Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2006-10-23 REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Dick Matthews, Board Member; Jim Niefer, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; Eric Levine, Alternate Board Member; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk ABSENT: Harry Ellsworth, Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Thaler, 1030 East Shore Drive; Malden Nesheim, 1032 East Shore Drive; Boris Simkin, 217 Buttermilk; Stephen Meyers, 1621 Danby Road; Philip Albrecht, Egner Architects; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations; Jason Demarest, 409 Thomas Road; Lisa Kerslake, 987 Taughannock Boulevard; Sue Cosley, 153 '/2 Westview Lane Chairperson Sigel opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Welcome to the October meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have 5 appeals: 1. Appeal of Malden Nesheim 2. Appeal of Boris Simkin 3. Appeal of Hal Martin 4. Appeal of Julie Crowley 5. Appeal of Susan Cosley We will be taking them in that order. The first appeal this evening is: APPEAL of Malden C. Nesheim, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-47(E) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to place a 10' x 12' accessory building in the side yard of a property located at 1032 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-14, Lakefront Residential Zone. Accessory buildings other than garages are only allowed in rear yards in the Lakefront Residential Zone. Additionally, the proposed building will be located approximately 2' from the side property line, where a 3' minimum side yard setback is required for accessory buildings in the Lakefront Residential Zone. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 2 Malden Nesheim, 1032 East Shore Drive Richard Thayer, 1030 East Shore Drive Mr. Thayer — At this time I purchased the property at 1032 from Professor Lee Lee's estate and I previously was the owner of that property and when I was the owner I took down the old garage that was where he would like to put the storage facility and the reason I took it down was that there was an existing garage, 3 bays, that face the street and we're (inaudible) attempts to put the storage shed in and allowing him to do is behind that and you can not see, you will not be able to see what he puts there from the road. Basically its and area that, the reason I took the garage down was that I did not want to have any kind of shed, not a shed but the garage, it was falling down and my feeling is that we used that when we owned it as a parking area for the people who rented 1032 and when Win Lee purchased the property, she put a garage in the house and so this area is not going to be used for vehicle parking and Dr. Nesheim has owned the house and an area where he keeps his lawn mower and various utensils that he uses and he asked me whether I had any objections to him putting a nice looking shed there and I told him no and he also talked to his neighbor on the other side, the north side, and she indicated that she had no objections and so all we're asking for is a variance from the Board. Chairperson Sigel — Anyone have any questions or comments? No. It seems to make sense, given how narrow the lots are, to try and trade a little land between them. Mr. Niefer— I see it's well shielded from any of the other neighbors and I certainly don't think it is adding any negative impact on the neighborhood. It'll help to provide a storage facility for lawn and maintenance equipment that a lot of people leave stored outside so all in all it's a plus for you and the neighborhood. Mr. Matthews —And there are several other buildings similar to it in the area. Chairperson Sigel — Chris, anything we need to... Ms. Balestra — There is no SEAR review for this because it is an individual lot line and a set back variance requiring no environmental review. Chairperson Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 7.07 p.m. No one wished to speak and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:07 p.m. Board makes the motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-065: AREA VARIANCE, MALDEN C. NESHEIM, 1032 EAST SHORE DRIVE, TAX PARCEL NO. 19.-2-14 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, seconded by Board Member Krantz. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 3 RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of Malden C. Nesheim, Appellant, for a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 Section 270-47(E) and the minimum 3-foot side yard setback requirement; to be permitted to place a 10 x 12 accessory building in both the side and front yard of the property located at 1032 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-14, Lake Front Residential Zone. FINDINGS The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied. Specifically that: 1. There will not be any negative change in the character of the neighborhood given how similar building are utilized in the neighborhood and the history of a similar type structure in this location, and 2. given the size of the lot, the Applicant has little alternative to such a location for a shed, and 3. that the requested variance in that neighborhood is not a substantial variance, and 4. the variance will not have adverse environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood and 5. the difficulty is not self-created by the Applicant. CONDITIONS: 1. The set back from the north edge of the space be no less than 2 '/2 feet, and 2. the setback from the east and west sides of the space be no less than 1 '/2 feet, and 3. that the shed be located essentially as indicated on the Applicants drawing, Attachment A. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Sigel, Niefer, Matthews and Krantz NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel announces the next Appeal. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 4 APPEAL of Boris Simkin, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 221, Sections 221-4(A)F21, 221-5(B)F11(d), and 221-6(A)F11(a) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to place an off-premise neighborhood identification sign, approximately 18+/- square feet in area and 4+/- feet tall located at 9 Schickel Road in the Westview Subdivision, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-3.44, Medium Density Residence Zone. The proposed sign area exceeds the 6 square foot maximum area allowed for neighborhood identification signs. The proposed sign is also "off-premise" as it is located on a lot not owned by the appellant. The Town Sign Law prohibits off-premises signs. Boris Simkin, 217 Buttermilk Falls Road Stephen Meyers, 1621 Danby Road Chairperson Sigel — You were before the Town Planning Board where they recommended a sign for you no larger than 12-square feet. But you are still requesting your original 18-square feet. Mr. Simkin — If you don't mind...All of you have this page which I submitted this morning to the Town of Ithaca...right...So on this page, what you see, you see the design here at the top which we are proposing and according to rules, how you calculate the square footage of the sign, you take this whole area and calculate it the area of the sign...So below this sign is exactly the same sign without this small oval part and from our standpoint, this sign looks much better, from a designer's standpoint and I have the designer with me, Stephen, he is going to defend his art, and I hope successfully, but if you go to this design, and we can stay in 12-square feet, which was the Planning Board recommendation, but I think aesthetically it's not going to look attractive from the right. So there is still the question to let us have 18-square feet of sign to keep the same design. Chairperson Sigel —Any questions? Mr. Matthews — Do you own the lot...101 .... Mr. Simkin — No it's 9 Schickel Road. This house was sold in June of this year but these people don't mind to give us a piece of it to erect and maintain .... Mr. Krantz — The identification of your development would be a lot better if the sign was down there by Lot 101 enough where you're proposing. Mr. Simkin — Actually this is kind of a rule...the sign usually proves where you enter the subdivision but entrance to the subdivision is actually Lisa Lane. If you put it on corner of Schickel Road and 96B it is not clear where's the subdivision. So this is more correct when you come actually to a new 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 5 subdivision to see sign near main entrance. I understand your point, but I think aesthetically, it will look much better when you come to subdivision, the sign is right there. Chairperson Sigel — Your intent I assume is not to try to make it clear from 96B that the subdivision is there because it would obviously be difficult to look up Schickel Road and see it. Mr. Simkin — That's correct. The street is wooded so you can hardly see the subdivision from 96B. Mr. Krantz — The purpose of having the larger sign, according to his memo, is the need to have a bigger sign to be able to identify the subdivision from the Route 96B. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think that that's really a legitimate argument given that I don't think you could really...you would have to have a really large billboard up the road there to really see it from 96B. Mr. Simkin — Also, I mentioned in my letter to the Zoning Board that new road, Lisa Lane, is probably going to take 2-3 years before this road will be shown on any maps or GPS systems and I think it makes sense to have this sign to let people find it easier. If you see it from 96B. Chairperson Sigel — As you point out with your illustration here, which I appreciate you offering the two versions, your lettering and everything ends up the same size, 12 vs. the 18, to me it boils down to an aesthetic preference that you have verses, as we're required to weigh any added detriment that offers to the community. Mr. Simkin — If you would like to stay with the same design but we need to decrease it to 12-square feet, actually area where there is going to be lettering is going to be pretty small. Probably, 4 '/2 x 1 '/2 or something like that. The letters are going to be very, very small. Chairperson Sigel — I would assume that if we did only approve 12-square feet, you would go with your lower design. That would be my assumption. To maximize your lettering. Mr. Simkin — This is why we hired Stephen. Maybe you could talk about your design work. Mr. Meyers — You definitely want the aesthetic, I would say. After looking at several of the building plans that Boris had and finished houses already, I drew elements of the colors and the shapes with the intent of the buildings to be broadcast into selling, basically. So I chose some very shallow curves, some 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 6 nice sharp 90 degree corners, some of the colors that we actually see are representative of the buildings that are already showing up and some of the ones that are planned in the future. I really hate to wee the oval go away from the outside of that. I think it does look, it looks a lot more welcoming and a lot less sterile with the two blocks on top of each other. I know that this bottom example would fit into the 12 square feet that would be allowed, but, we really ask that we could have our extra square footage. Chairperson Sigel — My personal feeling is that I am sympathetic to the position of the Planning Board in wanting to keep these community identification signs smaller rather than larger, but on the other hand, given this specific sign, I really can't say that I think that what they've requested, the 18 square foot design, I think that still meets the test for an area variance, for me at least. I'm in favor of the request for volume. I think a reasonable person could easily be not in favor as well so... Board Member Matthews — Am I correct in assuming that by erecting this larger sign, the developer hopes to be able to see this sign from 96? Chairperson Sigel — I think they stated that in their packet, but tonight, I think that Mr. Simkin admitted that that was likely not to happen. I think it does just come down to... Mr. Simkin — No, it is going to be visible from 96B for sure, it will be. Chairperson Sigel — it will be but whether you will be able to clearly identify the sign when you are driving by on 96B at 55mph, is pretty questionable. If you do then you are risking an accident. Mr. Matthews — It seems like quite a ways in to see it as you are driving by. Chairperson Sigel — I think any sign would be tough to see, especially ... Board Member Matthews — So the justification for having a larger sign is what? Chairperson Sigel — I think their desire for the sign that they want, for the design. Mr. Simkin — I can mention that most subdivisions in the Ithaca area have much larger signs to compare to 12-square feet or even 14- square feet. Take a look at Deer Run, take a look at Chase Farm, take a look at Lake Watch, Horizons, other subdivisions...Lake View...in a comparable subdivision, people like to see the sign which define this particular area and a nice looking sign is attractive. But if you just stay small one, it kind of sign for sale... 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 7 Board Member Niefer— I notice that these samples that are given to us, the sign locations given, generally speaking, are not in someone's front yard. They are in kind of a little area to off set from the basic housing development. However... Mr. Simkin — Unfortunately, it is not allowed to put a sign in 60-foot easement. But actually it is just going to be half a foot off of 60-foot right of way. And there is big swell up there so these people they are not going to see the sign. It is a nice area there to put a sign. Ms. Balestra — Jim, there are a couple of subdivision signs that were placed prior to the developer selling the individual lot. So when, for example, I believe it was Southwoods or maybe Chase Farm, one of the two on the back of the memo, is located, now located on a tax parcel not owned by the developer but at the time that they were seeking the sign approval, all of the land was still owned by the developer and it was placed as part of the subdivision. Board Member Niefer — Just a comment on the Chase Farm's so called "sign", that to me doesn't look like a sign, it looks more like a monument. So it has more curb appeal than a sign per se. The Commonland sign, that's got lots of shrubbery around it and as I recall, they're not any houses that close to it. Similarly, with the #6 Southwoods, there it was approved as a 12-square foot sign, which is a fairly substantial, decent looking sign. Quite frankly, I think to be somewhat consistent, I think the 12-foot sign in this development is more in keeping than what is being proposed. Mr. Simkin — The only problem is...Can we compromise with 14 let's say, because actually, when you count the 18, how they count it, it takes the whole rectangle, they are saying that this is 18, but actually if you count area of oval, there are probably not add more than 1.5 or 2 square feet to this. It is very tricky how this area is calculated. Chairperson Sigel — Yes, it doesn't allow for shapes like this. Any other comments or questions? Board Member Matthews — I think that if I am concerned about anything, it's the aesthetics that future developers may invade by wanting a bigger sign than somebody else's bigger sign and no one has arrived at an average sign size. How do we stop that growth of signs? Chairperson Sigel — That's a valid concern. Board Member Matthews— Come up with an average figure of all the signs that have been given as an example and say he falls within the average and he's fine. Mr. Simkin — No, the only way to stop it is to calculate actual size of the sign. In this case you know what exactly is going to be erected. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 8 Chairperson Sigel — If we did wanted to approve this sign as requested, we could make a finding indicating the actual square footage being less than the 18, just calculate it not as the Town's law requires it, and make a finding about the actual size of the lettering and such things which are somewhat mitigating factors in this case. Chris, anything you want to add? Ms. Balestra — No. Environmentally speaking, because this sign is located so far off Danby Road. The fact that the 12-square feet or the 18-square feet, environmentally is not going to have a difference, a significant environmental impact. Chairperson Sigel — it's not really going to be noticed either way. Ms. Balestra — If we wanted to reduce traffic impacts, if they were proposing this sign right on Danby Road and it was significantly larger then that's one issue but, environmentally speaking it is not going to have a significant impact whether its 12- square feet or 18-square feet, is what I am saying. Alternate Board Member Levine — Well, the Planning Board has recommended 12 feet, 12-square feet so, I just, I am looking at your design and I notice it's only 8 letters and I am curious if you are able to come up with a different design that does fit into 12-square feet that does satisfy your needs. Mr. Simkin — Actually Stephen showed us 10 or 20...it was a lot of work to design this sign and he came up with this idea and I think it is a great looking sign. Mr. Meyers — Yes, I think it is a shame that the way that the square area is calculated, there is so much wasted space that I have incorporated here, obviously, but the shape and the aesthetic look speak to the rest of that area. I think it is going to be a good complement to the houses and the size in relation to the new road and everything else that is going to be going on there is quite small in comparison to everything. Alternate Board Member Levine — I'm sorry. How many housing units? 32? Board Member Krantz — I go along with you Kirk. To me the shape of the sign improves the aesthetics but it adds an additional 6-square feet technically but not really realistically. Board Member Matthews —Why? Because of the base? Board Member Krantz — Well, because they are squaring it off to measure it so this is the measurement. Just this little strip here and here and here. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 9 Board Member Matthews — But the reason we have a Sign Law is the blockage, right. The blockage of view. Chairperson Sigel -- A lot of signs don't block someone's view. I think it is more just the impact of the sign. Board Member Matthews — I think its just a little extra border sticking around and they are required to square it off and that's greater square footage. Chairperson Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 7:29 p.m. There is no one wishing to speak, the Hearing is closed at 7:30 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Simkin, you had mentioned 14-square feet. Is that, were you suggesting that as the actual square footage? Mr. Simkin — Twelve square feet, so if you calculate this area exactly, it is not more than 2-square feet. So if you will grant us 14, lets say, Chairperson Sigel — In the shape... Mr. Simkin — Yes, in the shape, exactly what we have. It would be... Chairperson Sigel — So you are saying that all the pieces of the oval that stick out are less than two... Mr. Simkin — Yes, this is which create aesthetics of the sign and I am really, I love the sign. It is just adding maybe 1.5 or 2 square feet. Board Member Matthews— The Westview itself is how big? Mr. Simkin — It is probably 10, they come to ways to everything to get... Board Member Matthews— You're proposing, if you take off the over lays... Mr. Simkin — If you take this off you can fit just square feet, which was recommendation of Planning Board. We would rather not...you see this nice design and being 14-square feet you need to change how the area is calculated. Chairperson Sigel — The Westview Park comes to about 11 % square feet. Mr. Simkin — Right so we just need another 2-square feet but also a different way you calculate. Board Member Matthews— What occurs if you shrink the entire thing, including the letters? Keep your, I will agree, more appealing sign, but shrink the whole thing down. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 10 Mr. Simkin — Actually, because this sign as submitted is 18-square feet, if you give us only 12, we need to shrink it about 50%, correct, from 18 to 12, its about...a significant change and in this case the lettering is going to be the same as the house. Mr. Meyers — I am afraid my oval will further interfere with the size of the sign by decreasing the letters even by that much more, obviously, than ... Board Member Matthews— I live up the road from the Southwood's sign, and the Southwood sign is 12-square feet and you can see that plainly from the road as you drive down. Mr. Meyers — It's right on the edge of the road, isn't it? Board Member Matthews— Well it's set in about 20 feet, 20 or 30 feet. I have to wear glasses and I have no problem seeing it. I wish the whole thing was never started, and your sign being proposed, you say it is quite a distance from 96B and I would question whether or not you could ever see it from 96B going 55mph. You see the trees first. Mr. Simkin — Well Southwoods the color is not really defined, it is hard to see from 20 feet. Ours will be better with the color scheme... Board Member Matthews— What I ma getting at, I think my intent is quite clear, the Southwood's sign since I know it and I probably see it every day, from my point of view, is probably adequate to know that Southwoods is... Mr. Simkin — Actually I have exactly the same sign, I mean (inaudible) in size if you consider this area. Southwoods is exactly the same shape. Board Member Matthews— That's 12-square feet and you are asking for 50% again. Mr. Simkin — No, we are asking for 14. Chairperson Sigel — I think Mr. Simkin's point is that the Westview portion of this sign is approximately the same size as the Southwood sign and that what makes it go over is the portion of the oval that you can see. Board Member Niefer — My quick calculation is that the rectangular size, add to that the oval portions... Chairperson Sigel — I came up with 11 3/4 for the rectangular portion... Board Member Niefer-- ...22' x 76'... 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 11 Chairperson Sigel — yes, 1690 square inches divide by 144...11.74. Mr. Simkin — It is 76...it's about 12. Chairperson Sigel —Well, Jim...What's your feeling? Board Member Niefer— Go ahead and make a proposal. Board makes the motions and vote. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 066: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, BORIS SIMKIN, APPELLANT, 9 SCHICKEL ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 36.-2-3.44, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MOTION made by Chairperson Kirk Sigel, seconded by Board Member Ron Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Boris Simkin for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town Staff. The vote on the MOTION was as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Matthews and Neifer NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 067: AREA VARIANCE, BORIS SIMKIN, APPELLANT, 9 SCHICKEL ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 36.-2-3.44, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MOTION made by Chairperson Kirk Sigel, seconded by Board Member Ron Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of Boris Simkin, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 221, Sections 221- 4(A)[2], 221-5(B)[1](d), and 221-6(A)[1](a) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to place an off-premise neighborhood identification sign, approximately 18 square feet and approximately 4 square feet tall located at 9 Schickel Road in the Westview Subdivision, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2-3.44, Medium Density Residence Zone. The proposed sign area exceeds the 6 square foot maximum area allowed for neighborhood identification signs and is also "off-premise". 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 12 FINDINGS The requirements for a sign variance have been satisfied. Specifically: 1. That while the Applicant could achieve the means that he desires through a smaller sign, that the sign he proposes is nevertheless of a reasonable size, and 2. there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character, and 3. the request is substantial, given that it is three times the allowed size, but none the less, will not have a negative impact, and 4. the request will not have adverse physically or environmental effects, and 5. the alleged difficulty is self created, nevertheless, the benefits to the Applicant do out weigh the detriment to the community in this case, and 6. The way the Town ordinance measures the sign, it is approximately 18- square feet when in fact, the lettering portion of the sign is a little under 12-square feet and the total area of the sign is under 14-square feet. CONDITIONS 1. The sign be built as indicated on the Applicant's plans submitted to the Zoning Board on October 23, 2006 as to color and shape and the dimensions that were provided with the Applicant's earlier submission, and 2. the sign not exceed 18-square feet in total sign area, as defined in the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, and 3. the Applicant shall obtain an easement acceptable to the Attorney for the Town from the owner of the property on which the sign will be placed, allowing the Applicant to maintain the sign and the property in the proposed area indicated on the submitted survey map, and 4. the proposed sign shall not be illuminated. The vote on the MOTION was as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, and Niefer NAYS: Matthews ABSTENTIONS: None The MOTION was carried 3 to 1. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 13 Chairperson Sigel announces the next appeal. APPEAL of Hal Martin, Appellant, Phillip D. Albrecht, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a 3,224+/- square foot greenhouse and adjacent 1,204+/- square foot head house, in conjunction with the Cornell Plantations Plant Production Facility, without the installation of a Town required sprinkler system. The property is located at 397 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65-1-5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The New York State Building Code would not otherwise require such an installation. Philip Albrecht, Egner Architects Hal Martin, Cornell University Plantations Chairperson Sigel — Is it the case that this property wouldn't ordinarily be required not to have any fire suppression at all or just this. Mr. Albrecht — Well, first of all, there are sprinklers in here, that's not what we are looking for... Chairperson Sigel — Right, I understand... Mr. Albrecht — There is a lower question in that, I didn't know if you wanted to get into that or not. The State doesn't require it, it's the Town. Chairperson Sigel — Right, I guess my question is would the State have required it, if the Town didn't have its' ordinance? Mr. Albrecht — The State would not have required it. Chairperson Sigel — Not even a sprinkler system? Mr. Albrecht — Not even a sprinkler system. The large area we have is a greenhouse with a head house and the two normally go together all of the time. The greenhouse is all glass, steel and concrete so it is not combustible. We do have a fire separation between that now, in the head house, which is made up (inaudible) the structure and that's what's sprinkled. What we're looking for is the...we have a 4" line feeding the water supply here and when you add the requirement of the 100' hose attached to it, we don't meet the amount of pressure required, we do have the pressure without the hose test, but with it, the hose test fails. Some of the other ones dealing with that, on the issues, is that like we noted here or let me point out...Our main concern here is that if we did increase the pipe size, we already have a quality issue with the water there now with it, and with the anticipated amount of water usage, you 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 14 would only be taking out the water every few days which is in the pipeline and that's the amount of the usage. So that is really the big thing, to keep the water quality up there, providing the flow, hope finally that the water quality that you do have there, having that they have a greater use, once the building is...The other one is one in which people really go there to do their work, to set out the plants and the greenhouse and they do have a small office there to keep their paperwork that is really there just to deal with their paperwork its there really for drawing and setting up the greenhouse and the plant house. You don't have anybody staying there overnight. Very few staff members are there when it is being used. It is very close to the Vega Fire Department now, it's a mile and a half. The fire alarm that is in this building does go to Barton Hall which is manned 24 hours a day so if there is a fire when somebody is around it would be known and I guess you got the letter from Kristie, she went over it all at this point. We are around 200-feet from a water source that the fire department could use. I am trying to think if there is anything else I may have left out...There is only a single story, no basement and poured concrete slab. And like I said it is largely used for potting soil and stuff in the head house portion. Board Member Niefer — Your request is extremely reasonable and it kind of points out whether or not this sprinkler code is appropriate for situations such as this. Chairperson Sigel —We are not supposed to question why... Board Member Niefer — I know we're not but I am just offering it as an observation as to costs that flow to business and property owners as a result of codes and rules that the Town imposes that are greater than what the State expects. Chairperson Sigel — Yes, I am not sure what the motivation was either. Board Member Matthews— Does the fire department have any say in the matter at all? Have they had a say? Chairperson Sigel — I suppose if they wanted to come. Mr. Martin — I did speak with Chief Tamborelli from the Cayuga Heights Fire Department on Friday and he...I explained the situation to him and he understood, probably better than I did, what I was explaining to him and he said that he did not have a problem with this and saw it as low risk and would sign something to that effect if it was necessary, but I did speak with him just to get his input on this, I spoke with him and the Assistant Chief. Ms. Balestra — Staff has no environmental concerns, Planning Staff. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 15 Chairperson Sigel opens the Public Hearing on this appeal at 7:47 p.m. and with no one wishing to speak, he closes the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. Board makes the motions and vote. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 068; EAF: HAL MARTIN, APPELLANT, CORNELL PLANTATIONS PLANT PRODUCTION FACILITY, 397 FOREST HOME DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 65.-1-5.2, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE MOTION made by Chairperson Kirk Sigel, seconded by Board Member Ron Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of Environmental Significance in regard to the appeal of Hal Martin requesting a variance from the Town of Ithaca Sprinkler Code in regard to Plant Production Facility at 397 Forest Home Drive for the reasons stated in the Part I I Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town Staff. The vote on the MOTION was as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Matthews and Niefer NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 069; SPRINKLER VARIANCE: HAL MARTIN, APPELLANT, CORNELL PLANTATIONS PLANT PRODUCTION FACILITY, 397 FOREST HOME DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 65.-1-5.2, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE MOTION made by Chairperson Kirk Sigel, seconded by Board Member Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of Hal Martin requesting a variance from Chapter 225 with the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct an approximately 3,224 square foot greenhouse and adjacent approximately 1,204 square foot head house, at the Cornell Plantations Plant Production Facility, without the installation of a Town required sprinkler system. The property is located at 397 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65-1-5.2. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 16 FINDINGS- 1. INDINGS:1. The Applicant is in fact installing a sprinkler system but after the installation of the system will not have required remaining pressure to meet a hose allowance of 100 gallons per minute, and 2. the Applicant has demonstrated that the cost to supply the additional flow rate, an installation of an 8" hose would be cost prohibitive and would actually cause problems with low water turn over to the site, and 3. there will be no overnight use of the building and the building is alarmed and that alarm is manned 24-hrs, and the building is only a single story, and 4. the requirements for a sprinkler variance have been satisfied, specifically that application of the strict letter of this Chapter would present a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship as previously stated, and 5. in the omission of an approved sprinkler system for all or part of this building will not significantly jeopardize human life as previously stated. The vote on the MOTION was as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Matthews and Niefer NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel announces the next Appeal. APPEAL of Julie Crowley and Lisa Kerslake, Appellants, Jason Demarest, Agent, requesting a modification of condition (3) of the Previously granted area variance, to be permitted to replace an existing residence located at 985 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-2-28, Lakefront Residential Zone. The Zoning Board approved the side yard setback area variance on June 19, 2006, to allow construction of a new home within the required 20-foot south side yard setback. However, condition (3) of the approval states that "the length of the house can be no greater than 45 feet." The appellant proposes to increase the length of the house from +/-44 feet long to +/-64 feet long. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 17 Jason Demarest, 409 Thomas Road Lisa Kerslake, 987 Taughannock Boulevard Mr. Demarest — You want me to take you through it...I made a packet with some information, some of which you have seen, but the first sheet is the site plan and I have blown it up a little bit so you can read it a little more clearly just to give you an idea of the plans and the site plan that was submitted and sent to the Board here. Going through the packet, the next page, I've got a floor plan overlay and then the overlay place on the site plan geometry just simplified for clarity. What I was trying to show there is the pink shaded area is what was approved back in June by this Board. The blue footprint that underlines all of it there is what was submitted for the building permit which has triggered a second modification of the variance and the orange footprint is what was previously existing and then you can see how it relates on the site plan on the bottom of the sheet. The third page is a 3D representation, I have taken the design as submitted and shown it in relationship to those footprints that were on the prior page, extruded up to the 36' height as allowed by the zoning law starting with the lower level. So you can see the orange is the existing footprint extruded up and the pink is what was approved from the last variance hearing. The next page is just two different views from the northeast, the second one is from the southeast, just showing the relationship of the design as proposed again, to those footprints extruded. The last two pages are a couple more photos, you may have seen this, but I thought I'd show them for clarity, in particular to emphasize where the neighbors house is and that it is elevated. The first photo, what you see looking along the existing cottage at the back is the basement level and you can see a bow window, that's the main level of the house. I think we went through this at the last meeting, but I just wanted to re-emphasize that and you can also see from the last photo, the neighbor from the south, the only neighbor in question here, the house is set back and up from the existing cottage. Chairperson Sigel — These pink and blue and orange drawings are very interesting, very illustrative. Does the deck and porch area in the rear...does that meet the 20' set back? Mr. Demarest — That's the white area down there area...off to the right of the blue screened porch area, that is the deck that access the stairs down t a lower level patio...If you look at the 3D views, it's a little confusing, but you can see on the lower 3D perspective, birds eye view, that lower deck there's some railing that doesn't need to be there and you can see the green terrain, that's exported 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 18 from the topo survey so that's existing condition. That deck may not actually be built at this time, but it is 3' or less so it is in the 20' side yard. Chairperson Sigel — That is and the part that is raised? Well above the ground...is that... Mr. Demarest — If you look at the site plan on the cover sheet, I did not put a dimension on that, I did on another set recently, but I must have printed the wrong one. You can kind of see in the front of the house, that bump out, that one story covered entry, that's 22' off the line, if you project that through the screened porch area, it's pretty close to that, but I believe it was 21'. 1 know it is more than 20. Chairperson Sigel — As long as it is 20 or more...Anyone have any questions or comments or clarification on what is being proposed? It is basically, they are proposing to build a subset, as Mr. Demarest has said, of what we had approved for the two story portion of the house with an entry way and with the front and screened in porch, raised deck area in the back and it exceeds our length but those portions don't encroach on the 20' setback. So it seems reasonable to me. Board Member Niefer— The only question I had was as far as the footprint of the proposed building...it's percentage of total lot size...did you calculate that? Mr. Demarest — Ten percent lot coverage is 2308 square feet on the previously submitted June meeting I have a lot area so ...The blue footprint on the sheet is the main house footprint is 1264 if I add in the screen porch which is 195 it comes to 1459 total footprint. I recently have been informed, although in my opinion, not a roof, if they are more than 3' above ground, they would be considered a roof over ground, so we would have to add that white deck where the stairs come off on the east side. But, you can see where we're well under the 10%. Board Member Matthews— That slope on the eastern side is over 30%? Mr. Demarest -- No actually it's a little easier to see on the site plan, but we are essentially building on the level portion of the side with the slope up the west side of the parking area. So all the construction will occur on the level portion, it's just a sharp drop off on the very edge because that's the limit of construction. Chairperson Sigel — Chris...anything? Ms. Balestra — Not horrible concerns but...Once again, there is no SEAR with this but the original approval...we were concerned with the original proposal because of the location of the slope in relation to the home... it's going to be built even closer to the slope now and even though a lot of the development will be deck space, there will be an additional...the home will be an additional 12', 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 19 including the screened in porch, 12' closer to the slope than the original plans. So I just wanted to express to the Board... Board Member Niefer — So they'll take appropriate measures to control runoff... CB — Yes. Especially the original Condition #1, and Condition #4 of the Resolution, that they remain if the Board approves this proposal, that they remain as Conditions. Mr. Demarest — We have submitted an erosion and sediment control plan to delineate where the silt fence would be located. It actually shows up on site plan today. One point that I would make is that although the screened porch and that access deck do increase the length to the east, If you look at the 3D birds eye views, the top one, you can see that it is really just a few point loads from post, there will be very minimal site disturbance. There is one, well a couple of post will be over the banks a little bit but the silt nets will be down from that, it's not like we are digging a trench and really disturbing the soil significantly. Board Member Matthews— My intention was to just modify the existing variance to modify the dimensional requirements but certainly not change the other requirements. Chairperson Sigel opens the Public Hearing at 8:05p.m., with no one wishing to speak, closes the Public Hearing at 8:05p.m. Board makes the motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 070: MODIFY ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 049; JULIE CROWLEY AND LISA KERSLAKE, 985 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TAX PARCEL NO. 21.-2-28. MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, seconded by Board Member Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board modifies ZB Resolution No. 2006 — 049 by replacing Condition #3 with the following: 1. That no more than 45' of the building's length can encroach in to the side yard setback, and 2. that the building's length, including all elements, cannot exceed 75 feet, and 3. that the building must be built as shown and indicated on the plans presented both in the application and as handed out to by the Applicant at the October 23, 2006 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 20 The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Matthews and Niefer NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel announces the next appeal. Appeal of Susan C. Cosley, Appellant, requesting Special Approval pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-69(B) and relief from Section 270-5 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the definition of a home occupation, to be permitted to operate a career counseling and writing/editing business out of her rented home located at 153% Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2-39.53, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said use is considered a home occupation, which is an allowed use in the MDR zone with Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Susan C. Cosley, 153 %Westview Lane Chairperson Sigel — As I think you were told by somebody from the Town, we have come to the conclusion that this is actually a use variance. Ms. Cosley — That is what Jonathan left on my voice mail although the written report that I received from the office said that it was an area variance. Chairperson Sigel — The problem that we have is that the definition of home occupation does state owner of the property, which you're not, and so the question is what criteria do we use when considering granting a variance for a non-owner. Myself and Susan Brock, our attorney and Jonathan Kanter had a meeting and we discussed this and we came to the conclusion that we thought it was a use variance. Which is a more difficult test to meet than an area variance. We also agreed that it didn't necessarily seem that that was what was intended by the Town Board when they passed this law and so one thing that we were going to do is recommend, possibly, the Town Board consider changing the Town Law to allow a renter to do the same thing, basically just strike owner from the ordinance, but, that kind of thing doesn't happen overnight in the Town, or anywhere, I suspect. Just to get the rest of the Board up to speed, it appears that Ms. Cosley meets all of the criteria, in fact most of them quite easily, she has no outside employees and it appears to be a very minimal impact, but she is not the owner of the house and right in the definition of home occupation it states that you must be the owner 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 21 and the full time resident. She is the full time resident but she is not the owner. The question is then, what kind of variance do we need to give her to vary that kind of requirement. Board Member Krantz — Before we get to that, that seems like a totally unreasonable, outrageous and I would hope illegal rule. Chairperson Sigel — I don't know. Board Member Krantz — It reminds me when I was a young man, the State of Texas passed a rule that you had to own land in order to vote and the purpose was to stop the Hispanics and Blacks from voting. The courts eventually threw it out but to distinguish between an owner and a renter on something like this just makes no sense at all. Chairperson Sigel — I agree that I don't personally understand the motivating factor here for having it written this way. I don't remember there being a discussion at the Codes and Ordinances Committee regarding that specific aspect. Board Member Matthews — I'm not a lawyer so I guess I can get away with advocating something...If an individual, hypothetically, comes to Ithaca and starts a business in a rental apartment they have, who's to know? Chairperson Sigel — Realistically, I expect, unless a neighbor complained, our code enforcement people don't go riding around knocking on doors asking if you are conducting a home business. Board Member Matthews — If the owner of this building that she lives in says I don't have any problem, go ahead and knock your socks off, then I don't have any problem. Ms. Cosley — I do have her signature saying that. It is in the packet that you have. Board Member Niefer — The property's for sale now...suppose we have a new owner, your still the tenant...would the new owner consent to it? Ms. Cosley — It would be unknown whether the new owner would consent but I do bring with me documentation of previously places that we have rented and they have never had a problem with me renting before and that did include me having a vary of this business before, in a different state. I have only been here a few weeks, so I am new to this. Board Member Niefer — Can we act on this tonight, somehow. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 22 Chairperson Sigel — We could, I don't know, have you thought of this some more Susan, as to how strongly you are convinced that it is a use variance? Ms. Brock — First let me address Ron's question of can the Town Board restrict home occupation uses to owners and I think the answer is yes, if there is a rationale basis for doing so. A Town Board could rationally find that in a residential area they do not want office-types of uses going on except under very stringent circumstances and I suppose they could rationally find that if a building is actually owned and resided in by the person who is going to be conducting the office-type of use or whatever other type of home occupation use is going on in there, that's likely to have minimal impact on the neighborhood... Board Member Krantz — But she does reside there, that would be reasonable if the person has to own, reside and work there, I would have no objection to that. Ms. Brock — I wasn't Attorney for the Town when this was enacted so I don't know if they particularly considered the owner aspect of it but, I think one could say that there is a rational basis to say that people who actually own the building, perhaps, are likely to behave in a way that would be less likely to cause problems in the neighborhood than people who merely come in and rent, even if they are residing there as well. I don't know if our Town Board, in fact cares about that distinction and if this committee were to ask them to consider changing the law, I don't know how they would receive that...They may be receptive, they may say no we like owner for these reasons...we don't know that today. But as far as what type of variance it is, because the definition of this use, home occupation use, says it has to be an owner, she doesn't meet that definition, so what she is proposing to do isn't a home occupation use, it's a different kind of use that is not permitted in the residential zone. It's a use to use the building to use the building, in addition to the residence, to use part of the building as professional office space and that's not a use which is permitted in the residential zone, so it is actually a use variance that would have to be granted. Board Member Matthews — Could you go over that again. She's not complying with what use? Ms. Brock — The home occupation use. That is a use that's permitted by special approval in residential zones but to qualify for home occupation use, among other things, one has to be an owner and resident of the building in which that use is being performed. Board Member Matthews — Okay, so if we waived, if I can use that term, if we waived the home owner clause... Ms. Brock — I don't think you can. If she is not...If what she does does not meet the definition of home occupation use, it is something else and if you want to say she meets all the criteria for the use variance and is allowed to perform a use 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 23 that is not allowed in that zone, that's something that you could consider. So your not waiving one of the requirements and saying it is still a home occupation, now what you are saying is that you are going to allow her to undertake a use that is not permitted in this district, this professional office space use. Board Member Matthews —And that's not permitted? Ms. Brock — No. It's permitted in the commercial zones, it's not permitted in the residential zones. Board Member Matthews — So what she's doing is not permitted. Chairperson Sigel — Right, because home occupation is defined as being done by an owner then if you are not the owner, you don't meet the definition, so you can't be a home occupation so even though it looks like, in all other respects, a home occupation, it's not considered that and therefore it is more akin to office space. Board Member Matthews — So for instance, if Mr. Krantz wanted to open up another dentist office and he didn't want to buy a house, he rented a house, he couldn't have that. Chairperson Sigel — That's correct...In a residential zone. Unfortunately, it appears that the only option for us, would be to grant a use variance, which the conditions for which are rather difficult to meet. You have to show the property can not realize a reasonable return for all permitted uses which obviously the property is a residential property and I am sure it could provide a reasonable return as a residential property without offering part of it as office space. Board Member Matthews — I don't have an answer to this, I am asking it because I don't have the answer to it...Would we be opening Pandora's box in a college town, that may not be desirable. Chairperson Sigel — I would be hesitant to try in some way to answer this just based on the belief that the Town Board may think it is reasonable. Board Member Krantz — I guess I'm of the opinion that maybe a higher level of a board should approve that before we do it. Chairperson Sigel — And if the Town Board, let's say, just simply struck the owner requirement, then she would meet all the other requirements, I believe and would be one of the lower impact home businesses that we've ever seen. Board Member Matthews — I agree with you basic premise, Ron, but I think that there are a lot of things that we are opening up that we are not aware of. I just 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 24 have that sense that there is a Pandora's box here somewhere and I'd just as soon not lift the lid up. Ms. Brock — And that is really my concern too, that if this Board doesn't faithfully apply the use variance here and then somebody else comes in and wants you to permit a use that's not permitted and you do in that case faithfully adhere to the criteria, then you have an inconsistent application of criteria. Board Member Matthews — My guess is that if you really did a door to door check of all rental properties in the town of Ithaca you would find that there are a number of people that are doing exactly what this lady is proposing to do and no one says anything about it and they are going about, writing their books or consulting...they are doing all kinds of other work with the computer, in and out and so on and so forth...there's nothing done about it and no concern in the community about it so...Just off the record...go ahead...personally what I was doing and forget about the variance. You run the risk of somebody objecting but...life goes on. Ms. Brock — This Board can't, unfortunately, tell the Applicant, just go away and we'll ignore you. I think it is true that there are probably a lot of people that do some work at home. The issue that makes this a little bit different is the business is actually being run out of the home. I don't think this Board, as a matter of interpretation of the zoning laws, would argue with the fact that if people have businesses located elsewhere but they do some of their work at home, that that's okay. Board Member Krantz — I'm not talking about rental properties. People rent a house, they work out of their house, they consult out of their house, they have potential clients that come to their rental house and talk with them and reach decisions and they consult each other and so forth and so forth. I think that you would find quite a lot of that going on out of rental properties. Ms. Brock — I don't know, all I know is that the Town Board has said they need to get home occupation special approvals. Board Member Matthews — There are tons of rules on the books that are not enforced... Ms. Brock — I think that if perceived violations are brought to the Town's attention, they do actually follow.... Board Member Matthews — As a Town official I am not advocating it but it is a fact of life. Chairperson Sigel — I agree with your assessment that people less conscientious than Ms. Cosley, it may not even occur to them that it may be a prohibited 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 25 activity, and don't seek approval and no one complains and the Town never knows. Board Member Matthews — I sincerely wish that we could grant it. I tend to agree with the legalisms associated with it and I wish we could grant it to her. If she hadn't had come to us, she would probably be up there doing her consulting work and no one would know the difference other than she was conscientious. Chairperson Sigel — I think that it does seem that the Board agrees that the interpretation that it would be a use variance... Ms. Cosley — I have a question about that because I haven't got detail about why it got switched...because I have in writing that it was an area variance, I don't have anywhere in writing that it was a use, I just had that telephone call, and I called Sean Nolan at the PACE University Land Use Law Center and asked him about a little more detail about the two types of variances and he was saying my issue was an area variance its not a use variance because what I am planning to do is allowed in the area to an owner/occupant so it is not like I am asking for a stable in the backyard or something that is totally unusual in the neighborhood, so it would not be a use variance issue it would strictly be an area variance issue and looking over the area variance, it does look like I meet the majority of issues as listed on the form I filled out when I was first in here for zoning. The criteria for area variance or use variance. Chairperson Sigel — I do agree that you, most likely, if not certainly, meet the area variance criteria but, based on our reading of the law, we do think it is a use variance because of the specific way our Town Code is written. It defines a home occupation as something done by an owner and not being an owner essentially disqualifies you from the start. If the use not done by an owner is a different use, the example we talked about when we discussed it, was also the residency requirement; that you must reside there, so if we were to waive that, now it's an office building. If you don't own it and you don't reside there, then that's functionally equivalent to an office building and so we can't really waive... because they appear to be equal weight in the law...they are in the same spot in the law... they appear to relate to the law in the same way so to change one would be functionally equal to changing the other and if you're changing the residency requirement makes it into an office building which is clearly not what was allowed in the residential zone. We have a specific office park zone. That is how we came to the conclusion that we believe that it is a separate use. As I said, we do plan to recommend and I think, I was planning on having the Board formally vote on a recommendation, if they so desired, to the Town Board to consider changing the rule, but I think the best advice we can give you (tape change) ...as with someone who works at a traditional office location somewhere in a commercial district, they might appear to work at home some, and that would appear to be perfectly legal, based on there is no prohibition to working at home 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 26 when you have a primary business location somewhere else, if you had some other address to technically be your business address... Ms. Cosley — I do have this other address on my tax forms... Chairperson Sigel — I can't say for sure whether you would have to meet your clients at this other address or not. I am not in a position to tell you exactly what would strictly meet the requirements of the law. The use variance, I don't think you could meet the criteria. Just the financial hardship test, wouldn't appear to make sense in this case, since it is a residential district and it is a residence. Ms. Cosley —What would define hardship? Chairperson Sigel — If there was some condition of the property, say that caused it to yield little or no return compared to other residences in the area, say maybe this had some unique condition like say it was on a busy highway or something and the value was very low and you could argue that the only way that you could get a reasonable return would be for us to allow you to get a commercial use say rather than a residential use, even though it is in a residential district but this property appears to be no different than any of the others on that street in general character...So, if you would like, we could move to formally deny your request or you could simply withdraw the request... Ms. Cosley — Could it be tabled? Chairperson Sigel — Sure. We could table it until further notice. Until you wish to bring it before the Board again. Ms. Cosley — How does that work with the Town Board then? The timing of that? I just moved to this state so all of this is brand new to me. In Virginia I just had a piece of paper and you're done so this is all completely new. Ms. Brock — Maybe we can't table it, we may have an obligation to decide in a certain time frame. Let me look at that. Chairperson Sigel — We could adjourn it until the next meeting and then depending on what happens, maybe that would make sense for you to come back, maybe not. Ms. Cosley — What happens with you guys...or what happens with the Town since the issue isn't really with me the issue is really with the law and the way it is written. I don't see how I can really change anything without actually buying the house. Chairperson Sigel — One option would be for you to find some other location which you could use in the area as technically your business address and where you could possibly meet clients and then I think it would then be reasonable for 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 27 you to work at home but then if you were meeting clients off site and your business was listed as being at another site, I think that would remove the business use of the home. Ms. Cosley — So is the business issue with having people coming to the house? Or is the business issue sitting in a room writing a book? Because I could certainly meet people at a different location, I don't have a problem meeting people at a Starbucks, there is one in Town but if the issue is sitting and writing, I anticipate more of my work will be writing rather than foot traffic. Board Member Matthews — Certainly if you had a business address somewhere else, some of your clients could come to your house. I think that happens in almost every business. Chairperson Sigel — I think the bottom line is if you have another address to list as where your business is located, then I think you would be okay. Ms. Cosley -- So I still have a Minnesota address, so am I okay now? Chairperson Sigel — I don't know if it being an out-of-state address... Ms. Brock — I think you need to look at the specifics of what she is doing and determine whether an out-of-state address is reasonable for the kind of work she is doing. Is she servicing clients in other states but again, I think you need to think about the precedential value of what you are doing. Chairperson Sigel — We're not doing anything yet. Ms. Brock — Well I don't know where it's going but, while the facts may be very sympathetic here, for this type of home occupation, if you interpret what constitutes a business being run out of a home a certain way, you need to know that as other people come in and want that same interpretation, you may be facing a set of facts that are very different, that aren't nearly as sympathetic, so you need to just be cognizant of... DM — I wouldn't touch this one. We have a lot of landlords in town that might just get up in-arms that a Town Official recommended a course of action if they don't approve. I think that we are opening... Chairperson Sigel — Without stating where your business might be located, if it is located other than your home and you do some of the work, I don't know about all of the work, but some of your work could be done at home if your business is located elsewhere. I don't know that we could be more specific. Board Member Matthews — With all due respect, I don't think it would be wise, if I can use that word without insulting you, to recommend a course of action that is 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 28 outside the law or to circumvent the law. I think we are walking in dangerous waters. Chairperson Sigel — I am trying not to. It just seems commonsensical to say that if you work at a place of business then obviously you do, some people do, work at home and that would not appear to be a home occupation because you work...your business is somewhere else. Board Member Matthews — I would let Ms. Cosley figure that out herself. Ms. Brock — I think we really need a proposal from you as to how you would conduct your business and then this Board could form an interpretation as to what you are doing and if it conforms to the code or not. Ms. Cosley — I have only been here a few weeks so I don't know the layout of the municipalities and how things are run...I haven't had to worry about this before but... Chairperson Sigel —We do sympathize with your situation. Ms. Cosley — So it's hard for me to (inaudible) proposal because of that but...I propose that I will do most of the writing types of work in my home and that I would meet clients strictly off site so there would be no traffic even though I have had neighbors and landlords say that it is not an issue and having (inaudible) the physical address would basically just be in name to satisfy the law. Is that something that works? Chairperson Sigel — I guess that's...maybe we should adjourn...Could we even make a decision on this since this wasn't advertised as an interpretation? Ms. Brock— How was it advertised? Strictly as a variance? Chairperson Sigel —As a special approval. Board Member Matthews — Perhaps we should just expand on the law and try and include it so that renters can longer vote or bear children... Ms. Cosley — According to the IRS, home office is defined independent of whether you rent or own, it considers them all the same. Alternate Board Member Levine — I think that some one would have to tell her that she couldn't do that and then come to us to ask us if that person was right. If an enforcement officer said no you are not doing it properly, you do need an address elsewhere, then maybe she comes to us...But to just come to us and ask how to comply with the law now, I think is premature. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 29 Ms. Brock — And Kirk is right. This was advertised as a special approval not as an interpretation, so I think we would need to adjourn and then Staff can work with you and you may or may not have to come back before this Board. Chairperson Sigel — We could adjourn you appeal or request for a special approval and you could make a new proposal to the Code Enforcement Officer and they would basically decide if they felt that what you were proposing was a home occupation or not or was perfectly legal in your district and didn't require any special approval or use variance or anything and then if you were given a negative determination from them, then you could come back and we could re- open the appeal and consider that new proposal. Ms. Cosley — So it would be the Code Enforcement Officer? Or who am I suppose to contact? Ms. Brock— I would contact Christine Balestra. She is one of the Town Planners. Chairperson Sigel — She could refer you to some one else if appropriate. Ms. Cosley — I just want to get this right. You said call Christine Balestra to find out who the Code Enforcement Officer is and she would... Chairperson Sigel — I'm not sure if she would be the one to help you directly or not but she could certainly direct you to the right person and basically come up with a proposal that you believe is not a home occupation use, which under our current definition, you do not qualify for. Ms. Cosley—What kind of time frame do these things work on? Chairperson Sigel — We could adjourn your appeal to the next meeting so that is approximately a month away and in the meantime we'll also try to discuss this with the Town Board and see what their felling is about removing the requirement of home ownership. Which if that proceeded at a fairly fast pace, may make it a moot point. Ms. Cosley —When do they meet? Mrs. Whitmore — They meet the first Monday following the first Tuesday of the month. Ms. Brock — But what would happen is this would have to go to the Codes and Ordinances Committee first and if they want to move that to the Town Board then they would and then if the Town Board wanted to act on it they would need to refer it to the Planning Board and set a Public Hearing...So they couldn't act on it at the first meeting they heard it at...It would be December or January before they could enact it, if they wanted to do that. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 30 Ms. Cosley — So realistically, if I served no clients, would they do it? Chairperson Sigel — I can say that if you meet them at your house that would appear to be a home occupation. Ms. Cosley —Which is in violation, as you're saying, only because I opened a can of worms to start with, as opposed to what Mr. Matthews was saying, that a lot of people just do this anyway. So how's this been handled because I am sure this isn't precedent. There are many people who rent, as you are saying, there are faculty members who are renting that are doing consulting projects, how is that handled? Chairperson Sigel — I don't think that we have had any requests from people who are renting, up until...This version of the zoning ordinance is only a few years old and home occupations were handled differently before. So we have had a number of requests, since this was enacted, for special approval for a home occupation, but those have all been by owners of the property. Ms. Cosley — This isn't some precedent issue so I was just wondering. Chairperson Sigel — We haven't dealt with a renter yet so that's why we are trying to figure it out. Ms. Cosley — If I did decide to rent another property off-site, would this all become moot then? Chairperson Sigel — Yes. If you rented something that was clearly your business location that was in an area in the Town that was legal for a business or outside the Town that was legal for business, then I don't think there would be any issue. Then this would not be your business location. Do you have any other questions? Ms. Cosley — Just wondering why it is precedent and wondering if I just should have stayed quiet. Would that have been the way to go? Is that what's recommended by the Zoning Board? Chairperson Sigel — I can't answer that. Board makes a motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 071 ADJOURMENT OF APPEAL; SUSAN C. COSLEY, APPELLANT, 153%WESTVIEW LANE, TAX PARCEL NO. 58.-2- 39.53. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 31 MOTION made by Chairperson Kirk Sigel, seconded by Board Member Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board adjourns the appeal of Susan C. Cosley to the November meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Matthews and Niefer NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — I am sorry that we couldn't be more helpful. Anyone else have any other official business? Board Member Krantz — I see the Governor signed a law that requires the us to have four hours of special instruction per year. Chairperson Sigel — Before we discuss that...Would the Board like to make a formal motion that the Town Board consider removing the requirement for ownership? Board Member Matthews — Is that a motion? Chairperson Sigel — I was just tying to gauge reaction... Board makes a motion and votes. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 072; RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA RESOLVED that this Board recommends to the Town Board that the definition of "home occupation" be changed to allow "home occupation" by non-owners, but still full-time residents of the property. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Matthews and Niefer NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. 10/23/2006 ZB Minutes Final --Page 32 Chairperson Sigel adjourns the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Approved by: Paulette Neilsen Kirk Sigel Date Deputy Town Clerk Chairperson