other structure? Chairperson Sigel — Yes. Not attached to a pier, dock or wharf... Ms. Brock— Or a boatlift that is attached to a pier, dock or wharf. Mr. Matthews — You mean a boatlift attached to the pilings then becomes a part of the dock? Chairperson Sigel — Not attached in any way to a pier, dock or wharf. I mean I don't know how exactly we can word it to satisfy... Mr. Matthews — If there is a boatlift attached to the pilings, does that then fall under a different regulation? A different Code? What does it matter if they...? Ms. Brock— That is the question for you to be interpreting here. Whether if it is attached to the boatlift, does that change this because the boatlift is attached to the dock does that make this part of the dock? Mr. Matthews — But if the boatlift is attached to the two pilings, is it then not considered part of the dock? Of course it is. It's not a part of the dock. 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Chairperson Sigel — But if it's also attached to the dock. Mr. Matthews — Oh. Well that's different. I say if it's attached to the dock it's a part of the dock, but if it's attached to the two pilings, then its not. Mr. Krantz— Right. Ms. Brock - So freestanding means the pilings are not attached in any way to a pier, dock or wharf or to any other structure that itself in turn is attached to a pier, dock or wharf. Chairperson Sigel - I think that's... Ms. Brock— That's your intent, from what I've been hearing through this discussion. Mr. Mountin — Kirk, can you just re-say the motion? Chairperson Sigel — Um... Mr. Walker— I hate to do this, but are you defining those pilings and I have to do this for the Code Enforcement Officer's purposes for interpretation, are those pilings structures? Mr. Matthews — Structures? Ms. Brock— Yes. Mr. Walker — Is the boatlift a structure? And I'm reading the definition of structures. It says, "anything that is constructed or erected on the ground or upon another structure or building. Structure also includes anything that is constructed or erected underground and projecting up to the ground surface or above, other than utility lines, septic and water systems, or other types of similar underground structures. Structure also includes constructed parking spaces..." That maybe an interpretation in your driveway analogy there, too. And if so... Chairperson Sigel — But the only thing under 270-45 that is subject to setback are piers, docks, or wharfs. Mr. Walker — No. It says, "piers, docks, wharfs, cabanas, seawalls and similar waterfront structures." Ms. Brock — No. That only deals with site plan and Special Permit approvals at the Planning Board. We are looking at the setback requirements, which only deals with piers, docks, and wharfs. Ms. Balestra — Yeah. Its right here. 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Chairperson Sigel — I mean that's kind of hole that is in the regulation right now, is that... Mr. Walker— Yeah. That's what we're trying to clean up. Chairperson Sigel — Only number 10 applies to setback and it only applies it to pier, dock or wharf. Mr. Walker— Okay. I just... Chairperson Sigel — So these can be structures... Mr. Walker — I want to be able to make sure that I am interpreting...understanding, hearing what you are saying properly so that if this question comes up again because I think that is why this was rejected by the Code Enforcement Officer in the first place was that he has determined that those two were structures that are accessory structures that need to have a setback. That is why we are asking for the interpretation here. Ms. Brock— No. He said its part of the dock. His letter affirmably said that. Mr. Walker — Well, yeah, but then when we had discussions also that the pilings themselves were structures and whether they needed to be... Chairperson Sigel — I think they are structures, but they are a structure that in this section is not regulated for setback... Mr. Walker— Okay. That's fine. Chairperson Sigel - ...just site plan review and Special Permit. Mr. Walker— I was just asking for a clarification there so I know if this comes up again. Ms. Brock— So are you clear what the motion was? I mean... Mr. Matthews — I think it has to be reviewed again or spoken again or...could you do that again, verbatim? Chairperson Sigel — Not verbatim. Ms. Brock — Yeah, that's the problem. I mean the summary of it...I don't know if you want to summarize it for them. Chairperson Sigel — I mean to summarize, the motion is to allow or to find that freestanding pilings are not considered a pier, dock or wharf and are therefore not subject to any setback requirements and that by freestanding piling, it is meant to be 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved that that is a...not attached to a pier, dock or wharf or not attached to another structure which is in turn attached to a pier, dock or wharf. So not attached directly or indirectly to a pier, dock or wharf. That is a freestanding piling and that is not subject to setback. Mr. Matthews — One question, if they put a boatlift on these two pilings, are they going to have to jump in the water to get to their boat or will they be able to put a plank across and walk the plank to get to their boat? Chairperson Sigel — Well, you can put a freestanding boatlift in the water right next to a dock and it's not attached to the dock. Mr. Matthews — Okay. Chairperson Sigel — From my understanding, that is a common type of boatlift. Mr. Matthews — If they put a boatlift next to the dock, attached to these pilings, they can just step from the dock to the boatlift and not connecting anything. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Matthews — Okay. Chairperson Sigel — The net affect is almost the same. Mr. Krantz — I think we have sort of stumbled into where we should be, which putting it in plain language is they set up a whole Iotta rules on docks so that you don't infringe on your neighbors. And if you enlarge your dock, you just have a bigger dock whether you are putting a boatlift attached to it or an outhouse. That makes it a bigger structure. It makes it a bigger dock that's all. And the rules are to limit the size of the dock. If it's freestanding, it's a different story. Chairperson Sigel — Well hopefully this will be cleared up with some revisions to the Code. Okay. Do we have a second on the motion? Mr. Krantz— Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-053: Interpretation of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-45(A)(1)(b)[107 and Article XXV, Section 270-205(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Bonnie Mathers and Marilyn Patterson, 909 Tau_ghannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel No. 25.-2-9 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Motion made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Krantz. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that freestanding pilings are not considered to be part of a pier, dock, or wharf, and are therefore not subject to the setback requirement of 20 feet from adjacent property lines and in fact are not subject to any setback requirement. A freestanding piling is not attached to a pier, dock or wharf and not attached to another structure which is in turn attached to a pier, dock or wharf. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews, Mountin. NAYS: None. ABSENT. Ellsworth. Motion declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, the next appeal this evening is that of: APPEAL of Boris Simkin, Owner/Appellant, Jon Albanese, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a new home with garage and living space above it at 121 Larisa Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26-2- 3.30, Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. The proposed garage with second story living space will encroach into the required 40-foot side yard setback for structures in an LDR Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Please if you could, begin with your name and address. Jon Albanese, 40 Burdick Hill Road, Lansing Yeah, I'm Jon Albanese. My address is 40 Burdick Hill Road in Lansing. I'm here on behalf of Boris Simkin, the developer of this project, who happens to be out of the country at the time otherwise he would be here himself, representing himself. I should also point out that the purchasers of this property that we are dealing with today, the Wang's, are also here. Chairperson Sigel — So basically the house was sited a little bit incorrectly. Mr. Albanese — That's correct. Chairperson Sigel — And it would be legal if there was no living space above the garage portion. Mr. Albanese —A single-family or a single-story garage would be legal. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Okay. 21 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Albanese — I should point out that...its in the record or in the appeal, Boris's file, that this is the 7t" house that he has put up along Larissa Lane and this is the first time that he has run into that problem and he owns the adjacent lot, which is empty at this point. Chairperson Sigel — I mean personally, I don't...while it's unfortunate that, you know, that this type of mistake happened, I don't feel that it is a significant issue. Mr. Niefer — I don't either...see any other significant issue. It's a...from what it was described, maybe some contractor or other person working on or above the site moved the stakes, the property stakes and then stuck them back in the ground and the end result was the foundation got put in, in an incorrect spot by a foot or so. Mr. Mountin — I kind of have issue with that because as a builder, especially if you have built 7 homes and you are going to build a lot more homes and this person is a builder, you don't make mistakes like that because it's a costly mistake. You really have to be accurate as a builder and if a builder is experienced, I'm kind of going, yikes, this is a really bad mistake. Somebody really wasn't paying attention and double checking their lines and consequently he's here asking us for a variance because of poor construction technique. It shouldn't happen. I have an issue with that. Mr. Matthews — It's a matter of 15 inches. Mr. Mountin — Yes. Mr. Matthews — That's it. Mr. Mountin — 15 inches. Chairperson Sigel —Well, as I said, I wish it didn't happen, but I... Mr. Matthews —We've had our share of them. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, given the small encroachment, you know, I think it clearly meets the criteria. Mr. Krantz—Agreed. Chairperson Sigel — Chris, any, uh...let's see. This does not require an environmental review. Ms. Brock — It's an area variance for a single-family home. So it's type two and doesn't require any SEAR review. Chairperson Sigel —Any comments from Planning staff? 22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Mountin — I also have an issue with...it looks like construction didn't stop when it was asked to be stopped and applied for this variance. People just went ahead and kept building. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, the Town... Mr. Mountin - ...a little lack of respect for the intention here. Mr. Matthews — That's a concern. Is there any explanation for that? Mr. Albanese — Boris had been working with the Town regarding that particular issue. Mr. Mountin —And the answer is? Mr. Matthews — But they kept building when they were given a stop order and...? Mr. Albanese — They weren't given a stop...they did stop building once they were given the stop order. Immediately. Mr. Mountin — I'm reading here a letter in October by the Building Code Enforcement Officer, Kristie Rice, that at the time the owner was indeed notified that no framing was to occur on the property and then a month later she did the stop order. Mr. Albanese — She didn't deliver a stop order to him. Once she delivered a stop order to him work order he stopped. Mr. Mountin —Versus the... Mr. Albanese — She says...apparently there was a question, apparently she says she had told him to stop via a message or some sort of email or voice mail, but not received... Mr. Walker—What had had happened was she posted a stop work order on the building and did not hand it to Mr. Simkin directly. His subcontractors were working on the building and the next day she went up and the stop work order was invisible because they put something over it. At that time it was made very clear that work was supposed to stop and Mr. Simkin was there and he did stop at that point other than some buttoning up and waterproofing stuff. Ms. Brock— David is actually... Mr. Albanese — He did stop and I had meetings with Dan, myself, and Mr. Simkin to resolve any particular issues so it didn't go further. Ms. Brock — But David is actually referring to something else that Kristie Rice's letter says that, dated October 31St, which is the date of the stop work order, her letter states, 23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved "several weeks ago I notified you by phone that the construction was in violation of the approved plans and the Town Code. At that time I informed you that no framing was to occur on the property until the violation was corrected or a variance obtained from the ZBA." And then on October 31 st she went to a site visit to a nearby property and noticed a significant amount of framing had occurred and so that's why she issued a stop work order. Mr. Walker— Then she issued the official stop work order. Ms. Brock — Right. So I think that's the question David is asking a question about. Is why did he keep framing for several weeks after he was told verbally not to? Mr. Walker — And we've asked him that question a number of times and it has been a problem with this contractor at times, not listening to us. Chairperson Sigel — Is it...I mean one question is, if the Town is determined that construction needs to cease, technically do we have to issue a stop work order or is notifying someone that they are in violation, telling them to stop is that sufficient? Mr. Walker— That should be sufficient. I think by law we probably have to post it and do it in writing to make it official. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Walker— I mean verbally telling someone to stop, it's my word against yours type of thing. So normally we would either normally do it in a certified mailing or actually post a document on the building itself. Mr. Matthews — In other words, legally he was within his rights to continue working until he had a piece of paper in his hand telling him to stop? Mr. Walker— Technically, probably, but... Mr. Matthews — Legally. Ms. Brock— I'm not sure I agree. Mr. Walker — I...most contractors when we tell them not to do something or to stop doing something, if they continue they're doing it at their own risk because its not being condoned and technically when you have been told that they are stopping work, we are not doing any more inspections. That means they shouldn't be doing any work on that building. Mr. Matthews — And in your experience with this, most contactors take your advice and stop? Out of what? Fear or courtesy? 24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Walker — Most will stop out of courtesy, probably some stop out of fear. At the time... Mr. Matthews — Mr. Simkin has a problem stopping? Ms. Balestra — Yes. Mr. Walker— He has a problem listening, yes. Mr. Matthews —What did you say? Mr. Walker—And hearing us. Mr. Matthews — That concerned me as soon as I saw this and read this that somebody kept working when they were told to stop. And now they come and ask us for favors, as it were. I have a problem with granting a positive response to your appeal...to your contractor's appeal, the gentleman you represent. I have a serious problem with that. That is almost running into ethics. Mr. Albanese — If he were here, he could give more of an explanation as to what went on with that. I can't speak on his behalf. Mr. Matthews — I think it would be spend, with no intent to insult the gentleman. I have a bit of a problem with somebody who has a little bit of a record in this regard. Chairperson Sigel —Well, I do agree that it is an issue or that it is a problem. Mr. Matthews — 15 inches doesn't bother me. Chairperson Sigel — But when I look at the criteria, you know, that really...I'm not sure how you could work that in to one of the criteria. Mr. Matthews —Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. Mr. Krantz — Can we table it to for the next meeting and have him come back next month and give us an explanation? Mr. Albanese — See the problem with that, sir, I don't mean to interrupt is that the folks that need...who are purchasing this house need to move in and the house needs to be protected, sealed up and protected where it needs to be contingent whatever it is becoming damaged. [Female from audience starts to speak.] Chairperson Sigel — I'm sorry. Could you come to the microphone, actually, if you want to speak? Could you start with your name and address? 25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Wei Wang, 509 Lake St Wei Wang and I live in an apartment right, Ithaca, 509 Lake Street and we signed a contract with Boris a while ago. And he didn't stop until he received the order. He stopped immediately and our house is sitting there right now, you know, in the cold. We really, really ask, you know, want to get a variance and continue with our house. Mr. Matthews — I can't get into a builder's head. I was brought up by a builder, but I couldn't get into his head either. But if somebody wants to play the system, they keep working, get it up and say to themselves, they're not going to make me bulldoze it down. I'm a kid that was brought up in the streets and I know exactly how we played and I think...I believe this contractor did this on purpose. Chairperson Sigel —Well... Mr. Walker—Well, I don't think he put the building in the wrong place on purpose. Mr. Matthews — No. Mr. Walker— That was an error. Mr. Matthews — I'm not saying he did. I'm saying when he found out he just kept going. Mr. Mountin —Well, we don't know. We can't make judgments. We don't need to make judgments. Chairperson Sigel — That could be true and it's no doubt that the difficulty the violation itself created. I mean, that's...whether intentional or not, you know, he put it into...he built the house into the required setback. So it is definitely self-created. That is, however, that is only one aspect of the test. Mr. Matthews — He could have come to us and asked for an appeal because the surveyor made a mistake and probably it would have gone through like greased lightening here. Mr. Mountin — He actually recognized, according to this letter, that he actually did make a mistake. He realized the problem and he was going to change the house... Mr. Matthews — But he kept going. Mr. Mountin - ...design, but then actually wanted to appeal to the Wang's, here, to have it as they wanted it. So the variance coming to us is to appeal for the owners. Ms. Wang — Actually we asked him, to, if there...(not audible)...to not build on that part, but can do another part. We are very worried about the house. We put money down and everything and we live in an apartment and we cannot put a roof or anything so the whole thing is sitting in the rain and it is getting cold. 26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Albanese —And you have given notice on your apartment? Ms. Wang — And I've already given notice on our apartment and now we have to delay probably. Chairperson Sigel — Personally, I don't see any point to delaying action on this appeal, which is delaying occupancy for a new owner when, you know, I think it clearly meets the criteria. Our job is to balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically, we should consider whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. You know, the benefit that they are seeking to achieve, which is living space above the garage, you know, given the state of the house at this point would be difficult to achieve, I think, another way. Whether an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, I don't think a foot and a half over...you know, into a 40 foot setback is going to affect that. Whether the request is substantial. I don't believe it is so. Whether it will have adverse physical or environmental affects, I don't believe that it will. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. Clearly it is, but there are often times cases where difficulties are self-created and yet the overall test is still met. Mr. Matthews — You are a very reasonable man, Kirk, you always have been. It seems to me that this contractor when he was notified that there was a problem could have done something with the Town telling them exactly what his case is today that the intended occupants were waiting to get into their home, etc., etc., etc. Now I ask these two folks in front of me here, who are on the Town Board with the Town, did Mr. Simkin come to you and say I got a problem here; can you give me a break? Mr. Walker— Oh, yes. He asked for a break. Mr. Matthews — Oh, he did? Ms. Brock— Sure. Mr. Walker— He asked for a lot of breaks. Mr. Matthews — Speak to me. Ms. Balestra — He often asks for breaks. Mr. Walker — One thing he asked was could I modify the lot line, a minor modification. Which 1, as Town Engineer, I could shift the lot line over 2 feet if it wouldn't impact the other lot. Ms. Balestra — But he still would have needed a variance. 27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Walker — But I couldn't do that because all the lots are the min...exactly the design width, the minimum width. They can't be narrowed and he owned all the lots. He owned two more lots up to the Town Park. And I could not approve that lot line modification for those lots without taking property from the Town. So that I decided was not something that was a practical modification. The other thing he came in was a modification for the subdivision by putting a little blip in that drawing that you got there shows what each lot would have to be, but again that was a problem because it would mess up the side yard setback on the other lots. Another suggestion we made is if you consolidate those two lots you don't have a side yard problem any more. Mr. Matthews — If... Mr. Walker — You consolidate that lot with the adjoining lot, you don't have a problem any more because it is plenty wide, of course you lose a building lot then and that wasn't acceptable to him financially. And then the other alternative we proposed was if he modified the design of the house so that it was just a garage and without living space over it, then he only needed a 10 foot setback and he was not in violation of the setback rule. Ms. Balestra — 15. Mr. Walker—Well, you know, that would have eliminated the violation because a garage can be within 15 feet of the side yard, but that did not meet the contract requirements that he had signed with his customers. But what he did do is he came back with a design to say okay, if I cannot build this house as a 2-story house over that garage, I can take part of the house apart and he gave us a set of plans to show that that would be a house, I think a 3 bedroom house instead of a 4 bedroom house or whatever, but the garage could be built as a single story garage. So his recourse at this point would be if you deny this variance would be to dismantle part of the house that makes it illegal and complete the house as a slightly smaller house or in a different design configuration. Unfortunately that doesn't impact him as much as it impacts his clients. I mean it might...it would basically probably violate a contract, which it hurts a lot of other people here. Another excuse he gave us, which it was an excuse, was he had subcontractors that needed to feed their families so he wanted to keep them working, plus he wanted to button up the house for weather. Mr. Matthews — So he did visit you? Mr. Walker — Oh, yeah, several times. We met with him and his attorney a couple of times. Mr. Matthews — Chris? Ms. Balestra — Yes. Mr. Krantz— That's fair. 28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Walker— But we were not in a position to say that this is a slam dunk for a variance so we can't allow you to move ahead with it because you might not get the variance, is what we told him. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think it was ever Mr. Simkin's intent to try to not get a variance. I think he clearly realized that the setback was deficient. He just wanted to keep working on the house before the variance was granted, which is not permitted and he finally did apparently stop when the stop work order was issued. Obviously that is not model behavior by a contractor, but I also don't think its justification to not grant the variance or to delay the appeal. It is a rather straight forward appeal, I think. Mr. Krantz — So we really have no choice but to allow the variance and at least...there was concern and he went to some efforts. Mr. Matthews — Mr. Sigel, you are a role model for reasonableness. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Okay. I will open the public hearing (8:16 p.m.) now for this case if anyone wishes to speak regarding this appeal. If not, we'll close (8:16 p.m.) the public hearing. Any further comment? Mr. Niefer — I think that it is of somewhat interest a few years ago up in Skaneateles there was a person that went doggedly ahead with a project in violation of the zoning. And he kept plugging away and plugging away and plugging away with the building project. The Town dug in their heals and that place eventually came down and the attorney, I think, went belly up out of town and so on and so forth. Chairperson Sigel — You can't push too far. Mr. Niefer — You can't push too far and it may be well if some builders push too much and expect too much are made aware of the purgatives that Town Boards and Zoning Boards do have. That's all. I'm not saying necessarily at this juncture, this situation got that far out of hand, but those things can happen and they do happen. Mr. Walker — I think that was much more of a willful type violation. I think in a way this started out as an error and...we are working with this contractor to really give him some guidance and really what we expect to see there and I think he understands that a little better now. Mr. Mountin —Are you expecting to see that in the next dozen or so — two dozen houses that are left in this development to be done? All these lots are owned by... Mr. Walker— He owns all the lots. Mr. Mountin — He's going to build a lot more houses? 29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Albanese —Yes. Mr. Mountin — So is your relationship improving? Mr. Walker — Yes...we...lets just say between phase I and phase II of the road and utility construction, he did a lot better on his second phase. Ms. Wang — Yeah. I'm pretty sure he learned this lesson very seriously. Mr. Walker — Sediment and erosion control he is doing much better on now and he's learning. Ms. Balestra — Once DEC got involved. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. All right. I will move to grant the appeal of Boris Simkin requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 Article VIII, Section 270- 60c of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a new home with garage and living space above it at 121 Larisa Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number 26.-2- 3.30, low density residential zone. With the following conditions: that the side yard setback be no less than 38 feet and that the house be constructed as indicated on what...can I say as indicated on plans submitted? Ms. Balestra — To the building department. Chairperson Sigel — To the building department? Okay. And with the following findings: that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically, that the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve which is to have living space over the garage and not have to remove that space or narrow the house somehow cannot be achieved by any other feasible means. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that it is less than a 2 foot encroachment into a 40 foot setback. That the request is not substantial for the same reasons. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects for the same reasons. And finally, that while the alleged difficulty was self-created by the applicant, nonetheless the benefit to the applicant is greater than any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Mr. Niefer— Second. Chairperson Sigel — Second. All in favor? Board —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Passes unanimously. Ms. Wang — Thank you very much. Thank you all. 30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Krantz— Enjoy your new house. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-054: Area Variance— Side Yard Setback, Boris Simkin, 121 Larisa Lane, Tax Parcel No. 26.-2-3.30 Motion made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Boris Simkin, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60c of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a new home with garage and living space above it at 121 Larisa Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number 26.-2-3.30, Low Density Residential Zone. Conditions: 1. That the side yard setback be no less than 38 feet, and 2. That the house be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted to the Building Department. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically. 1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, which is to have living space over the garage and not have to remove that space or narrow the house somehow, cannot be achieved by any other feasible means, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that it is less than a 2 foot encroachment into a 40 foot setback, 3. That the request is not substantial for the same reasons, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the same reasons, 5. While the alleged difficulty was self-created by the applicant, nonetheless, the benefit to the applicant is greater than any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 31 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews, Mountin. NAYS: None. ABSENT. Ellsworth. Motion declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Sigel — The next appeal this evening is that of William Rady, Owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article 9, Section 270-68C of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an accessory building in excess of 600 square feet in area located at 10 Chase Lane, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 45.-1-29, medium density residential zone. The medium density residential zone restricts the aggregate square footage of accessory buildings to a maximum of 600 square feet for parcels less than 3 acres in size. Good evening, I'm William Rady, 10 Chase Lane, I'm the owner. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So, before we start, is there anything you want to add? Mr. Rady — No, I think that pretty much covers my addition, that I put my shed this summer and found out when we went to get the certificate of occupancy that it was over the size. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So, has everyone seen this letter that we received this evening? [no]...okay, I already had a chance to read it but I'll...let's take a few minutes... Audience member— is that the (inaudible)... Chairman Sigel — Yes. Audience member — It was probably stated a bit stronger than I...I found out some things from Mr. Rady tonight, but I was really upset about this...so... Chairman Sigel — Okay, well, we'll have the public hearing portion when you can speak. Everyone reads the letter. Chairman Sigel — I guess first I would ask, Dan or Chris, are you aware of Steve Williams being notified by Ms. Galvin that she thought that the aggregate shed would be over 600 square feet and whether he took any action at that time? Ms. Balestra — I wouldn't have been notified because the building permit process is completely separate from the Planning Department, so unless he was going through the 32 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved variance process at that time, I wouldn't have known. I learned today, after speaking with Ms. (inaudible). Mr. Walker — Right and 1, there's a lot of correspondence in here and I just was reviewing this with Steve and I'm not sure when she first talked to him but I know...there was a problem with the building permit being issued because he didn't do a pre-permit site inspection which is part of our normal procedures. Mr. Mountin — He came for a site visit before issuance correct? Mr. Walker — but he didn't do a thorough enough one to realize what the total square footage was, with the plans, and the plans that were submitted were primarily just for the addition and not, didn't show clearly, I don't believe, the whole existing structure other than the wall length and so...the fact that he issued the building permit for a building that ended up being more than 600 square feet...is a problem on our side...he did issue the building permit. We have...Kristie Rice and Steve talked about that issue and...part of the issue is that we issued it for a building that was going to exceed the allowable space for accessory building son that site. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So, so you, your department then does recognize that this was an error... Mr. Walker— This was an error and... Chairman Sigel -- ...on the Town's part. Mr. Walker -- ...on the Town's part for issuing the building permit, and not... Mr. Matthews — Not Mr. Rady's. Not his fault. Chairman Sigel — Well, I mean, an applicant is always...it's always incumbent upon an applicant to know the law. Mr. Matthews — I understand. Chairman Sigel — But it's also the case that... Mr. Walker — I mean, again, it's...this law did change in the last 2 years. I mean, ours didn't change... Chairman Sigel — The 600 square feet ahs been in there a long time. Mr. Walker — The 600 square feet's been there a long time. The requirement for a building permit for an accessory structure did not exist until the new zoning, or the new building code was in place. So, this could have been built 3 years ago and unless we had a complaint and went out and investigated it, we wouldn't have discovered it. 33 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Matthews — So the point that Kirk made that the applicant is required to know the law...applicants usually depend on the government official to inform them that there is a law, is that right? Mr. Walker— right... Mr. Matthews — Speaking as a citizen who may build something, if I go to you, I expect you to know the law well enough to keep me out of trouble. Mr. Walker— Right. Mr. Matthews — Right. I don't spend my, I don't get my wages from knowing the laws of the building code, you do. So I come to you and expect to be fed the information to keep me within the law... Mr. Walker— Yes. And that... Mr. Matthews -- ...so that was Mr. Rady's position I suspect. Mr. Walker— Yes, and once he was issued a building permit, he thought everything was fine, and that is our responsibility, in the Town, to review the plans and fully understand what is happening on the site. Mr. Rady — There were questions about the depth of the footers and the design of the pole construction and...a lot of questions on the (inaudible) but nothing about the size. Mr. Mountin —Are you the builder? Mr. Rady— I had a contractor build it now, it wouldn't be good if I built it... Mr. Mountin — So the contractor... Mr. Rady— I just had a builder working for me...not a contractor... Mr. Matthews — In the letter from Ms. Galvin, I think she mentions in there something about antique cars?, and your reply to the official of the Town, you said you were going to use it to store your John Deer tractor and other toys... Mr. Rady— Yeah, I changed my mind... Mr. Matthews —Are the antiques your toys, or what? Mr. Rady — No, I got 2 antiques in Canada that are in storage for about 20 years and they will probably just remain there... 34 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Matthews — So you are not going to use it for storage of automobiles... Mr. Rady — I was thinking about bringing it down but if it would turn into just too much of a quagmire, I won't. Would it be an issue to store an antique car in there? Mr. Matthews — Pardon? Mr. Rady— Would it be an issue to store an antique car in there? Chairman Sigel — Well, then it would be a garage, and I don't think you meet the side yard setback requirements. Mr. Walker— Or, it's not allowed on the site, in the rear yard anyhow... Chairman Sigel — Oh right, a garage is not allowed in a rear yard. Mr. Walker—Without a variance... Mr. Rady— They'll stay in Canada. Mr. Matthews — So it's not a toy... Mr. Rady— It is a toy... Mr. Matthews — Mr. Rady, it is not a toy... Chairman Sigel — Let's see, you have some letters of support from your neighbors, it looks like one... Mr. Rady — One's here today, Bruce Dunham. He's my immediate neighbor at 12 Chase Lane... Chairman Sigel — Twelve Chase Lane, okay...and then, I would assume that the people on LaGrand Court can...are the houses that can see the shed clearly? Unknown — One on each side of the (inaudible) fence. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Any other questions before we open the public hearing? All right. At this time, I will open the public hearing. Okay. You could sit on the end, right here if you want...okay, that's fine too. My name is Jane Dunnick and I live on LaGrand Court and so, I look out my living room window to see his back yard and, although I would like to be able to speak a little bit about the visual impact, it's not great; it's not a great big impact on me. I am more concerned abut the Town's failure in procedure and I don't know if this is the correct 35 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved venue, to be here or not, but it's very disappointing to me to have that kind of rule, that's standing, been in the rule books forever, and to have it violated. And then, both Mr. Rady and his neighbors have to suffer the impact of that mistake. Because, he could have built his building small, early on, and, um, it's a poor use of my tax dollars, I'm pretty upset about it...I wondered how is an employee held accountable for such a m istake? Mr. Walker — Well, they...mistakes like that get noted in their annual reviews and ummm...if there have been, there hasn't been one at this point, but there could be a letter of reprimand put in ummmm....Part of our problem is time and manpower. We're short a building inspector. For the workload we have. Ms. Dunnick— It's sounds to me he's poorly trained. Mr. Walker— Hmmm? Ms. Dunnick — It sounds to me like he's poorly trained. He didn't know the rules and he didn't do a thorough site visit... Mr. Walker — No, he knew the rules, he did not adequately review what was already on the site, okay, that, that... Ms. Dunnick— Poorly trained... Mr. Walker— ah... Ms. Dunnick — If he doesn't know how to review the site, then he's not, he's not well trained on ... Mr. Walker — I don't think it's a case of...he knows how to review a site; he did not take the time to do it because he was in a rush. Okay. That's not a good excuse, but that's basically what happened. Ms. Dunnick - Okay. My concern is accountability, because right now, we're being held accountable for his mistake. Mr. Rady's here, sweating this through...I'm here, I've got to look at the building...that's really not acceptable as far as my tax dollars go, but, my other concern is, how do we correct it for the future? Because if this mistake went through, then is another mistake going to go through so we've got another building later on that's after the fact. So, those are my concerns, and thanks for your time. Chairman Sigel — Thank you. Ms. Galvin - My concern is similar to Jane's, and again, I don't know Mr. Rady very well, he's my back door neighbor and I don't want to be bad neighbors, and I feel terrible for him that, as I told you in the letter, I called him on July 3rd and said, you know, there's a Town ordinance, it can't be over 600 square feet, and that's all total buildings...So the 36 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved building stopped for a long time. So, we were just talking tonight, and I didn't know that...I wasn't quite aware...so...how did this happen, you know. I did tell him about the rule so there should have been that...but it seems to me that when he brought it and, according to his paper here, it does look like the existing footage is on there. But nevertheless, I came down to complain in August, and I was treated pretty rudely by Mr. Williams, who said, "it's not over 600 square feet." And I said, "Have you been to the site?" and he said, "Yes, I have." I said, "It looks a lot bigger than 600 square feet." It's over 20% bigger. It's 731 feet. And it's directly in my back yard and it's blocking my view, and one of the reasons I chose that lot was because I thought I was assured by the Town of Ithaca that I wouldn't be looking at a building in that. So, are you going to plant trees in my backyard? And I am being very serious, because right now, I don't think it's really fair to tear down the building, but I want it blocked, and how am I going to be protected, because my rights are not protected at all here. And why didn't Mr. Williams go down, when I pointed it out to him that it looked a lot larger, and that a contractor had been at my house and said, "it looks a lot larger." why didn't he come check it then? I mean, to wait till after the fact, it's just...but I feel cheated by the Town. I bought the lot with a certain expectation. I bought on Chase Farm because we have, you know, you are supposed to send plans of any outbuilding to a committee and that's sort of gone by the wayside, but I thought, well, I don't have to worry about this because we've got this 600 square feet law and they won't let it go. The guy assured me that it was not over 600 square feet. He assured me, and he said he had been there. So that just seems, at best, careless and negligent. At worst, unethical. I mean, I don't know....It seemed to me at the time, I thought, well, maybe they just got in cahoots and decided it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. But I don't' think that's what happened. I mean, I've talked with this man, and I believe, he's a nice man, and he did call me back, but obviously, you're not going to ask him to tear down the building, but what are you going to do for the neighbors that it does have an impact? Because I think something should be done. I feel that my rights have really been violated here. I'm directly, that's what I see when I walk on my deck, everyday, and it's not what I bargained for when I bought the lot. Thank you. Chairman Sigel — Thank you. Sir? Did you want to speak? Bruce Dunham — I live at 12 Chase Lane and I wasn't aware of any builders building next to me and I didn't have any trouble with it. I think it's done very well. It's nice and it matches his house. It really doesn't affect my happiness. One of the ladies — He lives in the back... Mr. Dunham — Yeah, I can look out and see it...I can see there's a shed there... Chairman Sigel — You're the immediate neighbor to the south? Mr. Dunham — Yes. 37 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Chairman Sigel —Thank you. Well, I don't really know what to say about the mistake. Obviously, we are sorry that it happened. I am sure that word of your unhappiness will make it to the Town Board. If you wanted to, the Town Board, having, they obviously have the oversight over personnel and decisions of that nature, ummm, you know, this Board has a very narrowly focused job to do, which is to just decide whether variances are to be granted and don't have any direct, or indirect, control over personnel or anything. So if you wanted to send a letter to the Town Board, I think that would be appropriate. Or, go to the Town Board meeting and speak during the public session. One of the Ladies — It would have been better if I had called and he hadn't yelled at me, and been rude again. He didn't apologize. Mr. Walker — I've noted your comments and I think you will be getting a letter, shortly, since I supervise them. Mr. Krantz — I think it's our responsibility, as a Board, to have a letter, sent from this Zoning Board, to the appropriate people, in regard to Steve Williams. I don't think we should just say they have to do that. I think we should be doing that. Because that's, if what they say is true, that is just out and out negligence and it certainly impacts on us here...And it's our responsibility, not just theirs. Chairman Sigel — Well we could, at the end of the meeting we could discuss...a response... Mr. Matthews — Okay, maybe we don't want to be bureaucrats and pass the buck. Maybe Mr. Krantz has a point... Mr. Mountin — I have to ask a question...I'm reading this letter and discussion that Ms. Galvin said after July 3rd you knew about the 600 square foot... Mr. Rady — I thought by getting the building permit, I thought the 600 square foot that she was referring to was in the Chase Farm ordinance, or whatever you call it, I checked that and there was nothing in there. I spoke to the rep that I talked to about it, and then by getting the building permit, I figured that...I didn't go and read the zoning board minutes or anything to that extent....no. Mr. Mountin — I have a suggestion to this woman's idea, that maybe perhaps a part of the building permit application, there is an addendum or something that's put down there, that the applicant is aware of, knowing the building code and zoning regulations...that that could be something that is part of the checklist of items that be turned in for a building permit anyway, that at least the applicant is notified at the time that he's aware of... Mr. Walker — Well, the building permit application has that sign-off on it for the...that they are going to build it according to the building code and the zoning requirements of 38 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved the Town of Ithaca....I don't know if you remember signing that when you got your building permit... Mr. Mountin — No, I'm just reading this one and I am looking for a checklist on here.... Mr. Walker — That's the checklist...I don't think it's specifically listed in the checklist though... Mr. Mountin — No...I got this months ahead of time, when I built my place, and if I'd of known, understand the building code, which I did, and the zoning regulations, that probably would have prevented some of these issues... Chairman Sigel — You're talking about just a more explicit.... Mr. Mountin — Well, put where to look up the zoning code on line...anybody can get the zoning code on line and see how it applies to their property, that's what I've done and building code, by understanding what their contractor, or understanding from the code enforcer, I'm doing this...I know that you guys are very helpful in helping people make sure their construction is to building code, but, something that an applicant would be more aware of, knowing ahead of time, that, there is an onerous on his part too, obviously, as you were saying, there's a responsibility as well as Steve's that you are familiar with the building code, it's your property, and, I think it's in the zoning, it's in the zoning regulations...so, I am just suggesting as something that applicants can get more of...that they are aware of, that we know they are aware of, that they've signed it, that we are aware of this... Mr. Walker — Yes, it's another check that they realize what they are signing on for...knowing the whole building code...I know you know a lot more about it than a lot of other people do, but the NYS Building Code is a huge document...We depend a lot on the contractors, too, knowing and that's where our individual homeowners usually build something once, maybe twice...contractors are building every day and we really work to educate those contractors, and if they've worked in the Town of Ithaca, a lot of times they use the excuse, "Well, they don't do that in Dryden." Or "they don't do that in Newfield"...or whatever, but we do hold to that building code and how this one slipped through, I'm going to do a little more research into that...I just really caught that today when I read the documentation and it's a serious issue, and there's a lot of things that we have responsibility for that we have to take very seriously. And also, customer and client contact, which every resident of this Town is our client, and if we are not treating them with respect, then that's wrong also. Mr. Mountin — Right, my suggestion is more towards not that they know the building code or know the zoning, but that they are aware that your contractor...that you are aware of building code issues being applied here, or zoning regulations may apply to your situation, so be aware, at least. Ask your contractor. Chairman Sigel —Aware that they're responsible... 39 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Mr. Mountin — Yeah, be aware, that's what...ask your contractor that... Mr. Walker — There's a lot of times we end up catching people doing things that they need a building permit for that they didn't even realize they needed a building permit for and in fact, we have certain Town Officials that have been, after a meeting, they found out that what they've done is beyond what was appropriate without a building permit. You know, something as simple as fixing the rod around a window and then all of a sudden you have to replace a wall, they needed to know that they needed to stop and get a building permit to do that work...you know, normal maintenance...painting and basic residing patches, we don't require building permits for, but if it gets into structural work, you have to do that, so, sometimes things escalate. I'm not making excuses for people, but that's part, one big part of our responsibility is making sure that people understand that. Mr. Rady — I want to state one thing too...is the making it clear...is the lesson I learned, that he onus on meeting the obligations of the code are the owners. I took it that the building inspector would be the guy that knows this document like the back of his hand and would know if there are issues. Mr. Walker — Yeah, if you had done this without a building permit and it hadn't been caught till later, then, you know, that's your biggest problem. But when you have a building permit in-hand that says you can do this, that should give you some assurance that you are doing it according to the law. Chairman Sigel — Any other questions or comments? We will close the public hearing at this point...in case it wasn't already closed.... I will move to grant the appeal....do we have environmental on this one? Ms. Balestra —We didn't think so. Mr. Mountin — You did a short form... Ms. Balestra — We did just in case the Board found that an environmental assessment was necessary. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Ms. Brock— This is for the single-family residence, but it's an accessory structure... Ms. Balestra — That's why...we weren't sure if the accessory structure was going to be considered part of the single-family residence, so, just in case, we added a short environmental assessment form part 11. 40 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Ms. Brock — No, I don't think we need that. It's Type 11, an area variance for a single- family residence. Chairman Sigel — Okay. I will move to grant the appeal of William Rady, requesting a variance from the requirements of 270, Article 9, Section 270-68C of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an accessory building in excess of 600 square feet in an area...I'm sorry...600 square feet in area, located at 10 Chase Lane, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 45.-1-29, medium density residential zone. Medium density residential zone restricts the aggregate square footage of accessory buildings to a maximum of 600 square feet for parcels less than 3 acres in size. With the following conditions: That the total accessory square footage....accessory building square footage not exceed 735 square feet, and With the following findings: That this Board does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare to the community. That specifically: That while the applicant could achieve the benefit sought with a smaller accessory building, the applicant did build the current building relying upon a building permit issued by the Town in error, and therefore, to correct the mistake, at this point, would be difficult for the applicant to do, namely, to modify and partially disassemble an already built structure, and That there is some undesirable change in the neighborhood character, given that the building is in excess of the allowed square footage, and That the request is substantial in that it's approximately 20% larger than the allowed 600 square feet, and That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons listed in the short environmental assessment form prepared by Town Staff, and That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the applicant relied upon the knowledge of Town Staff and the issuance of a building permit by Town Staff, and that in the aggregate, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Second? Mr. Matthews — I'll second. 41 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Chairman Sigel — All in favor?...Opposed?...one opposed...Ron...okay...thank you ...motion passes... ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-055: Area Variance, William Rady, 10 Chase Lane, Tax Parcel No. 45.4-29 Motion made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Mountin. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of William Rady, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article 9, Section 270-68C of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an accessory building in excess of 600 square feet in area, located at 10 Chase Lane, Town of Ithaca tax parcel number 45.-1-29, Medium Density Residential zone. Medium Density Residential zone restricts the aggregate square footage of accessory buildings to a maximum of 600 square feet for parcels less than 3 acres in size. Condition: That the total accessory building square footage not exceed 735 square feet. Findings: That this Board does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Specifically. 1. That while the applicant could achieve the benefit sought with a smaller accessory building, the applicant did build the current building relying upon a building permit issued by the Town in error, and therefore, to correct the mistake, at this point, would be difficult for the applicant to do, namely, to modify and partially disassemble an already built structure, and 2. That there is some undesirable change in the neighborhood character, given that the building is in excess of the allowed square footage, and 3. That the request is substantial in that it is approximately 20% larger than the allowed 600 square feet, and 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons listed in the short environmental assessment form prepared by Town Staff, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the applicant relied upon the knowledge of Town Staff and the issuance of a building permit by Town Staff, and that in the aggregate, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 42 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Niefer, Matthews, Mountin. NAYS: Krantz. ABSENT. Ellsworth. Motion declared to be carried. Mr. Rady -- One clarifying comment...for the certificate of occupancy, do I need to arrange for inspection again? Or will that just get issued as a result of this? Just to close up the building... Mr. Walker— He'll have to do an inspection just to make sure you didn't cut some holes in the wall or something like that... Mr. Rady— Thank you. Mr. Krantz— My apologies to you Ladies, for a system that failed. And it did fail. Chairman Sigel — Susan just suggested to me that we could, rather than trying to say, draft a letter or something ourselves, we could move to forward this portion of our minutes, where we discussed this case, to the Town Board. Harry Ellsworth — That would be an appropriate way to handle it. Mr. Krantz— If it will include or apology, you have my vote. Ms. Brock— The minutes are as verbatim at they can be. Chairman Sigel — Up to and including Ron's apology. Mr. Niefer — The trouble is, if this lady can go to some appraiser and say that the value of her property has been diminished, the Town has got their neck out a mile... Chairman Sigel — That may be a stretch, but... Mr. Niefer -- ...given what has been said. Mr. Matthews — It's already a matter of public record. Chairman Sigel — (inaudible)...it's just speculation. Ms. Balestra — Can you repeat to me what the Zoning Board action is right now, so I can write it in my notes. 43 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 26, 2007 Approved Chairman Sigel — Well, I guess we should officially vote. I will move that we forward tonight's minutes regarding the William Rady appeal to the Town Board for review as to the issues raised by the mistakenly issued building permit for an accessory structure. Second?...all in favor....passes unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-056: Forward Copy of Minutes to Town Board Motion made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Krantz. RESOLVED, that the Board forwards tonight's minutes regarding the William Rady appeal to the Town Board for review as to the issues raised by the mistakenly issued building permit for an accessory structure. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Matthews, Mountin. NAYS: None. ABSENT. Ellsworth. Motion declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Sigel — Okay, any other official business? Okay, we shall adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk 44