Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2003-01-27 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2003 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairman; Harry Ellsworth, Vice-Chairman; James Niefer, Board Member; Andrew Dixon, Board Member; Andy Frost, Director of Building/Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED: Ronald Krantz, Board Member ALSO PRESENT: Greeley Ford, Cingular Wireless; Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road; Todd Knickerbockers, Nextel Partners, Minn Htwe, 329 Winthrop Drive, Patty Dunbar, address not given/found; Jean Wessly, 330 Winthrop Drive; Orlando lacovelli, 347 Coddington Road; Chairperson Sigel called the January 27, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:03 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Welcome to the January 27th meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have four appeals, that of Minn Htwe, that of Orlando lacovelli, that of Nextel Partners, that of Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems. We will be taking them in that order. The first appeal this evening is that of Minn Htwe. Mr. Frost — His representative is not here yet. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, we'll skip that one for now. APPEAL : Orlando lacovelli, Appellant, requesting a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article III, Section 4 (2b) and variances from the requirements of Article III, Sections 7 and 9, and Section 280A of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to construct a two-family home, which does not front on a Town, County, or State Highway and to occupy said home by six unrelated people at 384 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 54-7-30 and 54-7-31.1, Residence District R-9. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Could you give us a brief overview of what you're asking for, what you want. Let me just first state that I handed out a sheet to everyone with a summary of the recent variances granted in that area so it would be easier to compare what did and did not get approved. Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road — What's proposed is, I guess you would call it a continuation of what Mr. lacovelli has done on Pennsylvania Avenue Extension. You should all have a map in your packets that shows three dwellings that are not patched in which exist on Pennsylvania Avenue Extension. What's proposed here tonight is to build this fourth house that patched in on a combined two-lots, actually three of the old Ithaca land tract parcels. This one parcel here, the hundred foot lot, that sits to the east of this lot is actually two of the old Ithaca land tract parcels and the third would be essentially the bulk of where the building would sit. So, we're roposing to consolidate those three old 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Ithaca Land Tract Lots into one. Have this one building on it. We're asking for special approval to have as many as six unrelated people in that dwelling. Some other things of interest, Mr. lacovelli now owns all the lots on that Pennsylvania Ave Extension with the exception of this one lot, which he's in negotiations with the Rapponi's to own, which is shown penciled in on that same map. To the east of this land, Mr. lacovelli owns, the Martin's own many parcels that are essentially consolidated into their estate, if you will. Their house sits at the end of Kendall Avenue, if you're familiar with that and essentially their yard and their back yard are what now adjoins this land. In the letter that we wrote to Andy, we spoke to the different issues relating to 280(a) of Town Law, which is one thing that you're looking at is building on a lot that's not on a Town highway. Those are very similar arguments to what you've heard on the other three dwellings that I pointed out earlier. Just briefly, there's a fifty foot right of way that extends from the end of Pennsylvania Town highway, which would be to the west. As a part of building the first two units, Mr. lacovelli built the 16 foot wide driveway that exists and serves the three dwelling units at this point. This would not require any more access than currently exists to serve this fourth dwelling. The parking is proposed in front of that building as it is with the other three buildings and as we pointed out in our letter, it's really been to the satisfaction of the fire department and the Town Highway was involved in terms of the drainage culvert that was put in when that driveway was built. An alternate access is not really feasible. The only way you can get alternate access is from the east, through the Martin parcel. The Martin's have pretty much been on record for twenty years as hoping to consolidate all this and now, as the two major land owners, the Martin's aren't interested in this roadway, the Iacovelli's really aren't interested in that becoming a roadway. It doesn't seem too likely that it would become a roadway. So, it's the only really viable means of alternate access. The request for a variance is similar and not very substantial. The only direct impact would be on the five homes. The two that aren't shown on this map and the three, all five of which are owned by Mr. lacovelli, his brother and his wife. Basically, I pointed out that the old Ithaca Land Tract plot dates back to the 1890's so it's nothing that any body has created other than to try and make some sense out of these old 50 foot lots. That pretty much covers the points of the asking you to allow him to build on a lot that doesn't front on a Town road. The other points in the letter really speak to the special approval for the occupancy by up to six unrelated people and I'll just read through those very briefly then. "The general purpose of improving neighborhoods by consolidating parcels and lowering overall densities is one of the things that this proposal would accomplish. The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use and will increase open space in the neighborhood. The proposed use, location and design is identical to the neighboring homes and consistent with the district in the neighborhood. The proposed use has the support of the neighborhood and will increase open space further solidifying the neighborhood character by eliminating legal non-conforming lots of 6,000 square feet. Access and egress will be over the existing 16 foot driveway already approved by the Ithaca Fire Department and Town Highway Department. The traffic generated by six people can be expected to be a maximum of 24 trips per day". Which is a pretty light load on this dead end section of Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenue. Water and sewer lines exist in the right of way and since this particular parcel is up hill of the sewer, it's just the gravity connection into the sewer and it simply taps into the water main for the service. Parking will be off the right of way and access by way of a 16 foot driveway out to the public portion of Pennsylvania Avenue. There is no change in the natural gainage patterns or the contours of the land. Essentially, the house will be built into the contour of the existing land. I think, in brief, that's the point that we're expected to speak to and vote. 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — Do you know when the other lots were consolidated? Mr. Fabbroni — Prior to. I really don't. One person owned both of them. Before Mr. Ledger owned it, some absentee owner owned it and I think he consolidated it at that point in the ownership pattern. Chairperson Sigel — I'm a little confused by your claim that there's only 2/3 the density. Mr. Fabbroni — Well, if you had a two-family on the 100 foot lot and you had one-family on the 50 foot lot. Chairperson Sigel — The two-family would allow four unrelated occupants and the single-family would allow three. So that's seven and you're proposing six. So 6/7. Mr. Fabbroni — I stand corrected. Chairperson Sigel — I'm just making sure I was not missing something. Could you elaborate a little on your comment about buying the Rapponni parcel? Mr. Fabbroni — We're not holding the Board to that, nor seeking that tonight, but I think it would be fair to say that there are two remaining empty parcels, the Rapponni's lot and the lots between- shown as lot 37 on your map or it's west of the parcel that the building would be built on or east of the building that was built last year. We intend to come back and try and densify based on consolidating those lots if we're able to purchase the Rapponni lot rather than build additional homes on this driveway so you know that. Chairperson Sigel — We appreciate that. I assume that what you want is three to live in each half. When you say two-family house, you mean there are two separate entrances. Or are you looking at six in one house? Mr. Fabbroni- Six in one unit. For all practical purposes, there are separate entrances. There is an entrance at the lower level, but they aren't separate units. Chairperson Sigel — So there will only be one kitchen? Mr. Fabbroni — Correct. Chairperson Sigel —1 don't really see how this is a two family house. Doesn't there have to be separate kitchens in a two-family house? Mr. Frost — There has to be two kitchens in a two family house. Chairperson Sigel — You're application has this as a two family dwelling. It would be a significantly larger stretch to put six in what is really a one family home when there should be three. 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Mr. lacovelli — We're going to deal with, basically students. They come to me in groups between four and six and I'd like to be able to accommodate them in some well constructed places that can meet their needs. I have all of the egresses. Mr. Niefer— I see the rationale of doing it from the owner's standpoint, but if we're dealing with a two family house with only one kitchen. Mr. Frost — I think we have to clarify that. It is a single family house. The single family house has one kitchen in it, a two family has two kitchens. I think there is an error. Mr. Niefer— So, how many unrelated people does that allow to be living in this house, in this area? Mr. Frost — In a single family, normally, it would be three, but the provisions of an R-9 zone permit, by special permit, which is what they are here for, a permit to increase occupancy beyond that which is permitted. So, I'm not sure whether it is a one or two family. Granted, it is confusing, it is misrepresented in the application, it is a single family, but the occupancy, by special permit in an R-9 zone is permitted to be greater than three, by special approval of the Board. Mr. Niefer— Is the other property, that is proposed in the same circumstances. The other location there, 249? Mr. Frost — They are all in R-9. Mr. Fabbroni — Any place where you've consolidated to, for instance, there's other examples in the neighborhood where, by consolidating these smaller lots together, that provision has been given by this Board. Which I think, that speaks to some of them. It's more of a common occurrence than an exception. Mr. Frost — They could build, these are two building lots, they could build two single family residences, but they're consolidating structures into one. Chairperson Sigel — They could build a two family on the legal lot and a one family. Mr. Iacovelli — I've proposed to consolidate all these lots into one. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Fabbroni — That's what you were speaking to earlier. Theoretically, you could have seven unrelated people in the two dwellings or three families. Chairperson Sigel — I have to say that when I thought it was a two family house, I was fairly comfortable. I'm a little more hesitant now that it is only a one family. Looking at our other recent cases here, there are a couple of one family applications, one by Mr. Steele who we granted four. One by your brother who we did grant six, but he did have quite a large lot where he could have built another two family house. I have to ask the other members of the Board if you feel comfortable with this being a one family? 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Mr. Dixon — I'm comfortable with it being a one family just because of the experience I have with Collegetown, where there are as many as eight students living with a single kitchen. Mr. Ellsworth — I mean could they just stick a hot plate- Mr. Frost — A dwelling unit, by definition is a space that provides separate area for cooking, sleeping and sanitary provisions. The Town Board has ruled in the past that if you eliminate one of those provisions, the structure is no longer a dwelling unit. Therefore by eliminating the kitchen, if you have one kitchen, it's one dwelling unit, two kitchens, it's two dwelling units. Chairperson Sigel — If you wanted it to have two separate kitchens would there have to be a fire wall. Mr. Frost — A fire separation with two tenant spaces. Chairperson Sigel — Separate entrances? Mr. Frost — Well, they could have a common entrance into the building, but then separate entrances into each apartment. Mr. Niefer— Well, I guess from my perspective, it's not much different than what's already in the neighborhood. It's kind of a common practice over there, one way or another. Mr. Frost — Single family residence, while I think landlords tend to have leases and keep tract of the number of tenants that they have in a building a lot of time students bring in extra people, perhaps a single family residence would exercise better control over the number of tenants than a two family. Chairperson Sigel — Well, I guess this is a (comments inaudible). Mike any comments on the Environmental Assessment? Mr. Smith — It's very similar to the past applications that the Board has granted and it is in the R-9 District, which is the most dense residence that we have and the comprehensive plan designates this area as urban residential, again the denser area of the Town. Chairperson Sigel — John, do you think that there is a problem with the advertising of this as a two family house? Mr. Barney — Have you had your public hearing yet? Chairperson Sigel — No. Mr. Barney — It's a close call, quite frankly and it should have been advertised as a single family house. The purist in me says that we ought to re-advertise it and reconsider it. The pragmatic side of me says that it's not going to matter. Chairperson Sigel — Anyone interested probably would have showed up either way. 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Mr. Barney — Not necessarily. That's the whole point. If they saw it was a two family, they might not have shown up. Mr. Frost — The basis of the appeal really is by special permit. Mr. Barney — To have more than permitted. Mr. Frost — So, I'm not so sure. I'm not the lawyer, but it doesn't seem to- Mr. Barney — Since when. Have we changed things around here lately? Chairperson Sigel — Okay, well, you're semi flexible with this? Mr. Barney — That's a nice way to articulate it. Chairperson Sigel — If there are no further questions. I'll open the public hearing. Would anyone like to speak. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:23 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:24 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — If there are no further questions, would someone like to make a motion on the Environmental Assessment? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-001: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Orlando lacovelli, 384 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 54.-7-30 and 54.-7-31.1, Residence District R-9 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Orlando lacovelli, Appellant, requesting a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article III, Section 4 (2b) and variances from the requirements of Article III, Sections 7 and 9, and Section 280A of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to construct a single-family home, which does not front on a Town, County, or State Highway and to occupy said home by six unrelated people at 384 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 54-7-30 and 54-7-31.1, Residence District R-9, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff and dated January 15, 2003. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — I will move to grant the appeal of Orlando lacovelli, requesting special approval. Should I do this as one or two? Mr. Barney — I probably would do this as two because one of the tests is slightly different. One motion for the road and one for the tenants. Mr. Frost — Section 7 talks about front yard. Chairperson Sigel — Should we specify a time frame. Mr. Barney — The consolidation really relates more to the occupancy, I think, than it does to the — so that I was going to suggest those conditions, you'd probably want to pose the variance. I would say than within 60 days of when we grant that appeal. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-002: Orlando lacovelli, 384 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 54.-7-30 and 54.-7-31.1, Residence District R-9 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Orlando lacovelli, Appellant, requesting an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, from the requirements of Article III, Sections 7 and 9, and Section 280A of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to construct a single-family home, which does not front on a Town, County, or State Highway at 384 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 54-7-30 and 54-7- 31.1, Residence District R-9. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a. That Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 54.-7-30 and 54.-7-31.1 be consolidated within 60 days after the granting of this appeal. b. A copy of the letter requesting the consolidation, addressed to the Tompkins County Assessment Department be provided to the Director of Building and Zoning no later than the end of that 60 day period. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-003: Orlando lacovelli, 384 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 54.-7-30 and 54.-7-31.1, Residence District R-9 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Orlando lacovelli, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article III, Section 4 (2b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to occupy a single-family house by up to, but not more than, six unrelated people at 384 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 54-7-30 and 54-7-31.1, Residence District R-9. FINDINGS: a. The requirements fora special permit have been satisfied under Article XIV, Section 77, Subsection 7, Sub-paragraphs a-h. CONDITIONS: a. That Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 54.-7-30 and 54.-7-31.1 be consolidated within 60 days of the granting of this appeal. b. A copy of the letter requesting the consolidation, addressed to the Tompkins County Assessment Department be provided to the Director of Building and Zoning no later than the end of that 60 day period. C. No subdivision shall occur of that consolidated lot at any time in the future, unless the occupancy is reduced to the maximum permitted under the Zoning Ordinance without the need for a special approval. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : Minn Htwe, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a single-family residence with four unrelated occupants at 329 Winthrop Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.104, Residence District R-15. Said request is to allow such occupancy until June 1, 2003. Chairperson Sigel — Hello. Do you want to give us a brief overview of what you're asking for. Patty Dunbar, address not given/found— I kind of interpret for these guys. At this point, there are three students living with Minn Htwe at 329 North Winthrop Drive. His wife and children are in Burma. 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 He has made no structural change, no nothing to the house. Everything has remained the same. What he's asking for is permission for the students to stay until his wife and children return from Burma. Mr. Niefer— Has notice been sent out to the neighbors? Mr. Frost — Yes. I believe we have someone from the neighborhood here. Mr. Niefer— Has the orange sign been posted? Ms. Dunbar—Yes. Mr. Niefer— Where's it posted? Ms. Dunbar— On the post out at by the road. Mr. Niefer— On the utility pole? Ms. Dunbar— Yes. Mr. Niefer— Are you sure? Ms. Dunbar— Positive. Mr. Niefer— The appearance in the neighborhood is generally one family, single occupancy. The only place that there are two families are way up at the end of the street, up near Northeast School. To the best of my knowledge, there's no rentals or boarders or anything else. So this is a significant variance from the character of the neighborhood. So I'd like someone to question the procedure. Ms. Dunbar— Can I reply to you? These are all Burmese students. Mr. Niefer— I read the documentation supplied. Ms. Dunbar— It's not that there's any money exchanged. They're not boarding, they're not anything. In their culture, they are family. In the Burmese none of them have the same last name, so they all have, his wife has a different last name. We could have stated that they were relatives. They're not per se relatives, they are as far as being in the same class and they do consider each other family, the same as we do. Mr. Barney — They're not related by blood or the normal adoption or anything like that? Ms. Dunbar— No. Mr. Frost — Question for you. Minn operates sushi bars as I understand it. There has been some inquiries as to whether or not the students who reside with him are helping with food preparation, however you might do that with sushi in exchange for living there without any- 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Ms. Dunbar— Basically, they do help out when they're not in class. But it's not an exchange, it's because if you were in a strange country and you have nothing, you know no one, what would you do in your spare time? It's not as an exchange for money, they're family. You help your family, they help them. Mr. Niefer— How many cars are there that are associated with people that live in the house? Ms. Dunbar— Four. Mr. Frost — I would say that food preparation is permitted as a customary home occupation in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Niefer— Where is the food preparation taking place? Mr. Frost — As I'm understanding it, Mr. Htwe operates sushi bars and whatever they do with preparation, some of that's being done in the home and going out to wherever the stuff is served. Ms. Dunbar— No, you were there. Mr. Frost — I didn't go into the question and someone has inquired about that. Ms. Dunbar— No. They have Ithaca College, they have Cornell, they have Wegmans. They don't have permits to do preparation in the house. Mr. Frost — So there is no food preparation in the house? Ms. Dunbar— No. Other than what they are preparing to eat in the house. Mr. Barney — At Cornell, at Ithaca College, at Wegmans, at Binghamton. Mr. Frost — I'm not a sushi person, but I can't imagine there's much before hand you can prepare. Ms. Dunbar— Sushi, you have to cook in the rice cookers there and do it in the refrigeration and things and there's no way you can do it- Mr. Frost — So, maybe you misunderstood my question. Chairperson Sigel — So, you could build a two family dwelling in that district, it's legal? Mr. Frost — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — So, the density could be achieved? You could build a two family home there. Mr. Niefer— But the point is this is not a two family home though. 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:27 p.m. Jean Wessy, 330 Winthrop Drive — Right across the street. I have a lot of concerns because I have lived in the neighborhood for 16 years and there are not a lot of two family houses. It is a family neighborhood. As far as I know, nobody else runs a business out of their home there. There's a lot of coming and goings. I also see a big van coming and going. I don't know how those people who drive that van, the two men that drive that van back and forth have time to go to school. Mr. Htwe — I'm the one driving the big van to get all of my employees. They live in down town so I have to pick them up and I have to carry. They all do not drive. Mr. Wessy — Where do you prepare the food at Cornell? Ms. Dunbar— In Trillium. Mr. Htwe — Right at the dining hall, in the kitchen. Mr. Wessy — At the Trillium? And where do you make the food for Wegmans? Mr. Htwe — Right in the Wegmans, so you will see the sushi bar there. Mr. Wessy — So, these are people that are living with you? Mr. Htwe — No ma'am they live in down town. Mr. Wessy — The ones that you. How many live with you? Mr. Htwe — Four, including me. Ms. Dunbar— There are four including him. Ms. Wessy — And those people are living there just to go to school? Mr. Frost — Jean, You really should be addressing the Board. Ms. Wessy - I'm sorry. I told you I've never done this before. I ask you, then you ask him? Mr. Barney — That's kind of the way it's supposed to run. Ms. Wessy — Well, you know my concerns. I am very concerned. The value of a house in that neighborhood, right now, is just sort of stable and I'm worried about the value of my property as compared to what might go on if you approve that six unrelated people can live here. Mr. Frost — The application is for four and I think that we've also concluded that they're not doing food prep in the house, so there is no home occupation as we had talked about. 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — They're only asking to be granted until June 1 st. Ms. Wessy — And then what happens? Ms. Dunbar— The students are done and they do back. Ms. Wessy — And then he will just live with his wife and child? Ms. Dunbar— His wife is coming back from Burma with his two children. Ms. Wessy — And there won't be any more people renting? Ms. Dunbar— The vans will still be coming in and out because he has to drive them to go pick up him employees. Ms. Wessy — So there won't be anybody else renting? Mr. Frost — After June 1st only his immediate related family will be there. Ms. Wessy — His wife and children. Mr. Frost — The three students will move out and no more will come back. Ms. Wessy — How do you know that for sure? Mr. Barney — So, you will be looking out the door. Ms. Dunbar— Like you've been doing. Ms. Wessy — No, you don't understand, now I have a life. Mr. Frost — Jean, we have talked numerous times and while I truly do respect you feeling, one of the things that I attempted to establish when we first talked about this many, many months ago was that there was really not an issue with garbage outside, there wasn't really an issue with noise. There was just a concern with how many people were there. I think in all fairness to Mr. Htwe, we have not had complaints from the neighborhood about noise or garbage or even about traffic. It's just more of a concern about what's going on in the house. But, again, I understand your concern. Mr. Htwe — I'd would like to explain to you one thing, I've been here almost six years, I consider myself a hard worker. I work eighty hours a week that's why I could buy the house and I'm trying to help these people. All of my friends, they are all Burmese. In this town, we do have 50 Burmese people. I try to help them with everything I could because we have political asylum here. So, once they get to here, they've got no money. They are refugees. So, that's why I let them stay with me because they don't have enough money to survive by themselves. That's why I just help them. I didn't take any rent or any benefit from them. 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Mr. Frost — You do understand that, even if we grant the approval until June, that after that you wouldn't be able to have boarders, whether you charged money or not? Ms. Dunbar— Susu and the children will be back. Mr. Frost — He could have one. He would be permitted to have one. Chairperson Sigel — True. As a single family house, you are permitted to have one border. Mr. Htwe — I have one concern. Now I have wife and two kids. My kids probably, they're going to stay in Burma until next year. So how many people, relative, can stay in the house. I have brother. Ms. Dunbar— But they're related so that shouldn't even be an issue. He is one of 13 children. Right now there are three, other than Minn here. Mr. Barney — There are different regulations, there is a number of square footage per person. Ms. Dunbar— But they're not here so it doesn't matter. Ms. Wessy — May I ask a question, it's legal in that neighborhood to build a two family home? Mr. Barney — To have an apartment. Ms. Wessy — Like a mother/ daughter type thing? Mr. Barney — They don't even have to be related. It could be a rental. Ms. Wessy — I thought it was only like a mother/daughter. Mr. Frost — The whole house could have two units in it and not even be owner occupied. Ms. Wessy — I didn't know that. Mr. Frost — The zoning has been like that since the fifties. Chairperson Sigel — Any other questions from the Board. Would anyone like to move this motion? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-004: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Minn Htwe, 329 Winthrop Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72.-1-1.104, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Minn Htwe, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a single-family residence with 13 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 four unrelated occupants at 329 Winthrop Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.104, Residence District R-15, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff and dated January 21, 2003. Said request is to allow such occupancy until June 1, 2003, The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon NAYS: Niefer The MOTION was declared to be carried. Mr. Barney — I would suggest a different motion. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-005: Minn Htwe, 329 Winthrop Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72.-1-1.104, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board denies the appeal of Minn Htwe, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a single-family residence with four unrelated occupants at 329 Winthrop Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.104, Residence District R-15. Said request is to allow such occupancy until June 1, 2003. FINDINGS: a. No evidence of financial hardship has been shown by the applicant. REQUESTS: a. To the Code Enforcement Officer that no enforcement action be taken until June 1, 2003. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon, Niefer NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Frost — I will say, now that this case is concluded that the appellant has been very cooperative and very responsive to my requests. APPEAL : Nextel Partners Inc., Appellant, Colleen Bisceglia, Agent, requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article XIII, Section 70a of the Town of 14 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to install telecommunications antenna and associate equipment on a NYS Electric & Gas utility pole, at 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1-5, Residence District R-30. The land is owned by Cornell University. A variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of said Ordinance to permit a structure with a height of 64 + feet, is also being requested. Kyle Knickerbocker, Nextel Partners — I'll give you a brief overview of what we're doing here. In order to build out our wireless system in New York State and in Tompkins County, specifically the Town of Ithaca. We have identified an area where we have a need for additional service. Basically, around and in the University of Cornell, we have a request from numerous subscribers to provide additional service. We went through and did an extensive site search of existing candidates to try and find a best way to utilize existing structure and still provide service to our customers. We in fact, have been working with the University for over two years now trying to find a suitable location which is agreeable to both of us and the University. We've gone through numerous candidates, Bradfield Hall, the smokestacks, the University ARC Center and finally came to this location on the NYSEG poles at 222 Maple Avenue, which seems to be an agreeable location to both us and Cornell. So, the installation that we are proposing to install, 12 panel antennas on the existing 105 foot pole at the 64 foot level. We are going to go below the existing power lines with our antennas and then place a 12 x 22 communication shelter at the base of the pole, about 20 feet away from it. The communication shelter is a aggregate material, that's brown in color. We're going to enclose that with a fence for security reasons to provide safety and then connect the equipment in the shelter with the antennas with a coaxial cable. In your application, you'll see some photographs of the existing pole that we are going to be locating on and the plans and the propagation plots to show what our existing coverage is in the area and what the proposed coverage would be from the facilities that are being constructed. What we're really going for here is what we call "in building penetration". A lot of our users, especially at the University, are facility people, they are constantly in the basement of buildings, in the center of buildings, where our signal currently doesn't travel through the property there because our existing site, which is on South Hill, is too far away and there is a lot between there and the sites. Mr. Barney — Do you have to get FCC approval for this project? Mr. Knickerbocker— We register each location with the FCC. Mr. Barney — Do they make any review? Mr. Knickerbocker— Other than we are within our specified parameters of what our power output is and our wire transmit frequency and receive frequency are. Those are really the only things that they regulate. Mr. Barney — Do they test it in any way? Mr. Knickerbocker— No, they don't test it, we just provide them with the information of what we're doing at the site. Chairperson Sigel — Does this pose any hazard to utility workers? 15 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Mr. Knickerbocker—No, we have agreements with NYSEG where if they do need to do work on the utility lines, we would actually take our site out of service so that they could access them without any problems. Chairperson Sigel — Mike, any comments on the Environmental Assessment? Mr. Smith — Not on the SEQR, but on the Planning Board resolution, I should mention that there are some items to be waived by this Board. Number three on the last page. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so that is number 106 an inventory report specifying existing communication facility sites and evaluation of opportunities for shared use, the vegetative buffering surrounding the fence containing the equipment cabinet to buffer the view from neighboring residences and public roads, and the agreement to negotiate with subsequent applicants seeking to co-locate telecommunication facilities on the initial applicant's structures. If there are no further comments or questions, I will move the Environmental Assessment. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-006: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Nextel Partners Inc, 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.63.-1-5, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Nextel Partners Inc. requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article XIII, Section 70a of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to install telecommunications antenna and associated equipment on a NYS Electric & Gas utility pole, at 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1-5, Residence District R-30. The land is owned by Cornell University. A variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of said Ordinance to permit a structure with a height of no more than 64 feet, is also being requested, This approval is based upon the (undated) Environmental Assessment Form prepared by town staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon, Niefer NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Niefer— For some clarification here, I noticed you referred to sixty —five feet. To the top of these panels, I think is more than five feet- to the top of the antenna's. How high are the antenna's? Mr. Knickerbocker— They're six foot panels. Probably 67 feet would be to the top. Mr. Niefer— So that's 67 feet to the top. 16 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Mr. Barney — I think maybe you want to give him a couple more feet, maybe three more feet. Chairperson Sigel - 64 feet is on the sketch plan. Mr. Knickerbocker— An estimate point, yes correct. Chairperson Sigel — Should we add that to the Environmental Assessment? Mr. Barney — I'd probably amend that Environmental Assessment to say, the plot shows 64, plus or minus to the — Mr. Knickerbocker— The centerline, yes. Mr. Barney — You may want to go to 70. Chairperson Sigel — I move to modify this Environmental Assessment. ZB MODIFIED RESOLUTION NO. 2003-007: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Nextel Partners Inc, 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.63.-1-5, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of f Nextel Partners Inc. requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article XIII, Section 70a of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to install telecommunications antenna and associated equipment on a NYS Electric & Gas utility pole, at 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1-5, Residence District R-30. The land is owned by Cornell University. A variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of said Ordinance to permit a structure with a height of no more than 70 feet, is also being requested. This approval is based upon the (undated) Environmental Assessment Form prepared by town staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon, Niefer NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Now we need a motion for the area variance. Mr. Barney — Can I just ask a question? The engineer, I see is a Mr. Kostich, he's a New York registered engineer? Mr. Knickerbocker— Yes. 17 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Mr. Barney — I haven't had a chance to go through the documents with the degree of attention that I probably should have. Is there anything in here where he certifies that this construction is done in accordance with good engineering practice, that sort of thing. Mr. Knickerbocker— In our general notes, it says " the contractor will be aware of all local, State and federal laws regulating disturbance, destruction of ..." Mr. Barney — I guess my question is it's not, perhaps, as crucial as when you're starting from scratch and building a tower from the ground up, but, obviously, I think the Town has a legitimate concern to make sure these things are installed and mounted in a way that they're not going to come tumbling down on anybody. Mr. Knickerbocker— That's why we have a PE review all structures. Mr. Barney — Would it be too much trouble to get some sort of a letter from him, after the construction is completed, that states that it has been constructed in accordance with the requirements. Mr. Knickerbocker— No, that's no problem. Mr. Barney — I would suggest adding that as a condition in the resolution "upon completion of construction or within 30 days of completion of construction that there be received by the Town a letter or other document from the engineer certifying that the construction occurred as shown on these plans and that the construction is in accordance with the civil engineering practices and that the antenna that's constructed with the typical wind load for which construction is standard. Mr. Knickerbocker— There is a set of standards. The EIA TIA standards that are associated with towers. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-008: Nextel Partners Inc, 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.63.-1-5, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board approves the appeal of Nextel Partners Inc. requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article XIII, Section 70a of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to install telecommunications antenna and associated equipment on a NYS Electric & Gas utility pole, at 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1-5, Residence District R-30. The land is owned by Cornell University. A variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of said Ordinance to permit a structure with a height of no more than 70 feet is also granted. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for a special approval have been satisfied. b. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. 18 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 CONDITIONS: a. Granting the recommendation made by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in Resolution No. 2002-106 that the following requirements of Local Law No. 4 of 1998 be waived: an inventory report specifying existing telecommunication facility sites and evaluation of opportunities for shared use, the vegetative buffering surrounding the fence containing the equipment cabinet to buffer the view from neighboring residences and public roads, and the agreement to negotiate with subsequent applicants seeking to co-locate telecommunication facilities on the initial applicant's structures. b. Within 30 days of completion of construction there be received by the Town a letter or other documents from the engineer certifying that the construction occurred as shown on the submitted plans, and C. The construction be in accordance with EIA TIA Standards that are associated with towers. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon, Niefer NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems d/b/a Cingular Wireless Telecommunications, Appellant, Eric Murray, Agent, requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article XIII, Section 70a of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place telecommunication antennas and associated equipment on a Cornell University owned water tank, located at N.Y.S. Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65-1- 5.2, Residence District R-30. A variance from Article V, Section 18 of said Ordinance to permit a structure with a height of 74 ± feet is also being requested. Greeley Ford, 5841 Bridge Street, Syracuse — No, I'm not Eric Murray. Eric Murray was a consultant who handled this project for a while for us, it was my project originally. Eric Murray's company let go of all contractors, no reflection on Mr. Murray, just a change of business. I'm a Cingular Wireless network real estate construction project manager. I assume everyone has one of these, great. It's pretty self explanatory. We're proposing to install nine four foot panel antennas on the railing, pretty much of the water tank at Cornell University on Route 366. They will be 19 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 painted the same color as the tank to blend in and be as un-noticeable as antenna's can be. The telecommunication shelter, which is 11' 6" x 20 would be the base of one of the legs and be pretty much shielded by, there's an existing, I think it's a pump house that's there. Then, with the topography and everything else, it's pretty much non-visible from just about anywhere. Mr. Barney — Could you build it with a brick fagade? Mr. Greeney — Well, that was brought up at the Planning Board Meeting, about that. One member of the Planning Board brought it up, the other members of the Planning Board felt that since it couldn't be seen, what was the point? It would just be a typical concrete aggregate type of structure that is weather proof and requires no maintenance. Again, I said this at the last meeting, if the Board wanted it to be screened or to be blended into the other facilities there, I suppose we could do that, but, again, like I said the other Board said that what was the point. Mr. Barney — This Board is much fussier. Mr. Greeney — Okay. Chairperson Sigel — It looks like we have some more recommendations of items to waive from the Planning Board. Should we be granting a waiver for the fall zone? Mr. Barney — I didn't think about that. Chairperson Sigel — It's Cornell land. Mr. Barney — I was just going to say that it's Cornell anyway, so what if it falls down, there's a fairly deep pocket there. Mr. Greeney — If the tower falls down, there will be mush worse problems than our antenna's being damaged. Chairperson Sigel — I'm curious, do you know what this is costing you guys for rent? Mr. Greeney — Well. Mr. Barney — You don't have to answer that. Mr. Greeney — It's not that I want to deny the Board any question that you ask, but I'm not sure that that's proprietary with Cornell right now and besides the lease has not been signed yet. It could be a floating figure. Cornell has a number, and when I first met with them, about a year and a half ago, almost as long as Nextel, when I first met with them, they said this is the figure and it's not negotiable. Chairperson Sigel — Do you know how many different companies they could rent space on this particular tower to? 20 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Mr. Greeney — Actually, you could probably put quite a few on it. There are other water tanks that we're co-located on with other carriers, it's pretty standard practice. You could fit at least two, maybe three, depending on their frequencies, depending on the separation, spacers, that sort of thing. Mr. Ellsworth — If you want to see a tower with a lot of antenna's on it, drive up toward Ithaca College, on the left hand side of the road. Mr. Greeney — Is that the fish tower you're talking about? Mr. Ellsworth — Yes. Mr. Barney — Can I ask what the reason for your need to put this here, where there's all this coverage? Mr. Greeney — Yep. It's not about coverage at this point, it's about capacity. We have plenty of coverage, we don't have enough capacity. What happens is, the nature of the business, as cellular companies get a demand for more calling capacities on their network, particularly area like Ithaca, which has a very high demand for capacity. Companies like us will build more sites and turn them all down so you get more channels because you have more sites controlling the channels that only work in small geographic areas. The idea is to turn the sites down lower and lower and lower, as you turn sites down, they shrink and you build other sites in the middle to fill those shrinkage areas and that way you get maximum control over your frequencies, control over interference, intermodulation, things like that. Every site is only working on a very small geographic footprint. You can control it very well. Mr. Barney — Are you limited of the frequencies you can put on any given site? Mr. Greeney — I'd have to say ultimately yes, to a point. Mr. Barney — Because of technical problems? Mr. Greeney — Well, we have a certain frequencies band that we are allowed to operate in that we're licensed by the FCC. So everything that we do has to be within that frequencies. How we spilt those frequencies up and which one of those frequencies we assign to each sites is our business, but there is a finite amount of frequencies and a finite amount of times they can be subdivided. So, the next stage is, when you've divided all the frequencies and you've gotten all you can out of a cell site, the next thing you do is you build another cell site next door to it and put a bunch of frequencies on that that aren't on it's neighboring sites. It's all about re-using frequencies. There's only about 800 channel frequencies that are split up in our class of license. So, amongst Cingular Wireless being a national carrier, we use some 800 different frequencies, based across the country. They are split up and reused and reused. Mr. Dixon — Is Ithaca unique as compared to other areas? We're not as urban like, I guess Syracuse or Rochester. 21 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 Mr. Greeney — Well, Ithaca is unique in that you have such an international community here. You have a very hip community in terms of wireless. No matter what we do down here, to be honest about it, we can't do enough. We just can't do enough to satisfy the — Mr. Ellsworth — Is it because the college kids only have cell phones? Mr. Greeney — Yes a great deal of them do. We're building sites all over on college campuses right now, on roof tops, like Saint Lawrence University, Colgate, Syracuse University because the demand of students that are into wireless, that come to school using wireless, they're already there. That puts a pretty high demand on our network, especially during these off peak areas that are free or unlimited, the board just lights up at nine o'clock, where before the system used to go to sleep at nine o'clock, now we can't get enough channels. Plus, they're getting into wireless computers and all that right now. There's a lot that's going on in our business. Again, Ithaca is just one market, I used to run the Ithaca store here and I can tell you, there were times when kids came back to school that it was an absolute zoo in the store. The systems crash sometimes because we couldn't handle all the traffic. So, that's why we're trying to get more capacity, we have plenty of coverage, we just need more channels for service. Mr. Ellsworth — Part of the problem may be our geography. Mr. Greeney — It is a tough geographic area to cover, there's no question about that. We just installed a new site up on Eagle Broadcasting Tower, which is also on Cornell land. Is everything around here on Cornell land? On Dryden Road and that covers a gap we had on Route 366 between Dryden and Ithaca. So this one here on the Cornell water tank will further cover the rest of that gap on the way down. Mr. Ellsworth — I'd like to encourage the use of existing structures. Two of my favorite horrible looking spots is that huge tower around Tully, up on the hills there outside of town, that thing must be 200 feet high. Also when you're coming down into Greene, there's a tree that stands out from all the other landscape and you know it can be a tree. Mr. Greeney — Sometimes we have to do what we're told to get approved, even though it's pretty obvious and we're not fooling anybody, but we do what we're told to do. Mr. Dixon — Harry, I thought that was a tree until you brought it up at one of the meeting. Mr. Greeney — There are ones I know of that are painted sky blue, that they have an artist come out and paint clouds on them, it's just ludicrous. Chairperson Sigel — Any other questions. Mike, any comments on the Environmental Assessment? Mr. Smith — Nothing else. Chairperson Sigel — Would someone like to make a motion on the Environmental Assessment? 22 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-009: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Southern Bell Mobile System d/b/a Cingular Wireless Telecommunications, NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65.-1-5.2, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems d/b/a Cingular Wireless Telecommunications requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article XIII, Section 70a of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place telecommunication antennas and associated equipment on a Cornell University owned water tank, located at N.Y.S. Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65-1-5.2, Residence District R-30. A variance from Article V, Section 18 of said Ordinance to permit a structure with a height of no more than 74 feet is also being requested. This approval is based upon the (undated) Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon, Niefer NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Barney — The Cornell letter authorizing this talks about New York Holding LLC d/b/a Cingular Wireless. What's New York Holding? Mr. Greeney — Our maiden name. One of our previous names. We started out down here as Finger Lakes Telephone Company d/b/a Cellular One and were bought by Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems and we became Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems Inc. d/b/a Cellular One and then Southwestern Bell, which is owned by SBC Corporation have recently merged all of their wireless properties with Bell South to become Cingular. In the interim there we were New York Holdings LLC and we've recently just became Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems LLC d/b/a Cingular Wireless as successor and interest to Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems d/b/a Cellular One, something like that. Mr. Barney — You can assure us that the entity that is the applicant here is Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems LLC with successor and interest to the entity that Cornell is giving permission to? Mr. Greeney — Yes. When was this letter was written by Cornell. Mr. Barney — October 30th. Mr. Greeney — I think it was back in November, maybe even early December we were notified that we were now Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems again. But it's the same entity. 23 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-010: Southern Bell Mobile System d/b/a Cingular Wireless Telecommunications, NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65.-1-5.2, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board approves the appeal of Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems d/b/a Cingular Wireless Telecommunications requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article XIII, Section 70a of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place telecommunication antennas and associated equipment on a Cornell University owned water tank, located at N.Y.S. Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65-1-5.2, Residence District R-30. A variance from Article V, Section 18 of said Ordinance to permit a structure with a height of no more than 74 feet is also granted. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for a special approval have been satisfied. b. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a. Granting the recommendation made by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in Resolution No. 2002-118 that the following requirements of Local Law No. 4 of 1998 be waived: an inventory report specifying existing telecommunication facility sites and evaluation of opportunities for shared use the dimensional standards indicating the fall zone having a radius equal to the height of attached antennae the agreement to negotiate with subsequent applicants seeking to co-locate telecommunication facilities on the initial applicant's structures, and the vegetative buffering surrounding the fence containing the equipment cabinet to buffer the view from neighboring residences and public roads. b. Within 30 days of completion of construction there be received by the Town a letter or other documents from the engineer certifying that the construction occurred as shown on the submitted plan. C. The construction be in accordance with EIA TIA Standards that are associated with towers The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon, Niefer 24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 27, 2003 NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Greeney — Thank you very much. Mr. Barney — With the revues going up in the cellular business, it may be a good time to invest in these SBC stocks. Chairperson Sigel closed the January 27, 2003 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 8:29 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chair Lori Waring, Deputy Town Clerk 25