Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2004-05-17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, May 17, 2004 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Ronald Krantz, Board Member Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andy Frost, Director of Building/Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS: David Bravo Cullen, Cornerstone Architects; David Deitcher, 227 Renwick Drive; Jeff Hanavan, 320 University Avenue; Kate Lunde, 320 University Avenue; Deborah Kratil, 1151 Danby Road; Edward Kratil, 1151 Danby Road; Katherine W. Teeter, 1413 Mecklenburg Road; Frank Prudance, 1395 Mecklenburg Road; Abraham Stroock, 115 McIntyre Place; Laure Stroock; 115 McIntyre Place; Paul Levesque, HOLT Architects, 217 North Aurora Street; Elena Flash, 202 East State Street; Lars Washburn, 112 Judd Falls Road; Bill Brazo, 1393 Mecklenburg Road; Pat Brazo, 1393 Mecklenburg Road; Larry Hoffman, HOLT Architects; Joe Fitzgerald, Cayuga Medical Center; Scott Hamilton, 201 Christopher Lane; John Yengo, 1147-1149 Danby Road Chairperson Sigel opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. APPEAL : Katherine Stettler and David Deitcher, Appellants, David Bravo Cullen, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (pre April 1, 2004), to be permitted to alter an existing non-conforming residential building lot located at 227 Renwick Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-4-13, Residence District R-15. Said alterations include sunroom additions to the building which maintains an existing 12 + foot side yard building setback (15 feet required) and reducing the required 25 foot front yard setback to 20 ±feet. Therefore a variance from Article IV, Section 14 may also be requested. Chairperson Sigel — Is there someone representing this here. You can have a seat right here and before you start, please state your name and address for the record. David Bravo Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, Dryden — I take it you have the site plans in front of you. Chairperson Sigel — Yes we do, we have everything you submitted. Mr. Bravo Cullen — Okay. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost— The only thing that they don't have is the prints that you sent me recently, they didn't make the mail out. So you may want to be prepared to discuss these. Mr. Bravo Cullen — The recent ones that I gave you? Mr. Frost - Yes, they didn't make the mail out. Mr. Bravo Cullen — Oh, okay. Well, the reason that we are here is that the property has a deficiency on the side yard. It was built prior to or right around the time that zoning came into force and it was sited with a little triangle. There is a two by six or three by six triangle on the southern side of the house that sticks into the side yard setback. That is existing, that was there when the Deitcher's bought the house and they would like to do some renovations to the house, but they can't do anything there unless we have this. That is why we are here. The other very slight thing which we are asking for a variance for, which is on the front house, they wish to add a sun porch and bedroom. The front yard setback is not parallel with the house, it is parallel with the property lien, which is parallel with the road. So, there is a tiny wedge of about 18 inches by four feet, where is proposed addition would stick into the front yard setback and we are asking to be allowed to do that. Chairperson Sigel — You say 18 inches. Mr. Bravo Cullen — The projection of the southwest front corner of the house to the setback is approximately eight foot six. Then about four feet or so further north, we get to ten feet and then it becomes more. We have room for most of this proposed addition on the front with the exception of a tiny triangle that measures about 18 inches by four feet. I can come around and point it out if that helps. Chairperson Sigel — No, I think I see it, I just want to get out how much of a variance you think you need. So, the 18 inches is how far it is going to stick into the required setback. Mr. Frost— The revised plan, which they don't have, I think shows it more clearly. Mr. Bravo Cullen — I have a larger plan also that I brought to try to....... Mr. Frost— You are removing the existing garage, if I understand. Mr. Bravo Cullen — Yes. They decided that a garage wasn't as important to them as other things that they would like to do and so, instead of a garage, the problem, this whole garage issue is that the existing driveway is very, very steep and currently, that is the only access to the property, so what they wanted to do is to have a more level approach to the house and what we are doing now 2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES instead of the garage is to have a parking area on the property, just off the street that is fairly level and then to construct new steps up to the house. We are also lowering the grade of the front yard by three feet. Chairperson Sigel — So the new garage that was on the previous plan is not part of the plan anymore? Mr. Bravo Cullen — No. Mr. Frost— Just for the other Board Members, that is the left of the sheet you might be looking at and it shows a new garage below grade, that will not happen. This is the new design. Chairperson Sigel — Did anything change other than the garage and parking area with this latest submission? It looks like the walkway changed. Mr. Bravo Cullen — The walkway changed and there is a little mud/laundry room in the back. I don't know, was that there before? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, that is shown on what we got in our packets. Mr. Bravo Cullen — Now, we've got the pitched roof instead of the flat roof. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any questions from anybody? Mr. Krantz— Seems reasonable. Chairperson Sigel — It looks like it will be an improvement. Mike any comments? Mr. Smith — No really with the garage being removed, the main concern before was the amount of earth work taking place for sedimentation and erosion control measures, but it doesn't seem like they are going to have an awful lot of earth work anymore, but that would be important because there are catch basins right at the edge of their driveway to protect and that type of thing. Chairperson Sigel — Is there any requirement normally to put up some silt traps or anything for this type of work? Mr. Smith — Probably not for this size. It's something that the Building Department can look at during the application, I'm sure. I just noticed when I was out on the site, right on the edge of the driveway, there is a catch basin right there where anything coming down would go right into that. Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:13. 3 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — I'm sorry, I need you to come to one of the microphones. You could actually just sit on the end right here if you want and I need you to state your name and address. Tony Payne, 235 Renwick Drive —Which is the north property. We haven't had a chance to talk, so I thought this would be as quick as anything else just to see what this change might mean to the north end of the property. Just a curiosity question. Mr. Bravo Cullen — Do you want to see the map? Mr. Payne — Sure. My only concern as a fairly selfish individual, is how this will affect the privacy of my property in relation to theirs. I would hope that there would be some landscaping. Mr. Deitcher— Yes, you will be happier looking at our house. Mr. Payne — This is not the most neighborly way of doing things, but since we haven't talked until tonight, I thought I would stop by to see what is going on. That's my only concern. Up until this point, you could not see each other from each other's property. With the tree work they have already done, has made the whole view in that direction very, very vastly different. I was just wondering if there were going to be any structures in addition, but apparently there are not. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think that on the north side you are going to. I mean roof is going up and the parking area is sunken so I don't know whether you would see that from the north. Mr. Bravo Cullen —We have cut down trees, but after the earth-work we are going to plant back and put some trees back and bushes and ground cover and that sort of thing. Chairperson closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 019 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Katherine Stettler and David Deiter, 227 Renwick Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17.4-13, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Katherine Stettler and David Deitcher, Appellants, David Bravo Cullen, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (pre April 1, 2004), to be permitted to alter an existing non-conforming residential building lot located at 227 Renwick Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-4- 4 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES 13, Residence District R-15. Said alterations include sunroom additions to the building which maintains an existing 12 ± foot side yard building setback (15 feet required) and reducing the required 25 foot front yard setback to 20 ± feet. Therefore a variance from Article IV, Section 14 may also be requested. This motion is made for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated May 7, 2004. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 020:Katherine Stettler and David Deitcher, 227 Renwick Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17.4-13, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal Katherine Stettler and David Deitcher, Appellants, David Bravo Cullen, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to alter an existing non-conforming residential building lot located at 227 Renwick Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-4- 13, Residence District R-15. Specifically, a variance is granted to allow modification of the building which has a sideyard setback of no less than 11.5 feet, where 15 feet is required. In addition, a variance is granted to allow a front yard setback of no less than 23 feet, where 25 feet is required. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: The modifications and additions be built substantially as indicated on the applicant's latest plans, revised May 7, 2004. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: NONE 5 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : Abe and Laure Stroock, Appellants, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (pre April 1, 2004), in order to add additional building space on a non-conforming building/lot, located at 115 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-6-4, Residence District R-15. Said building and lot are non-conforming as the building crosses a property line, with said parcel being 55 feet wide (100 foot width required) and is 11,000 ±square feet (15,000 square feet required). Chairperson Sigel — Hello. If you could state your name and address for the record please. Abe Strooke, 115 McIntyre Place; Laure Strooke, 115 McIntyre Place Chairperson Sigel — If you could give us an overview of what you are asking. Mr. Strooke —We recently purchased this home and plan to move into it with our family, our two young sons and the house had an originally porch structure that is shown on the tax map, the drawing of the property, that actually crosses the property line and sits on a region that is now controlled by an easement agreement on that side of the house. We are proposing, asking for a variance in order to build a wooden deck structure straight south off the back of the house that would move the deck use from the house further from that side boundary, but does have one element that would still pass on to the easement strip, which would be actually a railing structure that would run along the remain cement foundation of that original deck. So this is a house that has a very large back yard with almost no access to it and this is a link between our house and our back yard that we think would be very important. Partly to allow us not to walk down a rather steep slope that is degrade, presently, and ease our use of this piece of property that is not ours on the side of the house that is in the easement strip. So, that is why this deck structure, we feel will improve the house significantly. We have discussed it with all the adjacent neighbors and, we've given the Poyers that own the property with the easement strip and they all feel that it is agreeable to them. Mr. Frost—We did recently get a letter from Mr. Poyer supporting your request. Chairperson Sigel —Any questions? Mr. Frost— There is not much of a front yard on this house and I can say, as the former parent of little kids, that the back area would be a benefit to the applicant. 6 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — I don't see much of a problem considering that the neighbors don't object. If your neighbor was against it, I might be inclined to sympathize with an objection, but with none, it is hard to object. Mr. Frost— This is in a historic district and there is a long EAF form, which Mike can address, I suppose. Mr. Smith — It is a type I action because it is in a historic district, so you have the long form. Chairperson Sigel —Anything in particular you want to highlight from that? Mr. Smith — No. The house, from the information from the historic designation, it was built around 1910. It doesn't seem like this kind of deck addition is going to degrade or do any problem with that, especially on the back of the house. Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 021 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Abe and Laure Stroock, 115 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66.-6- 4, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Abe and Laure Stroock, Appellants, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (pre April 1, 2004), in order to add additional building space on a non-conforming building/lot, located at 115 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-6-4, Residence District R-15. Said building and lot are non-conforming as the building crosses a property line, with said parcel being 55 feet wide (100 foot width required) and is 11,000 ± square feet (15,000 square feet required). This motion is made for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff, dated May 5, 2004. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 7 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 022: Abe and Laure Stroock, 115 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66.-6-4, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Abe and Laure Stroock, Appellants, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, in order to add additional building space on a non-conforming building/lot, located at 115 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-6-4, Residence District R-15. Said building and lot are non-conforming as the building crosses a property line, with said parcel being 55 feet wide (100 foot width required) and is 11,000 ± square feet (15,000 square feet required). Specifically, this motion grants a variance for a proposed deck to be no closer than 3.5 feet from the east lot line. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: The deck be built as indicated on the applicant's plans. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : Jeffrey Hanavan and Katharine Lunde, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Sections 801 and 803 of the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (effective April 1, 2004), to be permitted to create an agricultural distillery with accessory agricultural buildings exceeding an aggregate floor area of more than 2,000 square feet on land previously used for agricultural purposes; but zoned for residential use located at 1407 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1- 10.42, Low Density Residential Zone. An approval from the Zoning Board under Article XXV, Sections 2500 through 2510 may also be requested, as the preexisting agricultural use is non-conforming. Chairperson Sigel — Hello. Could you give us your name and address, for the record? 8 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Jeffrey Hanavan, 320 University Avenue — This is my wife Kate Lunde. The parcel we are discussing tonight is 1407 Mecklenburg Road. Mr. Frost— Let me just point out to the Board that this and the following cases from here on out, all the Zoning Board cases will be regulated by the new Zoning Ordinance. Note that we have new sections and articles now listed. The first two cases that you heard were applications received prior to the Zoning Ordinance chance. Chairperson Sigel — You are very fortunate. You are the first case under the new Zoning Ordinance. So if you could give us a brief overview of what you plan to do and which variances you need and why. Mr. Hanavan — This is a 39 plus or minus acres parcel, 26 acres of which were farmed for hay, mostly, by a local farmer. We purchased it with the intention of continuing agricultural use, but planting some different products that were more interesting to us, such as fruit trees and to create an herb farm. We also intend to build a house on this property and, of course the associated barn. The barn actually is the first thing that is going up and that has already gone through the permit process and will be raised in the end of July. The distillery, the reason, this is jumping the gun a little bit to be applying for the distillery now, but I'm applying for this variance now so that I know pretty much what is possible for me to do with this land and whether I can do basically what our dream basically is wanting us to do, which is to take these products that we are growing on the land and to produce valuated products based on those, such as distilled spirits, fruit brandy, specifically and using the herbs of the land to distill essential oils. So, this is a non-conforming use. I don't believe that there is a distillery currently in the Town of Ithaca. So, that is what we are here to do. Mr. Frost— If I could just clarify, when he said non-conforming use, it doesn't conform to the current zoning ordinance. Since the parcel was used for farming in the past, I have also advertised this as being a non-conforming use or an approval under the non-conforming use section under the zoning ordinance. It is agriculture use now, that is technically not there. Chairperson Sigel — So agricultural use is not permitted in that area? Mr. Frost—Well it is legally non-conforming, so it is legal as it is. So, the way I have approached this I think and the Town Attorney could correct me, if necessary, is that you could either grant a variance or consider or ask for a special approval as a non-conforming use. Mr. Smith — Farms and nurseries are allowed uses. 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hanavan — My understanding was that the Low Density Residential was the only zoning which actually had both residence and farm as a primary possible allowed use, but I could be wrong. Mr. Frost — That is correct, but it is not clear to me with the new ordinance, you see it's not going to have a residence there initially, whether that becomes a problem. Mr. Hanavan —Actually, that is an interesting issue because our intention is, in fact to- Mr. Frost— Is to eventually have a residence. Mr. Hanavan —Actually, it might be built before the distillery. The thing we are trying to do is to have a coherent plan for the property and, basically, to have this vision and part of that involves the second piece of the stated variance, which is the maximum surface area taken by accessory buildings. Currently, there is a dilapidated barn on the property that is pretty much dangerous to use, so chances are, we will tare that down. Chairperson Sigel — Is that the structure that is right near the road? Mr. Hanavan — Exactly. It was formerly used as a tractor shed basically. But then we are building the barn this summer, which will be purely and agricultural barn and then the distillery, as planned will bump over the 2000 square foot allowed limit for Low Density Residential, for this reason, we have given to you and I hope you have the list of our accessory buildings that we plan on building to support the agricultural operations on this property. We actually were in discussions about a year ago before the revised zoning went into effect to request that this parcel be zoned agricultural. This being one of the reasons that the allowed maximum surface area taken in for accessory buildings in agriculturally zoned land is, I believe, ten percent of the acreage of the land. Whereas, in a Low Density Residential, it is 2,000 square feet regardless of the size and this is a fairly large parcel. Chairperson Sigel — It is the case that a farm is an allowed principal use. So, I assume, John, that would mean that having the accessory buildings without a residence is fine? Mr. Barney— Yep. Assuming we are characterizing this as a farm use. Chairperson Sigel —Well, They are going to be farming the land. I guess if you set aside the issue of the distillery portion. I assume that the barn that you are building is not solely for distilling. Mr. Hanavan —Actually, the barn that we are building is not for distilling at all. 10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so that is just to support the farming? Mr. Hanavan — Correct. The distillery building has to be built by some very rigid rules, as dictated by State and Federal Law regarding the production of alcohol. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I assume that you are not planning to build that until you actually need to start distilling, which I think you said was in four years or so. Mr. Hanavan —Absolutely. I think we put numbers on your site plan for years for years and when our intention to build the different buildings is. Mr. Barney — Let me see if I understand this correctly. At the moment you are going to be using this property for the growth of what? Mr. Hanavan — Right now fruit is what we are starting to plant. Fruit trees and we have already started fencing against deer for that, for those purposes. Those fruit trees will hopefully, at some point, feed the distillery and be used specifically by the distillery. Mr. Krantz— You have a sort of minimum amount of road frontage, do you plan a stand, a farm stand there? Mr. Hanavan — Eventually, if we decide that it makes sense associated with our purely farm products. Like if we have excess fruit or we have herbs or anything like that, we would be interested in doing a farm stand, but the distillery is completely unrelated to that because I am unable to retail the product of the distillery at the location or any other location, I need to distribute it through wholesalers and distributors. So, it is kind of like the farmstand would be a completely separate entity, but we wanted to put it on the drawings so that you would understand the nature of the buildings that would be, accessory buildings over 2,000 square feet in surface area. Chairperson Sigel — So, that again, the retail sales of non-alcoholic products is permitted in the Low-Density Residential? Mr. Hanavan — Exactly. Chairperson Sigel - But, you just may need the variance for the square footage? Mr. Hanavan — Exactly. My intention there is basically that you can see the number of building that we are talking about, it just seems to make more financial sense to not apply for a variance every time we put up another agricultural building which is why I tried to include it now, so that we could just have a kind of umbrella policy about it, instead of doing one-offs, every six months, which gets expensive and time consuming. 11 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — I'm not sure that the Board would be comfortable granting, say, the right to build 4,000 square feet say "to be built in the future" without seeing any kind of plans. Although maybe if it was restricted to a certain area, I'm not sure. Mr. Hanavan — Is that referring specifically to the distillery building? Because that will be the first thing to come up. I do have a plan for the distillery building if you if that would..... Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, if you have a plan and a pretty specific site in mind, that would be, I don't know whether we need to see the interior details. Mr. Hanavan — Do you have that parcel drawing, which has the location of the buildings? Chairperson Sigel —We, do yeah. Mr. Hanavan — Okay, but that's not what you are looking for in terms of location? Chairperson Sigel — I mean something that you, say, were not going to build for several years, I'm not sure that the Board would want to grant the variance for something. You would need to build it within, is it 18 months Andy? Mr. Frost— Yes. Chairperson Sigel — If we granted you a variance, you would have to build within 18 months or the variance expires. Mr. Hanavan — That's fine and understandable for me, particularly for the distillery. I would have no trouble with that, building within 18 months. For the rest of the property, you see no way of not doing one-off's for going over that 2,000 square foot limit? Chairperson Sigel —Which of the buildings on you plan are you going to build in the next 18 months? Mr. Hanavan —We are going to build the barn, the house, the garage, the distillery will definitely, because my understanding was that any variance would have to be in construction within 18 months. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so even though you are not going to use the distillery for four years... 12 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hanavan — No, the distillery can be immediately used once, I can't get a license to distill without having the distillery built, but that is the only prerequisite, that and having the still, which I already do have. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Hanavan —And that is a question that I have. Would this be a building variance or a use variance and what are the terms of a use variance? Chairperson Sigel —Well, we haven't really gotten to that yet, but I don't see a way to do the distillery as other than a use variance. Do you John? Mr. Barney—Well, unless it is part of the farm operation. Chairperson Sigel — Do you remember how we treated the....... Mr. Barney — If farms are defined — Chairperson Sigel — It would be nice if we could. Mr. Barney— I don't' think you could because I don't think you have the criteria. You really have to show an economic hardship, that the property can't be used for anything else. I'm not sure that the property would meet that standard. Chairperson Sigel — So would you suggest that making a determination that a distillery is a farm use? Mr. Barney— Well, a distillery in the context of processing crops that are grown on that farm yeah. Mr. Frost— You may want to read that definition. Mr. Barney— I have read it. "Farm: a parcel of land containing at least three acres, which is used in the raising of agricultural products, such as crops, livestock, poultry and dairy products. It includes structures necessary to the production and storage of agricultural products and equipment and on-farm buildings used for preparation of marketing products produced or derived from products produced on the farm property of which a building is located, subject to limitations regarding roadside stands set forth in the ordinance." I would see a distillery, in this context, as being part of the farm operation. It is a building using a product that is derived from products grown on the farm. Mr. Frost — Let me ask you a question, and not as a challenge, say there was a cannery that went on a property producing peas, is that an agricultural use because now they are taking peas and putting them in cans? 13 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney— If the peas were grown on the property, you might very well be able to encompass that. It's what is the difference between that and taking a bag, in fact and bagging- Mr. Frost—Again, I am not raising the question as a challenge. Mr. Hanavan — It is a little complex, the whole thing because of the scope of the plan that we have. Chairperson Sigel — To be honest, you probably would have a hard time meeting the requirements of a use variance for this, but if we make the determination that it is part of the a farm, then you are fine, but a use variance would require you to show basically that any legal use of the land wouldn't return a reasonable economic return. That would be hard to do. Mr. Hanavan — Right. It would be, but I have to say that, given the size of the land, without doing some fairly creative value added products, it is difficult to conceive of being financially viable. Mr. Barney—Well, except that you could build houses on it. Mr. Hanavan —Well, that is absolutely true. Mr. Barney— It is zoned for residential use and you could build houses on it and I think it would be very hard-pressed to show that you couldn't get a reasonable economic return if you were to subdivide it and develop it. Unfortunately that is the criteria devised for a use variance. Mr. Hanavan — I understand. Mr. Frost— I have pretty much advertised this every way possible, so I think that it provides the Board with a lot of options. It almost seems now, in hearing the discussion here, that maybe we're just looking at one potential variance and that is to exceed the 2,000 square foot. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, it looks that way. What percentage of the products of the raw material that you'll use in the distillery do you anticipate coming from your own land here. Mr. Hanavan — I would anticipate a large portion, particularly of the, I would say the sole, all of the herb farm portion would go. I would never buy herbs from some other source, in order to produce that. The fruit, there are a couple of local markets for, it's not really a market, it's right now that there is a waste going on in the wine industry, where the grape pressings from winery's are being through out. Often times being put back onto the land as fertilizer, but the practice, actually, as it exists isn't really particularly healthy for the land. In other parts of 14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES the world it is required that those post-grape pressings get distilled and then, the results of the pressings of that go back onto the land. Part of this whole thing is, I believe the region is ripe for a number of distilleries and there is a lot of waste right now. It's difficult to estimate the quantity, but I guess I would answer the question by saying my plan is to have the majority of the products be grown on the property. I can see having bad years in which I would need to supplement with purchasing just so I would actually have a product down the road from that year. Chairperson Sigel —Would it be a problem if we made a requirement that you would have to use at least 50 percent of what is used by the distillery come from your own land? Mr. Hanavan — Yeah, for the initial period before my fruit trees have grown I wouldn't have any product to use. That would be difficult. Mr. Barney— But then what you are talking about is building something to process products grown elsewhere. Then you are beginning to move away from- Mr. Hanavan — For the initial period of time only because, financially, I am going to have to, and part of the whole reason that I am going through this is because it is so expensive to distill at all and I am interested in doing it. So, it is difficult to produce, to actually pay for all of what I am initially investing without having a product for four years, based on what I can grow. Chairperson Sigel — If we determine that a distillery is part of a farm, let's say that at least 50 percent input from the farm itself, then it might be a more reasonable use variance to allow less than that for the first few years, as then there is a financial issue, with sort of getting the capital going, but if it's a permitted use, then allowing it to sort of get started seems reasonable. Mr. Barney— That's up to the Board. I guess if I were going to go in that direction, then I would not characterize it as a use variance as much as a farm and that the variance be granted, if you choose to grant the variance, but conditionally on that within "x" number of years that 50 percent of the product that is processed there be derived from property itself. I think we are actually debating internally whether we are going to amend this definition of farm to allow the processing of raw property products, but in my recollection, we were talking about a 75 percent number or something like that. I don't remember the details, it's been a while. Until it is amended, we have to go with what the statute is here. Mr. Hanavan —At this point, it is a little difficult to make calculations about quantities and cost about profits as there are so many variables. So, that even the number of 50 percent, I am trying to imagine what that would be and how would you quantify that when you have an apple versus a grape pressing. 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney - I think probably that is a good point, I think probably we would have to define a little bit how you would quantify that. It seems to me that there would be several measures, one would be of value. Secondly, would be just sheer operating time, 50 percent of the time, is it being done with herbs being grown there or it being done from apples grown somewhere else and it might be 50 percent of your profit coming out of there where it is derived from. Chairperson Sigel — Finished product or raw product input. Mr. Barney—Well, all of the above. The thing that allows you to do it is only if you are doing it as an ancillary to the farming operation that you are doing there. When you start moving away from that into producing or soliciting materials from elsewhere, you are no longer a farm as we define it. In which event, you are into a use variance, which is a violation of the ordinance because you are in a residential zone. Chairperson Sigel — You are becoming more of a distillery, who happens to grow some of the stuff on site, as opposed to a farm that occasionally needs to supplement. Obviously, these things are hard to define. Mr. Hanavan — Right now, we have, this is an interesting piece of land, it has a number of road frontage properties, which will be impacted by anything that we do visually and have already been because we have started actually working on this land, in a way that it hadn't been worked before. We have put up fencing in the front as a boundary between our property and the front properties and we've also put up a deer fence and this complex that we are talking about building, including the distillery and our home, we've placed in the back for a variety of reasons, including the growing land, the best quality soil is actually in the front, towards the adjacent properties and we wouldn't want to take that soil up with building site. The building in the back, obviously makes for a quieter environment for us and it also makes for a lesser impact for the neighbors in the front. One thing that is unique about this property is that it has an easement on it, a water easement, which is long standing because three of the houses in the front use a spring, which is in the ravine that feeds Coy Glen. There is a water line and an electrical line that runs across the field. The easement is very clear in saying that we can't do anything to, well, number one, they need to be able to maintain and preserve and protect and replace that waterline, but as well, we can't do anything to disrupt the water flow of the spring. So, for instance, trying to find some way to tap into that spring, we can't, ourselves go down and start bucketing water out of that spring. So, this is one issue that has come up with the neighbors and, in response to that, I immediately started doing calculations on how the distillery would , what the distillery's water usage would be and I know there are at least two neighbors here today, at least one of whom I'm sure will speak to this point. I wanted to present that know because I am sure that it will come up. I only have on copy of it. The calculation is based upon the maximum output that I put within the text that goes along with it, based on the 2000 gallon maximum production. It 16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES comes out to, in my calculations, to be approximately a half a bedroom house. I spoke with Tompkins County Health Department and they gave me some numbers. It would be helpful for you to be reading this document. Chairperson Sigel —Carrie just went to make some copies of it. Mr. Hanavan — Okay. I should probably wait then. Chairperson Sigel — Did you say half a bedroom house? Mr. Hanavan - In fact the house itself, that we built, will end up being more of a risk, if there is a risk. The house is actually going up before the distillery. Chairperson Sigel —Where are you getting the water that you need? Mr. Hanavan — Right now, we drilled a well that is approximately 450 feet from the spring, based on, actually we had some witching done. We did it based on the location of another spring on the property that comes out close to where we drilled. We ended up getting a low flow, but a good flow of clean water from that. We haven't used it yet, but our intention is to use that well and it is a fairly long run from where the house and the distillery is planned, but we are planning on tanking it at the location of the house and the distillery. The bottom line is that the text of the easement is extremely clear in that the onus is on us to not disrupt the water flow. I actually have a copy of easement here. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so it is your intention to get all of your water needs from other than this spring? Mr. Hanavan —Absolutely, but there are still questions as to whether getting water from the well could somehow disrupt that spring. In speaking with the Health Department, as I wrote in that description, it was basically impossible for Adjody, who I spoke with to say whether is would have an impact or not. Everybody seems to say that it is highly unlikely, but it should be fairly obvious fairly quickly. So, I have basically been working on ways to, the contingency would be for us to make the well available to them for water, if we somehow disrupted their spring. The bottom line is that it is already legally required that we not damage their water supply and I have no intention of that and have every intention of being sensitive to that situation. Chairperson Sigel —Any questions from the Board at this time? Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Frank Prudence, 1395 Mecklenburg Road — My main concern is the water. Jeff has given you a background on it and that's the big problem is, the big question of what happens if something does disrupt that water source. I know, as Jeff 17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES said, that he has an obligation to provide us with water if that does happen, but having a legal obligation and if there is no water, what happens? If that spring is disrupted and their source of their well is not enough to provide us with water, then what happens? I want to find some format to address that problem if it were to happen. Chairperson Sigel — If John could maybe comment, but I am not sure there is much of anything that we could do. If he already has the obligation to make sure that the spring is not affected by anything that he does, I'm not sure that there is anything more that we can do ahead of time. Mr. Barney— I guess I have to look at it, leaving the distillery and all that aside, a 39-acre piece of land, you could build a house on it, there is no way anybody could stop that if they objected. Presumably, in conjunction with building a house, you could build a well. The risk is there, it seems to me, no matter what the property is used for. The analysis that is being given here is that they are not going to use a lot of water on this distillery in the grand scheme of things. Mr. Prudence — That was another question. I just don't know how much water a distillery uses. I don't know that much about a distillery either. Mr. Barney— The difference between 24,000 gallons of water per year, which compares to 54,000 gallons per bedroom by the Health Department calculations. So, the difference between a three bedroom and a three and a half bedroom house, when you come right down to it, assuming the analysis is correct. Obviously, I am not an expert. I don't know that there is a way that the Town can step up and say "you can't do this because it might affect somebody's well. I think the legal obligation is there and if he does something or they do something that affect's it, you folk's clearly have a right to pursue then to fix it. But I don't know that this Board has the authority to say "no, you can't do this", based on the fact that it might jeopardize other people's wells. It would be different if someone was coming and saying that they are going to be using 100,000 gallons of water a day, but their use is comparable to a residential use that would be legally permitted automatically there, I don't know if there is a basis for us to say otherwise. Chairperson Sigel — Look at it another way, I mean they could build a larger house than, say, they intend to build and that would be the equivalent of the house they intend to build, plus the distillery. Mr. Prudence — I guess then, it has to be decided between the two of us, as how that would be worked out to guarantee that there is water because in the easement, this just said they have the obligation to take care of the situation if there water were to be diminished, so I guess that needs to be addressed between the two of us or the four parcels involved as to how that would be handled. 18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Obviously, to try to come to a mutual solution before you would end up in court or something. Mr. Hanavan — I feel badly that they are at great risk. Theoretically, they can't control a lot of what I do on the land, so I do feel badly that fear sort of has to be there, that I am going to disrupt there source of what and I think that we can figure something out to make you feel more comfortable. I think we have talked about some ideas. Luckily the whole area is rather, it's got a wide variety of water from gray sludge in some places to sulfer in other places, but we do have and have located other springs on the property, which are a nice back up. They are not optimal from a health standpoint, as much as a nice well is, but they still work, as is the case currently for their guys. So, the land is fairly large and I don't' think we will have trouble coming up with a solution. Chairperson Sigel — I think you are in the same, fortunately or unfortunately, you would be in the same position if it were someone just wanting to build a house, in which case, they wouldn't even be before the Board tonight. Mr. Hanavan — But it was actually good to bring up because it was not, I mean I have an intuitive understanding of how little water the distillery uses, but I haven't done the calculation until you all brought up the issue. So, it was good that it came up because it's always good to remind, I mean this deed is 40 years old and it was good to re-read it and it is very, very clear in it's intent. Chairperson Sigel — Did you want to say anything else? Anyone else? Yes. Pat Brazo, 1393 Mecklenburg Road — This property is right behind our house. There is three families actually that are on the water supply all together. One of them is up for sale right now, so they are not concerned, I am sure that is why they are not here. However, I have some other concerns. Mr. Barney— Before you go anywhere, could you identify the three families that are on that water supply? Ms. Brazo — The man that just spoke and I am not sure the other people's name. Do you know their name, Frank that live next door to you? 1397. Mr. Barney— The one identified as "Shelley" on this map? Mr. Hanavan — Yes. Ms. Brazo — There are actually three families, well, we have lived there for 31 years and never been without water, so it is a pretty good water supply. I am not really sure about any other springs that are on any other property around us. I have never heard of that before until just now. I do have some other concerns 19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES besides that, I am wondering, when we are talking about building other buildings, I am wondering how many buildings are we talking about because it is kind of in our back yard. The other thing that I was wondering about is, when I got this paper and it says " the formation of the Ithaca Distilling Company", I'm thinking what is this, a business, that we are going to have in our back yard? I'm concerned about that. It is a residential neighborhood. I've got more than one concern I guess, really. Chairperson Sigel — I would just point out that while subdivision approval wouldn't be guaranteed, it would seem that with such a large parcel that it could possibly be subdivided with a number of homes back there. The density that they are proposing, even though they may have a cluster of several buildings, is still a relatively low density, given the size of the parcel. Mr. Hanavan — I don't think that she has seen the picture that you are looking at, which if we could give her a copy. Chairperson Sigel —And they are proposing to put them pretty far back on the... Mr. Hanavan — The smaller buildings that we mentioned, like the sugar shack, the maple stand that is at the very, very far back of the property, obviously the farm stand would be up front for access, so I don't think those things are pictured there. Chairperson Sigel — Does looking at that and hearing some of the information tonight allay any of your concerns? Ms. Brazo — No. I'm still concerned. I am even concerned because where they have their well dug is very close to where we have our spring. Yeah, that's a concern. Mr. Hanavan — The well is not indicated on that plan. Mr. Barney—Are you not taking water out of it yet? Mr. Hanavan — No, it was just the first thing we did because we had heard from someone else that there might be limitations on getting water on the land and we wouldn't want to start building buildings without knowing if there was a good source of water. Mr. Barney—Was a flow test run on the well? Mr. Hanavan —An informal at two and a half gallons per minute. There is a second well at a location very much further back, which produces gray, basically gray sluggish-like water, which has the possibility, depending on it's constitution, 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES to be settled and filtered. We consider that for agricultural use, but it is in the very back of our mind, it's basically a failed attempt at a well. Ms. Brazo — Did you drill three times or is this just two times that you drilled? Mr. Hanavan — Two. Mr. Barney— How long was the flow test running/ Mr. Hanavan — I actually don't know. Mr. Barney— Did you do it? Mr. Hanavan — Oh, no I didn't do it. It was done by the man who actually drilled the well. Chairperson Sigel — Do you have any more comments? Ms. Brazo — No, I think I covered everything. I guess I was just wondering, if it was zoned for residential use, then in the paper here, it says "a formation of the Ithaca Distilling Company", which would be a business. Am I correct in that? You can't have a business in a residential. Mr. Barney— You can have a farming business. Chairperson Sigel — You can have a farm in a Low-Density Residential Zone. Ms. Brazo- A farm, but "Ithaca Distilling Company" is not a farm. Chairperson Sigel —Well, it may be under the Ordinance. The transformation of farmed goods into a finished product can also be part of a farm. Just because they call it the Ithaca Distilling Company, doesn't really have any bearing on whether it is allowed or not. You could make something sound like a company that doesn't belong there, but it is more what they do that determines whether they are allowed to be there. Mr. Hanavan —We actually have two names at this point. One is Coy Glen Gardens and then I have registered Ithaca Distilling Company to have something to put on the label of the product. Actually, I have one thing, I don't' know whether it is interesting or not, but I wanted to show you a picture of the still, the actual thing that makes this different from any other type of operation, including a winery. Chairperson Sigel —Anyone else wish to speak? 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Catherine Teeter, 1413 Mecklenburg Road — My property is adjacent to the Hanavan's property on the west side. Basically, I'm here to support my neighbor's in their water concerns. I also have concern's about water. We have our own well, but it is not the deepest of wells and I am concerned, the distillery, having a home there, having the orchard there, growing vegetables or herbs, I have no problem with that. I do have an issue with a distillery going in. There is waste from a distillery. I believe Jeff has talked about waste issues. I know how sensitive the Town is about the upper Copy Glen Creek area. They are very, very sensitive about that and I think that it would have been nice if we had been told ahead of time that you were planning a distillery because when we had talked in the past, it was orchards. There was no mention of the distillery. Also, if you could have shared with us your building plot plan. You didn't do that. Chairperson Sigel — If you could just please direct your comments to the Board. Ms. Teeter— It would have been nice to have seen the plot plan so we would know where the buildings were before tonight. It may have allayed a lot of fears if we had seen that ahead of time. What about odor from a distillery. Is there going to be odor at some point in time that would be offensive to the neighbors? I know there is a lot of residential planning going on in our region. Those are a few of my concerns. Odor, you know sewer, you know waste, possible impact on the upper Coy Glen Creek area, and the traffic that may ensue from, like a roadside stand. That is a dangerous place for people to be pulling in and out of. People drive very fast through there. That section is where people speed up when they are coming up from Ithaca. Those are my concerns. I applaud the Hanavan's entrepreneurial spirit. A distillery disturbs me. Perhaps the danger of having more traffic, trying to pull on the Mecklenburg Road. Chairperson Sigel —Would you just mind showing Ms. Teeter the picture? Mr. Hanavan indicates that what you see there is the extent of the distillery. Ms. Teeter— That is an initial distillery. If this were to take off, would he just keep it to this size? Chairperson Sigel — That is what he has proposed and that is what we would give him a variance for. Ms. Teeter— I would like to see the plan of where the buildings are going to be placed, as well. Chairperson Sigel — Is this information available to people who inquire? Mr. Frost— Yes. I did have a telephone call to Mr. Prudence. 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel —For future reference, if you are aware that there is going to be a hearing for something in your area, you can ask the Town for a copy of all the information that was submitted. Ms. Teeter—Anyway, and I am supporting my neighbors concerns of course. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, well thank you very much for you comments. Anybody else wish to speak? Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Mike, any comments. Mr. Smith — You have the EAF. Just a few things that were mentioned. The traffic that was mentioned seemed very minimal for the distillery, which the applicants had outlined in number of trips coming in. The property is located within the Tompkins County Agricultural District. The property is also located within one of the target areas for the Town's PAR program. The southern area and the western area of the property, which on the aerials is pretty much the wooded area, is the Coy Glen Unique Natural Area and it pretty much follows the boundary of the open area and shouldn't be impacted by the distillery or existing agricultural uses. Inaudible voice Mr. Smith — Purchase and development rights for agricultural lands. Mr. Hanavan —We have been in discussions with the Town regarding selling our development rights to that property, which would forbid subdivision of that property into housing because we have always intended to retain, if not enhance the agricultural aspect of the property, but a lot of that is dependant on our, you know, what we can do with the land and whether we can really farm it at all. Chairperson Sigel — Can you make a comment about the odor of the distillery might produce? Mr. Hanavan — Yes. The still is currently wood-fired. It could at some point be converted and probably would be converted to propane heat, but, as you can see, the size and the scope of it is comparable to a large wood burning stove, so there would be the wood burning smell whenever that was being produced. In terms of product itself, the output is virtually odorless. Chairperson Sigel — I wouldn't imagine that you would smell any of the product at any distance from the building. 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hanavan — No, we have plans to deal with the safe liquid waste in septic and anything we can use as fertilizer and basically, cooked to the point where they are almost desiccated, from what I have seen, they have very little odor, much less than a normal manure fertilizer, for instance. Mr. Krantz— You know a farm stand on that small amount of road frontage, would, in my eyes, create a problem. Route 79 is a major highway with a 55 mile an hour speed limit and cars really zip by there. Yet, if it is agricultural land, they are allowed to put up a farm stand without us having anything to say about it. Chairperson Sigel — Is it your intention to try to put the stand by the road? Mr. Hanavan — No. The intention, if anything we plan to put it near where that existing barn is or across from the roadway from that. The question about are we going to formulate the time period of production, do we need to discuss that more? Chairperson Sigel —Assuming that the rest of the Board is inclined favorably, I would think that we could make a variance for the structures that you intend to start at least within the 18 month time frame and just set approximate locations for those. You have indicated here your setbacks. Does that seem reasonable? Mr. Barney— It depends what we are constructing again. If you are constructing a barn, that is not an issue, but if you are constructing something that is going to be a use that is a separate business type use, then I think you might want to be careful in exactly what you authorize. Mr. Hanavan — I used an architect to basically read code, so that I could know what type of building would have to be built for the distillery because there aren't only constraints from the ITF and the State Liquor Authority, but there is also constraints based on the type of product that is being produced that make it , that specifically classify what type of construction can be used. So I have done that foot work. Chairperson Sigel — I would certainly feel more comfortable if we had some more specific site plans for- Mr. Hanavan — The thing is in the plan, I indicated, I think at 24 x 48 foot building, that is, in fact, fairly large, relatives to what I potentially need, but I didn't want to be surprised and all of a sudden be up against a situation where I couldn't build what I needed. I have a plan here of the building and it is basically the same structure as the barn that we are building. We are reusing that plan, intending to reuse that plan for the distillery. I don't know whether you would like to... Chairperson Sigel — Sure, yeah. Does it indicate where on the site? 24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hanavan — No. We are fairly close to having an exact location for the distillery. Chairperson Sigel — Typically when we are granting a variance for something like this, we do have plans that are more specific, the setbacks, exactly where you are going to put it on the site, the setbacks from the property lines. You do indicated the approximate distances. Mr. Barney - I am going to suggest that you may want to adjourn this to get a specific site plan showing where the buildings are going to go, with the actual dimensions of the building as opposed to kind of the sketches that you have here. The variance that you are asking for here is kind of a generic one and I don't think that this Board really is in a position to grant a generic, build anything you want, when you feel like it type of variance. Mr. Hanavan — I tried to provide enough specifics and enough boundaries on what we would build. Right now we are trying to lay out the location of the barn. Even the location of the barn isn't nailed down yet, based on it's July raising. Mr. Barney—When would you have these laid out? Mr. Hanavan — The problem is that my decision about whether I can do whether I can do what I want on the land are based on the variance, so, yeah sure. Ms. Lunde — Part of the problem is that we don't want to invest in buildings and barns and putting that up on the land, which is the beginning of a substantial investment and then build a house if we can't go with the kind of bigger picture project, which was why, even though the distillery is not the first building to be built in the plan, we wanted to get the variance at this point, so that we know that we should move forward. So, that is why, you see, we haven't gotten a finalized house plan at this point. We are in the process of working with a house designer for that and it's position will affect the other buildings, so it is a little bit of a sequential and our intent in using the barn for that type of a design as a re-usable structure. It's a timber frame structure and it is something that is compartmentalized in 12 by 24 foot sections that just can be added, so you add another bench and you add another 12 feet in width. So, our goal in doing that in that reusable way was to give as much of a sense as possible of what that structure is going to be like, but until we have a house design, for example, we don't know the exact placement of the other pieces. Mr. Barney— I just am having trouble finding what the variance is here, quite frankly. It's a farm building, farm operation, you can build farm buildings, period. Chairperson Sigel —Well, there is the 2000 foot- 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney—Well, there is the 2000 foot limit for accessory buildings, but if it is a farm building, you can build multiple farm buildings, you can build a farm, you can build a house, those are not considered accessory buildings. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, that's a primary use. Mr. Barney - As I sit here, if somebody were to say that they want to build two barns and a distillery and they are using it for the production of a product that is based upon what is grown there, I don't' even see the need for a variance, quite frankly. Mr. Frost— But, it seemed to me that it wasn't entirely clear how much stuff they may be using that is from the land and now much stuff they may be using that is not from the land. Mr. Barney— The problem is that if you if you use product from off-site, you begin to lose the farm aspect of it. I think you have to pretty much decide that if you are going to build on this property, pretty much most of the products that you are going to distill are going to have to come off of this property. If you start to wander away from that, I think you are going to be trespassing into a use variance, which is a very difficult variance to get because of the economic aspect. Mr. Frost— I wonder if I am hearing what your concerns are about getting too far into an investment and whether it is possible for the Board to kind of be poled to get some feedback from them as to whether it's worth they're while to pursue this. Chairperson Sigel —Well, John is suggesting that they don't even, if we possibly just make a motion to determine that if their distillery uses a certain minimum percentage of products from their farm, it is part of the farm use, maybe that will take care of all their needs. Mr. Frost— How do I enforce that? Mr. Barney— You stand up here and watch every little drip. Mr. Hanavan —Actually, I have to keep track of every drip, the record-keeping requirements from the government are draconian so I will have not just financial records of source, but every single pass of the still, which I'm thinking might be the criteria for coming up with a number, for instance, like a percent, how many passes of the still. Mr. Barney— The roadside stand limitation, I think is informative because it talks about the roadside stand on a farm is permitted as long as the majority of products sold at such stand shall be or be derived from products produced on the 26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES farm on which the roadside stand is located. So, majority seems to be the magic number. Chairperson Sigel —And that is under accessory buildings. Mr. Barney— Section 803 A. So, I think if you use that same test. I'm not sure that you were asked for a formal determination, but if you want to give it, I suppose that. Chairperson Sigel — I think they are looking for some assurance that what they are going to do would be legal. Mr. Barney— I understand that, but the law kind of gives it to you now. Stay away from becoming a central depository of all of the droppings of the wineries around here, you are going to be okay. That's the test. The motion should be something like " the distillery is permitted in conjunction with a farming operation, provided that at least the majority of the product produced from the distillery is derived from products grown on the farm on which the distillery is located." Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so made. Mr. Hanavan — One difficult concept here is the sense of herbs and fruit. In other words, the output volume of an herb is very, very mall because it is an essential oil. So, can we say something like pass, majority of distilling passes are from the property, only because volumetrically, it will never work out. Inaudible voice Chairperson Sigel — In other words, an herb based product has very little input, but the output would be the same as a much greater quantity of, say, cherries or you know, grapes or whatever. Mr. Hanavan — Or the reverse. Chairperson Sigel — You would use a lot of the fruit to produce the same amount of output as a small amount of herbs. Mr. Hanavan — Potentially. Mr. Barney- You are looking at somebody that the term "pass" is something that Joe Montana did very successfully. Mr. Hanavan — In this still, a pass would be fill up this container on the left, set it boiling and when it is done, that is a pass. 27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney— Now, is the pass time different depending on the product? Mr. Hanavan —Absolutely, very significantly. That's is why it is so hard to come up with some kind of metric that makes sense, other than passes and I do have to record passes. Mr. Krantz— The Eddydale Farm that this Board approved mimics Wegmans. Chairperson Sigel —What does that mean? Mr. Krantz— It means that no way 50 percent of their products produced on their farms. Mr. Frost— I'm not saying that I disagree with you but they were granted various appeals that allowed them to sell stuff beyond what was produced on their property. Chairperson Sigel — Section 8, which refers to a roadside stand says a majority of products sold, which is a pretty loose definition. That is a finished product reference. Products sold shall be derived from products produced on the farm. So, if a majority of what you are selling as a finished product was derived from products on the farm, then it seems that you are meeting the definition of roadside stand and that is sort of what we are comfortable going with. Mr. Hanavan — That actually seems like it would work well, yes. Mr. Frost— Can I ask as the enforcement person here, that the Ordinance makes it subject to the conditions set forth as a roadside stand and the Ordinance uses the wording "seasonal convenience" and it is not clear to me what that means. Chairperson Sigel —Well we are only going to be using part of that definition, "majority of the product sold shall be derived...", I think that is the only part of the definition that they are going to be picking up. Mr. Barney— The problem is that when you start to tangle with the Ag and Markets definition of what you can and can't do with an agricultural district, the Ag and Markets people take a very, very wide view as to what constitutes agriculture and I am quite sure that they would feel very comfortable saying, under these circumstances, a distillery is a part of an agricultural operation. I don't think, quite frankly, that we want to butt heads with Ag and Markets people. If you are going to make it conditional, that "at the request of the Town Zoning Enforcement Agent that you would provide sufficient data and information that presumably, you have got to keep for the ABC people anyway to justify that a majority of your product is coming from sources that derive from the farm." 28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hanavan- If we know it up front, we can definitely make sure to keep those, as an entity, keep that records availably. Chairperson Sigel — Let's make the motion first, about the use of the distillery. Mr. Barney— That second part of it bothers me because then it's sort of saying that we will let you run a business for four years here that doesn't have anything to do with your farm. You're policy-makers, but you are kind of treading now over to use variance type of situation. Chairperson Sigel — I agree. Mr. Hanavan — The other complexity is that the product, for instance, it will take four years, it won't take four years for herbs to be ready to be produced, so we can start producing those rather quickly. For fruit, it takes at least four years, then the product itself is not ready to sell for at least another two to three years and sometimes it's held for up to ten years, so even saying that there is a distinction between that produced and that sold, that distance of time could be five years. Mr. Barney - I think we are talking about production, rather than absolute sales. Mr. Hanavan - OK Mr. Barney - So the question is whether you could... CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —Although it certainly could be based on sales right? I mean until they sell it. Mr. Barney— I'm not sure that that helps us very much, because it's working with the opposite of what they're saying there. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Right, but if they have things produced on-site, herb based that is, they're going to be ready quicker than what they're making from off-site. Mr. Barney—What I'm saying is, you start out, you're distillery producing your herbs, and you move into... CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —Which is on-site, so you may be able to maintain a majority all the time. Mr. Hanavan — so that might alleviate that four-year problem CHAIRPERSON SIGEL -All right, well, I will move John's motion which is basically a finding that a distillery is a permitted part of a farm use if a majority of 29 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES the products sold are derived from or produced on the farm on which the distillery is located. And this is just a generic motion applicable to any farm in a LDR, I guess, or in any ag district I would think. MR. Barney — on any farm. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — On any farm. Is there a second? Mr. Krantz— I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — all in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 023: Jeffrey Hanavan and Katharine Lunde, 1407 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-10.42, Low Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board, in regard to the appeal of Jeffrey Hanavan and Katharine Lunde, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Sections 801 and 803 of the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create an agricultural distillery in conjunction with a farming operation, with accessory agricultural buildings exceeding an aggregate floor area of more than 2,000 square feet on land previously used for agricultural purposes, but zoned for residential use, located at 1407 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-10.42, Low Density Residential Zone, makes the following finding: FINDINGS: A distillery is a permitted part of a farm use if a majority of the products sold from the distillery are derived from products produced on the farm on which the distillery is located. CONDITIONS: Upon request, data must be provided to the Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Officer showing that the requirements for the operation of a distillery are being met, including the requirement that a majority of the products sold from the distillery are derived from products produced on the farm on which the distillery is located. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer 30 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Barney— aren't you going to put condition 2 in there? CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Yes, I'm sorry, John did mention that. Provided that data is provided to the code enforcement officer... Mr. Hanavan — On request. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — On request. Mr. Hanavan — whenever. Mr. Barney— I just don't see a lot of Kegs going in and out. Mr. Hanavan — The other question I have is that the barn is not an accessory building. Are we safe on that issue? CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — If it's part of the farm, then it's not an accessory building, it's a principal use for the farm. MR. Hanavan — OK. Mr. Barney— When you stop being a farm, that becomes an issue. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — So they have no problems building the barns before the house. Mr. Hanavan — OK are we all set? CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Yup. Mr. Hanavan — Thank you. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Thank you. Mr. Niefer— Do you need an OK on the environmental assessment? CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — It didn't actually apply to them at all, I mean it was just a general finding. Thanks for pointing that out though. OK, the next appeal this evening is that of Cayuga Medical Center, Appellant, Lawrence Hoffman, HOLT Architects, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XIII, Section 1303 of the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (effective April 1, 31 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES 2004), to be permitted to construct a building addition to the Cayuga Medical Center with a structural height of 38 ±feet (36 foot limit) located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-2.1, Office Park Commercial Zone. Paul Levesque, 217 North Aurora Street— Good evening, my name is Paul Levesque, I'm with HOLT architects here in Ithaca NY, and this is Larry Hoffman of HOLT architects. And you are correct, that 38 feet is not correct, it should be 89 feet. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — 89 you said? Mr. Levesque — 89 that's correct. The location of the project that we are here to discuss tonight is 101 Dates drive in Ithaca, it's Cayuga Medical Center, and we're proposing a 53,000 square foot addition located at the southwest corner of the existing... Mr. Barney— Hold on there, we're having a little trouble with the 38 being what we advertised and the 89 being what you're looking for. What's your building time frame? When do you want to start? Mr. Hoffman — This fall. Mr. Barney— I really think this ought to be re-advertised with 89 feet. Inaudible. Mr. Frost— This paper says 38 feet, signed by Mr. Hoffman. "... this structure exceeding 38 feet in height..." Mr. Levesque — Exceeding 38 feet. Mr. Hoffman — Exceeding 38 feet... CHAIRPERSON SIGEL - Normally it is stated the height. Mr. Levesque —Well, we are applying for a variance, you know, having been denied permission to construct the structure exceeding ... that's why we're here. Mr. Barney— OK. I don't argue that you have the right to be here, I only argue that you're making a variance for 89 feet. My problem is that when you advertise things for the public to come in, you advertise with sort of a general idea of what you're talking about, and now we're talking about a variance that is 50 feet higher than what was advertised. Our error, I mean it very well could be our error, but now I think rather than spend a lot of time tonight on it, we'd better re-advertise it and have you come in at the next meeting. 32 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Levesque — Mike, how does this come into play with the planning board when we come in for final plan approval? Does not having the zoning variance affect that? Mr. Barney— I think given the circumstances that we may have helped cause the problem, that I would recommend that the planning board go ahead and consider your final site plan, but it may contain a condition still of getting the variance for the 89 feet. Mr. Frost— I mean, it does say plus or minus... Laughter. Mr. Frost—Well it does, I mean if someone were really that concerned about the hospital, I mean the existing building is that high anyhow. Mr. Hoffman — The actual structure that we're proposing is six feet higher than the existing building. Mr. Frost— You know, I take responsibility for it, I mean it's not creating anything higher than is already existing, and if someone was really concerned about it I think they would be here. It does say plus or minus. Well, what does that plus or minus mean? CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —A foot or two. I tend to agree with John, I mean you guys could end up with a variance that gets challenged because it wasn't advertised properly. Mr. Frost— Sorry about that. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —was anyone here to speak about this? Laughter. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Sir? Mr. Frost— He's a member of the hospital. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Oh. Mr. Frost—What specifically will be your time frame? CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — June 17 1 think is the next zoning board meeting. Unknown voice — someone bring a challenge. 33 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth —Will someone bring a challenge? Joe Fitzgerald — I'm sorry, my name is Joe Fitzgerald, Vice President. I think this project has been well-advertised, from the standpoint that there was a public hearing, it's been on the front-page of the newspaper, I think people recognize that we're talking a three-story addition, I think it's common knowledge. People have stopped me all over. I recognize there's an error, and John I respect that, but we're not going back around with the long process like we did last fall. Mr. Barney— I'm not asking you to go through the long process. Mr. Fitzgerald — We want to get this started this fall. Mr. Barney— I'm not quarrelling with that, but my problem is that I sit here as a lawyer and I look at this and I think that nobody in their right mind is going to say that a 38-foot variance is the same as an 89-foot... Mr. Fitzgerald — how does long does the public have to challenge? Mr. Barney— from what? 30 days, from the date of filing the petition. Mr. Fitzgerald — I would risk that. Mr. Frost—What I don't understand, perhaps I'm trying to dig myself out of a hole personally here, I mean the structure is already approaching that existing. I mean part of me would wonder if they really need a variance if they're already at that height. And the hospital is an approved use. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —Well, any addition that is over the height is going to need a variance. Mr. Barney —We did the same type of thing with Ithaca College and anybody else. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — I don't think they have a generic variance to build anything they want. Comments inaudible Mr. Levesque — I'm just saying for now is all. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — I mean John, do you think it's uhh... Mr. Barney— It's not legal. I mean you can go and do anything you want, but it's not legal. It should have been advertised, with all due deference to my colleague 34 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES here, who never in my entire life have I known him to make a mistake, and it probably wasn't his mistake anyway, it's probably the secretary's mistake. But the problem is it's an error of fair signficance. I mean if it was two or three feet or five feet or ten feet even, I think we could probably live with it but we're talking about a fifty foot difference than advertised. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —When are you coming to the planning board? Mr. Levesque — June 17, or somewhere in there. Mr. Smith — June 15th is the planning board that we had them scheduled for. And the next ZBA meeting is June 21. Mr. Fitzgerald — My question is, could we proceed with the risk that if someone in the public in the next thirty days... Mr. Barney— There are times when I'm willing to take these risks when it's a marginal call, but this is not a marginal call. We're basically saying, we violate the law and then we close our eyes. Mr. Fitzgerald — That was my specific question, I was trying to get the specifics of what it would be, so if I'm hearing correctly, the planning board could make... Mr. Barney— Yes. Mr. Fitzgerald — Relative that they would approve it on the fifteenth of June this board would then reconvene then on the 21St, and we're guaranteed at that time we'll be heard. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Oh yes, you'll definitely be on the agenda, you'll be heard. Mr. Barney—We'll put you as first on the agenda. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —we'll put you as first. Mr. Barney—And we'll advertise it as 45 minutes. Mr. Fitzgerald — Then I think we're fine. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —And I think that if the planning board is otherwise going to approve this, I think they would be comfortable approving everything except you know condition on the variance. Mr. Barney— The other thing, is if the board were of a mind to do this, is to call a special meeting at an earlier time. 35 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — I mean, they seem actually satisfied to go with... Mr. Fitzgerald — It's only six days. Mr. Levesque — No no that's fine, as long as we can, my main concern is that we would get hung up with the planning board. Mr. Barney— Joe, I apologize. Mr. Fitzgerald — No that's alright I just don't want to get into July or august. Mr. Barney— I mean I didn't call Andy and say hey make sure you screw this one up. Laughter Mr. Fitzgerald — No I understand it's an honest mistake, we just have some time frames that we need to do, as the planning committee knows, we need to do these while its warm. Mr. Frost—Well, if you're going to the planning board on June 15th and then you come back here five days later, it doesn't seem like that much is lost. Mr. Barney— If you're going to be challenged, I expect you would be challenged on the planning board action not on the ZBA action anyway. Mr. Niefer— Let me ask a question, this is going where you previously entered the hospital, where you get patient information and emergency entrance. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Yeah, to the right, as you're coming up the drive it's on the south side. Mr. Hoffman — You used to enter the hospital, well actually you still enter the hospital in the same place just out, the emergency exit is wrapping around... The old emergency department entrance is right here. Mr. Niefer— so you're gobbling up like the gardens and part of the parking lot. Mr. Hoffman —we are moving the garden and we are creating new parking, additional parking out here ... but that's better. Mr. Niefer— There's some construction going on there now, that's why you've got that valet parking. 36 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hoffman — Yes, radiation and health project which is actually finishing construction. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK, I would move to adjourn the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center to the June 21St meeting. Mr. Barney—Why don't you adjourn it to a specific time, I would put 7:00 as first. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — I'll put them on - to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Barney—Actually no, you'll put a re-notice in anyway. Mr. Frost— I'll advertise it first, without a typo in it. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK, adjourn to the June 21St meeting because the height was advertised incorrectly. Mr. Levesque — I just have one further question, Is there a possibility John that the planning board would not be able to vote on this on the 15th because the Zoning Board hasn't been, has not seen the... We're at final site plan approval from the planning board. Mr. Barney— No I understand that. I don't think that it's a problem. I'm not going to sit here and guarantee, nothing in this world is guaranteed. But certainly I'm prepared to recommend, given the problem that we sort of caused internally here. Mike attends that meeting, he's the — are you the project? Mr. Smith — Yeah, and there are only six conditions that have to be met anyways, so ... CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Even though there's a substantial height variance compared to what exists there, it's not much difference, so I don't see that as being a big part of the planning board's decision. Mr. Smith — I would also mention that this is a type I action and the planning board was the lead agency and did make the negative determination for all of these elements. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — so we don't even have to deal with the SEAR. Mr. Smith — No. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK. Mr. Levesque — Does anyone have any concerns that we should be prepared to address, is it fair to ask that question? 37 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Sure, yeah. Mr. Krantz - None Mr. Barney— Just justify how do you get 50 feet out of this height variance is what I... Mr. Ellsworth —Would it be inappropriate for us to give a contingency that we do approve... CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —well, because we're going to have a public hearing... Mr. Barney— I think it's a little premature to do that until you have the public have an opportunity to speak after proper notification of what it is you're going to be talking about. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — I think they understand though that the board is probably inclined in favor of them. Second, for the motion to adjourn... Mr. Krantz— I Second. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 024:Cayuga Medical Center, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-2.1, Office Park Commercial Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board adjourns the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center to the June 21, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:00 p.m. as a result of the height of the building being advertised incorrectly. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK. Mr. Barney— Sorry. 38 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Sorry about that. See you next month. OK, the next appeal is that of Edward Kratil... APPEAL of Edward Kratil, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Sections 806 and 807 of the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (effective April 1, 2004), to construct a 1,040 + square foot accessory/garage building with a loft located at 1151 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-18, Low Density Residential Zone. Said building will exceed the 15 foot height limit and is proposed to have a side yard setback of 5 ±feet. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Hi. Mr. Kratil — Edward Kratil, 1151 Danby Road. Mrs. Kratil —And Deborah Kratil, 1151 Danby Road. Mr. Kratil —What we would like to do is provide parking on a daily basis for the two vehicles, as well as shop space in the back to restore an old car as well as some loft space for storage up top, up above. I assure you there is no distillery involved. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — If there was you may want to put it up on the second floor in the back. Mr. Kratil — that may work. We are asking for two variances, one is in height, just to provide us with some extra storage space up above. And the second would be to encroach in the 15-foot side-yard setback required by what is considered a one-story garage. Due to the placement of the house on the site and the siting of the existing gravel driveway, we would like to fit this structure between the property line and out existing shed, so we don't have to move it. In addition we would like to keep the roof pitches appropriate to the house that we own, therefore we would need the additional variance for the height. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — I stopped by your home today and looked out back and I have to say I don't really have a problem with the height, but I do find it hard to believe that you can't situate it reasonably on the lot such that it doesn't encroach on the 40 foot or close to a 40 foot setback. I mean, is there a reason why you're trying to retain the existing shed in particular. It seems pretty small compared to what you're building. Mr. Kratil — It is. I think that's probably the best spot for the garage, because it is a straight shot off the gravel roundabout that exists now. If we were to remove the existing shed, we would lose a lot more green space that you can see right from the back of the house. 39 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — I mean I appreciate your feeling that that may be the best spot for the new structure from your point of view, but on the other hand you have a fairly large lot, you do have some considerable flexibility as to where you can place it, and at least as far as I can see it would seem still pretty reasonable to basically put it where the shed is now, and one of the findings we need to make when we grant a variance is that there is no reasonable alternative other than getting the variance to achieve what the applicant wants to achieve, and in this case I would have a hard time making that finding since, you know, it would be pretty easy for you to move it over, and if it were set back say partly, I mean, either location you would put it, I assume you would take out some trees, sort of set it back into the woods a little bit. Mr. Kratil — There are two remaining trees that would need to be removed. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK, so I mean setting it back a little farther into the wooded area or moving it over some, I don't really see a significant difficulty in that. That's just my feeling, I'll let other board members. Mr. Krantz— I concur with your conclusion. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK. Mr. Ellsworth — I agree. I don't think it has to be 40 feet necessarily. Mr. Kratil — The existing shed is 43 feet from the property line. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Yeah. Mr. Kratil —Which would put I guess the left side of the garage right about at the left side of the existing shed, that would mean we would have to gravel about 50 feet almost in a diagonal toward the southeast, and that would take up whatever grass we have between the existing maple to be saved there and the large pine trees on the right hand side. Whereas if we kept it in a straight shot, we would still have some green space back there. Mr. Frost— I mean he shows on his map on the larger site sketch, existing maple tree to be saved, which kind of pushes the... CHAIRPERSON SIGEL SIGEL —Well that's going to be saved no matter where he puts the... Mr. Frost—Well I mean if he's' going to have a driveway in. Are you going to have a driveway into this that's not shown on this sketch? Mr. Kratil — Yes, basically it's going to be a straight, straight shot into the... 40 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost— It wouldn't be a straight shot to the driveway if he has to line it up with the... CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK, so normally the setback is 40 feet but you're allowed 25 feet for the garage, but this exceeds the height for a garage. So you couldn't put it 15 feet by right. Mr. Frost— But you know the ordinance, and I'm not so sure the new ordinance clearly addresses this, the old ordinance considers the garage an accessory building and an accessory building can be 3 or 5 feet from the property line, but they specifically say a garage has to be 15 foot, so if he didn't park a car in there he could be 3 feet or 5 feet in this zone. The fact that he puts a car in there... CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — But can an accessory building be this high? Mr. Frost— No. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK. Mr. Frost—we still have the height variance. Mr. Kratil — they also have one story garage and a two-story garage, too. Mr. Frost— This is a storage loft, so I don't know. In some cases, the building code doesn't consider a loft or a mezzanine a story, if the loft or mezzanine is no more than a third of the floor area of the space below. Mr. Kratil — There is no intended living space up there. Mr. Frost— I guess what I'm saying is that if he weren't putting a car in there, he'd be fine with a five foot setback I think in this particular zone. The fact that he's putting a car in there is making him have to have an increased setback and then the height is the height. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Right, right. Well, if no one else has any comments, maybe we'll open the public hearing, see if anyone has any comments before we start to haggle over differences. We'll open the public hearing now, if anyone wishes to speak, sir, please. Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. Mr. Yengo — John Yengo. I'm hear representing my wife who owns the property at 1147 to 1149 Danby Road, lot 36-2-2.2. These folks are my neighbors. He's reviewed his entire plan with both my wife and myself. I couldn't ask for better 41 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES neighbors. I couldn't ask for a better plan. I'm here to support any decision that he makes in building this facility. The issue as I see it is height, well the trees are about 4 times as tall as he wants to build his garage. So he's not going to remove them, he's going to set his garage among them which will certainly enhance the beautiful, the beauty of his 100 year old house that he lives in. He has the personal skills to do this. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —for me personally I'm not so concerned about the height, just about the rather small setback that he proposed from the lot line. Mr. Yengo —Well, I heard you say that you visited the site, and if you walk back there you will see that it is quite wooded. And this is why people buy properties like this. They want the woods to remain, they don't want to think in terms of tearing down, cutting down trees. So the reason he hasn't moved in one direction or the other is because of it. And the other thing is, as he perceives it, it's a straight line again coming off of Route 96 B. You want a straight line to your garage. You don't want any curves or anything, because you'll never make it in wintertime. But, I just think that the project is done in a professional manner, I think that the neighbor who has been there since 1962, 1 can't even add it up anymore, doesn't object. He's over 200 feet away from his other neighbor. Ithaca College owns everything behind him, so god forbid someday they're going to come in and emancipate the whole territory, so he's going to be — he's probably going to be the one who's going to suffer with that particular excavate. They own 30 acres behind him. So, why can't he do what he wants now? CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK, thank you very much for your comments. MR. BARNEY —What's the total height of this building? Mr. Kratil — I scaled off the builders drawings, and we're looking at 22 feet. Mr. Barney— 22 feet? That's all the way to the peak of the roof? Mr. Kratil — That's correct. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —Anyone else wish to speak? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Well, for me personally, given the ringing endorsement of your neighbor there, I would feel comfortable imposing the normal setback for a garage which is only 15 feet which I don't think would affect your, and depending on how you angle it may require that you move or remove the shed, but I don't that would affect the layout... Mr. Kratil — That would require the removal of the shed. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK. But I mean otherwise I don't think it would affect the layout a whole lot as far as the utility of the structure for you. I don't know 42 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES how others feel. If other board members feel like 15 feet would be a large enough setback or not. Mr. Krantz— Sure. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK. Mr. Krantz—And the height variance. Mr. Barney— I'm sorry, I didn't understand your answer to the question, Mr. Kratil, if you go 15 feet, you would have to remove that shed? Mr. Kratil — I do believe so, yes. Mr. Smith — The dimensions are right up here — there's 43 feet between the shed and the property line. If you take the 15 foot setback off of that, you have 28 feet, and the building width is 26 feet, so it seems like it might squeeze in. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — you'd squeeze it in there a little. Mrs. Kratil —We'd have to move the shed because we'd have side doors to get lawnmowers and tools and all kinds of things out, the shed would have to move in order let the doors fold in to bring access to the... Mr. Barney — To the garage? Mr. Kratil — To the shop area. Mrs. Kratil — To the shop area, yeah. Mr. Frost— to the new building. Would the board consider something close to 15 foot, but not 5 foot, that maybe will enable him to get his doors open on the shed? I don't know what that number would be, but... CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — It seems like you would have to lose — I mean the 15 foot is already pretty modest, I mean I think it's pretty modest considering that its higher than a normal garage. Mr. Barney— We're trespassing now from legal to policy, and I know I'm doing that. If you have a next door neighbor for whom these yard setback requirements are basically designed to protect, and he's saying I don't care, I like it where it is there, and there are some difficulties, although not necessarily insurmountable ones, but difficulties in siting it, why not go with the ... The next door neighbor was here and concerned about it, then that's a different story, but your balancing the pros for the one side, the applicant to the detriment of the neighbor, but the neighbor is saying there isn't any detriment. 43 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — That's a good point. John is pointing out that the test we are supposed to make is the balance of the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the surrounding community, which in this case is obviously the neighbor on that side, and the neighbor is fully in favor of locating it where the neighbor has requested. Mr. Krantz— OK, fine with me. Mr. Barney— Do I get to vote now? CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — I think you just did. Alright so do we need to do environmental assessment forjust an area variance? OK, any comments on it? No, OK. Alright, well I guess that the town attorney convinced us. Mr. Barney— It's your decision. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — I know. OK, I will move to grant the appeal of Edward Kratil requesting variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Sections 806 and 807 of the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (effective April 1, 2004), to construct a 1,040 ± square foot accessory/garage building with a loft located at 1151 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-18, Low Density Residential District. Said building will exceed the 15 foot height limit and will be no greater than 22 feet? Are you OK with that? Mr. Kratil — OK. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —Will be no greater in height than 22 feet and will be no closer to the north side? Mr. Kratil — Uh, yes. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — No closer to the north side lot line than 5 feet, with the finding that the requirements for an area variance has been satisfied and with the condition that the structure be built substantially similar, or substantially as shown on the applicant's plans and sited as indicated on the applicant's plans. Second? Mr. Ellsworth — Second. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 025: Edward Kratil,1151 Danbv Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.36.-2-18, Low Density Residential Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. 44 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Edward Kratil, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Sections 806 and 807 of the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (effective April 1, 2004), to construct a 1,040 ± square foot accessory/garage building with a loft located at 1151 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-18, Low Density Residential Zone. Said building height will exceed the 15 foot limit and must be no greater in height than 22 feet and must be no closer to the north side lot line than 5 feet. FINDINGS: The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: The structure be built substantially as shown on the applicant's plans and sited as indicated on the applicant's plans. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Thank you very much. Mr. Kratil — Thanks. Mr. Hamilton — That's all folks. Mr. Frost—What did you do? Scare them away? Mr. Hamilton — Scott Hamilton, 201 Christopher Lane. I'm here to request a variance to replace a stick-built 1 family residence, located at 930 Mitchell Street, with a modern new, tightened, 2004 tightened modular 1 story ranch. The new structure would... and until we do the demolition, we won't know exact, but would be the same or smaller than the current structure, situated on the same footprint. I think our plans have been presented. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Do you need a variance to rebuild a... Mr. Hamilton — Legal, non-conforming use? 45 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Frost—We weren't sure, when I spoke to Scott about this and I think we wanted to be safe and I actually though you might actually also possibly be larger. Mr. Hamilton —Well, we weren't sure. Inaudible comments. Mr. Hamilton — It's so old, the current structure, until, we don't know what the current status of the foundation is and what work will have to be done, but the builder came over this weekend and took a look at it and ensured us that it would be no greater than and probably less than the current footprint. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK. Would the height be about the same? Mr. Hamilton — They would be lower. Modulars are fairly low-level. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Yeah. Mr. Hamilton — Part of the concern I had was when this was built eons ago, is this was all farm land residential and it's now commercially zoned, so I wanted to be sure there are no problems after the fact. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Yeah, community commercial. I mean, the property obviously predates zoning. Mr. Frost— Right, but if the house was replaced in kind then he wouldn't need an approval from the board, but it wasn't clear whether we would be exactly what was there. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — It would seem that if you're putting up something that is in all ways smaller, it's more footprint, it's more height, it's more square footage. Mr. Ellsworth — In any case it seems like it should be approved, but the question is, is that really even necessary? CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — Right, exactly. Mr. Frost— But as Scott said, I had this conversation with Scott before I prepared the notice, but once we look at the building, look at the foundation, something could change. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — But I'm not sure the board would want to grant a variance for anything substantially larger. 46 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hamilton — and that's not the intent. I might add that this is currently a little apartment that we have for two of my key employees who have been with me over 20 years, and I'm just basically upgrading their living facilities. It's just provided for them, it's not being used as rental property, or... it's residential housing for these people who will... Pause CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —What do you think, John? Mr. Barney— I'm having a little trouble with one section here. Under 2501, non- conforming use of the land it seems perfectly reasonable, it basically says that you just can't enlarge or increase it. 2503 talks about non-conforming uses of structures, and subdivision 1 says no existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this ordinance for the zone in which it is located may be enlarged, extended, constructed, moved or structurally altered except in changing the use of a structure to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located or to a use permitted by section 2507. Comments inaudible Mr. Barney—Well, you're allowed to re-build I think. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — is there a separate right to rebuild? I mean in this case... Mr. Barney— Yeah, section 2508 deals with that if you have a "nothing here shall prevent the use or substantial renovation and continued use of a non-conforming building damaged by fire, flood, earthquake, an act of god or the act of public enemy provided that..." CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —what about damage by the ravages of time? Mr. Barney— I think maybe you might seriously consider that a possibility. Tape is changed Mr. Barney - ...jurisdiction here determining claims as to whether particular uses are valid non-conforming or whether non-conforming use of the property can be enlarged, or any other matter relating to the non-conforming use... so I think if you wanted to make a finding that this building has deteriorated such that it is not really suitable for current use if it is going to be replaced by a building that does not exceed its size that that will be effectively a continuation of the same use even though it is altering or altering a structural part of the property. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL - OK, without having to grant a use variance for that? 47 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barney— No, no. Mr. Frost— Scott, I think you said that the building was originally a schoolhouse, was that the conversation we had? Mr. Hamilton — I think it was many many years ago, quite a bit of history was provided to you in your packet. Cornell University at one of their historic workshops surveyed that area and came up with that house. An interesting history certainly. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — so do we have to do an environmental assessment for? Mr. Barney— It never hurts. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —What's that? Mr. Barney— I said it never hurts. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — It never hurts, OK. OK, we'll open the public hearing at this point. Chairperson Sigel opens the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — there being no one left in the room other than the applicant we will close the public hearing as well. Chairperson Sigel closes the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK, I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Mr. Hamilton for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment form prepared by Mike Smith and dated May 7, 2004. Mr. Ellsworth — I second that. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 026 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT :Scott and Susan Hamilton, 930 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.- 1-2.2, Community Commercial Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. 48 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Scott and Susan Hamilton, Appellants, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XXV, Sections 2500 through 2510 of the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (effective April 1, 2004), to replace a non-conforming single-family residence with a new residential building located at 930 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-1-2.2, Community Commercial Zone. Said residence is in a commercial zone. This motion is made for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated May 7, 2004. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —And I will move to make a determination in regard to the appeal of Scott Hamilton requesting an approval from the zoning board of appeals under section 2508 of the town zoning ordinance replacing a non- conforming single family residence with a new residential building located at 930 Mitchell street, tax parcel 62-1-2.2. That— make the determination just in this case, in the case of this structure? Mr. Barney— Yes. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — The structure has deteriorated to the point where it requires replacement and given the conditions that the new building will be no larger than the footprint of the current building, no higher than the height of the current building and no greater square footage, interior square footage, than the current building, that the building can be rebuilt. Second? Mr. Ellsworth — Second. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL —All in favor? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 027:Scott and Susan Hamilton, 930 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.-1-2.2, Community Commercial Zone. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board makes a determination in regard to the appeal of Scott and Susan Hamilton, Appellants, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XXV, Sections 2508 of the revised Town of Ithaca 49 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Zoning Ordinance, to replace a non-conforming single-family residence with a new residential building located at 930 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-1-2.2, Community Commercial Zone. Said residence is in a commercial zone. FINDINGS: The structure has deteriorated to the point where it requires replacement and qualifies for such replacement under Section 2508. CONDITIONS: The new building must be no larger than the footprint of the current building, no higher than the height of the current building and have no greater interior square footage than the current building. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK, thank you. Mr. Frost— Thank you folks. CHAIRPERSON SIGEL — OK, if there is no further official business, we shall adjourn. Chairperson Sigel adjourns the meeting at 9:23 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson 50