The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2003-06-16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2003 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andrew Dixon, Board Member; Andrew Frost, Director of Building/Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS: Thomas & Tammy Steinhaus, 224 Bostwick Road; Steve Cummins, 1408 Trumansburg Road; Autumn Stoscheck, 220 Hayts Road; Jocelyn Wanagel, 855 Five Mile Drive; Mark Zifchock, 855 Five Mile Drive; Claire Fox, 855 Five Mile Drive; Creig Hebdon, Town of Ithaca Assistant Director of Engineering; Siu-Ling Chaloemtiarana, Real Estate Agent; Shawn Gillespie, 881.5 Taughannock Blvd; Claudia Brenner, 528 West Green Street; Jason Demerest, 855 Five Mile Drive; Karl Gesslein, 855 Five Mile Drive. Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Good Evening. Welcome to the June meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have six appeals. The appeal of the Town of Ithaca, the appeal of Barbara Harvey, the appeal of Shawn Gillespie, the appeal of Stephen Cummins, the appeal of Linda Lerch and the appeal of Mark Zifchock. We will take them in that order. The first appeal is that of the Town of Ithaca. APPEAL of the Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Creig Hebdon, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a municipal water storage tank 44 +/- feet high (30 foot height limit) near 307 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31.-5-1.2, Residence District R-30. Chairperson Sigel — Please give us an overview of the proposed project. Creig Hebdon, Town of Ithaca Assistant Director of Engineering — What we are looking to do is the continuation to bolster our system, this tank in particular is for Inlet Valley where we have historically low water pressures and have fire flow problems in some areas. What we tried to do was find a spot to locate a tank where we wouldn't be increasing the actual water service area very much. We just want to bolster what we already had in place. After looking around at the available parcels and stuff, we found a parcel on Bostwick Road that we thought would work well for us. We talked to the owner. He thought that would be a good spot for us. It is a rather large piece of land that we are going to be subdividing off. We are subdividing an acre off and that was at the request of the owner to allow us to put more plantings around the side of the tank that would be exposed. This is going to allow us to plant ten-foot high white spruce trees around the outside tank where the field is so that we will already be gaining on it. It would take a very short period of time for that to actually cover up the tank. There are Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED a couple of picture in your packet that show...this is actually an example of the tank that we would be putting into that location with the same color as the Troy Road Tank. In order to get the pressures that we need to have down in Inlet Valley, we did need to have a 44-foot high tank to do that and to get the storage that we needed. So what we are coming in for today is to get a variance to allow us to put the tank up that high. Mr. Ellsworth — So it is a standard tank? Mr. Hebdon — Yeah. This is a standard aqua store tank. Mr. Krantz — I have two questions. One, that tank is going to pretty well sit in Tom Bell's back yard. Mr. Hebdon — When we originally looked to do this, we did have it down the slope quite a bit and John Young, the owner of the property, had talked to Tom Bell a little bit. They thought that if we slid it up into that upper corner where the trees are already existing and put some screening around the bottom side of it, that it would be enough of a buffer for him. Mr. Krantz— Okay, and he had no objection? Mr. Hebdon —Well, he can't get water without us putting the tank in. Mr. Krantz — The other thing is, I think I know exactly where that tank is going to be. I could not find a notice. Chairperson Sigel — I actually saw. It was down the field. It is along the road. Mr. Hebdon — If you look at the one picture, it is right there in the picture. It is the orange sign. Chairperson Sigel — It is not at the closest point to the road. It is downhill along the road. It did take me two passings to find it. Mr. Hebdon — The hay hasn't been cut yet this year. Chairperson Sigel —Would a shorter, fatter tank serve the same purpose? Mr. Ellsworth — No. They need the height. Mr. Hebdon — Yeah. What we need to do is get the height for the hydraulic pressure to come down through there. If I did a shorter, fatter tank, then you have to slide it up the hill to get the elevation that you would need to do it. Then you run into the expense of running longer water lines and the hill didn't work that well for us that way. 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — Would you have used the same type of tank had you put it down hill, more in the middle of the field as you had first thought? Mr. Hebdon — Yes. We would have gone with the same tank. Chairperson Sigel — On the elevation, it looks like you have at least 20 feet height difference between the lower end of the field. Mr. Hebdon — At 20 feet, you are talking about 10 pounds of pressure difference. We could have gone at that point and made it a little bit smaller tank, part of it is the engineering design of the tank. If you go to a shorter tank and it gets a little bit wider, we need to go to an aluminum top and we are not very fond of the aluminum tops on any of our tanks because they have a tendency to rip. We've also had some other problems with them. This tank has the steel, fiberglass top across the top. The only other way to do it is to do it with a concrete tank and those get really expensive, real fast. It is a fiberglass, glass impregnated steel tank. The outside coat is going to be a forest green color. It should blend right into the backdrop of the field. Mr. Ellsworth — Plus you are building trees. Mr. Hebdon — Right. The Town itself is going to do the trees. Chairperson Sigel — Do you have any idea how long it should take for those trees to reach the height of the tank? Mr. Hebdon — Probably five to ten years to really cover it completely up. We are starting with a much higher tree, but... Chairperson Sigel — You are starting with ten-foot trees? Mr. Hebdon — Yeah, ten foot trees. According to our landscape person down at the Highway Department, that is the biggest tree that he can get. They are going to be planted so that they are two deep around the outside of it. The property owner did give us a lot more leeway because he gave us a lot more land than we would normally take. Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions? Mike, any comments? Mr. Smith — No, not really. I can answer any questions. It seems like the tank is going to be screened pretty well with the natural vegetation on the two sides and with the plantings that are going to be done. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, let's open the public hearing (7:10 p.m.). Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record and give us your comments. 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Thomas Steinhaus, 224 Bostwick Road — I did not understand exactly where you described about the tank being located. How far is it from the road? Mr. Hebdon — The location where we put it, it will be off the road by about 100 to 150 feet. The other screening point is that it is actually on the top of a bank. So when you are driving down the road, the tank is going to be sitting up on the top of the bank. There are a bunch of hard wood trees that are existing there now. We are actually putting in a new access to the farmers' field at a low spot at the request of the owner because I guess the farmer is having problems where he is going in now. That will be a shared drive for us and the farmer to use to get up to tank site. The only real visible way of seeing the tank is going to be as you are driving up Bostwick Road from Seven Mile Drive. If you look off to your left, you will be able to see it sitting up there. In five or ten years when the pine trees come up through, all you are going to see is the set of pine trees up there. You will never know the tank is in there. Chairperson Sigel — It is about 1000 feet from Seven Mile Drive. Mr. Hebdon — Yeah. Chairperson Sigel — So, it is about a fifth of a mile up Bostwick Road from Seven Mile Drive. Does that help you any? Mr. Hebdon — It is 150 feet off the side of the road. Chairperson Sigel —About 1000 feet west of Seven Mile Drive. Could you comeback to the microphone please? Mr. Steinhaus —What would be the cost of moving the tank? Mr. Hebdon — Well, if you put it higher, we have to find a spot up above that is either open or we have to remove the trees and stuff. If we put it lower, then we run into the problem where we are getting right down to the residential area right by Tom Bell. Mr. Steinhaus — Twenty feet would not be that much. Why not keep going up? Mr. Hebdon — One hundred feet up the hill you mean? Mr. Steinhaus — Yes. Mr. Hebdon - There is a set of trees and a woodlot back there that we did not want to get into. So the minute that we slide up the hill then we are going to start getting into trees and woodlots. Then we are going to get into access problems where there is some shale up in there and some other problems going up that much higher. Anything is possible, but it will take a lot more money. Mr. Steinhaus — How much more? 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Hebdon — I don't have the numbers sitting right in front of me. Chairperson Sigel — The location where it is proposed right now is up fairly close to a line of trees, right? Mr. Hebdon — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — So, it is taking advantage of two sides of existing large trees for screening. Mr. Steinhaus — I'm being told that it is going to be much more expensive. How much more expensive? You have to ask permission from the ordinance. I would really like to know what it costs so I can make a definite decision if I like it or not like it. You say five or ten years. That is not a short time. Five to ten years I'm 68. Ten years I'm 68. That is not a short time. So... Mr. Hebdon — Unless I went and looked at what a site is, the numbers all come out to how much rock is there on the site. How much further up the hill do you have to go? How much further up the hill do you have to go? How much wood do you have to remove? How much different screening? What is the ability to get on to that site? So to say how much more is that going to cost me, I can't tell you. Mr. Steinhaus — It is reasonable. If you can plan, it is a reasonable thing to ask what the cost difference is. That is not asking too much. You say it is much more expensive, but you don't know how much more expensive. Mr. Ellsworth — They do not do ten different economic studies. They talked with the neighbors. They've talked to the guy who is most affected...that is what he was asking about. They've got the tank colored green. They've got it up against the trees. They are putting trees in the front. What other problems do you have? What is your problem? They can't lower it because they don't have enough pressure. They can't bring it down the hillside because they won't have the pressure they need. Mr. Steinhaus — (Comments not audible) Mr. Ellsworth — There is some disadvantages of that, too, in the cost. Mr. Steinhaus —We put in a water system and we did not get enough pressure. Mr. Ellsworth — That is why they are doing this. Mr. Steinhaus — However, I asked about the price difference and he does not know. I don't think this is...I mean... 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost — You always have the opportunity to call the Town to take a look at the papers. Obviously you knew the meeting is occurring tonight, so you could have asked for copies of the information ahead of the meeting. Mr. Steinhaus — I work during the day. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Would anyone else like to offer any comments? If not, we'll close the public hearing (7:16 p.m.) Chairperson Sigel — Any further discussion, questions? Would someone like to make a motion on the environmental assessment? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-030: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : TOWN OF ITHACA, 307 BOSTWICK ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 31.-5-1.2, 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 the Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Creig Hebdon, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a municipal water storage tank 44 ± feet high (30 foot height limit) near 307 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-5-1.2, Residence District R-30, based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated June 10, 2003. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 031: TOWN OF ITHACA, 307 BOSTWICK ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 31.-5-1.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED that this board grants the appeal of the Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Creig Hebdon, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a municipal water storage tank no greater than 45 feet high (30 foot height limit) near 307 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-5-1.2, Residence District R-30. FINDINGS- 6 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- NONE ONDITIONS:NONE The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Krantz— I would like to make one quick comment here. It always sort of boggles me when I read an environmental assessment and it says that there is no aesthetic problem. You have to have this water tank. You found a decent spot for it, but it is sure an aesthetic...how can you say that it is not? You are putting a water tank up there in the middle of a field. That is aesthetic. You have to do it. I'm not directing this towards you, Mike. I think some comments should be put there that, yes, there is a change in the aesthetics of the area. Mr. Niefer—Any structure in the natural environment changes it. Mr. Krantz— Of course, but particularly sticking a water tank up there changes it. Mr. Niefer — I have a water tank in my neighborhood and we live with it. We know it is something we have to accept as far as a utility device. Mr. Krantz— Absolutely. Mr. Niefer— It is a fact of life. Mr. Krantz— Absolutely. There is no argument with that at all. I'm not even arguing that we found a bad place to put it. I think we found a good place to put it. It just boggles me to see a comment that it doesn't change the aesthetic nature of the area. Nothing would be further from the truth. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. The next appeal is that of Barbara Harvey. APPEAL of Barbara Harvey, Appellant, Elizabeth Bixler, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 13 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing carport/garage with a front yard building setback of 19.2 +/- feet (25 feet setback required) at 883 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25.-2-18, Residence District R-15. Said garage constructed by a previous owner in violation of the Ordinance. 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Siu-Ling Chaloemtiarana, Real Estate Agent — I have two things that I'm bringing. One is actually a large survey map so you can see it clearly. Also, field photographs of how this looks like in relation to the house and design to see how it looks on the site. Mr. Frost — I might add as you look through your packet, there is a certificate of occupancy that I issued in 1996 for a new single-family dwelling. There was no permit issued, nor can we find any record for any permits being issued for the carport. I suspect the owner might have built the carport without a building permit and did not place it properly on the building lot. From a structural standpoint, the carport seems to have survived seven years worth of existence. Structurally, it seems fine. I guess the property is in transition on a property sale and it may have been the lawyer representing the buyer that picked up the front yard building deficiency location. Chairperson Sigel — Does this not qualify for the allowance of a carport close to the road because of the slope of the lot? Mr. Frost— It is a matter of debate. The picture is going around that my office took. The grade does kind of level off at the location of the carport. I'm not so sure that slope is critical in terms of placement of the carport. What is interesting is that we have a case after this one in which the house was built too close to the property line. The builder who built this property and the next case that you will here is the same builder. He clearly messed up on his building locations. Chairperson Sigel — It is steeper, though, closer to the road. Mr. Dixon — You really can't see the carport from Taughannock Boulevard. Chairperson Sigel — "Where the average natural slope of the lot exceeds 8 percent rise or fall directly from the street line, a private garage not over one story in height and housing not in access of 2 cars may be located in the front or side yard not less than 5 feet from the street line upon approval from the Board of Appeals". (Section from Zoning Ordinance). Chairperson Sigel — The average natural slope of the lot probably exceeds 8 percent. Mr. Frost— Right. This would require special approval. Chairperson Sigel — We could probably grant a variance for the setback or we could grant an approval for the steepness of the slope. Mr. Frost — I advertised it by putting in the word garage. This is really a carport and not a garage. It is open on 3 sides. Mr. Niefer — We grant this and then someone decides that they want to enclose the carport and make a garage out of it. Where do you go from there? 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost — My suggestion is that you may want to in granting the variance conditions it that it not be enclosed. Chairperson Sigel — We could grant a variance for just the existing structure, which is a three-sided carport. Ms. Chaloemtiarana — It is open on three sides. Chairperson Sigel — So we could grant a variance for what is there. There is no environmental assessment for this. Mike, any comments otherwise? Mr. Smith — No. Chairperson Sigel — We will open the public hearing (7:27 p.m.). Anyone like to offer any comments, if not, we'll close the public hearing (7:28 p.m.). If there are no further questions or comments from the board, I will move to grant the appeal of Barbara Harvey. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 032: BARBARA HARVEY, 883 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA, TAX PARCEL NO. 25.-2-18, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this board grants the appeal of Barbara Harvey, Appellant, Elizabeth Bixler, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 13 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing carport/garage with a front yard building setback of not less than 19 feet at 883 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-18, Residence District R- 15. Said garage was constructed by a previous owner in violation of the Ordinance. Also granted in the Motion is an allowance for the garage to be in the front yard of the property- FINDINGS- a. roperty.FINDINGS:a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. The carport not be modified from its present state of being open on three sides. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None 9 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel – The third appeal is that of Shawn Gillespie. APPEAL of Shawn Gillespie, Appellant, requesting special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to add a second dwelling unit within the confines of an existing single family conforming home located at 881.5 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25.-19, Residence District R-5. Said home was constructed 14.3 +/- feet (15 foot required) from the north side property line, by a previous owner. A variance from Article IV, Section 14 of said Ordinance, may also be requested. Chairperson Sigel – Would someone like to come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record? Shawn Gillespie, 881.5 Taughannock Boulevard. Chairperson Sigel –Would you give us a quick overview of what you are doing? Ms. Gillespie – What I'm trying to get is some permission to change my single family home that I've owned for about 4 or 5 years. Being a single mom with 3 children, I would hate to have to leave. I'm trying to seek a way to try to make some extra income to put into my home. You probably have the prints of the drawing that I had made up. I'm not really changing much with the house. I'm just adding the apartment inside of the single-family home right now. Chairperson Sigel –What is that space used as right now? Ms. Gillespie – It is actually empty right now. Chairperson Sigel – Is it an unfinished basement? Ms. Gillespie – No, it is a finished, but I don't require all that space for my family. So it's big, two huge bedrooms that is all finished. The bathroom already exists there. It is there already. What I am looking to do is to put steps on the outside of the house so there is a separate entrance way into the existing home. Chairperson Sigel – Then you will have to be adding the kitchen to complete the transition? Ms. Gillespie – Yes. What I am requesting now it to have permission for a 1 bedroom so it would only be 1 or 2 people max in the apartment. My main goal is first for my family. My grandmother is terminally ill right now with cancer so when she gets out of the nursing home, she'll require assistance and I'm looking to assist her in that way. Then until she doesn't need any further assistance then my parents live here would also 10 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED be interested in the apartment. I'm asking permission for an apartment for either family or outside family. Chairperson Sigel —Any questions? Ms. Gillespie — I also have a grand fathered permit for a garage up on Taughannock Boulevard, so if there is any concerns for parking, which I don't think we will be concerned because the driveway that I have right now is actually bigger than what my neighbors have. So there is plenty of parking space, but I also have a permit that has been grand fathered in on my property for a garage up on Taughannock Boulevard for more parking. Chairperson Sigel — How many parking spaces do you estimate you have presently? Ms. Gillespie — I have one vehicle and there is probably enough to park on one side on the driveway at least 3 cars if not more, but there is an agreement that you have to make sure that people can pass through the driveway. The driveway is wide enough that you could park cars on both sides of the driveway and still get a vehicle that comes through. I'm not looking to have the vehicles all parked there. I think my neighbor has tenants and they have one parking spot for their tenant down there in the driveway and then they park up top. Chairperson Sigel — Is it the case that if the house met the required 15 foot setback this would be a legal transformation? Mr. Frost — I advertised it both ways just so I knew I was covered both ways. Yes, that would be correct. Chairperson Sigel — Is it the case that they do not have a variance with a sufficient side yard? Mr. Frost— Correct. When I reviewed the building permit application for when the house was built, it was showing the 15-foot setback. Chairperson Sigel — So they need an area variance for the setback and a special approval. Mr. Frost — No, just the area variance. I have included the special approval just in case there was some discussion. I advertised it both ways. Really, all they need is the side yard setback variance. Chairperson Sigel — But even with that it is still non-conforming. Mr. Frost — No, it's not. I might mention that if you look at the survey map for some reason the building lot itself is legally sized and why the surveyor divided the building lot into two different segments...you will actually see there are two rectangles with angles 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED describing the building lot. Those are two segments of one parcel, which is over 15,000 square feet. Chairperson Sigel — But isn't the fact that it has a deficient side yard setback make it non-conforming as far as the... Mr. Frost — Theoretically, but if you grant a variance then there is nothing non- conforming. Chairperson Sigel — So the lot with a variance, then becomes a conforming lot? I thought it just became a legal non-conforming. Mr. Frost — No. It becomes legal by way of a variance. The lot by its dimensions, if you notice the lot does open up somewhat in the front given the lot width that is required, approximately 60 foot back form road. So the lot dimensions are legal, the lot area is legal. The only deficiency in this case is the fact that the house is built too close to the north side property line. By granting the variance, essentially you are making a legal lot by variance. Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions? Mike, any comments? Mr. Smith — With an area variance, you don't need the SEAR form. It seems like the only significant change is going to be the exterior stairs coming around the outside. Ms. Gillespie — Again, with the prints I did the best as I could. But again, I'm going to building everything as requested by code. You mentioned the exterior steps and it is going to be by code and what it is supposed to be. Mr. Frost—We are still in the process of reviewing the plans for a building permit. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. What we are going to be granting you tonight is a variance for the deficient setback, which will then allow you to legally do the modifications that you want to do. So we actually won't be technically making a decision on your plans or anything like that. You will still deal through Andy's office with all that for approval and certificates of occupancy and everything like that. Ms. Gillespie — Did you get the updated prints? Mr. Frost— Yes. I haven't looked at it, but we have it. Chairperson Sigel — Well, we'll open the public hearing at this point (7:38 p.m.). Would anyone like to speak? If not, we'll close the public hearing (7:39 p.m.). Would someone like to make a motion? Mr. Krantz— On the environmental significance? 12 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — We can skip that because we are actually going to do it as an area variance. So just the motion only for the deficient setback part of it, not the special approval. Just the setback area variance. Mr. Krantz— I would move on the appeal of Shawn Gillespie. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 033: SHAWN GILLESPIE, 881.5 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 25.-2-19, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this board grants the appeal of Shawn Gillespie, Appellant, requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow a home to be not less than 14 feet from the north side property line, located at 881.5 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-19, Residence District R- 15. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- None ONDITIONS:None The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Ms. Gillespie — What do I do next now that you are saying that you're granting the variance? Do I go through Andy? Mr. Frost — Yeah. Right now then we are going to review the building permit application and the additional plans that we have and ultimately issue a permit. Barring any problems, once things are satisfactorily completed you will get a certificate of occupancy. Everything becomes legal. You really don't have to do anything more. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. The next appeal this evening is that of Stephen Cummins. APPEAL of Stephen Cummins, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to extend the uses at the Indian Creek Farm 13 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED stand, located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.-1- 25.21, Residence District R-15. The farm stand, which is not a permitted use in an R-15 zone, proposes to produce fresh and hard cider and to replace a greenhouse structure with a wood framed structure. Stephen Cummins, 1408 Trumansburg Road — Essentially, what we are wanting to do is press apples and other fruits into juice. So we would be making both fresh juice and hard. This is basically a value added product coming from the farm itself. The other part of the project is on the front of the building is a greenhouse that is attached. This green house is nonfunctioning. It gets light about until noon. It heats the barn up. I am unable to sell out of it because of the heat in the summertime. So what we propose to do is to move this greenhouse just north of the barn where we get full sunlight and replace that with a front porch, which I think will be quite a lot nicer for the customers and the aesthetics. It is basically what we are up to. I don't know if it is the right time or not, but I got a letter from Monica Roth as a letter of support. Mr. Frost— Stephen, I wonder if you could better describe, assuming you have copies of your submission, just how the front of the building is going to change as it faces Trumansburg Road. I am assuming this is the front area. Mr. Cummins — That is what it would look like. So that drawing, actually I'm not very good at drawing, but essentially... Mr. Frost— The plastic disappears. The roof becomes what...a metal roof? Mr. Cummins — I would probably go with shingles to match the rest of our... Mr. Frost — So for the board, if you look at this one sketch that is in your packet, in looking at the picture there is plastic in the front creating a greenhouse effect. That plastic will disappear. Steve is suggesting that he is going to have shingles on the roof. Then on the sidewalls there is going to be windows... Mr. Cummins — It is just going to be an open porch. Mr. Frost— So the plastic basically disappears and your roof will become shingles. Mr. Ellsworth — Is the greenhouse going to be plastic over it? Mr. Cummins — The greenhouse will be a plastic house. So we would take the same hoops that are attached to the house now and essentially move it. Mr. Frost — What is the location of the screened house as opposed to what was the original stand along the road? Mr. Cummins — It is west. So it is further away from the highway. There is a rock wall, I don' t know if anyone's noticed. It is quite a nice rock wall that is built essentially north 14 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED of the house. That would be framing in the south and east corners of the greenhouse. The setback from the drainage ditch is about 50 foot whereas the setback on the old fruit stand was about 10 foot. Mr. Frost— There is some structure still left of the old fruit stand. Mr. Cummins — I am trying to get rid of that. Unfortunately the power goes in there. NYSEG won't let me put in a pole at that point. It has to be moved back and it gets into a couple thousand dollars to set the pole. Mr. Frost — Unfortunately, the existing stand is going to remain. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Cummins — Yeah, at this point. Mr. Frost — The power goes from that old stand underground to the parking lot to the new breaker box. Mr. Ellsworth — Is this greenhouse taking down and putting up considered building or temporary or what? Mr. Cummins — This isn't zoned AG. Mr. Frost— So the greenhouse is in the AG zone or the R-15 zone. Mr. Cummins — It is in the R-15 zone. Mr. Frost— It is a structure. By definition in the zoning ordinance, a structure is anything that sits on the ground. I did have a phone call from Celia Bowers, the neighbor immediately to the southeast. She asked a few questions. Mr. Cummins — Believe it or not, we have been getting along very well. Mr. Frost — Over the years, she has been critical of the operations under the previous owner. She seems to be satisfied. Mr. Ellsworth — I am familiar with the property and the project. Mr. Frost — Steve, you are proposing to make hard cider? Have you had any contact with the ABC group at all? Mr. Cummins — With ATF and AG and Markets. At this time we have been making hard cider out of Little Tree Orchards. The lease expired out there. It is one of these catch 22's where you have to have a structure with a CO in order to have your license. The lease is in the process of expiring right now. In order for us to retain the license, we need to build a new structure and move the process and clients out to Indian Creek. 15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost — So, assuming that this board would favorably consider this appeal, you would ultimately then get certificate occupancy as part of the building permit. The certificate of occupancy would then need to be presented to the ABC board and so forth. Mr. Cummins — Exactly. We do have a current license, just not for this site. Mr. Frost—What is the alcohol content of the hard cider? Mr. Cummins — It is up around 12%...it depends if it is hard cider or wine. Mr. Frost—Wine is like 10, 11, 12%. Mr. Cummins — It is pretty good. I wish we had a couple of bottles we could have brought for you all. Mr. Ellsworth — So you have a cider operation, where did you say? Mr. Cummins —At Little Tree Orchards. It is out in Newfield. Mr. Ellsworth — I pick apples from you. So that is your stuff that you are going to bring here. Mr. Cummins — Yeah. Mr. Niefer — I believe you came before this group and asked for permission to have a bakery. Mr. Cummins — Yes. Mr. Niefer— Did that materialize? Mr. Cummins — You passed the variance, but Blanch found a spot about five miles up the road in Jacksonville that was all set up and ready to go. So, she was the one that was going to do it. So she just went to greener pastures. No capital investment, so... Mr. Frost — That approval has reached a sunset period. So while you granted the approval, it is no longer valid. I don't know if you knew that, but after 18 months if you don't do anything, you have to go back to the board. Chairperson Sigel — What other establishments are you aware of in the Town that produce or sell alcohol? Mr. Frost— Six Mile Creek. Chairperson Sigel —What district are they in? 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost— R-15, and they are by variance. Mr. Ellsworth — There is a hard cider place beyond you, isn't there? Mr. Cummins — There was. They just lost their lease and they are having the same trouble that we are. That's turned into an antique place now. Mr. Frost— That is in Ulysses. Mr. Cummins — Basically, we are trying to get a cider trail established up and down the lake. There is another guy up near EcoVillage. He would like to be doing hard ciders as well. Then there is one in Trumansburg. There is just enough of us where we think we can end up making a go of it. Mr. Krantz — In the old days of Johnny Appleseed, apples were rarely eaten. They were for hard cider. Mr. Niefer — You have a proposed porch in this one sketch. What are you anticipating doing under the proposed porch? Mr. Cummins — At this time, the greenhouse is where we have been having produce sales. The barn is just storage and we have been having just peaches and strawberries, whatever is easy. The greenhouse is too hot for sales and such. So, we would be doing the same thing, produce under the porch. Mr. Niefer — You are not going to have tables out there and have a place where people could sample the cider? Mr. Cummins — I don't know what is legal on that. I would have to look into that. I don't think you could have it by the glass, but...all the produce sales are back off the highway. It is chaotic down near the road. Eventually we would like to move into the barn. Mr. Ellsworth — So, you will be back to see us again? Mr. Cummins — I imagine so, unless we can get this thing zoned Ag like it ought to be. Mr. Frost — It is a point worth making. The Ag zone is part of this property. It is just beyond where the structures are. Mr. Cummins — Right behind the barn, it is all zoned Ag. We are pushing to have that. Mr. Smith — The current revisions right now for the zoning ordinance has the whole property being rezoned agriculture for this whole property to make the front part with the barn and the barn sales in the AG district. There has been recent conversation at the 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Codes and Ordinances Committee meetings about also allowing some of these types of uses, the winery or ciders or distilleries in the AG zone as maybe a special permit or something like that. Mr. Ellsworth — It is part of the new ordinance? Mr. Frost — It is being contemplated to be added to the new ordinance. It is not in the current version. Chairperson Sigel — Under the current proposed map, it is going to be AG district, which would make all these structures legal. Mr. Smith — The structures, yeah, and the farm stand. Chairperson Sigel — Just not the alcohol. Mr. Frost— That may change. Chairperson Sigel — This is the last variance that we passed for this property with regard to the bakery. I would suggest that maybe we could pass a similar resolution. We could use the same language if we wanted to and substitute the cider where it mentions the bakery. Mr. Niefer — If he demolishes the greenhouse and then wants to relocate it, is that permissible under the circumstances? Has he lost some of his grand fathering rights? Mr. Frost— By special approval... Mr. Niefer— Because you have changed the location of the greenhouse. Mr. Frost— Right. That originally was allowed by special approval in 1989. Mr. Niefer — So if he wants to move the greenhouse and put it in a different location would he have to come back for another special approval? Mr. Frost—As long as the property remains zoned as R15. Mr. Niefer— So he will have to come back again for the greenhouse if he wants to move it. Mr. Frost — He is asking to move it now. If he chose to move it another time then he would have to come back to this board. Mr. Niefer— Suppose we grant him the right to relocate it at this time... 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost — Then should and when the Town does the new ordinance and rezones this all to agricultural, he wouldn't be coming back to us any longer because then he would be legal. Mr. Krantz— These are just hoops and plastic. Mr. Niefer — I know, but if you were in a residential area, how would you like to have a plastic greenhouse next to your house? Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions or comments? Mike, anything else? Mr. Smith — It seems like the cider use compliments the orchard area. The only concern I had when going to the site was about the parking. After talking to Steve, it seems like once the greenhouse is moved a lot of the nursery stock and everything that is taking up parking spaces in front of the building will be moved over with the greenhouse, which should free-up 10 or so spaces in front of the building. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, let's open the public hearing (7:56 p.m.), if anyone would like to speak. If not, we'll close the public hearing (7:57 p.m.). Would someone like to make a motion on the environmental assessment? Mr. Ellsworth moved the motion. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 034 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: STEPHEN CUMMINS, 1408 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 24.4-25.21, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Stephen Cummins, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to extend the uses at the Indian Creek Farm stand, located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-1-25.21, Residence District R-15. The farm stand, which is not a permitted use in an R-15 zone, proposes to produce fresh and hard cider and to replace a greenhouse structure with a wood framed structure. This determination is based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff and dated June 3, 2003. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Cummins, the space where you are going to put the cider equipment, was that recently added? Mr. Cummins — Yes. It was recently added over the past few months. Andy has been out to see it. Chairperson Sigel — So, you need approval for that? Mr. Cummins — Yes. That is included in this. Chairperson Sigel —Were there any other modifications made to that, the barn? Mr. Cummins — No. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So you are planning to move the greenhouse, attach a porch, there is the addition for the cider equipment and then allowing the making and selling of the cider itself? Mr. Cummins — Right. Hopefully we will have it at the end of August. Mr. Frost— Do you have a motion? Chairperson Sigel — No. I'm just trying to figure out how to word all this. Is there any problem with using this as a model? Mr. Frost — The only thing I was think of is that baking stuff is not something you would typically find at a food stand. Chairperson Sigel — So it is even more appropriate you are saying? Mr. Frost— Yes. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think we really claimed it was really that inappropriate of a use. I will move to make a resolution substantially similar to resolution no. 2000-5, which was a resolution allowing Mr. Cummins to open a bakery at the fruit stand and in place of the mention of a bakery insert moving a greenhouse, building a porch, and building an addition for the production of alcoholic and non-alcoholic cider. Mr. Niefer— There is no real measurements as to where this greenhouse is going to be and how far it is going to be from the road. It is really an open-ended motion as far as the greenhouse is concerned. Don't you want to specify how far from the road? Mr. Ellsworth — Do you have any of that information, Steve? Mr. Cummins — It would be 40 feet from the center of the drainage ditch. 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Ellsworth —Approximately? Mr. Cummins — Yes. Mr. Niefer — Is it possible that the terrain of the land is such that the end of the greenhouse could be lined up with the front of the proposed sales on the porch? Mr. Cummins — No. The septic system goes in at that point. It is also extremely steep there. This is level. Mr. Frost — The existing greenhouse actually leans on the wooden structure. It seems to me that you are actually adding additional greenhouse material to create this half circle. Mr. Cummins — What it really is, is that the hoops would be joining the two halves of the hoops. So instead of a 100 foot long greenhouse as it is now, it would be a 50-foot greenhouse. It is 50 x 42 I believe. Chairperson Sigel — We could have the location of the greenhouse subject to satisfactory review by Andy. Mr. Frost—When do you propose to put the greenhouse in? Mr. Cummins — The third week of July. Chairperson Sigel — How far out do you propose to have the porch done? Mr. Cummins — It would be the same dimensions as the greenhouse now, which is 16 or 17 foot. Mr. Frost— There is a concrete pad there now? Mr. Cummins — The greenhouse poles are just stuck into concrete. Chairperson Sigel — I'll add the condition that the porch to be added comes no further than 17 feet from the barn towards the road. The location of the greenhouse be approved by Mr. Frost. Mr. Frost—Will the placement of the greenhouse disturb traffic flow. Mr. Cummins — Actually, it will make it better. It is off to the side. There is a side lot there in front of the stonewall, which people do not tend to use. So about 6 cars would fit into that lot. Chairperson Sigel — Second? 21 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Dixon — Second. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-035: STEPHEN CUMMINS, 1408 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 24.4-25.21, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this board grants the appeal of Stephen Cummins, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to extend the uses at the Indian Creek Farm stand, located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-1-25.21, Residence District R-15. The farm stand, which is not a permitted use in an R-15 zone, proposes to produce fresh and hard cider and to move a greenhouse structure and replace it with a wood framed porch structure. FINDINGS: a. It is in-keeping with maintaining the viability of an on-going agricultural operation. b. There is a special situation in terms of the configuration of the various zoning areas, agricultural, R-15, and R-30 coming together at one point. c. The need for the variance is created by circumstances that have evolved since he purchased the property. d. There has been testimony that the viability of maintaining any kind of a farm operation might be in question without the additional revenues provided by the production of non-alcoholic and alcoholic cider. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. The location of the greenhouse be approved by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Officer. b. The porch to be added extend no further than 17 feet from the barn towards the road. c. All modifications and additions be as indicated on the applicant's plans. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL of Linda Lerch, Appellant, Claudia Brenner, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to extend a non-conforming building/lot with the construction of additional space at 1014 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca 22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-21, Residence District R-15. The construction does not enlarge the existing building footprint but enlarges it skyward. Said lot is deficient in size and building lot line setbacks. Claudia Brenner, 528 West Green Street — I am an architect and I drew the plans for this project. The two areas that cause us to be here for a variance have to do with rebuilding the master bedroom roof. One, we are increasing the size of the rafters to get the proper insulation and ventilation in that roof because we had a real undersized roof structure. Those are changing and thereby raising the roof a few inches. Additionally we are putting a small dormer approximately 3.5 feet tall. You can see it on the elevation drawings. Those have been reduced...the ones in your set. It is going up about 3.5 feet beyond the current shed roof. That would be on the side of the house that you can see from the lake. On the roadside we are increasing the ceiling height in one bedroom and adding a pitched roof. Previously there was a shed roof on that side. One of the owners is here and took a photograph from the water so you could see the adjoining properties and see that even with the 3.5-foot additional height in the master bedroom dormer, they were still below the heights of the adjoining properties. Other than the fact that they own a non-conforming lot there are no other issues for the board to consider. Mr. Frost — To clarify, the footprint of the building does not change. It is just that building upwards that creates the extension of the non-conforming building. Ms. Brenner— Correct. Chairperson Sigel — Andy, is the change from unheated spaces to heated spaces...does that require approval? Mr. Frost— The addition of building mass, yes. Chairperson Sigel — The roof you are adding in the back is still lower than the highest point of the roof? Ms. Brenner— Yes. Mr. Frost— The height of the building does not change really. Ms. Brenner— No. Mr. Frost— The maximum height. Ms. Brenner — Right. In fact, we are improving the ceiling height in the one back room by putting on that back room. We are improving the ceiling height in two bedrooms and improving the insulation in the roof system. Chairperson Sigel —Anyone have any questions? Mike, any comments? 23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Smith — With the footprint not changing and the overall height not changing, it actually appears like the aesthetic looks of the building will improve with the additions and the upgrades. Mr. Krantz — It is hard to object to a renovation where nothing is in the way of the footprint is being changed. Chairperson Sigel — It is almost entirely an upgrade of the existing structure. Any other questions, comments? We will open the public hearing at this point (8:08 p.m.) Would anyone like to speak? If not, we'll close the public hearing (8:09 p.m.). If no one has any other questions or comments, would someone like to make a motion on the environmental assessment? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-036 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: LINDA LERCH, 1014 EAST SHORE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 19.-2-21, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Linda Lerch, Appellant, Claudia Brenner, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to extend a non-conforming building/lot with the construction of additional space at 1014 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-21, Residence District R-15. The construction does not enlarge the existing building footprint but enlarges it skyward. Said lot is deficient in size and building lot line setbacks. This Motion is based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — This is a special approval. If there is no further discussion, I will move to grant the appeal of Linda Lerch. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 037: LINDA LERCH, 1014 EAST SHORE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 19.-2-21, RESIDENCE: MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. 24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED RESOLVED that this board grants the appeal of Linda Lerch, Appellant, Claudia Brenner, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to extend a non- conforming building/lot with the construction of additional space at 1014 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-21, Residence District R-15. The construction does not enlarge the existing building footprint but enlarges it skyward. Said lot is deficient in size and building lot line setbacks. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for a special approval have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. The construction be performed as indicated on the applicant's plans. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — We are going to take a break for a few minutes in the hope that Mr. Barney will arrive (8:13 p.m.). Mr. Frost— I have reached him on his cell phone. The board reconvened at 8:20 p.m. APPEAL of Mark Zifchock, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit a business known as the Computer Gurus to operate from 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31.-2-15, Residence District R- 30. The Ordinance does not permit said business, as conducted, to specifically operate in a R-30 Zone. Additionally, the appellant is asking for a determination from the Zoning Board that the occupants residing within the structure, containing the Computer Gurus, are occupying said space as a non-traditional family. Mr. Ellsworth — I have a question of John Barney before we start. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Ellsworth — Jason Demerest...I'm currently involved with a project. We are working together on a project. I'm not being paid by him; I'm being paid by the owner. 25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost— But it's not involving this property. Mr. Ellsworth — No. It has nothing to do with this property. Do I continue or do I abstain? Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Demerest is advising and acting as architect for the applicant. Attorney Barney — I want to be a little careful in how I phrase this question, but how close are you to Mr. Demerest in terms of professionalism? It comes to the point of whether there is some financial gain. Mr. Ellsworth — He is drawing my work. Attorney Barney— He is drawing your work? Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah, because he's CAD and I'm non-CAD. Attorney Barney — I think you have to look at it in the circumstance that if you voted against this proposal, would that have an impact on your relationship and your ability to work with Mr. Demerest? If that is the case, than you should probably abstain. Mr. Ellsworth — I thought the rule was from before, if I could remain impartial... Attorney Barney — That is certainly part of it and clearly if you have a financial gain out of voting one way or another you should disqualify yourself. It is a question of whether the relationship itself creates a situation where you would be...and you were to your financial detriment to go against something. Mr. Ellsworth — Earlier today I was training him how to replace me. Attorney Barney— Then you want out. I guess I'm not too terribly concerned. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. I just wanted to get it out. Attorney Barney— You should disclose it. There is no question about it. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Please state your name and address for the record. Mark Zifchock, 855 Five Mile Drive. Chairperson Sigel —And give us an overview of what it is you are asking to do. Jason Demerest, Tallman and Demerest Architects — I reviewed the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the situation on hand. As far as I can tell, it seems that although unusual, 26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED they do seem to comply with the definition of family...albeit somewhat non-traditional. I will have Mark elaborate a little bit on that. Mr. Zifchock — And specifically as much as I understand the zoning laws, areas where we share space, share expenses, share meals and basically operate together. We own the residence jointly. We live there together. Our children play together. Our ambition in the beginning was to live and try to work together as a group that would benefit from being together with one another and working on the place together. We operate as a family and that is the way that we function. Our transactions are that of a family. Chairperson Sigel — Could you enumerate for the board how many adults are living there and how many children are living there? Mr. Zifchock — Karl Gesslein is not living there now, but he will be living there shortly. He is still fixing his area so he can actually stay there. All adults that I am going to mention are all part owners of the property. Jocelyn Wanagel lives there now. My wife lives there. I live there and my son lives there. Mr. Frost — You mentioned the first person is fixing up his space or something. Could you clarify? Mr. Zifchock— There needs to be work done before he feels comfortable. He does have a house now that he is selling. Once that is sold, he will be moving in. Mr. Frost — You understand, though, the building permit process is necessary before any work occurs. Mr. Zifchock — Essentially the upgrades Karl is making are cosmetic. They are finish upgrades in his space. An application will be filed. Mr. Frost — You understand, too, that there is an occupancy classification change. This was a school. It is not approved for residential. Mr. Demerest— My understanding was that the zoning of the area right now is R-30 and when the prior occupancy leaves the area, the facility would revert back unless requested otherwise by the new owner. Essentially we are requesting to revert back to R-30 occupancy. Mr. Frost — It is not going to be an issue with the board so much as the fact that through the due process of obtaining a building permit, changing the occupancy classification from a school building to a residential building. In this case, really what is before the board is the fact that this is not a traditional family. There is a mechanism that is specified in the Zoning Ordinance as to the type of evidence you have to present to the Zoning Board to get the approval of a non-traditional family. It is not clear to me whether you have any of that evidence, which I have tried to suggest to you that you 27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED need to obtain by way of definition of non-traditional family. The other process is that business is not a permitted use in an R-30 zone. Mr. Demerest — In reviewing the definition of a family in paragraph d, which reverts the decision back to the board, and then references paragraph f, which begins to list some of the standards that will be applied in making the determination. I have gone through that and the majority of the standards seem to be met. The first one, the group, which in theory and size resembles a traditional family unit. That is obviously in question. The second one, a single housekeeping unit. That is the intent, to share resources to put together and live as one unit. This is their current nature. This is their home. They are members of the community, not students. This is a long-term arrangement. Some of the other standards listed here, such as address, if their address 855 Five Mile Drive is really their home address. Their drivers license information and voter registration information, filing their taxes...that is the address that they use. They share some furniture that came from one owner. Other things have been purchased together. They are sharing the burden of setting up the household. The children, I believe are still a little young to be enrolled in school, but I do know that they participate in home schooling together. They are obviously employed in the area. I actually use them as a computer-consulting firm. Another point to make is that they have lived together in the past. They are long-term friends. They have an existing relationship. They understand that living together can be difficult, but the space is pretty large for four people. It really makes it easier to get away from each other at times. Essentially, it seems to me as I went through this list, virtually every mark was met. The biggest point is that they are not transient in any way. I understand that the determination and standards here are related to preventing transient occupants and in particular college students. In my opinion, they really met those requirements. I investigated this a little further and found some New York State Court of Appeals determinations related to the definition of family. I included that in the outline that I provided. I will just read a couple of these. There is one Nickman vs. Town of Oyster Bay. I'll read the finding from the Court of Appeals. (Mr. Demerest read the finding to the board). Essentially, the house is a fairly good size. They obviously are not overcrowding that space. If you go into the zoning law and look at this work, the requirements for an occupant, it is well in access of that. Mr. Ellsworth — How many square feet in this building? Mr. Zifchock— It is well over 4,000 square feet. Mr. Ellsworth — How long have they owned it? Mr. Zifchock—A little bit over a year. 28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost — Basically it was a plumbing permit application made in which my office received a copy. Three kitchens in the building were discovered during one of my inspections. My understanding is that as a non-traditional family, you live in a single, one unit. The multiple kitchens essentially would constitute a multiple dwelling, which is not consistent with the non-traditional family aspect. Could you clarify or expand upon that? Mr. Demerest — Obviously when you have a traditional family, it is often found to have a single cook in the household. Obviously one kitchen would suffice. When you have four individuals as being non-traditional, those definitions in how you set up a house would obviously change with that non-traditional relationship based on different work schedules. It would just be easier to have multiple kitchens. Mr. Frost — But you understand that you move from a single family residence to a multiple dwelling once you get beyond two kitchens. Mr. Demerest— I guess that is one area of the code that never really understood that. If I in my house chose to put a second kitchen or a kitchenette down in the basement as entertainment space, I would see that as my right. I don't think the quantity of kitchens is really what is defining the type of facility. Mr. Krantz — Okay, before we get too far into this. It is certainly is within the realm of this board to issue a variance so you can have a business there. That would to me seem reasonable particularly since there was a school there. We have given variances to several places right along the Elmira Road there. I don't see any problem with that. Is it really within the realm of this board to determine the definition of what a family is? Attorney Barney — It is not only the realm, it is obligation of this board under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. The definition is there, basically is there in terms of trying to define those circumstances. The Nickman case said if you have the functional equivalent of a traditional family than you could not discriminate simply because the people did not happen to have blood connections. It did make it pretty clear that it had to be somewhat to what you would view what a traditional family is in this day and age. That is what our ordinance made an effort to deal with. Chairperson Sigel — It seems to me that the Town's definition of a family in the clause that you point to, which allows for determination of a non-traditional unit as being a family...it states that we must find in two that the group is one which will live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit. I have a hard time understanding the need for more than one kitchen if your group is going to live and cook as a single housekeeping unit. Mr. Demerest — That issue obviously hasn't presented. We have discussed with the appellants it has obviously created an issue. They are open to reducing the number I think to two. The present kitchen is in severe need of upgrade. It might actually be issue with the plumbing issues to move the kitchen upstairs. And just once again, being 29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED a non-traditional family the needs of that living arrangement is different. I think the term housekeeping unit is much greater... Chairperson Sigel —We need to determine that your group is functionally equivalent to a traditional family unit, which would only need one kitchen. Say it was your traditional couple with an adult relative or two living in the same household, which were blood related. That family unit would presumably only require one kitchen even though there were four adults living in the household. It seems to me that if you want two kitchens, than what you want is two dwelling units. A combination of a kitchen and sanitary facilities defines a dwelling unit. Mr. Frost — Both the old building code as well as the new building code as well as the Zoning Ordinance defines a dwelling unit as a and I'll read this directly from the new code. "A dwelling unit is a single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions living, sleeping, eating and sanitation." Where we run into the situation where someone may have a summer kitchen, it is usually in the floor plan arrangement where you cannot close a door and create a separate area, which I think is more in line with what they have. Mr. Krantz— Many of the houses along the lake have two kitchens. Mr. Frost — It is the way that the living area is arranged with sleeping, sanitary and cooking provisions. Mr. Demerest — I somewhat disagree because there isn't a quantity listed in the definition. Going back to the concept of your parents moving in, it is not unheard of to construct a separate kitchen for the dietary needs of a different generation that would warrant a second kitchen. I don't see the kitchen as a real deciding factor. Related to the Nickman case, soon after the Court of Appeals considered whether a municipality could restrict the number of unrelated persons living together as a functional equivalent of a natural family while allowing an unlimited number of related persons to reside together. The Court of Appeals told them they cannot. Attorney Barney — I think you are misreading how it applies to our statute. Our statute does not limit the number of unrelated persons living together as a functional equivalent. It does require a permit if there is more than two that are claiming to be living together. The test in here is whether you come within the requirements of being a functional family unit. Chairperson Sigel — Under our Zoning Ordinance, is it permissible to have a single dwelling unit, which has two kitchens? Attorney Barney — Yes. It is a question as to whether you could create two dwelling units. If you can make two kitchens and two complete living combinations sleeping and sanitation, than you have two dwelling units. 30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost — Without getting into debate here, the Town Board by resolution set up a mechanism where someone if it is determined to have an illegal apartment in a two family residence, then removal of a kitchen will then constitute bringing it back to a single residence. It has really been a Town Board determination. Attorney Barney — It has usually been historical where we had clear violation of a third unit to assure that there is not going to be more than what is permitted. Where there has been a history of a violation that the excess kitchens be removed so they cannot create the third unit. Mr. Frost — Or in the case of two units and they bring the building up to code for a 2 family. Chairperson Sigel — So if they have two or more kitchens, would that make it by definition? Attorney Barney — I think you have to look at the lay out. Many homes have six bedrooms and two bathrooms and a kitchen. Sometimes a mini-kitchen and a bar in the basement. But if that another room and a bathroom accompanied mini-kitchen in the basement and it is capable of being shutoff, you have now created a dwelling unit. Mr. Frost— If you chose to provide a floor plan...(not audible). Chairperson Sigel — If it were a two unit building, then there would be no issue as far as occupancy. If there are two families... Attorney Barney — I wasn't quite fast enough to get the number and names of people. Who is going to be living there? Mr. Zifchock— Myself, Karl Gesslein, Jocelyn Wanagel and Claire Fox. Attorney Barney — And I gather that there is a little Fox and a little Zifchock. If you hadn't...I think you would have been kind of interestingly been able to qualify with two units and have a traditional family. Mr. Gesslein — We have considered setting up multiple units and certainly divide it up very easily. However, 90% of the basement area is communal. The upstairs area has three separate distinct bedrooms and those are considered people's private spaces, but as far as people's bathrooms and kitchens, those are not considered private spaces. I think that it is worth knowing that the way that we choose to live is very unusual as far as a traditional family. For us to install a fire break between two separate units would really separate the way that we choose to live. We are choosing to live this way and it is not very easy, but we feel like in our heart it is the right place for us to live. Mark has been a friend of mine for 15 years. We are all locals of the area. We are here for the long haul. We feel very rooted in this community. This is where we want to be. If you guys feel like you can steer us in the direction...(not audible). 31 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Attorney Barney — I understand that, but the way you choose to live doesn't not necessarily govern what we can and we can't do. We have rules and laws that govern what can and can't be done by zoning. If we can get you to a point where you are in compliance with our zoning, if you choose to open up a door and go upstairs and downstairs then I don't think anyone is going to sit there policing it. On the other hand, I think you need to get into a position where you are in compliance one way or another whether it is by this board finding that you are a functional family. Mr. Frost — It is not clear to me whether there is a plan for a third kitchen that the plumbing permit reflects or if you have given up on the third kitchen? Mr. Zifchock— (Comments not audible) Mr. Frost— So you are not planning on a third kitchen? Mr. Zifchock— Right. Mr. Krantz—Wouldn't a third kitchen be something...(not audible) Mr. Gesslein — We have discussed that. I think there is a lot of different ideas about what ways we want to use our kitchens and things. We recognize the possibility...(not audible) Mr. Frost — The second kitchen was off of a bedroom upstairs in the studio classrooms. I believe that second kitchen upstairs is part of a bedroom, which is basically exclusive from the hallway and other bedrooms. To get to that second kitchen you are going through somebody's bedroom. Mr. Gesslein —Actually, you have to go through a hallway. It's at the end of the hallway. Mr. Demerest— There are two points of access. Mr. Frost — That may have been created since the last time I was there. The kitchen opens up to a large...there is no door that is part of a bedroom. You have to understand that part of my dilemma even beyond the Zoning Board's actions here is the fact that I have to deal with building code. There is no way that I am going to sidestep the requirements of the building code. Mr. Demerest — I feel that we are trying to work with the zoning now. I haven't really looked at the building permit requirements. I think once we see where this takes us, and then we will develop it further. Obviously they proceeded without really knowing what they could do. That is what we are trying to do now. Chairperson Sigel — So it would be legal then for them to have two kitchens assuming they were arranged in a way that was not condusive to separating the house into two 32 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED separate dwelling units. So that if we determine that it was a single family unit and they submitted floor plans that show the orientations of the...certainly if both kitchens were on the same floor, that would make it much less condusive to separating the house. Obviously the natural separation would be first floor second floor for two independent units. Having a kitchen on the first floor and one on the second floor would allow you to just shut a door and you would have complete independent units top and bottom. Mr. Ellsworth — We have floor plans here. One says original layout and one says proposed. Nothing has been started on the proposed? Mr. Demerest— There is work done on the proposed. Mr. Frost— There is a second kitchen on the upper floor that was not there. Chairperson Sigel — What would be the harm in actually allowing a layout that was condusive to making two dwelling units? Attorney Barney — Nothing, as long as it meets the requirement of it being either...(not audible). I haven't studied the plans. Chairperson Sigel — Does it have to be completely in the basement? Mr. Frost — I don't see that as an issue, but I do see the lack of fire separation and other building code requirements as being very necessary to achieve. Attorney Barney — Building code is an issue that I don't this board has authority to alter any way. Chairperson Sigel — I guess my point is though, do we need to be concerned about the ease with which it could be converted into two units. Attorney Barney— You mean back into a single? Chairperson Sigel — No. Do we need to worry about the ease in which it could be made into two separate dwelling units given the fact that is legal? Attorney Barney — No. Quite frankly, looking at the circumstances my preference would be to see it as two dwelling units. You can't have a boarder. Chairperson Sigel —What would be the problem with the two units? Attorney Barney — You are not allowed to have boarders. What gets you to the two unrelated or three unrelated people is that we have boarders in a single-family house. So you can have three unrelated people before you have to come in and go through the permit process. We do not allow that in a two family house. 33 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel —Wouldn't they only have two families? Attorney Barney— They have one family... Mr. Gesslein — I don't think an owner can be a boarder by definition. Chairperson Sigel — Claire and Mark would be one family and Karl and Jocelyn would be another. Mr. Frost — There are two children with two families and the third person with no children. So there are three distinct individuals there unless you chose to...(not audible). Attorney Barney — If you wanted to classify Karl, Karl's son and Jocelyn as a non- traditional family, they would meet the definition. Then they could be in one unit and Mark, Claire and Felix could be in the second unit. You would have to have two separate units. What surrounds this area? What is the neighborhood? Mr. Gesslein — It is pretty sparse right here. There are three neighbors. We have signatures from all those people basically saying that they are aware of our living situation and they support it. They are aware that we have a computer business that is working out of that space. They also support that. Mr. Krantz— It is the corner of 13A and the Elmira Road. It is tucked sort of below where the Waldorff School was. Attorney Barney —At one time they wanted to expand it. Chairperson Sigel — Personally, I don't have a problem with determining that this group is a family. I'm just not quite sure how to handle what to allow or if we even need to say anything about what it is that they can do in their house and how they can install the services that they need. Mr. Dixon — It seems to me like we can just make the determination that they are a family. Chairperson Sigel — It seems possible that we don't even need to say anything about what they can put in the house. If they want to do something that is not allowed by the ordinance, they can come back with concrete plans for a variance. If two kitchens are allowed by the ordinance depending upon how the layout is, then they can work to meet that. Mr. Dixon — Then there is the issue of the business use, which I don't have a problem here. Mr. Ellsworth — Can we get some explanation of a business use. 34 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Gesslein — The business is that we are computer consultants. We do software and support work. Mr. Ellsworth — How are you using this property as part of your business? Mr. Gesslein — Our workstation is there and we communicate with our clients. Mr. Ellsworth — Do your clients come there? Mr. Gesslein —As a convenience we have had clients...(not audible) Mr. Ellsworth — So your places of business are homes or whatever. So you go to their places. Chairperson Sigel — If you are programming you are there by yourself. Mr. Gesslein — There are five people in the business. Three of the people, Mark, Jocelyn and myself are part owners in the business. Then there are two other people, Abram and John. Abram and Mark do programming and John, myself and Jocelyn do on site customer support work. It is a very unusual business. Everyone is an independent contractor. They have their own customer basis. They charge whatever they want... It is not like any other business I've ever heard of. Mr. Ellsworth — But the customer support you are talking about is... Mr. Gesslein —We go on site. Mr. Ellsworth —Away from your property? Mr. Gesslein —Absolutely. Mr. Ellsworth — How many times a month do people come to your property? Mr. Gesslein — I think we've got customer vehicles in our parking lot for less than an hour. It is an average of five people per month. It is very low. Mr. Zifchock— It is a convenience for them. Mr. Ellsworth — Your neighbors that have signed this are aware of this travel? Mr. Gesslein —Yes. It is a bunch of consultants living under the same roof. Attorney Barney — It is a non-traditional family, who happen to be consultants living under the same roof. 35 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Gesslein — It is a bunch of non-traditional consultants living as a family under a business hall. Attorney Barney — We need to be careful from a precedential standpoint. What makes this unique is the area. If you took the same kind of situation and plopped it down in the middle of Cayuga Heights, you probably would have a different reaction from the neighborhood than you are likely to get here. You indicated that there are two other people indicated involved in this business. Where do they do the work? Mr. Gesslein — On site. Abram comes over...(not audible). Attorney Barney — So you have one person who comes who doesn't live there, but who comes there to work. Chairperson Sigel — The other person who is not an owner is mostly working at customer sites. Mr. Gesslein — Ninety percent, yes. Chairperson Sigel — Personally, I don't have a problem with recognizing this as a profession under Section 19, subsection 1. Attorney Barney— Except profession in that context I think means a licensed profession. I don't think a license is required for this. Chairperson Sigel — It says quasi-profession. If they are not professional, then they might as well be quasi-professional. Mr. Demerest — EcoVillage, 1995, local law 1. The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance included computer consulting in that same exact paragraph. Attorney Barney — Yeah, but that is a special piece of legislation that applies to a specific area in a Special Land Use District, which requested that specifically as part of the rezoning of an entire area. I recognize that it might be nice, but the very fact that we had to put it in there suggests that it is not permitted elsewhere. Mr. Demerest— I'm not implying that it is permitted; I'm just saying that it is included in a like group. Attorney Barney — In an area where...well it sets a precedent for that area, but it also says that if it is not included and isn't listed that it is not one of these quasi-professions. The computer area is very different. We have been wrestling with it because Section 1 materials are basically licensed by and large...or educated in a sense that you have a degree in a particular field. What is your situation here? 36 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Gesslein — I have something that is called a MCSE...Internet Certification. It is a Microsoft Support Certification. It is the highest support certification. If you go to the computing center or SHERPA, you pay $130 an hour for someone who doesn't have as much qualifications as I do. There are certifications. However, Jocelyn who is 19 and was home schooled...and is far more qualified than some of these people charging $130 per hour. So the computer industry is very unusual. I consider myself along with my partners professionals, like lawyers. Mr. Ellsworth — John, could you summarize here? I'm getting a little lost. Attorney Barney — You have the family issue, which I think you've kind of resolved in your minds how you want to go on that. I would say that we would need some documentation for the assertions here in terms of the voting. We would want to see some driver's licenses and that sort of thing. Assuming you get over the documentation hurdle, the next question is the use of the property. One family or two family, if you are treating them as a single housekeeping unit, it really doesn't matter. Mr. Ellsworth — They can have two kitchens? Attorney Barney— It has to meet a residential... Mr. Frost — If you have two distinct areas, by code it has to be a two family residential, with fire safety issues. If they are willing to put that in, I have no problem to give them a certification of occupancy when they have a building that looks and smells like a two family residence, I don't have a problem with that then. Mr. Dixon — So if they put up a fire wall... Attorney Barney—What is entailed to satisfy you from a building code standpoint? Mr. Frost— (Comments not audible). Attorney Barney — So any determination has to be conditioned upon complying to building code. Mr. Ellsworth — Have you people retained this architect to bring this building into compliance? Is that part of what you are retaining the architect for? Mr. Gesslein — That's fine. Mr. Ellsworth — If that is what is required to get approval of this board? Mr. Gesslein — We will put in fire separation if that is what the board feels is necessary. As long as I can say that I don't feel like putting in fire separation...(not audible). 37 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Zifchock — You can be rest assured that we are going to refer to Jason to meet Andy's need as far as code compliance. Mr. Gesslein — As a side point, there is a central fire alarm system in the building. That was left over from the school and is functional. Mr. Ellsworth — In all areas? Mr. Gesslein —Yes. Personally, I served as a volunteer fire fighter for almost five years in Danby. I am very well aware of the risks of fire. There is nothing that scares me more than structural fires. We are willing to comply with the fire codes as you see fit. Mr. Krantz — I would add my voice to what seems like a growing consensus that this is a family and that certainly a variance for this kind of business in this kind location is okay. Attorney Barney — The variance disturbs me, this would be a use variance. It needs to fit into one these first or second paragraphs of Section 19. Chairperson Sigel — If we determine that it is Section 1, then it is not a variance. Attorney Barney — That's right, but that effectively means that once you have made that interpretation that anyone else that wants to put a computer process into their home, basically... Chairperson Sigel — I don't see how that is any more impactful than a doctor or a dentist who has two or three assistants that are outside employees that come to the location. We have that type of profession with people coming and going all day. Mr. Frost— The new ordinance is more giving, I think. Attorney Barney — I think I'd rather, if you were going to do it, see you fit into the Section 1 definition or make an interpretation that complies as a quasi-profession. Chairperson Sigel — I agree that meeting the requirements of a use variance would be different. Attorney Barney — I don't hear any economic hardship here. Chairperson Sigel — I am still a little confused, though, if we make the determination of a single-family unit. Why can't they have two kitchens? Attorney Barney — Because then it is a layout. It doesn't matter what we do for zoning purposes, they have one family. It doesn't matter if they were living there unrelated or if they had fifteen related people if they had two units then they would meet fire code requirements. 38 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — Is it possible for them to have a layout, which would not trigger that requirement? Say the kitchens were both on the same floor next to each other and it just wasn't feasible to divide the house in such a way that you had two units. Mr. Frost — Not with this particular floor plan. I'm not so sure it is worth it in the final analysis. I don't think the board is necessarily objecting to what you are proposing to do as to so much we have to operate within the legal bounds. Certainly for me, since I put my name on the Certificate of Occupancy, as much as I'd like to say here fine, it has to fall within the legal boundaries. Mr. Demerest — I think my obstacle is not knowing whether this is two family or one family. If it turns out that this is considered one family, I can approach the building code and design a solution. Chairperson Sigel — I think to some extent that depends upon how it is designed. Obviously, you could make what is essentially two kitchens, but make it also appear to be one large kitchen. Include two rooms that were open to each other, you could have duplicate everything. Mr. Frost — Let me ask the Town Attorney, if they do some kind of an affidavit...I think my concern would be say once they sell the property. If they do an affidavit certifying that they are living as a single family residence, does that relieve the Town of liability should something bad happen and they have may look like and smell like a two family residence. Attorney Barney — I don't think we have that authority. We can deal with the zoning. We have the authority to grant variances if the criteria are met and the authority to make an interpretation if this is or is not a family. But you don't have authority to say the building code when a definition says a dwelling unit would mean an area providing these living accommodations. When you look at the floor plan and there are two areas providing complete living accommodations, this board doesn't have the authority to say we waive that requirement regardless of how they are living in it. Chairperson Sigel — It automatically triggers the need for the fire code. Attorney Barney — It triggers either to redesign or a variance from the State or putting in whatever is necessary to meet the building code requirements for a two family house. Mr. Demerest — I could offer the point that two complete living units would exist if you had separation. Without that separation, you have two kitchens but only one living space. Mr. Frost— I would disagree with that. Attorney Barney — Well, even in zoning we would differ. It is capable of being two separate dwelling units by closing a door or by doing very little modification. 39 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — Or even installing a door in a convenient location. Attorney Barney — If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it has to be a duck. That is really what the problem is here. As I look at the floor plan, you have an up and a down with a kitchen and a bathroom. It appears the capability of sleeping accommodations on both floors. So I think you have on the face of it something that really looks very much like a duck. The question is can you design it in such a way as to take the wings and the beak off of it. Mr. Demerest — I think the biggest issue that I see is if the two kitchens end up upstairs, in essence it is a symmetrical layout. You have to go through a common exit to get out of the room. Mr. Frost— I think the best solution is seeking a variance from the State. Female — My question is, so if it looks like...granted we're not going to be living like that. Is there anything wrong with just...its not a huge amount of work to build a fire barrier in there if you guys feel like that is what makes the most sense to do. It is not going to be very difficult for us to create that. Chairperson Sigel — You could do that and then keep the door open all the time. Female — It could still be considered... Attorney Barney — The thing is I don't exactly know what you have to do to meet the fire requirements. Mr. Frost— I think the variance process is probably cheaper. Mr. Dixon — So you think that will work out? That is not our problem. Our problem is crafting a resolution that deals with...I think we should just call one family and permit the business. Chairperson Sigel —What documentation would you suggest we require? Attorney Barney — Well, if you are registered to vote, they should have a card a voter card. Driver's licenses with this address on it. And maybe the upper third of your tax return with the name and address. Mr. Gesslein — Just as a side note, I'm actually not living there right now. So some of my address is at my house that I haven't sold yet. My house is going to be sold in the next month. Mr. Ellsworth — You are selling your house in a month? 40 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Gesslein — I hope so. Chairperson Sigel — Sixty days would be reasonable to provide one piece of documentation from each member. Attorney Barney — I would say three pieces of documentation from everybody, other than the children, of course. Chairperson Sigel — So you would suggest driver's license. Attorney Barney — A copy of a driver's license, voter registration and copy of the portion of the tax return with the name and address on it. Mr. Zifchock—Are utility bills? Attorney Barney— I don't know if everybody would be on the utility bill. Mr. Zifchock—We share those. Chairperson Sigel — Tax returns, it might be another year. Attorney Barney — Then a statement that you will file the tax return this coming year at 855 Five Mile Drive. Mr. Dixon —And a copy of the deed. Chairperson Sigel —With all four names. Attorney Barney — You realize, board members, when you are doing this that theoretically you are suppose to have a group that has lived together for some period of time. That is one of the criteria. It is a criterion that has not been met by this particular group. Chairperson Sigel — The group is one which will live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit. Mr. Gesslein — I have a very unusual situation. I have a house that I purchased with the mother of my child even though we are separated. So I spend half my time there and half my time at the school. Really, just so I can be with my son, I stay at that house, but that house is going to be sold. It is also very non-traditional. Attorney Barney — One of the criteria is whether or not the group has been living together as a unit for an extended period of time. This is one of the considerations. Mr. Ellsworth — Is one year an extended time? 41 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Demerest— This is a proposed change in zoning. Chairperson Sigel — Personally, I'm taking the fact that they all own it jointly as a substantial indication of commitment. We'll open the public hearing at this point (9:19 p.m.), if there is anyone to speak. If not, we'll close the public hearing (9:20 p.m.). Mike, any comments? Mr. Smith — I'm not sure how to comment. We have a recommendation with the part 11 write up. The way I wrote it up is that I have a few more questions than really statements. I didn't recommend a negative determination as in the other ones because at the point when I was writing this up, I didn't have the benefit of all the information that has been heard tonight in conversations and questions about parking and traffic and business and how the family would work and the layout and those type of things. So, I will leave that up to the board. Chairperson Sigel — Certainly, I can understand if you are assuming that they are going to require one or more use variances then the justifications certainly become harder. Mr. Ellsworth — Now that you've heard it, how do you feel before we vote on the environmental? Mr. Smith — The parking doesn't seem to be an issue. I would mention that the parking, the majority of it in the access drive, isn't actually located on this parcel. It is in the State right-of-way. Their driveway coming in and the circle and the majority of the parking is not located on that parcel. Chairperson Sigel — Do they own that land or does the State actually own it? Mr. Smith — It is part of the State right-of-way. Chairperson Sigel — So they own it, as such as an easement. Mr. Gesslein — I don't believe that we own it. Mr. Ellsworth — The State owns it. Attorney Barney — The State owns it. Mr. Gesslein — There is a number of Town easements and some other stuff that is on the property. Mr. Ellsworth — How does that fit, John? Does that mean they have to move these things over onto their property? 42 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Attorney Barney — Well, everybody that comes off a State road comes in on a piece of the State's property until you get to the edge of the right-of-way. Mr. Gesslein — We have to drive across the State property. We do park on the State property...most of our vehicles do. Attorney Barney— How much parking is on your property? Mr. Ellsworth — It was a school. There must be some. Mr. Gesslein — It depends on how you want to park. We could probably park 50 cars side by side on the right-of-way. Chairperson Sigel — I think if for some reason you were required to not park on the State right-of-way, you do have more than sufficient parking on your property. Mr. Gesslein — Yes. Attorney Barney— I don't think the State can deny them a curb cut. Chairperson Sigel — They could deny them the parking. Mr. Gesslein —We like using the turnaround. Attorney Barney — I don't think this board is planning on taking it away from you. They are more concerned about... Mr. Gesslein — We actually plow the turnaround because the Town guys never come and do it. So, nothing against the Town or anything. Attorney Barney —Who plows it? Mr. Gesslein —We pay for the plowing. Attorney Barney — The turnaround to your property? Mr. Gesslein — Yes. Attorney Barney -Why should the Town plow that? Mr. Gesslein — Because it is Town property. Attorney Barney — It is State property. Chairperson Sigel — You need to go up on Route 13 and flag down the plow guy when they come by. They'll pull right over for you. 43 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Gesslein —You mean the Town doesn't plow people's driveways? Attorney Barney— Only certain people. Mr. Dixon — It plows the snow into my driveway. Chairperson Sigel —All right, John, so what are we...? Attorney Barney — First, you have the SEAR to deal with. Then a couple of resolutions, one dealing with the family issue and the other dealing with the interpretation of the business side of it. Chairperson Sigel — What type of appeal is the family determination? Is that a special approval or is that just a determination? Attorney Barney — It is a special approval or maybe just a determination under...(not audible). It is basically a determination under 5d. Chairperson Sigel — So you are saying a variance from the requirements of Article 5, section 18 and 19. Mr. Frost— The applicant is asking for... (not audible). Chairperson Sigel — Well, if the business is advertised as a variance, than making the determination that a variance is not required seems okay. Attorney Barney — I'm not uncomfortable with that at this time. Chairperson Sigel — We are making a determination that what they are doing is legal. Then the family...okay. How should we handle the environmental assessment given that the official assessment was not a recommendation? Attorney Barney — You don't have to have a recommendation to make your own determination. It's just that most of the time you intend to follow. Chairperson Sigel —Would someone like to make a motion? Mr. Ellsworth — You have all the notes. Chairperson Sigel — Does someone want to do the EAF? Okay, I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Mark Zifchock. I can't say for the reasons stated. Attorney Barney — You'll have to come up with the reasons. Mr. Ellsworth — If they brought in a written statement by... 44 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Attorney Barney - If there is no change in the traffic from the prior use. Relatively minimal occupancy in terms of traffic coming in and out. Very little customer traffic if any. In terms of the use and noise and that sort of stuff. Chairperson Sigel — It doesn't have any impact on air quality, surface or ground water quality, noise levels, traffic patterns, solid waste production, erosion, drainage or flooding. Attorney Barney — They are able to do their work and occupy the area outside the unique natural area. Chairperson Sigel — It should have no impact on natural or cultural resources or not change the community or neighborhood character. It should not have any impact on vegetation or fish or wildlife species. It is consistent with the Town's existing plans and goals as officially adopted. It should not induce any subsequent development or growth. Mr. Dixon — Second. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-038: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : MARK ZIFCHOCK, 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 31.-2-15, 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 Mark Zifchock, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit a business known as the Computer Gurus to operate from 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-2-15, Residence District R-30. The Ordinance does not permit said business, as conducted, to specifically operate in a R-30 Zone. Additionally, the appellant is asking for a determination from the Zoning Board that the occupants residing within the structure, containing the Computer Gurus, are occupying said space as a non-traditional family. This negative determination of environmental significance is made for the following reasons: a. Appellants have submitted a statement signed by neighboring property owners stating that they support the requests. b. There will be no change in existing traffic patterns. c. There will only be minimal traffic coming in and out. The applicant indicated that there will be at most several clients visiting the site per week. d. There will be no additional noise related to the use. e. There will be no impact on air quality or surface or ground water quality. f. There will be no impact on solid waste production. g. It is consistent with the Town's existing plans and goals as officially adopted. h. It should not induce any subsequent development or growth. 45 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Attorney Barney— I do have a problem here because this is I think subject to 239 review and we haven't gotten anything back from the County yet. Have they had it for 30 days? Mr. Frost— It was less than 30 days. Attorney Barney — You are not supposed to act unless you have their response or 30 days have passed since it was submitted to them. Mr. Ellsworth - So could we make it contingent? Conversation not audible. Attorney Barney— I think we've got it. We can go right ahead then. Chairperson Sigel — I will move in the appeal of Mark Zifchock to make a determination that their business known as the Computer Gurus operating at 855 Five Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No. 31.-2-15, District R-30. Attorney Barney — I think you might want to make the determination with respect to the family before the home occupation. Chairperson Sigel - I will move in the appeal of Mark Zifchock to make a determination that Claire Fox, Karl Gesslein, Jocelyn Wanagel, and Mark Zifchock and their children constitute a family. Mr. Krantz— And any future children. Chairperson Sigel —And Mark and Claire's child Felix and Karl's child O'Ryan constitute a family under the definition of Town Ordinance definitions 5 subsection f. Attorney Barney — It is actually subsection d. Chairperson Sigel — With the condition that the four adults mentioned must supply a driver's license and a voter registration showing the 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence within 60 days. Mr. Dixon — Plus a copy of the deed. 46 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — They must also submit a copy of the deed showing all four of them as co-owners of the property within 60 days. They must either supply the top portion of the front page of the tax return showing 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence or an affidavit indicating that they intend to file their next tax return with 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence within 60 days. Attorney Barney — I think that the further condition that the property be brought into compliance with the building code requirements for a single family or, if the layout is such that it qualifies as a two family residence, and the requirements of a two family house are met within some period of time...maybe 60 days. Chairperson Sigel — Is 60 days feasible? Mr. Frost— Or seek a State variance? Chairperson Sigel — Six months? Mr. Frost — Are you going to allow occupancy prior to them having certificate of occupancy? Chairperson Sigel — Is it legal for anyone to live there right now? Mr. Frost — Not at this point. There is an occupancy classification change. We have to change the Certificate of Occupancy. Attorney Barney — Forget that the group is living there, if I as an individual move into that building and live there as a house. Mr. Frost— Not without a Certificate of Occupancy. Attorney Barney— Okay, but is there something there that would stop you from issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Frost — Yes. It doesn't qualify and meet the requirements of the building code for a residence. Attorney Barney — That is my question basically. There are deficiencies that do not meet the building code leaving aside the two family one family issue. Mr. Frost— You would have to make application to convert the school to a residence. Attorney Barney — I think you probably want to have a condition that the application of conversion be submitted promptly...probably within a couple of weeks. Is that doable? Mr. Frost— This is the board's decision if you are going to approval occupancy. 47 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel —We don't have the power to permit occupancy. Attorney Barney— That's right. Mr. Frost— Neither do I. Attorney Barney—We are not asking you to, but I think that it is conditional that there be an application filed for a conversion to a single family or two family residence. Chairperson Sigel — We are requiring them to show that they are living in a building that is not legal for them to live in. Attorney Barney — Right...(not audible). Chairperson Sigel — Should we make this conditional on the Certificate of Occupancy? Attorney Barney — I would say that the documentation request should come 60 days after the Certificate of Occupancy issued or 30 days. Mr. Ellsworth — Does that fit? Sixty days? Male voice — (Comments not audible). Attorney Barney— If your layout doesn't qualify, that is the problem. Male voice — (Comments not audible). Attorney Barney—As long as it's not a two family house. Chairperson Sigel — They don't have two kitchens now, do they? Mr. Frost— There is a second kitchen upstairs that I saw. There was a sink and cooking provisions. Male voice — (Comments not audible). Mr. Frost— I must be hallucinating then, because what I saw... Mr. Dixon —We could make it 60 days after the CO. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, so we will make this determination. Is it appropriate to make this determination dependent upon the obtaining of a Certificate of Occupancy? Attorney Barney — I'm not quite sure how to work it. This application is in the context of this particular house. So I think we could probably use that as justification. I would include it as a condition. 48 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — The Certificate of Occupancy? Attorney Barney — That number one an application be made for the conversion within a very short period of time. Do you think two weeks would do it? Male voice — (Comments not audible). Attorney Barney — You could do it in two weeks. So an application for a change of occupancy be submitted... Chairperson Sigel — Lets stick with two weeks. And that the documents be submitted with 60 days... Attorney Barney - ...after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. You should make clear, Lori, in the resolution that the application for conversion to include all of the documentation required by the Building Code Officer of the Town. Mr. Frost — May I also suggest that you have a potential of mixed occupancy in the building because you have the business and the residence. That will need to be addressed. You have a business use in there along with your residence. It is not so simple as showing egress. I have an application; I just don't have proper plans. Attorney Barney — So what are you saying? Chairperson Sigel — Is this a home occupation? Mr. Frost— This is... Chairperson Sigel —We are going to make that determination. Attorney Barney —We are two different laws here that we are dealing with in the zoning. We can make it, but we don't have the authority. We are going to change the time to 30 days for the application. Chairperson Sigel — So it will be four weeks for the application for a conversion. Second on that motion which was to make the determination that they are a single family. Mr. Dixon — Second. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 039: MARK ZIFCHOCK, 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 31.-2-15, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. 49 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED RESOLVED that this Board makes the determination that Jocelyn Wanagel, Karl Gesslein (and his son O'Ryan), and Claire Fox and Mark Zifchock (and their son Felix), residing at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-2-15, Residence District R-30 constitute a family under Article I, Section 1, Paragraph 5 (d) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. The four adults must each supply a driver's license and voter's registration showing 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence within sixty days after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. b. The four adults must submit a copy of the deed showing all four of them as co- owners of the property within sixty days after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. c. The four adults must submit the top portion of their tax returns showing 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence or an affidavit indicating that they intend to file their next tax return with 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence within sixty days after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. FUTHER CONDITIONS: a. The property be brought into compliance with the Building Code requirements for a single family residence (or a two family residence if the layout qualifies as such) within six months. b. Application for a change of occupancy be made within four weeks and include all of the documentation required by the Zoning Officer of the Town. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — And I will move in the appeal of Mark Zifchock to make the determination by this board that the business known as the Computer Gurus, operating at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31.-2-15, District R-30... Attorney Barney — In the manner represented to this board at the public hearing...or during the discussion prior to the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel — In the manner represented to the board during this hearing, is an occupation as defined by section 19, subsection 1 and therefore, is allowed to exist at this location and is allowed to have not more than 3 additional persons not residing on the premises employed by said business. Would you suggest anything further? Second? 50 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Dixon — Second. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 040: MARK ZIFCHOCK, 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 31.-2-15, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this board makes a determination that the business, known as Computer Gurus, operating at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-2- 15, Residence District R-30, in the manner represented to this Board during the discussion prior to the Public Hearing, is an occupation as defined by Section 19, subsection 1, and therefore is allowed to exist at this location and is allowed to have not more than three additional persons not residing on the premises employed by said business. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth ,Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — I think we are more or less done. Mr. Demerest— Thanks a lot for your time. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9:53 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson Carrie Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk 51